I think the answer is obvious. You become an empire once you've been through the Dark Age, the Feudal Age and the Castle age and have 800 gold and 1000 food to upgrade to Imperial Age.
An empire is supposed to form after either reuniting or uniting countries. For example: Prussia (Germany I guess?) reunited germans by beating denmark, annexing all of the Holy roman empire states and beating France. Forming German Empire. For another example: Austrian Empire (Austria) Had a lot of ethnic diversity, mainly germans, croatians, serbians, slovakians, czechs, bosnians and Hungarians. Empires can also be formed after an empire collapses or dissolves, like the Ottoman Empire taking control after Byztantine Empire. The Imperial should also be on colonies or the lands you conquered. Ex.: British Empire, French Empire and Russian Empire. A dissolution of an empire can be caused by ethnic diversity or another empire conquering you. Ex.: Austria-Hungary and German Empire.
I don't agree save that a kingdom's influence can expand. British Empire never increased the direct size of their core state. Their territories were as described, separate entities which were controlled to varying degrees by London. This is why Americans rebelling wasn't treason because imperial systems don't demand loyalty. Imperial systems are economic and political alliances which can naturally be severed if the alliance is no longer viable. We were never "one country" to become disloyal to.
As a German, understand the title of Emperor more as a King of Kings, for example: In the German Empire there were still 4 kingdoms like Bavaria, Saxony, Würtenberg & Prussia and they had their own kings. I think that's more of the kind of Emperor that the Tennō of Japan represents
Same in India Raja = King Maharaja = King of kings There used to be vassal countries (surrendered) which are ruled by kings, yet responsible for emperor
Yes because historically many/most early Kings were leaders from the same ethno-cultural identity as the people they ruled. Meaning if you collected enough of these kings as vassals then you became a de facto King of Kings and fit the definition of Empire. Don't let it confuse you though, you can become an Empire in many ways - not just the King of Kings route. Austro-Hungary, the Mongols, the UK/US, Rome - these are all different ways of approaching the same/similar thing. But yeah, good way of seeing it from another perspective.
So if England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had separate monarchs, Queen Elizabeth would be Empress Elizabeth and the UK would be the British Empire again?
Before Charles was crowned emperor in 800 it was a kingdom, after that it was an empire. However, after the partitioning of the Frankish realm with the treaty of Verdun, there wasn’t always an emperor and most of the time the Frankish part of the realm was a kingdom.
2:15 The Office of Emperor wasn't exactly hereditary, the Roman Empire had so many crisis due to the unclear nature of the line of succession. Roman Emperors were like Military dictators, the office was hereditary sometimes but also sometimes the army just put whoever they wanted on the throne.
A time frame of crises does not a standard make. The successor title was typically inherited/appointed by the current ruler with exceptions to that rule.
Was gonna correct but there's a hot take in here considering European Monarchies are more genetically related to other Euro monarchs than they are their own subjects so, yeah.
@@arokjuata3365 empire = unequal autonomy. Meaning 1 collective identity ruling over several other distinct collectives. I was going to correct that generally kingdoms, and arguably most older kingdoms, were ruled by monarchs of the same collective/ethno-cultural identity as those they ruled over. But in the European middle ages this wasn't the case. Many monarchs, even the ones still alive today, have more blood, cultural, and historical ties to other monarchs and not the nations they are monarchs of. Spain, Sweden and the British Queen come to mind. So, technically the hot take is a monarch (assuming their being of a separate identity than their subjects) is just an emperor with only 1 conquest under their belt. Thereby ---> an empire is just a thicc kingdom.
"In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized to the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE! For a safe, and secure, society." -Palpatine
Roman Emperors were not necessarily called "Imperator".... Imperator was a title given to generals by their soldiers usually after an astounding victory or some sort of act that was popular with the soldiers. In fact it was possible for a general to be named Imperator multiple times during their military career. The man who ruled Rome was known as the "Princeps" which roughly translates to "first man". It was obviously possible for the Princeps to gain the title of Imperator, Vespasian was one of them but the two were basically mutually exclusive. We do get the modern word Emperor from Imperator, but the word has been lost in translation somewhere down the line and that is why we know them as Emperors and not Princeps.
My old Italian/history teacher told us that an empire in medieval European history is just a kingdom but has the spiritual support of the pope and papacy. Honestly the definition she gave for medieval Europe was pretty accurate (except the ottomans but eh)
But every Catholic kingdom had the support of the Pope: they had to be anointed by the Pope's approval (of either the monarch or the archbishop doing the anointing) and civil wars did sometimes involve getting a Pope to weigh in on who should rule or which archbishop on either kings side was legitimately representing the church. I think they were confusing the Holy Roman Empire claiming prestige by having their emperors crowned by the actual Pope like Charlemagne did. And even then lots of Pope's refused.
I would say more important thing about "emperor" title in the medieval period that it was very much related to the claim to being "true successor of Rome".
Hoàng Nguyên it feels worse for Italians, they went from ruling the known world to not being able to take the entire peninsula back and left us and a tiny square in Rome just for a popey Boi
The idea of empires being states whi rule over multiple ethnic groups sounds good at first but can get a bit more complicated when you realize essentially every nation has a minority group so is one minority group enough to constitute empire status? How bout size? How big must one be? Egypt's big and they got a minority coptic group so does that mean that dictators in Egypt can declare themselves Pharaohs? Imagine a new Pharaoh in 2020! Knowing this year it's possible Also Friday hype!
True, which is why I try to specify both the large size and the general lack of equality between capital and province. Either way, the border between "kingdom" and "empire" is a very murky one
Minority groups are irrelevant- if your criticism held any level of validity then we would have to define Empire as: any place where Jewish people live. Which makes no sense bc then basically every country is an Empire except places in Africa and SE Asia. Empire = unequal autonomy and no subdivision integration. 1 distinct collective rules over other distinct collectives and does not afford autonomy to them. Simple as. If all subjects are recognized as the ruling collective, that's a Unitary state. If subjects are recognized within the state and offered special autonomy, that's a federation. Recognized subjects with high levels of autonomy (military and economic, specifically) that's a confederation. Total autonomy in subjects is Anarchy or the State of Nature of Hobbesian fame.
@@SaintJames14 wdym, places in africa and SE asia are even more likely to be considered empires then, several african nations have minorities who are inequal in rights to the ruling class, even civil wars began over it and malaysia itself holds minority groups like chinese ppl and stuff that were taken there by the british and stuff
Think of "Kingdom" as synonymous with one people. No more, no less Emperor: more than one kingdom King: one kingdom Prince: sovereign of a state less than one whole people Duke: rules a city-state, usually subordinate Count: County (No major city, usually subdivision of a City-state Baron: pretty much anything below count, usually a lord with an administrative job separate from his lands
@@mahadaalvi unlikely. They'd probably just deploy the Canadian military and knock out any British force that even tried. And even then the UK might end up just overthrowing the monarchy altogether if they tried that.
Before the crown set it's capital in Rio after running away from napoleon, the kingdom of portugal (and algarves) acknowledge the vast territorial lands of Brasil as their own and not just of a mere colony. as such they became United kingdom of Brasil, portugal and algarves (algarves was just a title) as they could not became the united empires (wich btw, sounds dope af). when his son declared independence for brasil, then the territorial lands of brasil by itself was big enough to be declared an empire.
Pedro I took the Napoleonic-style title, which was similar to why Augustus proclaimed himself emperor, that is, both were trying not to be "kings", in Brazil it was because the title of king was associated with Portugal, in Rome with the tyranny of the last king, and in France I don't even need to explain.
When Mexico started it was called the Mexican Empire. Then 40 years later it created the Second Mexican Empire with a Hapsburg at its head. But from my view and knowledge the country was both times really a kingdom that used the term empire.
The emperor of Japan did not get his title from the Western definition of emperor, but from the definition of emperor as found in China, which has emphesis on divinity.
The word "emperor" is western and therefore the western definition is the only admissible. The question is why they chose to translate the japanese word with "emperor" even if it doesn't fit the definition.
It's also interesting to note that rome technically became an empire only in the 3rd century ad, because before that republican istitutions still technically existed, but were rearranged to better suit the "princeps civitatis", wich roughly means "first among citizens". The princeps was basically an eperor though Edit: thanks to SVSPICIOVS! For reminding me about the civitatis
Empires also don’t have to be absolute monarchies. Most colonial empires like Britain and France are democratic, yet are still called colonial empires.
The word Emperor in different languages also come from Caesar. The German word Kaiser and Russian word Tsar both came from Caesar's name whereas the English word Enperor came from his title
In medieval time there were only the Holy Roman Empire (autoproclaimed successor of the Roman Empire) and the Byzantine Empire (still the Eastern Roman Empire). There was a link (legitimate or not) to the Roman Empire (In German or Russian it's the words Kaiser or Tsar which comes from "Cesar"). Then in the 19th centuries some countries that were previously kingdoms became Empires just because it sounded cool (started with Napoleon) and others followed. Colonial Empires were technically never empires (Spain, Britain, France, Portugal) it's just historians that labelled it this way. Same for non-European countries like Ottomans or Japan it's just the way the foreign titles (like Tenno for Japan or Sultan for Ottomans) were translated.
For the vast majority of Japan's history - until the Meiji Restoration in fact - Japan was a collage of fiefdoms with the Emperor being the nominal head of the whole thing. Nowadays it's a unitary state but that emperor position remains.
Another bit for Japan, they don't really call their Emperor as emperor. They have a unique title (天皇) for him and another word for emperor (皇帝 or just 帝)) of other countries. It could be argued that English-speakers only call him emperor because that's the closest word we have for his position. That is, one that is a monarchy but with more prestige than that of a king.
An empire is when a monarch is ruling over several ethnolinguistic nation groups. Usually a minority ruling over a majority. Kingdoms are overwhelmingly homogeneous and monarchs and their subjects share same nationality.
Huh, I thought it's more that empires have the mission to still expand, but apparently it's more of a collection of kingdoms with some autonomy, which I guess does mostly lead to expansion.
“you are an empire when you have an emperor/caesar, unless you have colonies” usually works pretty well, there are of course exceptions, but there always will be anyways. before anyone types “what about the russian empire?”. the word “Tsar” is spelled “Czar” in russian and its pronounced Caesar, this is the case because russia historically considered themselves “the third rome” and you cant have a roman empire without a Caesar. the german word “Kaiser” is similarily also derived from Caesar. the “C” in latin is pronounced like an english “K”, you can try to sound it out yourself by following that. hope if nothing else i taught someone something with this comment :)
I think an empire is more or less, an form of monarchy rather than the size of the kingdom. In a kingdom, the crown passes from father to son, in an empire, the crown passes to the person the current emperor appoints to be the next ruler.
Doesn't fit numerous empires. In HRE the electors formally appointed the new emperor (which became more or less a hereditary title under Habsburgs). In Russia it was straight up hereditary, like in any regular monarchy. What you describe is mostly a Roman thing (and sort of Byzantine).
I would say that there is no one defined definition for an empire, but a country is given the status empire if the geo-political and geo-historical communities name it as such.
great video as always, although i wish you would have not phrased it that way at 5:45 many colonial empires still exist, the americas for instances has yet to decolonize at all except for maybe some caribbean countries and bolivia
A Kingdom is a small land which include one ethnicity and only one state. An empire is made of one central state which can rule over numerous other states which means its population contains of multiple different ethnicities. The idea of empire first appeared in Iraq , the Akkadian empire is known as to be the first empire ever existed, controlled vast region of Mesopotamia. The first great empire of ancient world was the Assyrian empire. The first great empire of all times also the greatest empire of antiquity which rolled over people from all three continents was the Persian empire. The Roman Empire was the first true European empire. Also the greatest empire of the classical era which also ruled over lands from 3 continents. All other empires after these just copied their path.
Technically Japan rules over the Okinawa Islands where they local culture and language is suppressed + there is very little autonomy. Additionally the US rules over places like Guam or Puerto Rico where local calls for independence are similarly suppressed
I think the technical distinction is that the Okinawans and Ainu are both considered Japanese and living in core fully integrated Japanese lands, but historically most empires had a clear legal distinction between ruling class and conquered. Think Romans dismantling and enslaving Hellenic kingdoms and having non-citizen subject states that were neither independent or a part of the country proper
@@Rynewulf Oh, so you mean like the US has in regards to Guam, Puerto Rico and the native american reservations? Nevermind all the neoliberal neocolonial imperialism it does in Latin America and basically most of the world. The US, France, and the UK never gave up their empires.
Jojo Mojo No, it’s not like Guam or Puerto Rico, because all residents of Guam and Puerto Rico are US Citizens. The US meddled in Latin American affairs due to the Cold War against the Soviets, who also happened to put their gaze upon the region. Today, whatever happens in Latin America is Latin american’s fault. And if they do something is because they’re the sole power in the region and because the UN permitted it. As for the “world”, you mean Middle East, and it was always somebody else who called them to fix their problems. Iran? The UK messed up with the British-Iranian Oil Company and wanted their help ( hence why the US and Iran are enemies ). Iraq? Iran was highly interested in eliminating Saddam Hussein to become the sole power in the region and match Saudi Arabia in influence ( they helped the Americans in the second gulf war ). Libya? French invitation, etc... Basically, the US is mostly reactive and if you really dig down a bit upon the matter, you’ll see that 99% of the time is always a call response or alliance commitment the reason why they get involved.
1:10 yes, and prestige (based on titles etc.) was quite important in the middle ages. Which makes me think: why didn't the rulers of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, that held it in a personal and later real union, (seemingly try to) elevate the [Grand] Duchy of Lithuania to a Kingdom?
Most likely because it would be an admission of equality between the titles. Elevating Lithuania could shift the center of power/influnce away from Warsaw and thus destabilize the realms.
Because when rulers held multiple titles, of varying prestige, they would generally use the best one. The rulers of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth were both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, and they would generally use the title of King (of Poland), so they didn't need to be King of both. Other examples include George III, King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain and Archduke of Austria (and many many more, that guy had titles to burn). We remember them by their highest ranking title.
Kingdom is the head honcho of his ethnic group. Emperor is "King of Kings" or king over multiple ethnic groups. Is how I've always understood the 2 terms.
"Empire has large quantity of lands, rules over multiple ethic groups and has unequal flow of wealth and resources" Bulgaria, with the size of one roman province: You know, I am something of an empire myself.
Yes, but... The only reason why we have this distinction at all is because of the fact that being called "monarchy" is out of fashion. The only real functional difference seems to be that in one case terms of being head of state is for a period of time, and in the other - for life. But even than, we could find the exceptions. At the end, this is mostly the description of how country want to style itself, not the description of how the power REALLY looks alike (in Japan the emperor having no real power is basically a centuries long tradition at this point)
It's tricky. The office of Stadtholder in the Dutch Republic was for the most part a hereditary position - and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, nobles elected kings to reign. There is historical precedence of such a government to be called either a monarchy or a republic.
I really hate when people say nationalism is a product of the 19 20th centuries. It’s bullshit one valley couldn’t even get alone with another due to slight differences. Other situations like Greek romans celts Chinese. Absolutely knew what and who they were amongst a larger group. Even if they had more important things specific to their tribe.
an empire is a big multicultural area (doesn't need to be directly connected) that spans several smaller dominions/peoples and is ruled by the same authority
I was watching this and kept saying "no An empire/federation/nation state is this" only for him to explain each later in the video. The best evidence I ever had that you should watch the entire video before you comment. Anywho, this was a great informative video.
There's no legal definition, if "Empire" should be huge territory with multiple language and ethnicity, we got "Empire of Trebizond" and "Empire of Nicaea" which is basically just a city state or small kingdom, yet, it ruled by an Emperor. Meanwhile British Empire is the largest Empire in history, it ruled by King or Queen.
Empire were always depicted as an evil entity until there's this irony in the South America namely Brazilian Empire (more liberal than most European countries at that time) and Argentinian Republic (basically your typical dictatorship).
Empires are considered negative today due to the the simple fact that most empires are/were unable to compromise on the dominant position of the dominant group. There is also the fact that empires generally formed from a brutal and/or exploitative process. Japan only keeps the imperial status thanks to emperors being the traditional monarchs of Japan, much like how Brazil and Mexico as independent monarchies also only had emperors (Brazil and Mexico in turn were formed from brutal conquest by Portugal and Spain, respectively). Empires are out of style.
My definition of an Empire is that an Empire is a unique competitive monarchy whanthing to achieve great/greater/greatest faith wills it type of country country 😊
Or the definition of an Empire is the Roman empire + any state that claimed to held its imperial legacy. Then we can make the list of the real ´empires’ : - the Roman Empire then the Western and the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. - the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire (imperial title recognized by the pope and by Byzantium). - the First Bulgarian Empire (imperial title recognized by Byzantium). - the Latin Empire of 1204-61 (by right of conquest over Byzantium). - the Ottoman Empire (by right of conquest over Byzantium). - the Russian Empire (as orthodox heir of Byzantium). - the two Napoleonic French Empires (imperial title recognized by the papacy and right of conquest over the HRE). - the Austrian Empire (direct heir of the HRE). - the German Empire (indirect heir of the HRE). All other ‘empires’ should not be called like that, like China or the Aztecs. Because different history and different cultures.
Notice that the Latin word "imperator" originally referred to a top-level military commander, like a Five-Star General. (It means "orderer.") If "emperor" is higher than "king," "grand duke" is just slightly lower.
Empire: A country that rules over multiple distinct ethnic groups ruled by a hereditary monarchy that is part of a specific ethnic group that is thought to be superior to the others. Does this definition work?
Not really, mainly because of the hereditary monarchy caveat. The HRE was an empire but it was an elective monarchy. Then you have Republican France which owned it's own big empire
Empire as a form of government is a state lead by an emperor/empress as well as kingdoms are ruled by kings/queens, duchies by dukes/duchesses and so on. Simple as that. And then there's this other definition of empire as a network where a central actor holds power over separate entities. For example British Empire was empire in the same way as Elon Musk has his business empire consisting of Tesla, SpaceX etc. Although British monarchs were also emperors of India but that falls under the first definition again.
KhAnubis, can you verify your channel as a "Brave creator account" so that I can support your channel. I, like a lot of people use adblock, and I feel bad that I enjoy your content but don't contribute.
I heard the definition of A countrie that is on 3 or more continents I am Portuguese and I realized that Portugal has the islands of Corvo e Flores technically in America, Madeira and Porto Santo in Africa and most of the Azores and the main territory in Europe
I would argue that it has to do with how the state or nation in question is governed. The byzantines were not always huge, but they were an empire their entire existence.
I would like to point out that the whole concept of Empire exploiting the province is a bit wrong for Rome. Because while it certainly started that way by the early II century was already obvious that Rome was investing more than what was obtaining from many provinces and by the late III century there was little legal differences between italy and the provinces. With often frontier provinces receiving more attention than italy
The definition of Emperor in East Asia if different than in Europe. It is more akin to the King of Kings title used by the Persians, so the Japanese Emperor does not mean he is the head of an Empire per say, but rather he is the ruler of all other rulers within his domain.
I would argue the PRC to be an empire. It is a system in which one government had subjected another state (Tibet) to its control. That's why I don't call it "China" as Tibet is not Chinese in any conceivable way.
Liberalism. Our current prevailing ideology has structured our opinions to consider Empires as the most evil. Liberalism was founded in opposition to monarchies, a "monarch of monarchs" or any kind of meta-sovereign structure is going to be rejected at an existential level. If you like Empires, you might be philosophically anti-liberal.
One of the biggest downsides of old fashioned empires still existing these days would be having much less football teams and players. Can you imagine a Roman Empire national team? A lot of players woudn't get to play. Casillas, Buffon and Lloris, for example, only one of them would play and the others on the bench.
Ok, so a empire doesn't really mean anything, and was really just made up and arbitrarily applied to certain states to signify power, and then you say there's technically only one empire currently in existence? So is there necessary criteria we have to meet to classify a country as a empire or not?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![On Worldbuilding: How do Empires Work? [ Fire Nation l Roman l Mongols ] PART 1](/img/1.gif)
I think the answer is obvious. You become an empire once you've been through the Dark Age, the Feudal Age and the Castle age and have 800 gold and 1000 food to upgrade to Imperial Age.
An empire is supposed to form after either reuniting or uniting countries.
For example: Prussia (Germany I guess?) reunited germans by beating denmark, annexing all of the Holy roman empire states and beating France.
Forming German Empire.
For another example: Austrian Empire (Austria)
Had a lot of ethnic diversity, mainly germans, croatians, serbians, slovakians, czechs, bosnians and Hungarians.
Empires can also be formed after an empire collapses or dissolves, like the Ottoman Empire taking control after Byztantine Empire.
The Imperial should also be on colonies or the lands you conquered.
Ex.: British Empire, French Empire and Russian Empire.
A dissolution of an empire can be caused by ethnic diversity or another empire conquering you.
Ex.: Austria-Hungary and German Empire.
@@surburus5986 loĝas la commento
@@surburus5986 How do you manage to be so wrong!
@@universenerdd Wha-
@@universenerdd I thought that's how an empire is formed? Aren't my examples correct?
An empire is when a country is big. The bigger it is, the empirerer it is.
Thank you professor!
I don't agree save that a kingdom's influence can expand. British Empire never increased the direct size of their core state. Their territories were as described, separate entities which were controlled to varying degrees by London. This is why Americans rebelling wasn't treason because imperial systems don't demand loyalty. Imperial systems are economic and political alliances which can naturally be severed if the alliance is no longer viable. We were never "one country" to become disloyal to.
@@silverletter4551 It was a joke, a reference to Richard Wolff's mocking explanation of socialism.
No
Can't argue with that logic
As a German, understand the title of Emperor more as a King of Kings, for example: In the German Empire there were still 4 kingdoms like Bavaria, Saxony, Würtenberg & Prussia and they had their own kings. I think that's more of the kind of Emperor that the Tennō of Japan represents
Same in India
Raja = King
Maharaja = King of kings
There used to be vassal countries (surrendered) which are ruled by kings, yet responsible for emperor
Ranvijay Rao
Thanks, I didn't know, very interesting.
Yes because historically many/most early Kings were leaders from the same ethno-cultural identity as the people they ruled. Meaning if you collected enough of these kings as vassals then you became a de facto King of Kings and fit the definition of Empire.
Don't let it confuse you though, you can become an Empire in many ways - not just the King of Kings route.
Austro-Hungary, the Mongols, the UK/US, Rome - these are all different ways of approaching the same/similar thing.
But yeah, good way of seeing it from another perspective.
So if England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had separate monarchs, Queen Elizabeth would be Empress Elizabeth and the UK would be the British Empire again?
Moondust2365
By my definition, yes
You have to own two kingdoms and at least 80% of the empires de jure counties (in your or your vassals domain).
I see you are a man of culture as well. Deus Vult!!!
Finally someone understands.
@Manetinaj Crusader Kings
Also you have to make the horse your chancellor. Very important you do this.
@@charlesuzozie5747 Glitterhoof for emperor!!
Even weirder, the nation-state that Charlemagne ruled over is sometimes called the Frankish Kingdom and sometimes called the Carolingian Empire.
Before Charles was crowned emperor in 800 it was a kingdom, after that it was an empire. However, after the partitioning of the Frankish realm with the treaty of Verdun, there wasn’t always an emperor and most of the time the Frankish part of the realm was a kingdom.
Or even the Frankish empire
Or the 1st, .5th, or proto-Reich
Or even the Holy Roman Empire
I wouldn't call it a "nation state".
Just gon' pioneer here.
Empire: >= 1000 development
Don't forget 75 prestige
@@damanbhashaphranglyngskor1102 😏👍
180 or more realm size or 3 or more kingdom titles
Green Weed now 4 provinces!
The Ethiopian empire would like to have a talk with you as in beat the crap out of your probable italian ancestors of one of your freinds.
2:15 The Office of Emperor wasn't exactly hereditary, the Roman Empire had so many crisis due to the unclear nature of the line of succession. Roman Emperors were like Military dictators, the office was hereditary sometimes but also sometimes the army just put whoever they wanted on the throne.
Roman system of appointing new emperors: it will come out
A time frame of crises does not a standard make.
The successor title was typically inherited/appointed by the current ruler with exceptions to that rule.
Proto fascism
@@viniciusdomenighi6439 everything is proto fascism
@@viniciusdomenighi6439 better than proto communism
Some notable Empires
Roman empire
Mongol Empire
British Empire
Spanish Empire
Portugese Empire
And the Great Haiti Empire.
yes such a great Haitian Empire
It is portugese empire
Portugal empire? I would say Portuguese empire
No. Luxembourg Empire.
Tannu Tuvan empire
empires are thicc kingdoms
oh yeah i like my doms ｔｈｉｃｃ
Was gonna correct but there's a hot take in here considering European Monarchies are more genetically related to other Euro monarchs than they are their own subjects so, yeah.
@@SaintJames14 huh?
@@arokjuata3365 empire = unequal autonomy. Meaning 1 collective identity ruling over several other distinct collectives.
I was going to correct that generally kingdoms, and arguably most older kingdoms, were ruled by monarchs of the same collective/ethno-cultural identity as those they ruled over. But in the European middle ages this wasn't the case. Many monarchs, even the ones still alive today, have more blood, cultural, and historical ties to other monarchs and not the nations they are monarchs of.
Spain, Sweden and the British Queen come to mind.
So, technically the hot take is a monarch (assuming their being of a separate identity than their subjects) is just an emperor with only 1 conquest under their belt. Thereby ---> an empire is just a thicc kingdom.
@@SaintJames14 i see now, thanks
In a nutshell
Kingdom : "who are you?"
Empire : "im you, but B I G G E R"
"In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized to the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE! For a safe, and secure, society."
-Palpatine
“So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”
"Do it"
@@vladimirstok149 Dew* it
Just hold 3 kingdom titles and declare yourself an empire. (2000 prestige)
Or 75 prestige and 1000 development
Roman Emperors were not necessarily called "Imperator".... Imperator was a title given to generals by their soldiers usually after an astounding victory or some sort of act that was popular with the soldiers. In fact it was possible for a general to be named Imperator multiple times during their military career. The man who ruled Rome was known as the "Princeps" which roughly translates to "first man". It was obviously possible for the Princeps to gain the title of Imperator, Vespasian was one of them but the two were basically mutually exclusive. We do get the modern word Emperor from Imperator, but the word has been lost in translation somewhere down the line and that is why we know them as Emperors and not Princeps.
My old Italian/history teacher told us that an empire in medieval European history is just a kingdom but has the spiritual support of the pope and papacy. Honestly the definition she gave for medieval Europe was pretty accurate (except the ottomans but eh)
But every Catholic kingdom had the support of the Pope: they had to be anointed by the Pope's approval (of either the monarch or the archbishop doing the anointing) and civil wars did sometimes involve getting a Pope to weigh in on who should rule or which archbishop on either kings side was legitimately representing the church. I think they were confusing the Holy Roman Empire claiming prestige by having their emperors crowned by the actual Pope like Charlemagne did. And even then lots of Pope's refused.
I would say more important thing about "emperor" title in the medieval period that it was very much related to the claim to being "true successor of Rome".
Hoàng Nguyên it’s alright, you generally learn a lot more compared to other classes tbh
Hoàng Nguyên don’t remind me of the fall of pizza land, it makes us all cry. Delete this rn
Hoàng Nguyên it feels worse for Italians, they went from ruling the known world to not being able to take the entire peninsula back and left us and a tiny square in Rome just for a popey Boi
The idea of empires being states whi rule over multiple ethnic groups sounds good at first but can get a bit more complicated when you realize essentially every nation has a minority group so is one minority group enough to constitute empire status? How bout size? How big must one be? Egypt's big and they got a minority coptic group so does that mean that dictators in Egypt can declare themselves Pharaohs? Imagine a new Pharaoh in 2020! Knowing this year it's possible
Also Friday hype!
True, which is why I try to specify both the large size and the general lack of equality between capital and province. Either way, the border between "kingdom" and "empire" is a very murky one
Minority groups are irrelevant- if your criticism held any level of validity then we would have to define Empire as: any place where Jewish people live.
Which makes no sense bc then basically every country is an Empire except places in Africa and SE Asia.
Empire = unequal autonomy and no subdivision integration. 1 distinct collective rules over other distinct collectives and does not afford autonomy to them. Simple as.
If all subjects are recognized as the ruling collective, that's a Unitary state.
If subjects are recognized within the state and offered special autonomy, that's a federation. Recognized subjects with high levels of autonomy (military and economic, specifically) that's a confederation. Total autonomy in subjects is Anarchy or the State of Nature of Hobbesian fame.
@@SaintJames14 wdym, places in africa and SE asia are even more likely to be considered empires then, several african nations have minorities who are inequal in rights to the ruling class, even civil wars began over it
and malaysia itself holds minority groups like chinese ppl and stuff that were taken there by the british and stuff
@@jamm6_514 reread my comment
Think of "Kingdom" as synonymous with one people. No more, no less
Emperor: more than one kingdom
King: one kingdom
Prince: sovereign of a state less than one whole people
Duke: rules a city-state, usually subordinate
Count: County (No major city, usually subdivision of a City-state
Baron: pretty much anything below count, usually a lord with an administrative job separate from his lands
Empire of Switzerland
Pat Studios hey god Truci here
Yes...Chocolate nation rule
The Empire of Switzerland, something you did not know you wanted.
What about the glorious empire of Liechtenstein?
Never forget the Croatia, the Croatia has the coastline while Switzerland has all the interior.
Canada:
Multi-ethnic ✅
Has a monarch ✅
Large ✅
*CANADA IS AN EMPIRE*
Edit: the replies lol
As a Canadian I am perfectly fine with renaming Canada info The Canadian Empire
@crazy doggo shes treated as a separate monarch from her reign over the UK.
Sumi Lol the day England tries to come and take back Canada is the day Canada becomes a territory of United States 😂
@@mahadaalvi unlikely. They'd probably just deploy the Canadian military and knock out any British force that even tried. And even then the UK might end up just overthrowing the monarchy altogether if they tried that.
Canada doesn't exist. It ought to just accept it's fate as a region of the US 🇺🇸
The Empire of KhAnubia has been declared.
Territory: RUclips and Discord
Capital: #general
Head of State: KhAnubis
--hello napoleon--
can i candidate myself as prime minister?
@@kepleritos195 No that is given to Artificial Gravitas.
Hello Prome, can I be the minister of the interior cabinet?
You forgot the subreddit
Im just gonna wait till the good comments arrive
Sir Soy Gato the Second
So far so good
I have arrived
I hate the king Ryan guy he’s such an annoying bot
@Sir Soy Gato the Second no.
Love how u showed India in the end cuz 2 Oct is an important day for entire india
before: United kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves.
Post independence: Empire of Brazil
Go figure...
Ave Império!
Haha I was just thinking the same for Mexico and Spain.
Before independence: The Kingdom of Spain
After independence: The Mexican Empire
Before the crown set it's capital in Rio after running away from napoleon, the kingdom of portugal (and algarves) acknowledge the vast territorial lands of Brasil as their own and not just of a mere colony. as such they became United kingdom of Brasil, portugal and algarves (algarves was just a title) as they could not became the united empires (wich btw, sounds dope af). when his son declared independence for brasil, then the territorial lands of brasil by itself was big enough to be declared an empire.
Pedro I took the Napoleonic-style title, which was similar to why Augustus proclaimed himself emperor, that is, both were trying not to be "kings", in Brazil it was because the title of king was associated with Portugal, in Rome with the tyranny of the last king, and in France I don't even need to explain.
Her: He's probably thinking about other womans....
Him: what is an empire
When Mexico started it was called the Mexican Empire. Then 40 years later it created the Second Mexican Empire with a Hapsburg at its head. But from my view and knowledge the country was both times really a kingdom that used the term empire.
Mexico was and still is a deeply multiethnic state. Many indigenous languages and peoples united under Spanish language and Catholicism.
Its simple, just control at least 80% of the counties in a de jure empire and make sure you have enough piety and money.
The emperor of Japan did not get his title from the Western definition of emperor, but from the definition of emperor as found in China, which has emphesis on divinity.
The word "emperor" is western and therefore the western definition is the only admissible. The question is why they chose to translate the japanese word with "emperor" even if it doesn't fit the definition.
I guess the millions of people throughout Asia that Japan exterminated appreciated the Japanese Emperor being Divine.
It's also interesting to note that rome technically became an empire only in the 3rd century ad, because before that republican istitutions still technically existed, but were rearranged to better suit the "princeps civitatis", wich roughly means "first among citizens". The princeps was basically an eperor though
Edit: thanks to SVSPICIOVS! For reminding me about the civitatis
@@HomoEconomicus yeah you're right, I forgot it. Thanks!
If you can vassalize a kingdom then you’re an empire.
Empires also don’t have to be absolute monarchies. Most colonial empires like Britain and France are democratic, yet are still called colonial empires.
I would add that empires tend to have a more aggresive foreign policy while Kingdoms are more Domestic in nature
The word Emperor in different languages also come from Caesar. The German word Kaiser and Russian word Tsar both came from Caesar's name whereas the English word Enperor came from his title
Very well explained! Congrats!
In medieval time there were only the Holy Roman Empire (autoproclaimed successor of the Roman Empire) and the Byzantine Empire (still the Eastern Roman Empire). There was a link (legitimate or not) to the Roman Empire (In German or Russian it's the words Kaiser or Tsar which comes from "Cesar").
Then in the 19th centuries some countries that were previously kingdoms became Empires just because it sounded cool (started with Napoleon) and others followed.
Colonial Empires were technically never empires (Spain, Britain, France, Portugal) it's just historians that labelled it this way. Same for non-European countries like Ottomans or Japan it's just the way the foreign titles (like Tenno for Japan or Sultan for Ottomans) were translated.
And there's the Empire of Japan, which is not diverse, nor large.
Well it used to be, but they still call their head of state "Emperor".
Japan is the 12th largest country in the world and 4th largest in Asia at 4,857,318 km2
@@Peizxcv bruh Japan is 63rd, Denmark is 12th. Japan is 377 915 km2
@@scrumptiousbee1032 Check again why I gave such specific number.
@Green Weed That's actually the translation of 皇 which is why Korea and Japan were both empires along with China.
For the vast majority of Japan's history - until the Meiji Restoration in fact - Japan was a collage of fiefdoms with the Emperor being the nominal head of the whole thing. Nowadays it's a unitary state but that emperor position remains.
Rome: i am the definition of an empire
British Empire: who are you?
Mongols: stfu noobs
Me: hearing some Ulm laughing in the background
Another bit for Japan, they don't really call their Emperor as emperor. They have a unique title (天皇) for him and another word for emperor (皇帝 or just 帝)) of other countries. It could be argued that English-speakers only call him emperor because that's the closest word we have for his position. That is, one that is a monarchy but with more prestige than that of a king.
as Bill Wurtz would say "Heavenly Superperson"
Simply, when you have 3 kingdom titles or your realm size is equal to or over 180 then you have an empire.
An empire is when a monarch is ruling over several ethnolinguistic nation groups.
Usually a minority ruling over a majority.
Kingdoms are overwhelmingly homogeneous and monarchs and their subjects share same nationality.
So basically emperor was originally just a re-brand
Huh, I thought it's more that empires have the mission to still expand, but apparently it's more of a collection of kingdoms with some autonomy, which I guess does mostly lead to expansion.
Would be great to mention the first worldwide empire! Thank you so much for sharing your view, cheers
“you are an empire when you have an emperor/caesar, unless you have colonies” usually works pretty well, there are of course exceptions, but there always will be anyways.
before anyone types “what about the russian empire?”. the word “Tsar” is spelled “Czar” in russian and its pronounced Caesar, this is the case because russia historically considered themselves “the third rome” and you cant have a roman empire without a Caesar.
the german word “Kaiser” is similarily also derived from Caesar. the “C” in latin is pronounced like an english “K”, you can try to sound it out yourself by following that.
hope if nothing else i taught someone something with this comment :)
I think an empire is more or less, an form of monarchy rather than the size of the kingdom. In a kingdom, the crown passes from father to son, in an empire, the crown passes to the person the current emperor appoints to be the next ruler.
Doesn't fit numerous empires. In HRE the electors formally appointed the new emperor (which became more or less a hereditary title under Habsburgs). In Russia it was straight up hereditary, like in any regular monarchy. What you describe is mostly a Roman thing (and sort of Byzantine).
4:18
Where da hell is the German Empire?!
youtube surely did a great job spending their money on not removing bots
You should join Nebula.
I would say that there is no one defined definition for an empire, but a country is given the status empire if the geo-political and geo-historical communities name it as such.
So similar to "how to make a country 101"?
@@quandarioustoddricioushorn9292 Yes your holiness.
@@colanaxis poggers
great video as always, although i wish you would have not phrased it that way at 5:45 many colonial empires still exist, the americas for instances has yet to decolonize at all except for maybe some caribbean countries and bolivia
You are really underrated, Keep the good work
A Kingdom is a small land which include one ethnicity and only one state.
An empire is made of one central state which can rule over numerous other states which means its population contains of multiple different ethnicities.
The idea of empire first appeared in Iraq , the Akkadian empire is known as to be the first empire ever existed, controlled vast region of Mesopotamia.
The first great empire of ancient world was the Assyrian empire.
The first great empire of all times also the greatest empire of antiquity which rolled over people from all three continents was the Persian empire.
The Roman Empire was the first true European empire. Also the greatest empire of the classical era which also ruled over lands from 3 continents.
All other empires after these just copied their path.
Technically Japan rules over the Okinawa Islands where they local culture and language is suppressed + there is very little autonomy. Additionally the US rules over places like Guam or Puerto Rico where local calls for independence are similarly suppressed
I think the technical distinction is that the Okinawans and Ainu are both considered Japanese and living in core fully integrated Japanese lands, but historically most empires had a clear legal distinction between ruling class and conquered. Think Romans dismantling and enslaving Hellenic kingdoms and having non-citizen subject states that were neither independent or a part of the country proper
@@Rynewulf Oh, so you mean like the US has in regards to Guam, Puerto Rico and the native american reservations? Nevermind all the neoliberal neocolonial imperialism it does in Latin America and basically most of the world. The US, France, and the UK never gave up their empires.
@@jojomojo508 fair points actually. Yeah basically, those are all good examples. China fits the bill too not surprisingly, arguably Russia
Puerto Rico and Guam mostly want statehood rather than independence.
Jojo Mojo
No, it’s not like Guam or Puerto Rico, because all residents of Guam and Puerto Rico are US Citizens.
The US meddled in Latin American affairs due to the Cold War against the Soviets, who also happened to put their gaze upon the region.
Today, whatever happens in Latin America is Latin american’s fault. And if they do something is because they’re the sole power in the region and because the UN permitted it.
As for the “world”, you mean Middle East, and it was always somebody else who called them to fix their problems.
Iran? The UK messed up with the British-Iranian Oil Company and wanted their help ( hence why the US and Iran are enemies ). Iraq? Iran was highly interested in eliminating Saddam Hussein to become the sole power in the region and match Saudi Arabia in influence ( they helped the Americans in the second gulf war ). Libya? French invitation, etc...
Basically, the US is mostly reactive and if you really dig down a bit upon the matter, you’ll see that 99% of the time is always a call response or alliance commitment the reason why they get involved.
1:10 yes, and prestige (based on titles etc.) was quite important in the middle ages. Which makes me think: why didn't the rulers of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, that held it in a personal and later real union, (seemingly try to) elevate the [Grand] Duchy of Lithuania to a Kingdom?
Most likely because it would be an admission of equality between the titles. Elevating Lithuania could shift the center of power/influnce away from Warsaw and thus destabilize the realms.
@@ruupertiina Yeah, who knows? They're not around to ask. Sounds plausible. On top of that, they'd have to ask the pope for permission, iirc.
Because when rulers held multiple titles, of varying prestige, they would generally use the best one.
The rulers of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth were both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, and they would generally use the title of King (of Poland), so they didn't need to be King of both.
Other examples include George III, King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain and Archduke of Austria (and many many more, that guy had titles to burn). We remember them by their highest ranking title.
Kingdom is the head honcho of his ethnic group. Emperor is "King of Kings" or king over multiple ethnic groups. Is how I've always understood the 2 terms.
"Empire has large quantity of lands, rules over multiple ethic groups and has unequal flow of wealth and resources"
Bulgaria, with the size of one roman province: You know, I am something of an empire myself.
You need 1000 development and 50 prestige to be an empire.
*75
We know for sure that holy Roman empire wasn't holy or Roman
Or an empire really tbh, pretty pitiful
It's good to be the king, but better to be the emperor.
true. ALSO BETTER THAN A PRESIDENT!
It seems like something related to India is cooking up as the date is too specific
What's today in India?
@@Peizxcv On Friday, it's Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday commemorating the Birth of Mahatma Gandhi
@@______608 I know that's why I was asking
A question, does it make sense to call a republic where the leader is unelected an has a life long term a monarchy?
Yes, but...
The only reason why we have this distinction at all is because of the fact that being called "monarchy" is out of fashion.
The only real functional difference seems to be that in one case terms of being head of state is for a period of time, and in the other - for life. But even than, we could find the exceptions.
At the end, this is mostly the description of how country want to style itself, not the description of how the power REALLY looks alike (in Japan the emperor having no real power is basically a centuries long tradition at this point)
It's tricky. The office of Stadtholder in the Dutch Republic was for the most part a hereditary position - and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, nobles elected kings to reign.
There is historical precedence of such a government to be called either a monarchy or a republic.
If the answer isn't "how the ruler calls themselves makes the difference" I'm out
I really hate when people say nationalism is a product of the 19 20th centuries. It’s bullshit one valley couldn’t even get alone with another due to slight differences. Other situations like Greek romans celts Chinese. Absolutely knew what and who they were amongst a larger group. Even if they had more important things specific to their tribe.
an empire is a big multicultural area (doesn't need to be directly connected)
that spans several smaller dominions/peoples and is ruled by the same authority
I was watching this and kept saying "no An empire/federation/nation state is this" only for him to explain each later in the video. The best evidence I ever had that you should watch the entire video before you comment. Anywho, this was a great informative video.
There's no legal definition, if "Empire" should be huge territory with multiple language and ethnicity, we got "Empire of Trebizond" and "Empire of Nicaea" which is basically just a city state or small kingdom, yet, it ruled by an Emperor.
Meanwhile British Empire is the largest Empire in history, it ruled by King or Queen.
Empire were always depicted as an evil entity until there's this irony in the South America namely Brazilian Empire (more liberal than most European countries at that time) and Argentinian Republic (basically your typical dictatorship).
Empires are considered negative today due to the the simple fact that most empires are/were unable to compromise on the dominant position of the dominant group. There is also the fact that empires generally formed from a brutal and/or exploitative process. Japan only keeps the imperial status thanks to emperors being the traditional monarchs of Japan, much like how Brazil and Mexico as independent monarchies also only had emperors (Brazil and Mexico in turn were formed from brutal conquest by Portugal and Spain, respectively). Empires are out of style.
My definition of an Empire is that an Empire is a unique competitive monarchy whanthing to achieve great/greater/greatest faith wills it type of country country 😊
i live in a small village in Michigan named Empire
Or the definition of an Empire is the Roman empire + any state that claimed to held its imperial legacy.
Then we can make the list of the real ´empires’ :
- the Roman Empire then the Western and the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
- the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire (imperial title recognized by the pope and by Byzantium).
- the First Bulgarian Empire (imperial title recognized by Byzantium).
- the Latin Empire of 1204-61 (by right of conquest over Byzantium).
- the Ottoman Empire (by right of conquest over Byzantium).
- the Russian Empire (as orthodox heir of Byzantium).
- the two Napoleonic French Empires (imperial title recognized by the papacy and right of conquest over the HRE).
- the Austrian Empire (direct heir of the HRE).
- the German Empire (indirect heir of the HRE).
All other ‘empires’ should not be called like that, like China or the Aztecs. Because different history and different cultures.
Brazil Empire 1822 - 1889
An empire has to contain at least 3 de jure kingdoms in order to be an empire. CK2 will never lie to me!
I’ve always thought an empire is a country but consist of multiple kingdoms
Knowledge, I love history. It's quite educational.
Notice that the Latin word "imperator" originally referred to a top-level military commander, like a Five-Star General. (It means "orderer.")
If "emperor" is higher than "king," "grand duke" is just slightly lower.
Is Belgium an empire?
We have three regions with three official languages.
And we are a monarchy.
That's a good question , I don't think they are but it sure sounds like they should be
I've always thought that an empire is a nation that have mote than 1000 developments, but i guess i was wrong and i forgot about byzantium
Empire: A country that rules over multiple distinct ethnic groups ruled by a hereditary monarchy that is part of a specific ethnic group that is thought to be superior to the others.
Does this definition work?
Not really, mainly because of the hereditary monarchy caveat. The HRE was an empire but it was an elective monarchy. Then you have Republican France which owned it's own big empire
@@thethirdsicily4802 Republican France wasnt stable, so I wouldn't count it.
Brazilian Monarchists where are you guys?
Lutando pelo direito de um desconhecido ser rei desde 1822 kkkkkk
Eu só apoio monarquia no Brasil se a gnt colocar o Lisca Doido imperador. Aí seria do caralho!
Pretty cool, never seen this channel before.
An empire is basically just a kingdom that has over 1000 development
4:20 Why didn't you include the German Empire?
It's the political map of the begging of the 19th century, Germany wasn't even united yet
@@СергейПлугатырёв no? Italy got Ethiopia in 1935? The map is all over the place chronologically
@@dualmo7185 oh, you're right, I dunno then, why he didn't put Germany on the map
Man, the fact that there are almost no empires in the world is kinda sad!
Empire is just a title after Rome fell, to prestigenize yourself as great as Rome was, it means nothing.
Empire as a form of government is a state lead by an emperor/empress as well as kingdoms are ruled by kings/queens, duchies by dukes/duchesses and so on. Simple as that. And then there's this other definition of empire as a network where a central actor holds power over separate entities. For example British Empire was empire in the same way as Elon Musk has his business empire consisting of Tesla, SpaceX etc. Although British monarchs were also emperors of India but that falls under the first definition again.
0:45 the map hurts me
KhAnubis, can you verify your channel as a "Brave creator account" so that I can support your channel. I, like a lot of people use adblock, and I feel bad that I enjoy your content but don't contribute.
I heard the definition of
A countrie that is on 3 or more continents
I am Portuguese and I realized that Portugal has the islands of Corvo e Flores technically in America, Madeira and Porto Santo in Africa and most of the Azores and the main territory in Europe
I would argue that it has to do with how the state or nation in question is governed. The byzantines were not always huge, but they were an empire their entire existence.
The lack of 40k reference is disappointing
1:35 in the year 509 BCE the territory controlled by Rome was way smaller than you show it to be.
As big as a medium-sized town. Lol.
A kingdom only rules one country whereas an empire is composed of multiple kingdoms?
kind of
4:22 I find quite shocking how Europe has literally colonized or invaded almost every single corner of the world...
I would like to point out that the whole concept of Empire exploiting the province is a bit wrong for Rome. Because while it certainly started that way by the early II century was already obvious that Rome was investing more than what was obtaining from many provinces and by the late III century there was little legal differences between italy and the provinces. With often frontier provinces receiving more attention than italy
i liked your jokes, subscribed! 👍
Definitely do the states vs provinces video
The definition of Emperor in East Asia if different than in Europe. It is more akin to the King of Kings title used by the Persians, so the Japanese Emperor does not mean he is the head of an Empire per say, but rather he is the ruler of all other rulers within his domain.
When you realize Brazil was also once an empire but Portugal was always just a kingdom.
A little rectification: in the Roman Republic the consuls aren't elected by the Senate, but by the people of Rome assembled in the Comitia Centuriata.
0:47 Where is Galicia and Trentino?
wtf are the play back pars the replay a section of s video over and over and how do i get rid of them
I would argue the PRC to be an empire. It is a system in which one government had subjected another state (Tibet) to its control. That's why I don't call it "China" as Tibet is not Chinese in any conceivable way.
I don-t know why people use Empire as a form of condemnation. If I were a country, I would be glad to be caslled like that.
Liberalism. Our current prevailing ideology has structured our opinions to consider Empires as the most evil.
Liberalism was founded in opposition to monarchies, a "monarch of monarchs" or any kind of meta-sovereign structure is going to be rejected at an existential level.
If you like Empires, you might be philosophically anti-liberal.
@@SaintJames14 Well, I consider myself quite a bit authoritarian, so that is probably the reason.
@@directorsupremodelriodelap6422 good man. Check out Hobbes and Carl Schmitt if you haven't yet. Big recommend to Marx too oddly enough.
Because it is a way to undermine global legitimacy of a particular government.
One of the biggest downsides of old fashioned empires still existing these days would be having much less football teams and players. Can you imagine a Roman Empire national team? A lot of players woudn't get to play. Casillas, Buffon and Lloris, for example, only one of them would play and the others on the bench.
Ok, so a empire doesn't really mean anything, and was really just made up and arbitrarily applied to certain states to signify power, and then you say there's technically only one empire currently in existence? So is there necessary criteria we have to meet to classify a country as a empire or not?
Well, no other country officially calls themselves an empire, so I guess this makes Japan the only one currently.
@@8Hshan Maybe, if it's a term that's defined by self identification, don't think it was made particularly clear in the video honestly.