DaarioKnowsBest Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The Rhoynar are a nation, Dorne is part of that nation; Likewise for the First Men they're a nation, and the North is part of said nation.In this context what do you think of when you hear the word nation and "outside the borders"?The Seven Kingdom has borders. The land above the wall, Dorne, and all other continents are outside it's borders.By territory I mean LAND, not people.If a Rhoynar is born in Dorne and lives there, they swear no oaths to the King of the Iron Throne. He is not their King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearson Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The Rhoynar are a nation, Dorne is part of that nation; Likewise for the First Men they're a nation, and the North is part of said nation.In this context what do you think of when you hear the word nation and "outside the borders"? Also: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Emperor_vs_KingEmperor:Remind how many kingdoms there are in Westeros? Oh that's right no less than 7(!). That's fine in RL history. However, even there: The Kalmar Union was led by a Danish king ruling also Norwegian and Swedish kingdoms, yet both those kingdoms maintained a seperate, domestic governance. By that definition you cite, that was an empire. So was the North Sea Empire under king Canute the Great. But none of them were actually called emperors, so it's not a historical rule that they must be called emperors. And as pointed out, in a universe where there never were systems of government called empires, there would be no one called emperor. If the word doesn't exist, it doesn't get called that word. Like there are crocodiles in the asoiaf universe, but they're not called that because they don't have that word. Technically speaking, the unified 7 kingdoms is an empire, ruled by a king. That a state is an empire, does not make the ruler an emperor unless he names himself as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaarioKnowsBest Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Emperor:Remind how many kingdoms there are in Westeros? Oh that's right no less than 7(!).Actually there is only one Kingdom titled the Seven Kingdoms in reference to when they had their own kings.And there are less than Seven of them in the Seven Kingdoms(count them up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Tormund Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Two reasons. 1. Have we seen Emperor used? Also its not like you have to rank one higher than the other. When the Seven Kingdoms WERE seven individual kingdoms (The North, The Iron Islands, The Vale, The Stormlands, The Westerlands, The Reach, and Dorne) six were ruled by kings and one was ruled by a prince (or princess). It didn't mean that the kings were a higher rank than the princes in Dorne, it was just the term they decided to use to say "Hey, that person over there is the one in charge!" Using the logic that an emperor is one who controls both his own lands AND lands outside is then shouldn't King Harren the Black really by Emperor Harren the Black? Because he controlled both the Iron Islands and the Riverlands. It's a bit of a stretch but isn't the Targaryen Monarchy closer to a confederacy? The definition of a confederacy from the CIA World Factbook:a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government. The only difference between pre-Conquest Westerosi politics and post-Conquest Westerosi politics is that all of the Kings were now Lord Paramounts and then that they had somehow to answer to. For the lowly landed knight whose sworn to a lowly lord, who in turn is sworn to a more powerful lord, who is then in turn sworn to a High Lord, who is then in turn sworn to the King (now Lord Paramount) there is no change. There's just a new person at the top of the food chain. So really whatever the person at the top calls themselves doesn't really matter. Prince Doran didn't have more power than Lord Paramount Mace Tyrell just because Doran's title was the same title as Rhaegar. However most importantly is my second point: 2. GRRM liked King better than Emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CassBlackfyre Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The British 'Empire' had Kings and Queens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Blackwood Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The Seven Kingdom has borders. The land above the wall, Dorne, and all other continents are outside it's borders.By territory I mean LAND, not people.If a Rhoynar is born in Dorne and lives there, they swear no oaths to the King of the Iron Throne. He is not their King.Sunspear is sworn to the Iron Throne...Dorne is part of the Seven Kingdoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 "Steve the Nth of his name,of House Blabla , King of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm." The Rhoynar in that title is a nod to the Martells of Dorne. They married Queen Nymeria, who was from Rhoyne in Essos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The title of emperor is kinda tricky. The reason the roman emperors where emperors instead of kings is the founding myth of Rome and Tarquinius Rex. "Rex" (= king) was like a red rag to the romans. That's why Augustus and his successors avoided the title rex like the plague and the titles of Caesar, Augustus or Imperator sprung up and left their mark in the european languages. Without the same or a similar history, Westeros wouldn't develop such titles. Exactly. The title originated with the Romans for this specific reason. Later, it was used by those who wanted to portray themselves as heirs to the Roman Empire, and suggest that their state is more than a mere kingdom (Byzanthium, The Holy Roman Empire) and those who wanted to portray themselves as heirs to or equal in power to Byzanthium (Bulgarian, Serbian and later Russian tzars aka emperors). *Tzar means the same as emperor and comes from "Caesar", just like the German "Kaiser". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaarioKnowsBest Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Sunspear is sworn to the Iron Throne...Dorne is part of the Seven Kingdoms.I guess they are a territory of the Iron Throne then.I did say usually, but since no further expansion has happened in 300 years it's only empire by technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaak Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Look at the contrast between England and Ireland. England had Seven Kingdoms, but when Wessex united them, they lost title "King". Sussex, Essex, Kent, Northumberland were given to Earls, the Dukes. Ireland had many Kings and when Ireland was united, it was High King of Ireland - the local rulers kept their title King. Aegon chose to demote everyone else, not create a new higher title. Looks like Nymeria had also demoted all the Kings she conquered.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheagar Prime Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 don't see a problem spain was an empire that had a king so did england. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay's Third Nipple Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Ghiscari Empire. There have been Emperor's before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Exactly. The title originated with the Romans for this specific reason. Later, it was used by those who wanted to portray themselves as heirs to the Roman Empire, and suggest that their state is more than a mere kingdom (Byzanthium, The Holy Roman Empire) and those who wanted to portray themselves as heirs to or equal in power to Byzanthium (Bulgarian, Serbian and later Russian tzars aka emperors). *Tzar means the same as emperor and comes from "Caesar", just like the German "Kaiser". Yep, empires and emperors exist only where the territories had once been part of the Roman Empire. The territory of Great Britain, too, was (partly) annexed by Rome. The case with the Chinese or Japanese (and probably the Aztec) empires is different, since it is Europeans who call them that. Their own titles are likely to mean something else and be derived from a different custom, albeit with a similar definition. At any rate, the title "emperor" and its variations are Roman legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebookless Man Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 The argument about emperors being tied to Roman history makes no sense. A similar argument can be made about any english word or concept. Not to mention empires do or did exist in-universee."seven kingdoms" is a historical name. There used to be seven kingdoms, now there is only one. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 The British 'Empire' had Kings and Queens Ghiscari Empire. There have been Emperor's before. Interesting. So an empire doesn't exactly mean an emperor ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebookless Man Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 That's wrong too. Victoria was Queen of England, not India.As far the empire was concerned she was the Empress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 *shrugs*I'm no history expert like some of you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CassBlackfyre Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 That's wrong too. Victoria was Queen of England, not India.As far the empire was concerned she was the Empress. it was politicians who decided to call her the empress of India because they felt that Indians would accept an empress rather than a queen, but she wasnt ever called empress of the british empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaak Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 The case with the Chinese or Japanese (and probably the Aztec) empires is different, since it is Europeans who call them that. Their own titles are likely to mean something else and be derived from a different custom, albeit with a similar definition.They do mean something else. China until 703 BC knew only one ruler at a time, titled "Wang". In that year, rebellious ruler of Chu took title Wang, implying complete independence and equality from Zhou. The rulers of China Proper kept the pretence of recognizing the one Zhou king. In 6th century, more claimants to independence arose in barbarian South - Wu and Yue. It was in end of 4th century that the old Zhou vassals dropped the pretence, one at a time, and assumed title Wang. In 230-221, the Qin king conquered the rivals of China proper. After conquest of Qi in 221, only remote barbarian claimants were left, like Minyue and Choson. And then the Qin king decided that he needed a new title. "Huangdi" was created by joining titles "Huang" and "Di", that had been used for ancient rulers before Zhou. "Huang" particularly had implications of divinity. So, a brand new title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usrnmhsnomning Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Ghiscari Empire. There have been Emperor's before. There has never been a mention of any emperor as a ruler in the series. The world 'emperor' appears once in the 8 books in reference to 'emperor crabs'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.