Aside from sounding a bit grander, what is the difference between an Empire and a Kingdom?

Aside from sounding a bit grander, what is the difference between an Empire and a Kingdom?

An empire is composed of kingdoms. It's bigger. Or you might say, it's grander.

The title Caesar exists specifically to differentiate from King.

This.

I'd also like to add a bit of political perspective to it. You might think of an empire as inherently imperialistic, militarily aggressive and is generally an absolute monarchism while also on the cusp of tyranny.

yeah but afaik theres never actually any kings in an empire

Empires rule over people who are not from the main ethnicity.

Things were said that are right ITT but one of the most important distinctions is that kingdoms have equals while an Empire usually sees no equal on earth.
A good example are imperial maps that put the empire in the center.

Both German Empires had kings.

The title of the persian empires "emperors" was King of Kings.
The british empire was ruled kings and queens.
The swedish empire was ruled by kings.
Do I need to go on?

Bohemia was a kingdom that was a part of the HRE.

The Russian Emperor Nicholas I once had an ambassador expelled for referring to him as a monarch.

Published letters between the Emperors Nicholas II, Franz Joseph, Wilhelm II, and King George have the three Emperors making fun of George because he was only a King, and his claim to be Emperor of India to be a joke.

Typically Emperors have far more power than kings.

Empires usually comprise of differing langial and ethnic groups. It could basically be anything people agree is an empire.

Ok, so what's the difference between a Duchy and a Kingdom? Why can't a Duke just call himself a king of a small kingdom?

a duchy is apart of a kingdom the duchy swearrs loyalty to the king

What about independant duchies m8

which is just bullshit anyway because the both the frankish and the french kingdom ruled over different ethnic/linguistic groups but neither gained the title of empire until late in the day(800 for charlememe, napoleon for the french)

>and his claim to be Emperor of India to be a joke.
Funny because his ruling over both british india and the princely states made him the most legitimate "emperor". Also the dominions.

All European empires were empires primarily because they claimed to be the continuation of the roman empire. that is why Charlemagne was emperor, he claimed the title while Byzantium, eastern roman empire, was ruled by a woman. Germany (and Austria) was an empire because of the HRE, and France only became an empire after Napoleon, and then he abolished the HRE. England was never an empire this way as well, only until they took the title of emperor of india, which wasn't the european empire, the roman-heir type.

On the east we have several empires as well. Byzantium, even when it was just Constantinople was still the heir to the roman one. Serbia and Bulgaria were empires because they claimed the eastern imperial throne, and so did Russia, after Ivan the terrible married a byzantine princess. their ideology was that Moscow is the third rome, the final one. (after Rome and Constantinople)

Eagle is a symbol of rome, and a double-headed one is a one of both rome and constantinople.

about Rome, well, roman people for the most part didn't know they lived in an empire, because imperium meant military domination and imperator was the commander of the army, and the senate continued to exist normally. augustus presented himself as a defender of the roman republic and its traditions, which were under attack by mark anthony and cleopatra, who wanted to reign monarchically. even the constantine's edict of milan speaks of the roman republic and the protection of the rights of the roman citizens.

America is much more similar to rome then you think, and the other way round as well.

An empire has many different cultures and types of people in its domain and a kingdom does not. That's it.

>Published letters between the Emperors Nicholas II, Franz Joseph, Wilhelm II, and King George have the three Emperors making fun of George because he was only a King,
I find this hard to believe.

And all of the original manuscripts are in English.

It's all arbitrary titles m8

In the West, the title of Emperor indicated that the sovereign was claiming to be a descendant of Rome. This changed when Napoleon crowned himself emperor. At this point, the title Referred to bring overlord of other, previously sovereign bodies. For example, the German Emperor was ruler of Germany, with subservient Kings, such as the king of Bavaria.

In the East, the title Emperor was reserved for the ruler is China. China viewed all surrounding states as their Vassals; regardless of how autonomous they really were, they owed homage to the Emperor. It did not do wonders for Sino-Japanese relations that the ruler of Japan also claimed the title of Emperor, indicating parity with the Middle Kingdom

It doesn't make any sense, because George was an Emperor too (of India)

>What is Luxembourg

>Published letters between the Emperors Nicholas II, Franz Joseph, Wilhelm II, and King George have the three Emperors making fun of George because he was only a King, and his claim to be Emperor of India to be a joke.

By that time the title of Emperor had lost all its meaning and was mostly for dick waving, what with every ruler of some tiny european country calling himself emperor or tsar. Very different from the post roman period when Byzantium went apeshit because Charlemagne was crowned Emperor causing a political crisis between europe and the east.

None, the Emperor title is just dickwaving.

No. Haven't you played Crusader Kings II?

Using the title of "Emperor" implies that one is claiming to be their heir of the Roman Emperors.

Examples:

>Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be heirs to the Western Roman Empire
>Byzantine Emperors claimed to be heirs of Rome
> Russian Tsars claimed to be heirs to Byzantines
>Emperor Napoleon wore a golden laurel wreath and replica of Charlemagne's crown for his coronation

just a note about the Persian Empire

like someone else in the thread said, Empires are usually composed of multiple kingdoms. The Persian Emperor's were called 'Shahanasha' (King of Kings) because they literally ruled over kings of conquered states (Syria, Babylon, etc)

king is king
Emperor is king of kings

>Why can't a Duke just call himself a king of a small kingdom?
Because other kings will laugh at him and call him a duke because he only controls one small hill.

The differences between titles are somewhat arbitrary and based on what other people would accept.
If you started calling yourself a king now and everyone did the same you'd be a king.

A lot of the time Empire means a monarchy where the monarch reigns over many different nations, but sometimes empires and kingdoms are the same thing with different names.

>The british empire was ruled kings and queens.

The British monarch was the Emperor/Empress on India until India's independence.

In the European tradition, an empire is the successor to Rome.

That is to say that while a Kingdom can be a local warlord or chiefs, an empire is /THE/ institution that is meant to reclaim the old Imperial borders, ruled by a universal christian emperor.

Don't forget the nizams/princes/etc from the various Indian states (Hyderabad, Mysore, and so on)

Generally, it has to do with the position of the reigning Monarch in relation to the State Religion.
Kings and Queens are heads of a church that honors a higher god, or God; Emperors and Empresses derive their power from themselves, and are often worshipped as minor deific figures.