Why are empires seen as evil and kingdoms as good?
Kingdoms can be both good or bad. It's republics that are usually good.
Kingdoms are usually associated with nation states while empires with one priviledged nation ruling over others.
>>396696
Not quite, it's more the dynamic of "ragtag group of good-intended guys" vs some evil absolute power.
>>396696
Empires are bigger/more stable. That obviously can't be shown as good.
>>396711
>kingdoms are associated with nation states
What the actual fuck?
>>396696
Because by definition an Empire is formed from multiple cultures or states, one of which was probably oppressed at some point.
Meanwhile a kingdom is defined only as having a king leading it.
The real question is why Republics are always portrayed as good when the Roman Republic was notoriously corrupt and expansionist.
Empires usually conquer kingdoms to become empires. Kingdoms are just ye olde governance.
Why are corporations perceived as more evil than the corner-store owned by an elderly couple?
>>396744
peace of westphalia
>>396696
They're both shit.
>>396784
Virtually no signatory of that was a nation state.
>>396802
It started it all. I recommend works by Charles Tilly.
>>396776
Mr and Ms. Johnson are less likely to be a psychopath then your average CEO.
>>396696
I don't support either ideas.
But traditionally empires are seen as evil because they are multi-ethnic, ever expanding, heavily centralized power, and they are chaotic, unstable, prone to using violence on commoners to keep them in line, wealthy from their conquests but decadent and sexually depraved.
Kingdoms are seen as good because kings are hereditary through a long line of succession, hence stable and legitimate in their rule. They are usually mono-ethnic, non-expansionist, distribute power evenly through lords and nobles, and they are more likely to control their population through religious or moral means. They are much poorer than empires, but much more peaceful and sexually reserved.
>>396696
empire has a connotation of mass conquest and subjugation
>>396696
>kingdoms are good
Only brits and little girls think monarchy is good.
>>396696
An empire involves the conquest of multiple distinct nations by a single ruler. In essence, empires violate the concept of sovereign political entities being defined along ethnic/tribal/cultural lines.
>>396696
Because of the British
>>396696
>From my point of view, the republic is evil!
>>396696
>Why are empires seen as evil and kingdoms as good?
Anglosphere-based writers.
>>398108
It's over Augustus, I have the high ground.
>>396776
Corporations are greed in physical form, a local store is run by people.
>>398137
You underestimate my power!
>>399928
WHOOOOOAHHHHHH
WHOOOOOAHHHHHH
WHOOOOOAHHHHHH
YOU MUST BE THE FUNNIEST GUY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU PROFESSIONAL YOU EVEN AWAITED FOR TEN TEEEEEN HOURS
WHOOOOOOAH
WHOOOOOOAH
WHOOOOOOAH
If it's empire vs kingdom, people like to root for the underdog.
>>396696
Because Star Wars.
No, seriously.
>>399975
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>400011
Its not ironic but sarcastic.
>>400019
Kept telling yourself that
>>400022
Dont you even know the difference between sarcasm and irony?
>>400052
irony doesnt have to be verbal
Gondor actually is more of an empire. It's closest historical counterpart would be the Byzantine empire.
>>396696
American here:
I like empires.
Our status as hegemon is simply... not enough. We could do more. So much more.
>>396864
Perhaps, but that's ignoring the preceding 1000+ years.
>>400683
Except you couldn't
>>400702
Except we could.
Unparalleled cultural, economic, and military influence.
The only reason America isn't literally running the world is a lack of interest and having no drive to do so.
>>400717
>cultural
yes, hollywood is influencing everything
Hollywood Jew propaganda
>>400717
>A lack of interest
is this what Americans actually believe? You've spent the past half a century trying to influence the world.
>>400740
Which we do. Very successfully.
Hence, hegemon. Look the term up.
And, yes, there's a considerable lack of interest in the outside world. I have yet to meet a single person who doesn't consider isolationism a perfectly good idea. Even the "citizen of the world" types would be fine with it, provided they can still get passports and charities can still operate.
>>396744
We're talking about pop-culture. I don't think it's a too much leap of faith to assume that kingdoms in cinema and video-games are basically nation states with knights, while empires are this upper nation or class subjugating everyone.
>>396696
the term empire begets the image of foreign rule by force, the word kingdom, on the other hand, is usually seen as implying native rule with less force
>>396750
Was the early Republic seriously more corrupt and expansionist than its later Imperial counterpart, though? I was led to believe that the majority of their wars were defensive. (inb4 Rome conquered the world in self-defence)
>>400847
Let me put it this way: Rome started acquiring territory as a kingdom.
It averaged out to some sort of gain every year.
This never stopped until the empire reached its zenith.
No, they did not fight primarily defensive wars.
In name? Sure, they could and did manufacture a caussus beli for anything.
But the soldiers WANTED to conquer-sacks wre good for your wealth-the stated WANTED to fight to continously grow the pool of experienced soliders, and EVERY ASPECT OF SOCIETY venerated war.
Romans were a headhunting culture like any other. They just happened to also be good bureaucrats.
As for more corrupt?
Impossible to answer.
>>396696
It's just ideology. Empire and kingdom are presented differently although often mean exactly the same thing.
Protect and prevent are supposed to mean the same thing, but people use the latter to imply the former when they really mean attack.
Love and sacrifice are two words that people match together a lot, even where you can say that if someone doesn't mention a sacrifice there is no true love there.
It doesn't matter whether two words are close in meaning, whether one word does require another word, or whatever the relationship between two or more ideologically spun words are, because the fact is we spin words every time we use them.
>>396696
Kingdoms are monoethnic nation-states. Empires are multicultural dystopias.
>>396696
Because of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, WW2 and Star Wars.
>>401065
>dystopias
