The Moscow Kremlin is the center of Russia and the citadel of power. For more than 5 centuries, these walls have been reliably hiding state secrets and protecting their main carriers. The Kremlin is shown on Russian and world channels several times a day. This is a medieval, unlike anything fortress, has long been a symbol of Russia.
Only now the frames are provided to us mostly the same. The Kremlin is a strictly guarded acting residence of the president of our country. There are no trifles in security, which is why all Kremlin shootings are so strictly regulated. By the way, do not forget to visit the excursion to the Kremlin.
To see another Kremlin, try to imagine its towers without tents, limit the height to only a wide, non-tapering part, and you will immediately see a completely different Moscow Kremlin - a powerful, squat, medieval, European fortress.
This was built at the end of the 15th century on the site of the old white-stone Kremlin by the Italians - Pietro Fryazin, Anton Fryazin and Alois Fryazin. All of them received the same surname, although they were not relatives. "Fryazin" means a foreigner in Old Slavonic.
They built the fortress in accordance with all the latest achievements of fortification and military science of that time. Along the battlements of the walls there is a combat platform with a width of 2 to 4.5 meters.
Each prong has a loophole that can only be reached by standing on something else. The view from here is limited. The height of each prong is 2-2.5 meters, the distance between them during the battle was covered with wooden shields. In total, there are 1145 teeth on the walls of the Moscow Kremlin.
The Moscow Kremlin is a great fortress located near the Moskva River, in the heart of Russia - in Moscow. The citadel is equipped with 20 towers, each with its own unique look and 5 travel gates. The Kremlin is like a ray of light, carried through the rich history of the formation of Russia.
These ancient walls are witnesses of all those numerous events that happened to the state, starting from the moment of its construction. The fortress begins its journey in 1331, although the word "Kremlin" was mentioned earlier.
Moscow Kremlin, infographic. Source: www.culture.rf. For a closer view, open the image in a new browser tab.
Moscow Kremlin under different rulers
Moscow Kremlin under Ivan Kalita
In 1339-1340. The Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed Kalita (“money bag”), built an impressive oak citadel on Borovitsky Hill, with walls from 2 to 6 m thick and not less than 7 m high. Ivan Kalita made a powerful fortress with a menacing look, but it stood less three decades and burned down during a terrible fire in the summer of 1365.
Moscow Kremlin under Dmitry Donskoy
The tasks of defending Moscow urgently required the creation of a more reliable fortress: the Moscow principality was in danger from the Golden Horde, Lithuania and the rival Russian principalities - Tver and Ryazan. The then reigning 16-year-old grandson of Ivan Kalita Dmitry (aka Dmitry Donskoy) decided to build a stone fortress - the Kremlin.
The construction of the stone fortress began in 1367, and the stone was mined nearby, in the village of Myachkovo. The construction was completed in a short time - in just one year. Dmitry Donskoy made the Kremlin a white-stone fortress, which the enemies tried to storm more than once, but they could not.
What does the word "Kremlin" mean?
One of the first mentions of the word “kremlin” is in the Resurrection Chronicle in a message about a fire in 1331. According to historians, it could have arisen from the Old Russian word “kremnik”, which meant a fortress built of oak. According to another point of view, it is based on the word "Krom" or "Krom", which means a frontier, a border.
The first victory of the Moscow Kremlin
Almost immediately after the construction of the Moscow Kremlin, Moscow was besieged by the Lithuanian prince Olgerd in 1368, and then in 1370. The Lithuanians stood at the white stone walls for three days and three nights, but the fortifications turned out to be impregnable. This instilled confidence in the young Moscow ruler and allowed him to later challenge the powerful Golden Horde Khan Mamai.
In 1380, feeling reliable rear lines behind them, the Russian army, under the leadership of Prince Dmitry, ventured into a decisive operation. Having left their native city far to the south, to the upper reaches of the Don, they met with the army of Mamai and defeated him on the Kulikovo field.
So for the first time, chrome became a stronghold not only of the Moscow principality, but of all of Russia. And Dmitry received the nickname Donskoy. For 100 years after the Battle of Kulikovo, the white-stone citadel united the Russian lands, becoming the main center of Russia.
Moscow Kremlin under Ivan 3
The current dark red appearance of the Moscow Kremlin owes its birth to Prince Ivan III Vasilyevich. Started by him in 1485-1495. grandiose construction was not a simple reconstruction of the dilapidated defensive fortifications of Dmitry Donskoy. The red brick fortress comes to replace the white stone fortress.
Outside the towers were put forward in order to fire along the walls. To quickly move the defenders, a system of secret underground passages was created. Completing the system of impregnable defense, the Kremlin was generally made an island. On both sides, it already had natural barriers - the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers.
They also dug a moat from the third side, where Red Square is now, about 30-35 meters wide and 12 meters deep. Contemporaries called the Moscow Kremlin an outstanding military engineering structure. Moreover, the Kremlin is the only European fortress that has never been taken by storm.
The special role of the Moscow Kremlin as a new grand-ducal residence and the main fortress of the state determined the nature of its engineering and technical appearance. Built of red brick, it retained the features of the layout of the old Russian citadel, and in its outlines - the already established shape of an irregular triangle.
At the same time, the Italians made it extremely functional and very similar to many fortresses in Europe. What Muscovites came up with in the 17th century turned the Kremlin into a unique architectural monument. The Russians only built on stone tents, which turned the fortress into a light, skyward-looking structure, which has no equal in the world, and the corner towers took on the appearance that our ancestors knew that it was Russia that would send the first man into space.
Architects of the Moscow Kremlin
The curators of the construction were Italian architects. Memorial plaques installed on the Spasskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin testify that it was built in the "30th summer" of the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich. With the construction of the most powerful entrance front tower, the Grand Duke celebrated the anniversary of his state activity. In particular, Spasskaya and Borovitskaya were designed by Pietro Solari.
In 1485, under the leadership of Antonio Gilardi, a powerful Tainitskaya tower was built. In 1487, another Italian architect, Marco Ruffo, began to build Beklemishevskaya, and later Sviblova (Vodovzvodnaya) appeared on the opposite side. These three structures set the direction and rhythm for all subsequent construction.
The Italian origin of the main architects of the Moscow Kremlin is not accidental. At that time, it was Italy that came to the fore in the theory and practice of fortification construction. The design features testify to the acquaintance of its creators with the engineering ideas of such prominent representatives of the Italian Renaissance as Leonardo da Vinci, Leon Battista Alberti, Filippo Brunelleschi. In addition, it was the Italian architectural school that "gave" the Stalin skyscrapers in Moscow.
By the beginning of the 1490s, four more blind towers appeared (Annunciation, 1st and 2nd Unnamed and Petrovskaya). All of them, as a rule, repeated the line of the old fortifications. The work was carried out gradually, in such a way that there were no open areas in the fortress through which the enemy could suddenly attack.
In the 1490s, the construction was supervised by the Italian Pietro Solari (aka Pyotr Fryazin), with whom his compatriots Antonio Gilardi (aka Anton Fryazin) and Aloisio da Carcano (Aleviz Fryazin) worked. 1490-1495 The Moscow Kremlin was replenished with the following towers: Konstantin-Eleninskaya, Spasskaya, Nikolskaya, Senatskaya, Corner Arsenalnaya and Nabatnaya.
Secret passages in the Moscow Kremlin
In case of danger, the defenders of the Kremlin had the opportunity to quickly move through secret underground passages. In addition, internal passages were arranged in the walls, connecting all the towers. The defenders of the Kremlin could, therefore, concentrate, if necessary, on a dangerous sector of the front or retreat in the event of a preponderance of enemy forces.
Long underground tunnels were also dug, thanks to which it was possible to observe the enemy in the event of a siege, as well as to make unexpected attacks on the enemy. Several underground tunnels went beyond the Kremlin.
Some towers had not only a protective function. For example, Tainitskaya hid a secret passage from the fortress to the Moscow River. Wells were made in Beklemishevskaya, Vodovzvodnaya and Arsenalnaya, with the help of which it was possible to deliver water if the city was under siege. The well in Arsenalnaya has survived to this day.
Within two years, the Kolymazhnaya (Komendantskaya) and Granenaya (Middle Arsenalnaya) fortresses rose in a slender line, and in 1495 the construction of Troitskaya began. The construction was led by Aleviz Fryazin.
Chronology of events
| Of the year | Event |
| 1156 | The first wooden citadel was erected on Borovitsky Hill |
| 1238 | The troops of Batu Khan marched through Moscow, as a result, most of the buildings were burned. In 1293, the city was once again ravaged by the Mongol-Tatar troops of Duden |
| 1339-1340 | Ivan Kalita erected mighty oak walls around the Kremlin. From 2 to 6 m in thickness and up to 7 m in height |
| 1367-1368 | Dmitry Donskoy built a white stone fortress. The white-stone Kremlin shone for more than 100 years. Since that time, they began to call Moscow "white stone" |
| 1485-1495 | Ivan III the Great built a red brick citadel. The Moscow Kremlin is equipped with 17 towers, the height of the walls of which is 5-19 m, and the thickness is 3.5-6.5 m |
| 1534-1538 | A new ring of fortified defensive walls was built, called Kitay-gorod. From the south, the walls of Kitay-gorod adjoined the walls of the Kremlin at the Beklemishevskaya tower, from the north - to the Corner Arsenalnaya |
| 1586-1587 | Boris Godunov surrounded Moscow with two more rows of fortress walls, called the Tsar City, later the White City. They covered the territory between the modern central squares and the Boulevard Ring. |
| 1591 | Another ring of fortifications was built around Moscow, 14 versts long, covering the territory between the Boulevard and Garden rings. Construction was carried out within one year. The new fortress was named Skorodoma. So Moscow was taken into four rings of walls, which had a total of 120 towers. |
All towers of the Moscow Kremlin
In 1366-1367. By order of Dmitry, the capital was fortified with the first white-stone Kremlin in Russia. If its gates were hospitably opened for the khan's ambassadors (Dmitry preferred to buy them off with rich gifts), then for other neighbors and rival princes the Kremlin became a powerful defensive fortress. When in November 1367, on the Trosna River, the Lithuanian prince Olgerd, who was the son-in-law of the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, defeated the Moscow regiments. Dmitry Ivanovich said: “I won’t let you go to the great reign!” Indeed, the presence of the Kremlin became a reliable defense for the Moscow capital: in 1368, an attempt by Mikhail of Tverskoy to besiege the Kremlin and take it failed.
WHITE STONE FORTIFICATIONS OF THE MOSCOW KREMLIN 1367
In 1343, 1354, 1365, about once every 10 years, Moscow fell victim to terrible fires, during which, undoubtedly, the fortifications of the oak Kremlin of Kalita also burned out. Apparently, these fires were not "accidents", but sabotage organized by the enemies of Moscow. Therefore, the next year after the fire of 1365, at the beginning of the winter of 1366, “the great prince Dimitrey Ivanovich, having told fortunes with his brother, with the prince, with Volodimer Andreevich and with all the oldest boyars and having thought up the city of stone Moscow, . Toe the same winter brought the stone to Gordou. By the next spring, 1367, the stone reserves were sufficient to begin the construction of a white-stone fortress. Her bookmark caused fear and anger of the enemies of Moscow.
Construction was carried out with exceptional speed; the chronicle notes that after the laying of the kremlin "began to do without ceasing." Already by 1368 he was ready. The Lithuanian army could not take him: “Olgerd stood near the city for three days and three nights, the rest of the suburbs burned down, burned many churches and many monasteries and retreated from the hail, but did not take the castle of the Kremlin and go away.”
The area of the Kremlin has now expanded significantly in the north-east and east, capturing the territory of the market, which was located under the walls of the Kalita fortress, within the boundaries of the new walls. In general, the perimeter of the walls now almost coincided in plan with the walls of the Kremlin of Ivan III ... Data from written sources allow us to restore with relative accuracy both the contour of the walls and the location of the towers of the Kremlin in 1367. Let's consider these data, starting from the southeast corner and the eastern walls.
At the southeastern corner of the fortress there should have been a corner round tower that protected the southern section of the eastern wall and the approaches to the coastal low in front of the southern wall. This tower stood on the site of the Beklemishevskaya tower. "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev" names three travel towers of the eastern wall, through which the troops went to Kulikovo field: Konstantin-Eleninskaya, Frolovskaya (Spasskaya) and Nikolskaya.
The information about the Frolovsky Gates is just as accurate. During the siege of Moscow by Tokhtamysh, the famous cloth-maker Adam was located “above the gates above Frolovsky”. A century later, in a fire in 1488 at the Frolovsky Gate, “three bridges” burned down, that is, the wooden decks of the 3 tiers of the tower battle, which allows us to judge the structure and the high height of the tower that covered the gate. The story of the chronicle about the construction in 1491 of archers at the Frolovsky and Nikolsky gates notes that the last architect “not laid on the old basis”, which, consequently, the Frolovskaya tower became on the old basis of the tower of 1367.
Thus, the southern section of the eastern wall of the Kremlin in 1367 exactly coincides with the modern Kremlin wall, as well as 3 towers stand in their old places.
The new location of the Nikolsky Gates shows that the northern part of the "approach" wall of 1367 does not coincide with the existing one. Their place is easily and accurately determined by the indication of the chronicle that the Church of the Introduction, built in 1458 in the courtyard of the Simonov Monastery, was located “at the Nikolsky Gate” ...
Least of all is known about the western wall of the fortress in 1367. The existing wall facing Neglinnaya, begun construction in 1495, was erected "not according to the old foundation, - the city was added." Therefore, the annalistic records of the construction of this wall do not report anything about the wall of 1367 left aside and its towers. There are no casual mentions of the chronicler about her. The western front of the fortress was well covered by a wide marshy bed of the river. Neglinnaya, and the approach to the wall was difficult. It is possible that this large section of the wall up to the Borovitsky Gate did not have a tower. However, there is reason to believe that here, approximately at the site of the Trinity Gates, the wall of the fortress of 1367 was interrupted by a travel tower, which bore the name of the Rizpolozhensky or Bogoroditsky Gates, with a stone bridge across the Neglinnaya leading to the Novgorod Volotskaya road ...
Borovitskaya gate tower, the presence of which we assumed already in the fortress of the XII century. and the Kremlin of Kalita, in the fortress of 1367 was undoubtedly. In the record of the construction in 1461 of the Church of John the Baptist "on the forest" it is indicated that this tower stood "at the Borovit gates." The southwestern corner tower was built in 1488 “up along Moscow, where Sviblova’s archer stood”, which was the corner tower of the fortress in 1367. Thus, the southern wall of 1367, fixed by corner towers, coincides with the wall of the present Kremlin. The Tainitskaya tower of this wall, built in 1485 “at the Cheshkovy gates”, that is, on the site or near the Cheshkovy travel tower of 1367, which led to the water, to the Moskvoretsky “hem”, also coincides. We believe that the Moskvoretsk "ship shelter" under the walls of the fortress was covered by side walls that blocked access to this area in case of military danger.
This is how the plan of the fortress of 1367 is reconstructed. In this form, its perimeter was about 2000 m. The fortress undoubtedly had 8 towers, and maybe 9 towers (assuming the presence of one tower in the middle of the western wall). Of these, five were concentrated on the eastern "advance" wall. Such a concentration of towers on the most threatened front is a characteristic technique of military engineering in the 14th century. (cf., for example, Izborsk). However, it is highly interesting that three of the 5 towers are travel; all of them acted as gates even in conditions of extreme danger. During the heroic defense of Moscow from Tokhtamysh, the townspeople "stasha on all the gates of the city and on top with a stone shibahu." With all the combat power of the gate towers (three-tiered battles) and the presence of "iron (i.e., iron-bound) gates" in the towers, it is obvious that such a technique, which weakened the "assault" wall, was used deliberately, based on the active defense of the fortress, on tactics massive strikes against the enemy by simultaneously throwing significant military forces at three points. On the other hand, in peaceful conditions, these numerous “gates” of the capital of the Moscow principality, through which paths and roads led to the Kremlin, symbolized, as it were, the centralizing power and importance of Moscow, which gathered scattered Russian lands under its mighty hand.
One might think that, like other Russian fortresses built before the advent of firearms, the Moscow fortress of 1367 had relatively thin walls. Because of this, during frequent fires that destroyed the wooden ties of stone walls, the walls partially collapsed and were replaced by wooden ones. So, in the fire of 1445, which caused great destruction to the Kremlin, “the walls of the city fell in many places”, and during the raid of the Tatars by Tsarevich Mazovsha, the besiegers concentrated their efforts on those areas “where there is no stone fortress”. It is clear that after many wood embeddings, the Moscow fortress seemed to Ambrose Contarini to be “wooden”.
Apparently, the walls of 1367 were also relatively low. The description of the siege of the Kremlin by the troops of Tokhtamysh in the Yermolinskaya Chronicle notes that the Tatars managed to knock down its defenders from the walls "I still have a city even then". This evidence should be understood not as an indication of the unfinished construction of 1367 as early as 1382, but as an explanation made by the scribe of the chronicle list, who compared at the end of the 15th century. old fortress walls with walls “renovated” by Yermolin in 1462, and the walls of the new Kremlin, the construction of which began in 1485 from the archery at the Cheshkov Gate, reaching a height of 12-13 m.
The nature of the completion of the walls is not entirely clear. Sources speak of wooden parts at the top of the walls (during the fire of 1445, “not a single wood remained on the hail”) and wall “fences”, that is, like wooden parapets that walked along the top of the walls. One might think that the latter term should be attributed to the poetic language of the author of Zadonshchina, and not to the real wall of the Moscow Kremlin. Most likely, its walls had a serrated top, which is known, for example, from the Porokhovskaya fortress. Undoubtedly, the combat move was covered by the “roof of the city”. The towers also had a crenellated top and wooden hipped roofs.
The Moscow Kremlin is probably the most grandiose building in the Russian capital. Having started its life path as a “city fortress” common for Slavic settlements, the Kremlin in Moscow has turned into a unique architectural object. As 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 habitual appearance of the Kremlin is characterized by red brick walls. But even 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 on the canvases of famous Russian artists - for example, in Vereshchagin's 1879 painting.
But why, in fact, white stone? White stone in medieval Russia was of particular importance. Buildings made of this material could decorate only 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. Recall 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, the attacks of the Lithuanians and other disasters. Principalities were born and died, separated and absorbed by stronger neighbors. And so the "owners" of Moscow decided to leave 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 rest of the principalities.
Gradually, Moscow got its way. In the middle of the XIV 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 begins 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. Prior to this, the Kremlin fortifications were wooden, as well as 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 Moskva River - in the summer on ships, and in the winter on sledges. The main construction was carried out in winter - from 1367 to 1368. Such an inconvenient time for construction was dictated by haste: the city had to be urgently strengthened, since the former wooden fortifications burned down as a result of a fire. Despite the haste, the grandiose architectural ensemble was built thoroughly; some of its parts - like, for example, the foundation - are still functioning.
The efficiency of Dmitry Donskoy was soon justified: in 1382, the army of Khan Tokhtamysh attacked Moscow. 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 on this spot?
The location of the Moscow Kremlin was not chosen by chance. This high hill offers an excellent view of the surroundings, which allows you to notice the enemy in a timely manner, no matter from which side he approaches. And the hill itself was surrounded by rivers - Moscow and Neglinnaya; these rivers and the high hill were in themselves good natural fortifications.
For comparison, the Prague Castle was built in the same way - on a large hill. The word "city" is the Czech equivalent of the Russian term "Kremlin".
Brick Kremlin
No matter how strong the white stone was, however, it gradually began to deteriorate. Chronicles of the mid-15th century mention collapses. Under Ivan III, the Kremlin buildings began to be restored. The merchant V. D. Yermolin also participated in this - at that time he was actually the chief architect of the capital (and at the same time the chief 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 the walls and other structures of the Kremlin from bricks. It was they who popularized the brick in the Muscovite state, which had not been in great demand before.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Everyone has already heard that the Kremlin was white. Many articles have already been written about this, but people still manage to argue. But when did they start whitening it, and when did they stop? On this issue, statements in all articles diverge, as well as thoughts in people's heads. Some write that they began to whitewash in the 18th century, others that as early as the beginning of the 17th century, others are trying to provide evidence that the Kremlin walls were not whitewashed at all. Everywhere the phrase is replicated that the Kremlin was white until 1947, and then suddenly Stalin ordered it to be repainted red. Was it so? Let's finally dot all the and, since there are enough sources, both picturesque and photographic.
Dealing with the color of the Kremlin: red, white, when and why —>
So, the current Kremlin was built by the Italians at the end of the 15th century, and, of course, they did not whitewash it. The fortress retained the natural color of red brick, there are several similar ones in Italy, the closest analogue is the Sforza Castle in Milan. Yes, and whitewashing fortifications in those days was dangerous: when a cannonball hits a wall, the brick is damaged, the whitewash crumbles, and a vulnerable spot is clearly visible where you should aim again to destroy the wall as soon as possible.
So, one of the first images of the Kremlin, where its color is clearly visible, is the icon of Simon Ushakov “Praise to the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. The tree of the Russian state. It was written in 1668, and the Kremlin is red here.
For the first time, in written sources, the whitewashing of the Kremlin was mentioned in 1680.
The historian Bartenev, in the book “The Moscow Kremlin in Antiquity and Now” writes: “In a memorandum filed on July 7, 1680 in the name of the Tsar, it is said that the Kremlin’s fortifications were “not whitewashed”, and the Spassky Gates “were registered in black and white in brick". The note asked: whitewash the walls of the Kremlin, leave them as they are, or paint them “in brick” like the Spassky Gates? The Tsar ordered the Kremlin to be whitewashed with lime…”
So, at least since the 1680s, our main fortress has been whitewashed.
1766. Painting by P. Balabin after the engraving by M. Makhaev. The Kremlin is clearly white here.
1797, Gerard Delabart.
1819, artist Maxim Vorobyov.
In 1826, the French writer and playwright François Anselot came to Moscow, he described the white Kremlin in his memoirs: “On this we will leave the Kremlin, my dear Xavier; but, looking again at this ancient citadel, we will regret that, while repairing the destruction caused by the explosion, the builders removed from the walls the centuries-old patina that gave them so much grandeur. The white paint that hides the cracks gives the Kremlin an air of youth that does not match its shape and erases its past.”
1830s, artist Rauch.
1842, Lerebour's daguerreotype, the first documentary depiction of the Kremlin.
1850, Joseph Andreas Weiss.
1852, one of the very first photographs of Moscow, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior is under construction, and the walls of the Kremlin are whitewashed.
1856, preparations for the coronation of Alexander II. For this event, the whitewashing was updated in places, the structures on the Vodovzvodnaya Tower were a frame for illumination.
The same 1856, view in the opposite direction, closest to us is the Taynitskaya tower with an archer overlooking the embankment.
Photo from 1860.
Photo from 1866.
1866-67.
1879, artist Pyotr Vereshchagin.
1880, painting by the English school of painting. The Kremlin is still white. From all previous images, we conclude that the Kremlin wall along the river was whitewashed in the 18th century, and remained white until the 1880s.
1880s, Konstantin-Eleninskaya tower of the Kremlin from the inside. The whitewash is gradually crumbling, and exposes the red-brick walls.
1884, wall along the Alexander Garden. The whitewash was crumbling badly, only the teeth were renewed.
1897, artist Nesterov. The walls are already closer to red than to white.
1909, peeling walls with remains of whitewash.
The same 1909, whitewash is still holding up well on the Vodovzvodnaya Tower. Most likely it was whitewashed for the last time later than the rest of the walls. It is clear from several previous photographs that the walls and most of the towers were last whitewashed in the 1880s.
1911 Grotto in the Alexander Garden and the Middle Arsenal Tower.
1911, artist Yuon. In reality, the walls were, of course, of a dirtier shade, the stains from whitewashing were more pronounced than in the picture, but the overall gamut was already red.
1914, Konstantin Korovin.
The motley and shabby Kremlin in a photograph of the 1920s.
And on the Vodovzvodnaya Tower, the whitewash was still holding on, mid-1930s.
Late 1940s, the Kremlin after restoration for the 800th anniversary of Moscow. Here the tower is already clearly red, with white details.
And two more color photographs from the 1950s. Somewhere they touched up, somewhere they left peeling walls. There was no total repainting in red.
1950s These two photos are taken from here: http://humus.livejournal.com/4115131.html
Spasskaya Tower
But on the other hand, everything was not so simple. Some towers are out of the general chronology of whitewashing.
1778, Red Square by Friedrich Hilferding. The Spasskaya Tower is red with white details, but the walls of the Kremlin are whitewashed.
1801, watercolor by Fyodor Alekseev. Even with all the diversity of the picturesque range, it is clear that the Spasskaya Tower was still whitewashed at the end of the 18th century.
And after the fire of 1812, the red color was returned again. This is a painting by English masters, 1823. The walls are always white.
1855, artist Shukhvostov. If you look closely, you can see that the colors of the wall and the tower are different, the tower is darker and redder.
View of the Kremlin from Zamoskvorechye, painting by an unknown artist, mid-19th century. Here the Spasskaya Tower is again whitewashed, most likely for the celebrations on the occasion of the coronation of Alexander II in 1856.
Photo from the early 1860s. The tower is white.
Another photo from the early to mid-1860s. The whitewashing of the tower is crumbling here and there.
Late 1860s. And then suddenly the tower was painted red again.
1870s The tower is red.
1880s. The red paint is peeling off, in some places you can see the newly painted places, patches. After 1856, the Spasskaya Tower was never whitewashed again.
Nikolskaya tower
1780s, Friedrich Hilferding. The Nikolskaya tower is still without a Gothic top, it is decorated with early classical decor, red, with white details. In 1806-07, the tower was built on, in 1812 it was blown up by the French, almost half destroyed, and restored already at the end of the 1810s.
1823, brand new Nikolskaya tower after restoration, red.
1883, white tower. Perhaps they whitened it together with Spasskaya, for the coronation of Alexander II. And they updated the whitewash for the coronation of Alexander III in 1883.
1912 The White Tower remained until the revolution.
1925 The tower is already red with white details. It became red as a result of the restoration in 1918, after revolutionary damage.
Trinity Tower
1860s. The tower is white.
On the watercolor of the English school of painting in 1880, the tower is gray, this color is given by the spoiled whitewash.
And in 1883 the tower was already red. Painted or cleaned of whitewash, most likely for the coronation of Alexander III.
Let's summarize. According to documentary sources, the Kremlin was first whitewashed in 1680, in the 18th and 19th centuries it was white, with the exception of the Spasskaya, Nikolskaya and Trinity towers in certain periods. The walls were last whitewashed in the early 1880s, at the beginning of the 20th century the whitewashing was renewed only on the Nikolskaya tower, possibly also on Vodovzvodnaya. Since then, the whitewash has gradually crumbled and washed off, and by 1947 the Kremlin naturally adopted an ideologically correct red color, in some places it was tinted during restoration.
Kremlin walls today
photo: Ilya Varlamov
Today, in some places, the Kremlin retains the natural color of red brick, perhaps with a slight tint. These are bricks of the 19th century, the result of another restoration.
Wall from the river. Here you can clearly see that the bricks are painted red. Photo from Ilya Varlamov's blog
All old photos, unless otherwise noted, are taken from https://pastvu.com/
Alexander Ivanov worked on the publication.
The expression "white-stone Kremlin" is familiar to all of us from childhood, although all our lives we have seen it red-brick. The question in the title came to my mind when I learned that the contours of the Kremlin, built by Dmitry Donskoy, largely coincide with modern ones. According to the generally accepted dating, stone fortifications were erected in 1368, and after 120 years they were replaced with brick ones. What for? It looks strange. So the artist Apolinary Vasnetsov represented the Kremlin of Dmitry Donskoy.
There is such a radical point of view that the expression "white-stone Kremlin" was born much later due to the fact that brick walls began to be whitewashed. There is a lot of evidence of this in the form of artistic canvases of the 18th and 19th centuries. I will cite only a few, the most obvious. Here is a picture of K.I. Rabus. Although written in 1846, it is based on earlier drawings and reflects the realities of the early 17th century.
Painting by J. Delabart (1797) 
And the famous work of P.P. Vereshchagin (1879) 
Some even believe that there was no white-stone Kremlin, especially since archaeologists have not yet found any remains.
What do the sources say? In the Nikon chronicle it is written: "In the summer of 6875 (1367) ... the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich laid the foundation stone for the city of Moscow and began to do it without ceasing."
It can be assumed that by 1368 the new Kremlin was ready, if, according to the chronicles, the Lithuanian army of Olgerd could not take it in 1368 and in November 1370. Truth. in 1382, shortly after the Battle of Kulikovo, it was taken by the troops of Tokhtamysh. In 1408, Khan Yedigey stood near Moscow for twenty days without any result. Thirty years later, Moscow was unsuccessfully besieged by Khan Ulu-Mukhamed. In 1451, Prince Mazovsha tried to attack the walls of the Kremlin. True, these are all indirect evidence of the existence of the stone Kremlin. On the other hand, the Venetian ambassador Contarini, who stayed in Moscow in 1476 during his journey from Persia to Venice, mentioned in his notes that “the city of Muscovy is located on a small hill; it is all wooden, both the castle and the rest of the city.
In this matter, it would be useful to turn to the history of stone construction in Russia. All researchers unanimously call the Tithes Church in Kyiv the first non-wooden building, which was built in the first years after the Baptism of Kievan Rus on the site of the death of Christians torn to pieces by a crowd of pagans and consecrated in 996. The name came from the obligation of Prince Vladimir to deduct a tenth of the income for the maintenance of the church (it was in this temple that St. Vladimir was originally buried). Below is a reconstruction. 
The Church of the Tithes was built by invited Byzantine craftsmen using the then most popular technology using plinths. Plinfa is a special brick, which usually had a rectangular shape and a relatively small thickness. Such bricks were easily molded, dried and fired. They were built from them using a thick layer of mortar, often equal in thickness to the plinth itself, which is why the wall of the temple became “striped”. 
All the first stone temples (and a small number of residential buildings) were built using this technology or in mixed media - "opus mixtum". You can give an example of the St. Sophia Church in Kyiv - parts of the wall were cleared of plaster to show the plinth layer. 
But in Vladimir-Volynsky, the Assumption Cathedral still stands without plaster, which was typical of the "Romanesque" style. 
In this technology, the mortar was the key, which formed the supporting basis of the building, and the plinth, in essence, played the role of formwork. Therefore, the composition of the solution was the greatest secret (each master had his own secrets). And it is not known whether these secrets were transferred by the Byzantines to the Russians. However, as early as the 12th century, construction of “white stone” (limestone) began, first in the Galician principality, then in Vladimir-Suzdal. Almost nothing remained of the Galician buildings, but in northwestern Russia many survived. An example is the well-known Temple of the Intercession on the Nerl. 
In Moscow, a temple was built in this technique in the Spaso-Andronnikov Monastery. 
Why only in Galicia and Vladimir-Suzdal - it is clear: there were corresponding deposits (large quarries are still preserved in the Domodedovo district of the Moscow region). And why, in principle, is not clear. White stone construction was several times more expensive. There is no understanding about this. The main version is an imitation of Western Europe, where cut blocks of sandstone and limestone have been used for construction since the 11th century. Maybe Byzantine technologies were lost?
In any case, in 1367-68. Prince Dmitry was doing something in the Kremlin. Stone, its processing technologies and construction experience were. However, the scale is confusing. All white-stone churches of the pre-Mongolian period were small. And here in two years, but under the yoke of such a heap! Now most historians believe that only the towers and part of the wall in the most dangerous direction (from the side of Red Square) were made of stone. In favor of this assumption, the words of the chronicle are cited that the Tatars of Mazovshy in 1451 stormed the Kremlin where "there are no stone fortresses." And it seems to me that it was built so-so, not “for centuries”. In this regard, let us recall that Aristotle Fioravanti was also hired by Vasily III in 1474 to rebuild the Assumption Cathedral (it collapsed unfinished by the masters Myshkin and Krivtsov). To do this, Aristotle launched the first production of bricks of the modern type on the Yauza, near the Andronnikov Monastery. He built the Assumption Cathedral using both stone and brick. 
And starting from 1485, for a whole decade, under the guidance of now unknown Italian architects, new walls and towers of the Kremlin were erected from baked bricks.
