What is the difference between an emperor and a king?

What is the difference between an emperor and a king?

An emperor is the King of Kings

same as between an empire and a kingdom

one WUZ
the other WUZ'NT

>An emperor is the King of Kings
This, above all interests ruler of all.

An emperor owns an empire, a king owns a kingdom.

Generally, a king rules over a single entity, while an emperor rules over multiple entities. What is defined as an "entity" varys a lot,

emperor requires 8000 prestige and I think like 3 kingdom titles

it's very easily defined, just not put into words correctly but you know the difference between an empire and a kingdom.

a king rules a bunch of tribes and an emperor a bunch of nations

De jure empires were a mistake.

/thread

Agreed. Thankfully HIP mod removes de jure empires.

The guy who wrote Eragon sure didn't.
>ethnically and linguistically homogenous, all used to be part of one kingdom
>The Empire

Emperor = your country was taken over by that guy

King = your ruler

Title really.

It gets fucking complicated when you go outside of Europe.

Nominally nothing.
Politically, kingdoms are more "national" based. Also empires often involve subordination of other nations

Also, a lot of things that really in no way were empires get the word applied to them. The Aztec Empire certainly wasn't one. Arguably neither was the Inca Empire. Even in Europe, was the HRE really an empire? (turn upside-down for the super secret answer: ǝdou)

Yeah, nah.

My MA is on the phenomena of Empires. While shitloads of definition exists between historians, most agree that Empires are generally understood as a multicultiethnicwhatever non-pluralistic state possessing of an imperial "center" which rules said multi peripheries through a multitude of direct & indirect strategies.

Hence why we can call some entities as "imperial" no matter what their title (i.e. Kingdoms with imperial possessions) or disdain some Empires as non-empires (i.e. Japan, Vietnam).

It is, quite open to debate though so don't fight me on this.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you're disagreeing with.

One could reasonably claim that none of the 'empires' I named fit the definition you just gave (the Aztecs being the least arguable case).

What shitload of definitions exist? Like the very first user said, it's "the king of kings".

The idea of empire arose when some conqueror conquered a bunch of kingdoms and ended up as a king of kings. Emperors used this exact title throughout the ages because that's what they were. Imperial heraldry often displayed a crown over another set of crowns.

Being the king of kings implies that you rule over multiple peoples and peripheries like you described.

The only problem with this definition is:
>it doesn't account for modern empire-crafting that does not rely as much on straight-up annexation
>the term "king" isn't always applicable, but who gives a damn

Emperor is first and foremost a post-roman title (emperor from "imperator" and Kaiser/Tzar from Caesar) and have the same symbolic function as their roman predecessors: honour, prestige and authority.
An emperor is either a simply a given title and the title holder continues to rule over his personal realm like for example the Holy Roman Emperors or the the emperor has the exact same purpose as a king just with a fancy title.
Of course you have to distinguish between an empire that's called that way because it's ruled by an emperor (for example the HRE and Tzarist Russia) and an empire which follows this definition What also has to be noted is that any ruler who calls himself "emperor" usually if not always sees himself also as a successor to the legacy of Rome.