The Zemsky Sobor for the modernization of the armed forces of the Moscow kingdom was convened under Tsar Fedor Alekseevich in the year 1682. The abolition of parochialism occurred in the same year, which was a major step towards democratization and improvement of not only the Russian troops, but the entire administrative system as a whole. This measure was a harbinger of the famous Petrine reforms, the essence of which was to eliminate the principle of nobility when determining for service and highlighting personal merits.
About the ruler
The most important reform in the 17th century was the abolition of parochialism. At what tsar this transformation took place - one of the most interesting topics in Russian historiography. The corresponding decree was adopted under Fedor Alekseevich, whose rule was marked by a series of transformations aimed at strengthening the autocratic power. Under him, an attempt was made to change the system of administrative and church administration, however, due to his early death, this measure was never implemented.
Description of the concept
Of particular importance in Russian history is the year 1682. The abolition of localism 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 outline the main features of the time under consideration.
The end of the 17th century was a transitional era in the life of our country, because it was then that the government clearly recognized the need for change and major reforms. However, the old order was still very strong, including the system of localism. So in the old days they called the principle of replacing posts in accordance not with personal services, but by the degree of nobility and nobility of a person. This led to endless disputes between representatives of the boyar clans, who claimed higher places, referring to their ancient and noble origin.
Composition of the nobility
This state of affairs complicated the work of the state apparatus and military forces. After all, the essence of localism was not reduced to the abilities of a person, but to determining the degree of his nobility and generosity.
Here a few words should be said about the composition of the Moscow nobility: it included representatives of the ancient capital aristocracy, newcomers of the Lithuanian and Tatar princes, as well as nobles of specific principalities annexed to Moscow. All of them, as a rule, were members of the sovereign Duma, engaged in civil and military administration. However, the endless debate about which one to stand above prevented the work of an ever-expanding state apparatus, which needed more flexible system for effective control.
Very often during military campaigns, the boyars and governors were not so much engaged in military operations as in finding out which of them was supposed to be the boss and who was the subordinate, which, of course, sometimes led to sad consequences.
System strength
Zemsky Cathedral on the abolition of parochialism, in fact, changed the entire familiar administrative structure in our country. After all, the system of government was based on this principle for several centuries. 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 tsars themselves supported her, actively participating in the disputes of the boyars and assigning them to the service by origin and degree of kinship. Secondly, the constant growth of Moscow nobility at the expense of nobles from other specific principalities required a certain order in the distribution of posts, and parochialism with its stable structure was best suited for this. Thirdly, this order was normatively formalized in discharge books and genealogies, which from generation to generation served as the basis for disputes and claims.
Estimates in historiography
The verdict on the abolition of localism was a natural consequence of the need to eliminate the cumbersomeness and intricacies 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 harmony and some strength of the entire system. According to the researcher, this principle has maintained for the time being the unity of the estate, despite disputes and bickering over its rank. However, most researchers nevertheless agree that such a rule for replacing posts had an extremely negative effect on the management system.
Prerequisites for Reform
Based on the foregoing, we can name the following reasons for the abolition of parochialism: the need to create a more efficient and mobile administrative structure, the desire of the tsarist government to attract really talented and capable service people. This reform should be seen as a continuation of the policy of the previous Moscow rulers, primarily Mikhail Fedorovich, to create the so-called regiments of the new system. So, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the need to overcome the old staffing system became apparent.
The cathedral
A new meeting of representatives of the clergy met in the year 1682. The abolition of localism was one of the main consequences of its administrative decisions. However, it should be noted that this cathedral was devoted more to religious issues and was a continuation of church reform. At this meeting, the main issues brought up for consideration concerned the organization of new dioceses, monasteries, and the correction of the Official Book. However, the need for the abolition of the obsolete model for the replacement of military and state ranks was so ripe that they decided to destroy the discharge books. We can say that the decision to abolish the old system of service was a step forward in military and state administration.
Value
One of the most important reforms in the history of Russia was carried out in the year 1682. The abolition of localism highlighted career advancement due to personal service. Therefore, Peter the Great cannot be considered the founder of this reform: the first emperor only strengthened and legally formalized what existed before him.