What do you prefer in fantasy settings: City states or Kingdoms?

Not him but I think that empires are generally larger than kingdoms in that they often span several continents and include multiple cultures and ethnic groups within their borders.

Perhaps some history buff has a more acurate description?

An empire is usually expansionist and has a strong emphasis on their military. It also has a strong centralized government and more often than not various ethnic/regional groups that they have incorporated into their country living in their country. A kingdom is usually smaller and doesn't focus on expansion/subjugation of new countries/peoples.

It's the latter that's the defining trait if you want to use "empire" for anything more precise than just "big and glorious kingdom".

>span several continents
The Roman Empire was mainly in Europe. The Russian Empire was mainly in Central Asia. The Chinese Empire was located in East Asia. The Japanese Empire was just in East Asia as well. The Umayyad Caliphate spanned most of the Middle East/the Near East.

Kingdoms

When I world build I include both but I have a tendency to bias my city states. They are my favorites.

>Mainly
Still touched more than one continent. Three, if I recall correctly, user.

But yeah, an Empire is basically a central government ruling over several ethnic groups that would otherwise each form their own nation.

Let's be real though. The Roman Empire was an exception, not the standard.

>Umayyad
Territories in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain.

>Russian
Territories in Europe and Asia.

>Mongols
Eastern Europe and most of Asia.

>Macedonians
Jesus Christ, Alexander, contain yourself!

I agree that you don't need to have territories across multiple continents to be proclaimed an empire, but Romans were by no means an exception in the field of empire building

Be swede.
Live' in a democratic kingdom.
God damn continental influences introduced royal dynasties.
tfw I can't to to the ting and proclaim Leif GW Persson king for life.

Hum.

Holy Roman Empire ? Not too expansionist, and their "official" army was not too bright. The Archduchy of Austria and its military was another thing.
Roman Empire ? Most of their known conquest dated from the Republic.

That the most defining trait of an empire is its military might is not something I'm encline to believe, not when some of the most powerful military powers of their times were kingdoms (Spain, France, Prussia, etc etc).

>A kingdom is usually smaller and doesn't focus on expansion/subjugation of new countries/peoples.
Hum. Spain, France, England, Prussia, Portugal, were once kingdoms you know ?

>It also has a strong centralized government
Holy Roman Empire didn't have that.

>more often than not various ethnic/regional groups that they have incorporated into their country
I agree with that part

>implying the Mongols were a real empire
Nice try senpai

Mumbleman can't be king, nobody would understand his speeches.

inb4 Sweden shitstorm.

People across the world paid taxes (tribute) to them. If that's not one of the hallmarks of an empire, I don't know what is.

>Holy Roman Empire
The HRE wasn't an empire you bumbling retard. The Japanese had an empire for the past but does that make them an empire? No it does not.
>Spain, France, England, Prussia, Portugal, were once kingdoms you know ?
England became a colonial empire. France became a more traditional empire. Prussia, Portugal, and Spain were never empires. Kingdoms can become empires you know.
>Holy Roman Empire didn't have that.
They weren't an empire.

That's called a hegemony, not an empire.

This guy again

So...the main difference between a Kingdom and an Empire is....just whatever they end up being called?

They are inherently different. I swear
>its all relative mang the winners write the history books
retards are the worst

The easiest definition is quite simply that a Kingdom is ruled by a King and an Empire is ruled by a King. The words Empire and Emperor are derived from the Latin words Imperium and Imperator. An Imperator was originally a military commander who took Imperium, that is brought land into the Empire, and the title was later claimed by Caesar in the sense of him being the commander of the Empire, or Dictator. It's also worth pointing out that in many other languages the word for Emperor is actually derived from Caesar rather than Imperator; such as Kaiser in German, Kejsare in Swedish, and Tsar in Russian.

Regardless, the title of Emperor when used historically has referred to Rome. The Byzantines claimed, arguably rightfully, to be the Roman Empire and so styled their leaders as Emperors. The Holy Roman Emperor was, originally, crowned by the Pope as the rightful successor to the Roman Empire and defender of Christianity. The Russians also claimed descent from Rome as the successors of Byzantium. And so on, and so on. The number of nationalities within its borders have very little to do with it. In fact, the idea of nationalities is very recent. You might think that an empire is formed when more than one Kingdom is ruled by a single ruler, but not even that is accurate. For example, the Swedish King styled himself as King of the Swedes, the Goths, and the Wends, and during the times when Scania was a part of the Kingdom it was also referred to as its own separate Kingdom that he just happened to rule over, yet no Swedish King ever attempted to style himself as Emperor. Yes, Gustavus Adolphus probably planned on uniting the Protestant German states under his rule, conquer Denmark and proclaim himself a Protestant Emperor but that never happened, so.

For this reason I also despise it when fantasy settings include Empires. The word is simply too connected to real world history for me to be able to take it seriously in fiction.

On this subject, what are some titles (I don't know the real word for it) for countries. So far I have: Kingdom, Republic, Empire/Hegemony, Chiefdom, and Confederation/Federation

>despise it when fantasy settings include Empires
> too connected to real world history for me to be able to take it seriously in fiction.
Holy shit you are fucking autistic. Is it too hard to just accept that some words are there in imagined worlds for ease of access for the reader/player?

>What do you prefer in fantasy settings: City states or Kingdoms?
eh, whatever works.

so long as their government is one that can believably function I'll roll with it.

Now if it's something that seems too absurd to work, like having all the lands be ruled by a literal potato, I may have to call into question certain elements of your setting...

Using the word Kingdom would achieve the exact same result.

The medieval shogunate of Japan considered its territory to be an empire, and even had an emperor (though they didn't do much).

"Empire" and "emperor" are just titles. There are no hard and fast rules as to when and where they should be applied. It's entirely down to how impressive the reigning overlord du jour wants to make themselves sound.

...

Not really. An empire and a kingdom create two very different tones and feels to the person interacting in the world. Empires tend to inspire a more grand feeling for example, or create an expectation that they have a large/strong military (an expectation that can be shattered). The opposite is true of kingdoms as well. Words can invoke various feelings/expectations in people

That's a translation. It could just as well have been translated in Kingdom or Dukedom. It makes no difference.

Stewardy, Principality, Biarchy

City states, but I have a real hardon for the bronze age.

To be honest, it was the Europeans who declared the emperor of Japan to be an emperor. In Japanese, Tenno just means "Heavenly Ruler". The Japanese were never expansionist barring their one failed invasion of Korea under Hideyoshi's rule and their stint as an empire in the 20th century.

If anything, for the most part of Japanese history, the emperor had little political power and was more of a religious figure than an actual ruler. It was mostly shoguns and daimyos that ran the islands while they all "acknowledged the supreme rule" of the emperor.

>Words can invoke various feelings/expectations in people
Yes, and the feeling invoked by Empires in fantasy settings is that the author is a hack.

Fucking kek. Nice implications there. There is a huge difference between the feeling of grandness and military might invoked by an empire/imperial system and the worldbuilder/writer being a hack.

Then why didn't the translators use those terms? Why did they settle on the word "empire"?

Principality, Nation, State, Free City, Duchy/Grand Duchy, Emirate, Sultanate, etc. (basically pick a ruler's title and you're a good 70% of the way there) Bailiwick (area of jurisdiction of a Bailiff)

Any of these can also be components of a country

IIRC even the daimyos and shogun didn't listen to the emperor sometimes. The entire Genpei War was about the increased influence the Imperial Family was having on governmental affairs.

Probably because they felt like being nice.

Because the Europeans couldn't comprehend countries working different than them and didn't understand that despite having a religious figure that everyone somewhat answered to, the emperor hold no real power in Japanese politics. This was partly because most European countries had the idea that the divine ruler must be the major political power of the nation. Which wasn't true for Japan. The Europeans even called Nobunaga a king for Christ's sake.

Are you the user who was bitching about paladins in hostage situations yesterday?

And the user who was calling mystical treatments of magic "shit worldbuilding"?

Because you sound a lot like them. You've got the smug, dismissive, insistently self-centred tone down pat.

The HRE started an Empire, with an Emperor at his head. Not my fault if the german couldn't unite for 1000 years.

Prussia became an Empire by uniting Germany thanks to the Franco-Prussian War. And you made my point. These kingdoms became empire by expansionnism and subjugation. They didn't appear like that.

It's fairly respectful, for one thing, and it's possible that the various areas each with their own leaders made more sense as an Empire than a Kingdom (as by this point in time the idea of lords as feudal leaders had declined significantly), and dukes are not directly appointed by god at all, unlike a king or emperor

I never said empires just appeared. Every country evolves over time. Even kingdoms rise from hunter-gatherer/nomadic societies.
>an Emperor at his head
Look at the rest of this thread. Just because a country has an emperor doesn't mean it's an empire.
>Prussia became an Empire by uniting Germany
You don't become an empire by uniting a country. You become an empire by conquering other countries.

>Are you the user who was bitching about paladins in hostage situations yesterday?
Nope.

>And the user who was calling mystical treatments of magic "shit worldbuilding"?
Nope. I'm off the opposite opinion. Magic should not be defined as it then loses all sense of being, well, magical. It's better to simply not hand it out to players other than in the form of some magical artifacts, such as helmets that turns its wearer invisible, or swords that glow when trolls are near.

>Magic should not be defined as it then loses all sense of being, well, magical.
It's better to have magic defined you autist. If you just say "dude its magic I don't have to explain shit lol" then where the fuck are the rules for the system? You can just break that shit whenever you want and it loses all sense of tension and immersion (and as a result, internal logic within the setting).

>You become an empire by conquering other countries.

No, you become an empire by calling yourself an empire, and beating down anyone who claims otherwise.

>then where the fuck are the rules for the system?
In the other parts? The ones that aren't about casting fireballs?

>You can just break that shit whenever you want
No.

Okay, fair enough.

It was probably this user that I was thinking of.

Not even him, but how can you not see that "by uniting Germany" is just a short way of saying "Prussia became an Empire by uniting the nations that possessed the territory that is now called Germany through conquest" ?

There is no difference really, it's just arbitrarily decided that when a kingdom is big enough that it is called an Empire. Usually this is done with the blessing of a religious figured but that isn't always true.

>Bossdom
That humanity has not coined this term yet is unforgivable.

Nigga I wasn't even in that thread.

>No
Real nice rebuttle. I am utterly stunned.

I prefer having both to start, so the PCs can discuss and support their preferred system of governing.

So by subjugating/conquering all your enemies? Exactly.

...That's a good point.

I can only assume it's because no-one wouldn't want to live in a Bossdom, and no ruler has been quite prepared to take on such a responsibility

Nobody wants to be a boss strangely.

> or

Both. I prefer variety in my settings.

Not many people actually use this distinction these days, but here you go.

Usually, when we talk about a "nation" what we're really talking about is a nation-state, a legal entity unified by a single government.

A nation, traditionally, is a group united by language and culture with a common sense of identity. Hence why you can have groups like Ossetians and Kurds promoting "nationalist" movements even though they're already part of a nation already. What they want is the Ossetian Nation to have a unified and independent nation-state.

Woodrow Wilson coined a term, often used interchangeably with this, called "ethnic self-determination". Which is great except that an ethnicity is a bloodline, whereas a nation is a language/culture group. Wilson was following a line of thought of left-wing eugenicists, who preferred to think of nations as genetic groupings*. Theorists like Spengler got caught in the middle-- he uses the word "race" but in the 19th century sense which meant nation or culture-group. Many of his followers used race in its genetic sense, which Spengler himself condemned.

Anyway, now with that out of the way. A King rules a nation. An Emperor rules multiple nations. So in ASoIaF, the pre-Targaryen kings each ruled a nation, or part of a nation. Then Aegon marched in and conquered the Andal kings-- so far, he's a king. Then Torhenn Stark bent the knee and Targaryen ruled the Andals and the First Men. Now, arguably, he's an emperor if he wants to be called that. Add the Rhoynar of Dorne, and that's three nations-- still an Emperor.

continued...

* This didn't start with Darwinists, incidentally. The Spanish inquisition made a big deal of blood purity, for religious and political and practical reasons related to the Inquisition and purging falsely converted Jews from the Spanish Empire. This was the first time the Jewish "Race" was viewed in a genetic sense rather than a cultural or religious.

Hence why you call the Queen of England "your Majesty" and not "your Grace". She's Queen of the British EMPIRE (which once ruled many nations, but still rules the English, Welsh, and Scots). She's an Empress.

And yet she styles herself a Queen instead. That's common. You have Kings and Queens who are emperors but for legacy/tradition/political reasons still call themselves by the lesser title. You have "emperors" who aren't really but call themselves that because once they held multiple nations, or because they think they have a claim on multiple nations, or because they just like how it sounds.

So the distinction between King and Emperor has always been hazy and often ignored even when it mattered. As ideology and linguistics change, the distinction no longer really matters to people but still lives on in our titles, language, and fiction.

>Be swede.

That alone is pretty rough these days.

The Europeans also weren't obsessed with nomological validity and tight perfect definitions for everything. They didn't get pedantic until much, much later.

The French obsession with absolute rule was around the time of the 18th century, which was ironically also at the height of the Tokugawa era.

Apparently, Grace was a title only used in the British Isles.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_(style)

Kingdoms, there is so much varition of places and culters in one land.

Empires are the best governtal type. Prove me wrong.
You can't.

Yes, but according to the distinction I described. The point being that "one ruler - multiple nations" is the criteria that separates king from emperor.

>Spain was never an empire

It became a colonial empire, just like England.

>She's an Empress.
Actually not - the title before Indian independence was King-Emperor/Queen-Empress (usually signed as just R.I.), but it wasn't used much - Vicky only got given the title because one of her daughters was marrying an emperor and the PM, wanting some brownie points, said that she shouldn't be outranked.

King George III was offered the title of Emperor of the British Isles, but declined it

Everybody wanna be a boss, but don't nobody wanna fill out all this heavy ass paperwork

someone post the horse anus biology

Which isn't correct either. The idea of different nationalities is very recent to begin with, and several de jure kingdoms have included many different people. The majority of people living in France couldn't even speak French until the 19th century.

The reverse is also true. Æthelberht, if I remember correctly, took the title Imperator because he wanted to show that he was just as mighty as Charlemagne, despite not even having unified the Isles.

Emperor is a Roman title, and the usage of it implies that the bearer is in some way a successor of that empire.

>Emperor is a Roman title, and the usage of it implies that the bearer is in some way a successor of that empire.
Except that's wrong. The Russians were an empire and yet I doubt they wanted to be a successor to the Romans. Nor were the Chinese. Or the Japanese. Or the Spanish.

>The Russians were an empire and yet I doubt they wanted to be a successor to the Romans
They did. They claimed to be the rightful heirs of Byzantium.

>Nor were the Chinese. Or the Japanese.
Translations.

>Or the Spanish.
Spain didn't have an imperial title. The King of Spain was for a short time Holy Roman Emperor, however.

>Holy Roman Emperor
Stop spreading lies. The HRE was never an empire.
>Translations.
That doesn't change the fact that the Japanese Empire was a full fledged empire during the 20th century. As was the Chinese Empire during it's height.

>and yet I doubt they wanted to be a successor to the Romans
Depends on the Russian, but Tsar is derived from Caesar, and there have been a few claims for the succession of Rome (by way of Byzantium) by Moscow - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome#Russian_claims

>That doesn't change the fact that the Japanese Empire was a full fledged empire during the 20th century. As was the Chinese Empire during it's height.
By which definition?

>The HRE was never an empire.
Look, I'm happy Veeky Forums got a meme, but by what possible definition can you say the HRE was not an Empire - it had emperors, won land by conquest and ruled over many different peoples

Voltaire was a satirist, not a historian or authority on empires

Japan held territories in South-East Asia, making the first qualifier of holding dominion another country/group of people. Same thing with China. I'm not an expert in Chinese history but during the Japanese Empire the Emperor of Japan had a huge say in the military/governmental actions of the nation, thus giving him central power. The last certification was fulfilled through the strong nationalism and militaristic pride the Japanese had during their time as an empire. China had this too. They even thought the entire universe revovlved around them and called themselves the "Middle Kingdom" (this is the literal translation of what they called themselves), basically, the kingdom at the middle of everything.

> Veeky Forums got a meme
Even historians say the HRE wasn't an empire.
>it had emperors
We've been over this. That doesn't make an empire.
>won land by conquest
Every country does this.
>Ruled over many different peoples
You need to meet several of the qualifications to become an empire. Not just one.

>You need to meet several of the qualifications to become an empire. Not just one.
It also had an emporer and won land by conquest.

>It also had an emporer and won land by conquest.
Why can't you just admit you are wrong?

Right, the definition that has nothing at all to do with where the title is derived from and how it was used historically. That deifinition.

The same reason you can't.

I don't see how this disproves any of my points.

Okay, to reiterate, by what possible definition was the HRE not an Empire?

Voltaire's observation is noted to be "accurate" on the "nor an Empire" front only when ignoring the German rule over the over Italian, French, Provençal, Polish, Flemish, Dutch, and Bohemian populations, and when ignoring the attempts to centralise - basically only the late period that Voltaire was around for

>Empire has nothing to do with Rome
I have provided evidence for why your definiton is lacking, and you try to refute it by pointing to countries that never actually had the title except for in translation and then point to your faulty definition as proof that they were.

The Japanese literally called themselves "Dai Nippon Teitoku" which is translated as "The Empire of Greater Japan". So you are a fucking idiot.

>Teikoku
My bad.

>The Japanese literally called themselves "Dai Nippon Teitoku"
Uhu.

>which is translated as "The Empire of Greater Japan"
Yes, because Europeans decided to translate it that way. It proves nothing. The title could just as well have been translated to King, Duke, High Chancellor, Shitlord, or Prince.

As another user already pointed out, the literal definition of 天皇 is Heavenly Ruler. It has nothing to do with the European title Emperor.

>Uhu.
Refer to You clearly know nothing about the Japanese language so let me tell you. Koku (国) in Japanese means country. Tei (帝) can also be read as Mikoto which was another name for the emperor of Japan. So 帝国 (Teikoku) together literally means "emperor country". So the translation problem is null. Secondly, the Japanese had conqured countries other than their own, clearing the second condition to be an empire. Their strong centralized government and militarism only strengthen this case. The fact that Tenno Heika (天皇陛下) literally means "The Current Heavenly Ruler" has no bareing on this issue since Japan could already be considered an empire even with out an "emperor" per say.