Was the Magna Carta a revolutionary document?

Question

If yes, how so? I'm expanding my knowledge to help with a history test I have to take.

I love the discussion! Very informative.

Answer 1

Sometimes we can get lost in semantics when we argue whether something was "revolutionary" or not. While there were certainly precedents to the Magna Carta (most of them from Rome and Athens), and the document didn't change the life of the average Englishman, I would say it was a revolutionary document. Among other things, it:

* Created Parliament
* Limited the powers of the monarch (and set up an early form of checks and balances)
* Guaranteed rights that we take for granted today (trial by jury, habeas corpus, right to cross-examine witnesses against you, innocent until proven guilty, and others)
* Served as the foundation for the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution (and all the documents--such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the U.S.--that went along with those events).

In short, the Magna Carta was the starting point of the Age of Revolutions. So, I would call it a revolutionary document!

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

Yes the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document, simply because it stripped power from the king and made Parilment sole authority. The king or queen after the Magna Carta Became Basically a figure head for the country. I beleive it also got rid of the term and use of "Divine Right," where in which the king thought he was destined to be king, which was determined by God.

Answer 3

To be a bit of a contrarian, it was not really a revolutionary document. At the time that it was written, the king was not an absolute monarch but merely a feudal overlord. Absolute monarchy is a concept of the late sixteenth century and afterwards. All the document did was memorialize the relationship between the king and his chief vassals. While parts of the document would be used centuries later as part of arguments for more power for the commons, it was not intended as such by either the king or the barons who forced the king to put his vows in writing.

Answer 4

Magna Carta literally means "Great Charter", which tells us that even at the time of its composition, those that were involved considered it something momentous.

Indeed, it represented a hugely divisive problem that continued to occur between the English monarchy and its nobles during the medieval period and aimed to resolve it in a revolutionary way. Essentially, English nobles were attempting to limit the powers of their king by drafting up this piece of legislation that has been since hailed as the cornerstone of the English constitution. By doing so, the aristocracy were aiming at an end to willful, tyrannical government, and a more legal and just style of leadership.

Now, it should be remembered that not long after Magna Carta was signed by King John I in 1215 the king swiftly declared it an invalid piece of paper and resumed hostilities with his nobles. However, throughout the reigns of his son and grandson we see several reissued and re-edited versions of Magna Carta, as nobles and king attempted again and again to find some form of written and ratified end to their feuds. This trend in itself gave way to the use of more and more written documentation and the increasing use of parliament to enact laws in order to instill them with a certain amount of gravitas.

So - in essence, Magna Carta cannot be perceived as anything less than the start of something "great" and "revolutionary", as nobles and monarch joined the path towards a more legal and institutionalized form of rule, even though its ultimate aim was one that people had been aspiring to for centuries - a peaceful and just government.

Answer 5

For the first time it reduced the power of the Monarch but only the Barons really benefitted

Answer 6

Indeed it was. It was a step toward removing absolutism from the king. It only moved the power of the purse to the nobility though. Bit it was a step toward modern democracy.