# King and Emperor **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 25, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198 "2005-12-25T23:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Robert\_Emmett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b487fb/32.png) [@Robert\_Emmett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert_Emmett)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/1 "2005-12-25T23:47:31Z")
What’s the difference between these two titles? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/2 "2005-12-25T23:58:21Z")
One is in charge of a kingdom, the other is in charge of an empire. ---
**Author:** ![Robert\_Emmett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b487fb/32.png) [@Robert\_Emmett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert_Emmett)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/3 "2005-12-26T00:00:43Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > One is in charge of a kingdom, the other is in charge of an empire. Well, what’s the difference between a kingdom and an empire, then? ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/4 "2005-12-26T00:10:40Z")
A king only rules one country, an emperor rules several. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/5 "2005-12-26T00:14:20Z")
The term “emperor” derives from the Latin _imperator_ ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator)) originally a military title (“commander”), used in the later Roman Empire to designate the ruler, and later adopted by Charlemagne and, later, Otto the Great (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy\_Roman\_Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)). In Europe, its usage has always included an element of claiming the ancient Roman title, or of asserting equality with it, as when Napoleon made himself emperor of the French; and Bismarck created the German Empire; and Peter the Great of Russia promoted himself from tsar (“caesar”) to emperor (the title “tsar” was first used by Ivan the Terrible to assert equality with the recently vanished Byzantine rulers). When translating titles of non-European rulers, the word “emperor” sometimes is used to designate a monarch who, even if he does not rule a multinational empire, seems to be accorded a status too exalted to be ranked a mere “king” – e.g., the _tenno_ or emperor of Japan. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor:) > [@](#): > > Distinction between Emperor and other types of monarch > > Both kings and emperors are monarchs. There is no single rule to distinguish the one from the other: several factors, like interpretations of historians, the size and characteristics of the governed realm, and the title(s) chosen by the monarch play a part in distinguishing the one from the other. General characteristics indicating that a monarch is to be considered an emperor rather than a king include: > > The monarch chose a title that usually translates as “emperor” in English, and/or is accepted as the equivalent of “emperor” in international diplomatic relations; > The monarch rules over other monarchs, without stripping monarchy-related titles from these subjects (“vassals” or non-sovereign monarchs); > > The monarch assumes divine or other high-ranked religious characteristics (see: imperial cult, caesaropapism); > > The monarch rules several formerly sovereign countries, or peoples from different nations or ethnic provenance. > > Where the title chosen by the monarch has become a separate concept in the English language, the distinction whether this monarch would have been an “emperor” or a “king” is often no longer made: for instance caliph, sultan or khan as a concept of a type of monarch is usually defined separately, making it redundant to apply the emperor/king distinction to these types of monarchy. > Imperium maius > > In Christian Europe the use of the title emperor is more than an affectation. A king recognises that the church is an equal or superior in the religious sphere, emperors do not. This was illustrated by Henry VIII of England who started to use the word imperium in his dispute with the Pope over his first divorce. By stating that they were emperors the Russian Tsars claimed to be the head of the (Russian Orthodox) church and did not recognise any superior authority but God. The article also traces the historical development of the title/concept from the earliest Roman “emperors” (who did not use the title). Henry VIII, by the way, in declaring “This island is an empire,” was not claiming the right to style himself by the imperial title, but merely asserting that England was a completely independent sovereign state, owing no allegiance to any foreign prince, such as the Bishop of Rome or the Holy Roman Emperor. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/6 "2005-12-26T00:22:28Z")
It depends on what time period you’re looking at. But there are two things that can be said with some degree of confidence: 1. For most of history, a king was king of a nation and/or a people, while an emperor was emperor of an _imperium_, i.e., a multi-national political entity. There might be a dominant people in that empire, as with the Persians, but it was one where the subject peoples were welcome to preserve their own ethnicity and customs while being politically and economically subsumed into the _imperium_. (I trust you can see why I didn’t use “empire” for _imperium_ in this context.) 2. There was a longstanding concept throught medieval and early modern times that there was only one Empire, although there might be multiple Emperors claiming emperorship. This was, originally, the product of Diocletian’s creation of "Augustuses "and “Caesars” as means of ruling an empire grown too unwieldy for one man, reinforced by the unstable situations after the fall of Rome. Other than Persia and the short-lived empire of Alexander, Rome was the first true empire in sense #1. And when multiple emperors became needed, they retained the legal fiction that there was only one Empire, administratively divided into parts ruled by distinct emperors but metaphysically a single unit. After the fall of the West, Justinian tried to restore this unity but was unable to defeat all the successor states. The justification for making Charlemagne emperor was in part because the throne in Constantinople had no emperor, Irene being Empress Regnant at the time. And as the Byzantines’ fortunes fell and the Holy Roman Empire waxed, the attitude was that it was _the_ empire. Other states had Kings (and the Emperor or his son was “King of the Germans” but there was only the one empire and one emperor over it). As usual for him with political innovations, Peter the Great was the first to challenge that, becoming Emperor of Russia. The term was then adopted over the next century or so for a variety of other multiethnic realms, including the Mikado, the Son of Heaven in Peking, the Negus of Ethiopia, the Sultan of the Ottomans, Napoleon, the decision of the Archduke of Austria to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire and become Emperor of Austria. In 1871, the King of Prussia became the suzerain of a wide variety of Kings, Archdukes, Counts, Electors, Margraves, and Lord High Whatsits in a reunited Germany, and assumed the title of Emperor of Germany in consequence. And Queen Victoria in the U.K. assumed the title of Empress of India, held by her successors until 1947. Other than the Mikado, there are no surviving Emperors or Empresses, even ones who were dethroned, the last living ex-Empress being Elizabeth the Queen Mother who was consort Empress of India for ten years. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/7 "2005-12-26T00:33:49Z")
> [@Robert Emmett](#): > > Well, what’s the difference between a kingdom and an empire, then? There’s no real difference. The title of emperor was relived by Charlemagne (in western Europe. In the east, the roman empire an emperors lasted in Byzance until the 15th century). It meant he was deemed the successor of the roman emperors, quite simply (and the equal of the emperor of Byzance). After the frankish empire was divided, the title of emperor was kept by the German branch of the Carolingians, so founding the Holy Roman Empire. Eventually, this title ended up in the Austrian Habsburg family (before that, it was elective, not hereditary, title). Kings were supposed, at least originally, to be of lower ranks than emperors, but of course they quickly denied any claim of sovereignty to the Holy Roman emperors. For instance, the king of France had his legists stating that “the king is emperor in his realm”. The idea that the emperors had even simply a higher status quickly faded away too when the HR Emperors ceased to hold a significant power. Similarily, the Czars of Russia considered themselves as successors of the emperors of Byzance (Czar is derived from “Cesar”. Same with the German “Kaiser”). Napoleon titled himself emperor, I would assume, mostly because “king” was a bad word at this time in France, and as an imitator of the founders of the Roman empire (successful general saving the republic, Consul, then emperor, there’s a trend, here, remembering Cesar…though Cesar never was an emperor). When Germany was united by Prussia in the late 19th century, the King of Prussia became emperor of Germany, so putting himself above other German kings (the king of Bavaria, for instance) and on an equal standing with his former rival the emperor of Austria. As for emperors outside of Europe (like in Ethiopia, Japan, China), I wouldn’t know why the title of some of these foreign rulers were translated as “emperor” rather than “king”. I’ll leave to someone more aknolewdegable the original history and meaning of the title “imperator” and the word “imperium” in Rome. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/8 "2005-12-26T00:34:05Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > 1. For most of history, a king was king of a nation and/or a people, while an emperor was emperor of an _imperium_, i.e., a multi-national political entity. There might be a dominant people in that empire, as with the Persians, but it was one where the subject peoples were welcome to preserve their own ethnicity and customs while being politically and economically subsumed into the _imperium_. (I trust you can see why I didn’t use “empire” for _imperium_ in this context.) Actually, “empire” ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire)) would be a better word for what you’re describing. _Imperium_ usually means something different – e.g., the authority of a state or ruler. (In the Roman Republic, each elected magistrate – consul or praetor – held a specified degree of _imperium,_ i.e., executive and judicial (there was no clear distinction) authority and jurisdiction.) See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/9 "2005-12-26T00:39:17Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’ll leave to someone more aknolewdegable the original history and meaning of the title “imperator” and the word “imperium” in Rome. I swear \*\* Brainglutton [/b) and \*\* Polycarp \*\* 's posts weren’t there when I wrote mine… ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/10 "2005-12-26T00:45:37Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > A king only rules one country, an emperor rules several. In the case of Japan, the Emperor rules not at all. His is a purely figurehead office and the Japanese constitution states that sovereignty rests with the people of Japan. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/11 "2005-12-26T03:58:20Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > In the case of Japan, the Emperor rules not at all. His is a purely figurehead office and the Japanese constitution states that sovereignty rests with the people of Japan. Right, but he did rule until the Americans made the Japanese adopt a new constitution stripping him of his power. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-and-emperor/337198/12 "2005-12-26T04:28:43Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Right, but he did rule until the Americans made the Japanese adopt a new constitution stripping him of his power. …in theory, in Constitutional provision. As with the U.K., what formal custom implies and political reality are two different things. In practice, an Emperor had not exercised authority since the Heian period, around the 1300’s IIRC. Until the Meiji Restoration (1868), rule rested in the Shoguns. (Imagine Oliver Cromwell’s dictatorship with the Stuarts still on t he throne, and handed down hereditarily through the Cromwell family, to get a Western parallel.) After that, it was fragmented among Genro, Diet, ministers, Army, and Navy until September 1945, when Hirohito did the one completely free act of his emperorship: made it the Imperial Will (which he would normally have been “advised” to do in the same way as Tony Blair “advises” Elizabeth II what to do) that Japan surrender. And of course Monty is right under the MacArthur constitution adopted after the war.