What is the difference between a czar, an emperor, a dictator, and a king?

Answer 1

the term Czar, Kaiser, Caesar, even "king" to a certain extent come from the name "Gaius Julius Caesar": After defeating Pompey during Civil war 49 BC to 45 BC, Julius Caesar declared himself "dictator" for life in the Roman Republic... with his murder and the assencion of his chosen heir, Octavian (another brutal civil war, see Marc Antony and Cleopatra) Octavian was declared Dictator, establishing the Roman Empire... those direct blood-line decendants of Julius are referred to as the "Julian Emperors" (Juli) Other emperors diefied Julius by taking the title "Caesar" now synomous with "ruler"...

Definitions of emperor... comes from the latin term "imperator" or commander of ALL arms in Rome. A Dictator had absolute power in the Roman Republic for 6 months (they didn't like to give it up though...see Lucius Cornelius Sulla & Marcus Lucinius Crassus). A King... absolute power (see middle ages & the concept of Feudalism... Land for Loyality, basically)

Answer 2

A czar is the Russian word for emperor. An emperor is the ruler of an empire. A dictator is someone who controls the country through military might and a king is the ruler of a kingdom.

Answer 3

Not much, really, except they came from different countries. Czar (or Tsar) was the name given to the head of Russian countries, Emperors ruled larger areas than kings - a king ruled a kingdom but there could be several kingdoms in an empire, so Emperors were higher on the scale than kings.
Dictators come in all sizes and, briefly, they rule with absolute authority. No one crosses a dictator. Originally, the term came from Rome, where dictators were appointed for a six month period, but outside of Rome, dictators were often military generals who seized power and held onto it until someone else defeated them.

Answer 4

Basically, there is no difference, only is terminology. Depending on what part of the world in which one lived. Russia had Czars;old Rome had Emperors; Spain has had both kings and dictators; Germany, Iran and Iraq have had dictators; Britian has a King(Queen). The rule under the above listed, with the exception of Britian, is one of absolute power by an individual.

Answer 5

Emperors (and Tsars, Kaisers and Shahs, which all advise emperor, and those forms of titles come from 'Caesar') frequently ruled over their very own united states of america and others - in different words, they ruled an empire. Kings and queens frequently ruled over one united states of america, in spite of the reality that some - the English and Spanish monarchies, easily right down to Victoria - ruled over an empire without adopting the call 'Emperor'. This exchange into rationalised interior the Victorian era, so as that Victoria and her descendants have been Queens and Kings of the united kingdom, Emperors of India (right down to George VI), Queens/Kings of Canada, Australia, NZ, and so on. As to who exchange into greater useful, a king or an emperor, call by myself isn't a secure instruction manual - the King of France interior the 18th Century could have been waiting to topple the Emperor of Japan, or the Shah, without too plenty concern, and the King of Prussia's military whacked the Austrian Empire conclusively in six weeks' combating in 1866.

Answer 6

Just a small correction - while Czar and Kaiser, and the others are derivitives of the word Caesar, the word KING, is not. Before Gaius Julius Caesar came into power, and before his name became a successive title, others in the east already held the title of KING. Ptolemy was both King and Pharoah of Egypt, Jugurtha was king of Numidia before Caesar was borh, Mithridates was king of Pontus and Tigranes was King of Armenia, all while Gaius Julius Caesar was only about 2 or 3 years old. What difference there is between a King and a Ceaser (as the word pertains), I am not sure. It seems to me that they all had the same powers.

Answer 7

the spelling of the words.