Final answer:
Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible were considered absolute monarchs who wielded unchecked power. The role of absolute monarch can positively or negatively affect a nation, and many monarchs eventually failed due to changing social norms and the rise of democratic ideals. Constitutional monarchies arose as a result of political developments and demands for shared governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible were indeed considered to be absolute monarchs. As absolute monarchs, they claimed a divine right to rule and considered themselves subordinate to no one, single-handedly making laws, directing foreign policy, administering justice, and imposing taxes. The impact of absolute monarchy on a country can be both positive and negative. On the positive side, a decisive and visionary monarch can enact reforms quickly, maintain order, and unify a nation. On the negative side, the absence of checks and balances can lead to the abuse of power, oppression, and the stifling of different opinions and ideas.
The majority of monarchs failed due to a variety of factors, including the changing political and social landscape, the rise of democratic ideals, and internal conflicts exacerbated by contested successions, diverse populations, and different ethnicities within kingdoms. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, for example, was unwilling to accept any checks on his authority, which in part led to his downfall during the revolutions in the early 20th century. The establishment of constitutional monarchies resulted from a combination of political evolution, increased demands for representation, and revolutions that limited the power of monarchs.