In 1367 - construction of the white stone Kremlin. From this period, the name “White Stone Moscow” is often found in chronicles.
In the 12th century. The Kremlin was built of pine logs. At the beginning of the 14th century. the walls were built of oak. At the end of the 14th century. The wooden walls were replaced with white stone ones. This happened in 1367, under the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy. The wooden walls of the Kremlin were replaced by walls and towers made of white stone. According to archeology, the towers and the most important parts of the wall were made of stone, from where there was the greatest danger of an assault.
This time was marked by furious raids of the Tatar-Mongol hordes. All this required new, more durable fortifications. In addition, as already mentioned, the old Kremlin was built of wood. Therefore, although it was powerful enough to withstand enemy invasions, it still remained defenseless against fire. And the fire that happened in 1365 destroyed the entire city to the ground. He did not spare the oak walls of the Kremlin. Then, in order to protect the city, Dmitry Donskoy orders to build a white stone Kremlin in Moscow.
So, the construction of the white stone Kremlin in Moscow began. Throughout the winter, materials were transported to it to create a fortress. White stone for construction was mined in the Moscow region, thirty kilometers from the city, from quarries near the village of Myachkovo. This stone has long been used in Rus' and was one of the most beloved materials. They transported the stone from Myachkovo on a sleigh, after which they also had to cut the stone. This was a scale of white stone work that Ancient Rus' had never known before. Over four winter months, our ancestors transported on horse-drawn sleighs more than one hundred thousand tons of building stone mined in the Myachkovo quarries. The construction of the Kremlin began when all the materials were ready, namely in the spring of 1367. This is how white-stone Moscow began. A strong foundation was laid under the walls of the new fortress, which still stands safely.
Unfortunately, to date there have been no documentary reports about what the first white-stone Kremlin in Moscow looked like. This can be judged only thanks to the available information from chronicles and drawings by A. M. Vasnetsov. It is known that stone walls and towers were built at a considerable distance from old structures. Therefore, the territory of the Kremlin expanded significantly. The thickness of the walls, according to some estimates, reached two to three meters. Also, the role of protective structures was played by a wide ditch, over which bridges were thrown. Loopholes were installed in the walls, which were closed with strong wooden shields. Passage gates were built in six towers. The first stone bridge in Moscow was built across the Neglinnaya River. A century and a half later, the Trinity Bridge was built in its place, which still stands today. After construction was completed, the white stone Kremlin became the most powerful fortress in Europe. By the way, its area at that time almost reached the modern one.
The white stone Kremlin in Moscow stood for almost a century and a half. It withstood more than one fierce attack and enemy siege, reliably protecting the city from the enemy. It was thanks to this fortress that Moscow acquired the name “White Stone”.
As you know, the vast majority of churches in the pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal land were built of white stone. Nearby - in the Kyiv, Chernigov, Smolensk, Ryazan, Novgorod lands - all construction was carried out from brick (plinf) or using mixed technology. Except Suzdal.
Under Vladimir Monomakh, in the Suzdal region they were still building from plinth and using mixed techniques. White stone construction began in the middle of the 12th century under Yuri Dolgoruky and continued for more than three hundred years - they also built from white stone in the Moscow Principality. And in the middle of the 15th century there was an almost universal return to brick.
This situation is unique in the history of Russian architecture - the transition in the middle of the 12th century from cheap and technologically advanced brick architecture to the more expensive and less technologically advanced white stone, its three-hundred-year use and return to brick technology in the middle of the 15th century.
Facts that raise many questions:
- - why in the middle of the 12th century Yuri Dolgoruky began to build in the Vladimir-Suzdal land not from brick, but from white stone, which cost tens of times more than ordinary brick. (due to incomparably more complex extraction, transportation and processing)
- – Why did white stone remain the dominant type of building material even under Yuri’s descendants?
- – Why did this tradition continue for a very long time in Suzdal’s “successor” – Moscow – and only ceased in the middle of the 15th century?
The true mirror of every era is architecture. Perhaps, by studying the characteristics of the eras of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest and their descendants - all those who were so partial to the color white, it will be possible to read at least some information and find answers to the questions posed. Perhaps the white color in construction was dictated for political reasons, religious, or maybe based on personal likes and dislikes... Fortunately, a lot of research has been carried out on this issue.
Until the mid-15th century, stone construction in Rus' was carried out exclusively by princes. It was they who were responsible for the extraction of stone, the construction of fortresses and palaces, all stone churches in cities, villages, and monasteries.
A special passion for white stone was observed exclusively among the Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow princes. And this despite the widespread brick construction in neighboring Russian lands. Nowhere - neither in Kiev, nor in Chernigov, nor in Pereyaslavl South, nor in Ryazan, nor in Smolensk, nor in Novgorod-Seversky, nor in Volyn - not a single temple was built from white stone or its local analogues, everywhere only made of brick.
From the time of Yuri Dolgoruky to the Batu invasion in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, 95% of all buildings were erected from white stone.
In the post-Mongol period until the mid-15th century, all capital construction in the Moscow region was carried out using white stone technology. And this despite all the fact that it is “expensive and difficult.” Expensive because it was often hundreds of kilometers away. transport material to the construction site. On top of that, there are hellish difficulties in extracting, breaking and processing white stone.
In the 12th century, capital construction required the exertion of effort and the mobilization of resources of the entire principality, but it turns out, for example, that instead of four white-stone churches, Yuri Dolgoruky could have built forty brick ones with the same labor and financial costs. Stubbornness? Integrity? Personal preferences of Dolgoruky? Or a serious strategic decision?
One of the versions was considered to be the piety of Yuri Dolgoruky, who made a strong-willed decision to build white-walled churches even despite the unreasonably high costs.
Another version of the explanation for the reasons for the transition to stone construction under Dolgoruky is the beauty of white stone. This argument is most often found in tourist guides and popular books, but professionals also pay indirect tribute to it - many have spoken about the beauty of the white stone.
In addition, the white stone is sometimes allegedly associated with the Temple of Solomon, white robes, and even the Heavenly Jerusalem. The General History of Architecture adds that white stone churches were very noticeable from afar. And if you compare the white stone walls of Suzdal buildings with the gray cobblestone ones of Novgorod and Pskov, then such an argument may seem quite valid.
Indeed, the aesthetic beauty of temples built of white stone is difficult to deny. But even this “aesthetic argument” turned out to be unable to explain the transition in the middle of the 12th century from brick to white stone.
- Firstly, even if we assume that Yuri Dolgoruky has a subtle aesthetic taste, then stability such taste among many of his descendants - from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Vasily the Dark - is extremely unlikely.
- Secondly, a temple is not a household item for which you can overpay. Large-scale capital construction required the mobilization of all the region's resources, and even a small increase in cost could cause negative macroeconomic consequences. And here we are talking about tenfold.
- Thirdly, there is no alternative choice between spectacular white stone masonry and sloppy "opus mixtum"(brick) was not - it was possible to build churches, as in Kyiv and Chernigov, from brick with cement mortar, obtaining a completely uniform and aesthetically attractive red-pink color.
At the same time, brick made it possible to build temples of much larger sizes than white stone. Let us compare, for example, the under-dome spaces of several churches: St. Sophia of Kiev - 7.8 m, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Chernigov - 6.5 m, Monomakh Cathedral in Suzdal - 8.6 m, and Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl - 5.1 m. Even in the brick cathedrals of modest and poor Ryazan, the sides of the dome squares were larger than in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality.
And if Dolgoruky competed with Kiev, then why didn’t he build, as in Kyiv, from brick, which would have allowed him to surpass the possessions of Izyaslav Mstislavich in both the number of churches and their size?
- Fourthly, Heavenly Jerusalem was golden, the stone of Solomon’s Temple was yellowish, like all the limestone in the Holy Land, and such a particular thing as the white clothes of the righteous could hardly influence the choice of such expensive construction equipment.
- Fifthly, as for the “visibility” of white stone temples from a distance, the red color, according to the laws of physics, is noticeable from a distance much better - it has a longer light wavelength and, accordingly, their propagation is faster.
White, although a combination of all colors, has a small red component and is perceived weaker. It’s not for nothing that prohibition and warning signals are usually red.
And given the presence of snow cover, which is present in North-Eastern Rus' for almost half a year, it is generally inappropriate to talk about the special “visibility” of white-stone churches. Red brick would be much more noticeable in summer, and even more so in winter.
- Sixthly, in the Russian language it was always “red” that meant “beautiful” - it is no coincidence that the banner with the Savior Not Made by Hands, and the ceremonial cloaks of princes, and the shields of soldiers, and the coats of arms of most cities of the Vladimir-Suzdal land were red.
- Seventh, the white color of Yuri's churches is very conventional - it is not for nothing that the whiteness of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, where the stone is selected and fitted much better, is usually praised in literature. And the temples of Pereslavl and Kideksha can be called white-yellow, yellowish, or even spotted - the number of inclusions of low-quality stone is very large.
- Eighth, several decades (or even years) after construction, the temples were no longer white or yellowish, but dirty gray from the soot of stoves and frequent fires, and the practice of cleaning them appeared only in the 19th century.
- Ninth, in the event of any special predilection for the color white by Yuri Dolgoruky and his descendants, it would be quite possible to build churches from brick or using the even cheaper “opus mixtum” technique, and then plaster them.
For example, grouting with mortar - one of the forms of plastering - took place in the churches of Novgorod and Pskov. The tuff masonry of the Suzdal Cathedral of the early 13th century was rubbed with mortar. The tuff vaults of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral were leveled with plastering. In a number of pre-Mongol Suzdal churches, fragments of walls intended for frescoes were plastered. Bishop John in 1194 whitewashed Monomakh Cathedral in Suzdal.
Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, Photo: Futuramka Therefore, in the 12th century, plastering was not something out of the ordinary. In Rus', only fortifications were not plastered (until the second half of the 17th century). And Dolgoruky, with the help of plastering and whitewashing, could achieve much greater smoothness of the walls, whiteness and uniformity of color at incomparably lower costs.
From all of the above it follows that the “aesthetic argument” is not convincing.
Let's consider another version, one of the most attractive: the influence of Western European Romanesque architecture on Dolgoruky and his descendants.
What exactly could it be? First of all, of course, the very fact of construction from stone.
The vast majority of Romanesque cathedrals and castles in the heart of the Holy Roman Empire - Germany - were made of stone; only minor civil buildings and small provincial churches were built there at that time from brick.
In Northern Italy, Romanesque churches, as a rule, were built of brick, but were either faced with stone (the city cathedral in Modena), or such cladding was provided for, but for various reasons was not done (the Cathedral of San Ambrogio in Milan) or was not done completely ( Church of San Michele in Pavia).
Also, one of the most important signs of the influence of Romanesque on Vladimir-Suzdal architecture is sculptural decor.
Almost no one denied the numerous similarities between European and Suzdal sculptural decor. Academician V.N. Lazarev wrote that the Romanesque tradition “seeped into the Rostov-Suzdal region no later than the middle of the 12th century,” and there he also gave examples of Romanesque churches with similar decor and construction techniques.
Historians agreed that in the architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal, and then Moscow Rus', there was the development of Gothic tendencies, and this fact is impossible to deny - this is evidenced by the forms of the Assumption Cathedral “on Gorodok” in Zvenigorod, the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the Andronikov Cathedral monastery, and indeed the entire hipped-roof architecture of the 16th century.
Assumption Cathedral in Zvenigorod It would be appropriate to remember that the only Russian principality where white stone construction was also carried out was the Galician land. But the same Gothic tendencies developed in it, and quite intensively.
The fact is that in 1188 the Galician land was captured by Hungary and became de jure the fief (land) of the Hungarian king, then the Hungarians left in 1190, but after the death of Prince Roman of Volyn in 1205 they returned and turned the Galician princes into their vassals de facto.
Maybe some kind of “architectural influence” from the Galician land, maybe Romanesque came to us through Galich? Moreover, the first prince of the united Galician principality, Vladimirko Galitsky, was an ally of Dolgoruky.
Khotyn fortress is one of the most important outposts of the Galicia-Volyn principality Historians have thoroughly studied the likelihood of this version, but it also turned out to be unreliable. And the conclusion that historians came to was extremely surprising - the decision to build from stone was not at all spontaneous, but a strategic decision. Yuri prepared for white stone construction for a long time and seriously, as part of a long-term and purposeful policy of elevating “his” Suzdal land.
Moreover, long before construction, Dolgoruky’s craftsmen and architects underwent training, internships in European cities, and exchanged experience. During the internship, the Suzdal residents managed to master European skills in working with stone, but they still could not build churches on a European scale - this required the highest construction culture, cultivated by many generations.
In addition, let’s not forget that Dolgoruky’s masters were initially brought up not in the European, but in the Monomakh building tradition. Therefore, all the churches built under Dolgoruky were not large in size. However, the main princely “technical specifications” - construction using European semi-rubble technology* with a minimum of mortar and neat masonry - were fulfilled by Suzdal craftsmen, contributing to the architectural expression of the state power and ideology of the Suzdal region.
Half-rub construction technology- a medieval technique for building walls, in which, on the site of the future wall, two parallel walls were first built from hewn blocks of stone (less often brick), then the void between them was filled with fragments of stone, rubble and brick, and then filled with lime mortar.
The semi-rubble technique was widely used in Ancient Rome, in Western European romance, Gothic and castle construction, and in the white stone architecture of North-Eastern Rus'.
Notre Dame Cathedral, Speyer Cathedral, Transfiguration Cathedral (Pereslavl-Zalessky), Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and many other churches were built using this technique.
It is obvious that the basis for white stone construction is Dolgoruky’s desire to see churches built “in the European style”, as in Ancient Rome. Construction with stone symbolized state power and imperial ideology.
This is confirmed by the desire of the Vladimir-Suzdal, and then Moscow princes to build “in the European way” at all costs, despite the enormous costs. What symbolized imperial ideology in Europe was supposed to symbolize the same thing in Vladimir and Moscow.
Oh, this Ancient Rome. The princes looked closely at European architecture, which in turn adopted the ideology of the architecture of the great Ancient Rome. Only in Europe was it much cheaper to build with stone. This is in Suzdal, the stone was transported more than 500 km to the construction site. In Europe there were no such distances - stone was mined everywhere, in close proximity. And even then, a good show-off was more valuable than money.
Only here the white stone buildings were short-lived, not in Europe. And the point here is not in the craftsmen or in the construction technique. The main difference between Europe and Russia is the climate! Not a single European state can compare with the harsh Russian winters. So it turns out that in European technology they built almost dry, preventing moisture from seeping through. In Russia, when severe frosts are replaced by thaws several times during the winter, this leads to the loosening of stones. And since, due to the cellular structure of the white stone, water penetrates into the quadra themselves, cracks appear in them.
Analyzing the behavior of half-rub masonry in the Russian climate, it turns out that water entering the cracks of the roof and masonry penetrates between the cladding and the backing and in the cold simply “tears” one away from the other. In addition, moisture is “sucked” into the walls from below.
Researchers of this issue admit: “if they were built from brick, the building would be more moisture resistant and, therefore, more durable. The brick was plastered, thereby achieving even greater moisture resistance. And in the case of white stone, this “spiral” unwinds in the opposite direction: the white stone masonry, which is unstable to moisture, has not yet been covered with plaster.”
To justify Yuri Dolgoruky, who began to build “in the European style,” we will only say that hardly anyone was able to foresee such behavior of half-rub masonry in Russian conditions. If there was experience in working with white stone in Rus', it was in Galich, where the climate is quite European.
Continuing the question of the ultimate strength of white stone buildings, one more reason should be added - the lack of proper care for the temples. The better the care of the temple, the more durable it will be.
And in the Russian climate, good care of white stone buildings was especially important, but it did not exist and could not exist in the conditions of the Mongol invasion, and the hard times of the times of Dmitry Shemyaka, and the Time of Troubles, and centuries of Russian mismanagement. A lot depended on “force majeure” - fires and hurricanes, and on “subjective factors” - careless rectors or church wardens who did not notice roof leaks in time.
And so it turned out that some temples fell into disrepair and were dismantled (or even collapsed) 500-700 years after construction, while others have survived to this day.
The exception was the small Church of the Archangel Michael in Nizhny Novgorod, which stood for only 150 years. But this temple was the only case in Vladimir-Suzdal architecture when the foundations were not brought to the mainland soil.
What destroyed Moscow churches?
Apparently, the first Moscow churches were ruined by the fact that they were erected in the center of the future capital of the united Russian state and very quickly ceased to “meet the tasks” of the growing city and the growing power of the Grand Duke.
Naturally, there was no idea about the protection of architectural monuments in the 15th-16th centuries, and at the first financial opportunity, churches were demolished under the pretext of “dilapidation” and something more “prestigious” was built in their place.
As you know, the concept of “dilapidation” is very flexible. Moreover, sometimes this “dilapidation” is achieved artificially - first, for many years, targeted savings on repairs take place, and then funds are asked for a complete reconstruction of the temple, which is actually dilapidated. Capital construction has at all times been an inexhaustible source of unjust enrichment.
Perhaps the only real disaster can be considered the fall of the top of the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in 1479, and then the suspicion arises that the church was simply not repaired properly after the “accidents” of 1454 and 1473 and was allowed to fall.
And all the other “short-lived” white-stone churches of Moscow of the 14th and early 15th centuries (the Assumption, Archangel and Annunciation Cathedrals, the Church of the Ascension Monastery, the Church of the Savior on Bor, the church-bell tower of St. John the Climacus) apparently suffered the fate of “artificial aging.”
Cathedral of the Savior on Bor, demolished on May 1, 1933. On the outskirts of Moscow, churches were less likely to fall victim to the ambitions of secular and ecclesiastical authorities and stood for a long time. The Cathedral of the Epiphany Monastery “behind the marketplace” stood for almost 400 years and was destroyed in a fire, and the Cathedral of the Andronikov Monastery, although with losses, has survived to this day.
By the way, in Mozhaisk the churches of the 15th century stood until the 19th century, and in Zvenigorod they still stand.
Everything that has been said about the “limit of reliability” confirms the conclusion that Suzdal craftsmen in the middle of the 12th century qualitatively and reliably fulfilled the “technical specifications” of Yuri Dolgoruky (construction using European white stone technology with a minimum of mortar and neat masonry) and laid the foundation for high-quality and reliable construction in the same technique for another three hundred years. The relatively low durability of the temples built by them and their descendants was not their fault.
Why, despite the high cost of white stone construction and low technology, did it last in Rus' for so long?
In the post-Mongol period, the white stone not only did not give up its positions, but also strengthened them: from the beginning of the 14th to the middle of the 15th century, not a single temple in the Moscow principality was built of brick.
It is unlikely that the Moscow princes Yuri and Ivan Danilovich, as well as their descendants, were so “unconstrained in funds” that they did not care what they built from. Even though white stone had to be transported to Moscow not for 500, but for 50 km, it still turned out to be several times more expensive than brick.
Technically, the transition to brick did not present any difficulties, but Dmitry Donskoy simply did not have time to build the same Kremlin from brick in 1367. The walls of the white-stone Kremlin were erected with incredible speed, due to their vulnerability, since the city was unarmed in front of potential opponents. And the fact that potential opponents (in this case, the Horde and Lithuania) are strong and dangerous is evidenced by the very fact of the decision to build new fortifications.
Thus, Donskoy simply did not have time to master the technology of brick production and built from the long-explored and practically inexhaustible Myachkovo quarries, regardless of funds.
BUT the construction of temples could well have been “delayed” for at least a few months, necessary for the development of brick technology. Why didn’t the Moscow princes stop (or at least “squeeze out”) white stone construction? Was it really difficult to build several brick kilns?
Apparently there were two reasons for this.
Let's start with the first - political: under the conditions of the Tatar yoke, white stone churches remained that element of state ideology, abandoning which meant completely “losing face” in front of Europe.
The second reason, paradoxically, is economic, only relating not to civilized forms of economics, but to what in our time is called “lobbying”. The fact is that too many influential people, one way or another, were associated with the process of breaking, processing and delivering white stone, and for them the transition to cheaper and more technologically advanced brick meant deprivation of a considerable part of their income. One can imagine, for example, what funds were allocated by the prince for the maintenance of the army of drivers, and the fact that a considerable part of these funds ended up in the pockets of “intermediaries”. And at the same time, everything looked quite “decent” - like a fulfillment of the traditions of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest.
Most likely, for the same two reasons, there was a fairly rapid transition to brick at the end of the reign of Vasily II and under Ivan III.
The first is the same political one: In Europe, by that time they began to build with brick everywhere; this was already the time of Brunelleschi (1377–1446) and Bramante (1444–1514).
The second is the same economic one, but with the opposite sign: Vasily II and Ivan III, strengthening autocracy, fought against excessive “corporate” independence and “squandering state funds.”
Consequently, influential defenders of white stone technology, who lost the opportunity to refer to European experience, could not be successful. They only had references to “tradition,” but here state considerations already outweighed them. Capital construction became widespread, and the use of white stone became too heavy a burden for the treasury.
Apparently, the “swan song” of the political influence of the defenders of white stone was the Assumption Cathedral, the walls of which were built in a “traditional” manner. But that was already the end - in any case, in the capital, white stone architecture became a rare phenomenon.
Conclusion
A lot has been said and written about Yuri Dolgoruky. Views on his highly controversial personality and highly controversial historical role are equally controversial. This is the founder of Moscow with a pompous statue on Tverskaya, and a treacherous covetous man who stretched his greedy hands from Suzdal to Kiev, and a cruel despot who earned universal hatred, and even... a fighter for the independence of the Suzdal region.
Probably, we should neither condemn nor justify Yuri. But one additional touch should be added to his historical portrait: it was Dolgoruky who made the decisive “breakthrough” in the “Europeanization” of the Vladimir-Suzdal region, and perhaps the entire Russian land.
We are not afraid to say that in terms of significance for the culture and politics of Rus' (unfortunately, and in terms of the burden on the economy), Dolgoruky’s construction of four or five white stone churches is quite comparable to the founding of St. Petersburg.
Perhaps this “breakthrough” of Dolgoruky took place in other areas of cultural activity. It is unlikely that he, like Peter I, shaved the beards of the boyars and dressed them in European dress. But if Yuri spent colossal amounts of money on the “romanization” of architecture, then we have the right to admit some other actions of his “in the style” of Peter I. Even the internship of masters in Europe means a lot.
And the descendants of Yuri - Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Yuri and Konstantin Vsevolodovich - walked along the road blazed by Dolgoruky. And after the precedent created in the middle of the 12th century, “Europeanization” was much easier for them.
Of course, if this “Europeanization” was an end in itself, then it is unlikely to justify the enormous costs of building truly “golden” churches. But if this was one of the actions aimed at raising the Suzdal region, then such a policy is understandable, logical and justified. After all, in the end, this is what allowed the Vladimir-Suzdal land not to lose its national culture and independence during the Mongol yoke, to defend its independence and be reborn under a new name - Moscow.
Therefore, Dolgoruky’s historical merit lies not only in the fact that he founded a small fortress, which three hundred years later turned out to be the capital of the centralized Russian state. Yuri laid both the political and cultural foundation for the Suzdal region to become the center of such a state. And the capital of “all Rus'” could be Moscow, Tver, Vladimir, Rostov or Pereslavl - in geopolitical terms this is not fundamental.
At what price did this rise of the Suzdal land come about? is another question. We admire the founding of St. Petersburg, rarely thinking about the fact that at that time stone construction ceased throughout the rest of Russia, and about those thousands of people who, “having called these barren wilds to life, they found death here for themselves”.
And Yuri Dolgoruky probably had other, more bloodless and economical ways to accomplish his political tasks. But it is unlikely that we from the 21st century have the right to strictly judge the people of the 12th century.
Monument to Yuri Dolgoruky in Moscow, Photo: The Moscow Kremlin is located on Borovitsky Hill. Its southern part faces Moscow, the eastern part borders Red Square, and Alexander Park is closely adjacent to the northwestern part. Currently, it is the residence of the president and an important political center of the entire country. It is generally accepted that the construction of the modern architectural and historical complex began in 1482 and was completed in 1495. The exact year of foundation of the very first fortress by Prince Yuri Dolgoruky is unknown, but already in 1156 wooden fortifications surrounded by a moat were built on the territory of the Kremlin. To find out who built the Moscow Kremlin, you need to turn to history.
On the territory of the Kremlin back in the 2nd millennium BC. e. people were already living. Not far from the Archangel Cathedral, a settlement of Finno-Ugric peoples was discovered, which dates back to the second half of the 1st millennium BC. e. Archaeologists have found flint arrowheads, stone axes and shards left over from pottery. The buildings were protected by two ravines, which significantly increased the defense at that distant time.
In the 10th century, the Slavs began to populate the lands located between the Moscow and Oka river basins. It is believed that the Vyatichi built two fortified centers on Borovitsky Hill. They were protected by a ring of palisades and fortified by a ditch and a high rampart dug around it. Two ravines were attached to these structures, the depth of which was increased to 9 m, and the width to 3.8 m. The rapid development of the settlement was facilitated by busy trade routes between East and West, running along the Moscow River, and two large land roads. One of them led to Novgorod, and the other connected Kyiv, Smolensk and the northeastern lands.
Moscow was first mentioned in chronicles in 1147. And in 1156, by order of Yuri Dolgoruky, military fortifications, residential and utility buildings were already erected on the site of the modern Kremlin. The area they occupied was supposedly 3 hectares. In 1264, the Kremlin became the residence of Moscow appanage princes.
In the 14th century, five monasteries were built on the territory of the Kremlin. The oldest of them is considered to be the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery on the forest, which was erected in 1330, in the year of the celebration of the millennium of Constantinople. However, it was destroyed in 1933. The Chudov Monastery was founded by Metropolitan Alexy in 1365. The name was given in honor of the Church of the Miracle of the Archangel Michael in Khoneh. In 1929, all the buildings that were part of the monastery complex were demolished.
Stconstruction of the white stone Kremlin
In the second half of the 14th century, during the reign of Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, the Kremlin’s wooden walls began to be replaced with stone ones, the thickness of which exceeded two or even three meters. The most important sectors and areas where the main attacking forces of the enemy could be directed are built from local white stone. To more powerfully repel enemy attacks, the walls began to be reinforced with towers. The new walls were located at a distance of 60 m from the previous ones, built of oak, so the area of the entire Kremlin becomes almost equal to the modern one. Over the years, stone buildings began to require repairs. Under the leadership of V.D. Ermolin, a Moscow merchant, the head of construction work of the Russian state, in 1462 the Kremlin walls were repaired from the Sviblova Strelnitsa to the Borovitsky Gate.
Under the Moscow Prince Ivan III, the long-awaited unification of all Russian lands and principalities into one state took place. By this time, a significant restructuring of the Moscow Kremlin was required. The construction of the new Assumption Cathedral in 1471 was entrusted to Russian architects Krivtsov and Myshkin. But the building collapsed during an earthquake.
Then Ivan III invited the architect from Italy Ridolfo Aristotle Fioravanti in 1475. In four years he built a building, the model for which was the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir. Fioravanti was also a good engineer and, remaining in Russia, participated in several military campaigns as chief of artillery. Later, craftsmen from Pskov built the Church of the Deposition of the Robe, and then the new Annunciation Cathedral.
The newly invited Italian architects did a lot of work and built several religious buildings in full accordance with the basic principles of Russian architecture. Since 1485, they built the Kremlin walls from baked bricks, which weighed 8 kg (half a pound). It was also called two-handed, since it was impossible to lift it with one hand.
The walls of the Kremlin are very high and sometimes reach the height of a six-story building. They have a passage, the width of which is about two meters. It is not interrupted anywhere, which allows you to walk around the entire Kremlin along the perimeter. The outside of the building is covered with 1,045 Merlon battlements, typical of Italian fortresses. They are also called "dovetail". The height of the battlements reaches 2.5 m, and the thickness reaches 70 cm. The construction of one battlement required 600 bricks, and loopholes were built in almost every one of them. There are a total of 20 towers along the walls. Of these, the highest is Troitskaya, its height is 79.3 m.
During the reign of Peter I, the Moscow Kremlin ceased to be a royal residence, since the emperor, along with his court, moved to the newly built St. Petersburg (until 1720 - St. Petersburg). In 1701, a severe fire occurred in the Kremlin, as a result of which many wooden buildings were destroyed. In 1704, Peter I issued a decree that prohibited the construction of any wooden structures inside the Kremlin. In 1702, construction began on the two-story Arsenal building, which continued until 1736. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, the Winter Palace building was built according to the design of the Italian architect V.V. Rastrelli.
In 1812, the Moscow Kremlin was occupied by the French army. During the retreat, it was mined and blown up on Napoleon's personal orders. Not all the charges exploded, but the damage was very significant. Several towers, the Arsenal, and extensions to the Ivan the Great Bell Tower were destroyed, and the Senate building was damaged. Restoration work was entrusted to the architect F.K. Sokolov. 
In 1917, during the October armed uprising in the Kremlin, walls, towers and a number of buildings were partially destroyed. Later, under the leadership of architect N.V. Markovnikov, restoration work and repairs of damaged objects were carried out.
Throughout its long history, the Moscow Kremlin has been rebuilt and restored more than once. Prominent architects and craftsmen from both Italy and Italy took an active part in the construction of churches and public buildings. It is almost impossible to say exactly who built the Moscow Kremlin. But we must always remember that this complex defended the capital of our state for many centuries and is now the center of the political life of the Russian Federation.
The Moscow Kremlin is an ancient fortified structure on the territory of modern Moscow, which previously served as a military facility, and today is used as the official residence of the President of the Russian Federation, an architectural monument.
The Kremlin is located on Borovitsky Hill on the left bank of the Moscow River and is an irregular triangle with a total area of about 27 hectares. The construction of the first fortifications on this territory began in the 12th century, but historians date the construction of the Kremlin in its modern sense to the 15th century. (1482-1495), since it was at this time that he received stone walls.
Main stages of construction of the Moscow Kremlin
The first stage of the construction of this structure is associated with the beginning of the strengthening of Moscow’s power in Rus', with the unification of previously disparate principalities around the new capital, which now required better protection than before. In addition, the struggle of Rus' with the Tatar-Mongol yoke and constant raids also became the reason that Moscow began to urgently need a good system of fortifications that would protect the prince and other important statesmen. The Kremlin became a kind of symbol of a new type of state, it was from its gates that roads and industrial routes diverged in all directions of the world, it was from here that Russian troops set out to fight the Mongols attacking them, the prince and other important government officials took refuge here.
In the history of the construction of the Moscow Kremlin, several main stages can be distinguished, associated with major political and economic changes in the country.
Although the creation of the modern Kremlin is officially considered to be the 15th century, the first buildings on this territory began to appear much earlier. The construction of the first wooden-earth structures, which served mainly for household needs and housing, dates back to the 12th century. - by 1156. To date, not a single part of this ancient structure has survived.
The second period of construction - the second half of the 14th - the second half of the 15th century. In place of the old earthen structures, new, white stone ones, known to us from numerous illustrations, are beginning to be erected. These structures were built under Prince Dmitry Donskoy in 1366-1368, when the walls and towers were rebuilt from local white stone. During this period, the Kremlin expanded significantly and was no longer used only for economic needs, but also for military warehouses and army housing.
The third period of construction of the Moscow Kremlin can be dated back to the end of the 15th century, and it continued until the 17th century. It was during this period that the building was actively “living in”, and masterpieces of art and architecture appeared, which we still admire to this day.
In the 18th century. the fourth period begins, which lasts until the October Revolution. At this time, the Kremlin is gradually being updated, many buildings are being rebuilt, restored, a new layout is being created, and the territory is expanding again. During this period, the Senate, the New Palace, the Armory and the Arsenal appeared.
After the October Revolution died down, some changes were made to the layout of the Kremlin, new buildings were built - the Palace of Congresses, the building of the Supreme Council. Gardens and parks were laid out on the territory of the Kremlin. As a result, this led to the fact that by the end of the 20th century. All that remained of the old Kremlin were walls and some buildings; everything else was rebuilt in the last years of the 20th century.
History of the construction of the Moscow Kremlin. Architectural features
Like any other architectural monuments, the Kremlin has always been an example of achievements in construction in one period or another and has radically changed its appearance several times. In ancient times, only wooden and earthen fortifications were erected, which could accommodate a limited number of people and were not used for military purposes due to their fragility. Later, wood began to change to stone, the Kremlin acquired important military significance, since now it could not completely burn down, and high and strong walls could provide all residents with sufficient protection.
As for the location, the first buildings were in the 12th century. occupied a fairly insignificant territory and were built on a cape, which today has settled and lost its outline. There was a moat around the cape (as was always done during the construction of fortresses), and a palisade wall stood on earthen ramparts, encircling the erected fortress. Its length was no more than 700 m. In 1156, the city’s borders were expanded, and at the same time the boundaries of the Kremlin expanded, which now reached a length of 1200 m. The Kremlin acquired the shape of a triangle, new ramparts were poured in place of previously cleared forests and fields. The territory expanded.
The earliest reliable images of the Moscow Kremlin can be dated back to the 16th century, but in written sources this building is very often mentioned with the name of Ivan the 3rd, who was one of the first to begin a major restoration, restructuring and expansion of the Kremlin. New buildings were erected, including several cathedrals.
Thus, the original Kremlin, built back in the 12th century, was very different from what we see today. Unfortunately, there is no information left except for rare descriptions, and today we can only imagine its outlines. During its existence, the Kremlin was rebuilt several times, sometimes quite radically.
The significance of the Moscow Kremlin
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of any such structure. During its existence, the Moscow Kremlin managed to serve as an important military facility, a complex of residential buildings, and the residence of the country's administration (which it remains to this day). We must not forget that the Kremlin, which was rebuilt many times, remains an important historical, cultural and architectural monument.
The Moscow Kremlin is probably the most grandiose building in the Russian capital. Having started its life as a “city fortress” common for Slavic settlements, the Kremlin in Moscow turned into a unique architectural object. Being a historical monument, the Kremlin continues to fulfill its political functions. This, after all, is the largest fortress in Europe, which is still used “for its intended purpose.”
Red Kremlin... and white Kremlin
The familiar appearance of the Kremlin is characterized by red brick walls. But back in the second half of the 19th century, the Kremlin was completely white. Its walls were whitewashed both in order to preserve the brick from destruction, and in order to recall the original appearance of this structure - white stone. This is how the Kremlin can be seen in the paintings of famous Russian artists - for example, in Vereshchagin’s painting from 1879.
But why, in fact, white stone? White stone had a special meaning in medieval Rus'. Constructions made from this material could only decorate capital cities. For a long time, the main white-stone city in the Russian lands was Vladimir - the capital of a strong, rich and vast European principality. Let us remember that until the 13th century, Moscow was just a small provincial town on the outskirts of the Vladimir principality, a kind of “bear corner”. The time was turbulent then, the Russian lands were shaken by feudal fragmentation, reinforced by the invasions of the Tatars, attacks by the Lithuanians and other disasters. Principalities were born and died, separated and absorbed by stronger neighbors. And so the “masters” of Moscow decided to secede from the Vladimir state and create their own. Soon this was successfully done. But this was not enough - the Moscow princes wanted to become the most powerful in the Russian lands and subjugate the remaining principalities.
Gradually, Moscow achieved its goal. In the middle of the 14th century it was already quite a large and, most importantly, “capital” city. Therefore, the time has come to reinforce this status externally: following the example of its old metropolis, Vladimir, Moscow is beginning to acquire white stone buildings. Since the time of Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, the word “white stone” has become a permanent epithet of Moscow. Actually, Dmitry Ivanovich was the author of the white stone Moscow Kremlin. Before this, the Kremlin fortifications were wooden and also earthen. 
It is assumed that the white stone for the Kremlin was delivered from the nearby village of Myachkovo. The material was transported along the Moscow River - in the summer on ships, and in the winter on sleighs. The main construction was carried out in winter - from 1367 to 1368. Such an inconvenient time for construction was dictated by haste: the city urgently needed to be strengthened, since the previous wooden fortifications had burned down in a fire. Despite the haste, the grandiose architectural ensemble was built thoroughly; Some of its parts - such as the foundation - are still functioning.
The efficiency of Dmitry Donskoy was soon justified: in 1382, Moscow was attacked by the army of Khan Tokhtamysh. The Kremlin was captured and plundered. If not for the stone walls, the Tatars would have taken Moscow even faster, easier and with minimal losses. However, soon after the attack the Kremlin was restored.
Dmitry Donskoy himself was a very active prince. Under his rule, the small Moscow principality subjugated new lands and grew noticeably.
Why does the Kremlin stand in this particular place?
The location of the Moscow Kremlin was not chosen by chance. This high hill offers an excellent view of the surrounding area, which allows you to timely notice the enemy, no matter from which side he approaches. And the hill itself was surrounded by rivers - Moscow and Neglinnaya; these rivers and the high hill themselves were quite good natural fortifications.
For comparison, Prague Castle was built in the same way - on a large hill. The word "grad" is the Czech equivalent of the Russian term "kremlin".
Brick Kremlin
No matter how strong the white stone was, it gradually began to deteriorate. Chronicles from the mid-15th century mention collapses. Under Ivan III, the Kremlin buildings began to be restored. The merchant V.D. Ermolin also took part in this - at that time he was actually the main architect of the capital (and at the same time the main financier and chronicler), and craftsmen from various Russian cities. But often the building materials and the work themselves were of poor quality; therefore, the Grand Duke decided to invite Italian architects - Aristotle Fioravanti, Pietro Solari, Marco Ruffo and some others. The Italians radically rebuilt the Kremlin buildings, in particular, they introduced elements of the architecture of their native country into them. And most importantly, they began to build walls and other structures of the Kremlin from brick. It was they who popularized brick in the Moscow state, which had not previously been in great demand.