Maybe there were just no luck with the teachers. Maybe I wasn’t just interested enough in the past when my present was so captivating and unpredictable.

Whatever.

But now I always ask myself some questions… like: why Moscow, the city which recently celebrated its 850’s birthday, is less interesting to visit for tourists than Saints-Peterburg (300 years old)?
Everyone who has been to the both of the cities always recommends their friends to visit Peter. Not Moscow.

Taking into consideration their age it looks strange, isn’t it?

The city which more than twice older is supposed to have a rich history and a great architecture, right? Not in Russia… surprisingly.

Trying to find out the answer on this mystical lack of logic, I’ve asked Google. Sure, I expected this answer.

Initially everything was built of wood. Great fires, wood, great fires, a very common approach which had happened in many ancient countries.
Then the Mongols occupation stopped the architectural development and almost completely destroyed the existed city culture. The building of stone had been suspended for two hundred years.

The hard-fought victory at Kulikovo on the Don River in 1380 raised the country’s faith in the Great Prince and Moscow’s leadership in Russia was now firmly based.

The first stone constructions were built in Moscow’s Kremlin in 1330s. They were made of white stone. That’s why Moscow is often called “white-stone” or made of white stone.

	The oldest church in Kremlin, Moscow. Was destroyed in 1933.
	Dmitry Solunskii’s Church. Pushkin’s Square. Was built in 1791. Destroyed in 1933.
	Pushkin’s Square.
	Red Gates.
	Vladimir’s Gates.
	Triumphal Arch. Was built in 1827—34. Destroyed in 1936.

I don’t have to know History of Russia too much to understand that all these great buildings were destroyed in the period of Soviet Regime. And it’s really REALLY sad.