What made the roman emperors "not kings"?

Emperor, 'imperator', just means 'commander', 'one who commands'.

It is later, Western thought which subsequently clothed 'emperor' in new clothes.

> king = rex = rego 'to rule'
> emperor = imperator = impero 'to command'

No difference.

>>2238343
Rome was still technically a Republic, the senate had not been dissolved fully until much later, they just had no real power anymore.

>>2238369

Did they buy it, that explanation?

>What made the roman emperors "not kings"?
The fact that they didn't gave them that name. Nothing else.
>How did the Romans justify having a king but saying they did not?
They didn't. Or they did and just sounded silly.
>Also, what was the protocol for selecting the next emperor, asides from military coup?
None whatsoever.

Romans are overrated af.

>>2238343

Can someone tell me what Augustus is holding in that pic? In the Encyclopedia of Roman Uniforms there is a ton of emperors holding similar objects.

>>2238498
Consular baton

>>2238509

I've never heard of this.

I thought that the Consuls only held fasces.

>>2238527
consuls didn'y physically hold fasces

The earlier emperors were more akin to military dictators than monarchs. Sure, they had absolute power, but there's still a difference. Kim Jong Un, Stalin, and Hitler all may as well have been kings, but nobody ever called/calls them that, especially they themselves. Roman emperors were like that. No crown, no regalia, just the power.

>>2238527
Didn't lictors or whatever hold fasces as they protected the high ranking official? Consuls always had batons.

>>2238509
How virile

>>2238556
Pretty much this. Royal regalia for emperors was introduced much later and only achieved the level of sumptuosity we associate with monarchy during the 3rd century crisis.

>>2238343
>How did the Romans justify having a king but saying they did not?
>The kings, excluding Romulus, who according to legend held office by virtue of being the city's founder, were all elected by the people of Rome to serve for life, with none of the kings relying on military force to gain or keep the throne.
Roman "kings" and Roman "emperors" were indeed different; in some ways the kingdom seemed more democratic than the empire.

But the obvious answer was that "emperors" were so because they ruled over an "empire". Their job was being "dictators" a position that used to be most relevant during times of war, but it came to dominate the government in general.

>>2238343
Augustus set up a system where he had amassed such a vast personal fortune and held such immense personal influence (e.g. Egypt was his personal domain) he essentially held the strings on all aspects of the republic (it was still nominally a republic until Diocletian). This period is called the "principate:" the emperor went by "princeps," or "first citizen" and guided the government behind the facade of a republic.

Domitian tried to stop pretending that Rome was still a republic and styled himself as a lord, but that caused pretty much the entire senate and aristocracy to chimp out and kill him.

In truth power had slipped to "he who controls the army" or he who has imperium: military authority. Caesar had imperium but was not an emperor. He came within a hair's breadth of ascending to such a design but was assassinated. Augustus bribed the senators into submission, kept the people happy with long needed economic reforms, bread, and circuses.

Rome after Sulla was the first example of a democracy falling to military dictatorship under its own self-will (the thirty tyrants were imposed by sparta). Sadly, far from the last.