Were all of the European kingdoms of the Middle Ages absolute monarchies?

Were all of the European kingdoms of the Middle Ages absolute monarchies?

nah they had to go through their relatives 'nobility' and the clergy most of the time

middle age western europe was a mixture of the iron age and stone age

because bronze age civs had more knowledge than them

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE TROLL

Nope. Many had laws that the monarch himself was required to obey, like England. And absolute monarchy is somewhat of a theoretical concept since the monarch always has to juggle the balance of powers between him and the nobility.

Republic of Venice was not a Monarchy.

>Kingdom
>KING

Take a fucking guess shitdick.

That being said, no monarchy larger than Liechtenstein is 100% absolute - there's always some nobles to satisfy, some merchants to pay off, some powerful cardinal to pacify. And if you take "kingdom" to mean state, there were oodles of tribal councils, pseudo-democracies, oligarchies, republics and straight up corporatocracies scattered across Europe from 456 to 1492. You had everything from the near anarchism of Vandalic tribal structure, to the behemoth bureaucracy of Byzantium, to the guild-cum-mafia of the Hanseatic League to the ritualized and codified oligarchy of Venice.

Trying to condense all of middle ages European politics under absolute monarchy is telling of a shitty educational system. Lemme guess, American?

in most of thing they were more advanced than middle age WE

they didnt build castle and didnt live in them, they built fortifications and built and lived in beautiful out of this world Palaces

I'm pretty sure none of them were absolute monarchies...they all had various power-sharing schemes subject to law and tradition.

It also wasn't a kingdom

none of them was absolute, the theories about power and management always show limitations for the gobernors so they won't lead the state completely at their will (mainly to protect their own rights) even sometimes the governor would have to call his council to choose about important matters

Also I know I may sound like a dumbfuck by saying this but try playing Crusader Kings 2, play as a king and try to do as you please and then tell me how it went

Unironically a great argument.

pretty well this

maybe one of the HRE's microstates were absolute?
in the sense that their prince-bishop landgraves had authority over a very small/manageable territory, while imperial power was quite limited by itself

my dude you know how it works, if it's about religion or honouring their dead it needed no explanation and of course had no limits

>throws around insults
>doesn't understand the difference between absolute and constitutional monarchy
>can't read properly and goes off-topic
Lovely.

CK2 can let a lot of crazy shit happen like the king of France converting to Islam with no one caring that much but it did get that part of not just being able to go full Louis XIV without consequences right. That and that managing a huge kingdom with lots of selfish noble fucks gets harder the bigger it gets and the more selfish noble fucks you have to deal with.

afaik absolutism actually belongs to the modern age
a middle age king didn't have the same absolute power of Luis XIV

Basically none of them were. In fact, a lot of the time major dukes were more individually powerful than the king.

It was a feudal society where the nobles had a massive say in what happens in the kingdom contrast it to absolutism where the king alone decides every aspect of the kingdom

Absolutely not, many kings had to give up some of their prerogatives just to make money. Just look at the English monarchy. They gave too many privileges away for stacks of dosh and became cucked by parliament and unlawfully executed by that body.

No, medieval monarchies were actually rather decentralized as kings had to appease their nobles and certain guilds.

absolute monarchy is mostly an 18th century thing