bob bobato
L'imparfait
Are there any empires left? Literally, not technically, as in british empire had colonies in canada, not Britain occupied canada or britain anexed canada or britain controlled canada in all but name.
Modern empires
- Thread starter bob bobato
- Start date
sydhe
King of Kongs
If you insist on an actual emperor, Japan's probably the only one left, but if you go by the definition of a state ruling over distinct cultural and ethnic group, you could still include Russia, China and India, event though the last and technically the first are republics.
Maimonides
Emperor
Yup. Still lots of monarchs left, but Japan is the only one with an emperor I can think of.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
America is an empire of sorts, but that won't stand up to technical scrutiny (monarch, decent amount of colonies, etc.)
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Why India and Russia?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
The English language in many things not as exact as other languages. So empire means in German also only Reich and not neccessarily Kaiserreich. Only with an addendum it becomes a word describing the rulership, too (Königreich= Kingdom, Kaiserreich= empire). That can be ruled by a king or emperor or even being a democracy. The kind of government is in no way neccessary to speak about a Reich. A Reich is also not better translated with realm, as this means that the territories are not belonging to the kingdom itself but to the king as ruler (example: Schleswig and Holstein were realms of the Danish king, but not part of Denmark).
That means the British Empire was an empire although ruled only by a king or queen (who was only emperor/ empress of India and not Britain).
The history therefore was the old Roman tradition to be claiming the ruler of the Earth. The same happened in China and Japan. However only after medievel times the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, the Tenno, the Chinese emperor, the Negus negesti of Ethiopia, the Shah of Persia, the emperors of Vietnam and Korea were accepted as emperors. The czar of Bulgaria could not successfully claim that. In former colonies the Brazilian emperors were able to hold the crown until 1888 the crown princess abolished slavery and that lead to a revolution by the conservative forces. The emperors of Mexico and Haiti were soon removed and Bokassa was only a farce emperor.
However in Europe Byzanz claimed to be the only emperor as successor of the Roman Empire. That was countered by the Frankish and later Holy Roman Empire, who claimed to be Roman empires. After the fall of Constantinople 1453 also the Czar of Russia claimed to be an emperor as being the third Rome as he had married a Byzantine princess. Later the Napoleon let himself crown as emperor of France. Austria did so as heiring the title from the HRE 1806, while the Germans wanted to reestablish the title in 1848/70/71 as head of state (The German Kaiser did not have the title Kaiser of Germany not to solve the problems concerning the Swiss and Austrian territories, which belonged to the HRE and in which German was spoken).
In the HRE the German king was crowned as Roman emperor and not as German Kaiser! And not all German kings were able to become emperors before late medievel times. Then being German king was also being Roman emperor.
To become king/ emperor the prince electors of Germany had to vote for him. Originally all ruling princes should have voted but that was soon dropped. These were relicts from the democratic-feudalistic traditions of the Germanic tribes. However only a few princes could elect:
The arch bishops of Trier, Cologne and Mainz, The Pflazgraf bei Rhein, the duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg and the king of Bohemia. Later the dukes of Bavaria and Braunschweig-Lüneburg were added. After the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß of 1803 there were some more changes, but I do not post it here as they were never really executed as 3 years later the whole HRE was dissolved.
The German king was so an elected monarch and he was never able to transform that into a "normal" monarchy. Although especially in modern times the heirs were mostly elected, too, that was not a law forcing that. But that meant, too, that no German prince could become a king of a territory inside the HRE. Bohemia was accepted as it joined the HRE already as kingdom and was accepted as such. The Bohemian king was nevertheless not equal to the German king. But, like any other elector, the Bohemian king could (and indeed did) become German king (although Eike von Repgow denies that in his Sachsenspiegel at first, later it was accepted). Because of that several princes still became kings, but only of territories outside of the Reich. The Saxon dukes became kings of Poland, Hannover kings of England and the Hohenzollern of Brandenburg kings of Prussia.
After 1806 several German princes became kings (Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg) and kept their titles until 1918.
So in HRE the German king/ Roman Emperor was the head of state, with sometimes more sometimes less power. However he had still own realms as his base of power.
I posted that just in another thread. Here it fits much better.
Adler
That means the British Empire was an empire although ruled only by a king or queen (who was only emperor/ empress of India and not Britain).
The history therefore was the old Roman tradition to be claiming the ruler of the Earth. The same happened in China and Japan. However only after medievel times the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, the Tenno, the Chinese emperor, the Negus negesti of Ethiopia, the Shah of Persia, the emperors of Vietnam and Korea were accepted as emperors. The czar of Bulgaria could not successfully claim that. In former colonies the Brazilian emperors were able to hold the crown until 1888 the crown princess abolished slavery and that lead to a revolution by the conservative forces. The emperors of Mexico and Haiti were soon removed and Bokassa was only a farce emperor.
However in Europe Byzanz claimed to be the only emperor as successor of the Roman Empire. That was countered by the Frankish and later Holy Roman Empire, who claimed to be Roman empires. After the fall of Constantinople 1453 also the Czar of Russia claimed to be an emperor as being the third Rome as he had married a Byzantine princess. Later the Napoleon let himself crown as emperor of France. Austria did so as heiring the title from the HRE 1806, while the Germans wanted to reestablish the title in 1848/70/71 as head of state (The German Kaiser did not have the title Kaiser of Germany not to solve the problems concerning the Swiss and Austrian territories, which belonged to the HRE and in which German was spoken).
In the HRE the German king was crowned as Roman emperor and not as German Kaiser! And not all German kings were able to become emperors before late medievel times. Then being German king was also being Roman emperor.
To become king/ emperor the prince electors of Germany had to vote for him. Originally all ruling princes should have voted but that was soon dropped. These were relicts from the democratic-feudalistic traditions of the Germanic tribes. However only a few princes could elect:
The arch bishops of Trier, Cologne and Mainz, The Pflazgraf bei Rhein, the duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg and the king of Bohemia. Later the dukes of Bavaria and Braunschweig-Lüneburg were added. After the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß of 1803 there were some more changes, but I do not post it here as they were never really executed as 3 years later the whole HRE was dissolved.
The German king was so an elected monarch and he was never able to transform that into a "normal" monarchy. Although especially in modern times the heirs were mostly elected, too, that was not a law forcing that. But that meant, too, that no German prince could become a king of a territory inside the HRE. Bohemia was accepted as it joined the HRE already as kingdom and was accepted as such. The Bohemian king was nevertheless not equal to the German king. But, like any other elector, the Bohemian king could (and indeed did) become German king (although Eike von Repgow denies that in his Sachsenspiegel at first, later it was accepted). Because of that several princes still became kings, but only of territories outside of the Reich. The Saxon dukes became kings of Poland, Hannover kings of England and the Hohenzollern of Brandenburg kings of Prussia.
After 1806 several German princes became kings (Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg) and kept their titles until 1918.
So in HRE the German king/ Roman Emperor was the head of state, with sometimes more sometimes less power. However he had still own realms as his base of power.
I posted that just in another thread. Here it fits much better.
Adler
That explain the déjà vu feeling I had when reading it
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Thats because Korea didn't have an emperor until after the first Sino-Japanese war.
sydhe
King of Kongs
I may be exaggerating in the case of India, but it is an exceptionally multicultural country which was never united until recently. The Soviet Union was more of an empire with the central authority imposing itself on distinct cultural & ethnic groups, but Russia still has a lot of that, as the war in Chechnya and its imposing itself on internal affairs of some of its neighbors testify.
If you were to insist on an empire having an emperor, neither would be an empire, but usually the term is used more widely than that.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
No its not the Emperor part, but that India and Russia are now federated. The Soviet Union I would agree is an empire, but because there is no dominating nation amongst the 'empire' I wouldn't really call it that, same as theres no English Empire.
China though, I would agree, is probaly the best example of a modern day empire.
aelf
Ashen One
Wasn't the British Empire in effect the English Empire?
Why? After the Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland were (notionally, at least) one. If you mean that Englishmen controlled everything, it should be noted that there were plenty of Scots occupying important positions around the empire. In fact, because Scottish nobles had less domestic opportunity, they were more likely to seek opportunities in colonial administration.
aelf
Ashen One
I know that, but I'm under the impression that the Union was excuted more on England's terms anyway, since the Scots lost the Civil War. Scotland seemed to be the junior partner and the English the dominant one. Likewise, you can say the Soviet Union was chiefly Russian, even though Stalin was a Georgian.
sydhe
King of Kongs
America now has a so-called "War Czar." Considering the last four "war czars" (or tsars) were Simeon II, Boris III and Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and Nicholas II or Russia, they might want to consider a different title.
(Yes, I know Simeon was only seven years old and it wasn't really his fault.)
(Yes, I know Simeon was only seven years old and it wasn't really his fault.)
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
I would include America, as an empire, as well as China, Russia, possibly even India
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Aye. My grandfather, an Egyptian, traveled widely throughout the British Empire, and (especially in Africa) Scots were everywhere.
And by the way--Gordon Brown's ascent to the Premiership is not a historical aberration. While there's never been a "[wiki]Scottish Mafia[/wiki]" in Westminster before like there is now, you would be hard pressed to find a British government which did not have Scots in important positions, at least not since 1800.
It's of the British Isles and like 8 tiny islands (comparitvly speaking).
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
The full style of the British monarch is:
Nor is there any mention of empire in the titles of the Queen in right of the other Commonwealth Realms (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu).
By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her (His if male) other Realms and Territories Queen (King if male),Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
No mention of the title of Emperor.
Nor is there any mention of empire in the titles of the Queen in right of the other Commonwealth Realms (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu).
Similar threads
