Zemsky Sobor on the modernization of the armed forcesThe Moscow kingdom was convened under Tsar Fedor Alekseevich in the year 1682. The abolition of regionalism occurred in the same year, which was a major step towards democratization and improvement not only of Russian troops, but also of the entire administrative system of administration. This measure became the forerunner of the famous Peter's reforms, the essence of which was to eliminate the principle of nobility in determining the service and highlighting personal merit.
About the ruler
The most important reform in the 17th century was the abolitionlocalism. Under which king this transformation took place is one of the most interesting topics in Russian historiography. The relevant resolution was adopted under Fedor Alekseevich, whose rule was marked by a series of reforms aimed at strengthening the autocratic power. Under him, an attempt was made to change the system of administrative-church administration, but because of his early death, this measure was never implemented.
Characteristics of the concept
Of particular importance in Russian history is the year.1682. The abolition of regionalism was perhaps its most important event, since it led to a radical transformation of a significant part of society. But, before talking about the essence and significance of this reform, it is necessary to identify the main features of the time in question.
The end of the 17th century was a transitional era in lifeour country, because it was then that the government clearly realized the need for change and for serious reforms. However, the old order was still very strong, including the system of regionalism. So in the old days they called the principle of filling posts in accordance not with personal service, but according to the degree of generosity and nobility of a person. This led to endless disputes between representatives of the boyar clans, who claimed higher places, citing their ancient and noble origins.
The composition of the nobility
This state of affairs complicated the work of the state apparatus and military forces. After all, the essence of parochialism was not reduced to a person’s abilities, but to determining the degree of his nobility and generosity.
Here it is necessary to say a few words about the compositionMoscow boyars: it included representatives of the old metropolitan aristocracy, alien Lithuanian and Tatar princes, as well as nobles attached to Moscow specific principalities. All of them, as a rule, were part of the sovereign Duma, engaged in civil and military administration. However, endless debates about which of them to stand higher, hindered the work of the ever-expanding state apparatus, which, for effective control, needed a more flexible system.
Very often during the military campaigns of the boyars andthe governors were not so much engaged in military operations, as clarifying which of them was supposed to be the head, and to whom the subordinate, which, of course, sometimes led to dire consequences.
System strength
Zemsky Sobor on the abolition of parochialism, in fact,changed all the usual administrative structure in our country. Indeed, for several centuries the system of state administration was based on this principle. Therefore, naturally, the question arises about the reasons for the stability of this system. There are several reasons for this. First, the Moscow princes and kings themselves supported her, actively participating in the disputes of the boyars and defining them to the service of origin and degree of kinship. Secondly, the constant growth of Moscow nobility at the expense of noblemen from other specific principalities required some order in the distribution of posts, and localism with its stable structure was best suited for this. Thirdly, this procedure was normatively documented in discharge books and genealogies, which, from generation to generation, served as the basis for disputes and claims.
Grades in historiography
The verdict on the abolition of parochialism became naturalthe consequence of the need to eliminate the bulkiness and entanglement of the state apparatus based on this system. However, the modern historian D. Volodikhin notes some positive features of this system, indicating that it provided the slimness and some strength of the entire system. According to the researcher, this principle retained for the time being the unity of the class, despite the disputes and altercations over the rank held. However, the majority of researchers nevertheless agree that such a rule for filling posts had a very negative effect on the management system.
Prerequisites for reform
Based on the foregoing, the following can be calledthe reasons for the abolition of localism: the need to create a more efficient and mobile administrative structure, the desire of the tsarist government to recruit truly talented and capable service people. This reform should be viewed as a continuation of the policy of the preceding Moscow rulers, primarily Mikhail Fedorovich, on the creation of the so-called regiments of the new system. So, at the beginning of the 17th century, the need to overcome the old system of staffing became obvious.
Cathedral
New clergy meetinggathered in the year 1682. The abolition of parochialism became one of the main consequences of its administrative decisions. However, it should be noted that this cathedral was devoted to more religious moments and was a continuation of church reform. At this meeting, the main issues submitted for consideration related to the organization of new dioceses, monasteries, and the correction of the Official Book. However, the need to abolish the outdated model of substitution of military and government officials matured so much that they decided to destroy the bit books. It can be said that the decision to abolish the old service system was a step forward in the military and state administration.
Value
One of the most important reforms in the history of Russia washeld in the year 1682. The abolition of parochialism highlighted the promotion at the expense of personal service. Therefore, Peter I can not be considered the ancestor of this reform: the first emperor only strengthened and legislatively designed what existed before him.
