emperor>king

>>52518670
Kings were black, emperos were white.

>>52518730
t. Alberto Barbosa

>>52518670
Kings = rulers of a kingdom
Emperors = rulers of an empire

Emperors are when you have a single person holding the crowns of multiple kingdoms.

Emporer-empire
King-kingdom
Prince-princepality
Duke-duchy

Etc etc

I believe the "real" emperors claim themselves to be successors of the original, Roman emperors (and empire). i think that's the strict definition of it. So their empire is the continuation of the Roman empire, no matter how far-fetched it is.
So in the case of Napoleon it would be Roman Empire -> Western Roman Empire ->Holy Roman Empire -> him. with some parts inbetween i dont know about

King is just a generic king

the emperor is the king of kings

>>52519344
this

>>52518670
Shahanshah - King of Kings. This is Persian title for Emperor.

Many nations deemed Kingdoms were theoretically Emperordoms. Poland-Lithuania, Holland, France, etc.
But few formally crowned themselves as Emperors. Britain did it when they got India.

In CK2 originally there were 4 empires - HRE, Byzantine, Sunni and Shia Caliphate - So for each of main religions.
But now they went with over 9000 with such retartet shit as "Wendish" Empire, instead of establishing something more historically accurate.

>>52519344
That was the definition till rise of Napoleon I think.
But other nations were acknowledged as Empires too, mostly outside of Europe.
King couldn't rule a King (except in GB), so it would make sense to have that rank. It was so missing in original CK game.

Emperors are literally snobs.

>>52520203
Also after absorbing Greek terms "King of Kings, Ruler of Rulers" was used in Byzantine Empire.

Translation of the term "Imperator" is "Autocraton", but for some reason they went for shorter with "Basileus" (King).
I'm not sure what they used in Latin tho.

Originally rank was invented to fool people they're still living in the Republic, to not be overthrown like Etruscan Kings, but in feudalism it had different meaning and was above it.

The kings servs to god/s

The emperor rules himself

>>52519344
That was the case until Napoleon destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and created his own, reasoning that his own French Empire resembled (in territory) the empire of Charlemagne more than the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire", and he was correct.

The problem is that he made calling yourself emperor fashionable, so fucking everyone started doing it. We had Santa Ana, emperor of Mexico (also called the Napoleon of the West, despite being a total fucking chump), Emperor Norton I of America, the Austrian Emperor (which was kind of a pity title Napoleone allowed his father in law to keep), Napoleon III, the German Emperor etc.

Before Napoleon, you only had a Western Emperor and an Eastern Emperor, during Napoleon you had the Western Emperor, the Eastern Emperor, and the Austrian pity Emperor. After Napoleon you had more emperors than you could spit at.

>>52521968
>Implying
The king of France could just be crowned and that's it. The Holy Roman Emperor needed to be crowned by the pope himself.

>>52518670
At least in the West, the Emperor is the supreme commander of his realm's armed forces first and foremost (the Latin imperator originally meant general), while a king can employ a marshal to do to the job for him. For instance, the Holy Roman Empire had no official marshal, while France and England did. This is of course merely a formal distinction without any real impact on the politics of those countries.

>>52519398
Jesus is king of kings