Arkhangelsk is the center of military shipbuilding in the North of Russia (1690s – 1862) in Russian historiography

Alekseev Timofei Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0002-0809-2400 Doctor of History Professor, Department of History and Philosophy, A. F. Mozhaysky's Military-Space Academy is a Military Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation 197198, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Zhdanovskaya str., 13 timofey1967@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Belenovich Oleg Veniaminovich lecturer; Department of Military and Political Work in the military (forces); Military Space Academy named after A.F. Mozhaisky 197198, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Zhdanovskaya St., 13 timofey1967@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The history of naval shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk has long been the subject of research. In addition to special works on this issue, stories about it can be found in works on the history of the Russian Navy, the socio-economic history of Arkhangelsk and the Arkhangelsk region, the history of northern navigation, as well as in works on the history of Russia during the reign of Peter I. The issue of the beginning of marine shipbuilding, both military and commercial, which is not coincidentally associated with Arkhangelsk, has aroused and continues to arouse great interest among researchers. However, there are still no clear answers to all the questions.

Of the historiographical studies on the problem of the development of military shipbuilding in the North of Russia, and, in particular, in Arkhangelsk, one can note only the historiographical review in the monograph by V.A. Palmin ^{[1, pp. 4-24]}. However, it cannot be considered exhaustive, and since its writing, a number of new publications have been published that require reflection and linking with other works in the context of studying various aspects of the problem.

Despite the variety of works available, the topic of military shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk can hardly be considered exhausted. The existing differences in the positions of researchers on a number of key issues require further efforts to compare these positions, to find the most reasonable conclusions using the historiographical potential of already written works. This position is set by the authors as the purpose of this study. At the same time, various aspects of the functioning of the military shipbuilding center in Arkhangelsk at various stages of its history will be considered, such as its emergence and formation, the development of production infrastructure, logistical and personnel support, the state and improvement of the organization of production activities and its management.

As for the periodization of Arkhangelsk military shipbuilding, there were various versions of it in historiography. The first of them was proposed by S.F. Ogorodnikov, who identified the following stages: 1693-1732 – the Peter the Great era; 1733-1799 – the resumption of naval shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk; 1800-1825 - the reform of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty in connection with the reform of the management system of the Navy as a whole; 1826-1862 – the beginning of steam shipbuilding and the gradual decline of activity shipyards ^{[2, p. V]}. V.A. Palmin linked certain periods in the history of shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk with the implementation of shipbuilding programs adopted by each new monarch on the Russian throne. In this regard, he highlighted: The "Petrovsky period" (1693-1725), the periods of the reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740), Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761), Catherine II (1762-1796), Alexander I (1801-1825), Nicholas I (1825-1855) and the final period of 1855-1862, which fell during the reign of Alexander II ^{[1, p. 104]}.

In the course of our research, another periodization option is proposed. First of all, there is no doubt about the first period, which can be called Peter's period – 1693-1732. The second period began with the establishment of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty in 1733 and lasted until the beginning of the 19th century. Finally, the third period covered 1801-1862.

However, before considering these periods, it is necessary to say a few words about the prerequisites for the emergence of a military shipbuilding center in the North of Russia.

Prerequisites for the establishment of the Admiralty in Arkhangelsk. The vast majority of authors who raised this issue cited as such prerequisites the long-standing tradition of shipbuilding on the coast of the White Sea and the Severnaya Dvina River, as well as the presence in this region of large stocks of timber for shipbuilding ^{[3, p. 28]}. At the same time, the beginning of the shipbuilding tradition referred to the time of the appearance of Novgorodians in the region ^{[4, p. 74]}, and the motivating motives were considered to be the features of the economic structure in this area arising from the geographical location and climatic conditions ^{[4, p. 73]}. The authors of the Soviet period considered as prerequisites the voyages of Russian embassies from the mouth of the Northern Dvina to Western Europe, which had been practiced since the end of the XV century, the presence of a shipyard at the Solovetsky Monastery (since 1548), an attempt to build a shipyard on the island of Solombale under Tsar Boris Godunov in 1602 ^{[5, p. 5; 6, p. 84]}

V.A. Palmin took the widest possible approach to identifying the prerequisites and circumstances that contributed to the emergence of military shipbuilding in the North of Russia. At the same time, he considered the prerequisites of both an objective and a subjective nature, which primarily concerned the personality of Tsar Peter I. Among the first, the author named: the uniqueness of Arkhangelsk from the point of view that it was Russia's only outlet to the seas by the time Peter the Great began his active work ^{[7, p. 13]}; the convenience of the city's location in terms of proximity to the sea and at the same time safety from the elements ^{[1, p. 41]}; the widespread nature of ship structures, the presence of a significant number of shipbuilding centers, the variety of ships built here according to their type and purpose ^{[1, p. 36]}; the presence of large reserves of shipbuilding materials in the region, the convenience of their delivery to ship construction sites by waterways ^{[1, p. 37]}; the experience of local shipbuilders, the widespread use of blacksmithing, the presence in the north of its own metallurgical base (Onega, Kholmogory, Kargopol, Mezen, Krasnoborsk and Yarensk) ^{[7, p. 14]}, as well as materials necessary for equipping ships (canvas, hemp); the presence of sawmills near the city ^{[1, p. 38]}; positive experience in the construction of the first ocean-class vessel – yachts "Saint Peter" ^{[1, p. 39]}. However, recognizing the importance of all these prerequisites, V.A. Palmin believed that "... when considering a historical phenomenon of this kind from the perspective of cause and effect, more specific circumstances, including subjective ones, should be taken into account" ^{[1, p. 30]}. According to the author, the construction of a funny flotilla on Pleshcheyev Lake, consisting of vessels of all types and classes, played an important role in the future plans of Peter I and was by no means exclusively the amusement of the young tsar ^{[1, p. 32]}. Peter's acquaintance with Arkhangelsk in 1693, with foreign sailboats and his voyage across the White Sea were also of great importance ^{[1, p. 42]}. Analyzing in detail Peter's "Story about the beginning of shipbuilding in Russia," which served as the preface to the "Naval Regulations" published in 1720, the author concludes that "... his idea of creating a Russian fleet, which soon turned into a specific White Sea project, came to his mind during a sea voyage in the summer of 1693." ^{[1, p. 49]}. The young tsar's meetings with reputable and enterprising people in the north, such as Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogorsky and Vazhsky, and the Bazhenin brothers, owners of sawmills, also played a role ^{[1, p. 50]}.

The Peter the Great period (1693-1732) The first period of Arkhangelsk shipbuilding, especially its initial stage, associated with Peter I's three trips to Arkhangelsk (1693-1702), has always attracted and continues to attract researchers. Nevertheless, it is precisely for the assessments of the events of this stage that the extraordinary diversity of opinions of the authors has always been characteristic.

The first among other subjects of discussion was the question of the construction and purpose of the yacht "St. Peter", as well as the founding of the shipyard in Solombala in 1693.

The first mention of these events belonged to the pen of Peter I himself and was contained in "Peter's Story about the beginning of shipbuilding in Russia." At the same time, the reigning author limited himself to pointing out the fact that he sailed "... on his yacht, called St. Peter" along with English and Dutch merchant ships ^{[8, p. 400]}. Most of the authors who wrote in the XVIII and the first half of the XIX centuries were equally brief ^{[9, p. 42; 10, p. 50; 11, p. 256; 12, p. 8; 13, p. 4; 14, p. 82; 15, p. 169]}. Only N.A. Bestuzhev first mentioned the Dutch Brandt, the builder of the yacht St. Peter, and the order of Tsar Peter I to voivode F.M. Apraksin to buy a merchant ship from foreigners by the spring of the following year, 1694, and build a second one, for which masters Niklas and Yan were sent to Arkhangelsk ^{[16, p. 64]}.

N.G. Ustryalov explicitly wrote that he did not know the origin of the yacht "St. Peter" ^{[8, p. 150]}, but he was the first to note the foundation of the shipyard on Solombala, where Peter I personally laid the ship on the eve of his departure to Moscow in September 1693. He also specified that the Dutch entrepreneur N. Witsen was instructed to buy the second ship in Holland ^{[8, p. 157]}. For a long time, most researchers adhered to this interpretation ^{[3, p. 28; 17, p. 20; 18, p. 19; 2, p. 10; 19, p. 104; 20, p. 26; 21, p. 167; 22, p. 128; 23, p. 50; 24, p. 19]}.

The version about the construction of the yacht "St. Peter" at the Solombal shipyard in 1693 was put forward by B.A. Glazenap ^{[25, p. 91]} and supported by some authors ^{[4, p. 78]}. Another suggestion, about the construction of this vessel at the Bazhenin brothers' particular shipyard, was made by S.F. Ogorodnikov ^{[2, p. 6]}, but was soon rejected by him ^{[26, p. 115]}. It was only in 1911, thanks to a document published by A.F. Izyumov from the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the origin of the yacht St. Peter was clarified. It was established that its construction was carried out at one of the Solombalsky cemeteries by local carpenters under the supervision of specially sent foreign shipwrights P. Bas, G. Jansen and the carver F. Ivanov ^{[27, p. 796]}.

Meanwhile, the question of the purpose of the yacht "St. Peter", as well as the 24-gun ship "St. Peter", built in the summer of 1694 in Arkhangelsk. St. Paul" and the 44-gun St. Peter's Cross, which arrived from Holland at the same time. Prophecies" has been actively debated by researchers for a long time.

A number of authors of the 18th century practically avoided answering this question (N.I. Novikov, I.I. Golikov). And only V.V. Krestinin definitely spoke about the foundation of "... the Russian merchant fleet on the Dvinsk shores in 1694 ..., which proves the seniority in the establishment of the merchant fleet over the military one that began on the Don shores in 1696" ^{[12, p. 8]}. This position was held by many pre-revolutionary researchers ^{[13, p. 5; 14, p. 93; 16, p. 64; 28, p. 79; 29, p. 7; 2, p. 10; 30, p. 407; 20, p. 25]}. The authors of the Soviet period also tended to it ^{[31, p. 229; 32, p. 9; 33, p. 51; 34, p. 30; 24, p. 19]}. At the same time, N.I. Barbashev wrote: "Frigates " of St. Paul" and "St. The prophecy "by their design and armament belonged to the type of merchant frigates widespread in Western Europe ..., which were successfully used for trade operations, as well as as auxiliary vessels of the navy" ^{[22, p. 128]}. And I.T. Potapov called the merchant ships built in 1693-1694 in Arkhangelsk, although they had strong artillery armament ^{[35, p. 58]}. Among post-Soviet researchers, a similar point of view was shared by V.P. Puzyrev ^{[36, p. 29]}, G.P. Popov ^{[37, p. 57]}, and D.E. Zhalnin ^{[38, p. 55]}, who argued that all ships built in Arkhangelsk before the outbreak of the Northern War were exclusively merchant vessels and even launched as early as 1702 The small frigates Courier and Holy Spirit became military only during construction ^{[38, p. 56]}.

At the same time, a position on the military purpose of naval vessels built in Arkhangelsk in 1693-1694 has already been formed and thoroughly substantiated among pre-revolutionary researchers in the post-Soviet period. The author of this point of view was M.K. Posselt, who wrote about Peter the Great's desire to "sail across the White Sea on his own warships," of which "two were supposed to be rebuilt or completed in Arkhangelsk itself" ^{[17, p. 22]}. However, the author considered the "amusements" of the great skipper to be the goals of such an idea" ^{[17, p. 33]}. Other pre-revolutionary authors also pointed out the military purpose of these vessels ^{[39, p. 8; 40, p. 82; 41, p. 760]}. Among Soviet researchers, this point of view was supported by P.I. Belavenets ^{[42, p. 49]}, A.P. Shershov ^{[43, p. 203]}, M.A. Mikhailov and M.A. Baskakov, who argued that the 24-gun ship "Sv. Pavel", together with two frigates commissioned in 1702, formed the core of the military flotilla on the White Sea ^{[44, p. 31]}.

The explosive growth of interest in the history of the construction of the first Arkhangelsk ships occurred in the post-Soviet period. It is noteworthy that, unlike many pre-revolutionary and Soviet researchers ^{[21, p. 192]}, modern authors see in the shipbuilding experiments on Lake Pleshcheyev in 1689-1692 and the White Sea in 1693-1694 not just the amusements of the young tsar, but milestones in the development of his purposeful strategy to create a regular navy ^{[45, p . 40]}. At the same time, a certain continuity is shown, which was expressed, in particular, in the fact that the construction of the 12-gun yacht St. Peter in Arkhangelsk was carried out by the same Dutch craftsmen who built the vessels of the funny flotilla in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky ^{[46, p. 42; 47, p. 12]}. The view of Peter I's participation in the laying of the ship "St. Peter the Great", which was fixed in historiography and questioned at the time by M.K. Posselt ^{[17, pp. 21-22]}, was revised. Pavel" in Solombala in September 1693 ^{[45, p. 36; 48, p. 105]}. However, the most significant contribution was made by modern authors to substantiate the military nature of the naval formations formed by the summer of 1694 on the White Sea. V.V. Bryzgalov called the yacht "St. Peter" the first warship among them ^{[46, p. 42]}. P.A. Krotov, speaking about the ship "St. Peter". Pavel", believed that the experience of its construction was used later in the construction of Baltic ships, in particular, frigates at the Syas and Olonets shipyards ^{[45, p. 38]}.

V.A. Palmin paid great attention to this problem in his dissertation, and later in a number of monographs and articles. ^{[7; 49; 1; 50; 51]}. In his opinion, the opinion established in historiography about the commercial character of the ships assembled in Arkhangelsk by 1694 was formed by authors who expressed the interests of the commercial and industrial circles - V.V. Kristinin, S.F. Ogorodnikov, K. Molchanov ^{[1, p. 62]}. To prove his point of view, V.A. Palmin scrupulously analyzed the plans of Peter the Great, the uniqueness of his personality and position, the implementation of his White Sea project, individual historical facts, studied the names of ships, their types, design characteristics, armament and other distinguishing features, examined the letters and papers of the tsar himself, his entourage, who participated in the voyages of 1693-1694. ^{[1, pp. 57-101]}, as well as Peter I's selection of the command and crew of the ships built in Arkhangelsk during these years, the nature of the flotilla's navigation in the White Sea in 1694, and the assessment of this flotilla by foreigners ^{[50, pp. 27-32]}. All together, he made a very characteristic conclusion and conclusion: "Yacht"Saint Peter" and the ship "Saint Paul"... were conceived and built as military vessels. In 1694, out of 12-push. yachts, 24-push. the ship and the 44-push purchased in Holland. The frigate created a fleet that declared itself at sea as an organized fighting force. It follows from these conclusions that Arkhangelsk, or rather its island region, Solombala, became the place in Russia where naval military shipbuilding began in 1693-1694" ^{[1, p. 101]}. And although a number of statements made by V.A. Palmin have been criticized ^[52], his point of view in terms of the volume of arguments and the depth of justification today looks very convincing.

It is impossible not to mention the authors who are trying to adhere to a certain middle position. Thus, V.N. Bulatov called the foundation laid by Peter the Great "St. Pavel was a military merchant ship, and its launching in May 1694 marked the birthday of the cradle of the "new-mannerist" naval shipbuilding ^{[53, p. 491]}. I.M. Gostev spoke about the founding of Peter I during trips in 1693 and 1694. "the Russian navy and the state merchant fleet" ^{[54, p. 33]}.

Despite the encyclopedic nature of the statement about the establishment of the shipyard on Solombalsky Island in September 1693, this issue has not yet found a definitive solution either. There are two extreme positions on this issue. One of them was expressed by I.V. Bogatyrev, who wrote that "... Peter came to the Russian shipyard, which was actually already operating, where the above–mentioned Pomeranian vessels (traditional for Pomerania vessels - Auth.)" ^{[33, p. 51]}. P.A. Krotov actually confirmed this, claiming that the shipyard was founded in March 1693 ^{[45, p. 34]}. But I.M. Gostev completely rejected the fact of the establishment of a shipyard at that time, since "... the construction of individual vessels did not require the creation of a shipyard – a specialized enterprise" ^{[54, p. 43]}.

However, there is no consensus among modern authors even regarding the construction site of the same yacht "St. Peter": P.A. Krotov named the Solombal shipyard ^{[45, p. 34]}, V.V. Bryzgalov and V.G. Popov – Moseev Arkhangelsk Island ^{[47, p. 12]}, A.A. Chernyshev – Kholmogory ^{[55, p. 14]}.

In general, it seems that today the problem of the initial stage of military shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk, despite the presence of a large number of studies on this problem, has not been completely solved. At the same time, it can be stated that the point of view about the founding of the shipyard on the Solombalsky island of Arkhangelsk in 1693 and the construction of military ships here in 1693-1694 has received a very solid justification.

The period in the shipyard's history between Peter the Great's departure from Arkhangelsk in 1694 and 1700 is rather poorly reflected in the works of researchers.

Many authors simply did not mention this episode. M.K. Posselt claimed that the shipyard continued to operate, without commenting on what specific work was being carried out here. But he noted the dispatch of shipbuilders from Arkhangelsk at the end of 1695 to build ships for the Azov Fleet ^{[17, p. 50]}. S.I. Elagin did not ignore this fact either ^{[18, p. 22]}. S.F. Ogorodnikov also pointed to Peter the Great's instruction to voivode F.M. Apraksin to continue building merchant ships, as well as the appointment of Ye.E. Wright as crewmaster of the shipyard ^{[2, p. 12]}.

Some authors of the Soviet period tried to reconstruct the activities of the Solombal shipyard at the end of the 17th century. According to I.V. Bogatyrev, during a visit to Arkhangelsk in 1694 Peter ordered Dutch and other craftsmen to build ships according to English drawings. This caused difficulties, as Dutch shipbuilders built ships without any drawings. It was for this reason that only one ship was built ^{[33, p. 51]}. I.A. Bykhovsky claimed that by 1697 the Solombal shipyard already included four boathouses, a workshop, a forge, a rope factory, a resin yard and a sawmill ^{[24, p. 25]}.

However, these opinions were reasonably refuted by researchers in the post-Soviet period ^{[45, p. 40; 56, p. 64]}. V.V. Bryzgalov emphasized that in the winter of 1695-1696 all shipwrights and carpenters from the Solombal shipyard were sent to Voronezh and shipbuilding was discontinued ^{[57, p. 25]}. In 1696, captain of the frigate "St. Prophecies", part of the crew and artillery were also sent south, and the ship was disarmed and turned into a merchant ship ^{[46, p. 45]}.

Only in 1698 Tsar Peter ordered the preparation of boathouses and materials for the construction of ships, and in 1700 the laying of six ships was carried out according to the type of Western European flutes ^{[57, p. 25]}.

The laying of these ships was first mentioned by V.V. Krestinin, linking the beginning of state shipbuilding on Solombalsky Island with this event ^{[12, p. 9]}, and the construction itself with the personality of the crew master Ye.E. Wright ^{[12, p. 104]}. S.F. Ogorodnikov clarified the characteristics of the laid-down ships, noting that they were built from pine forest and They were armed with guns ^{[2, p. 13]}. He was also the first to show the sources of the shipyard's supply of raw materials, materials and finished products for equipping ships, pointing out that guns and iron were shipped from the Admiralty Ustyuzhsky and Belozersk factories, and timber was shipped by rafting along the Northern Dvina from Totma, Ustyug, Kargopol and Solvychegodsk ^{[2, p. 14]}. I.A. Bykhovsky showed the contribution of E. She was involved in the organization of shipbuilding works and in the development of the infrastructure of the Solombal shipyard ^{[24, p. 28]}.

A modern researcher, V.V. Bryzgalov, considered the construction of six merchant ships for foreign trade as the implementation of a kind of first "shipbuilding program" for the Solombal shipyard ^{[58, p. 19]}. P.A. Krotov thus justified the need for this program: "Peter the Great's decision to establish his own merchant fleet in Arkhangelsk should be linked not only with He had a plan in 1693-1694 to build merchant ships (flutes and galliots) in the Russian North, but also in preparation for the outbreak of war against Sweden.… In the conditions of the impending war, the importance of the northern sea route to Europe for Russia increased dramatically..." ^{[56, p. 66]}. P.A. Krotov also showed the industrial appearance of the Solombal shipyard, which had developed by 1701: a forge with 12 forges, a barn for storing ship supplies, a shed for making parts of a ship's kit ^{[56, p. 74]}.

The next story of Arkhangelsk shipbuilding is related to the construction of three small frigates in 1702-1703, which many authors for a long time considered as the beginning of the actual military shipbuilding in the north of Russia.

In the work of N.I. Novikov, it was first mentioned that two ships were launched in 1702 at the private Vavchug shipyard in the presence of Tsar Peter I ^{[10, p. 93]}, about his campaign from Arkhangelsk to the Solovetsky Islands ^{[10, p. 97]}, then to Nyukhcha and from there by the "newly built road" to the shore of Onega lakes where "... people pulled two yachts on themselves from the seaside to the Povenetskaya pier" ^{[10, p. 97]}. I.I. Golikov named the two ships launched in 1702 as frigates, emphasizing that they were built by English craftsmen ^{[59, p. 77]}. A.S. Shishkov cited the names of these frigates – "Holy Spirit" and "Courier", and also mentioned the construction of a third ship in the same year, the 26-gun "St. Ilia" ^{[13, p. 9]}, which was classified by N.A. Bestuzhev as a brigantine ^{[16, p. 90]}.

Such an interpretation of events prevailed for a long time in Russian historiography ^{[14, p. 89; 60, p. 190; 4, p. 81; 40, p. 153-154; 2, p. 16]}. Adjustments to it were made by A.S. Krotkov, who substantiated the opinion about the construction of the frigates "Holy Spirit" and "Courier" at the private shipyard of E. Kurta in Kholmogoryj, about the participation of these frigates in the passage to Lake Onega along the "sovereign" road and in the fighting to capture the Swedish fortress of Noteburg in October 1702 ^{[61, p. 112]}.

A new interpretation of the events related to this construction was proposed by I.I. Yakovlev, who pointed out that in 1702 the frigate "Courier" and the brigantine "St. Peter" were launched at the Solombal shipyard. Ilia", and the frigates Mercury and Holy Spirit at the private shipyard ^{[23, p. 61]}. Finally, I.V. Bogatyrev expressed the opinion that the construction of the small frigates "Holy Spirit" and "Courier" was carried out precisely at the Solombal shipyard by the future famous shipwright G.A. Menshikov. The author also claimed that after the stocks were liberated, several small vessels and the frigate "Sv. Elijah", which was built by the famous English master Fr. Nye ^{[33, p. 52]}.

In modern historiography, the view of the construction of the small frigates "Holy Spirit" and "Courier" in Solombala in January-May 1702 and their participation in the passage along the "sovereign" road has finally been established ^{[62, p. 36, 45; 56, p. 77; 55, p. 258; 58, p. 21]}. At the same time, P.A. Krotov, unlike I.V. Bogatyrev and A.A. Chernyshev, called the construction leaders of the ordinary bomber company of the Preobrazhensky regiment I. Nemtsov, F.P. Palchikov and L.A. Vereshchagin, who later became famous shipbuilders ^{[56, p. 77]}.

In addition to the construction of these two frigates, I.V. Bogatyrev noted the repair at the Solombalskaya shipyard of the small frigate and galliot captured during the repulse of the Swedish attack in 1701, and even earlier, the laying of six fireships ^{[33, p. 52]}. P.A. Krotov refuted the assumption about the construction of fireships at the shipyard, showing the island in the mouth as the site of their construction The Northern Dvina River near the Novodvinsk fortress ^{[56, p. 76]}.

I.V. Bogatyrev did not write anything about the fate of the 26-gun frigate "St. Peter the Great" laid down in May 1702. Elijah", but mentioned the order of the Admiralty Order in 1703 on the construction of ten cargo ships (kag) and 13 ships at the shipyard ^{[33, p. 53]}. About "St. A.S. Krotkov also mentioned that after the launch he remained in Arkhangelsk, and then, together with other ships, in 1710 he was sent to replenish the Baltic Fleet ^{[61, p. 144]}. The launching of this ship in 1703 and her stay in the White Sea Flotilla until 1710 were confirmed by A.A. Chernyshev ^{[55, p. 258]} and P.A. Krotov ^{[56, p. 79]}.

P.A. Krotov also noted the dispatch in 1703 by order of the governor of Ingermanland, A.D. Menshikov, of skilled workers and shipbuilding materials to set up the Olonets shipyard ^{[56, p. 79]}. However, by February 1705, Solombala was again staffed by craftsmen and workers. This allowed the company to carry out work on the construction of two military vessels in 1702-1706, the Mercurius and the Holy Spirit, which, together with the frigate St. Ilia" performed the tasks of protecting the port of Arkhangelsk, as well as the merchant ship ^{[56, p. 81]}.

V.V. Bryzgalov, noting the peculiarities of shipbuilding at the initial stage, wrote: "All the ships and flutes were built at the Solombal shipyard using Dutch shipbuilding technology. This technology did not require the creation and excavation of special boathouses for launching ships and vessels. The shipyard could be set up in any convenient location, close to the water" ^{[58, p. 21]}.

However, this did not mean that there was no production infrastructure at the shipyard. According to S.F. Ogorodnikov and F.F. Veselago, it included a "shed for lining ship members", a forge, a rope factory, a smolny shed ^{[2, p. 17; 40, p. 521]}, as well as a windmill on Moseev Island, founded in 1696 by the farmer D. Atman and bought into the treasury in 1702 ^{[2, p. 18]}. In 1706, the flour mill on the Shirsha River, purchased from the Antonievsky Monastery, was transferred to the jurisdiction of the shipyard. It was converted into a water-powered sawmill ^{[2, p. 21]}. I.V. Bogatyrev claimed that by the time Peter I arrived in 1702, there were 12 slipways at the shipyard, the number of which had increased to 26 by 1704 ^{[33, p. 53]}. However, this information was not confirmed by other authors.

F.F. Veselago mentioned the management system of the Solombal shipyard, which was initially under the jurisdiction of local military leaders who were not familiar with maritime affairs. In 1702, all state-owned ships and "admiralty establishments" were placed at the disposal of the Admiralty Affairs Order, which appointed Ye.E. Wright as its "commissary" ^{[40, p. 521]}. In 1703, stolnik S. Klochenv, whom I.V. Bogatyrev called the actual head of shipbuilding, was sent from the Order to manage the state-owned saw mill and guard the ship's forests ^{[33, p. 52]}. However, after the death of Ye.E. Wright in 1708, the Solombal shipyard and the port were again transferred to the jurisdiction of Voivode Golitsyn ^{[40, p. 521]}. Judging by the instructions of V.G. Chubinsky, the management of shipbuilding later remained in the hands of the Arkhangelsk governor, and then the vice-governor ^{[63, p. 29]}.

A new stage in the activity of the Solombal shipyard began in 1707-1708, when it was involved in the construction of ships of the main classes for the Baltic Fleet.

S.F. Ogorodnikov explained this by the need to "... replenish the kit of the Baltic Fleet, on the occasion of the ongoing war with Sweden" ^{[2, p. 29]}. I.V. Bogatyrev believed that the development of the shipyard's production infrastructure contributed to the construction of large ships, thereby somewhat confusing the causes and consequences of this phenomenon ^{[33, p. 53]}. The modern author considered the construction of ships in Arkhangelsk to be a necessary measure caused by the lack of a developed shipbuilding base in the Baltic ^{[64, p. 256]}.

Regarding the number and types of ships built on Solombal in 1708-1715, the researchers found very contradictory, and sometimes simply erroneous opinions. A.S. Shishkov, speaking about the arrival of 20- or 30-gun ships to the Baltic from Arkhangelsk in 1712, mentioned among them "Gabriel" and "Section" ^{[13, p. 43]}. Following him, information about these vessels was found in S.F. Ogorodnikov ^{[2, p. 35]} and I.V. Bogatyrev ^{[33, p. 53]}. Meanwhile, F.F. Veselago had already shown that the Archangel Gabriel was a 52-gun ship, and there was no ship called the Partition in the Baltic Fleet ^{[40, p. 245]}. P.A. Krotov suggested that information about the construction of these ships in 1711 was an error in dating and incorrect reading the name "Section" instead of the existing ship "Raphael" ^{[56, p. 88]}. Another explanation for the authors' mistakes in determining the types of ships built may be their incomplete artillery armament when shipping from Arkhangelsk ^{[2, p. 43]}. This is suggested by the fact that P. Kuzmishchev attributed the "Saints" launched in 1713. Mikhail", "Gabriel" and "Raphael" belong to the class of 30-gun frigates ^{[65, p. 388]}, whereas in fact they were 54-gun ships ^{[40, p. 245]}.

The first completely reliable information about the construction of ships in Solombala was provided by K.S. Molchanov ^{[14, p. 162]} and N.A. Bestuzhev ^{[16, p. 134]}. F.F. Veselago briefly reproduced the general picture of shipbuilding: the laying of two 32-gun frigates in 1707 by master Vybe Guerens, launched in 1710; the construction of The same master built three 50-gun ships in 1712-1713, and then his son Peter built four more of the same ships with slightly increased dimensions in 1713-1715 ^{[66, pp. 10, 14, 76]}.

S.F. Ogorodnikov highlighted in detail the various aspects of the activity of the Solombal shipyard at this stage. The role of an experienced shipwright, Vybe Gerens, who arrived in Arkhangelsk ^{[2, p. 29]}, his son Peter, who became a master in 1714 ^{[2, p. 47]}, who replaced E.E. Wright as crew chief of the owner of a private shipyard, F.A. Bazhenin, and vice governor A.A. Kurbatov, who carried out the overall management of shipbuilding ^{[2, p. 34]}. Speaking about the staffing of the work, the author noted a large number of freelance craftsmen at the shipyard, reaching up to 300 people ^{[2, p. 38]}. I.V. Bogatyrev also wrote about the fivefold increase in the number of shipyard personnel in connection with the deployment of the construction of frigates and battleships ^{[33, p. 53]}. Meanwhile, A.P. Krotov noted even more impressive growth. If in June 1707 there were only 19 personnel at the shipyard, by the spring of 1710 213 artisans and 50 workmen from the local population were working on the construction of the frigates according to the state plan ^{[56, p. 89]}.

S.F. Ogorodnikov's characterization of the state of the production base is very noteworthy. According to him, "... the Admiralty proper, in the strict sense of the word, with its workshops, with its various stores, for the complete supply of a military vessel, did not exist in Arkhangelsk at that time, but only in its 4 boathouses the construction of ships ...", i.e. hulls, which was provided by local resources ^{[2, p. 30]}. Everything else necessary for equipping and arming ships was sent by Admiralty Order via inland waterways through Vologda ^{[2, p. 31]}. One of the Soviet authors noted that the guns were supplied from the Petrovsky Olonetsky factories along the "sovereign" road to Nyukhcha and then by sea to Arkhangelsk ^{[67, p. 60]}. And K.S. Molchanov mentioned an anchor factory in the city, which also made anchors for warships ^{[14, p. 101]}.

S.F. Ogorodnikov noticed an important organizational flaw that negatively affected the work of the shipyard. This concerned the imperfection of management distributed among three persons: the Arkhangelsk governor, who was in Vologda, the vice-governor in Arkhangelsk, and the crewmaster at the shipyard. The functions of each of them were not strictly distributed, they often acted independently and inconsistently ^{[2, p. 31]}.

The researchers also noted the low quality of the ships built in Arkhangelsk. Already S.F. Ogorodnikov noted their construction of their raw forest ^{[2, p. 37]}. According to I.A. Bykhovsky, the consequence of this was the short-lived nature of the Arkhangelsk vessels compared to those built in St. Petersburg ^{[32, p. 11]}. And M. Kichigin wrote about these vessels as follows: "Heavily steered, made in a hurry, from raw pine boards, they lost masts and sails, leaked and often died. among the waves" ^{[68, p. 84]}.

However, it was not the low quality of the ships that caused the four battleships sent to the Baltic in 1715 to become the last military vessels built in Arkhangelsk during the Peter the Great period ^{[2, p. 51]}. F.F. Veselago explained the cessation of military shipbuilding by switching to the acquisition of the Baltic Fleet by ships built in St. Petersburg or purchased abroad ^{[40, p. 522]}. N.I. Barbashev noted the difficulty of using the Solombal shipyard due to the difficulties of shipping the built ships to Kronstadt ^{[22, p. 153]}. I.A. Bykhovsky emphasized achieving the staffing strength of the Baltic Fleet and the ability of the St. Petersburg Admiralty to maintain this level ^{[24, p. 39]}. Finally, G.P. Popov noted the need to concentrate material and human resources in St. Petersburg after the danger of an attack on it from the sea had decreased ^{[37, p. 59]}.

The result of Peter the Great's period of state shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk was expressed primarily in the number of ships built here. A.S. Shishkov mentioned three 20- or 30-gun ships built in 1712 ^{[13, p. 43]}, and six more ships built in 1714-1715 ^{[13, p. 80, 113, 123]}. F.F. Veselago estimated the number of military vessels built in Arkhangelsk in 1693-1715 at seven ships, seven frigates and one yacht ^{[40, p. 505]}. A.I. Dubravin pointed to seven battleships and three frigates transferred to the Baltic Sea ^{[69, p. 65]}. N.L. Konkov wrote about the construction During the years of the Northern War, seven ships, four frigates and six fire ships ^{[67, p. 60]}.

Some authors had completely implausible data, such as S.I. Kirillov, who apparently confused the number of ships built at the Solombal shipyard with the total number of the Baltic Fleet by the end of the Northern War ^{[6, p. 85]}. I.V. Bogatyrev took an extremely broad approach to quantifying the results of shipbuilding. In the era of Peter the Great, he wrote about 126 ships of 12 types built in Arkhangelsk ^{[33, p. 54]}.

To date, the information provided by V.V. Bryzgalov can be considered the most reasonable. Having restored the picture of shipbuilding and ship repair activities at the Solombal shipyard for the entire Petrovsky period and pointing to the implementation of at least six shipbuilding programs here during this time ^[58], the author noted the following results of state shipbuilding: 13 military and commercial vessels were built, four military and one merchant vessel were repaired ^{[70, pp. 16-21]}.

V.A. Palmin, unlike other researchers, showed not just quantitative results of the work of the Solombal shipyard, but compared them with the work of other shipyards and on this basis concluded about its contribution to the construction of the Baltic Fleet. So, in 1715, this fleet consisted of 33 battleships and nine frigates, of which 17 ships and six frigates were acquired abroad. Of the 16 ships and three frigates built in Russia, seven and two ships were built at the Solombal shipyard, respectively. That is, "... half of all Russian ships and frigates were built in Arkhangelsk" ^{[1, p. 108]}, and much more than at any other Domestic shipyard taken separately.

Researchers noted other aspects of the contribution of the Solombal shipyard to the development of shipbuilding in the Petrovsky period. I.V. Bogatyrev called it, among others, the forge of domestic shipbuilders ^{[33, p. 54]}. P.A. Krotov noted the presence of a masthead here as early as 1712, whose services were also used by foreign shipbuilders for a fee ^{[71, p. 54]}. 17]. Yu.N. Bespyatykh, in addition to the actual construction of ships for the Baltic Fleet in Arkhangelsk, drew attention to the supply of materials for military shipbuilding from here to other regions of Russia ^{[72, p. 524]} and abroad ^{[72, p. 525]}.

To conclude the story about Peter the Great's period of Arkhangelsk military shipbuilding, it should be said about the situation of the Solombal shipyard after 1715. V.V. Krestinin, and after him a number of other researchers wrote about the continuation of merchant shipbuilding here for some time and its cessation around 1720 ^{[12, p. 9; 14, p. 94; 4, p. 80; 3, p. 29; 39, p. 8]}. S.F. Ogorodnikov named a more specific date for the termination of work – 1722 ^{[2, p. 52]}. After that, according to I.A. Bykhovsky, "... the entire territory of the Admiralty acquired the appearance of an abandoned construction site" ^{[24, p. 42]}.

However, A. Sokolov also noted the construction of three whaling vessels at the shipyard at the end of the reign of Peter the Great ^{[73, p. 258]}, which was later confirmed by S.F. Ogorodnikov and associated with the name of the crew master F. Bazhenina ^{[2, pp. 52-54]}. I.V. Bogatyrev was a proponent of the view of continuing shipbuilding, including for the needs of the White Sea Flotilla ^{[33, p. 54]}. D.E. Zhalnin called the construction of an additional windmill sawmill in 1721 as signs of continued shipbuilding, which, however, also failed to meet all the needs of the shipyard, as well as the increase here The number of people involved in the shipyard ^{[38, p. 57]}. V.A. Palmin referred to the arrival of military vessels from the Baltic to Arkhangelsk in 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1733 ^{[1, p. 108]}. Finally, A.A. Chernyshev pointed to the construction of a 10-gun boat for the White Sea Flotilla in 1726-1727 ^{[74, p. 165]}.

Thus, it can be assumed that there is no need to talk about any prolonged desolation of the Solombal shipyard by the end of the Petrovsky period.

The period 1733-1800 The resumption of the construction of military vessels of the main classes in Arkhangelsk in 1733, according to the unanimous opinion of researchers who considered this issue, was connected with the activities of the Military Maritime Commission established under Empress Anna Ioannovna under the chairmanship of A.I. Osterman.

V.N. Berkh, referring to Vice Admiral V.I. Larionov, noted as the reasons for the resumption of shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk the fact that, according to the results of the identified shortage of ship forests along the banks of the Volga, Kama, Sura rivers, etc. in 1732, the Military Maritime Commission decided to build only ships of the first class from materials harvested in these places. other ships of 60 guns or less were built in Arkhangelsk from larch ^{[75, p. 41]}. S.F. Ogorodnikov emphasized the economic side of the matter: the delivery of oak material from Kazan was difficult due to the range, and there were large reserves of larch in the north ^{[2, p. 68]}. Another reason for the resumption of military shipbuilding was also called the useful practice of personnel during the transfer of ships from Arkhangelsk to the Baltic Sea ^{[76, p. 168]}. G.P. Popov actually repeated the arguments of S.F. Ogorodnikov, speaking about the high cost of building ships at the shipyards of St. Petersburg ^{[37, p. 60]}. V.P. Puzyrev linked the resumption of construction military courts in Arkhangelsk with the aggravation of the international situation in Europe and the subsequent wars with Turkey, Sweden and Prussia ^{[36, p. 13]}.

N.N. Petrukhintsev emphasized that, unlike Peter the Great's time in the first half of the 1730s, "... the resumption of the Arkhangelsk port and shipyard, now conceived as a permanent construction base for the navy ..., was of great importance not only because the construction of ships here took a shorter time and required less cost. than in the Baltic, but also ... according to the perspective that the creation of the second main shipbuilding base opened up to the Russian navy in the XVIII century" ^{[64, p. 256]}.

Finally, V.A. Palmin cited the shortening of the time for the revival of the fleet in the Baltic, the availability of appropriate personnel in the North of Russia, the excellent quality of northern larch ^{[1, p. 53]}, and the convenience of delivering timber and necessary materials, all the way from the Urals, to the construction site of ships along river systems ^{[1, p. 53]} as prerequisites for the resumption of military shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk. p. 54].

The establishment of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty is closely linked to the resumption of military shipbuilding. Although some authors attributed this event to other dates (1693 ^{[39, p. 8]}, 1701 ^{[77, p. 451]}, 1708 ^{[32, p. 9]}), however, most date it to 1733. Moreover, this event took place, apparently, without issuing any formal acts. As G. Frumenkov noted, after the revival of shipbuilding at the Solombal shipyard, the name Arkhangelsk Admiralty was assigned to it ^{[34, p. 32]}. And V.A. Palmin wrote as follows: "With the resumption of military shipbuilding, the Solombal shipyard quickly transformed and turned into a large shipbuilding enterprise called the Admiralty" ^{[1, p. 110]}.

The process of formation and development of this enterprise was well shown by S.F. Ogorodnikov, while his predecessors limited themselves to mentioning the very fact of resuming the construction of military vessels in Solombala ^{[12, p. 110; 14, p. 94; 3, p. 34]}. Meanwhile, by decree of the Military Maritime Commission dated March 15, 1733, "to establish a shipyard in Arkhangelsk at a place called the Bull," where the private shipyard of merchant N. Krylov was located. At the same time, it was prescribed to use everything that was left at the old Solombal shipyard ^{[2, p. 78]}. However, with the arrival of Rear Admiral P.P. Bredal, the chief commander of the Arkhangelsk port, after numerous on-site surveys and correspondence with the Military Maritime Commission, the opinion prevailed about the construction of a shipyard in the old place – on Solombala. The decision was formalized by a decree of the commission dated December 31, 1733 ^{[2, p. 91]}.

The role of P.P. Bredal in the organization of the shipyard was highly appreciated by V.N. Berkh ^{[75, p. 267]}. No less significant was the contribution of the experienced shipwright R. Cosenza, who arrived in 1733 ^{[2, p. 74]}. N.L. Konkov and I.A. Bykhovsky wrote about this: "He developed a detailed project for its restoration and drew up a plan for the location of the most important facilities" ^{[78, p. 66]}.

I.A. Bykhovsky claimed that work on the restoration of the Solombal shipyard began as early as 1733. Initially, two of the four old boathouses were restored ^{[24, p. 54]}, where two 54-gun ships were laid in June 1734 ^{[2, p. 108]}, launched the following year ^{[2, p. 117]}. In 1735-1739, Smolny, a rigging workshop, crew shops, a timber shed with a model camera, provision barns, and a ship crane for installing masts on ships were built ^{[2, p. 129]}. By a decree of the Admiralty Board dated November 23, 1736, a rope factory was founded at the shipyard, which made it possible to meet the needs for rigging ^{[2, p. 130]}. In the same year, the board authorized the construction of a dry dock for the repair of a cargo ship that arrived from Kronstadt in 1735 ^{[2, p. 128]}. The work was completed in 1738, which made it possible to create a ship repair base at the Admiralty ^{[71, p. 44]}.

The shipbuilding works were provided with strip and octahedral iron from the Ural and Tula factories of the Demidovs. In addition, other grades of iron for the shipyard were supplied by Krasnoborsky handicrafts and merchant factories in Ust-Sysolsky district ^{[5, p. 10]}. Cannons and other items of artillery armament for arming ships were sent to Arkhangelsk by sea from the Baltic ports ^{[2, p. 81]}. V.N. Berkh, who repeatedly mentioned sending ships to Arkhangelsk to deliver "various weights" there ^{[75, p. 281]}, cited the cargo composition of the Cavalier frigate in 1741: canvas, Flemish and Olonets canvas, flagduk, cloth, sewn sails for the ship and frigate and a set of artillery, anchors and verps for them ^{[79, p. 8]}.

Finally, contractors supplied the shipyard with supplies, resin, yarn for ropes, canvas for sails, blocks and other materials from auctions. Local peasants were involved in the transportation of materials and maintenance of the shipyard by way of state service ^{[5, p. 10]}.

As always, at the initial stage of the resumption of a new business, staffing played a major role. S.F. Ogorodnikov pointed out the arrival in 1733 in Arkhangelsk of 149 craftsmen from St. Petersburg ^{[2, p. 80]}. I.A. Bykhovsky noted that this was the working team of R. Kozenets himself, which included such specialists as carpenters, sawyers, planners, caulkers, sailboats, blacksmiths, etc. ^{[24, p. 57]}. In total, according to I.A. Bykhovsky and N.L. Konkov, 520 craftsmen and sailors arrived in Arkhangelsk in 1733, and in 1734 another 618 people ^{[78, p. 67]}.

A notable phenomenon was the establishment of the Admiralty naval school at the Admiralty as early as 1734 to teach literacy and arithmetic to the children of craftsmen and sailors ^{[2, p. 121]}. The school trained in carpentry and carpentry, carving, spinning and boiler parts, block work and ship rigging ^{[5, p. 9]}. The number of students grew rapidly: if in 1738 there were only 47 people, then in 1739 – 67, in 1747 – 200, 1772 – 500 people ^{[2, p. 124]}.

Thanks to the efforts of the captain of the port, V.A. Myatlev, steps were taken to create the social infrastructure of the Admiralty – housing for officers and employees of the shipyard, as well as a naval hospital ^{[2, pp. 137, 142]}.

In 1738, a special decree of the Admiralty Board determined the procedure for the construction of military vessels, which provided for the laying of a 66-gun ship in one year, a 54-gun ship and a 32–gun frigate the next year, then a 66-gun ship again, etc. At the same time, the construction of the ship had to be completed within a year, for which it was prescribed to have permanent stocks of deciduous forest at the port ^{[2, p. 136]}. However, judging by the results of the launching of ships and frigates in subsequent years, this order was not always followed.

However, the main problem in the work of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty from the very beginning of its activity was the quality of the ships built. The squadrons sent to the Baltic in 1742 and 1743 at the height of the war with Sweden were unable to complete their tasks due to the large number of breakdowns. As S.F. Ogorodnikov wrote: "Poorly built, loaded with disproportionate artillery, poorly manned, military vessels of that time could not withstand not only storms, but often ordinary strong winds, lost their spars and leaked heavily" ^{[2, p. 160]}. According to the author, the reasons for the poor quality of ships were common to all Russian admiralties and even all fleets of that time: "... the lack of correct, strictly scientific data in the art of ship building, ... the lack of specially trained shipwrights, and the urgency of the work itself" ^{[2, p. 178]}.

M. Kichigin, agreeing with these assessments by S.F. Ogorodnikov, believed that the main reason for the poor quality of work at the state-owned shipyard "... was nevertheless the construction system itself, inherited from Guerence." In support of this, the author provided information about the success of private shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk ^{[68, p. 85]}. N.I. Barbashev noted that "... by transferring the construction of ships from St. Petersburg to Arkhangelsk, the Admiralty Board was forced to reduce its requirements for the selection of ship timber, allowing the replacement of larch with pine and spruce forests, which affected the strength of ships ..." ^{[80, p. 211]}.

N.I. Dmitriev and V.V. Kolpychev drew attention to another aspect of the organization of shipbuilding. Speaking about the attempts made under Catherine II to build military vessels in state-owned shipyards under the supervision of foreigners, they cited as a similar example the invitation of Englishman W. Gunion to Arkhangelsk in 1773. Analyzing in detail the terms of the contract concluded with him by the Admiralty Board, the authors wrote: "... Gunion, by his terms, gave himself the means to combat all the shortcomings of our shipbuilding: ... our unavailability of drawings, ... the destruction of plurality ... ^{[41, p. 782]}, the possible reduction of paper correspondence ..., the destruction of the possibility of bypassing Gunion to contact directly to the higher authorities – otherwise, the introduction of discipline, so unloved by Russians in any form...". "Despite such apparently high demands, Gunion's conditions, although with some changes, were accepted by the board ... The results of Gunion's activities turned out to be excellent ..." ^{[41, p. 783]}. The main achievement of the English specialist was a significant reduction in the construction time of ships. Thus, the first 66-gun ship he laid down was launched in just 7 months and 23 days ^{[35, p. 59]}. According to N.I. Dmitriev and V.V. Kolpychev, after Gunion's departure, the leadership of the construction of ships passed to his student M.D. Portnov, which resulted in an increase in the time of their construction ^{[41, p. 783]}.

An important role in solving the problem of improving shipbuilding practice belonged to shipwrights who worked at the Arkhangelsk Admiralty at various times. I.A. Bykhovsky paid great attention to this issue in his works, revealing the contribution of such specialists as R. Kozentz, L. Yames ^{[24, p. 61]}, V.I. Batakov, P.G. Kachalov, V.A. Selyaninov, ^{[24, p. 66]}, A. Davydov ^{[24, p. 70]}, M.D. Portnov ^{[24, p. 72]}. In particular, the name of the latter was associated with the beginning of construction in 1783 on Solombala of ships of the 74-gun rank ^{[67, p. 60]}, as well as the drafting of special instructions on the issue of navigating ships through the Severodvinsk bar, which is very relevant for Arkhangelsk shipbuilding ^{[78, p. 69]}.

Researchers noted the improvement of the Admiralty's production infrastructure throughout the 18th century. N.I. Barbashev mentioned the relocation of slipways further from the riverbank during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and an increase in the angle of foundation elevation to ensure ship launches ^{[80, p. 213]}. Under Catherine II, three more boathouses were commissioned at the shipyard to maintain high rates of shipbuilding, and their total number was nine ^{[1, p. 117]}. The port command paid great attention to the development of the Shirsheminsky sawmill, having carried out its reconstruction in 1748. In 1775, a blacksmith shop was also equipped here, which was transformed into an anchor water treatment plant in 1785. Since that time, we have been talking about a whole production complex called the Shirsheminsky Admiralty Plant ^{[2, p. 190]}. It consisted of a turning, coal, and stone foundry, a forge, and six water-powered sawmills. Platforms for cannons, anchors, nails, staples, lugs, etc. were made here. metal products, devices for ships (lightning rods, compasses), lumber ^{[5, p. 10]}.

The actual course of construction of military vessels in the Arkhangelsk Admiralty is well shown in the works of V.A. Palmin. According to the author, by the end of Anna Ioannovna's reign, "... in the north of the Russian Empire, a shipbuilding base was created that was not inferior to the capital in terms of its production capacity and personnel" and played a leading role in the construction of 54- and 66-gun battleships, as well as frigates ^{[1, p. 111]}. During the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, according to V.A. Palmin, Arkhangelsk played a major role in bringing the naval staff of the Baltic Fleet to the number established by the regulations of May 8, 1750 ^{[1, p. 112]}. Noting the high pace of ship construction during this period, V.A. Palmin spoke in excellent form about the organization of the entire shipbuilding process at the Admiralty ^{[1, p. 114]}.

However, the peak of shipbuilding activity occurred during the reign of Catherine II. In accordance with the concept of forming naval forces adopted at the beginning of her reign, Arkhangelsk, for economic reasons, became for many years the main supplier of the most numerous class of battleships of 66- and 74-gun rank and practically the only place to build frigates ^{[1, p. 116]}.

The peak of construction occurred in 1770-1774, when an average of at least three battleships were launched from the Admiralty stocks annually, as well as in 1789 and 1790, when seven ships and frigates were launched ^{[1, p. 118]}. The first of these periods included a number of measures to speed up the construction of ships. One of them was the involvement of the English specialist W. Gunion, discussed above. Moreover, I.T. Potapov called the purpose of attracting the Englishman precisely the reduction of the construction time of ships ^{[35, p. 59]}.

Another measure was the construction of military vessels at private shipyards in Arkhangelsk. Various authors have contradictory information about this. S.F. Ogorodnikov wrote that "... ships at the Arkhangelsk port at that time were always built, with very few exceptions, by means of the port, but frigates and other vessels were mostly contracted by free carpenters for 14 and 16 tons of rubles" ^{[2, p. 228]}, but he did not provide any details of contract construction. A.S. Krotkov also mentioned the attempts of the Admiralty Board to attract private shipbuilding: "Merchant Bazhenin ... flatly refused government buildings, and another merchant Prugavin agreed to take up the construction of frigates and pink, began work, but did not finish the construction, and the frigates were completed with government funds." ^{[81, p. 15]}. F.F. Veselago's work contains information about five frigates launched in the period from 1773 to 1778 at the private Bykovsky shipyard ^{[66, pp. 87-89]}. I.A. Bykhovsky ^{[24, p. 153]}, followed by V.A. Palmin ^{[1, p. 154]} wrote about four frigates built here. Meanwhile, in A.A. Chernyshev's handbook, the Solombal shipyard is indicated as the place of construction of these frigates ^{[55, pp. 197-198]}.

V.A. Palmin assessed Arkhangelsk's final contribution to providing the Baltic Fleet with large-tonnage military sailboats. And this contribution was impressive, and throughout all stages of the Admiralty's activity ^{[7, p. 18]}.

E.N. Rukavishnikov, emphasizing the role of the Arkhangelsk shipbuilding center, noted that ships and frigates built here accounted for 60% of the large vessels participating in the Archipelagic expedition of 1769-1774 ^{[82, p. 148]}. And in 1780-1783, out of 15 ships and 6 frigates, 9 and 5 vessels built in Arkhangelsk operated in operations to protect the merchant shipping of neutral powers in the Mediterranean Sea ^{[82, p. 149]}.

In addition to quantitative characteristics, V.A. Palmin conducted an analysis of the qualitative performance indicators of the Admiralty, including a description of typical shipbuilding projects implemented here. Using the works of V.V. Veselago and A.A. Chernyshev, he considered the following series of ships and frigates: 54-gun ships of the Peter II type (built in 1735-1768) ^{[1, p. 138]}; 66-gun ships of the Glory of Russia type (1739-1773) ^{[1, p. 142]}; 66-gun ships of the improved Asia type (1773-1797) ^{[1, p. 143]}; 74-gun ships of the Yaroslav type (1783-1799) ^{[1, p. 145]}; 32-gun frigates of the Hector type (1735-1768) and the Pavel type (1772-1786) ^{[1, p. 154]}; 44-gun frigates of the Bryachislav type (1784-1790) and the Archangel Michael (1791-1798) ^{[1, p. 155]}. A comparative analysis of the service life of ships and frigates built at various shipyards allowed V.A. Palmin to conclude that "... the Arkhangelsk ships built of larch were not inferior in their seaworthiness and strength to those domestic sailboats made of oak, and in a number of indicators ... and surpassed them" ^{[7, p . 22]}.

The Admiralty in 1801-1862. The final period of sailing military shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk attracted the attention of researchers to a much lesser extent than the previous ones.

The beginning of this period, which coincided with the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, was accompanied by the traditional Russian practice of establishing another body designed to "clarify issues related to the formation of the fleet" ^{[2, p. 234]} - the Fleet Education Committee under the Ministry of the Navy. As part of the work of this committee, in 1803, Rear Admiral P.V. Chichagov, a comrade of the Minister of the Navy, got acquainted with the work of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty and presented a memorandum to Alexander I based on the results of his trip. The proposals contained in it for the re-equipment of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty were approved on September 16, 1803 ^{[2, p. 240]}. As E.I. Ahrens wrote, "It was decided to restore the Arkhangelsk port "in its former extensive form," for which, by the supreme command, the state Treasury allocated 560.000 rubles in installments for 6 years" ^{[83, p. 52]}. N.I. Barbashev summarized the content of the reconstruction as follows: "It is decided to concentrate the construction ships on one Small Island, auxiliary workshops should be built again, and existing boathouses, a drying room, a stone forge, as well as marinas and bridges should be overhauled so that frigates and other vessels could be built at the shipyard, passing through the Dvinsky Bar unhindered" ^{[80, p. 239]}. The authors of the article about the Arkhangelsk port in the Encyclopedic Lexicon also noted that of the nine boathouses located on Sredny Solombalsky Island (the so-called Bolshoy or Old Admiralty), four were moved to Severny Island, which was then assigned the name of the New Admiralty, where the construction of battleships was moved from 1810 ^{[84, p. 236]}. Extensive work was also carried out on the reconstruction of the Shirsheminsky Admiralty Plant, which was completed in 1807 ^{[2, p. 243]}.

S.F. Ogorodnikov believed that measures developed by the Navy Education Committee to improve the organization of the labor process at the shipyard, strengthen discipline, improve the financial situation of craftsmen and create more favorable working conditions were of great importance for improving the activities of the Admiralty. Since 1806, the freelance work of carpenters has been completely displaced and replaced by companies of Admiralty craftsmen ^{[2, pp. 253-254]}.

The next innovation, proposed by the Fleet Education Committee and aimed at improving the quality of ships under construction, concerned the technology of their manufacture for three years, which made it possible to achieve their greater strength as a result of more thorough preparation of individual elements of the set ^{[2, p. 254]}. In addition, due to the significant depletion of stocks of larch forests suitable for shipbuilding ^{[2, p. 237]}, in 1803 it was decided to limit the construction of military vessels in the Arkhangelsk Admiralty of a class no higher than a frigate ^{[85, p. 32]}.

However, all these calculations and plans were soon discarded. S.F. Ogorodnikov wrote that "... for some reason, the Committee's consideration of a three-year deadline was not implemented at the Arkhangelsk port, where a two–year deadline was established in 1805, and later an annual deadline" ^{[2, p. 254]}. V.P. Puzyrev explained this by the difficult military and political situation in Europe and the need to maintain the naval staff, which, among other things, forced the construction of ships of all classes to continue in Arkhangelsk ^{[85, p. 32]}. Moreover, in 1809, the construction of ships and frigates made of pine began ^{[2, p. 290]}, while "the haste of work and the number of ships built annually forced the Admiralty not to be picky about forest materials, which, almost from the water, went straight to business ..." ^{[2, p. 270]}.

At the beginning of the 19th century, logging areas changed, and logistical routes for delivering everything necessary for arming and equipping military vessels to the Admiralty were repeatedly adjusted. S.F. Ogorodnikov noted that mast timber began to be harvested in the Vologda province, ship pine was cut on both banks of the Northern Dvina and along the tributaries of the Onega River ^{[2, p. 290]}. Iron of various grades and cast iron ballast were supplied from Ural factories, and since 1817 the shipping route by inland waterways was changed to sea from Kronstadt using military vessels. However, since 1831, this practice was abandoned, and the delivery of iron to Arkhangelsk was entrusted to contractors ^{[2, p. 291]}. Artillery weapons were supplied from the Olonets factories. Moreover, in 1812-1831, these supplies also went by sea, and from 1832 they began to be made from Petrozavodsk via the river system ^{[2, p. 292]}. Meanwhile, V.P. Puzyrev argued that the practice of attracting contractors for the delivery of goods for various purposes, including artillery weapons, was widely developed already during the active shipbuilding period of the Napoleonic Wars ^{[85, p. 34]}. In addition, private transport vessels were widely used in the completion, equipping and arming of military vessels after their launch from the Admiralty stocks ^{[85, p. 35]}.

The period of the reign of Emperor Alexander I (1801-1825) was considered by S.F. Ogorodnikov to be the most productive in the history of the Admiralty, saying that during this time a total of 92 ships were built here, including 26 battleships and 18 frigates ^{[2, p. 305]}. Although, according to V.A. Palmin's estimates, the proportion of vessels of these classes built in Arkhangelsk in the Baltic Fleet decreased to 54 and 42.5%, respectively ^{[7, p. 18]}, nevertheless it remained the most significant among all shipyards. The main products of the Admiralty since 1809 were ships of the 74-gun rank ^{[2, p. 264]}. Up to 1825, ships of the Selafail type, with a total of 22 units, were built under the guidance of shipwright A.M. Kurochkin and according to a design specified by him ^{[1, p. 145]}. Since 1800, the construction of reinforced 44-gun frigates also began ^{[1, p. 156]}.

The accession of Emperor Nicholas I was accompanied by a new increase in government attention to the problems of the navy and shipbuilding. As N.A. Korguev noted, during the work of the newly established Committee for the Education of the Fleet, not only a significant shortage of naval personnel became clear, but also major problems with the quality of military vessels due to "... the poor quality of ship's forests, which resulted from careless supervision of ship's groves, disturbances in harvesting and rafting forests, and most of all from a multitude of abuses committed for selfish purposes" ^{[86, p. 10]}.

In addition to restoring basic order, S.F. Ogorodnikov pointed to the "various improvement measures" that had been taken. Among them, the introduction of furnaces on all ships since 1831, which were made of cast iron in Arkhangelsk and produced at the Shirshemsky plant ^{[2, p. 333]}, the construction of the first covered boathouse in 1838-1844 ^{[2, p. 336]}, was mentioned.

A significant change occurred in the staffing of shipbuilding operations, which resulted in the creation of working crews. As I.A. Baklanova wrote, "... the formation of working crews was associated with the expansion of shipbuilding and port work and aimed to increase the number of craftsmen in the maritime department and organize their work on a purely military basis" ^{[87, p. 21]}. Of the 10 working crews created for the Baltic Fleet, the 8th and 9th were stationed in Arkhangelsk ^{[87, p. 23]}. Thus, the tendency to reduce the share of freelance labor in the Admiralty, which emerged during the reign of Alexander I, finally prevailed ^{[87, p. 47]}.

The actual shipbuilding activity during the reign of Nicholas I is divided into two different stages. At the first of them, in 1826-1830, the Arkhangelsk Admiralty made a great contribution to the restoration of the naval strength of the Baltic Fleet, annually launching two battleships and vessels of other classes. V.A. Palmin noted that a feature in shipbuilding of this time was that 74-gun ships and 44-gun frigates were built under stronger armament without increasing their standard proportions: ships up to 80 and even 90 guns, and frigates up to 54 and even 62 ^{[1, p. 127]}.

The second stage began after the Baltic Fleet was manned to full strength in 1833. From that time on, Arkhangelsk was ordered to build one ship, frigate and transport each year, "... having this construction to be carried out in two years, meaning to give the best opportunity for members to dry out on the stocks" ^{[2, p. 334]}. V.A. Palmin named battleships of the Ezekiel type ^{[1, p. 152]} and 44-gun frigates of the Speshny type as the main construction objects in the second quarter of the 19th century ^{[1, p. 156]}. According to the author, the experience of ship construction in Arkhangelsk was so successful that it prompted the government in 1848 to raise the question of the possibility of building more powerful 84-gun ships here. The production capabilities of the Admiralty allowed this to be done, the only problem was the wiring of the built ships through the bar. To solve this problem, rubber sailing bags were even developed, which were tested in Kronstadt in 1852 ^{[1, p. 153]}. However, in 1854, all work on the project was stopped ^{[1, p. 154]}. In general, according to V.A. Palmin's estimates, in 1825-1855 The Baltic Fleet received 49% of battleships and 33% of frigates from the Arkhangelsk Admiralty ^{[7, p. 18]}.

The activity of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty in the 19th century was invariably associated by all its researchers with the names of three famous Russian shipbuilders who ensured the true fame of the Arkhangelsk ships – A.M. Kurochkin, V.A. Yershov ^{[2, p. 322; [88, p. 93]} and F.T. Zagulyaev ^{[2, p. 351; 67, p. 61; 5, pp. 17-18]}.

Special attention of researchers was paid to A.M. Kurochkin, who became the head of shipbuilding at the Admiralty in 1805 and built 28 battleships of various ranks, 17 frigates, five sloops and transports and 37 small sailing vessels during his long service ^{[2, p. 269]}. His numerous innovations in the design of ships and methods of their construction were written by S.F. Ogorodnikov ^{[2, pp. 264-265]}, N.I. Barbashev ^{[80, p. 240]}, I.I. Yakovlev ^{[23, p. 106]}, N.L. Konkov ^{[67, p. 60]}, I.A. Bykhovsky ^{[24, pp. 104-106]}, V.A. Palmin ^{[1, pp. 148-151]}.

In the second quarter of the 19th century, the construction of steam-powered vessels became a new phenomenon in the activities of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty. The need for steamships in Arkhangelsk arose primarily due to the need to facilitate the passage of 74-gun ships through the bar. S.F. Ogorodnikov pointed out that Vice Admiral A.F. Klochev had petitioned for the construction of a steamship as early as 1821 ^{[2, p. 299]}. After experiments with towing a 74-gun ship conducted in Kronstadt in the same year, it was decided to build two steamships for Arkhangelsk, the machines for which were ordered by the Izhora Plant. Since this company had no experience in building machines with a capacity of 60 hp, their design took two years ^{[89, p. 62]}. The hulls of the steamships were built on site in Arkhangelsk and were launched in June 1825 and July 1826. For the installation of machinery and control of steamships, the Admiralty signed a contract with the English mechanic N. Bird ^{[2, p. 318]}. According to L.I. Fomkinsky, both vessels served in the port for 18 years, and the machines served longer than the hulls and were installed in 1843 and 1844 on new steamships ^{[89, p. 63]}. In total, according to P. Mordovin, from 1825 to 1853, five steamships were built in Arkhangelsk for port needs ^{[90, p. 50]}. The issue of more powerful ships was solved worse, since the wiring of 74-gun ships by low-powered steamships caused, according to B. Glazenap, great difficulties. In 1847, Rear Admiral P.F. Kuzmishchev raised the issue of building a steamship with a 240 hp engine, but permission for this was received only in 1856. The steamer itself, named "Solombala", was laid down in 1858 and only launched in 1859 ^{[25, p. 108]}.

The highest assessment of the Nikolayev era in the history of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty was given by S.F. Ogorodnikov ^{[2, p. 336]}. However, such assessments clearly contradicted numerous examples of technical stagnation in the Admiralty and the inertia of the leadership of the maritime department in overcoming it. Similar examples were given by S.F. Ogorodnikov himself. For example, when he was the chief commander of the port, Rear Admiral A.F. Klachev in 1816 proposed to transfer all the production facilities of the Shirshemsky plant to the Admiralty, ensuring their operation from a steam engine. The cost estimate for all events presented at the same time provided for costs of 200 thousand rubles. However, this proposal was rejected, as well as similar initiatives that followed in 1825, 1831, 1855 and 1858. The author was inclined to explain these refusals by economic considerations due to the cheapness of the water energy used at Shirsham ^{[2, p. 276]}, which does not remove the general impression of excessive red tape in making relevant decisions in the field of scientific and technical policy. The same slowness can be seen in the case of the project for the construction of an oblique boathouse, proposed by the captain above the port P.F. Kuzmishchev in 1848, and implemented only ten years later ^{[2, p. 343]}. Or the construction of a powerful steamship for the port mentioned above. I.A. Bykhovsky and G.A. Grebenshchikova mentioned the construction of sheds for storing ship timber at the Admiralty in 1831 ^{[24, p. 104; 71, p. 90]}. Meanwhile, B.A. Glazenap wrote that in 1859 the ship's timber continued to be stored in stacks in the open air ^{[25, p. 92]}. Only this year, a steam sawmill was put into operation, while before that, pine forest was sawn at the Shirshemsky plant, and larch and oak forests were hewn and sawn manually at the Admiralty ^{[25, p. 92]}. Unlike S.F. Ogorodnikov, N.L. Konkov was inclined to characterize the second quarter of the 19th century. for the shipyard in Arkhangelsk as a period of decline, which, in his opinion, resulted in a reduction in the service life of battleships and frigates built here by 2 and 4 times, respectively ^{[67, p. 61]}.

A certain revival in the Admiralty came after the end of the Crimean War. The projects mentioned above were implemented, albeit belatedly. In 1859, under the new commander of the port, B.A. Glazenap, construction began on a foundry and a steam forge for forging heavy goods ^{[2, p. 362]}. In this regard, in August 1861, the Shirshemsky plant stopped working and the long–overdue transfer of its workshops to the port began ^{[2, p. 370]}. The new commander of the port, Admiral K.I. Istomin, who replaced B.A. Glazenap in 1860, began replacing the working crews with the labor of freelance workers ^{[2, p. 367]}.

All these measures were designed to meet the needs of the Admiralty related to the construction of screw steam vessels. The construction of sailing battleships was discontinued in 1852. "by the highest command," and a year earlier, the first screw frigate Palkan was laid down in Arkhangelsk ^{[2, p. 352]}. As noted by P. Mordvinov, the peculiarity of the construction of screw vessels here, due to the lack of its own engineering base, was that only a wooden hull was built at the Admiralty, then the vessel was equipped and sailed to Kronstadt, where a steam engine was installed ^{[91, p. 135]}. Another reason for this approach was the problem of shipping equipped vessels through the Severodvinsk bar ^{[92, p. 51]}. A lot of technical and organizational details of the construction of screw vessels – the frigates Palkan ^[92], Ilya Muromets ^[94] and Peresvet ^[95], as well as six clippers ^{[96, pp. 62; 93; 97]} – were given in a number of works by domestic researchers on the pages of the journal "Shipbuilding". The clippers received particularly high ratings from specialists, which, according to V.V. Zakharov, "... combined the advantages of the hull contours and sailability of the tea clippers with the stability of the White Sea schooners and the benefits of a screw propulsion system" ^{[96, p. 62]}. And V.T. Shcherbatsky emphasized that these vessels "... marked the beginning of a class of military vessels which existed in the Russian Navy until 1892" ^{[93, p. 53]}.

According to V.A. Palmin, at the beginning of the construction of screw vessels, "... the idea was hatched – to concentrate their main construction in Arkhangelsk. This was motivated by the fact that the construction of sail-screw frigates would be three times cheaper" ^{[7, p. 20]}. This intention can also be confirmed by the fact that of the seven screw frigates built at Russian shipyards in 1853-1860, three were from Arkhangelsk ^{[49, p. 175]}. "However, these plans were not destined to come true. The construction of sailing and screw vessels in connection with the beginning of the creation of the iron fleet in Russia was curtailed in 1860-1861" ^{[7, p. 20]}.

On March 5, 1862, by personal decree of Emperor Alexander II, the main port in Arkhangelsk was liquidated ^{[2, p. 372]}. Among other things, this meant the cessation of military shipbuilding here. After the closure of the shipyard, sailing and dinghy workshops continued to operate on its territory, in which warships based in Arkhangelsk, pilotage and hydrographic vessels were repaired ^{[77, p. 451]}.

S.F. Ogorodnikov considered the reason for this decision to be the unsuccessful launch in June 1861 of the 51-gun screw frigate Peresvet "... and the extremely difficult wiring of it through the bar ..." ^{[2, p. 372]}. The same position was held by the authors of the story about the Arkhangelsk port in the review prepared for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the reign of Alexander II ^{[98, p. 257]}. At the same time, the organization of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty itself was highly critically assessed and the extreme irrationality of the placement of its infrastructure facilities was shown ^{[98, p. 256]}. In the works of subsequent researchers, the lack of conditions for the construction of steam vessels in Arkhangelsk was cited as arguments in favor of the elimination of military shipbuilding due to the lack of metallurgical and machine-building enterprises nearby ^{[24, p. 115]}, as well as the lack of strong transport links with the industrial centers of the country ^{[37, p. 131]}. N.I. Barbashev He emphasized that "... the reduction in the number of shipyards is also explained by the fact that the beginning construction of military steam vessels required more complex equipment for shipbuilding bases, which means it was more expedient to concentrate shipbuilding on a small number of well-equipped shipyards" ^{[80, p. 247]}.

However, not all researchers considered the abolition of the Admiralty to be the result of objective reasons. For example, Soviet authors characterized this event as an "anti-national act of tsarism" that had no justification ^{[5, p. 19]}. M.E. Zhalnin also reproached the short-sightedness of the monarchical government, speaking of "... the biased and disdainful attitude of almost all Russian emperors towards the possibility of developing the Northern Territory" ^{[38, p. 61]}. In his opinion, in the context of Russia's general technical backwardness, which was clearly revealed during the Crimean War, Arkhangelsk's position was in no way fundamentally different from that of other shipbuilding centers in the country. "The tragic fate of the Solombal shipyards lies in the fact that the oldest state-owned shipbuilding enterprise, which had good prospects, was destroyed with a stroke of a pen in connection with the liquidation of the Arkhangelsk military Port and the White Sea Flotilla" ^{[38, p. 61]}.

Results and assessments of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty's activities. The results of the construction of military vessels in Arkhangelsk are reflected in the works of many researchers ^{[84, p. 239; 99, p. 607; 100; 101; 102, p. 457-458; 103, p. 593; 25, p. 91; 3, p. 47; 66, p. 11-277; 98, p. 256; 104, p. 232; 81, p. 3; 33, p. 51; 37, p. 132; 36, p. 13; 105, p. 51; 55; 74]}. However, all of them often differ from each other both in terms of generalizing indicators of the number of ships built at the Solombal shipyard, and in individual types of ships, even such significant ones as battleships and frigates. Thus, B.A. Glazenap pointed to the construction of 350 military vessels ^{[25, p. 91]}, K. Pilatsky – 390 ^{[3, p. 47]}, the author of the article in the Encyclopedia of Military and Marine Sciences - more than 400 ^{[104, p. 232]}, and I.A. Bykhovsky ^{[24, p. 116]} and G.P. Popov ^{[37, p. 132]} wrote about more than 500 military and commercial vessels.

A comparative analysis of the works of F.F. Veselago ^{[66, pp. 11-277]}, I.A. Bykhovsky ^{[24, p. 116]} and A.A. Chernyshev ^{[55; 74]}, containing the most complete list of ships built in Solombala for both the Baltic Fleet and the White Sea Flotilla, allows us to offer the following data on their number during the period from 1694 to 1862: battleships of all ranks – 158; sailing frigates of all ranks – 85 (including frigates built at the Bykovsky shipyard, as well as the Kilduin frigate, converted from transport); screw frigates – 3; screw clippers – 6; sloops – 3; brigs – 6; boats – 4; schooners – 11; boats – 3; yachts – 5; pinks – 25-26; transports – 28-29; brander – 1; gukors – 4-5; iols – 30; galliot – 1; flutes – 4; floating batteries – 4; gunboats – 12.

Estimates of the importance and role of the Arkhangelsk center for military shipbuilding in the works of pre-revolutionary authors were very restrained. B.A. Glazenap believed that "... The Arkhangelsk port from the very beginning of its establishment or from the beginning of the opening of the construction of ships at the Solombal shipyard did not have extensive military significance, but ... served only as a shipyard for the construction of ships, mainly for the Baltic fleet" ^{[25, p. 90]}. S.F. Ogorodnikov echoed him: "... Arkhangelsk had a modest and respectable role: to build military vessels and replenish the fleet concentrated in the Baltic with them" ^{[2, p. II]}. Researchers of the Soviet period called the Solombal shipyard a bright page in the history of Russian sailing shipbuilding ^{[67, p. 60]}, one of their most important bases of military shipbuilding ^{[24, p. 22]}. V.A. Palmin stands out among the authors of the post-Soviet period. He called the Admiralty not just one of the largest, but the largest shipbuilding enterprise in Russia during the period of sailing shipbuilding ^{[1, p. 162]}, justifying his conclusion by its contribution to the supply of the Baltic Fleet with warships of the main classes throughout the entire period of activity.

Conclusion. Summing up the research, let's formulate some final judgments. There is no doubt that there were objective prerequisites for the creation of a military shipbuilding center in Arkhangelsk, which coincided with the beginning of the transformative activities of Tsar Peter I. The formation of this center took place in the context of the changing military and political situation during the Peter era, which left its mark on its formation and functioning at that time. In the end, Arkhangelsk turned into one of the leading centers of military shipbuilding in Russia, which played an important role in replenishing the ship's complement throughout almost the entire era of the sailing fleet.

Despite the peripheral nature of the Arkhangelsk Admiralty's location, its activities were influenced by general trends characteristic of the entire Russian military shipbuilding industry at the time under review. Along with this, this shipbuilding center was characterized by a number of features, including: remoteness from the central, more industrially developed regions of the country; the resulting special importance of solving logistical issues in the interests of shipbuilding; the focus of its activities on providing the Baltic Fleet with ships; the absence of the need to maintain large independent enterprises in the North of Russia. naval formations at the time under study; climatic features of the region, which left their mark on the entire course of production activities, and a number of others.

If we talk about further research on the problem of military shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk, then their relevance follows from those contradictory assessments of a number of important issues discussed in this article. The most promising areas of research include the problem of the construction of ships for the Navy at private shipyards in Arkhangelsk, the interaction of government and private sectors of the shipbuilding industry in the region. Even more relevant is the study of logistics routes for the delivery to Arkhangelsk of everything necessary for the production of shipbuilding works there and the organization of this activity.