The criticism of ``Absolutism`` and its traditional concept leveled by the ``revisionists`` insist on the deconstruction of ``absolutism`` and the necessity of the new paradigm of the Modern State. Such an approach also raises fundamental issues about the modernity of an ``absolutist`` state. According to this view, the continent`s countries throughout the ancient regime were still dynastic; sovereignty was the private property of the king, and national territory was individual possession; true fulfillment of the modern bureaucracy did not happen. The apparatus of the absolutist state, from all sides, was highly personal. In other words, there was no clear distinction between public and private spheres. However, despite the changes in research trends, ``traditional`` absolutism still flaunts its status as viable. Large modern armies, a powerful national bureaucracy, financial development and administration of oppressive taxation are considered the inevitable products of large-scale war and ``Absolutism``. The firm academic position of ``Absolutism`` as the origin of the modern state is not released easily. Before the criticism of the ``prejudice`` about Absolutism and the claim of termination of the notion itself, how can we confidently describe the history of the emergence of the European Modern State? Can we really be sure that the formula ``Absolutist state was a Modern State``? Anyway, it seems somehow inevitable to be faced with a serious discussion about the paradigm associated with the formation of the modern state and ``absolutism``.