(May 17, 2009 at 6:23 pm)Jayp Wrote: I am sorry but this is like seeing the trees and missing the forest. I used the word King, but basically I am could have said a Ruler, Emperor, Chieftain, General, Despot etc. The idea is the lack of democracy, this man's ruling must be followed. People call themselves God's soldiers, another word for slave or subject. Soldiers must obey orders, never question them. This is why terrorism arises out of muslim lands - they are following their king's orders for which they think they will be rewarded.
Try to see the broad picture, please don't get lost in the details.
Ok sorry, point taken and fair enough.
I thought you meant specifically kings - especially because you referring to like Christian times etc when I thought it was more emperors.
And @ Leo - yes the places Emperors rule could still be called kingdoms. But I have heard the leaders THEMSELVES in ancient Rome be called 'Kings'.
I just mean that I never hear of ancient Roman Kings or any sort of Christian 'Kings' around at that time...they may have had KingDOMS but I've never heard them be referred to as 'Kings' - it always seems to be emperors?
If there WERE Roman KINGS around and Christian KINGS at the time (or called as such I mean anyway) - then that's news to me! They always were called emperors to my knowledge. Emperors rule many kingdoms maybe or one 'Empire' BUT - I've not heard of Ancient Roman 'Kings' - maybe they are less well known? Maybe I'm wrong?
Were there, for instance; ancient Roman KINGS as opposed to emperors? Maybe they just get less attention cos they have less power than an empeor so that's why I've never heard of it LOL.
EvF
