A kingdom is a smaller area where the people pretty much have the same ethnic background and culture.
An empire is a larger area where the people often have great differences between them. Different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and very little shared history.
A kingdom is a country with a single ruler. An empire is many countries with a single ruler. Usually the ruler’s country of origin has priority/special status in the empire and the rest of the territories are drained from resources to funnel to the main one.
Empires are defined by military conquest and extraction of resources from areas outside what’s considered the imperial center. A kingdom essentially becomes an empire when it starts conquering other kingdoms and forces them to pay fealty in some way.
The line is pretty blurry especially when you have kingdoms like Germany defined by one state dominating the other German states but broadly that’s the difference
A kingdom is the domain of a hereditary monarch. An empire is when an emperor or a nation is in control of other nations. So for example, the Roman empire included places where many of the people weren’t romans. It also wasn’t a kingdom since it wasn’t the domain of a king.
A single king rules a kingdom. An empire is ruled by an emperor and the empire holds areas previously ruled by a king who then bent the knee or was conquered.
Simply kingdom is “small”. An empire is “big” and holds many regions that were kingdoms.
Generally a kingdom is a place ruled by a king that generally the people accept as their king.
An empire is a place that a a king rules over, but a bunch of places don’t really want him as a king (either because they were conquered or other wise involuntarily shoved into the empire).
For example English people didn’t mind their king, but Indian an African people probably weren’t thrilled with him as their ruler even though they were part of the British empire. Or people in Rome saw Caesar as their emperor, but Asterix and Obelix didn’t.
Kingdom is a single nation ruled by a monarchy with a hereditary bloodline (king, queen, prince, princess, etc). It’s usually smaller than an empire, but not always. The ruler usually has absolute or near-absolute power over the kingdom.
Empires are usually formed from multiple nations combing into one (usually via conquest, capitulation, mutually beneficial alliance, or annexation) and often has vassals, provinces, city-states, etc that were subservient to a primary nation (such as the British Empire of the 1800-1900’s). It’s common to be ruled by an emperor/empress, but that’s not always the case (the British Empire was still ruled by a monarch).
If we’re going by medieval/early modern terms… tradition and trying to tie the title back to the roman empire.
Feudal society is a hierarchy, the baron answers to the count who answers to the duke who answers to the king. The idea of a king is that he only answers to god, no one is higher than a king, it’s the ultimate independent ruler. There is one title higher though, the concept of Empire.
In Europe there was only one Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, heir (in theory only) to the Roman Empire. The highest ranking title in Europe. It’s the idea that you have command over the earth (hence the globe as an imperial symbol, the emperor holds the earth in his hand). Of course that’s just a political symbol, but that is what it means.
In the 18th century the imperial title became less and less important so Napoleon decided to take the title again, and call himself Emperor of the French. At that point Emperor was just a title above king and since Napoleon saw himself as above all other rulers, he took the title.
For other empires: the Ottoman sultans saw themselves as heir the eastern roman empire (Byzantium) so they too the title of emperor (kayser i rum, emperor of Rome), similarly Russia saw itself as the third Rome, third roman empire after Rome and Byzantium so they took the title of Imperator (and were also popularly known as Czar, derived from Caesar). Traditionally, since antiquity China was seen as the other great power, so powerful that it was considered an Empire too. Japan seeing itself since the middle ages as powerful as China, they took the title of Emperor.
But as we can see there is a long history of linking imperial titles to Rome… up until the 19th century. When it was used when a country was powerful enough, and it didn’t really meant anything by then.
The modern sense of Empire as “ruling over many people” only came later (hence colonial empires), 18th-19th century or so.
Kings rule a country but usually recognize something else, like a religion or another state as being more powerful. In Europe this was the church and the pope. Emperors do not recognize another more powerful entity, which is why Napoleon was one (he crowned himself) and why Japan has an emperor and not a king.
An empire can include several kingdoms, autonomously ruled by kings and queens, but they would pay tribute to the emperor to show they belong to the empire.
A kingdom is a state that is ruled by a monarchy. The head of state usually rules for life and succession is usually hereditary. The degree of authority vested in the monarch varies.
Kingdoms have historically been culturally, linguistically, and religiously homogenous.
An empire is a form of federation built around a strong capital state or capital city. The strength of the capital is built on the exploitation of territories that are a part of the empire.
Empires are widespread, and feature significant cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity.
Some emperors rule as a matter of right similar to a king while others were elected or ruled as a matter of might. In many cases, emperors were also kings of a kingdom within an empire.
Generally empires have authority over multiple ethnic groups and cultures whereas kingdoms have authority over one ethnic group or culture (of course it can never be 100% since virtually all nations have minorities).
Of course in reality it is not so simple – the term Empire carries more prestige and many nations co-opted it without actually fitting the description and at the same time some kingdoms and even republics fit the description but did not refer to themselves as such for various cultural reasons. One of the good example is the United Kingdom which was one of the biggest (maybe the biggest?) empires in history but formally was a kingdom.
Depends when… really it’s all a issue of mixed linguistics and shenanigans.
If you have 5 tribes with a “Chief” and espeically if one tribes word for “Chief” is King, then you end up with that tribe being the head Chief, “King” is a King of kings. Because before a King, a Chief is a King. And if you get kings and you want to distinguish a King of kings linguistically, you get something like Emporer. Of course this hits the various linguistics impacts.
Emporer as we know it in our linguistic tradition, comes from:
>from Latin imperatorem (nominative imperator) “commander, emperor,” from past participle stem of imperare “to command”
So basically the first Emporer of Rome was a King by another name. Due to tradition.
Similar to how a lot of ancient places a role like “Duke” might be King/Prince/Lord equivalent. But Duke comes from a Latin name to military leaders and got rolled into nobility later.
Hyper modern legalism makes it seem as though these things are fixed and common use direct, but they are a flow and a various translation.
The Emporer of Japan isn’t techncially such, he has a native title, but we translate it to emporer, which we only translate it that way post Rome.
If the west were to translate the Emporer of Japan circa 500BC, it would have almost assuredly been “King.”
Even as late as the 1500s common flow of terms were just that, like the famous book “The Prince” the term Prince is used very broadly for anything from “Civil leader” to “Emporer” effectively.
These days generally the term Prince will be assumed to mean heir to something. But it’s not really the intrinsic sole meaning.
Of course all of these I’m basically using English to delineate different translations. Given say 500BC probably would be whatever word in whatever languages rather than “king.”
>Jarl[a] was a rank of the nobility in Scandinavia during the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages. The institution evolved over time and varied by region. In Old Norse, it meant “chieftain”, specifically one appointed to rule a territory in a king’s stead. It could also denote a sovereign prince.[citation needed] For example, during the Viking age, the rulers of several of the petty kingdoms of Norway held the title of jarl, often wielding no less power than their neighboring kings. In later medieval Sweden and Norway, there was typically only one jarl in the kingdom, second in authority only to the king. The title became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced by the rank of duke (hertig/hertug/hertog). The word is etymologically related to the English earl.
So here is an example that for a large time Jarl (English Earl) was basically King, or literally king, or any variation of Lord/Prince/Kings.
It’s only in intermingling with other linguistic traditions that the terms change.
And humans are weird. Look at the modern use of “S tier”.
It’s superfluous, A tier means best. S tier basically is just adding more. It’s like a 5 year old saying “the bestestest!!!!”
And logically like how they call a president a “commander in chief” as well as a role of some Kings…. this is just a set of words that says basically “Emporer and Chief”
Imperator, aka commander. But now, Emporer means sort of “monarch of an Empire” even though it’s basically the exact same root and real original meaning. We still call our head dudes “Chief” lol.
>imperator(n.)
>”absolute ruler,” 1580s, from Latin imperator “commander-in-chief, leader, master,” agent noun from stem of imperare “to command” (see imperative (adj.)). In the Roman republic, a holder of military command during active service, also a title bestowed on victorious generals; in the Roman Empire, the emperor as commander-in-chief of the armies. Related: Imperatorial.
Nation- a people with an ethnically homogeneous culture
Nation-state- a government with a people that are (mostly) one nation. France, Germany, etc.
Kingdom- a state where the head of government is a king.
Empire- a state that has diverse lands, and includes z number of different nations.
There is overlap between kingdom and empire, but generally a kingdom only has one nation. In the Roman Empire, there were lots of kings who ruled under the direction of the Roman emperor.
In theory, it’s about national/cultural composition. In kingdoms, the dominant nation is a majority nation. In empires, there are so many other nations that the dominant nation is not the majority anymore.
Case in point: British Empire and United Kingdom. Aside from the last few decades, the British nation was a majority nation in the United Kingdom, but a minority in the British Empire.
In practice, it’s an empire if the guy ruling it was crowned an emperor, and a kingdom if he’s a king.
Comments
Mostly Branding but an empire is usually bigger.
Mostly just politics. An empire is just a bigger kingdom but some people like to feel more important.
Kingdoms are ruled by monarchs/kings while empires are ruled by emperors or rulers of other varieties, including elected.
A kingdom is a smaller area where the people pretty much have the same ethnic background and culture.
An empire is a larger area where the people often have great differences between them. Different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and very little shared history.
Kingdom is a single state ruled by a king or queen and an empire is multiple states ruled by an individual
A kingdom is a country with a single ruler. An empire is many countries with a single ruler. Usually the ruler’s country of origin has priority/special status in the empire and the rest of the territories are drained from resources to funnel to the main one.
Empires are defined by military conquest and extraction of resources from areas outside what’s considered the imperial center. A kingdom essentially becomes an empire when it starts conquering other kingdoms and forces them to pay fealty in some way.
The line is pretty blurry especially when you have kingdoms like Germany defined by one state dominating the other German states but broadly that’s the difference
A kingdom is the domain of a hereditary monarch. An empire is when an emperor or a nation is in control of other nations. So for example, the Roman empire included places where many of the people weren’t romans. It also wasn’t a kingdom since it wasn’t the domain of a king.
A single king rules a kingdom. An empire is ruled by an emperor and the empire holds areas previously ruled by a king who then bent the knee or was conquered.
Simply kingdom is “small”. An empire is “big” and holds many regions that were kingdoms.
Generally a kingdom is a place ruled by a king that generally the people accept as their king.
An empire is a place that a a king rules over, but a bunch of places don’t really want him as a king (either because they were conquered or other wise involuntarily shoved into the empire).
For example English people didn’t mind their king, but Indian an African people probably weren’t thrilled with him as their ruler even though they were part of the British empire. Or people in Rome saw Caesar as their emperor, but Asterix and Obelix didn’t.
Kingdom is a single nation ruled by a monarchy with a hereditary bloodline (king, queen, prince, princess, etc). It’s usually smaller than an empire, but not always. The ruler usually has absolute or near-absolute power over the kingdom.
Empires are usually formed from multiple nations combing into one (usually via conquest, capitulation, mutually beneficial alliance, or annexation) and often has vassals, provinces, city-states, etc that were subservient to a primary nation (such as the British Empire of the 1800-1900’s). It’s common to be ruled by an emperor/empress, but that’s not always the case (the British Empire was still ruled by a monarch).
If we’re going by medieval/early modern terms… tradition and trying to tie the title back to the roman empire.
Feudal society is a hierarchy, the baron answers to the count who answers to the duke who answers to the king. The idea of a king is that he only answers to god, no one is higher than a king, it’s the ultimate independent ruler. There is one title higher though, the concept of Empire.
In Europe there was only one Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, heir (in theory only) to the Roman Empire. The highest ranking title in Europe. It’s the idea that you have command over the earth (hence the globe as an imperial symbol, the emperor holds the earth in his hand). Of course that’s just a political symbol, but that is what it means.
In the 18th century the imperial title became less and less important so Napoleon decided to take the title again, and call himself Emperor of the French. At that point Emperor was just a title above king and since Napoleon saw himself as above all other rulers, he took the title.
For other empires: the Ottoman sultans saw themselves as heir the eastern roman empire (Byzantium) so they too the title of emperor (kayser i rum, emperor of Rome), similarly Russia saw itself as the third Rome, third roman empire after Rome and Byzantium so they took the title of Imperator (and were also popularly known as Czar, derived from Caesar). Traditionally, since antiquity China was seen as the other great power, so powerful that it was considered an Empire too. Japan seeing itself since the middle ages as powerful as China, they took the title of Emperor.
But as we can see there is a long history of linking imperial titles to Rome… up until the 19th century. When it was used when a country was powerful enough, and it didn’t really meant anything by then.
The modern sense of Empire as “ruling over many people” only came later (hence colonial empires), 18th-19th century or so.
Kings rule a country but usually recognize something else, like a religion or another state as being more powerful. In Europe this was the church and the pope. Emperors do not recognize another more powerful entity, which is why Napoleon was one (he crowned himself) and why Japan has an emperor and not a king.
A kingdom is one nation ruled by a monarch
An empire is several nations ruled by an emperor.
An empire can include several kingdoms, autonomously ruled by kings and queens, but they would pay tribute to the emperor to show they belong to the empire.
A kingdom is a state that is ruled by a monarchy. The head of state usually rules for life and succession is usually hereditary. The degree of authority vested in the monarch varies.
Kingdoms have historically been culturally, linguistically, and religiously homogenous.
An empire is a form of federation built around a strong capital state or capital city. The strength of the capital is built on the exploitation of territories that are a part of the empire.
Empires are widespread, and feature significant cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity.
Some emperors rule as a matter of right similar to a king while others were elected or ruled as a matter of might. In many cases, emperors were also kings of a kingdom within an empire.
Generally empires have authority over multiple ethnic groups and cultures whereas kingdoms have authority over one ethnic group or culture (of course it can never be 100% since virtually all nations have minorities).
Of course in reality it is not so simple – the term Empire carries more prestige and many nations co-opted it without actually fitting the description and at the same time some kingdoms and even republics fit the description but did not refer to themselves as such for various cultural reasons. One of the good example is the United Kingdom which was one of the biggest (maybe the biggest?) empires in history but formally was a kingdom.
A kingdom is ruled by a king, an empire is ruled by an emperor.
Depends when… really it’s all a issue of mixed linguistics and shenanigans.
If you have 5 tribes with a “Chief” and espeically if one tribes word for “Chief” is King, then you end up with that tribe being the head Chief, “King” is a King of kings. Because before a King, a Chief is a King. And if you get kings and you want to distinguish a King of kings linguistically, you get something like Emporer. Of course this hits the various linguistics impacts.
Emporer as we know it in our linguistic tradition, comes from:
>from Latin imperatorem (nominative imperator) “commander, emperor,” from past participle stem of imperare “to command”
So basically the first Emporer of Rome was a King by another name. Due to tradition.
Similar to how a lot of ancient places a role like “Duke” might be King/Prince/Lord equivalent. But Duke comes from a Latin name to military leaders and got rolled into nobility later.
Hyper modern legalism makes it seem as though these things are fixed and common use direct, but they are a flow and a various translation.
The Emporer of Japan isn’t techncially such, he has a native title, but we translate it to emporer, which we only translate it that way post Rome.
If the west were to translate the Emporer of Japan circa 500BC, it would have almost assuredly been “King.”
Even as late as the 1500s common flow of terms were just that, like the famous book “The Prince” the term Prince is used very broadly for anything from “Civil leader” to “Emporer” effectively.
These days generally the term Prince will be assumed to mean heir to something. But it’s not really the intrinsic sole meaning.
Of course all of these I’m basically using English to delineate different translations. Given say 500BC probably would be whatever word in whatever languages rather than “king.”
>Jarl[a] was a rank of the nobility in Scandinavia during the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages. The institution evolved over time and varied by region. In Old Norse, it meant “chieftain”, specifically one appointed to rule a territory in a king’s stead. It could also denote a sovereign prince.[citation needed] For example, during the Viking age, the rulers of several of the petty kingdoms of Norway held the title of jarl, often wielding no less power than their neighboring kings. In later medieval Sweden and Norway, there was typically only one jarl in the kingdom, second in authority only to the king. The title became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced by the rank of duke (hertig/hertug/hertog). The word is etymologically related to the English earl.
So here is an example that for a large time Jarl (English Earl) was basically King, or literally king, or any variation of Lord/Prince/Kings.
It’s only in intermingling with other linguistic traditions that the terms change.
And humans are weird. Look at the modern use of “S tier”.
It’s superfluous, A tier means best. S tier basically is just adding more. It’s like a 5 year old saying “the bestestest!!!!”
And logically like how they call a president a “commander in chief” as well as a role of some Kings…. this is just a set of words that says basically “Emporer and Chief”
Imperator, aka commander. But now, Emporer means sort of “monarch of an Empire” even though it’s basically the exact same root and real original meaning. We still call our head dudes “Chief” lol.
>imperator(n.)
>”absolute ruler,” 1580s, from Latin imperator “commander-in-chief, leader, master,” agent noun from stem of imperare “to command” (see imperative (adj.)). In the Roman republic, a holder of military command during active service, also a title bestowed on victorious generals; in the Roman Empire, the emperor as commander-in-chief of the armies. Related: Imperatorial.
Kingdoms are ruled by Kings. You become king by having money and military.
An Empire is ruled by an Emperor. In the western world there can only be one emperor who is crowned as such by the pope.
There is the Japanese/Chinese equivalent. I don’t know how those work.
Kingdoms led by kings
Empires led by emperor’s
Thank you, I’ll be here all day
Kingdoms ruled by kings, empires ruled by emperors, countries ruled by …
Country- physical land
State- government
Nation- a people with an ethnically homogeneous culture
Nation-state- a government with a people that are (mostly) one nation. France, Germany, etc.
Kingdom- a state where the head of government is a king.
Empire- a state that has diverse lands, and includes z number of different nations.
There is overlap between kingdom and empire, but generally a kingdom only has one nation. In the Roman Empire, there were lots of kings who ruled under the direction of the Roman emperor.
A kingdom has a king.
An empire has an emperor.
In theory, it’s about national/cultural composition. In kingdoms, the dominant nation is a majority nation. In empires, there are so many other nations that the dominant nation is not the majority anymore.
Case in point: British Empire and United Kingdom. Aside from the last few decades, the British nation was a majority nation in the United Kingdom, but a minority in the British Empire.
In practice, it’s an empire if the guy ruling it was crowned an emperor, and a kingdom if he’s a king.