what difference between king and emperor?
605825
A king would be the lord of his kingdom which usually is comprised of just one territory.  An emperor would be the leader of an entire empire which usually means several kingdoms that have been subjugated or conquered.
211025
No.  There are like 1000 years of difference.\n\nAlexander the Great\n\nAlexander was born on 356 B.C. He was born in Pella the ancient capital of Macedonia, was the son of Philip II, king of Macedonia, and of Olympias, a princess of Epirus. His tutor was Aristotle, who trained him in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine and philosophy. \n\n\nUnfortunately in the summer of 336 B.C. his father was assassinated and he ascended to the Macedainian throne. Also unfortunate was that by that time he found his empire in disorder. He had enemies all over, in home and people threatening rebellion abroad. He did quickly deal with this by killing all of the threats and restoring order to his small empire. Then he restored order to Thessaly which had attempted independence. Before the end of summer he had reestablished his position in Greece and was elected by a congress of states at Corinth. \n\nIn 335B.C. as general of the Greeks in a campaign against the Persians, originally planned by his father, he carried out a successful campaign against the defeating Thracains, penetrating to the Danube River. On his return he crushed in a single week the threatening Illyrians and then hastened to Thebes, which had revolted. He took the city by storm and razed it, sparing only the temples of the gods and the houses of the Greek lyric poet Pindar, and selling the surviving inhabitants, about 8000 in number, into slavery. Alexander's promptness in crushing the revolt of Thebes brought the other Greek states into instant and abject submission. \n\n\nAs you can see Alexander had started his way to being a great and powerful ruler. It is said that while visiting Athens to seal a pact, Alexander visited the Oracle at Delphi, despite it being a day when prophecy was forbidden . \n\nThe story continues but look it in the history books.\n\nAlejandro Magno on the other hand is better know in english as Charlemagne lived from 742?—814, and was emperor of the West (800—814), Carolingian king of the Franks (768—814). \n\nElder son of Pepin the Short and a grandson of Charles Martel, Charlemagne shared with his brother Carloman in the succession to his father's kingdom. At Carloman's death (771), young Charlemagne annexed his brother's lands, disinheriting Carloman's two young sons, who fled with their mother to the court of Desiderius, king of the Lombards. When Desiderius conquered part of the papal lands and attempted to force Pope Adrian I to recognize Carloman's sons, Charlemagne intervened (773) on the side of the pope and defeated the Lombards. At Rome, Charlemagne was received by Adrian as patrician of the Romans (a title he had received with his father in 754), and he confirmed his father's donation to the Holy See. Shortly afterward he took Pavia, the Lombard capital, and assumed the iron crown of the Lombard kings of Italy.\n\nIn 778 he invaded Spain, hoping to take advantage of civil war among the Muslim rulers of that kingdom, but was repulsed at Zaragoza. In later campaigns conducted by local counts, Barcelona was captured (801) and a frontier established beyond the Pyrenees. Charlemagne's struggle with the pagan Saxons, whose greatest leader was Widukind, lasted from 772 until 804. By dint of forced conversions, wholesale massacres, and the transportation of thousands of Saxons to the interior of the Frankish kingdom, Charlemagne made his domination over Saxony complete. In 788 he annexed the semi-independent duchy of Bavaria, after deposing its duke, Tassilo. He also warred successfully against the Avars and the Slavs, establishing a frontier south of the Danube.\n\nEmperor of the West\n\nIn 799 the new pope, Leo III, threatened with deposition by the Romans, appealed to Charlemagne. Charlemagne hastened to Rome to support Leo, and on Christmas Day, 800, was crowned emperor by the pope. His coronation legitimized Charlemagne's rule over the former Roman empire in W Euro
458217
there were the:\nEmperor who ruled the entire empire which he conquered or inherited from his father.\nunder the emperor were the priests from his religion which were almost like his right hand perosn if they were in favor with the emperor.\nunder him were people called satrapps which ruled parts of his empire,\n then under him were people that controlled cities and little villages almost like mayors.
239297
I would disagree with your claim that Monarchies are more stable. \n\nLook at Nepal, it's falling apart... the reason why one might think that Monarchies are more stable is that they are less frequent and therefore thier demise doesn't register in our memory compared to the collapse of Democratic systems.\n\nDid you know that Egypt was a monarchy for instance? and like the previous person who answered, many countries, including China were also monarchies? \n\nI believe that Monarchy System of Government is just like any other system, if the people are happy with it, it will will prosper, it not, then it would eventualy collapse. \n\nBesides, most of those countries you mentioned have no reason to be unstable, they're well-managed and thier people are living in relative ease. Why would people go through the trouble or even want to change the status quo?
224045
Japan more or less has always been ruled by an emperor over a feudal state.  Most of the power was in the hands of the nobles, shoguns, and samurai.\n\nCheck my source for more info...
333124
He isn't a king.  He's the prince-consort.  (Which is just a fancy title for "queen's husband.")\n\nNormally when kings marry, their wives have a coronation ceremony too and become queens instead of being princess-consorts.  But Prince Philip was never coronated.
1025570
And exactly how does this relate to royalty?
385456
It also means "the king"... ;)
593379
what is the difference between the two
592764
there are different versions...\n\na lot of historians believe that the first monarch was the leader of the militia, and he had a military power, and he declared himself to be the king...\n\nsome people believe, that in addition to the military power, economic power (better governance of land etc.) also played role...\n\nIn roman empire - when there was democracy, then it became aristocracy with senate and different officials.  and when the northern tribes began attacking the borders the emperor (in ancient Rome it was the post of commander-in-chief) passed a statute through Senate that he will combine several posts (emperor, consul etc.) after several emperors, one decided, that the post should be inheritable, and after that, another one decided he needs no senate... and ROME became tyranny and after it was destroyed... :-)   classical example of birth and death of monarchy.\n\nhistory knows examples, that some monarchs were elected... like Romanov family in Russia was elected through convents of the Nobles... and after that the rules of succession worked.\n\nby the way, those rules of succession are different in different countries... it can be that the eldest child, or the eldest son, or the eldest male (like cousins, uncles etc - in case when there are no sons) etc.\n\nIn some countries (like United Arab Emirates) the monarch is elective (between so called Emirs).\n\nanyway - most of historians belive that the factor of force (especially military one) played a key role
309963
His position as Prince is exclusively because of his birth and as such is largely symbolic. He does not actually have a stipulate position of authority, such as his father who is the Pince of Wales, or his uncle who is the Duke of York or his mother who is the Queen of England and Defender of the Realm.
669021
Democracy is direct rule by a population through an elected leader.  Monarchy is a system in which the king could potentially not do what the public wants.
628972
From a senatorial republic to an empire/monarchy with a senate
752990
Quickly:\nEach are headed out by a leader. Japan has an emperor and Europe has a king. Neither controlled a huge amount of power for small regions and so that power was handed down to others.\n\nIn Japan there was the shoguns and in Europe they had their lords. Working under the lords were knights and the Japanese version of a knight is the samurai.\n\nAt the bottom were peasants for both Europe and Japan, though merchants were even below that in Japanese feudal society.
409510
I think the Emperor would beat Magneto. The Emperor has Force Lightning, Force Push/Pull, Lightsaber skills, etc. Magneto can only manipulate metal. (so, Magneto can only move metal with his mind, where as Palpy can move anything with his mind)
995920
Depends whter the country has a Presidential system or not. In a presidential system the Presidnt is eleced and is the head of state. In a non-presidential system the P.M is highest elected representative so the president or monarch is just a rubber stamp.
957922
Absolute monarchy.The King's word is the law.