Salvete omnes,
Draco: Lol, if you keep an eye on the OP mainlist you'll see that everyone is happy and blissful in the OP, so I don't know what you're talking about... **Curio keeps a straight face.**
Atticus: This is my point; ideals are of little use in history because the object of history is to keep analysis as objective as possible, thus rendering philosophical ideals somewhat difficult to include because of their inherently subjective nature.
Piscinus: I suppose there are two different terms that Empire can be used to mean. In terms of internal government, an empire is but rarely an empire without an Emperor/Empress, just as you can't have a duchy without a Duke/Duchess, and so forth. The more controversial point is that of defining an empire in external terms - I suppose the simplest way of doing so would be to suggest that an empire is a state with imperial occupation and/or control over provinces not of the ethnic origin of the country in question. For instance, a Germany that included Luxembourg could be plausibly considered not an empire but a state, because Luxembourg is ethnically German. However, a Germany that included (for instance) Milan would have certain imperial traits about it, because Milan is ethnically Italian. Hence it is still plausible to call Russia an empire, because vast parts of the south of Russia but west of the Urals are still primarily Mongolian in origin, although there are also Kalmuks and others there. This of course wouldn't apply to a confederation of states or a dual monarchy. Such is how I would interpret it, but it seems a very subjective point.
Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.