Russian Muskets & Fort Ross, California
Graham Priest
On 29th October 2002, after a relaxed night at the Mendocino Hotel, California overlooking the Pacific Ocean, my wife and I headed south on Coastal Highway 1 with San Francisco as our destination. A diversion to Point Arena Light Station delayed us until late morning, so the sun was high in the sky when we rounded yet another hairpin bend near Windermere Point. Then occurred a 'Brigadoon' moment, for shimmering in the haze with the sea behind it was a complete red-brown wooden fort; had we entered a window through time back into the past? Another halt was in order so we drove by the sign that stated 'Fort Ross State Historic Park' and entered the lot near a modern 'visitor center'. Phew! We were still in the 21st century! (Fig.1)
Even from a distance the fortification looked different to others seen in the USA. A church with twin cupolas and Orthodox Christian crucifixes towered over the walls and the bastions looked almost mediaeval. All was explained by a friendly park ranger, the site was Russian. Alaska yes, but what were these people doing in California? This paper hopes to explain.
Intrepid Russian promyshlenniki (frontiersmen) in search of mammals' pelts, such as seal and sea otter, had ventured via the Aleutian Islands from Siberia to Alaska after 1742. [1] 42 years later a colony was established on Kodiak Island. Merchant Gregor Shelikov's enterprise was successful enough for his widow Natalia Shelikova, with other partners, to found a 'United American Company' in 1797. [2] As the profits poured in Czar Paul I granted a charter to a new 'Russian-American Company'(RAC) in 1799. This was a joint-stock concern of a similar structure to the British Hudson's Bay or East India Companies. The initial 200 shareholders from the Russian aristocracy and royal family received good dividends from the sale of sea otter furs, the monopoly drove out other hunters, and a new base was built at Novo-Arckhangel'sk (Sitka). [3] As the animals were over-hunted, new areas were explored to the south. Governor Aleksandr Baranov negotiated with American sea captains to provide transport for the expert Native Alaskan (Kenai, Kodiak and Alutiig) fisherman/hunters and their skin baidarkas (kayaks). By 1804 Sitka had become a local capital, and in1806 the RAC was granted the Czar's charter and even its own colours. Vessels frequently visited the Californian coast, especially the natural harbour of Rumiantsev (Bodega) Bay, despite the hostility of the Spaniards who claimed the entire coastal waters as their jurisdiction. In April of the latter year Nikolai Petrovich Rezanof entered San Francisco Bay to negotiate with the governor of the Presidio for food supplies. Alaska's climate was not conducive to agricultural and the Spanish/Mexicans were not so adept at making domestic implements. The Alaskan settlers were short of grain & livestock so a barter system for ironware and similar goods was offered. Governor José Joaquin de Arrillaga and Commander José Argüello were so welcoming that, after Rezanof's return, Baranov decided to establish a Russian colony as close to the northern limit of Spanish territory as was possible. The Spaniards tolerated this activity, but never endorsed it, as they required the trade relations.
As permission was sought from Russia an exploratory vessel under Ivan Kuskov located a good site for a settlement north of Rumiantsev Bay in the autumn of 1808 and returned for a hunting season near there in spring 1811. By March 1812 with approval granted he had returned in the ship Chirikoff with 25 Russians and 80 Alaskans to found the colony. Sited on a bluff above a sandy cove where two creeks entered the sea the location was 18 miles north of Rumiantsev Bay. Probably simply known as 'Settlement Ross' or 'Colony Ross' (possibly derived from the Russian word Rossiya for 'Imperial Russia') it soon became Fuerto de la Rusos in Spanish or 'Fort Ross' in English.
As the Spanish, or the local Kashaya with their village of Meteni in the hills, were likely to be displeased by the new arrivals, a defensive perimeter was set up, mainly for use by the officers. This had a12 feet high palisade of redwood planks, capped with yard long wooden or iron spikes mortised to horizontal beams at the summit, and embedded in buried logs. (Fig.2) The enclosed a rectangular area of 300 by 280 feet had a central well. (Fig.3) An octagonal and septilateral tower with two floors flanked the south-east and north-west corners. About 1825 a chapel was constructed on the north-east angle, on the site of a previous bell tower. A gate passed through the southern wall towards the sea access. (Fig.4) Houses, barracks, storerooms and domestic buildings were established inside the stockade. Should danger threaten potential enemies could be deterred by gunfire from 20 loopholes in the perimeter and 14 or 16 others in the turrets. (Fig.5 &6) Initially twelve cannon were sited on the various floors of the bastions or opposite the gate. [4] Such an assault never transpired.
Outside the compound a smithy and boathouse, carpenters', tanners' and coopers' workshops, a bakehouse and kitchens, a series of Native Alaskan style houses, 8 bath houses and numerous agricultural sheds for keeping sheep, cattle, pigs and horses, plus the windmill and threshing floor, were also of wooden construction. (Fig.7) Carpentry techniques from Russia were used to splice the joints in the buildings of redwood, oak and Douglas fir. Arrangements to support the hunters, process their captures and set up subsistence agriculture occupied the early residents. On September 11th (August 30th in the Julian calendar) 1812 the site was formally dedicated. [5]
Initially as a 'frontier' post armed security was a sensible precaution, but after a few years without a threat even the militia ceased to stand sentry on a regular basis. (Fig.8) Within the enclosure commandant Ivan Kuskov's imposing two-storey house was the most substantial building, but the barracks for workers (although many Russians lived outside) the clerk's accommodation and the storehouses would initially have been perceived as last resort 'blockhouses'. Their military function was soon forgotten. Individuals probably possessed firearms, especially the visitors such as scientist Ilya Voznesenskii in the 1840s, whose reconstructed room still displays a flintlock hunting-musket that doubled for personal protection. (Fig.9) As most workers cleared & fenced land, planted cereals, flax, hemp, poppies, vegetables, squashes and tobacco the fort's defensive light armament was housed in an armoury on the upper floor of Kuskov's house.
It was common practice for Russian cannon in redoubts elsewhere to be kept loaded with langridge, but again this necessity would soon have ceased. Eventually the guns may have totalled 41 altogether. (Fig.10) One bronze 4-pounder was an ex-military field piece cast at St.Petersburg for use against the French. [6] This had a short howitzer barrel, heavy iron bound wheels and a limber. (Fig.11) Such weapons ensured mobile defence in the case of a breach to the stockade or gate. Its metal was never tested!
As all commercial activities in Russia were owned by the state, or on a quasi-official relationship known as 'possessional factories', the RAC was not a truly independent concern. [7] The government controlled all labour through the system known as serfdom, and rigorously restricted the movement and industrial potential of skilled personnel or entrepreneurial individuals. Some production, such as the manufacture of firearms, was almost entirely politically managed. A very limited number of 'private' manufacturers were allowed to obtain land, set up premises and furnish them with equipment, but the serfs used as the workforce were state owned, tied to the premises and no changes could be made to their conditions of service without permission. Quotas for the government 'share' were set in stone, and once pay agreements etc. had been set up the employer had to abide by them, even if the process was not a success. This stifled all innovation so that Russia was falling well behind the rest of Europe and America by the time that Fort Ross was founded.
One advantage of the colonial arrangement was that the fort received ex-military muskets direct from the Russian arsenals. [8] It seems that the bronze howitzer, mentioned previously, had been found wanting against the heavier French artillery, so had been surplused to the company, and the shoulder arms were probably part of the same system. [9]
By early 1812 Russia had three major small arms facilities. Tula, near iron deposits south of Brannaia sloboda (Moscow) had been founded in 1595, drastically revised in 1712, and traditionally equipped the army. [10] Sestroretsk adjacent to St.Petersburg close to the Gulf of Finland supplied the navy from 1724 onwards. Izhevsk in the Ural Mountains was an expanded iron foundry, had only started work in 1807 and had no specialist clientele. There were some possessional factories in the Tula area but these were of minor significance for 'common musket' production as they supplied the aristocracy and nobility with higher quality weapons for sport and personal use.
Separate factory managements were integrated under the Ministry of War in 1808. [11] A Quartermaster General was appointed to oversee the Ordnance Department. Each facility had a governing board that supervised the commander of the armoury. This individual was not permitted to use his initiative without recourse to the governors. Within the factory a chief engineer co-ordinated the different departments that each employed foremen and shop stewards to regulate the gunsmiths and serf labourers. The former officials were bureaucrats not skilled tradesman. With Russia's notoriously poor communications system to add extra complications, the unwieldy arms industry was not designed for efficiency!
Each financial year (from September) the Military Council of the Ministry of War made an appropriation of funds for the requirements of the armed forces. [12] Separate armouries received a production order from the Inspector of Armouries. Indents for resources were then sent back by the commander to the ministry for approval. After consulting the governors the chief engineer allocated the tasks to each tseki (workshop) based on the number of workers and weeks in the contract period. Although employees worked for six 12hour days per week the number of non-factory days allowed for mowing, fasting etc. often reduced the potential output to 270 days per year. [13] Annual targets allowed for a high wastage of materials and were often very ambitious!
Within the organisation skilled serfs carried out primary sawing, carpentry, smithing, mechanical operations and painting, supported by others less trained who lit fires, dug coal or fetched and carried. (Fig.12) These individuals were indentured to the site by an obrok or 'quitrent' (a sort of deposit taken from their wages as a deterrent to poor workmanship or absenteeism) and had a required quota of jobs per session. The workers were allocated to the premises by the government, could not leave unless transferred and were eligible for conscription.
The actual gunmakers were organised into specialist guilds that formed arteli (teams) for one aspect of production. [14] On average there were two masters, several journeymen and the rest workmen out of a group of 20. Each team was not allowed to move locations, had collective responsibility for their workmanship but did not pay an obrok. As trained individuals were in short supply they received privileges such as exemption from conscription, soul tax and the billeting of troops in their homes. They were also able to own land or buildings, had free access to the forest for fuel, and food at wholesale prices from the factory commissary. Although they were banned from selling arms privately they were granted leave to make other domestic items, such as cutlery or samovars, and could even travel to other markets to trade with them. As an elite 'caste' their male children were expected to follow the same trade through an apprenticeship whether they wanted to or not.
Many of these specialists were paid a fixed hourly wage. 'Piece work' rates were used at Sestroretsk after 1823 but often private work was of more value to the gunmakers so motivation was poor. [15] In the same year a lack of government orders left many workers idle even though they were not permitted to look for other means of employment.
As one operation was completed the 'boss' of the arteli who had distributed the original materials collected the finished items, inspected them and paid the wages. Defective parts were returned and the team not rewarded. When the quota was fulfilled it was passed to another workshop where the process began again. Tula & Sestroretsk used an 'outwork' system with employees labouring at home. Tools and furnaces varied, as did the quality of hand skills. Izhevsk was more centralised with 14 stone buildings on one site. [16] Each stage of the weapon often involved a journey of several miles as it was passed around the workshops dedicated to barrels, locks, stocks, smallwork or 'armes blanches'.
An English visitor to Tula in 1839 commented:- It surprised us to find, that instead of having one large establishment, where all branches of gunmaking could be prosecuted together and where all workmen could carry on in their various departments under proper inspection, nearly all the work is performed by blacksmiths at their own houses. When one has done to a musket all that belongs to his branch, it is sent away to another, and so on till it has traversed Tula a dozen times. We thus found hundreds of blacksmiths carrying about muskets from place to place when labouring hours were over. [17] This was slightly supercilious as both Birmingham and Liège used a very similar process at this date. [18]
After final fitting the weapons were sent to the factory depot for inspection & proof, stored until the contract was completed, and then forwarded to government arsenals at Briansk, Kiev or St.Petersburg. [19] From these regiments and other users were issued with arms. Unfortunately although the manufacturies had the potential to produce muskets in large quantities, the use of forced labour (Tula bought 350 serfs from Naryshkin in 1820), a lack of financial motivation for the gunmakers who were happier making 'private' goods, and the crushing of all entrepreneurial spirit caused constant shortfalls. By 1806 Tula was capable of making 100,000 weapons each year but only managed 46,000. [20] Two years later the target was 146,000 but there was a shortage of 47,000 muskets by 1810.
Almost simultaneously with the founding of Fort Ross many thousands of miles away Napoleon's troops were massing on the River Nieman in Prussia intent on invading Russia. [21] When the incursion started on 23rd June 1812 Csar Alexander I had to appeal to his workers to increase output. Within weeks as French and allied troops advanced on Moscow Tula stepped up production to 10,000 per month and repaired an additional 3,000. Possessional factories built 3,000 more. [22] Izhevsk and Sestroretsk managed 18,614, with 2,400 pistols, in the same period. By 1815 Tula had completed 500,000 firearms. [23]
The fort would have received military weapons of a pre-1812 design on establishment, but these may have been supplemented with later Russian models and captured flintlocks before 1841. The current rebuilt armoury in the Kuskov house was equipped with 40 French Fusil d'infanterie modèle 1777 at the time of writing. [24] (Figs.13 & 14) A strong contender for the original issue had to be the Infantry musket Obrazets 1808 goda. [25] (Figs.15, 16 & 17) This 17.78mm calibre smoothbore was 0.7kg lighter than the model of three years before at 4.46kg. [26] It was 1.458m long and carried a socket bayonet with a 445mm triangular blade. [27] This was the weapon produced in quantity after the Csar's appeal in 1812 and was part of his drive to modernise the industry. In fact an imitation of the French Fusil d'infanterie modèle 1777, later revamped as the Fusil d'infanterie modèle 1777 corrigé AN IX under the Republican calendar for September 23rd 1801 until September 22nd 1802, it was the most modern musket to date. [28] Russia had tried to work towards the standardisation of gun parts since 1798, but except for the limited development of barrel boring and grinding machines in the early 19th century this had foundered on the reliance of hand work. [29] Although the use of barrel bands, a nose cap and a more canted butt resembled the French prototype workmanship was much cruder.
The bayonet was a good example of the difference in quality. (Figs.18 & 19) The original Baïonnette mle. 1777 was an innovator with its reinforced mortise bridge, median locking ring and triple fullered blade. It was secured to a stud beneath the barrel to prevent damage to the foresight. The Russian shtik of 1808 had the same proportions but the slot was left unbridged and the heavy blade was only lightened on the outer faces. The 'cold steel' was a fundamental part of Russian warfare. Users were only given limited training with musket fire, often clay bullets being issued for target practice, but the idea that the bayonet charge was essential was deeply reinforced. Scabbards were not issued so blades were fitted at all times, and Field Marshal Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov's (1729-1800) proposal that, "the bullet is a fool, but the bayonet is a fine lad" (pulia dura, shtik molodets) was still accepted. [30] As the socket bayonet was a vital adjunct to the single-shot flintlock Fort Ross would have received its quota as part of the stand of arms.
It is possible that some other longarms, such as the English India Pattern 'Brown Bess' were also present. [31] (Fig.20) Russia obtained 60,000 of these weapons from Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. [32] When the 20,000 survivors of the French Army returned to Prussia on 7th December 1812 they left behind at least 550,000 troops, some 470,000 dead. [33] Not only French (270,000) but Austrian (34,000), Bavarian (20,000), Czech (Warsaw-35,000), Italian (45,000), Prussian (25,000), Saxon (20,000) and Westphalian (20,000), together with assorted members of smaller states and principalities, their weaponry lay abandoned in the Russian snow. The much-prized muskets were collected and reissued throughout the Csar's domains. This was the likely source of the arms that accumulated in the Kuskov house at the fort.
The production of French & British weapons is outside the scope of this essay as it has been explored fully elsewhere. [34] Prussian, Swedish and other muskets were also adopted. Ammunition supply was a nightmare as the Russian forces used 28 different calibres after 1812. [35]
Despite the trepidations of the early settlers, probably generated by the memory that indigenous-natives had destroyed the fort at Novo-Arckhangel'sk in 1802, none of the weapons were used in anger. [36] (Fig.21) As the years passed fort commanders oversaw prikashchiki (administrators) and workers on a seven year contract. Until 1820 they received a profit share, but after that a salary. Over-hunting caused the sea otter profits to decline and eventually the thin soil and constant sea mists of the Californian coast reduced agricultural output too. The establishment of orchards of fruit trees and outlying ranches delayed the recession somewhat but the object of creating a successful supply base for future Russian endeavours never came to pass. After 1821 when Mexico became independent of Spain there was sufficient gunpowder to sell to General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, as well as the skill in the fort to manufacture his troops' uniforms. The population and profitability of the site peaked in the early 1830s. There were 233 inhabitants in 1833, with only 50 as pure Russians, the rest being Native Alaskan or 'creoles' of mixed race, and 260 in 1836. [37] Cannon and muskets would have remained in good order in case of emergencies, but were mainly used as adjuncts to the various holiday celebrations that were frequently enjoyed. From 1818 shipbuilding was a local trade, with craft such as schooners and brigs being built from the generous supplies of local timber.
By April 1839 dwindling profits and friction with the ever-increasing numbers of Mexican and American settlers that had arrived in the area caused the distant government in St.Petersburg and the officials of the RAC to dissolve the settlement. [38] Alexander Rotchev was ordered to sell the entire operation. The Hudson's Bay Company, French military attaché in Mexico City, Republican government of Mexico and General Vallejo of Sonoma all declined to buy, probably in the latter cases as they thought potential Russian abandonment would save them the cash! Instead an expatriate Swiss called John Sutter signed an agreement to purchase, for $30,000-some in produce from his Sonoma holdings and some in coin, on December 13th 1841. [39] On New Year's Day 1842 Rotchev's ship full of settlers departed Fort Ross for Sitka, and soon afterwards John Bidwell arrived to collect the arms and ammunition. The RAC struggled on in Alaska until a charter extension in 1862, but eventually the United States Government obtained the territory from the Russian government in 1867.
In less than seven years from the Russian's withdrawal, on 24th January1848, James Marshall discovered gold at Coloma some 45 miles from the site. [40] If ownership had been retained the history of the 'Forty-Nine Gold Rush' might have been different!
Sutter stripped the fort of useful equipment and some buildings, and the site had mixed fortunes and owners until acquired by the California Historical Landmarks Committee in 1903 and then the State of California in March 1906. Continuous restoration, archaeological research, and development of the location as a recreational amenity has continued until the present.
As the sun ripples across the ocean that divides present Siberia from California one can only imagine what those long dead Russians of 1812 thought as they stood at the loopholes, muskets in hand, waiting for the enemy that never appeared.

Endnotes
[1] Anon, Fort Ross State Historic Park, California State Parks, USA, 2001, unpaginated.
[2] Watrous, S., The Cultural History of Fort Ross, < >, 18/03/06, pp.1-2.
[3] Pierce, R.A., (Editor), Essig, E.O., Ogden, A. & Du Four, C.J., Fort Ross California, Outpost of Russian Alaska 1812-1841, Alaska History No.39, Limestone Press, Kingston, Canada, 1991, pp. 1-25.
[4] Ibid., p. 7.
[5] Ibid., p. 6.
[6] Beck, S., 'A Brief History of Sutter's Bronze Field Cannon and a Brief History of John Sutter', <>, 12/03/06, pp.1-3.
[7] Bradley, J., Guns for the Tsar-American Technology and the Small Arms Industry in Nineteenth Century Russia, North Illinois University Press, Dekalb, USA, 1990, p.64.
[8] Joy, R., pers. comm., 12th March 2006.
[9] Beck, S., Op. cit., p.1.
[10] Bradley, J., Op. cit., p. 63.
[11] Ibid., p. 64.
[12] Ibid., p. 66.
[13] Ibid., p. 80.
[14] Ibid., p. 68.
[15] Ibid., p. 78.
[16] Ibid., p. 82.
[17] Bremner, R., Excursions in the Interior of Russia Vol. 2, London, 1839, pp. 308-309.
[18] Classic Arms & Militaria, Priest, G., ‘1871 Franco-Prussian War Snider Rifles-British Made’, Vol.9, Issue 5, Sept./Oct. 2002, pp.26-29 & ‘1871 Franco-Prussian War Snider Rifles-Part II’, Vol.9, Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 2002, pp.18-21.
[19] Bradley, J., Op. cit., p. 82.
[20] Bogdanovic, B. & Valencak, I., Great Century of Guns, Gallery Books, New York, U.S.A., 1986, p. 27.
[21] Haythornthwaite, P.J., Napoleon's Military Machine, Ravelin Ltd., Stamford, England, 1988, p. 140.
[22] Bogdanovic, B. & Valencak, I., Op. cit., p. 27.
[23] Bradley, J., Op. cit., p. 76.
[24] Joy, R., pers. comm., 13th March 2006 & <>, 09/03/06, p. 1.
[25] Deutches Waffen Journal, May 1977.
[26] Anon, 'Russian Infantry during the Napoleonic Wars',< >, 09/03/06, p. 4.
[27] Kulinsky, A.N., Russian sidearms, polearms and bayonets, Vol.II, Atlant, St.Petersburg, Russia, 2001, pp. 52-53.
[28] Boudriot, J., Armes à Feu FrançaisesModèles D'Ordonnance, Cahier no.3, Paris, France, 1961, pp. 1-9.
[29] Bradley, J., Op. cit., pp. 88-89.
[30] Ibid., p. 47.
[31] Joy, R., pers. comm., 13th March 2006.
[32] Anon, 'Russian Infantry during the Napoleonic Wars'., Op. cit., p. 4.
[33] Glover, M., Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Guild Publishing, London, England, 1980, pp. 143-145.
[34] Blackmore, H.L., British Military Firearms 1650-1850, Herbert Jenkins Ltd., London, 1961 & Boudriot, J., Op. cit.
[35] Anon, 'Russian Infantry during the Napoleonic Wars'., Op. cit., p. 4.
[36] Watrous, S., Op. cit., p. 3.
[37] Pierce, R.A., (Editor), Op. cit., p. 10.
[38] Anon, 'History of the Russian Settlement at Fort Ross, California', <>, 10/03/06, p. 3.
[39] Pierce, R.A., (Editor), Op. cit., p. 68.
[40] Beck, S., Op. cit., p. 3.

Captions
Fig.1. A view of the palisade and gate at Fort Ross from the south. Notice the octagonal bastion and the wooded Sonoma foothills. (Priest)
Fig.2. The Kuskov House, home of a former manager, and chapel. The armoury is on the upper floor. (Priest)
Fig.3. The well and typical Russian water raising system. Notice how the stockade is constructed. (Priest)
Fig.4. Another view of the palisade. The horizontal beams secured yard long spikes. (Priest)
Fig.5. The loophole in the south-east bastion that enfilades the wall and gate. Each face of the tower had two similar gun ports. (Priest)
Fig.6. The simple shutter and beam that closes a loophole on the ground floor of the north-west tower. (Priest)
Fig.7. A seaward view of Fort Ross drawn by A.B. Duhaut-Cilly in 1828. The chapel and seven-sided bastion on the north-west are clear, as is the flag pole and surrounding hutments. Fort Ross Creek runs in the foreground. (Courtesy of Fort Ross State Historic Park)
Fig.8. A group of settler re-enactors in typical Russian dress. They are armed with a variety of French, Russian and English muskets. Initially drill would have been essential on the frontier but may soon have lapsed. Some might have been conscripts such as the uniformed soldier. (Courtesy of Robin Joy)
Fig.9. A flintlock hunting weapon hangs from the log wall in scientist Ilya Voznesenskii's room. He was a gifted artist and was also one of the first Europeans to climb Mount St.Helens. (Priest)
Fig.10. A small calibre cannon in situ in the north-west tower. This was kept loaded with langridge and originally would have had ropes to secure it to the walls. (Priest)
Fig.11. A replica of John Sutters' brass howitzer on a field carriage. This four-pounder could be moved rapidly around the site. When the fort was sold these weapons had an interesting history. The original was removed to San Francisco and lost in the 1906 earthquake. (Priest)
Fig.12. French workers forge musket barrels by hand in a very similar manner to those in Russia. The quality of the workmanship varied greatly depending on skill and materials. (Foliot)
Figs.13 & 14. An armourer repairs muskets in the reconstructed armoury at the Kuskov House in 2006. Notice the racks of French muskets and assorted other weapons. Powder horns for the Aleut hunters hang from the pillars. (Courtesy of Robin Joy)
Fig.15. Captioned
Fig.16. Captioned
Fig.17. Captioned
Fig.18. Captioned
Fig.19. Captioned
Fig.20. Captioned
Fig.21. A modern Russian sentry armed with musket and bayonet defends one of the bastions as the original settlers did in 1812. (Courtesy of Robin Joy)
Acknowledgements
Particular appreciation to Robin Joy and the staff at Fort Ross State Historic Park(<www.fortrossstatepark.org>) for their help and encouragement. Also ongoing gratitude to Roger Evans, Fred Stephens and Judy Priest. Thanks to others mentioned in the captions.