Moscow without people in 1867. Where are all the people?

Moscow without people in 1867. Where are all the people?
Moscow without people in 1867. Where are all the people?

Moscow, Russia. The year is 1867. When I saw these photographs, and it is worth noting that the quality of these panoramic images shocked me, to put it mildly, taking into account the date when they were taken - 1867, the first thing I noticed is that there are no people in Moscow.

According to the information indicated in the old photographs, they were taken in 1867 from the roof of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Panorama of Moscow in 1867 and 2017 from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior

You can even compare the panorama of 1867 and the same one taken in 2017.

To view 3D panorama 360 °, click here

Now I will not go into architectural differences, the level of filling the river with water and other trifles, the main thing - where is the entire population of Moscow in 1867? In 2017 it is there and people are clearly visible in the pictures, but in 1867 the city is empty.

Moscow in 1867 is a city ready for settlement, like the "ghost towns" that can now be seen in large quantities in China.

A city without people in China

Let's start with whoever took these pictures in 1867:

“In the last quarter of the 19th century, the well-known Moscow businessman N. A. Naidenov published 14 albums containing 680 photographs of Moscow.

The fifth issue reproduces a circular panorama of the city. "Photographic panorama" was taken from the bypass gallery of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior under construction in 1867. The expensive shooting was made by the best company of those times “Scherer. Nabgolts and Co. in Moscow ", which is the supplier of the imperial court.

This is the most integral picture of Moscow, the 40-meter height of the gallery provided an almost complete overview of the then city, excluding only the northern and northeastern outskirts. The buildings of the quarters in the foreground are especially clearly visible.

Moscow in 1867 is mainly a two-three-storey city, bounded by the outposts of the Kamer-Kollezhsky Val (in the panorama on the map below), the memory of which is preserved in the modern names of the squares adjacent to these outposts.

The panorama is almost 7 meters long and consists of 16 sheets and is exceptionally clear. Even at a distance of several kilometers, large buildings are clearly visible.

This is the most ambitious panorama of Moscow for those years, which made it possible to convey to this day the unique look of the city of that time"

Let's see how the population of Moscow changed over the years, unfortunately I did not find data for 1867, but the picture is as follows:

19th century

In 1811 the population of Moscow was about 300 thousand people.

By 1812, the population of Moscow was about 200 thousand people

In 1813 the population of Moscow was 215 thousand people

In 1825 the population of Moscow was 241.6 thousand people.

In 1840 the population of Moscow was 349, 1 thousand people.

In 1852 the population of Moscow was 373, 8 thousand people.

In 1858 the population of Moscow was 336, 4 thousand people.

In 1862 the population of Moscow was 500 thousand people

In 1864, 364 thousand Muscovites lived within the city limits

In 1871 the population of Moscow was 602 thousand people

In 1882 the population of Moscow was 753 thousand people.

In 1897, the population of Moscow was 1,039 thousand people.

The entry of the French into Moscow

An interesting "Moscow" in an old engraving, don't you find it?

The picture is, to put it mildly, strange, given that Napoleon allegedly burned Moscow to the ground in 1812:

The Moscow fire of 1812 occurred on September 14-18 (September 2-6, O. S.) during the occupation of Moscow by Napoleon I's troops.

“On September 13 (September 1, O. S.), 1812, at a military council in Fili, Mikhail Kutuzov ordered to leave Moscow without a fight. Together with the troops, most of the population left the city. On the very first day of the entry of French troops into Moscow, fires began, which continued for several days and devastated the city."

According to the certificate, in 1811, about 300 thousand people lived in Moscow, after the war of 1812, 300 thousand people already live in Moscow, burnt to the ground. The question arises - where did they actually live? After the fire, even the indigenous 200,000 had practically nowhere to live, and the population grew by 100,000. Maybe the fire wasn't that big?

Let's read:

“The first to catch fire were the mosquito and hardware rows, buildings behind the Yauzsky bridge and on Solyanka, around the Orphanage, shops, shops, a wine yard, barges with the property of the artillery and commissariat departments.

Gradually, the fire spread to all of Zamoskvorechye, Pyatnitskaya, Serpukhov and Yakimanskaya parts, spread across the Moscow river to the Yauzskaya and Taganskaya parts, covered several streets of the Prechistenskaya part, and invaded the German settlement. On the night of September 18-19 (6-7 O. S.), the fire reached its greatest strength. In the future, the fire died down, but in some places its new centers appeared, burning until the French army left Moscow.

Fire destroyed 6532 out of 9158 residential buildings, 7153 out of 8521 shops, 122 out of 329 churches. Kitay-Gorod and Earthen City suffered more than others."

Despite all this, the population of Moscow not only did not decrease, but somehow an additional 100,000 residents were able to live somewhere. There are so many historical blunders and inconsistencies in the "war with Napoleon" that it is necessary to speak about it separately.

"In unity, strength: the providence of God the firmness of the monarch love for the homeland of the people

I will only touch on this topic briefly for a general understanding:

If you start to study this topic from historical sources, then the picture turns out to be very unusual and it indicates that the French invasion of Russia played out according to a different scenario. The one where Tsar Alexander I and Napoleon were on the same side. Together they fought against Tartary. In fact, France and St. Petersburg are against Moscow (Tartary). And there is strong circumstantial evidence to support such a theory.

St. Petersburg was the capital of Russia. And yet Napoleon decided to attack Moscow. Why?

2. It turns out that in 1912 there were completely different memories of the events of 1812. How else can you explain the commemorative medals of 1912 in honor of Napoleon?

Namely, with Alexander I and Napoleon on the same medal. The above medal says: "There is strength in unity: the providence of God, the firmness of the monarch, love for the homeland of the people." It's like after the Great Patriotic War, to issue a medal on which Stalin and Hitler will be together and the inscription on the medal is the same. This is nonsense.

3. The similarity of the Russian and French uniforms. They were ridiculously similar. How did they generally fight each other not only during the day, but also at night?

In the war of 1812, another military weapon was officially available to the Russians. And it was the militia. It appears that this so-called militia was actually a Tartar army fighting against Napoleon and Alexander I.

4. The Russian nobility in St. Petersburg spoke French well in the second half of the 19th century. The general explanation was that this was the trend of the times and fashion. Following the same logic, the United States, Britain and Russia should have picked up German after the victory in World War II.

5. And more wonderful … the 19th century elite was completely delighted with the novel by Napoleon and Alexander.

An owl and a griffin were depicted on the flag and coat of arms of Tartary. There have been many publications listing the country of Tartary and its flag / coat of arms. Some of these publications came out in 1865.

It is also worth mentioning that the 1783 Table of British Flags has three different flags listed as the flag of the Tsar of Moscow. There is also the Imperial Russian flag, as well as several naval flags. And all of them are accompanied by the flag of the Governor of Russia.

The meaning of the viceroy lies in the definition of this term. A viceroy is a royal official who rules over a country, colony, city, province, or sub-nation state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the territory. Our official history will probably say that it was the Tsar of Russia who appointed the governor of Moscow. But, there is reason to doubt this.

Why does the flag of the Governor of Moscow stand in front of any other Russian flag? Perhaps the governor of Moscow was above his tsar and “watched” how the Tartar possessions were ruled?

The world map, created by German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller and dated to 1507, is housed in the Geography and Maps Division of the Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA.

Now back to the population of Moscow:

In 1862 the population of Moscow was 500 thousand people

In 1864, 364 thousand Muscovites lived within the city limits

In 1871 the population of Moscow was 602 thousand people

Between 1862 and 1864, in just two years, 136 thousand people evaporated somewhere, then in 1871, after 7 years, 238 thousand more people already live in it.

All these 238 newly arrived residents had to live somewhere, not to mention the fact that these incomprehensible jumps in the number of Muscovites are perplexing.

In the panorama of 1867, the city is completely empty and there are no inhabitants in it. This is a city that someone has almost finished building and is almost ready to be populated by people.

Let's look at the photo:

Where are all the people?

In 1864, 364 thousand Muscovites lived within the city limits

In 1871 the population of Moscow was 602 thousand people

Where are these hundreds of thousands of people in 1867? Where are the carts, carts, horses, carts, merchants, residents, cats and dogs, women and children, men and gentlemen, soldiers and officers, where are they all?

There are no people in the pictures, nor a hint of their presence. There is not even smoke from any of the numerous chimneys on the roofs. No one fires a fireplace, a stove, does not bake bread, does not cook food, factories and factories do not work - the city is completely dead.

I know that I will be objected to this - the shutter speed was too slow, and therefore no object that moved was displayed, or only in the form of blur.

I know that, I am good at photography. In the pictures you can find the silhouettes of several carts, only silhouettes without an exact shape, horses, etc. Suppose these three carts were moving all over Moscow, and where are the other tens of thousands of carts. carts, carriages, not only moving, but also standing motionless throughout the city?

You can see several people standing on the dam and one who walks along the dry river bed under the dam, you can distinguish several silhouettes in the city in different places, but where are all the other hundreds of thousands of people? A city where hundreds of thousands of people live cannot look like this. Where are they all?

I found only three signs for the whole city. In Moscow, filled with shopping malls, hundreds of different banks and shops, institutions and theaters, only three signs? It seems that when this panorama was taken, the city was being completed in terms of buildings, in the pictures you can see several buildings that do not yet have roofs, but the signs are not yet ready, etc.

Let in this ghost town in the photo we count a hundred silhouettes of "people and carts", where are all the other hundreds of thousands of people and carts? There are always many people near the water during the day, do you see thousands or at least hundreds of people near the water in the foreground?

Here are the same pictures in a different resolution (higher):

Where are the people, carts, carts, carriages, boats, barges, where is everything that makes a big city alive? There is nothing. This is a large ghost town.


Let me say a few words about photography and excerpts. When we see these ghostly images of people on the bridge in the foreground, it is somewhat logical to think that all photographs in the distance may have ghostly images of people, but we will not be able to distinguish between them. In fact, it is the opposite of reality.

Ghost images are created by movement in relation to the camera lens. Thus, a pedestrian who is closer to the camera will move a greater distance while the shutter is open than a pedestrian who is farther in the camera's field of view.

Thus, moving objects farther away will move less from the camera's point of view and will be firmer and more visible.

If we take as a basis the magnified image # 2 and suppose that the camera shutter remains open for half a second, then the pedestrians in the foreground of the bridge will move a couple of millimeters across the screen during this time. However, a pedestrian who is 200 meters away along the road will only move a fraction of a millimeter across our screen in half a second, so they will be much clearer in the image. If they were moving towards us or away from us, their apparent movement would be even less, and they would be clear again.

Thus, in addition to the possibility of a rapidly moving object that is nearby, we see what is there.


There is no one there.

Popular by topic