Brainliestt asap!me : ) how were peter the great (absolute monarch from russia) and charles | (constitutional monarch from england) similar? how did they differ? did one have more power than the other? how did the type of monarch each was, affect their nation?

Charles I was far from the great reformer that Peter the Great is remembered as. The general consensus is that Charles was a poor ruler due to his inability to cooperate with parliament. Charles professed that he represented the people, yet he wanted absolute power over them.    Peter appears to be the more absolute ruler. He was bent on changing his nation and he largely succeeded but couldn't make any big changes due to financial instabilities.  Peter was remembered as a better ruler than Charles l.  Charles l had to do more to appease the nobles.  When Charles l was king his monarchy was  initially successful and during the turmoil of the civil wars, many people looked back upon it as a golden age of peace and prosperity.  During Peter the great monarch was best known for his extensive reforms in an attempt to establish Russia as a great nation.   He concentrated on developing commerce and industry and created a gentrified bourgeoisie population.  He also modernized the Russian alphabet, introduced the Julian calendar, and established the first Russian newspaper.

- "the past is made of multitudinous items ranging from anything that can be collected, recollected or assessed to originate in the past. as such, the past is a gallimaufry of particulars that may not have been related in any way. however, the human mind seeks organization to understand concepts and other things. the human mind therefore seeks relationships in explaining and studying the past. history being a humanity, dictates that historians have to serve this human trait by bringing structure to details of the past. historians do this by creating interpretive frameworks that capture as many details as possible."

< 3

they were byzantines