|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Since Roman princesses had married Tsars of Moscow, and, since Russia had become, with the fall of Byzantium, the most powerful Orthodox Christian state, the Tsars were thought of as succeeding the Byzantine Emperor as the rightful ruler of the (Christian) world. The word "tsar," like kaiser, is derived from the word "caesar".
Grand Duke Ivan IV was proclaimed the first Russian Tsar on 16 January 1547."
I understand that, until the fall of Byzantium, Moscow rulers weren't named Tsars, so the former paragraph needs a couple of changes. How were they named before "tsar"? --euyyn 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Very very much in this entry can easily be disputed. Please add the dubious content label.
- Please sign your posts by adding four ~s at the end, so everybody knows when they are added. I don't know a single word about this subject, so I can only ask you to be more specific about which parts are disputed and why they are. It would be even better if you corrected the article to reflect both trends (you don't have to be registered to do it). --euyyn 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering why this says "their" son. Philoteus and who else?
The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III
Iranon95822 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced St.Petersburg by Moscow because there is really nonsence! See my footnote on the main page. To mention here St.Petersburg is out of question! It didn't even exist at that time! St.Petersburg is about 300 years old. The point of this story is Moscow. Silva2times (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Relax. It was unnoticed vandalism. The article was neglected for quite some time. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please don't make personal footnotes in the article text. Various wikipedians' comments belong to talk pages. Wikipedia article may contain text only based on cited sources. - Altenmann >t 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for attention and patience. Sorry for footnote, I'm not yet experienced Wiki-user, so I made it firstly and then found out how to mark it here, in "Discussion". Silva2times (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Origins of Tsar
The article says Ivan IV was the first "Tsar of Russia," but I remember learning that Ivan III was actually the first "Tsar," though he disliked the term and so chose not to use it himself. So while Ivan IV was the first to regularly refer to himself as the Tsar, I believe Ivan III was actually the first Tsar. Can anyone confirm this?--JaymzRR 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just checked and the article Tsar does credit Ivan the III as the first Tsar, though they mention an earlier name (or two) that used the title in the past. Unless anyone objects I'll change this article as soon as I get a chance.--JaymzRR 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately Moscow had never been a real heir to Rome, and there is nothing really to support this claim except some Grand Prince marrying a member of the last Byzantine Emperor's family.
If anything the HRE was around anyways and they carried the real claim, and had the Translatio imperii. Besides the Byzantine's did reconize the Holy Roman Empire i.e Wikipedia's Otto the Great "In 972, the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano."
So basically Moscow's claims are just as ridiculous as the Ottoman Sultan's claim of being Roman Emperor. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I rather like the formulation, "...except some Grand Prince marrying a member of the last Byzantine Emperor's family". Well, apparently, you simply don't seem to recognize Byzantium as the Second Rome. Oh, and if anything, one can say the claims of the Germanics are about as preposterous as those of the Ottomans, since both basically came and kicked the Romans' teeth in. I'm not going to sink so low as to compare fellow Christians to the Turks, however. Humanophage 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not right. The origin of tsar comes long ago before Rusia ever existed. The Bulgarian monarchs were called "cesar" and after this - tsar. "Tsar" was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:
Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946 Serbia in 1346–1371 Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia).
- Is the origin of the name royal Russian name "Romanov" also rooted in desire for Roman symbolism? Fig (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1. There is no connection between the last name Romanov and the story of the third Rome! Romanovs as a dynasty became Tsars only during the 17th century, the first one was Michail Fedorovich Romanov (1596-1645). Romanov is nothing more than a last name composed from the male name Roman, rather widespread in Russia, that's all. And Ivan III (figurant of this article) was Rurikovich - he belongs to the previous, old dynasty of Russian rulers.
- 2. Concerning the origins of the word "Tsar", initially it was just some kind of slavonic title, deriving from "ceasar", spread among different slavonic folks.
- 3. And I'm sorry, but there is nothing ridiculous (as said above) in the case of Russian's claiming on this status "third Rome" - it was rather popular idea in Europe for centuries, some sort of philosophical, political and missionary idea, it's all about religion. And that strange comparison to Ottoman Sulatns is unacceptable, there is no connection. Silva2times (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Third Reich analogy
- I agree. Did add at least as a "see also" the other day, but it would be good to elaborate a little in the article itself.
- i strongly disagree. the third reich was the third german empire, which really has little to do with the third rome. however, i am going to suggest several other contenders in the discussion page and hope somebody picks up on them.
Just thought it might be good to point out that "Rum" is just the (Classical) Persian word for Anatolia. "Kayser", on the other hand, is unambiguously Roman. WikiMarshall (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
a third rome should not exist in an area that was previously controlled by roman civilization. byzantium/istanbul/constantinople/whatever was a greek city and it's creation as the second rome in some way represented the merging of greek and roman civilization. the greek world at that time of course included most of the middle east.
a third rome would have to represent the merging of greco-roman civilization with another civilization. moscow is consequently a valid choice, whereas istanbul cannot be because it is the second rome. while the idea of allowing the third rome to be islamic is reasonable, mecca or even baghdad would constitute a better third rome than istanbul.
the following have some claim to being a third rome:
1) holy roman empire, i.e. the first reich. this represents the merging of german and roman culture and did indeed consider itself as a legitimate lineal descendant of rome. it's difficult to come up with a capital; aachen is the obvious choice, but this is anachronistic relative to the second rome. vienna? something about the holy roman empire should be in the article.
2) london. as the center of a massive empire that spread german-roman civilization around the world...
3) brussels & the european union, although this opens up five hundred years without a leading rome.
- ok, i was randomly thinking about this and have an argument as to the existence of third, fourth and fifth romes. i think it's fairly balanced. feel free to agree or disagree. now, note that when i talk about assimilating cultures i'm talking in the long run. when a new belief system takes root in an old culture, it often initially dominates in terms of power but not necessarily in terms of adherence. it is often only a powerful minority that accepts the new ideas and feels obligated to force them on us all (thatcher? murdoch? trudeau?). overtime, two things happen: (1) the masses are slowly converted and (2) ancient traditions eventually dominate. this is why we have santa claus in england and codified law in france.
- archetypal rome: persepolis. imperial center, roughly (-800)-(400). rise to power began in the period (-1200)-(-800). sort of. assimilation of iranian culture.
- precursor to rome: athens. cultural dominance, roughly (-400)-0. rise to power began in the period (-800)-(-400). assimilation of greek culture.
- first rome: rome. obviously. imperial center, roughly 0-400. rise to power began in the period -400-0. assimilation of italian culture.
- second rome: constantinople. obviously. period of dominance was roughly 400-800; rise to power began in the period 0-400. assimilation of the black sea economic sphere (from the caucasian mountains north to moscow).
- third rome: baghdad. period of dominance was roughly 800-1200; rise to power began in the period 400-800. assimilation of arab culture.
- fourth rome: vienna. period of dominance was roughly 1200-1600 and associated with hapsburg rule of the "holy roman empire"; rise to power began in the period 800-1200. assimilation of german culture.
- fifth rome: london. period of dominance was roughly 1600-2000; rise to power began in the period 1200-1600. assimilation of english culture.
Citation from Ortaylı ref
If citation needed, here: "“Büyük Constantin”in 11 Mayıs 330’da kurduğu şehrimiz, 1123 sene sonra 29 Mayıs’ta bir başka büyük imparator tarafından fethedildi. Ateşli silahlar devrinin mareşali, en azından Constantin kadar klasik kültüre ve dillere vakıftı. İlaveten şark dillerinin kalem ustasıydı. 15’inci yüzyılın tipik ve mükemmel hümanisti olan Fatih Sultan Mehmed’den bahsediyoruz. Şehri fethetti ve hakkıyla “Roma Caesarı - Kayzer-i Rum” unvanını üstlendi." İlber Ortaylı, "Büyük Constantin ve İstanbul", Milliyet, 28 May 2011. --E4024 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Germanic-led Carolingian Empire" This is utter nonsense. Carolingia was entirely Frankish.