From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merging to Emperor?[edit]

An editor who is on revert parole has tagged the article for a merger [1] and then, only for days later and without any support, has deleted the article by replacing it with a simple redirect [2]. No content of the article, which exists since 2002, had been saved/moved/merged to the proposed new article [3]. -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack on the arguments, not the person Matthead. The fact that I'm on revert parole for cleansing this wiki of german nationalists doesn't mean you can get away with anything here. On the contruary. Accusing me of some Anti German crusade didn't help you. Kaiser mean Emperor, and the emperor article already has information on both the Holy roman emperors as well as the German emperors. I tagged the article to be merged, and NO ONE OBJECTED (instead of no one agreed) what are your reasons for keeping this article as it is?.Rex 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Count the number of editors who have contributed to this article (as Kaiser) since 2002. You are pretty much alone here. Besides, bragging about "cleansing this wiki of german nationalists" does not help you either, but kudos for openly confirming my suspicion about your motivation. -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No one objected, I am not alone. The number of editors to this article DO NOT MATTER. Again you bring no arguments just accusations. Give me reasons why this shouldn't redirect to Emperor.Rex 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you both stop being loud ? This article makes a lot of sense if only because of the use of the word to describe William II. In any case it seems thoroughly useless to delete it.CyrilleDunant 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless that this article isn't a part of the Emperor-article. The trivial fact that William II was occasionally called Kaiser in English is no reason to keep this article here. Rex 11:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, all other wikies, even the German one, linking to this article link back to the emperor article.Rex 11:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

this is the article on the German title. we are not going to merge tsar to emperor or lugal and raja to king, are we? dab (𒁳) 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Have it your way then. I'll rewrite the article accordingly.Rex 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Support the merger, we could also start articles on Czar, Keizer etc. etc. IMHO it is just the German word for Emperor (which obviously refers to the German emperor - just as 'Keizer' Karel refers to Charlemagne in his Dutch name. Wiki is not a dictionary - hence mere Arnoutf 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose Separate articles are essential, as that is the only way the relevant terms can be put in the appropriate categories. It is a red herring to say the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as the articles contain far more information than any dictionary. RegRCN 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
IMHO this article consists of three sections: The introduction which basically give a dictionary type translation Empreror=Kaiser (which IMHO should be in a dictionary not in Wiki proper).
A section of non referenced pseudo-etymology (which should be in a (etymological) dictionary, and anyway is complete unsourced, so likely to be removed altogehter.
A section on the use of term which basically is about the state-form of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary or the German Empire.
If this article ever develops to the quality level of the Tsar article, your reasoning would be warranted; as it is now, it says Kaiser means Emperor and all German speaking Empires were ruled by Kaisers. (Something like Strasse means Street and all Streets in German speaking countries are called Strasses). I do not see how this goes beyon dicitionary. Arnoutf 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how about we actively work to develop this to the quality level of the Tsar article? That'll take time, but, to me, that makes more sense than suppressing the term.Krumhorns (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Opppose merger In English "Kaiser" has a specific meaning beyond being merely the German word for Emperor - it refers precisely to the Emperors of the German Empire. A lot of foreign words incorporated into the English language have a narrower meaning than in their original language. Timrollpickering 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is whehter this specific term is worth more than a dictionary definition and truly deserved its own article. Arnoutf 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose In my part of the English speaking world (upper-Great Lakes, US), Kaiser, Czar/Tsar, Caesar and Basileus all refer to an Emperor from a specific European area. This helped better define "Who's on first..." throughout Europe's convoluted history. (Rulers from other regions were simply referred to as Emperor of Japan, India, Mexico, etc.) The latter three terms all have coherent articles about the terms, complete with etymology. Rather than abandoning Kaiser, and by logical and fair inference, also merging the Tsar, Caesar and Basileus articles with Emperor, instead it makes far more sense to me and seems fair to expand the Kaiser article along the lines of its three counterparts.Krumhorns (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is kind of pointless to compare the specific term: Kaiser which existed for 114 years in Austria Hungary and had 4 monarchs; and existed only 47 years in Germany (3 kaisers) with Tsar which title in Russia alone lasted for more then 1000 years. Comparison with basileus (reserved for the many ancient Greek monarchies that spanned many centuries) is even more pointless. Comparison with Caesar is yet more pointless as in English language this refers to Gaius Julius Caesar; while Emperor is used for all emperors of Rome. In my opinion having a distinct article for Kaiser is very close to having one for Empereur (ie French for emperor) dedicated to Napolean Bonapartes function. Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Kaiser also existed for 844 years in the Holy Roman Empire. That was the specific title used in the domain those emperors ruled. I hope you simply overlooked this. Caesar (title) has a well-developed Wikipedia article that explains its usage in Ancient Rome beyond Julius. Many English Dictionaries also define the term simply as "a Roman Emperor"; whether they are technically or academically correct is not the issue, rather they reflect what's in common use.
The history of using a culture-specific title I would say is equally strong in _all_ of these four cases with a long history. The French Napoleons were historical blips by comparison (less than a century) and I agree it doesn't seem appropriate to write a specific article defining the use of the word Empereur simply because of them. But more to the point, I don't think the French term Empereur was ever used in the English-speaking world. However, there _are_ parts of the English-speaking world that borrowed the word Kaiser (the way many French words entered the English language after the Norman Conquest) because it's a lot more succinct than "Holy Roman Emperor" - one word/two syllables vs. three words/seven syllables. It happened in many German-ethnic areas in the United States - no small group either as Germans are the largest ethnic group in the US (according to census records anyway).
Emperor is the general term used in the English language to refer to any and all of this rank regardless of culture. In my neck of the woods, the title "Emperor" was used to refer to the rulers of India, which happened to be English, and of France, Mexico, China and Japan (no one used the title Tenno); on the other hand, the four long European reigns were each described with the culture-specific titles we've been discussing. I honestly don't know how usage is taught in other English-speaking countries; it quite obviously varies. I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to be as inclusive and accurate possible. May I ask why you are so adamant about dismissing the German-specific term? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks.Krumhorns (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed overlook the Caeser(title) article; you are right there.
I agree that the Holy Roman Emperor is indeed a well established long lasting title deserving of its own article. But that article (Holy Roman Emperor already exists; and there has never been a suggestion to merge this article with that of HRE.
This article only discusses the Kaisers after the end of the Holy Roman Empire; which only includes the very few examples given by me. This period (post 1806-pre 1918) is in my opinion similarly as a historical glitch as the Frence Empire (1804-1814) and (1852-1870).
This article in my opinion does not add anything over the information already discussed by Emperor especially Emperor#Germany. That article also refers to both the Holy Roman Emperor and the Emperor of Austria articles.
Taking all this into account I really cannot see the stand-alone Kaiser article, when the Holy Roman empire; and Emperor of Austria are excluded as they already have their articles, can ever grow beyond the stub it is now; therefore I would prefer it being discontinued as standalone; or changed into a redirect to the relevant section of the larger Emperor article. Of course if I am proven wrong and an interesting article about the German imperial powers is given here, I am happy to have that as the underlying main from the section in Emperor; but I don't see it is there now. Arnoutf (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong support - this article is pointless, the word just means emperor. Känsterle (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

3 ways to go for this article.[edit]

Kaiser means emperor, and could redirect to emperor where sections concerning German emperors are already present and in to which this article could perfectly be merged. Then there's the redirect to wiktionary which would also be a possibility, but not my favorite. Then there's the third. An explanational article on the term "kaiser", but much shorter and more factual than the current one, like my version which was reverted by Cyrille Dunant. The latter has my preference. Rex 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish Kajzer[edit]

The word Kajzer in Polish refers not to the German Emperor but to the Austrian one (since Franz Joseph) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

people repeadedly change the word emporer in this article to hamster. please put a lock or somthing on this article.

p.s. check list of german hamsters frequently to.

As far as I know the Dutch etymology of Keizer directs immediately back to the Roman honorific of successors to Gaius Julius Caesar. I.e. as far as I know the etyomology may have occurred in parellel. (although I can of course not deny the possibility that the German Kaiser refers back to the Dutch keizer.). In brief the translation section is very speculative and German POV. A source is needed that the German Kaiser is indeed the starting place of all "translations" (and this source should be provided soon) otherwise I will remove the whole mess. Arnoutf 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The word itself appears to be an early (maybe biblical?) loan-word that is common to the Germanic dialects. The Gothic bible translation already has kaisar ([4]). I am not sure about the origin of the title though; it may have been copied from Byzantine practice. But then again, in parallel, one would expect to find a derivative of Augustus or imperator in modern German, which isn't there. Iblardi 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. In English we only see Emperor (from Imperator) and the adjective august (noble) but (as far as I know) nothing derived from Caesar; so if it is not in English (in many aspect a language closer to Latin then German), why should we expect the full set in German??? Arnoutf 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Back then, the article was stating that the origin of Kaiser was the Byzantine honorific title of Caesar, employed by the German emperors to "reflect their supposed heritage". Iblardi 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

German History[edit]

The (Holy Roman) imperial crown was never linked to Germany but always to Rome. Only when Otto I (the King of the German franksih states) ascended to the throne of Rome did the Holy Roman Empire become a German empire. Arnoutf 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Ottonians were Saxon, not Frankish. Iblardi 23:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The imperial crown was created within Otto's reign, plus all German kings were crowned with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not important, that Otto I. was Saxon or to be precise Duke of Saxony (dux saxonicae), because he was crowned King of East Francia (rex regni francorum orientalium) and in 962 Emperor of the Romans (imperator romanorum). He was never called King of the Saxons (rex saxoniae) or King /Emperor of the Germans (rex / imperator teutonicorum). (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You`re right. It isn`t important. The Roman connection had been ideological in nature from the beginning, and by the time the Middle Ages came to a close, it was hardly anything more than that - i.e., an increasingly dubious claim to overlordship over the other Christian monarchies in Europe.

To his German subjects the "Holy Roman Emperor" was simply known as "der Kaiser" (like in the old Landsknecht drinking tune: "Alles auf Kaiser Ferdinands Wohl !"). On the other hand, in German usage the term "Kaiser" is most certainly NOT restricted to the Emperors of the German-speaking world, even the Tsar has on accasion been referred to as "the Russian Kaiser" (google "Drei-Kaiser-Bund"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Kaiser Friedrich II meets Muslim

In The Ideas and Ideals of the British Empire, Sir Ernest Barker (Google Books), we find on page 45 the following: "..the British sovereign became Kaisar-i-Hind (on the analogy of the title Kaisar-i-Rūm used in Constantinople)..." The latter, of course, dates from 1453 when the Ottomans took Constantinople. This supports the hypothesis of origins other than German. Choess 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the null-hypothesis would be "other then German" as contact between medieval Germany in India were very limited; while other contacts with Roman descendants e.g. Byznatine empire seems more likely. (in other words evidence needs to be presented to link German to Hindi, not to denie that link). It is however nice to see that there is actually evidence for this. Arnoutf 08:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles already use several spellings for the Ottoman title, Mehmed II‎ (Kayzer-i Rûm) and Rise of the Ottoman Empire (Kaiser-i-Rum). What was the spelling and pronunciation of the corresponding title of the Eastern Roman Byzantine Emperors, presumably in Greek anyway? (apparently not Καίσαρ [5]) Also, Mehmed II knew about Western Holy Roman Emperors ("The intent of his invasion was to capture Rome and "reunite the Roman Empire", and, at first, looked like he might be able to do it with the easy capture of Otranto in 1480 but Otranto was lost to Papal forces in 1481 after the death of Mehmed.") Besides, its safe to say that Muslims not only had encountered crusaders centuries before Constantinople was taken, but also had negotiated with the multi-lingual Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] If I remember well the -ai- would have become monophthongized to the -e- that it still is at an early stage, but any support this might give to the argument that kaiser would have derived from German is outweighed, i.m.o., by the simple observation that the place name Kayseri (Caesarea) is spelled along the same pattern. And although I know near nothing about Turkish phonetics, the -z- may simply imply that intervocal -s- becomes voiced in Turkish, as in German, early Latin, and doubtlessly many other languages (though not Greek), so this may be no more than a coincidence. Moreover, I don't think the prestige of Western crusaders counted for much in the Middle East. Argueing from common sense, it is simply unlikely. The first empire, and the one the Turks (and their predecessors in the region) had the most frequent contacts with was that of Byzantium (=Romania, Rum), which predated that of the Germans by centuries. Iblardi 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what point you (Matthead) are making. Contact between muslim and even hindi states may have occurred, but that in itself is not an argument that the imperial style is copied from German; that last claim needs a source that explicitly acknowledges that linguistic connection. Arnoutf 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this one for a change: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of this article[edit]

What is the point of this article? Merge with emperor and List of German monarchs or something like that. Känsterle 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some sentiment against that solution. Why?? I have no idea; I previously supported such a merger proposal. Arnoutf 14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose it, especially since I see no arguments why it would be anything different than simply the German language's equivalent of the English "emperor" which is additionally used in English to denote the German emperor after 1871. Iblardi 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Last name[edit]

Are people with the last name Kaiser decended from emperors? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as likely as everyone with a last name King descends from royalty; in other words no, the choice of legal last name was free for all to choose; in the Netherlands (my home country) for example there are many examples of "Prins" (Prince); "De Graaf" (Count); "Koning" (King) as wel as "Keizer" (Emperor); most of which will not have descended from those. No need to mention this; in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

English Meaning[edit]

Sorry for the delay contributing. I've been ill and unable to wrangle my brain sufficiently for this degree of intensity. I'll get back to other points later, but this stood out during a quick reread:

In English the (untranslated) word "Kaiser" is mainly associated with the emperors of the unified German Empire (1871–1918) and in particular with Kaiser Wilhelm II.[citation needed]

This is a broad assumption that does not hold true in all native-English speaking regions. The "citation needed" note someone added indicates I'm not alone in this. This may be default UK practice, and I surmise with non-primary English speakers who learned based on British rather American format; however, this statement doesn't make that clear, and regional differences are not spelled out. Hopefully this ambiguity is simply an oversight and not a willful omission. This statement needs to be clarified. My suggestion for the time being is to change the lead in words from "In English," to "In some English-speaking regions," or change the lead in to "Many English speakers associate the word "Kaiser" mainly with..." to address both native and non-native English speakers who use this practice. I don't feel comfortable making any changes to the actual page without vetting first. Thanks.Krumhorns (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is even worse, or at best equally bad. Worse because the "softening" of the claim introduces all kinds of unverifiable suggestions and weasel words. Equally bad, as the statement "Many English...." still requires a references as much as the current version. Arnoutf (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Empress of germany[edit]

Accordin to the entry for Emperor William II, his first wife was Princess Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein. Is he part of this family? If so, should be inlcuded? (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely sure why adding spouses would make this article better? The main topic is the title "Kaiser" not necessarily the persons related to that title. Arnoutf (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Numerus mistake?[edit]

The article uses the term "the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation)". Shouldnt that be 'Nations' and 'Nationen', as it refers to a group of nations bound together? At least in German its definately used in its plural form. Please check this, thank you! (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning that since WWI, kaiser has become a euphemism for your backside (at least in British countries). It's not uncommon even today to hear people refer to having a pain in the kaiser, or threaten to stick things up kaisers. Greencircle (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It should not become trivia, and it should be supported by reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

jm —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing like these usages in the Dictionary of American Slang (2nd edition). Maybe something can be turned up in the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Historical Dictionary of American Slang. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Empire[edit]

There was not an Austro-Hungarian Empire as such, and it had no Emperors (or Kaisers). Austria-Hungary was a political union between an Empire (of Austria) on the one and a Kingdom (of Hungary) on the other hand. While the two entities always had the same person as monarch, there was no overarching monarchial title for the whole. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete reference 1?[edit]

I rarely comment or edit, so I did not want to make this change myself. However, footnote #1 references a document that is not on the indicated server. Should be removed?William.quay (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good call! But not necessarily a reason for removal. Linkrot is a major problem, for paper like this which have no DOI. In this case I could easily find another version archived at Harvard. I replaced the link with the Harvard link that works (at least today). Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)