The difference is vibes, and the vibes of the people doing the judging/categorizing is all that matters.
penguinscience101 on
An empire doesn’t need an emperor, but an emperor needs an empire.
Rex_Nemorensis_ on
Not all empires are ruled by emperors.
Best_Drummer_6291 on
I think that France until 1950s also pretty much fits the “republican empires” category, because of its vast colonies across Africa and South-East Asia.
Categorically I believe in order to classify something as an empire, they must have a large number of cultures under their rule, but that’s vague and technically disqualifies the original Roman Empire because of their various genocides.
Wild-Yesterday-6666 on
NGL, Republican empires have stonger vibes. And I will die on this hill.
HumaDracobane on
In reallity they’re all empires because the verb “imperare” , which means order, dominate or be in charge, is the origin of the word Empire.
Dominarion on
Yeah, I have issues with Athens, the Republic of Venice and medieval Serbia being called Empires. IMHO, an Empire should have more real estate than a German Länder or an American State and hold it more than a generation, and be able to project power succesfully out of its regional theater.
Venice was able to project its power out of Northern Italy, and was strong enough to dish out pain to real Empires, like Ottoman Turkey, the ERE and the HRE, but territory wise, it wasn’t that big. Its incredible wealth made it the most powerful city state there ever was, but it was not an Empire. Neither was Athens. It could have been if it conquered Sicily or Cyprus, but it failed both time.
Serbia, or the second Bulgarian empire for that matter, don’t meet my standards.
PimpasaurusPlum on
Difference between *being* an imperial state and *having* an empire.
Best example is Imeprial Germany, which was both an imperial state (Germany itself) and held overseas colonial possessions.
11 Comments
The difference is vibes, and the vibes of the people doing the judging/categorizing is all that matters.
An empire doesn’t need an emperor, but an emperor needs an empire.
Not all empires are ruled by emperors.
I think that France until 1950s also pretty much fits the “republican empires” category, because of its vast colonies across Africa and South-East Asia.
[The US fits the “republic but still an empire” category.](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/18/694700303/the-history-of-american-imperialism-from-bloody-conquest-to-bird-poop)
I only see Romans here.
Categorically I believe in order to classify something as an empire, they must have a large number of cultures under their rule, but that’s vague and technically disqualifies the original Roman Empire because of their various genocides.
NGL, Republican empires have stonger vibes. And I will die on this hill.
In reallity they’re all empires because the verb “imperare” , which means order, dominate or be in charge, is the origin of the word Empire.
Yeah, I have issues with Athens, the Republic of Venice and medieval Serbia being called Empires. IMHO, an Empire should have more real estate than a German Länder or an American State and hold it more than a generation, and be able to project power succesfully out of its regional theater.
Venice was able to project its power out of Northern Italy, and was strong enough to dish out pain to real Empires, like Ottoman Turkey, the ERE and the HRE, but territory wise, it wasn’t that big. Its incredible wealth made it the most powerful city state there ever was, but it was not an Empire. Neither was Athens. It could have been if it conquered Sicily or Cyprus, but it failed both time.
Serbia, or the second Bulgarian empire for that matter, don’t meet my standards.
Difference between *being* an imperial state and *having* an empire.
Best example is Imeprial Germany, which was both an imperial state (Germany itself) and held overseas colonial possessions.