In medieval Rus’ a fortified settlement was called a gorod (or grad), as distinct from an unfortified one, which was usually called a ves’ or selo. The word gorod was also used in a broader sense – meaning ‘defensive walls’, and fortifications in general.
Some 400 gorods are described in the historical annals and other sources; many more have been discovered by archaeological work. A virtually complete list of fortified settlements, compiled by A. V. Kuza, details 1,306 fortified settlements dating from the 10th to the mid 13th century; this number will be henceforth used when calculating the percentages of different types of gorod. With the inclusion of earlier settlements, those ravaged by the passing of time, and those still to be investigated by archaeologists, the number of fortified settlements in Rus’ may well have been as high as 1,500 by the mid 13th century. Unfortified settlements greatly outnumbered fortified ones.
The fortified settlements may be divided into several types according to their social status:
• Towns and cities, i.e. centres of craft, trade and culture. The modern Russian word for town or city is gorod but its meaning is not identical to that of the Old Russian word: it now means only a town proper, not a country settlement nor a fortification. Old Russian towns had a specific structure: they comprised a citadel, which was originally called a detinets, and an adjoining trading settlement, called an okol’ny gorod or possad. Each was enclosed within defensive walls, so a town consisted of at least two fortified sites. The detinets was always the oldest part of the town. It was also the most important part, being the last place of refuge in its defence. Accordingly, its fortifications were much more powerful than those of the okol’ny gorod.
• Fortified villages were communal settlements. The fortifications were simpler in layout and more subject to the terrain.
• A castle was a fortified residence of a prince or boyar (aristocrat). A product of the feudal system, castles became widespread with the growth of feudal disunity in the 11th century, and disappeared in the 15th and 16th centuries with the formation of a centralized Russian state. A sharp increase in the number of fortified settlements in the 11th–early 12th centuries (a four-fold increase) and then again between the mid 12th and the mid 13th centuries (a 2.5-fold increase) can be attributed to the appearance of a large number of feudal castles. Many castle sites gradually grew into towns or cities, with the castle itself becoming the detinets – as happened at Moscow. There was no specific term for a castle in the Russian annals of the 10th–14th centuries. A castle was called either a gorod (grad) or dvor. While the former word was a common name for all fortified settlements, the latter was used to describe country castles and town estates. The modern Russian word for castle – zamok – appeared later and is a derivative of the Polish word zamek. It is interesting to note that today in many Slavic languages this word does not mean castle. For example, the Czech word zámek means ‘palace’ (or unfortified residence), while a castle (fortified residence) is called a hrad (a word linked to the Old Russian grad or gorod).
The gorodishche of Kleshchin sits on a hill called Alexander’s Mount. By the side of this small fortress was an unfortified settlement.
The rampart of Pereyaslavl (Pereyaslavl-Zalesski). Until the 13th–14th centuries Russian fortress-towns looked imposing. An outsider could see nothing but high earthen ramparts topped with wooden walls. People still live inside this rampart but their small houses are invisible from the outside.
• Frontier fortresses were fortified settlements with a military garrison in situ. These fortresses were usually built on the frontiers of a principality, on the borderline with the steppe, and other suitable places. The remains (gorodishche) of such fortresses are generally minimal as a rule, and do not indicate that one site was wealthier than the others (unlike castles). No special word for this kind of fortress existed in medieval Rus’. Like other fortified settlements, they were simply called gorod. It was not until the 17th century that the modern Russian word krepost’ came into being. The term ‘fortress’ will henceforth be used in this book in a broader sense, as a synonym for a stronghold, unless specified that it refers to a frontier fortress with a military garrison.
• Refuge fortresses, characteristic of the north-west districts of Rus’. Unpopulated in times of peace, these fortresses were filled with the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages in times of danger. The emergence of these refuge fortresses is explained by the small sizes of villages in those districts. Some villages comprised only a few homesteads, and it was beyond their ability and means to protect themselves with even the most primitive fortifications. Therefore, several villages united to build a fortress. Refuge fortresses are known to have existed in the 10th and 11th centuries, but became rare after this, as with the appearance of numerous towns, castles, and frontier fortresses they were no longer in demand.
• Monasteries, which were built widely from the second half of the 14th century onwards. As soon as it was founded, a monastery was usually encircled by defensive walls; their fortifications were mostly wooden up to the 16th–17th centuries.
Nearly half of all the fortified settlements dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries were very small, with the fortified territory not exceeding 0.3 hectares. Most of these small settlements are considered to be feudal castles. Sometimes, however, castles occupied a much larger site (up to 1 hectare or larger), approaching towns in size. These larger castles (i.e. those occupying from 0.3 to 1 hectares) were particularly popular in southern Rus’, mainly in the area around the mid-point of the River Dnieper. Fortified settlements of more than 2.5 hectares are generally referred to as towns.
An analysis of surviving gorodishches allows us to single out several types of layouts for fortified settlements:
• Insular layout. The settlement was situated on an island in the middle of a river or marsh, or on a hill protected by ravines on all sides. Earlier settlements of this type generally had no earthen fortifications. In most cases nothing was done except for scarping the slopes of the hill. Later settlements (from the 11th century on) found themselves protected with a rampart all along the perimeter. Settlements of this type had several shortcomings: the size of a settlement was limited by the size of the island; and communication between its inhabitants and the surrounding area was inhibited by its insularity. This type of settlement was unsuitable for people engaged in agriculture or livestock-breeding, and was thus more characteristic of refuge and frontier fortresses.
Truvor’s gorodishche viewed from the rampart. The gorodishche sits on a pointed promontory formed by deep, steeply sloping ravines.
• Cape layout, or simple cape layout. The settlement occupied a promontory formed by the confluence of two rivers, or the junction of a river and a ravine, or two ravines coming together. Protected on two sides with water or steep slopes of the ravines, the settlement was open on the third, mainland side. It was this, the most vulnerable side, that received the principal fortifications – a ditch and a rampart surmounted with a wall. If a promontory featured a gentle slope to its tip, the latter was sometimes separated from the rest of the settlement with a ditch and a rampart. There could be up to three or four lines of defence (i.e. ditches and ramparts) on the mainland side as well as on the side of the tip of the promontory. Later, an entire settlement was surrounded with a rampart that was usually higher and steeper on the mainland side. Such settlements with a rampart running all along the perimeter first appeared at the end of the 10th century but became particularly popular in the 11th–13th centuries. The cape layout had considerable advantages compared to the insular layout. It offered better communications between the settlement and the neighbouring lands, and the possibility of extending the site of a settlement as the population grew; a suitable promontory was also much easier to find than a suitable island. Moreover, its defences could be raised with only a moderate employment of labour as two sides were already well protected with natural obstacles. All this made the cape layout the most popular type of settlement.
• Segment layout. The settlement sat on an isthmus, usually bordered by water on two sides. It was protected with ramparts and ditches on the two opposite mainland sides. This type was comparatively rare.
• Complex cape layout. The settlement was situated on a promontory and conformed to the terrain, but unlike the simple cape layout it comprised more than one site, each protected with its own defensive lines. The most heavily fortified part of the settlement, the detinets (citadel), was at the very tip of the promontory. The enemy had to seize the outer fortifications first, and only then could tackle the detinets. This type of fortified settlement appeared in the 10th century.
Truvor’s gorodishche and an earthen rampart. The settlement was fortified with a defensive wall along the entire perimeter; however, only the most vulnerable, mainland side featured a rampart and a ditch.
Several plans of gorodishches (not to scale): 1 – the simple cape type with two ramparts on the mainland side (near Rubtsovo village); 2 – the simple cape type with ramparts on the mainland side and at the tip of the cape (Strelitsa); 3 – the complex cape type with a circular rampart on the first site and ramparts and ditches edging two sides on the second site (Kvetun); 4 – the complex type with a citadel on a hill and a possad protected with a rampart (Korshov); 5 – the segment type (Yagotin); 6 – the semi-circular type with three lines of ramparts and ditches (Borisov-Glebov, or Romanovo-Borisoglebskoe gorodishche).
• Complex layout. The settlement comprised several fortified sites, as per the complex cape layout, but the defences of the outermost sites were independent of the terrain. The detinets was usually on the promontory, or, more rarely, on a small island. The rampart of the okol’ny gorod or possad (the external site) was never close to the ramparts of the detinets. Moreover, the outer site was never protected with a rampart on the side of the citadel. Gorodishches featuring complex layouts are generally considered to be the remains of large cities where a cape layout could not be strictly adhered to owing to quickly expanding trading areas (the okol’ny gorod). Hence the fortifications of the okol’ny gorod seldom conformed to the terrain and had no definitive layout; their task was only to protect the vast trading area. This layout may be regarded as the next stage in the development of a town, as compared to the complex cape layout. Settlements of a complex layout began to gain popularity in roughly the late 10th and early 11th centuries.
• Circular layout. Circular and oval settlements, widespread in the 12th century, were known earlier (beginning in the 10th and 11th centuries) in some districts. As a rule, they were situated in a valley and did not depend on the terrain. They were mostly small in size, with a diameter varying from 50 to 100m. One or more formidable earthen ramparts and ditches ran all along their perimeter.
• Semi-circular layout. This type of settlement bordered a river or a steep slope on one side and was protected with semi-circular ramparts and ditches on the other sides. Thus, it was only partially dependent on the terrain.
With certain assumptions, a connection can be made between a particular layout and the social status of a settlement. For instance, both a complex cape layout and a complex layout were on the whole typical of the defences of large cities. The complex cape layout can also be considered as a certain stage in the development of a city – from a simple cape layout through a complex cape layout to a complex layout. The simple cape layout and the insular layout were typical of fortified communal settlements, castles, and small towns. A cape layout is also characteristic of frontier fortresses. Settlements of semi-circular and circular layout were usually the castles of princes and boyars. There were of course numerous exceptions to these general rules.
The most common type of fortified settlement was one having a simple cape layout. Half of all the listed fortified settlements (654 out of 1,306) belong to this type. It was only in some western Russian districts that an insular layout was as common, or more prevalent. However a larger number of settlements of insular layout were not surrounded by water but sat on free-standing hills with steep slopes. The number of fortified settlements on islands proper, i.e. land surrounded by a river or a marsh, is insignificant (a mere 15 out of 1,306). Fortified settlements where natural obstacles played little or no part (i.e. those of circular or semi-circular layout) account for 13.5 per cent of the total number of examined gorodishches. Fortified settlements of a complex cape or complex layout constitute 20.2 per cent of all fortified settlements. A third of all fortified settlements featured an unfortified one next to them.
Dyakovskoye gorodishche now lies within the confines of Moscow, sitting on a hill that has a river on one side and a ravine on the other. A settlement here existed as early as the end of the 1st millennium BC up until the 6th–7th centuries AD. The rampart of the gorodishche was raised at the turn of the 11th/12th century when a feudal castle was built here.
Fortified settlements in the territory of medieval Rus’ are known to have existed from the Bronze Age (the second millennium BC). The second half of the first millennium BC saw a significant increase in the number of fortified settlements as compared with unfortified ones. Examination of old, pre-Slavic settlements is beyond the limits of this work. It should, however, be noted that, like early fortified Slavic settlements, they sat on hilltops or high up the banks on a bend in a river (insular or simple cape layout), and that their defences consisted of ditches and ramparts surmounted with primitive wooden walls (mostly palisades). Many of these pre-Slavic fortified settlements were later used by Slavs, who usually modernized the fortifications by increasing the height of the ramparts and building new wooden walls on top of them.
The earliest authentic Slavic settlements date back to the 6th century AD. Most of the Slavic settlements of the 6th and 7th centuries were not fortified; however, the situation rapidly changed in the 8th century. A large number of settlements were realized, protected not only by the terrain but by artificial defences as well (ditches, ramparts, and palisades). Several unfortified settlements can often be found on the outskirts of these fortresses, which signifies that the fortresses served as residences of tribal chiefs and gave shelter to the neighbouring population in times of need.
Russian fortresses
1 – Vladimir in the 12th–13th centuries; 2 – Suzdal in the 13th century; 3 – Ladoga in 1114; 4 – Kamenets in the late 13th century; 5 – Mstislavl in the early 13th century; 6 – the citadel of Tustan fortress in the 14th century; 7 – Porkhov fortress in the second half of the 15th century. One of the greatest Russian cities, Vladimir (1) became capital of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in the mid 12th century. In the 12th and 13th centuries the city had four sites protected with walls; with a stone detinets (citadel) in its southern part,‘Monomakh’s city’ occupied the centre and was flanked by two fortified possads. Apart from the detinets, some of the gates were of stone too, including the famous Golden Gate. Suzdal (2) was another powerful city in north-east Rus’ and capital of the Rostov-Suzdal principality in the first half of the 12th century. By the 13th century the city comprised a detinets enclosed by a wooden log wall and an okol’ny gorod protected by a tyn. Ladoga fortress (3, after E. G. Arapova and A. N. Kirpichnikov) saw its fortifications built in stone as early as 1114, thus becoming the first stone fortress in northern Rus’. Kamenets (4, after E. Kulik) is a typical fortress with a donjon-tower. Fortresses with independently standing towers became popular in the Galich-Volhynia principality in the second half of the 13th century. Mstislavl (5, after P. A. Rappoport) is a castle of an almost regular round shape. It stands in a valley and its fortifications do not conform to the terrain at all. Tustan (6, after M. F. Rozhko) is the best-known rock fortress in Galicia. The five-storey living quarters and the defensive walls with towers nestle between four rock projections. Porkhov (7, after E. G. Arapova and A. N. Kirpichnikov) was a frontier fortress of Novgorod. Founded in 1387, the fortress was more than once modernized up to the second half of the 15th century.
The rampart of Mstislavl. An oak intra-rampart structure has been discovered inside it. Wooden walls stood on top of the rampart, which was steeper on the exterior than on the interior. Grass, bushes, and trees on the outer side and in front of the rampart were destroyed in times of danger to prevent the enemy from hiding in them or more easily climbing the rampart.
The major threat to the southern Russian lands from the 10th through to the 12th centuries came from nomadic warriors. From the first half of the 10th century to the first half of the 11th century these were the Pechenegs, followed by the Torks; the mid 11th century brought the Polovtsy. The Pechenegs had crossed the River Volga and invaded the lands to the north of the Black Sea late in the 9th century. They settled within a day’s march of the southern borders of Rus’, making regular raids on her territory to seize booty and prisoners. The first clash between the Russians and the Pechenegs took place in 915. For more than a century (up to the year 1036) the Pechenegs continually attacked Rus’; in 968 they even besieged and nearly captured Kiev, the capital of Old Rus’. The Polovtsy proved to be no less deadlier an enemy, and first appeared on the south-east Russian borders in 1055. At the end of the 1060s a large-scale invasion was staged by the Polovtsy on Russian lands, and in the last decade of the century not a single year passed without a raid taking place.
The bulk of the nomad armies consisted of irregular cavalry. They did not know how to properly besiege a fortified place, and rarely engaged in sieges; when they did conduct them, they were seldom successful. As a result, the rulers of Kievan Rus’ fortified existing cities and built frontier fortresses. The nomadic warriors rarely conducted raids inside enemy territory, fearing that the garrisons of any Russian fortress to their rear would attack them from behind or cut off their retreat. Lines of fortresses were built along the main frontier rivers – the Sula, the Stugna, the Ros’, the Trubezh, the Desna and others. Another line of fortresses stretched along both sides of the River Dnieper, from the River Ros’ as far as Kiev. These fortresses formed a second line of defence and were able to warn the capital city of Kiev of a breakthrough by the enemy hordes well in advance. Fortresses were also built along the routes of potential enemy movement – highways, river fords, and so on. In addition to these fortresses, extensive fortification lines – the Zmievy Valy – were created.
In the late 11th–early 12th centuries Rus’ experienced a period of feudal disruption. A weakening of the authority of the Kievan princes and the disintegration of a once united state into independent principalities necessitated changes in Russian defensive strategy. With the incessant strife forcing each principality to defend its own frontiers, Russian princes began to make use of nomadic tribesmen to protect their land from the raids of other nomads. Back in the mid 11th century Pechenegs, Torks, and Berendeis had been allowed to settle in the border areas. These settlers, known as Chernye Klobuki (Black Hoods), served as a sort of barrier between the steppe and Rus’. In exchange for land they were obliged to participate in military operations against the enemies of Rus’. From that point onwards, raids by the Polovtsy were repulsed by united actions of Chernye Klobuki and Russians, or by Chernye Klobuki alone under the command of a Russian voivode (commander). In addition to defensive warfare, retaliatory raids into the steppe to drive out the Polovtsy from their camps took place from the turn of the 11th–12th century. Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav were especially successful in the elaboration of these tactics.
The second half of the 12th century saw the construction of numerous fortifications comprising two to four parallel rows of ramparts and ditches. Some date from as early as the 10th and 11th centuries, when they were built with the aim of forcing the enemy to overcome one defensive line after another. However, in the 13th century they became especially important owing to the ever-increasing use of (initially stone) throwing machines, which could cause serious damage to wooden fortifications. Man-powered stone-throwing machines possessed real destructive power at a distance of 100–150m. Counterweight stone-throwers were more powerful, but were only effective at a distance of up to 200m. The chief target of a stone-thrower was the main defensive wall. In multi-row fortifications of the 13th–14th centuries ramparts were usually raised some distance away from each other. Together with ditches they created a defensive belt of considerable depth; for example, in Galich the defensive belt of four lines of ramparts and ditches was 92m deep. Therefore, in order to force the enemy to repeatedly use stone-throwers against the main (most formidable) wall they would have to be placed as near as 50–100m from the external defensive line. However, the soldiers manning these machines would thus be exposed to multi-tiered fire from the defenders, particularly from the outermost defensive line. All this forced the besiegers to tackle several defensive lines one after the other.
A typical defensive layout with three rows of fortifications consisted of the following elements. The first rampart had a very wide boevoy hod or wall-walk (20–32m) intended for archers mounted on horseback. The boevoy hod of the second rampart was narrower, at 2–9m. Both ramparts were usually topped with simple fortifications, such as a palisade or fence, or less commonly wooden log walls. The third defensive line comprised the main fortress wall. This line (which consisted of a rampart and a log wall as a rule) was two or three times higher than the first two. Each rampart was fronted with a ditch, with the inner ditches wider than outer ones. While the ditch in front of the outward rampart was generally 7–8m wide, the one fronting the middle rampart was between 6 and 14m wide, with the ditch in front of the inner rampart some 14–15m wide. Multi-row fortifications were not usually raised around the whole of a settlement, only on its most vulnerable mainland side. The mounting of throwing machines on the remaining sides was hindered by natural barriers, such as rivers, ravines, marshes, and the like. A single defensive line was thus often deemed sufficient.
Even when faced with the threat of a Mongol invasion, the Russian princes were unable to unite, and Rus’ fell easily to the Mongol hordes, who subjugated most of its territory between 1237 and 1240. Many towns and cities were completely destroyed, never to be repopulated again, while others were ordered to pull down their fortifications with a watchful eye kept on them lest they be restored. Fortification building ceased for centuries in many districts, except for in the west (Galich-Volhynia principality) and north-west (Novgorod and Pskov areas), which escaped the Mongol yoke.
The Galich-Volhynia principality, formed in 1199 from the amalgamation of the Galich and Vladimir-Volhynia principalities, contained numerous remarkable fortresses, including two unique types not found elsewhere in Russian lands: fortresses with donjon-towers (mainly characteristic of Volhynia), and rock fortresses and castles (in the Carpathian mountains of Galicia). The Volhynian towers were built inside fortresses, not in the lines of the walls, and had the same functions as donjons in western Europe. They were frequently built of stone or brick – even when all the other fortifications were wooden. Donjon-towers became widespread in Volhynia in the second half of the 13th century, the result of the influence of its western neighbours Poland and Hungary. Examples of these towers survive in Berestie, Kamenets, Stolpie and Czartoryisk. Out of all the rock fortresses in the Carpathian mountains, Tustan fortress has undergone the most careful examination. Its central point, called Kamen (‘Stone’), sat on rocks towering 51m above the surrounding valley. Wooden walls with towers and a five-storey (including the ground floor) building housing living quarters were all built on the rocks.
The fields of fire in a fortress of the 10th–12th centuries (A), and of the 14th to the first half of the 15th century (B). Earlier fortresses, having no towers, were only adapted to frontal fire. The 14th century saw the appearance of a new type of fortress with towers on the mainland side and straight curtain walls (pryaslos) in between. Thus, both frontal and flanking fire could be laid down on the mainland side, but only frontal fire on the other side.
The Zmievy Valy (Snake Ramparts), 10th–11th centuries.
The north-west Russian district (comprising the Pskov and Novgorod lands) frequently found itself at war with the Teutons, Swedes and Lithuanians in the 13th and 14th centuries. This affected both the fortifications and defensive strategy. To protect their lands Novgorod and Pskov (which became independent from Novgorod in 1348) built a number of fortresses in the most vulnerable northern, western and southern areas. Among them were the fortresses of Izborsk, Porkhov, Kopor’e, and Oreshek. Stone (as opposed to wooden) fortifications became increasingly common in these lands in the 14th century. At the beginning of this century the cities of Novgorod and Pskov were protected by masonry defences. The eastern areas, where the frontiers between the Novgorod lands and other Russian principalities lay, witnessed little fortress building. Fortresses were also extremely rare on the frontier between Pskov and Novgorod, despite rather cool relations and even the occasional military conflict between them.
The construction of a Zmiev Val (Snake Rampart)
In order to protect Kievan Rus’ against raids by nomadic warriors, Prince Vladimir (r. 980–1015) built defensive lines of enormous extent (800–1,000km). These defence lines consisted of a ditch and an earthen rampart topped with a wooden wall. Numerous parts of the ramparts had a wooden intra-rampart structure to make them higher and steeper. The ditch ran along the rampart on its outer, steppe-facing side or, occasionally, on both sides. The Zmievy Valy began to be raised in the late 10th century and construction continued through the 11th century.
North-eastern Rus’ suffered greatly during the Mongol invasion; no new fortresses were built there from the mid 13th through to the mid 14th century; only pre-existing ones were restored. The 14th century was marked by the rise in power of the Moscow principality, which successfully expanded its territory by annexing neighbouring lands. With the frontiers of the principality constantly changing, it was not considered worthwhile to provide them with defensive military works, and the Moscow princes set about building and strengthening fortresses on the main routes leading to Moscow. Particular importance was now attached to Mozhaisk in the west, Kolomna in the south-east, Dmitrov in the north-west, and Serpukhov in the south. Moreover, practically all the cities around Moscow were fortified. Most villages, too, were defended with ditches, ramparts and wooden walls as a rule. Within a 50km radius of Moscow alone there were up to 40 gorods with ditches and ramparts. Of great importance was the strengthening of the capital itself. Between 1339 and 1340 the Moscow Kremlin saw its fortifications rebuilt of oak, and in 1367 it was given stone walls.
It is interesting to note that, unlike in the cities of north-western Rus’, in the cities of the north-eastern Russian principalities only the fortifications of the detinets (citadel) were redeveloped, but not those of the okol’ny gorod (suburb). Moreover, there were no new outer defensive walls raised in north-east Russian cities during the 14th and 15th centuries, and even the old defences of the 12th and 13th centuries were not rebuilt. This lack of attention towards the cities’ outer fortifications was probably a consequence of failures in the respective municipal governments, who were responsible for maintaining these defences; princes were more concerned with the construction and modernization of detinets. In Novgorod and Pskov municipal government was a powerful force; thus, these cities saw their old urban fortifications regularly rebuilt and new ones erected.
Multi-row fortifications were not often built in the Moscow and other principalities of north-east and north-west Rus’. Defensive thinking tended to be ‘one-sided’, meaning that the most formidable fortifications were concentrated on one (mainland) side. Instead of raising several rows of defensive military works, these districts focused on building towers and straightening pryaslos (sections of wall between towers). As a result, both frontal and flanking fire could be conducted on the mainland side. On the other sides, only frontal fire was still possible, as was typical of earlier fortifications. This arrangement was characteristic of fortresses of the 14th and the first half of the 15th centuries.
The 14th century also brought changes in terminology. While previously a citadel was universally known as a detinets, it now retained this name only in a few districts (for example, in Novgorod); in the Moscow and Tver principalities the word detinets was replaced by the term kremlin, and in Pskov by the word krom.
In addition to the network of fortresses, continuous ramparts of great length were built to defend against the nomadic warriors. These ramparts can still be seen across the whole of the Ukraine. Surviving sections of these ramparts extend to about 800km, although the original extent was probably 1,000km. Owing to their immense length the ramparts were named Zmievy Valy (Snake Ramparts). With the passage of time the details of by whom and when the ramparts were erected became lost, and succeeding generations believed that such work was beyond the power of humans. A legend thus grew up about a monstrous snake (or a dragon) tamed by the epic blacksmiths Kozma and Demiyan, who harnessed it and forced it to plough the earth. The plough left furrows (the ditches), and the earth raised up by the plough formed the ramparts bordering them. Some even ‘saw’ the odd-shaped holes at regular intervals beside the ditches and ramparts as marks left by the sharp claws of this mythical snake or dragon.
The ramparts were built in the late 10th and the 11th centuries. Their construction was started under Prince Vladimir and carried on under his successors. The earliest written reference to the ramparts dates from the beginning of the 11th century when Bishop Bruno, visiting Kievan Rus’, reported that the Russian prince had protected his state from the nomads with long and formidable fortifications. The Zmievy Valy are mentioned in the Russian annals from the end of the 11th century up to the 13th century. They are sometimes known as the Polovetski Ramparts, which points to their use as defences against the raids of the Polovtsy, the chief enemy of Rus’ at that time.
The Zmievy Valy did not form a continuous defensive line, but were part of a complex network. In the most vulnerable places there could be up to seven separate ramparts, and they were raised both along rivers (such as the Dnieper, Ros’, Stugna, and Sula) and between them. Natural obstacles, such as the sloping river banks, forests, marshes, etc., were made utmost use of in the construction.
The Zmievy Valy comprised a rampart and a ditch in front of it, on the side of the steppe. Occasionally a ditch ran along both sides of the rampart. Today the ramparts are 2–5m high and about 10m thick. These, however, are average parameters – some parts of the ramparts are as high as 6m and as thick as 25m. The ramparts have inevitably shrunk in the course of time. They are known to have been higher in the mid 19th century, when they reached 6.5m in some places. This certainly suggests that at the time of their construction the Zmievy Valy were higher and steeper. The ramparts were created from the earth dug out from making the ditch, and were sometimes strengthened with clay. Some sections reveal that the rampart was built of sand until it was 2m high and 6m thick, and then provided with a 1.5m-thick layer of clay. After the clay had dried, earth was used to bring the rampart to the required height.
Wooden intra-rampart structures have been discovered inside many ramparts; these allowed a rampart to achieve sufficient height and steepness. These structures consisted of oak log cells, using logs up to 40cm thick, which extended to the top of the rampart creating wooden walls made up of log cells. The walls were relatively short, and probably did not exceed 4m in height as a rule. The overall height of the defences (including the rampart and the wall) was about 10–12m on average, but could vary depending upon the strategic importance of a particular defensive sector.
The Zmievy Valy were closely linked with the fortresses built along the rivers. The ramparts served to contain the enemy’s advance until troops arrived from a nearby fortress. Considering that the bulk of the nomadic armies consisted of cavalry, and that they lacked the skills and equipment to assault the fortifications, the ramparts were equal to the task, provided that they were properly manned. Only a state as powerful as Kievan Rus’ was capable of providing troops for such extensive fortifications and numerous fortresses into the bargain. When this centralized state disintegrated into separate principalities, the latter proved unable to maintain and defend fortifications of that length. Besides, infighting between principalities now compelled each to defend its own boundaries. The principalities continued to maintain sections of the Zmievy Valy that were vital for their own safety and even raised new ramparts from time to time. For instance, in the second half of the 12th century new ramparts were built in the frontier district between the Chernigov and Pereyaslavl principalities – but these ramparts were neither as high nor as long as the old ones. The changes in the political situation — feudal disunity followed by the Mongol invasion — eventually meant that the Zmievy Valy gradually fell into oblivion.