What is the difference between emperor and king

A chart comparing and contrasting ruler titles can help you see the main differences between each of these terms. A female who holds this position can also be called a chieftainess or chieftess. Explore a few emperor examples with a list of Roman emperors. The female equivalent of a king is a Queen.

Sultana is the female form of sultan. Tsarina is the female version of Tsar and czarina is the female version of czar. While king and emperor have been popular ruler titles throughout history, there are other ruler titles with similar meanings. If there is a bigger power in the vicinity whether political or religious , it would be silly to call him an emperor. Kings are not necessarily the biggest powers and they often pay tributes to other powers emperors, pope, or other kings.

While the title of king is primarily political, the title of emperor often makes one the head of the religion too. While a King rules one fairly homogenous territory called a nation or kingdom , emperors often wield power over a fairly heterogeneous territory ruler of many nations. Persians are usually assumed to have originated the term "King of Kings" Shahanshah. The third point of interest are the principalities.

In the case of Bulgaria, which might seem surprising it's a fairly large place, after all , this is explained by being a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, and it became a Kingdom when it declared its independence in Denmark is the one which really sparks my curiosity: why did the king style himself a prince? One common factor of the empires is that they were large and that they included an almagamation of previously independent states.

But the same is true of at least two of the kingdoms : Spain I've seen plenty of references on monuments to Rex Hispaniorum - King of the Spains; and if he wanted to push it then Alfonso could have had a list to rival Nikolai's ; and Italy only recently unified. Both of those kings use a single title in their style, and they're the only monarchs to attribute their rule to something more than the grace of God. The inference can be made that they're intentionally emphasising the unity of their domains and their link with the common people.

In short, an attempt to reduce the distinction between a king and an emperor to a simple criterion seems likely to fail. It seems to be largely a question of historical continuity, politics, and etiquette.

I wouldn't try to attach precise definitions to such "job titles". The president of France has very different powers than the president of the United States. An American consul is a very different job from the ancient Roman consul. For that matter, the powers of the Queen of England today have little relation to the powers of the Queen of England when Victoria or Elizabeth I held the office. Historically, the main difference between "king" and "emperor" might have been how they came into office.

A king usually becomes king because his family has been the ruling family, and he ascends to the throne because he is next in line after the old king who died. Usurpers are an exception but would call themselves king because they would found a new dynasty.

Similarly for queen, of course. An emperor in old Rome, where the term arguably originated, that is an "imperator" was a successful general. He would carry the title from victory until his glorious return to Rome. Dictator was an office that the Roman senate would staff with a suitable candidate in times of military need; this was similar to modern martial law.

The mandate would end after a predetermined period of time if not extended. Caesar is a title which is the origin of German "Kaiser" which was used in its modern meaning only after Gaius Iulius Caesar where "Caesar" is only a name , who was dictator first, illegally became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, beginning the era of Caesars. The meaning of "dictator" shifted considerably arguably due to office abuse in the past.

The main difference historically between those and kings seems to be that the former are granted or earned titles while kingship is inherited. Of course, tyrants declare themselves anything they want so there have certainly been other appellations.

Emperor is the King of kings. China and Japan was not a country but countries before an emperor united them under an empire. However, a king can upgrade himself as emperor anyway. I would add to the other excellent answers that, at lease to my mind, King implies, as noted by JohnLawler, birth.

Ruling by bloodline. Whereas an Emperor generally seems to have risen to station via political or military might. Even though they may have started life as a King, they can upgrade to Emperor by taking over other countries, as in the case of England and India.

You may be interested in the concept of Divine Right , which to me, as a citizen of a monarchy implies that the King is there to be complementary to and wholly part of the nation, and vice versa. It suggests that the natural state of being for a country is to have a King, as specified by God. This presumption does not necessarily apply to Emperors, whom are acknowledged to come to power by the machinery of politics, including birthright, or conquest.

In other words, whether or not this idea is accepted academically, it seems to me that the idea of a King is more closely tied to the concept of nationhood than that of an Emperor.

I am not entirely happy with my terminology, as I think the concept of 'nationhood' is probably newer than that of Kings, and encompasses a more complete idea of politics and representation compared to the realm that Kings are supposed to preside over in the concept of Divine Right.

In this respect, since rulers of self-defined Nations have called themselves Emperor, I need an older word for the domain of a King. Both kings and emperors can be self-proclaimed, for example Godred Crovan medieval ruler of Dublin and the Isles and Bokassa I of the short lived 20th century Central African Empire previously and subsequently the Central African Republic among many others. Crovan ruled successfully and founded a dynasty which lasted nearly two centuries; Bokassa set up an empire which lasted less than three years.

There is no clear, independent definition of the difference between a king and an emperor, just what the people who set up and continued the kingdom or the empire could get away with. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?

Learn more. What is the difference between an Emperor and a King? Ask Question. Asked 9 years, 7 months ago. Active 3 years, 2 months ago. Viewed k times. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king or queen. The difference seems to be; King has a royal family. Empire is a group of countries under one ruler. Improve this question. Community Bot 1. Two comments 1 there might be a definitive distinction, or there may not. The definitions may be vague enough that they could be applied in similar situations, or culturally used even though logically the other may be appropriate.

That would make him bigger than an Emperor : I suspect that since an Emperor is a ruler of king dom s, no other title would have rested well on the brow of the first Japanese monarch Meiji? Add a comment.

Active Oldest Votes. Bringing together a couple of good answers, the primary differences between a King and an Emperor are: A king rules one "country" or "nation"; an emperor rules over many. Improve this answer. KeithS KeithS