View Full Version : Emperor Vs Dictator


OpteronGuy
02-28-05, 08:49 PM
What is the difference. I know a Dictator is unbound by law. What a dictator says, goes. When you say dictator words like tyrant, totalitarianism, etc. But what about an Emperor? Are they still bound by some sort of law? I can't seem to find a good definition of Emperor.

Roman
02-28-05, 09:47 PM
Emperor implies an empire, a manifest destiny, and God.

OpteronGuy
02-28-05, 09:58 PM
Yeah... But other than that are they more similar or different?

Roman
02-28-05, 10:07 PM
Well, in a governmental sense I think they're synonymous. However, I think what varies is their scope of power. Fidel Castro would not be considered an emperor. Dictator, yes. Constantine was an emperor, because of the scope of his power.
Emperors, pretty much by definition, rule an empire. As they're absolute ruler of a lot of material power, they can get pretty decadent. Far more decadant than a dictator.
However, both dictators and emperors are the same in which all power of the state are vested in them. Often times, emperors claim their power from God (Constantine converted the empire to Christianity for supposedly this reason). Dictators rarely claim divinity.

There haven't been any emperors for awhile, anyhow, so we tend to romantisize more about emperors than we do dictators.

OpteronGuy
02-28-05, 10:25 PM
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. :D

Oxygen
02-28-05, 11:11 PM
Now to muck it all up again... It's my understanding that an empire is defined as being multiple nations (not sure how many) united under one leader who has final say in all matters. Think organizational charts. Empire->Nation->State->County->City->District->Neighborhood->Street->Lot. Dictator, on the other hand, refers to a style of governing any society from Empires right down to Lots. An Emperor can be a Dictator if he so chooses (with all ensuing consequences), but a Dictator can't just decide to be an Emperor. He or she would need the political scope. They may be stuck just being the Dictator of some little armpit stain of a country.

Got it? An Emperor is the title of a ruler at a specific level of political influence. A Dictator is anyone who "dictates" policy directly with absolute authority regardless of level of politcial (or social) influence. Emperors differ from Dictators in that Emperors tend to delegate the task rather than require everything to be personally approved by them. (Dictators can be seen as micromanagers from hell.)

Roman Am I mistaken, or does Japan still have an Emperor, even if he's just a figurehead or ceremonial persona? Also, if there's still something that can be called the "British Empire", wouldn't that make the Queen an Empress?

Roman
03-01-05, 12:34 AM
Oxygen,
I completely agree with your analysis.

I think Japan may still have an emperor.... No, I recall reading that the dynasty died out sometime in the eighties. I'm uncertain though. Empires seem to have a monarchical element that dictatorships lack, as well. Empires do encompass diseperate states, as they would not be big enough to count as an empire if they didn't.

The Queen was not a despot during the colonial times, and so wouldn't meet the emperor's criteria of being a dictator.

What about Napolean and Stalin? Are they emperors?

nirakar
03-01-05, 02:08 AM
Emperors and Kings sound better than dictator from a modern Public relations stand point. People get confused and think that "royalty" is special so being ruled and abused by royalty is ok.

Thersites
03-01-05, 12:39 PM
Empire has another meaning: "This England is an empire, entire of itself" said the first description of Englanbd as an empitre, in an act of Parliament by Henry VIII restraining foreign appeals- ie to the pope. An empire is a state with no superior political authority.

Avatar
03-01-05, 01:31 PM
Oxygen,
I completely agree with your analysis.

I think Japan may still have an emperor.... No, I recall reading that the dynasty died out sometime in the eighties. I'm uncertain though.

Japan still has an emperor.
"The current Emperor is His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Akihito, who has been on the throne since his father Emperor Hirohito died in 1989."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Emperor

OpteronGuy
03-01-05, 01:51 PM
The more I thought about it today I agree with Oxygen as well. It would also lead me to believe that, if countries didn't start to convert to Nationalism, that America could almost be considered an Empire it's self (let's keep what America is doing throughout the rest of the world and just focus on America internally.). Am I complete baffoon for thinking this? Or is there some sense behind it?

invert_nexus
03-01-05, 02:18 PM
Anything could be considered an empire. The mayor of a town could call all the 'lots' of his town seperate nations or fiefdoms or states and thus say that he, in ruling all the lots, is in fact an emperor.

It's similar for Japan. We think of Japan as a single entity. However, we're thinking with a modern eye on a modern map. Japan is a single entity because in the past an empire arose from squabbling warlords. The empire fused together disparate elements into Japan. It doesn't matter that we see Japan singly. What matters is the interpretation of ownership.

Boundaries are arbitrary.
Titles are arbitrary.
Emperors are emperors if they want to call themselves so.

However. As to the difference between emperors and dictators. Oxygen said it rather well. An emperor can be a dictator if he wants to. But doesn't have to be one if he doesn't.
However, she's (I think she's a girl. Right?) wrong in that a dictator can be an emperor if he wants to be one. After all, all he would need to do is dictate it to make it so.
The problem, of course, comes in on the outside. How one is perceived by those outside of your power. Castro can call himself an emperor all day and to his people, to those under his power, he would be one. But, those outside would laugh at his claims and call him a petty tyrant.

It's all about perceptions.


Opteronguy,

I have no idea what you're talking about. People have called America imperialist for time out of mind. We do come to an interesting point here, however. Now here we have a state of affairs where the detractors of a nation find pleasure in calling it imperialistic when that nation decries any imperialism.

The physical evidence is difficult to discern. We do have our fingers in quite a few pots and yet we have no nations that directly pay fealty to us. They don't pay us. In fact, to a large part, we pay them.

The power politics of today's world are far different than the times when empires arose. The modern era of politics is murky and no one has the courage to rise and say "By this axe I rule."

guthrie
03-01-05, 04:33 PM
"The modern era of politics is murky and no one has the courage to rise and say "By this axe I rule." "

And I'm glad they dont.

invert_nexus
03-01-05, 04:50 PM
And I'm glad they dont.

Yes. It's much better to pretend to be altruistic lovers of freedom and to co-opt power and freedom by other, more insidious, methods.
Right?

Roman
03-01-05, 09:31 PM
Invert,
Right.
You bleed less with the insidious.

Opteron,
The size and scope of America leads me to think of it as an empire; somewhat. No dictator though. Soviet Russia could have been considered an empire, I guess. I really think there's a romantic, idealistic bit to someone being an emperor, and someone being a dictator. I think nirakar got with his PR bit.

Also, I'm not sure if it's possible to have empires anymore. There's no where to expand to, and all the locals are too nationalistic to let us occupy their countries. In that regard, there can be no more emperors, as empires as they once were are gone.
Commercial empires are a different story, though.

OpteronGuy
03-01-05, 10:26 PM
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier. Nationalism took over which ended the age of empires and emperors.

As for America as an Empire, yes it's the size, scope and the fact that we are broken down into seperate states, with local rule, yet are maintained by a larger (obviously) federal government.

Gambit Star
03-02-05, 03:36 AM
I think that the definition of an emperor lies within more of a spirital cultural aspect rather than a political.
Dictatorship on the other hand is purely a personal political agenda.

gendanken
03-02-05, 05:54 PM
Hmmm.

How about something simpler?
Tyrants, dictators, and despots: seen in the materialistic terms of politics and millitary power.
Pol Pot or Castro were revered for the millitary muscle.

Emperors and kings: seen in the spriual terms of divinty and bloodline.
The Ceasers were revered for the religious traditions of doing so and the fear of divine punishment for not.

Which would be why even in rags, kings are treated as holy where something like Castro is not.

invert_nexus
03-02-05, 05:59 PM
Gendanken,


Which would be why even in rags, kings are treated as holy where something like Castro is not.

Oh?
You don't think that Castro is treated like a holy relic by his followers?

What you say is certainly one method of categorization, I should think. But in the end an emperor is an emperor if he calls himself one. There is the question of history, of course, but that's for someone else to decide. And I should think that it depends more on one's predispositions to believe that one man is an emperor while another is a tyrant than it does to any arbitrary means of classification.

By the way, Gendanken, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised to see you agree with Gambit Star.
Shocked, in fact.

Roman,


You bleed less with the insidious.

Do you really think so? Or is that you are less aware of the bleeding. Not only of your own but also of others.

Don't you find honesty to be refreshing and wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where people actually are what they say they are? That they actually own their own power-hunger?
Nah. That's just crazy talk.

Roman
03-02-05, 10:10 PM
Gambit Star,
Right, it's a little more than being a despot. However, emperors are still despots, They just happen to be backed by Jesus.

Invert,
Well, there's real blood, and then there's pretend blood. Pretend blood is a hell of a better choice for an individual than real blood. Real blood removes you from the gene pool. Pretend blood puts you in a trailer.

gendanken
03-03-05, 06:19 PM
Gambit Star? I didn’t even read the turd's post.
Seems we agree.

Who’d a thunk?


You don't think that Castro is treated like a holy relic by his followers?

But that's just it though- Castro you can picture (and has been pictured) in a mess hall with his military.
Tyrants or despots usually start off common rebels.
That's not holy, that's fear.
“Holy” is something magical and divine.

Take Hirohito.
This man was not seen let alone heard by his own people until he addressed the nation after Japanese surrender- and people were in awe to hear a god on the radio.
Peasants would bow their head when a maroon car would drive by, as maroon, like purple or blue in other monarchies, was a color reserved for royalty.

The theological reverence for royalty is what would keep a king or emperor from being camouflaged in a mess hall.
The bloodline that runs through it, like golden thread, gives it a noble legitimacy and noble legitimacy is its 'magic'.
Now take Napoleon- a Corsican of Mediterranean blood, military man with pretensions of being an Emperor.
Of France.

Didn't last long.
He then imposes his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne.
The whole Spanish empire collapses.
No "foreigner", it seems, can sit on a throne long enough to warm it.
Because he lacks the legitimacy of blood.


But in the end an emperor is an emperor if he calls himself one
That's what I'm getting at.
An empire's defining point is its longevity. (at least one, no?)

Napoleon called himself emperor and what happened?
A temporary insanity.

He was never an emperor.

invert_nexus
03-03-05, 07:27 PM
Gendanken,


But that's just it though- Castro you can picture (and has been pictured) in a mess hall with his military.
Tyrants or despots usually start off common rebels.

I understand what you're getting at. However it seems to me that you're idealizing the status of Emperor somewhat. How do you think that Empires are founded?
Caesar was not emperor. But he did create the underpinnings of the empire. And he did it through the use of the military. He was a military man. He didn't create an armed insurrection, no. But he was a military man and it is not so difficult a thought to conceive of Caesar in the the mess hall with his troops, is it?

Or Alexander?

It seems to me that this air of 'holiness' is something that comes later. After the hard work of consolidation has been done and the descendants of the truly great men are now resting upon their ancestor's laurels.

Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette eating 'cake' while the peasants rioted.
Or for that matter, Hirohito being worshipped by his people.

All these people came after generations of a.) inbreeding (ha!) and b.) resting on the laurels of the past.
Decadence sums up nicely this viewpoint of Emperors as something great and holy. Untouchable and inhuman in their majesty.
How many of these 'holy men' have been brought low by their decadence throughout the ages?
The list goes on and on.


Take Hirohito.

Do you think that Hirohito ever wiped his own ass in his lifetime?

And what of Pu Yi?

Weak men.
Empty men.
Holy men?
Ha!

PR men.


The theological reverence for royalty is what would keep a king or emperor from being camouflaged in a mess hall.

To our modern eyes, Kings of old would be despicable when seen at their finest banquets. Wiping their mouths with their sleeves. The table cloths. Belching. Burping. Slappng wenches on the ass. Throwing bones to dogs that yap and fight for scraps.
Henry VIII for example. The man was a pig.
And what of good old King George of the American Revolution times? The man was insane.
Holy?
Memory finds ways to make the dirty something more. Something special.
Imagine the stench of the old nobles with their heads shaved to keep the lice off and covered in perfume to cover their foul odors.
These are holy men?

I understand what you're saying, but it's not that they were anything special. Merely that they were interpreted as such.


Because he lacks the legitimacy of blood.

He who lacks the legitimacy of blood might make up for it with strength of arms or sound policy. I'm sure you can come up with examples of both situations.

One example that springs to my mind is the Norman invasion of Britain.


An empire's defining point is its longevity. (at least one, no?)

Certainly. But even this is not a hard and fast rule. Witness Alexander. He ruled an empire, yes?


Napoleon called himself emperor and what happened?
A temporary insanity.

He was never an emperor.

Napoleon came too late for empires, I think. Such was fast becoming impossible in his time. Had he been a better man it's possible that he might have instilled an empire. I think that he capitalized on France's still present yearning for nobility. A regret for the utter destruction of their royal line. He was a conqueror, but I feel that perhaps he was self-defeating in that he never truly felt himself to be an emperor.

Perhaps it's a stereotype. I'm no expert on Napoleon or his times. But when I think of Napoleon, I think of Donald Duck waddling about quacking, "What's so fucking funny!? Huh?! What's so fucking funny?!"


Let me make one final point. I first thought of this at your mention of Hirohito and it further reinforced itself with the thought of Napoleon.

We live in a time where Emperors are a practical impossibility. Not only because of the political climate but also because of the media and information age.

We see people today where in olden times they heard of them. The 'great' men were once whispered of. Now we get all the dirt on their homosexual children and their mistresses and every other little thing that proves them to be human and not holy.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the cultivation of this holy quality that you're speaking of. The descendants of the forgers of empires must hide themselves behind mystery in order to pretend to be the movers of worlds. That they have a compact with the Lord God himself.

Such mystery is not utterly impossible in modern times but it has become infinitely more difficult.

What of Stalin? Was he an emperor? He was treated as holy not only by his own time but for decades after. In fact, it could be said that the revelation of Stalin's crimes to his people sped the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 80's.

The truth killed the mystery. And once the holy became the dirty the people realized that nothing was holy and all was filth.
And so the walls came down.
Glasnost, they called it.
I wonder if Gorbachev regretted his decision?


Roman,


Well, there's real blood, and then there's pretend blood. Pretend blood is a hell of a better choice for an individual than real blood. Real blood removes you from the gene pool. Pretend blood puts you in a trailer.

Oh there's plenty of real blood as well.
And when those responsible don't have to accept culpability then they have no reason to go easy on the bloodshed.
Plausible deniability is the watchword of the day.
Plausible deniability is written in blood.

gendanken
03-03-05, 08:31 PM
However it seems to me that you're idealizing the status of Emperor somewhat. How do you think that Empires are founded?
Caesar was not emperor. But he did create the underpinnings of the empire. And he did it through the use of the military. He was a military man. He didn't create an armed insurrection, no. But he was a military man and it is not so difficult a thought to conceive of Caesar in the the mess hall with his troops, is it?


It seems to me that this air of 'holiness' is something that comes later
Good point.

But not me- the populace. I think they're all a bunch of skin cells hoarding tons of shit and mucus like the rest of us.

Rome began as provinces ruled by warrior kings, then power was given to senators and made a republic, and somewhere years later an Empire was born.
Rome was powerful because of its military, as was Sparta (though never an empire)- true.
So yes, later.


Or Alexander?

Alexander had fleas.
Again, good point.


Do you think that Hirohito ever wiped his own ass in his lifetime?

Encore:
"But not me- the populace. I think they're all a bunch of skin cells hoarding tons of shit and mucus like the rest of us."

People thinking in terms of holy think in terms encompassed by love and worship.
Stalin was feared as was Hitler- those that 'loved' them were more like women with an Olson twin crush than they were Catholics counting beads off their rosairies.

To our modern eyes, Kings of old would be despicable when seen at their finest banquets. Wiping their mouths with their sleeves. The table cloths. Belching. Burping. Slappng wenches on the ass. Throwing bones to dogs that yap and fight for scraps.
Henry VIII for example. The man was a pig.
And what of good old King George of the American Revolution times? The man was insane.
Holy?
Memory finds ways to make the dirty something more. Something special.
Imagine the stench of the old nobles with their heads shaved to keep the lice off and covered in perfume to cover their foul odors.
These are holy men?

I don't romanticize them.
Louis XIV was one gigantic pig.

In fact, it could be said that the revelation of Stalin's crimes to his people sped the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 80's.

HA!
More like- "In fact, I could be said that the revelation of communism to its people sped the downfall of communism in the 80's"


What of Stalin? Was he an emperor? He was treated as holy
I think you and I are seeing 'holy' very differently.

invert_nexus
03-04-05, 02:20 AM
Gendanken,


But not me- the populace. I think they're all a bunch of skin cells hoarding tons of shit and mucus like the rest of us.

I'll accept that. However, it was you and not the populace who was categorizing emperors as something holy. As I said, I see your point, but suspect that this is something that is worn like a cloak by those who have built nothing.
Something like the Emperor's New Clothes, I suppose.
And just like the story this holiness is made of nothing but air.


Rome was powerful because of its military, as was Sparta (though never an empire)- true.

Speaking of Sparta...
I'm no expert on this period in history, I'm afraid, but the age of Sparta was the age of the city-state, yes?
And it was Alexander that united them?
No. Wait. Actually it was his father, wasn't it? Phillip?


Alexander had fleas.

And they bit his knees.


People thinking in terms of holy think in terms encompassed by love and worship.
Stalin was feared as was Hitler- those that 'loved' them were more like women with an Olson twin crush than they were Catholics counting beads off their rosairies.

I think you're wrong. You're looking at these men with modern eyes. Modern American eyes.

Have you seen the images of the people in Hitler's thrall? The fanatic devotion in their eyes? Hitler wasn't feared. Hitler was worshiped.

Is this fear? (Well, this one might be.)

http://www.gisearch.com/images/memorialday/wwii/ww2Lcrying.jpg

This?

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Diplomat_Rescuers/Feng_Shan_Ho/Assignment__Vienna/diplomat6B.jpg

How about this?

http://www.educationdesign.com.ar/Resources/germany1918_1945/hitler_crowd01.jpg

This?

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/isa/ninvest/ww2mw/gr/hiltercrowdpeasants.jpg

One last:

http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car2.jpg

Sorry for all the images, but a picture speaks a thousand words, they say. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the picture I was looking for. I know you've seen it. It's the one with the woman with brownish-blonde, curly hair giving her best Hitler salute and the look in her eyes is pure, unadulterated madness. She would kill her own children if her Fuhrer asked her to. She would do anything for the object of her worship.

These scenes above were not a rare occurrence in Hitler's day. When word got out that he would be motoring through an area the people would come out in droves. And these weren't put together by propagandists. These were inconvenient to Hitler and his planners. These were spontaneous outpourings of love and worship.

Now. For every one that worshipped Hitler there may have been two or three that were afraid of him and what he represented, however if his Third Reich had survived who would have wrote the history and how would he have been remembered?


Same goes for Stalin. Although in Stalin's case his worship came more from effective propaganda than any true personal charisma. Stalin was a bully with an effective propaganda machine creating a myth about him. However, those who were caught within that myth were hooked just the same. To a post WWII Soviet citizen, Stalin was God.

In those days information was a rarity. Radio was still relatively new and television almost unheard of. Legends were easily made in those days. Made and maintained. And in a state such as the USSR where the reins of power and information were held so tightly by the ruling power, Stalin was not feared. He was revered.


HA!
More like- "In fact, I could be said that the revelation of communism to its people sped the downfall of communism in the 80's"

No. It was the lies that did the damage. The people were willing to sacrifice much to a noble cause. But when the lies began to surface it all crumbled. Their ideals crumbled like the emptiness that they were. The stories of great Stalin became tales of horrors and slaughter. If the people could have been lied to so systematically about this then what else were they lied to about?

Have you heard of the controversy over Japan's historical revisionism? The youth of Japan are being taught a version of history where the Great Nation of Japan did no wrong in the war. The Rape of Nan-King is wiped. The Bataan Death March is nothing. All the atrocities are hid behind whitewash.

Empires are held together by lies. By faulty memories.


I think you and I are seeing 'holy' very differently.

No. I don't think so. Not really. I just don't think that you appreciate how much people's opinions can be shaped by propaganda.

Fraggle Rocker
03-05-05, 01:12 AM
An emperor is monarch. A dictator is not. The difference is most important when the ruler dies. An emperor presumably inherits or creates a political structure which will facilitate passing power to his eldest son. When a dictator dies, his successor is chosen by the most powerful surviving members of the government. If no one with the charisma is available, the totalitarian form may not survive and the country may revert to a more representative form of government.

River Ape
03-05-05, 06:24 AM
The Holy Roman Empire was the most notable long-lasting empire in European history. In this case, the Emperor was elected by seven German princes who held the title “Elector”. I am not sure how often this resulted in father being succeeded by son – but there is at least a legitimising structure here.

These seven were the Elector of Saxony, Elector of Brandenburg, Elector of Hannover, Elector of Bohemia, Elector of the Palatinate, Elector of Bavaria, Elector of Mainz, and Elector of Cologne.

Oh dear! That’s eight I’ve remembered! Well, it was something like that anyway. They were around for a good many centuries, so I am sure things changed/evolved over the years.

Roman
03-05-05, 02:08 PM
Buth the Holy Roman Empire wasn't much of an empire.

BetweenThePoints
03-05-05, 03:47 PM
Invert_Nexus, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The people that would call themselves "Emperor" (BY the way, I don't think that there is really a difference between Emperor and Dictator, just because the word Emperor itself comes from the latin imperator which implies one with supreme military power and authority, usually a person who is also successful on the battlefield, but not always) are only revered the way they are because of propoganda and their deft use of it. Take Augustus, in my opinion the first man who can truly be called an "Emperor", if only because of the holy aura, the authority, or auctoritas, that he gained (not by forcing the senate to confer it upon him, interestingly enough, but through their own initiative they granted it upon him, and in his own lifetime) through his skillful use of propoganda and his reconstruction of the Roman Government, giving it the guise of returning to the old Republican form, when in fact he was changing it into a semi-dynastic monarchy.

By the way, the Roman Emperors never referred to their office as imperator, which is where the term comes from, but rather, they called themselves the Princeps, or First Citizen. And this distinguishes them from a Dictator in that none of them actually held a Dictatorship, which was an actual office in the Republic. This, I think, shows that they themselves treated the role as a completely separate entity.

gendanken
03-07-05, 05:57 PM
Beetweenthepoints:

By the way, the Roman Emperors never referred to their office as imperator, which is where the term comes from, but rather, they called themselves the Princeps, or First Citizen. And this distinguishes them from a Dictator in that none of them actually held a Dictatorship, which was an actual office in the Republic. This, I think, shows that they themselves treated the role as a completely separate entity.
The hell they didn't!

Robert Graves, whose made a career out of researching empires from the Chinese to the Romans not to mention an obsession with mythology, wrote a book about one of the last of the 'hairy Ceasers"- a stuttering 'fool' named Tiberious Claudius

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/bio_claudius.htm

"I, Cladius", is by far the most endearing and researched account of imperial Rome from the transformation of it from Republic to Empire by the conceit of Tiberius.
Who established the tradition of each successor calling themselves EMPERORS.
Maybe you’re referring to when Rome was only a republic.

At any rate, Graves...kicks ass.

Vert:

I'll accept that. However, it was you and not the populace who was categorizing emperors as something holy. As I said, I see your point, but suspect that this is something that is worn like a cloak by those who have built nothing.
Something like the Emperor's New Clothes, I suppose.
And just like the story this holiness is made of nothing but air.

Dude.

You brought up Pu Yi, yes ?
I completely agree with your point, completely see it as empty propaganda based on fragile credit, but its the people, not Pu Yi, who made him the spoiled little bitch he was.
He couldn’t even go from one room to another without an entourage of doctors and mystics following behind him.


Have you seen the images of the people in Hitler's thrall? The fanatic devotion in their eyes? Hitler wasn't feared. Hitler was worshiped.


You posting up pictures only makes my point clearer:
Don't they all look like Elvis and Michael Jackson fans?

What I said:
"those that 'loved' them were more like women with an Olson twin crush than they were Catholics counting beads off their rosaries. "- gend

Let alone one reciting the 8 beautitudes of Christ during mass.

There is a solemnity in worship not found in fanaticism. Fanaticism is a sloppy version of worship.
What I meant by Olson twin crush.
See?

invert_nexus
03-08-05, 01:22 PM
Gendanken,


...wrote a book about one of the last of the 'hairy Ceasers"

I don't understand.
One of the last?
He was one of the first.
Or do you mean that he was one of the last 'Princeps'. Because through his actions he consolidated the grip on power and made the office far more of a dictatorship than it had been previous.
It's funny to think that he started his illustrious reign begging for his life from the laughing Praetorian Guard.


...but its the people, not Pu Yi, who made him the spoiled little bitch he was.

This is interesting in that it brings to mind the division of leader and led. The leader is dependant upon having someone to lead. He is given his power by a mandate from the masses. Or by the military. Whatever the group that grants power, there is a group behind the power of the leader.

Charles Manson.
Would he ever have developed his Jesus Christ complex if those ignorant hippie girls hadn't worshipped him as god in the desert?
Jim Jones.
Reverend Moon.

Or some 'good' guys.
Gandhi.
FDR.

All of these men were place upon pedestals by those beneath them. Raised upon the shoulders of their constituents.

It would seem to me that this is somehow entwined in with the idea of power corrupts.


He couldn’t even go from one room to another without an entourage of doctors and mystics following behind him.

And, of course, this is what makes the first generations of a ruling dynasty so special. Because they remember what reality is like. Their descendants are born into an artificial reality. A fantasyland of simpering morons.

And yet, the first generational rulers need to be special as they haven't been raised to expect obedience.
Born leaders.


Don't they all look like Elvis and Michael Jackson fans?

I suppose they do. In fact, I was thinking the same thing in a way.
But, don't they also resemble the pope in his popemobile?
The pope is a rockstar.


There is a solemnity in worship not found in fanaticism. Fanaticism is a sloppy version of worship.

I see your point and once more we've come down to semantics. You've distinguished between types of worship to push fanaticism to the outer fringes of worship.

However, think of Catholics seeing the Virgin Mary in a stain on the wall, or a glint in a window, or a shadow on the beach. These are all manifestations of fanaticism. Sloppy, yes. But worship just the same.

If you were to ask me, I should say that the ratio of solemn worshippers to fanatic worshippers in the world and throughout time would weigh heavily on the side of fanaticism. This solemnity seems to imply a calm peacefulness. A balance. And this is something that few humans seem to truly possess.

Anyway.
Sloppy followers make sloppy leaders?

Fanatics are a quick fix. It's easy to rouse the rabble into a frenzy of fanaticism. But, it's dangerous to tap into those resources because they are fickle and liable to backfire in more ways than one.

Think of Mussolini torn apart by the mob. Hitler had himself burned to ashes to prevent a similar fate (although his fear was the Russian mob not the German one.)

And there is also the danger of falling prey to one's own propaganda.


Also. I've realized that I've been inconsistent here. I was going on about how it's the starting generations of rule that are the builders and don't need the holiness to obscure their ineffectiveness, but then I give examples of first generation rulers (Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon) that did cultivate an air of holiness (or rather fanaticism).

And then you've given an example of Claudius who used propaganda and effective ruling techniques to consolidate power behind the emperor. So, even though Claudius inherited the throne, he could surely be called a first generation ruler. The only thing is that he didn't take power but was granted it by the guard, but once in office he performed in a manner to consolidate that power.

gendanken
03-08-05, 03:02 PM
I don't understand.
One of the last?
He was one of the first.
http://www.historyinfilm.com/claudius/classics/12caesar/julius.htm

Left right corner, Cladius follows after Caligula.
He's the last to be directly descended from Augustus Ceaser, the first Roman Emperor.
Those that followed were simply given the *title* Ceaser (the way Christ is also a title) and not direclty descendent.

Nero follows in the line of the 12 Ceasers, which is why I said Claudius is one of the last (since I'm not sure if the man was a third cousin or a close one or ..somit)


Or do you mean that he was one of the last 'Princeps'.
No.


Because through his actions he consolidated the grip on power and made the office far more of a dictatorship than it had been previous.
It's funny to think that he started his illustrious reign begging for his life from the laughing Praetorian Guard
A-ha.
You and your Google itch, didn't know a damn thing about Mr. Claudius til ya googled it, huh?

Read about him- he's an incredibly interesting character. He stuttered, had a hump, walked funny and was ridiculed even by the houseboys but he was humoursly clever- something like a clumsy jester with brains.
He also did not care for 'power' as much as he did his studies- he's one of the last known people that could both read and speak Etruscan, a lost tounge.

His reign was one of the most cultivated, less totalitarian ones becuase he was never the power-hungry slut the rest of his family members (except Germanicus, who sounds like a hunk) were.

And you must be kidding me to say that his office was far more of a dicatorship than the previous one- his followed Caligula's.


This is interesting in that it brings to mind the division of leader and led. The leader is dependant upon having someone to lead. He is given his power by a mandate from the masses. Or by the military. Whatever the group that grants power, there is a group behind the power of the leader.

Precisesly.

So who's the parasite?


It would seem to me that this is somehow entwined in with the idea of power corrupts.

In possession of morons.

Which is usually the setup so this idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely remanins absolute.
(couldn't resist)


I suppose they do. In fact, I was thinking the same thing in a way.
But, don't they also resemble the pope in his popemobile?
The pope is a rockstar.

see your point and once more we've come down to semantics. You've distinguished between types of worship to push fanaticism to the outer fringes of worship.

However, think of Catholics seeing the Virgin Mary in a stain on the wall, or a glint in a window, or a shadow on the beach. These are all manifestations of fanaticism. Sloppy, yes. But worship just the same.

Which is why if you put me back in time, say 30 to 60 A.D you'd actually find me respeciting a Christian.
Gasp!

That's what I'm really getting at.
When Christinity was new, the people hid or stood for their morals and had about them an air of solemnity you don't see in a Baptist quack trying to save Gendanken's Evil Soul.

They'll wax eloquent and dramatic, quoting a psalm or lamentation they memorized on the shitter or late at night before bedtime, thinking they're actually doing something other than getting high off their own rhetoric and hot breath.

Adn the more southern and black he or she happens to be, the more fanatic this attempt to exhibit their faith and "convert" my satanic blood.
Fuck.You.All.
I win.


Also. I've realized that I've been inconsistent here. I was going on about how it's the starting generations of rule that are the builders and don't need the holiness to obscure their ineffectiveness, but then I give examples of first generation rulers (Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon) that did cultivate an air of holiness (or rather fanaticism).

Bingo.

*Edit*
This was funny, by the way:

Perhaps it's a stereotype. I'm no expert on Napoleon or his times. But when I think of Napoleon, I think of Donald Duck waddling about quacking, "What's so fucking funny!? Huh?! What's so fucking funny?!"

Oxygen
03-08-05, 11:25 PM
Invert Nexus Haven't been to the thread for a little bit, just want to clear something up. It's old stuff, I know, but anyway...

Your line:

However, she's (I think she's a girl. Right?) wrong in that a dictator can be an emperor if he wants to be one.

My line:

An Emperor can be a Dictator if he so chooses (with all ensuing consequences), but a Dictator can't just decide to be an Emperor.

bold type added by yours truly

Just wanted to straighten that out. And yes, I'm a girl. Either that or my husband has suckered me into some really bizarre hallucination that we're both sharing. :)

gendanken
03-09-05, 02:31 PM
Ox:

And yes, I'm a girl
In that case, that avatar's your mugshot.

Oxygen
03-10-05, 10:04 AM
Ox:

In that case, that avatar's your mugshot.

:D LOL! It sure looks better than my driver's license photo! (Hey, I dohave Photoshop 7...)

invert_nexus
03-10-05, 01:02 PM
Gendanken,


Nero follows in the line of the 12 Ceasers, which is why I said Claudius is one of the last (since I'm not sure if the man was a third cousin or a close one or ..somit)

I believe that Nero was actually descended from Augustus as well. And Claudius wasn't directly descended from him, but rather was only a great-nephew. Anyway, that's all trivia to the topic, I suppose. But here's a family tree. (See if you can make it out. It's a tangled mess. Damn Roman adoptions. And Claudius was banging his niece for a while there...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors/JulioClaudian

And, the link you gave didn't have all of Suetonius' book. Here' s a link that does. (Also the original latin if you were Rappacini and could make it out.) The translation is somewhat different, and from glancing at the latin, I'd say more true to the original.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html


You and your Google itch, didn't know a damn thing about Mr. Claudius til ya googled it, huh?

Bitch. Ha!
No. I just read your link.
I've read up on the Empire in the past, but have forgotten much of it over the years and don't think I ever read much on Claudius to begin with.


Read about him- he's an incredibly interesting character.

To say the least.
Suetonius didn't seem to mention much about his brains though. He mentions that he did spend some time on academic things early in his life when he was prevented from doing anything civic because his family despised him. And he mentions that he wrote histories. But other than that, he paints him as a bloodthirsty buffoon. Fickle in judgements. He'd have someone executed and then send an invitation for them to come to dinner the next day, forgetting that he'd had them killed.
Stammering and stuttering would appear to be the least of his foolish traits.

One thing for sure, Claudius isn't one of these types that cultivated a holy aura about him. And yet he was a good emperor. Somehow. Someway. He was. Almost random chance, I suppose. And despite his iniquities, he was remembered well by the people.


His reign was one of the most cultivated, less totalitarian ones becuase he was never the power-hungry slut the rest of his family members (except Germanicus, who sounds like a hunk) were.

Germanicus Shmermanicus. Bah.

Anyway, Suetonius didn't describe him in the terms that your first link did. From the first link I gathered that he consolidated power in the emperor's position by clamping down on the senate and other institutions. Also in reviving the role of censorship.

But, cultured is not exactly how Suetonius described him.

And, just because he didn't say that he actively consolidated power, it doesn't mean he didn't say that he utilized that power arbitrarily. He was a paranoid man who greatly feared any threat to his person. He had people executed because someone had dreamed that this person had murdered him.

He started his career trembling, afraid that he was going to follow Caligula into death, and he lived that way for years.
Hard to be cultured with your knees shaking.


And you must be kidding me to say that his office was far more of a dicatorship than the previous one- his followed Caligula's.

That was the impression I gathered from the first link you posted.

Ok. Back to the topic.


So who's the parasite?

But. Without a leader, what would the people be?
Without Manson what would those dirty hippies in the desert ever have amounted to?
Without Jim Jones what would his worshippers have become?
Without FDR what would have become of the US?
Without Gandhi what would have happened to India?
Alexander?
Caesar?
Augustus?
Elizabeth?

Surely there are some examples of completely parasitical relationships of ruler to ruled, but even then they serve a purpose. People naturally look for leaders. For a binding principle. An emperor forms that binding principle. Cohesion for the group.

God save the Queen!


In possession of morons.

Which is usually the setup so this idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely remanins absolute.
(couldn't resist)

There is another saying. That absolute power attracts the corruptible. This implies that there are those who don't fall prey to the perils of holding power. And it is, perhaps, these people that are exemplified as Emperor. The type that truly hold some sort of holy aura about them. By not falling prey to their own propaganda.

But, then again. It's likely that there are none who are immune to the corruption of power. If nothing else, power removes you from the base. From reality at its core. Your followers become vague and blurry. Numbers in the modern era. As Stalin said about a million deaths being not a tragedy but a statistic.


By the way, I looked into Suetonius and found a review of his book that said that his theme was basically that Augustus was great and that the rest of the Caesars were flawed in that they let their power get to them. Augustus held himself above such things and therefore was a great man.
http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html


That's what I'm really getting at.
When Christinity was new, the people hid or stood for their morals and had about them an air of solemnity you don't see in a Baptist quack trying to save Gendanken's Evil Soul.

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. This 'air of solemnity' could be a false tale handed down through history. Personally, I think that the early christians were crazy fanatics. You do know that they thought the end of the world was going to happen during the lives of those who lived at the time of Jesus. They went to the desert to die. I suppose you could call that solemn. Awaiting death.


Bingo.

Bitch!!
I suppose the problem comes from the fact that there is no 'plan' for the perfect emperor. And, in fact, there is no perfect record of any emperor. We have twisted tales. A mix of propaganda both good and bad. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and we'll likely never have the true story. Even in the case of emperors as recent as the last Czar of Russia. History corrupts just as much as power.
Or perhaps the corruption of the powerful affects the telling of history.

Anyway. Some emperors may have this solemn air of holiness. Some may be bumbling fools. Some may be enlightened despots. Some may be bloodthirsty fiends. Some may be party animals. While others may be chaste and circumspect. The emperors run the full gambit of human psychology. And it is in the telling of their tale that we see the imprint of the people whom they led. How they were remembered.

Claudius, for instance, a bumbling, bloodthirsty fool who liked to write histories. He was a fickle man. Full of arbitrary judgements. And yet, the people adored him upon his death.
Why? He wasn't holy. Was he a 'people's Emperor'?

And Nero. Who played the fiddle while Rome burned.

Caligula and his orgies.

Louis XVI and Marie wanting their cake and to eat it too.

All lies. Sort of. Just as when they were in power they were lies, so too is their rembembrance lies.

Somewhere in the middle. There you'll find the truth.
But I suspect you won't find the meaning of Emperor there.


This was funny, by the way:

Thanky. From Stephen King, I believe. The Stand, if I remember right. It does peg Napoleon well, doesn't it?


Oxygen,

Sorry. My language was a bit unclear. I didn't mean to say that you said that a dictator can be an emperor. I was saying you were wrong because a dictator can choose to be an Emperor, by dictating it. However, it is up to history and the people that are left behind as to how he will be remembered.

gendanken
03-10-05, 07:07 PM
To say the least.
Suetonius didn't seem to mention much about his brains though. He mentions that he did spend some time on academic things early in his life when he was prevented from doing anything civic because his family despised him. And he mentions that he wrote histories. But other than that, he paints him as a bloodthirsty buffoon. Fickle in judgements. He'd have someone executed and then send an invitation for them to come to dinner the next day, forgetting that he'd had them killed.
Stammering and stuttering would appear to be the least of his foolish traits.

One thing for sure, Claudius isn't one of these types that cultivated a holy aura about him. And yet he was a good emperor. Somehow. Someway. He was. Almost random chance, I suppose. And despite his iniquities, he was remembered well by the people.

Suetonious is a lying crackwhore.

Kidding- history is a bias. So I guess I can't say as fact that so and so was this way while the other so and so was not if all I have to go on are second hand accounts.

Graves found Claudius’ handicaps endearing, clever, funny, and so his researched account of the man was endearing, clever, funny.
Suetonious found Claudus’ handicaps insulting, manic, ugly and so his researched account of the man was insulting, manic, ugly.

I read a book (http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/wittgenl/wspoker.htm) once that described a heated argument between 'great' philosophers Popper and Wittgenstein during a Moral Science Club meeting in King's College.
Now, in this room could be found the biggest intellectual pricks on the planet- the kind who profess a loyalty to truth and objectivity.
And make of that a career.

And can you believe?
Not one person there was able to give an account that correlated with another’s who was also there but with whose philosophy he disagreed with, and even among those of the same 'camp' the story differed- the Wittgenstein toadies had it that Wittgenstein won and marched off triumphant.

The Popper toadies had it that Popper won and remained on the podium triumphant, while Ludwig did not marched off but sulked away a beaten dog.

And among these objective, empirical, respectfully 'scientific' men was none other than Bertrand Russell who too could not give an unbiased account because he just so happened to be Wittgenstein’s' fuck buddy. Kidding (the Tractacus Philsophicus is in part dedicated to Russell)

This was only a 10 minute confrontation between these two leaders in philosophy, and none of their 'objective' accolades could give an account of the event that could forego their personal philosophy disagreeing or aggreeing with the people in question.

These intellectuals had, with all the aristocratic dedication and money and schooling pored into their philosophies for years, never transcended the everyday of two preschoolers fighting over who broke whose crayon first.

And I'm rambling.....


But, cultured is not exactly how Suetonius described him.


Because he apparently didn't like him. Reminds me of Roman and his distaste for yours truly.

Poor Gendanken....

And, just because he didn't say that he actively consolidated power, it doesn't mean he didn't say that he utilized that power arbitrarily. He was a paranoid man who greatly feared any threat to his person. He had people executed because someone had dreamed that this person had murdered him.

He started his career trembling, afraid that he was going to follow Caligula into death, and he lived that way for years.
Hard to be cultured with your knees shaking.

Poison was a household word in Rome, I'm sure you know.
And where today we have trial and error in those days you had hemlock.

I don't blame any leader for trembling on his throne, then. Lyvia- who if I remember correctly was his aunt, wife to Tiberius, mother to Germanicus- was a tricky, powerful minx.
Why: poison.

Her daughters, sons and husbands feared her. The only one that is related to have gotten along beautifully with her is Caligula.
Wonder why……


But. Without a leader, what would the people be?
Without Manson what would those dirty hippies in the desert ever have amounted to?
Dirty hippies.


Without Jim Jones what would his worshippers have become?
Stupid hippies.


Without FDR what would have become of the US?
Unemployed hippies.


Without Gandhi what would have happened to India?
Leperous hippies.

(jokes aside, I only asked because the answer is mutual parasitism- as you said.)

invert_nexus
03-10-05, 07:57 PM
Speaking of Claudius and his bloodthirsty attitude, it's said that he particulary loved to expose people to wild animals. If a carpenter fucked up on a project that he had him working on... To the lions (or whatever animal they had handy). He'd even set people up. Trick them into making a mistake which he could capitalize on to sentence them to death by Animal Kingdom. Not that he needed an excuse. But at times he appears to have been somewhat less arbitrary than other times.

Dr Lou Natic
03-10-05, 10:57 PM
And how would you know? Been hiding in the shadows during your banning?
Yes...?


Seriously, what would you like?
I don't know.
Perhaps next time come up with believable excuses for flashing around your respective knowledges of history.
There's no point to any of this. You've made a few half assed attempts to pretend there's a signifigance behind the data you're presenting, but you failed to committ to those attempts because they were so boring and uninspired.
It's obvious neither of you care about how seriously people took their worship of hirihoto or whatever. You've just been trawling for some reason to justify this pissing contest, but it's been going on too long and you've clearly got nothing.
All you can do now is stuff as many "only I know this secret about caesar's zany antics" tidbits into this crumbling eyesore before it dies.
You're screaming "I also know this about that!" at an audience which is peeling away from the theatre.
It's getting kind of awkward and embarrassing, the mist that was once surrounding this discussion is clearing to reveal you 2 jerking eachother off.

Or maybe it could use more animals. You know, sharks continuously grow knew teeth throughout their whole life, ha, imagine that?
You'd be all toothfilled and... sharks tooths :(

gendanken
03-11-05, 12:59 PM
There's no point to any of this. You've made a few half assed attempts to pretend there's a signifigance behind the data you're presenting, but you failed to committ to those attempts because they were so boring and uninspired.
It's obvious neither of you care about how seriously people took their worship of hirihoto or whatever.
Look you.

Everything was fine and well until one, it was pointed out that Gambit Star said the same thing I did- 'course how the devil would I know. I don't read hisherit's posts.

Two, Invert starts making it seem as if though *I* think these royals are holy as opposed to the people.
Butchered reading skills aside, I'm going to correct it.
Derail.

Three, there's a clear distinction between the materialism of despots and the divinity of royalty.
Four, be familiar with what you're talking about and if not SHUT UP.
Invert did it with Claudius, and now you're doing it with a thread you had nothing to do with.
Five, if I weren't more obsessive about science I'd actually write historical fiction.

Just like Graves.

Or maybe it could use more animals. You know, sharks continuously grow knew teeth throughout their whole life, ha, imagine that?

And?

Kola cubs eat koala shit.
So?

invert_nexus
03-11-05, 01:41 PM
Aww. Come on, Goofy. No reason to go deleting posts...

Anyway.


Everything was fine and well until one, it was pointed out that Gambit Star said the same thing I did- 'course how the devil would I know. I don't read hisherit's posts.


What exactly does this have to do with anything?
An innocuous comment, nothing major. Your viewpoint just happened to coincide with a poster that was immediately prior to your post.
I don't see how this made things go not fine.


Two, Invert starts making it seem as if though *I* think these royals are holy as opposed to the people.
Butchered reading skills aside, I'm going to correct it.
Derail.

Butchered reading skills, my ass. However you personally look at the royals is of no consequence to the discussion in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was you that put forth the argument that the difference between Royalty and Dictators was an air of holiness. Regardless of who it is that sees them this way, it was your argument, right?

And how was the thread derailed by this? We went on a discussion about the nature of holiness in regards to Emperors and leaders cultivating such for the manipulation of populace. We then went in to history and bias.

Where did the thread get derailed?
Some of the things on Claudius may have been a touch off-topic but I think they all fed back into the topic rather well at the end. We quashed the idea of this holy aura rather soundly. Placing it firmy in the realm of propaganda.

And we also led to the discussion of mutual parasitism. How leader and led each influence the other. Feed the other. Create the other.

Where was the derailing?

Oh. From the viewpoint of someone who doesn't have the patience to read and actually understand what is being said. Dr. Lou complains that we're not interesting enough for him and we should all shape up for his entertainment. I bet this is much more entertaining for him.

Look! We're even talking abou the animal kingdom now.
Hey. The lion is the king of beasts you know. His holy aura assures his reign to all the lionesses in the pride.


Three, there's a clear distinction between the materialism of despots and the divinity of royalty.

I thought we'd ruled that out.
Maybe the discussion isn't quite done yet then.


Invert did it with Claudius, and now you're doing it with a thread you had nothing to do with.

What the fuck are you talking about?
You posted a link.
I commented on the link.
You posted another link.
I commented on the other link.
Time to stop reading links, I suppose?


Lou,


Or maybe it could use more animals. You know, sharks continuously grow knew teeth throughout their whole life, ha, imagine that?

I hope that you actually meant to say something that every 2 year old in the country who's watched Shark Week on the discovery channel knows. Surely you don't think that this knowledge is obscure or impressive in the least...
Surely.

Dr Lou Natic
03-11-05, 07:06 PM
Surely you don't think that this knowledge is obscure or impressive in the least...
Surely
Exactly.
Take your time.

invert_nexus
03-11-05, 07:57 PM
Exactly.
Take your time.

There's a big difference, Lou.
It doesn't matter what you think of our 'obscure' facts or whatever. We weren't in here saying things for your benefit. We were working out an idea between ourselves and any who wished to participate.
We weren't trying to 'impress' any 'audience' which seems to be a major part of your motivation apparently. But were just discussing for the sake of discussing.

But, go on and take your bow. The audience is watching Doctor. And you sure don't want to let them down, now do you?

gendanken
03-11-05, 08:33 PM
doesn't matter what you think of our 'obscure' facts or whatever
Obscure??!

Any fucking body can pick up a copy of "I,Claudius" and read it in his sleep.
You'll learn more in that one book than any 'educated' mummy can teach in its classroom. A retard- even Lou- can read it in a day or two. (that rhymed)

READ IT.

That said, want obscure?? You got it: boil your urine, and you isolate a crusty ring of sodium phosphate around the bowl.
You then add any liquid to that crust so long as its low in ph (lemon, ideal), isolating pure phosphorous.

Turn off the lights, and ta-ta it glows.

invert_nexus
03-11-05, 08:41 PM
Gendanken,

You might notice that I've placed quotation marks around the word obscure. Thus, I was saying that they weren't obscure at all.
In fact, everything that I was saying about Claudius came directly from the links you've posted.
So. Yes. They're very obscure.

And. Speaking of "I, Claudius" I happened across a page somewhere that spoke of Graves and his fictional treatment of Claudius. It said that Graves' book influenced people's views on Claudius for a long time but has now begun to be pushed aside in favor of a more brutalistic viewpoint of the man.
Unfortunately... I lost the page.
I suppose I could dig through my history but it would take a while.

You do make it sound like an interesting read though. It'll definitely go on the list.

Edit:

Here it is.
Down at the bottom in the Conclusion.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm

BetweenThePoints
03-19-05, 09:20 PM
Actually Gendanken, Imperator is a military title, more denoting the power of imperium which the emperors possessed. In fact, Generals could hold this power in their capacity as field commanders, as could Governors. The emperors of Rome always tried to mantain the illusion of republican government, and through that structure they ruled with dictatorial powers. It was only towards the end of the empire when they began to not even bother with the illusion. Claudius maintained this illusion, as had Tiberius and Augustus. Caligula didn't even try, and neither did Nero, nor many other emperors, and those in fact were the ones whose reigns didn't last very long. The emperors of Rome made it a point never to exercise arbitrary power and to always make the people, and especially the Senate, feel as if they did not live in a monarchy.

They never used imperator as a title. It's just that the word is where we get the word emperor from.

Hapsburg
04-03-05, 03:48 AM
An emperor may have the same power of a dictator, and in some cases (most of the Russian Tsars, Bokassa, Claudius, Nero) are synonymus, the title "emperor" usually defines his/her domain as an Empire, sometimes multiethnic sometimes not, and with an assumption that none is higher than God to the Emperor. In a dictatorship, especially in a fascist/national socialist or a communist system, there is no God, and religion is sometimes banned and places of worship closed down.
An Empire and an Emperor/Empress usually has some sort of organized state religion, a divine right belief, and a manifest destiny to become a great power. An Imperial monarch is also the head of the state church, and is also a above a King/High King and all below the King/Queen ranking in the social order.
But, sometimes they are synonymus and colloquial terms.
In short, there are a few key differences between the two, but are mostly similar.