{"title":"Plans for the Construction of Russian Forts in the Western Sayan Mountains and the Second Krasnoyarsk “Rebellion” (“Shatost”) (1718–1720)","authors":"S. Skobelev","doi":"10.25205/1818-7919-2023-22-1-57-63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" The history of the construction of Russian fortresses (ostrog) in Siberia offers many examples, of when due to various circumstances their rapid and full-fledged building, as well as effective use failed. This is also relevant for the time of construction of new fortification facilities in the basin of the Middle and Upper Yenisei during the exploration of these territories. As a result of the conflict (“rebellion”, “shatost”) between the local administration of the Krasnoyarsk district and the garrison the latter delayed or even refused to build fortresses. The article is aimed to identify and chara terize the facts related to these phenomena. It considers the case, when, because of the actions and decisions of the all-Siberian and local administrations in a conflict with the garrison and the population of the Krasnoyarsk ostrog and the district in 1718–1720, the construction of the fort beyond the Sayan (modern Tuva), on the territory that was in the actual possessions of the Mongol khans, who were subjects of the Qing empire, was terminated. These events, rarely being in the focus of research, were called the second Krasnoyarsk “rebellion”. The article identifies and characterizes the circumstances related to it, assess their influence on decisions toward the construction of new forts, analyzes the activities of the central and local administrations to overcome such crisis situations, highlights the consequences of these actions, etc. It concludes by discussing some of the quality and features of the defense policy, regarding defense infrastructure in particular, in Siberia at the beginning of the 18th century.","PeriodicalId":36462,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Novosibirskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Novosibirskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2023-22-1-57-63","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The history of the construction of Russian fortresses (ostrog) in Siberia offers many examples, of when due to various circumstances their rapid and full-fledged building, as well as effective use failed. This is also relevant for the time of construction of new fortification facilities in the basin of the Middle and Upper Yenisei during the exploration of these territories. As a result of the conflict (“rebellion”, “shatost”) between the local administration of the Krasnoyarsk district and the garrison the latter delayed or even refused to build fortresses. The article is aimed to identify and chara terize the facts related to these phenomena. It considers the case, when, because of the actions and decisions of the all-Siberian and local administrations in a conflict with the garrison and the population of the Krasnoyarsk ostrog and the district in 1718–1720, the construction of the fort beyond the Sayan (modern Tuva), on the territory that was in the actual possessions of the Mongol khans, who were subjects of the Qing empire, was terminated. These events, rarely being in the focus of research, were called the second Krasnoyarsk “rebellion”. The article identifies and characterizes the circumstances related to it, assess their influence on decisions toward the construction of new forts, analyzes the activities of the central and local administrations to overcome such crisis situations, highlights the consequences of these actions, etc. It concludes by discussing some of the quality and features of the defense policy, regarding defense infrastructure in particular, in Siberia at the beginning of the 18th century.