The fortress was founded by decree of Queen Elizabeth on January 11, 1752. In fact, it was founded on June 18, 1754, since the search for a specific location of a strategic object took a long time. This is quite natural, since the height of the earth above sea level in the territory of the current Kirovohrad region is uneven. The following zones are allocated:
- from -50 to 0 meters (mostly near rivers, but there are many of them here);
- 0-100 meters;
- 100–200 meters;
- 200–300 meters.
Information taken from the physical map of Ukraine confirms the difficulty of finding a construction site, and the Russians needed a fortress in this region.
Location and functions of the fortress
The fortress was located on the right high bank of the river Ingul, between the mouths of the rivers Gruzskaya and Kamyanista Sugokleya, 4 kilometers from the border with New Serbia.
The main advantages of the location of the object are as follows:
- the presence of a navigable river nearby;
- convenience of delivery and direct availability at the construction site of materials such as clay, sand, wood,stones.
The main functions of the fortress are as follows:
- protecting Russian borders from raids from Turkey and Crimea;
- providing a reliable shield between the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks on the one hand and the Gaidamaks, Poles on the other.
Tatar raids have always frightened representatives of the Russian Empire. Solving the problem of relations between Poles and Cossacks was of great importance for Moscow. On May 22, 1758, the fortress received an order from the Collegium for Foreign Affairs to be carried out: “… according to the complaints of the Polish side, the haidamaks from December 4, 1750 to November 19, 1757 suffered losses of 4,212,000 zlotys to the inhabitants of the Bratslav Voivodeship, 359 people were killed of different ranks, and 2 churches were robbed, church, 40 cities, 199 villages; at the same time, it was prescribed: about making special efforts to eradicate haidamak” (Historical essay on Elisavetgrad, p. 5).
Relations with Poland for the Russian Empire have always been complex and strategically important, therefore, with the help of the construction of a fortress in this region, attempts were made to resolve problematic issues.
Let's list more important reasons for founding a fortress on the territory of modern Kirovograd:
- Intensive settlement of the region by Serbs. It was important to protect the new settlers from the raids of the Cossacks.
- Excluding the possibility of contacts between Cossacks and Serbs, so that new citizens do not pass under the influence of the Cossacks.
As you know, relations between Russia and Turkey have also always been tense, constantlywars broke out. The territory between the border with Poland and Zaporozhye was not protected, and it was here that, in fact, the maritime border passed. In the event of a possible war, it was through this territory that the Turkish army could freely enter Russian lands, since passage through the Commonwe alth and Zaporozhye lands was not possible.
This fortress, which laid the foundation for the existence of Elisavetgrad, was of strategic importance for the Russian Empire for many reasons.
Building a fortress
The fortress was built quickly, but was never completed. By agreement with the head of the Serbian settlers, Ivan Horvat, Russia undertook to build an earthen fortress with the help of the labor of its subjects. By decision of the Senate, 2,000 left-bank Cossacks were to take part in the construction, but Hetman Razumovsky first allocated 500, then only 1,000 people. Soldiers of the regular troops and prisoners also worked.
The most difficult part of the construction of the fortress was the work of digging ditches and pouring ramparts as the main elements of the earthen fortress. In the very form of the ramparts, specific defensive structures were laid - ravelins and bastions. The depth of the ditches was more than 10 meters, the width was about 15 meters. Such structures had to be formed around the entire perimeter of the fortress. In parallel with the digging of ditches, ramparts were poured. All work was done by hand, as there was no special equipment at that time. The first 6 months of construction were spent solely on earthworks.
The main material for the construction of buildings was wood,which was delivered from the nearby Black Forest.
The interior of the fortress
Now let's talk about the inner structure of the fortress. As already mentioned, it was not completed. Why? The fact is that the Ottoman Port became interested in building a fortress a few hours drive from the border. This excitement can be understood, since the Turks had no idea about the purpose of the fortress. For example, it could be a stronghold of the Russian army for an attack on Turkey.
It is clear that the Porte banned the construction of the fortress in the future (Vezha magazine, No. 3, 1996, p. 221). The Russian ambassador in Constantinople said that the Sultan wanted to send Pasha Devlet Ali Sent Aga to study the general readiness of the fortress at the time of the ban. The first commandant, Glebov, was ordered to carry out camouflage in order to create the appearance of a cessation of construction work.
The Turkish envoy inspected the fortress and was pleased with the visit. Of course, construction work continued, but not at this pace.
The fortress garrison was armed with:
- 120 guns;
- 12 mortar;
- 6 falconets;
- 12 howitzers;
- 6 mortar;
- guns.
Mortar is an artillery device with a short barrel for mounted shooting. Designed to destroy strong defensive structures.
The howitzer was intended for firing at hidden targets. The falconet was used in the land and sea forces of the armies of the 16th-17th centuries. Caliber ranged from 45 to 100 mm(Soviet encyclopedic dictionary, articles 834, 1084, 279, 1401).
Cannons were transported to the fortress from Perevolochny, where they had been stored since the time of Peter the Great, when the marines were there, from Staraya Samara and Kamenka.
The garrison in peacetime was 2000 people, and in the military it was planned to increase the number of personnel to 3000-4000 people. The peacetime garrison structure is as follows:
- 2 battalions of an infantry regiment;
- grenadier company;
- 400 dragoons.
Over time, the standard garrison was increased by 500 dragoons and 70 hussars of the Moldavian regiment.
In various historical sources, we find rather contradictory data about the state of the fortress, its power. For example, in the regional journal of local lore "Vezha" for 1996, an excerpt from the report of the commandant of the fortress Yust from 1758 is given, which says that the fortress in its current state is unlikely to be able to give a decent rebuff to the enemy. According to Just, there were no gates, the ditch was poorly dug, that is, the Turkish troops could more or less calmly overcome it. It was argued that around the fortress it was necessary to increase the height of the glacis. In addition, the ditch is not raised enough in height, it is necessary to fill it up.
In 1762 Lieutenant Colonel Menzelius reported to the Senate, who was working on the construction of the fortress. According to him, the St. Elizabeth did not even deserve to be called a fortress, since it did not have any of the defensive and offensive structures: parapets, bridges, palisades. And those that were built in 1756 rotted andfell apart.
Note that other sources often give completely opposite information, that is, it is likely that such dispatches were partly sent to calm Turkey, that the fortress, in fact, is nothing. The palisades were indeed in poor condition, because the Senate allocated money in 1762 to modernize these fortifications.
According to the project, the fortress was a hexagonal polygon with bastion fronts 170 fathoms long. To strengthen the defense capability of the fortress, double flanks, ravelins in front of curtain walls, a covered path with bridgeheads, glacis were provided.
Ravelin is a triangular fortification in the fortresses in front of the moat between the bastions. It was used to place devices that covered sections of the fortress wall from artillery fire and enemy attacks.
Curtains are sections of rectangular fortifications that connected sections of two neighboring bastions facing each other.
Bastion is a pentagonal fortification in the form of a protrusion of the fortress wall for shelling the area in front of and along the fortress wall, ditches. It was also used as a separate independent fortification. The bastion was behind the rampart, as there was a palisade on the rampart. In the bastion, for the convenience of the soldiers, a recess was equipped - a parapet.
The territory of the fortress according to the plan is approximately 70 acres (5.7 hectares). The inner part was planned to be divided into 36 small blocks, located around a large square area.
In fact, the fortress was a military town. As you know, in 1755 the construction of the fortress was suspended due to a ban from the Porte, but at that time the defensive structures were almost completed. The planning of the fortress had to be changed, because after some time it was allowed to complete the construction of unfinished objects, and there was no question of building new ones. Only the main square (50x50 fathoms) has retained its design dimensions. 12 large and 4 small blocks were built around.
The presence of this fortress was strategically important for Russia. This section of the border was the least protected. In this aspect, we can highlight more reasons for the foundation of the fortification. Russia needed access to the Black Sea for the development of trade, that is, there was a need to establish trade relations with foreign partners. Goods for sale had to be brought to Poland or to the sea by convoys. The fortress was built, among other things, to protect convoys from attacks.
According to the famous local historian Konstantin Shlyakhovoy, the fortress of St. Elizabeth was practically impregnable. There were 2 lines of defense. The inner one was made up of earthen ramparts 14 meters high in the form of a regular polyhedron, there were 6 bastions on which a citadel with a palisade and cannons was installed. What is a citadel? This is a fortified central part of a city or a fortress, adapted for independent defense. In fact, the citadel and parapet are practically the same, since the location did not differ and there were guns.
The outer line of defense consisted of 6 ravelins connected to the citadels by specialdriveways. A glacis was poured in front of the ravelins. It should be noted that checkpoints functioned along the outer contours of the fortress.
If the enemy approached the glacis line, they would be caught in crossfire from parapets. From each bastion it was possible to fire on 2 sides - right and left, which greatly hindered the enemy. For crossfire, the embankment line was created broken.
In the 18th century, tax artillery already appeared, so they began to build earthen fortresses. The nuclei got stuck in the gentle shafts without destroying them. The presence of earth ramparts and ditches was the main feature of the fortification of the XVIII century.
The fortress received its first and only baptism of fire in 1769. Kerim-Girey approached the structures with his Tatar army, but did not take them by storm, because:
- saw the impregnability of the fortress;
- received information about the movement to help the 2nd Russian army, which was melted down along the Dnieper.
In the middle of the fortress were the following objects:
- arsenals;
- powder magazines;
- civilian and chief officer barracks and quarters;
- guardhouse;
- kitchen;
- food stores;
- garrison office;
- Collegiate Church of the Holy Trinity;
- commandant's house;
- artillery storehouse;
- battalion archive;
- commission by military court;
- coal shed;
- workshops;
- military orphanage school;
- houses for generals and brigadiers;
- infirmaries;
- gostiny dvor.
Administrative building withgovernment offices for the fortress was located on the central square. It was rectangular and surrounded on all sides by a gallery. In the middle of this house was a three-tiered tower with a dome.
The fortress could be entered using 3 gates:
- Trinity - near the bastion of St. Petra;
- All Saints - near the bastion of St. Alexandra;
- Predchistenskie - Ravelin St. John.
The external and internal lines of defense are clearly defined on the drawing of the fortress. There are ditches between these lines.
On the outer defensive line on the southwestern side is the ravelin of St. Natalia, from the southeast - St. Anna. On the eastern side of the fortress was the ravelin of St. Fedor, from the west - St. John. In the north-west of the fortress there was a ravelin of the Most Holy Caves, in the north-east - a ravelin of St. Nicholas.
The bastions are located in the inner line of defense of the fortress, as if in the gap between the ravelins. The location of these defensive structures of the earthen fortress was as follows:
- southeast - St. Katerina;
- south - St. Petra;
- southwest - St. Katerina;
- Northwest – St. Andrew the First-Called.
Total number of ravelins - 6 pieces, bastions - also 6. There were training grounds behind the outer line of defense.
In the process of searching for historical materials about the fortress of St. Elizabeth, there was an image of a fortress of a similar period from Canada - Citadel Hill (Halifax). We consider it necessary to comparefortress data.
Both structures are built in the shape of a star. It seems to us that the so-called corners of the fortress from Ukraine are sharper than those of the Canadian fortress. The outer line of defense is similar, but there are some cosmetic differences. In the Canadian fortress, these are mostly smooth, indirect lines, while at the fortress of St. Elizabeth, the lines are short, straight, and abruptly turn into one another.
There are no differences in the outer line of defense. The form is practically the same for both fortresses. Both there and there between the first and second defensive lines there are ditches. In both cases, the shape of the outer and inner defensive lines are different.
The similarity of the layout of the fortresses confirms the fact that both structures belong to the same historical period, when earthen-type defensive structures were more practical than stone and brick fortresses.
