 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The 2 states I added were indeed Sultanates but are refered as Empires, not Kingdoms. We had this discussion before, I refer you again to here. Thank you. Runehelmet ( talk) 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Baron which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
at Emperor#East Asian tradition:
The rulers of China and (once Westerners became aware of the role) Japan were always accepted in the West as emperors, and referred to as such. The claims of other East Asian monarchies to the title may have been accepted for diplomatic purposes, but it was not necessarily used in more general contexts.
- BlackRanger88: "There are no similar passages describing Eastern views on the legitimacy of Western monarchies and so-forth."
- Francis Schonken: ""emperor" is a Western concept, explain the Japanese view in the Tenno article, the Chinese view at Emperor of China etc.
- BlackRanger88: "Would you mind explaining your reasoning against my revision on the page more clearly? What exactly are you asking me to explain?"
...explaining:
It is an interesting question whether in Japan a Western emperor would be called a Tenno in Japanese. If there are sources on this, the content can be added to the encyclopedia (presumably at the Tenno article). Similar for Chinese: would a Western emperor be called a Huángdì in Chinese? Whether or not the answers to these questions are included in the encyclopedia, and if so on what page, doesn't change the viability of the content in the box above to stay in the Emperor article. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just thought that the passage was out of place since there isn't a similar passage describing how, for example, Chinese emperors didn't "accept" the imperial status of Western emperors, due to the fact that they believed they were the center of the world and thus had no equal. Yet, this passage in the East Asian section describes which imperial thrones were "accepted" by Western powers, and which were not. Considering how ridiculous adding a passage describing how Eastern rulers cast doubt on the legitimacy of Western rulers is, perhaps you can see how equally strange it seems when the roles are reversed, such as in this case.
BlackRanger88 (
talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with either. Wouldn't know what would be strange about it. Do you have a source for the Eastern view? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the article covers an English word for a concept shared by the main European languages, which they were always ready to apply globally. The various East Asian concepts are something else again. Johnbod ( talk) 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just thought that the passage was out of place since there isn't a similar passage describing how, for example, Chinese emperors didn't "accept" the imperial status of Western emperors, due to the fact that they believed they were the center of the world and thus had no equal. Yet, this passage in the East Asian section describes which imperial thrones were "accepted" by Western powers, and which were not. Considering how ridiculous adding a passage describing how Eastern rulers cast doubt on the legitimacy of Western rulers is, perhaps you can see how equally strange it seems when the roles are reversed, such as in this case.
BlackRanger88 (
talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I removed the redirect to Donald Trump that was at the top of this page, but it appears to still be redirecting. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. 75.72.196.36 ( talk) 04:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Genghis Khan image should not be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guardian101 has been blocked for disruptive editing. He made many edits that were against consensus and what sources stated. His vote is null. This discussion is also meaningless. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree – not representative enough. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree - First of all, this "discussion" is an absolute farce and is meaningless. The person who started it (Guardian 101) is now permanently banned for being a horribly disruptive editor. He was also topic banned before from the Genghis Khan article. Second, Francis Schonken added an "Agree" comment to this discussion and then very quickly removed the Genghis Khan lead image. Without waiting for other responses or developments. That's totally inappropriate, especially because the Genghis Khan image was the lead image for months and had silent consensus for it to be there. When he wants to remove the image, the burden of proof or argument is on him. Until then, the status quo of the article is supposed to be maintained. The status quo is the lead image.
- Furthermore, Genghis Khan is one of the greatest conquerors to ever live. This is widely recognized to be true by historians. He was the first emperor of the Mongol Empire, which was incredibly influential and the second largest empire in history. He is a perfect example of an emperor. So right now, this meaningless "discussion" stands at 1-1 since Guardian101 is banned. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 08:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
By 1979, after the short-lived Central African Empire (1976-1979), Emperor Shōwa was the only monarch in the world with the title emperor. That statement is wrong, because the emperor of Iran ended slightly later than central africa empires emperor (1979) 2404:8000:1027:85F6:E97F:3667:2338:6960 ( talk) 06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Why it is not assumed as a imperial title? IMPERATOR TOTIVS TAIVANIAE ( talk) 06:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class national militaries articles
- National militaries task force articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Mid-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles