What is the difference?

Users who are viewing this thread

BocajacoB

Knight
What is the difference of a Emperor, Ruler, and King?

Is Emperor a different time period than a King?
Is a Emperor a Ruler, but a Ruler isn't always a Emperor?

I'm very curious, what is the difference? The dictionaries don't answer what I want; detailed description between the three and examples of the three. Could anyone please help, Thanks.
 
Yes, a king or an emperor would be an example of a ruler.

EDIT: Of course, a king could be powerless and not rule ****, but still be king.
 
BocajacoB said:
ha.  :smile: So a Ruler could be a King or a Emperor?

Or a prince, or a duke, or a lord.

Emperors and kings are both rulers, because they rule an area. Kings rule over a certain country, usually, while emperors have a larger area, generally overruling or overthrowing lower nobles.

Emperor: Charlemagne, who ruled over most of Europe.
King: Alfred the Great, who united England, but previously ruled only Wessex.
Ruler: both.
 
So let me get this this straight. I'm going to use examples to explain how I understand.

Now for land wise, between an Emperor and a King, I'm going to try to compare it to now, using federal government (like the USA) in comparison.

*KEY*
RED = THEN
GREEN = NOW

KING
A Governer is like a King. But without the President. Because theirs a Governer for each state in the USA, just like a king owns a piece of land, and has many other kingdoms, under control of other kings, surrounding? (Maybe not as much kingdoms as states in the USA)

EMPEROR
The President of the USA is like a Emperor, but without any governers?


Understand me? yes, no? or wtf?
 
WTF? No, just no. I can't make any sense of that.

EDIT: Finally I am starting to see what you are getting at. Still no, though.

An Emperor can have both Governors and Kings under him, the idea is that he is the King of Kings of his Empire. An Empire is basically composed of a number of disparate States that have been united under a central authority. A King, on the other hand, usually controls what is considered to be a single State (Great Britain is usually considered to be a single State in this regard, even though it is composed of England, Scotland, and Wales). A King may be under an Emperor or he may be independent.

To tell you the truth, though, King and Emperor are often used interchangeably.
 
The President has little or no power, whereas an emperor has total power.

You can't compare modern government to feudalism... if that's what you were trying to model in that post.
 
wtf?

The Emperor does not have a king or kings in his government, any kings under his would be acquired, such as the Romans giving barbarian tribes land in exchange for them to guard the border.

A king is the ruler of a Kingdom and the title is almost always passed on to an offspring, usually the eldest son. Emperors are also often heredic.

Kings did not always have a kingdom, or were semi-nomadic, such as the Vandals who entered Europe from the eastern steppes and eventually ended up finally settling in Carthage after going through central Europe and Spain.

In Japan at times the emperor was given the utmost respect and had a dedicated court, but actually had no power and was a mere figurehead while someone else actually ruled, such as the Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu who established the Tokugawa Shogunate which ruled Japan from 1603–1867 (according to wikipedia on the date, as I don't remember dates that well sometimes), with the Imperial Family still having it's own powerless court (until the 1860s).

Empires also seek to expand their influence over more states that are not always it's neighbours more-so than Kingdoms. (It seems to me anyways).
 
King:

henry8.jpg


Emperor:

ming.jpg


So the general difference is that Kings looks like giant marshmellows with stupid hats, and emperors got the weird facial hair going on.
 
Look at it this way. A king rules over a nation (or not, if he is a puppet ruler). An emperor rules over many conquered nations, and the kings become his governors.
 
Those are really just titles. As a rule of thumb, an Empire had a hegemony of large area. Emperor is a guy who haven't met anyone that could challenge his power (or has just ignored those).
Can also be just traditional title, like the Byzantian Empire was still an Empire even when Turks were sieging Constantinopol.
 
Gavin said:
As for Final Fantasy series, an emperor is evil whereas a king is good.

Interesting... since most emperors I've heard of are generally expansionistic and therefore hated by neihbouring/competing countries/powers.

*strokes chin for a bit*
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Wait a sec...then why wasn't the British Empire ruled by an emperor? And I remember King David (of Biblical fame) ruling over an Empire as well.  :neutral:

True but England is seperated by the ocean so it lacks a certain... Je nais cest qua...

And King David's empire wasn't that big as far as I know... It touched with turkey and Syria and contained alot of Jordan and some of the Sinai but it never spread much.

 
But...it's still referred to as an empire. I might say it was a translation error, but at the time I was reading the passage I was reading a Study Bible, and those tend to be pretty reliable...
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
But...it's still referred to as an empire. I might say it was a translation error, but at the time I was reading the passage I was reading a Study Bible, and those tend to be pretty reliable...

I can't say I've ever heard it being called an empire before but theres many translated versions of the Bible.
I usually have heard it called the Kingdom of Judea or something along those lines.

But fair enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom