Talk:Emperor

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force

Jumping to conclusions?

It is stated in the article that the signification of emperor began with the establishment of the Roman Empire, and that it is ironic in that "emperor" began as a military honorific in a staunchly anti-monarchical republic. ... I find this to be an assumption that at least needs more detail in order to not be misleading. Isn't it correct to understand that the Roman republic must be regarded as a democracy, not primarily because of an anti-monarchic sentiment, but first of all as a means to maintain the peace between the 7 tribes of Rome? Whereas all these tribes had in various ways been involved in a legendary war, the end of which constituting their common historiography. This war is referred to as the Trojan War. Each of the tribes had monarchic lineages, whereas the Ceasarian branch of the Julian clan ultimately raised to the status of a King of Kings during the transition from republic to empire. Which in turn was necessitated by the expansion, and establishment of the so called roman pact, or pax romana. The monarchic authority is signified by being a manifestation, or embodiment of divine will. This is of course also biased in regard of the view that the mundane hierarchy reflects the cosmology, independent of the individual opinion of the divine nature; whether or not this cosmology-hierarchy is regarded as fictious, authentic or anything in between by the manifold public of then, now and in the coming. To find it ironic that emperor began as a military honorific in a staunchly anti-monarchic republic, leads the intuition to suggest that this assumption is grounded in a modern day republican perspective, american I presume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Nothing what you write bears any similarity to real Roman history or legend, especially not your seven tribes of Rome.

However, I still removed the "ironic" statement, as a) the word is (as almost always) misused here, b) the development made perfect sense: Romans had no political king (but note the religious Rex and the office of Interrex) since around 500 and the title "rex" was despised among the elite - however, the Roman Empire frequently dealt with kings of other peoples, including those subject to Rome. Furthermore, the title "imperator" did not denote someone who exercised "imperium" (all consuls and praetors every year) but only those that earned a substantial victory.

The honorific "Imperator" was one of the names assumed by the first Emperor, born Gaius Octavius, who assumed several names: Gaius Julius CAESAR after Caesar's death (as his heir) in 44 BC, AUGUSTUS in 27 (after relinquishing most of his emergency powers he was honoured this way by the senate), and IMPERATOR (he later replaced his first name Gaius with that word), making him officially IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS, with the latter being coming to be the actual imperial title.

The only thing linked to Roman anti-royal sentiment is the avoidance of the title "rex" by Caesar (who refused the crown before becoming Perpetual Dictator) and Augustus. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Emperors in Popular Culture and Ficition

I was just wondering whether it would be appropriate to make a paragraph on this topic, where we could present ficitional characters such as Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars or the Tisroc in The Chronicles of Narnia.

Organize geographically?

Sections 3 and 5 refer to Byzantium and its successors, and sections 4 and 6 refer to the Holy Roman Empire and its successors. I don't know the conventions, but to me, the article would flow better if it were organized geographically. This could easily be done by switching the positions of sections 4 and 5. Thanks.Krumhorns (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperial titles

I think we need a list of titles, recognized as imperial - King of Kings (Shahanshah,Khaghan/Khan of Khans,Sultan of Sultans etc), Great King (Padishah etc), Roman King/King of Romans and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2008 CitizenofEarth (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Unsourced, possibly POV paragraph

Moved the following paragraph:

Mutual accreditation between the following monarchs and European emperors began in the 1600s. It began when the Ottoman rulers claim to being Caesars of Rome (Kayser-i-Rûm) were snubbed by the Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Spain (whose kings had inherited the title in pretence from Andreas Palaiologos), see Translatio imperii. They colluded with envious French kings to mutually recognize each other as emperors, beginning a convention.^{[citation needed]}

to here pending appropriate citations. The "colluded with envious French kings" bit strikes me as especially POV. 66.130.156.84 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

King vs Emperor

why the picture of an electoral bonnet?can remove?Surveypolic (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)--Surveypolic (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Is there difference between a king and an emperor? 96.229.193.68 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom Is Still an Empire. If you look up Emperor, you will see that a King or Queen rules a Single Nation as for the Emperor or Empress rules more than One. There for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland being Independent Nations before the United Kingdom, makes Her Majesty the Empress Regnant of the United Kingdom! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorTomax1 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Only that the statement that "a King or Queen rules a Single Nation as for the Emperor or Empress rules more than One" is simply not true. A King rules a Kingdom, an Emperor rules an Empire. The United Kingdom, though composed of three Kingdoms and one principality, is still only one Kingdom. Prior to this, there existed three Kingdoms and the ruler of these was king thrice but not Emperor. And if a single realm happens to be an Empire, the ruler is called Emperor, e.g. Russia (after Peter I), Japan, China. "Nations" are totally irrelevant in that regard. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the case, the United Kingdom is a single entity hence its title. It is composed of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, the Prinicpality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland. The thrones of England and Scotland were united by James I follwed later by the Parliaments being unified forming the United Kingdom, later Ireland's parliament was also brought into union with the 1801 Act of Union. The title being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland olny returned to being a Kingdom in a constitional sense, in its' own right in 1922 under the Free State (though almost a republic, which it became in 1949) while the six counties of Ulster that remained in the UK became the province of Ulster. The United Kingdom is not an Empire, though it did pocess an Empire for quite some time. It had been the policy of Westminster to consider the various countries as one, this has been the position for a long time depsite devolution. ConsulHibernia (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are is may very beatiaffull/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.38.251 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To Those who re-edit the pop culture reference

The first paragraph will continually be re-edited to include the Star Wars reference - fact is this is the only well known acknowledgement of the title in the last century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.11.63 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

tittles of gods,goddess,emperors all the way down

what is the discription of the following titles: God

Goddess

Emperor

Empress

King(s) and Queen(s)

Archduke(s)and Archduchess(s)

Grand duke(s) and grand duchess(s)

Prince

Princess

Infante(s) and Infanta(s)

Duke(s) and Dutchess

marquess(s)

marchioness(s)

count(s)

countess

viscount(s)

vistcountess(s)

Baron(s)

Baroness(s)

Baronet(s)

Baronetness(s) Guard(s)

Paladin(s) (it accorss btwn a knight and a clerics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.115.32 (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial titles???

citizenofhearth "imperial titles"?? Emperor is the highest monarchical rank, but only the titles equal for the imperial rank in other countries are the Chinese title Huangdi, not even the king of kings,high king,malik or king of the Romans or Khan of Khans or great king.

the title King of Kings shall apply only to the kings of Persia of the Sassanid dynasty, although they controlled vast amounts of territory, but a few vassals kings,an emperor instead have authority over many or a lot of kings and princes and chiefs also is the Khan of Khans its same as King of Kings still had royal treatment not an imperial rank

King of the Romans was the honorary title with which invested the heir of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor was the true ruler of the city of Rome at the time.

the title great king was used by Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty that made great things, so he added the prefix "Great" to the title King, also happened to some of the ancient Indian kings. Padishah translated into English means the same .. great king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.121.147 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)