Talk:Emperor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page one

United Kingdom is a stretch, IMHO. Weren't the British monarchs from Victoria onwards titled "king/queen of Britain and emperor/empress of India"? - clasqm

---

That last section says "Emperors without an Empire", but, aside from the one I just added, the two given so far seem more like examples of empires without emperors. I'll read into that a bit more when I have some time, see which way they went. -- JohnOwens 10:06 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

OK, seems it's just the way the contributor worded it, putting the name of the country first then the Emperor, even though the section's labeled "Emperors without an Empire", implying that the subject of a listing should be the person, not the place. I'll tidy that up soon. -- JohnOwens

---

I can't see any grounds to distinguish Brazil from the other Empires or "Empires" of the age. Similar to India it was a large non European colony proclaimed Empire and it was more long-lived than either France or Germany as Empires. -- Mic 00:17 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

If "Norton I of USA" is added, then maybe I should add "Emperor of Kowloon" or "King of Kowloon". Haha......... wshun 04:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Try to search the image of "King of Kowloon". Get some on the net but I am afraid that they maybe copyrighted. Any idea? --- wshun

In Cantonese, emperor & king are both wong, but is he (in Mandarin) wang (king) or huang (emperor)?

--Menchi 18:47, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

He called himself huangdi. Well, sometimes we call him huangdi also :P

I would rather remove Norton I of USA than adding king of Kowloon. Do you agree of the removal? wshun 18:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I gave his article (which is strangely POV toward Norton) a careful read. He has no notable supporters, just notable people who showed him pity because he was a freak and a mentally ill (those two things may not go together always -- if treated). At least the Emperor of Kowloon was respected for his forty-year long persistance in grafitting!

However, Norton was really, I mean, really deluded that he really was an emperor. Either that or he enjoys being the occasional topics of ladies in parasols drinking from teacups (and yet expected no donations from rich people). In another word, he was very out-of-touch with reality.

Norton saw himself not just emperor in title, but also in act -- and he walked around pretending so, he wrote quasi-formal decrees. This is not the case with the "Emperor of Kowloon". Nor is it like any major self-proclaimed non-dynastic emperors in premodern China -- who might have been insane, but at least got sizable armies.

So, Norton was a freak, in my viewing, but he was a big freak, so maybe his fame deserves a mentioning here. But if he's the only one in the world who's so self-indulged, then it cannot be an item a list, but rather, an anecdote mentioned at the bottom of the article. --Menchi 19:43, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, it's a big mistake to conflate the use of the term emperor in Europe with the use of it to describe non-European monarchs. The Kaiser, the Czar, and Napoleon all claimed to be the successors to the Emperors of Rome - that's why they used the title emperor. They were intentionally making a distinction between themselves and the kings of Europe.

In the case of Japan and China, on the other hand, the title emperor was assigned by Europeans who were translating the titles of the monarchs of those countries. It's not all that clear why head of Japan should be an emperor, since the origin of the Japanese monarchy is closer to the history of the English monarchy than to that of Russia, Germany or Rome. I think the article should be written to point this out.

                                                -December 12, 2003

---

Should Vietnam be listed under the Ancient Empires section? Vietnam itself is indeed ancient, but the Nguyen dynasty (the one which used the title "Emperor") was established only in the 19th century. While Vietnam is ancient, the Empire of Vietnam (which is what is displayed) was not. Should it be moved, then? -- Vardion 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was just a little concerned about the state of the English expressed in the last sentence of the first paragraph. It doesn't make good sense.

They may be obtain their position hereditarily, or by force, such as a coup d'état.

I would put "they may obtain their position through hereditary passage..."etc. I think this would make more sense myself what do others feel? But surely you can't say they may be obtain their position it just doesn't make sense. Also i think in this context that hereditary sounds better than hereditarily. It sounds funny to me.

Vietnamese status Questionable

The status of Vietnam as an empire is questonable at least, certainly it has never been as powerful as China, and during the entire reign of the Nguyen dynasty the monarch who called himself "Emperor" among his own people was only recognized as king by the Chinese, a vassal of the Chinese Emperor. This lasted until the Sino-French War when France defeated China and forced the Qing Emperor to recognize France as overlord for Vietnam, they also made sure that the great seal from China, used by the Vietnamese, was destroyed and replaced by a new one. After that time, the French always referred to the nominal Nguyen monarch as "roi d'Annam" similar to the Chinese (An Nam means 'conquered south').

Certainly it is true that those who were under the control of the Vietnamese ruler were forced to recognize him as "Hoang De" (Emperor) but most people have always called him "Vua" (king) and during the whole Nguyen dynasty reign, from Gia Long to Bao Dai, the so-called Vietnamese Emperor always openly recognized either the Qing Emperor or the French governments as their superior, so I would say, while they were emperors in Vietnam, in reality Vietnam cannot be considered an empire like the others, certainly not so during the Nguyen dynasty, it would be, perhaps, more correct during the early Le dynasty.

Also, the only time the country was actually called "Empire of Vietnam" was during the period of rule by the Japanese (there wasn't even real independence), before that it was states within Indochina, before that Dai Nam, before that Viet Nam, before that Nam Viet, etc, the most grand name the country ever had on its own was Dai Viet, but it was only during the brief weeks in 1945, just before the Japanese surrender that the "Empire of Vietnam" existed and even then, it in no way had real control over the country, it was under enemy occupation by Japan.

NguyenHue

Thanks for the information, that's really facinating, but I don't believe autonomy or independence is a prerequisite for being an Empire? If they called themself an Empire (which, to me seems like a very flexible term) then they're an Empire. But I'm not all that sure about it. --Duemellon 13:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

different matter then

One thing I pointed out was that Vietnam only was ever actually called the "Empire of Vietnam" for a few months in 1945 when Japan established a puppet government under the last Emperor just before the war ended.

Also, if it is simply a matter of listing anyone who calls themself 'emperor' then why is only the Nguyen Dynasty listed? Vietnamese rulers been calling themselves emperor among their own people for hundreds and hundreds of years before 1802. Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam is not ancient, was not in power for very long and only independent for a fraction of that time. So why are they listed and not any of the Tay Son, the Le Dynasty, the Ly Dynasty, the Ho Dynasty, the Ngo Dynasty or any of the rest?

NguyenHue

Meaning

I agree with whoever posted about confusing the title Emperor in the emulation of Roman traditions and other non-european titles which mean some form of 'king of kings' or claiming to the a ruler above other rulers like the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire or the Emperor of China. There is a dinstinct theme in European history involving the idea of being 'Emperor' as a mythical unique position. This can be seen in the conflicts between various western emperors and those in Byzantium, the investiture contest between emperors and popes, and the proliferation of the title following Napoleons destruction of the traditional structure of Europe. When the Grand Dukes of Muscovy proclaimed themselves Tsars they were claiming to be the successors of Rome through Byzantium even going so far as to call Moscow the 'third Rome'. This is pattern in all European rulers that claimed this title even down to the matter of the colour purple being used as the colour of an emperor.

A distinction should be drawn between rulers of 'empires' in the sense of a state conquering other states and pretentions to being a successor of the Romans. The idea of the Mandate of Heaven used by Chinese rulers to justify their position is completely different to looking back to Augustus Caesar or Constantine the Great.

gwai

why do i have a feeling a gwai lo wrote this article

Emperor vs. Dictator

Someone added a section on distinguishing between these two words, to which I later added some supplemental material. Another editor removed the whole thing as irrelevant, which is fine. Should the material ever be readded by someone else, then these linkages [[Soviet Union|Russia]], [[May Coup|Poland]] should be added to the list of republics that separately installed dictators between the two world wars.--StanZegel 23:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I was worried that more would be included since there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples. I didnt want it to be an article within an article. My edits (which I still feel were better) were reversed. One must ask why this section should be included. Is it to describe the replacement of a republic with a monarchy (or vice-versa)? Is it to show republican leaders acquiring dictatorial powers without monarchical titles? Is it to compare and contrast a hereditary title with a position (de jure or de facto)? That section tried to accomplish all three in a single paragraph which made it unfocused. I hope someone else will agree with me and remove it.--Countakeshi 00:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, have no objections to it being removed. I was just doing cleanup on that section without thought of whether the underlaying subject even belonged in the article. And you are right, it does tend to draw additional examples (as I was adding). I think your rhetorical question of whether anyone seriously confuses the two is a valid one. --StanZegel 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am deeply unimpressed with this section. A look at the history of the beginnings of the Roman Empire will show that the conception of Imperator as being a title of a particular kind of monarch took quite some time to develop. Beyond this, the section seems irrelevant. I'm going to remove it. john k 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I started the section, as a result of

The term "emperor" is in many cases interchangeable with "dictator" or "king", but there are subtle differences.

being in the header section, so someone must have been unable to make the distinction. See also my comments on User talk:Countakeshi. --Francis Schonken 07:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Augustus Caesar was never a dictator, see Lex Antonia. Napoleon was never a dictator. Simon Bolivar was a dictator but no one ever calls him an emperor. These two offices are distinct, no one should be confused. I already explained that Augustus Caesar was the first monarchical imperator because the title became hereditary and exclusive. Julius Caesar was both imperator and dictator but they existed as separate offices, one military and the other civil, and neither was hereditary nor exclusive. As a title, no one has used "dictator" to describe themselves since probably the nineteenth century.--Countakeshi 10:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am deeply unimpressed by your explanations. The (Roman) "imperator" title was not near to define the (later) "Emperor" concept, imperator being just one of the many titles the most important rulers (republican as well as imperial) collected. The "imperator" title was not made heriditary in the sense of indicating the ruling monarch. Lex Antonia is not defining the "dictator" concept as it is used in the 21st century: see (for instance) republic (dialogue), someone wrote there that those that had used the comparable concept "tyrant" for the first time, didn't use the word in it's present meaning.

But basicly what makes your reasoning dodgy is that you seemingly can't distinguish between "no one should be confused" (to which I agree) and people getting confused all the time. For that reason: if all things over which people shouldn't get confused were to be thrown out of wikipedia, than everything can be thrown out. People "shouldn't" confuse birds with mammals, still wikipedia is there to describe the distinction. If someone wrote in the article The term "emperor" is in many cases interchangeable with "dictator" [...] it is clear people get confused over this issue, so wikipedia is there to explain the difference.

--Francis Schonken 11:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: that the title of imperator became hereditary and exclusive from Augustus on, is to be qualified as an urban legend. People "should not" get confused over that! --Francis Schonken 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

PS2: something else seemingly confusing you is that "dictator" or "dictature" is not always used as an "official" title or "approved" state organisation qualification: Portugal, Spain, Greece, Pakistan, Italy, Germany (etc.) all still had a "dictature" epoch in the 20th century, with one or more "dictators", that's why I wrote explicitly "some kind of dictator", in order not to get confused that there is more than one definition of "dictator" (Lex Antonia probably being one of the most "deprecated" of such definitions) --Francis Schonken 12:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The description of 20thC leaders as dictators is a pejorative POV. Sure I would call them dictators too, but they would never address themselves as such (and neither do their admirers who venture wiki). Does the section compare emperor with dictator (office) or dictator (pejorative)? I would also like to know how hereditary and exclusive is erroneous, it is widespread even in wikipedia.--Countakeshi 12:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

For "dictators in the 20th century" I more or less understood what is noted down in wikipedia: Dictator#Modern_era; still, with "some kind of dictator" I meant even a wider scope "any of the usual definitions of dictator", the whole range from the most "benevolent" one to the most "tyrant"-like: all of these definitions are enclosed in the dictator article, so using the link with square brackets in the article (as I did) should suffise to explain what I intended when I used the word "dictator", especially in the phrase "some kind of dictator".

"It is widespread [...] in wikipedia" is not very usable as an argument, see wikipedia:avoid self references. The question is whether it is widespread outside wikipedia, and then it is advised to give sound references (see: wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia:cite sources) - somehow I always come up to the same wall of people being unable to give such references for example for "imperator" being hereditary and exclusive: a reference contradicting that statement is, for instance, Tacitus' Annals I,3, where it is remarked that the Imperator title was (under Augustus' reign) bestowed on two persons (so no exclusivity), irrespective of whether or not they were possible heirs of Augustus' power (Tacitus specifically remarks that at the time of bestowing these two men with the "imperator" title, there was no expectation whatsoever one of them could become one of Augustus' successors).

Similarly I've not yet found a shred of plausible reference for the statement that "Augustus received the title of princeps in the meaning of first citizen". The phrase for which the references are available is that Augustus received the title of "princeps senatus", which could be translated in "president of the senate" or even with some imagination in "the first one among the elder ones". "princeps" (which in that case could be translated as something like "president" or "primus inter pares" or even just "the first one"), developed in a sort of shorthand for "princeps senatus", but the single word "princeps" was almost certainly not used at the time Augustus "officially" received the title, while then it would be confusing with, among other possibilities, princeps iuventutis (the first one among the younger ones). Even if during the ceremony assigning the princeps senatus office to Augustus de facto only the word "princeps" would have been used, it could never translate in first citizen, while that was apparently nowhere implied at the time. Unless someone turns up with a sound reference of course!

--Francis Schonken 13:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Count Akeshi - confusing dictator (office) with dictator (pejorative) is distinctly unhelpful. (And describing Greek tyrants as non-monarchical dictators is even worse - many tyrants took on the attributes of Kingship). Some discussion of how the originally relatively minor title of Imperator came to be the main title of the Roman Emperors, and how the Roman Emperors came themselves to be akin to monarchs, is certainly in order. But there's no need to baggage it with an extremely vague discussion of dictators. Especially since using "dictator" in the Roman context is very different from using it in the modern (pejorative) context. Augustus was never Dictator, because when discussing ancient Rome, that term is specifically reserved to describing the office of Dictator. Whether or not Augustus was a dictator (small d) is a matter of POV, I think. john k 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What's this about "confusing dictator (office) with dictator (pejorative)"? What I tried to say is that there is still also "dictator (benevolent, not pejorative and not necessarily office)" as a generally accepted meaning of dictator. I used "dictator" in the general meaning of "autocratic ruler", as indicated in the text (third sentence: "[...] such autocratic rulers [...]"), which again makes clear the term is used regardless of favorable/pejorative office/non-office connotations. In other words I used "dictator" the way it is defined by wikipedia. What could be "confusing" about that?

Then I made a sentence which reads: "Republics have in many cases shown a tendency to appoint some kind of dictator as their head of state or commander-in-chief." Well, in fact I didn't make the sentence, I translated/adapted it from Dutch: some weeks ago an interviewee on the Radio station I listen to most often said something like "As is a known fact in political science, based on ample examples in history, for democracies (or maybe he said "republics", I'm not completely sure about that any more) there is always a danger for tending to recur to dictators". Which makes sense IMHO, can be provided with a reference, etc...

Then I say this applies to (among other examples) the transition from Republican to Imperial Rome. Where did I say this applies to Augustus? Nowhere. In the "Ancient Rome" example it applies formemost to "the first dictator for life" Julius Caesar, whose heirs were successful in establishing monarchy (not a single contradiction with the text).

I also used other examples, from states not knowing an "office" which is named, or could be translated as, "dictator" (e.g. First French Republic), which should indeed make clear that the distinction made between "emperor" and "dictator", is between "all sorts of dictators, including Dictators" (which are always autocrats) and "all sorts of emperors" (which are always monarchs), therewith rebutting the remark, planted by someone else in the article, that the distinction between "dictators" and "emperors" is somehow blurred. I showed the distinction is not about "subtle differences", but can be explained in very plain and clear general terms.

Neither did I describe or even insinuate "Greek tyrants as non-monarchical dictators". "Turannos" was the usual name for a king before it became "Basileus". The meaning shifted somewhere between Sophocles ("Oidipous Turannos", not in the modern meaning of tyrant or dictator), and later Attic writers. The implication of the text in Plato's Republic was that not even all of those called "turannos" in Plato's time were necessarily "tyrant (pejorative)". Some rulers were obviously "king" without being "autocrat", for instance the periods when "democracy" ruled in ancient Athens, there was usually a "king" too. Other forms of mixed government existed. How many of the ancient Greek rulers could be considered dictator and/or king I could not say, but certainly some were both an "autocratic ruler" and a "monarch". That's not unclarity over the distinction: only I never said monarchy and dictature were mutually exclusive.

Either you think The term "emperor" is in many cases interchangeable with "dictator" or "king", but there are subtle differences a valid contribution to the article, either, I'm sure you can explain in less words than I did what's wrong with it. Simply erasing that sentence was probably an option too, but then, why wasn't it erased before (appears it already was there for some time)? Also my intuition tells me that this (or some comparable) statement will return if it's not properly handled in the article. Hence, my question to you: what would you put in the article to tackle this (could you give a concrete text please, I know it's easier to say what's not OK than suggest something workable)?--Francis Schonken 19:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Francis - I do not think that the term "emperor" is in any cases interchangeable with "dictator." I will add - I was speaking too loosely in terms of "dictator (pejorative)," although I think the term is normally used pejoratively. I should have distinguished between "dictator (specific office)" and "dictator (general term)." Since "Emperor" is always a specific office, I see little reason to distinguish between "emperor (specific office)" and "dictator (general term)." Of course, many emperors can be dictators - the Shah certainly was one, and so was Napoleon. Emperors are never Dictators, because the two terms are essentially mutually exclusive. I just don't see in what sense the terms are to be confused with one another. john k 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the term "emperor" is in any cases interchangeable with "dictator." - well, neither do I think that "birds" and "mammals" are interchangeable (etc..., see above): I just say that's not useful as argument on whether or not to include in wikipedia. And people do confuse, that why it's up to us (the not-confusing-ones) to clarify the notions. I don't see an answer to that point yet.

Further, note that "Emperor" is not always a "specific office", that's why any name for the office of the first Roman Emperors is "retroactive" construction, from the first one ("princeps", as in Tacitus Annals, I, 1) over "Caesar" (Suetonius, who btw includes Julius Caesar), all "Caesar" derivatives (e.g. "Kaiser" in German) up to the "Imperator" derivatives (incl. "Empereur" in French). So there's no "mutual exclusivity of offices" as a general rule. Further, "Imperator" was a specific office in Rome, and not "mutually exclusive" with Dictator (as office), among others Julius Caesar held both at the same time. The "office" of Roman Emperor in the early days can only be defined in terms of "accumulation of offices" (Imperator, Tribunicia potestas or Dictator, Pontifex maximus, Consul, etc...) + accumulation of "honorific titles and cognomina" (Augustus, Caesar,...) which resulted in a monarchy that was not a monarchy by kings, while Romans didn't want to return to the notion of a "King", as much as they rejected "Dictator" as an office after Julius Caesar. Of these offices only "Dictator" and "Tribunicia potestas" were mutually exclusive (if recognising a difference between "tribune" and "tribunicia potestas"): Julius Caesar was the last "Dictator", "Tribunicia potestas" was only invented by Augustus, several years after Julius Caesar's death, and was as a manner of speech the "replacement" of the Dictator concept. "Tribunicia potestas", literally the power of a tribune, far extended the power of tribunes before and after the creation of the new title. Considering it a eufemism for "power of a Dictator" would not be too far from the truth. Augustus however took heed no to excert this power in a too tyrannical way, while some of his successors would do otherwise after his death. Note that "Tribunicia potestas" could be shared by several members of the "imperial" family at the same time, e.g. by Augustus and Tiberius.

So no, I don't think your way of clarifying the distinction between "Emperor" and "dictator/Dictator" really works: it doesn't even apply to the dynasty that invented the "Emperor" type of monarchy in the West. --Francis Schonken 23:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If we want to distinguish between Julius Caesar's office as Dictator and Augustus's various offices, we should do that in the section on Rome. Beyond that, I simply don't understand what you are getting at. It is not as though people look at Akihito and ask "is he an emperor or a dictator?" It is not really as though people say this of Nicholas II or Wilhelm II, either - or at least, it is not their status as emperors which leaves them liable to accusations of being dictators. Similarly, one does not ask this question of, say, Muammar Qaddafi (who probably is the closest person at present to holding an official title of Dictator.) In fact, I can think of no dictators whom one would possibly think were Emperors, with the exception of Julius Caesar. And aside from a small number of dictators who made themselves emperor, like Napoleon, Bokassa, Dessalines, and so forth, there are few emperors who are confused with dictators. The terms simply aren't intertwined closely in any noticeable way. The specific issue of the Roman titles should be dealt with in the section about Rome. There is no need for any kind of discrimination about the words in general, because people don't generally confuse them. Certainly the Persian and Far Eastern traditions of Emperorship have no relationship to the idea of a dictator, and the western tradition only did in its very earliest stages, and due to the actions of a small number of usurpers who took the title. john k 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"If we want to distinguish between Julius Caesar's office as Dictator and Augustus's various offices, we should do that in the section on Rome.": I don't think so, that's too much detail for the Emperor article, further it is already in the Roman emperor article (and some pages linked from there). So I don't see any need to put that anywhere on the Emperor page. I only tried to refresh your memory in order that you would see that your way of making the distinction is not as universally applicable as mine.

What I'm getting at? That you answer to the question whether or not "things that shouldn't be confused" should be automatically thrown out of Wikipedia?

Less than 2 days ago the first paragraph of the article read:

An emperor is the male head of state of an empire who reigns for life. Empress is the feminine form and can either be the wife of an emperor or a woman who rules an empire. The term "emperor" is in many cases interchangeable with "dictator" or "king", but there are subtle differences.

Nobody seemed to mind the interchangeable with "dictator" being in that first paragraph, it was not about the specifics of any particular dynasty, so someone had the question and/or confusion about Empereror/dictator interchangeability in general. We all agree that's not the best way of explaining the relation between "dictator" (as in wikipedia) and Emperor. So I provided a better solution to clarify the relation between those two concepts. I even explained in a short general paragraph the usual source of this confusion, that is Republic-to-imperial-reign transitions. There's no remark I did it badly, only that either "nobody has the question/confusion" - which is denying fact; or "wikipedia shouldn't explain things that are not to be confused" which is not a valid argument in my view.

The rest of your story is limited to "what you can think of", in my eyes very limited indeed: I've met people that think any Emperor is by definition presiding a dictature: even extremely popular films like Star Wars (and so many others, even less fictional) have no additional content for the "Emperor" concept than that it is a dictature.

Your list of imperial dictators also seems very limited. Don't know whether Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and so many others before a general application of "constitutional monarchy" ring any bells. Even Franz Joseph's more dictatorial characteristics were glossed over by the heavily romanticised Sissi fairy tale.

Further, the last half of your contribution seemingly reverts to dictator exclusively in the "office" meaning, which is not the "general" meaning of the confusion over the dictator/Emperor interchangeability I tried to give an answer to. --Francis Schonken 00:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is denying that some emperors can be considered "dictators" in the sense that, I suppose, any non-constitutional monarch can be considered a dictator. But that's an issue of someone being both - "Nicholas II was an emperor and a dictator." (I would prefer to use the term "autocrat" for such monarchs, though). To call Nicholas II or Franz Joseph or whoever a "dictator" is not necessarily to actually be confused about the difference between an Emperor and a Dictator is. Nicholas II and Franz Joseph are being called dictators (if they are so called) because of interpretations of their actions as monarch. Nobody who calls Franz Joseph a dictator is saying that merely by his status as Emperor he was a dictator. The two are separate categories. The supposed "confusion" between Emperor and Dictator in this sense is no greater than that between King and Dictator (Carol II of Romania and Alexander I of Yugoslavia were most definitely both); between Regent and Dictator (Miklos Horthy, say, or Prince Paul of Yugoslavia); between President and Dictator (a great number of African strongmen, and many others); or between Prime Minister and Dictator (Miguel Primo de Rivera and Benito Mussolini, for instance). The fact that there are individuals who combine both roles does not mean a) that anyone is becoming confused between the two roles; or b) that we need a whole section to distinguish between them. The basic fact is that, other than the Roman issue, there is really absolutely nothing to say about this issue. An Emperor is a monarch who can rule in any number of ways, ranging from traditional feudalism to pure autocracy to modern quasi-fascist dictatorship to semi-constitutional monarchy to full on "the emperor is a figurehead with no power at all" constitutional monarchy. A dictator is a description sometimes given to a ruler who rules in an undemocratic manner and can have any number of titles. The two concepts are different types of concept. Emperor is always a specific title. Dictator is almost never a specific title. In the instances that Dictator is a special title, it is not confused with Emperor at all. In the cases where dictator is a general term, it cannot be confused with Emperor, because the two are different categories. As to the fact that some stupid sentence I disagree with sat in the article for a long time before you changed it - I really don't see how I have to make an argument on this at all. I disagree with your section, and I disagree with the sentence saying that the term Emperor can be interchangeable with Dictator. If I had seen that sentence before this mess got started, I would not have assumed that it somehow this sentence reflected the general will. I would have removed it as inaccurate. john k 07:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, that sentence you keep on quoting was added by an anon two months ago [1]. Given the level of attention that most wikipedia articles get, I don't think it's fair to act as though such a thing standing for two months indicates anything other than that nobody much looked over that part of the article over that time period. So quit using its presence for those two months as evidence of anything. john k 07:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That the two concepts are different type of concepts is what can be explained in wikipedia, because that distinction does not seem to be made always clearly by everyone (whether appearing as vandalism in the article or as an underlying paradigm of a series of hollywood movies). Anyway it seems you needed a lot more text to explain that simple factual distinction than I did ("The essential difference between a "dictator" and an "emperor" is that the latter is always a monarch, while the former is always an autocrat."). Admittedly your explanation is more complete. Not always more correct: you still make the error that "Emperor is always a specific title", which is only retro-actively more-or-less true (if not leaning to much on "specific") for the first generations of Roman Emperors (historians keep disagreeing on this point, and they even more disagree what that "title" would be).

Further, you gave me the idea to make a more generic version of the "dictator (tyrant/autocrat/despot)" vs. "monarch (king/emperor/prince/...)" type of concept distinction, and move it to the "monarch" article (if it's not there already). That will allow to extend possible examples to e.g. Franco/Juan Carlos. So I'll not be bothering any more about this on the "Emperor" page (where indeed, you're right, it is too specific).

And I'll rearrange the useless double title ("distinctions" - "difference king/emperor") to a more logical lay-out, if you didn't do that already. --Francis Schonken 08:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting a discussion on the monarch page would make sense - I have no problem with that. john k 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a better section would describe how "emperor" is used as a pejorative on a leader who does not hold a hereditary title. For example, Jiang Qing was denounced as an empress after the Gang of Four was arrested. "King" is also used but only for a leader's domestic policy. "Emperor" is reserved for a leader's foreign policy.--Countakeshi 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"emperor" [...] as a pejorative on a leader who does not hold a hereditary title. I don't see a reason to include that in introductory paragraphs: it seems too specific for the example you name, and can be noted in the China section. I'd reserve the introductory paragraphs for things that are applicable to Emperors in general (e.g. what distinhuishes them from dictators, in general). Also the domestic/foreign policy distinction seems far from a standard practice for emperors. --Francis Schonken 23:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mauryas

If the Mauryas are to be described as Emperors (should the Guptas, as well?), we should explain what their titles were in Sanskrit, shouldn't we? john k 01:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to include pre-Mughal Indians too but the titles bothered me. Maharaja and especially maharajadhiraja are good candidates but they were treated as inferior vassals by both the Mughals and the British. The British went so far as to call them "prince".

The Pahlavis in Iran definately wanted foreigners to call them emperors and the official name of their country was Empire of Iran.--Countakeshi 03:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

They were, however, not actually called Emperors, in English at least - they were always called "Shahs." I think we should stick to rulers who either have a title which has been recognized somewhere as imperial, even if it is not usually translated as Emperor for them (for instance, the Afghan monarchs who are always called "Kings" in English, despite having the same Padishah title that is usually translated "Emperor" for the Moguls.); and rulers who are normally called Emperor in English. Rulers whose title might be translated as Emperor, but is not actually done so, like Maharajas, should not be included. john k 04:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Emperor" not "Empire"

I don't know how this came to be, but the page seems to evolve from a page about the "emperor" concept to a page about the "empire" concept. There is a separate Empire page, where the history of Empires is told (and can be strucured/expanded if needed).

So I'd like to change subtitles like "Roman Empire", "Byzantine Empire", "Holy Roman Empire" (back) to subtitles less inviting to write about the rise and fall of Empires, but rather about the characteristics of the "Emperor" office in diverse contexts:

• "Roman Empire" -> "Ancient Rome"
• "Byzantine Empire" -> "Byzantium"
• "Holy Roman Empire" -> "Holy Roman Emperor"

I'd like to ask User:Countakeshi to cooperate on this effort and review some of his recent edits, e.g. of the "Holy Roman Empire" section, which involved rather deletion of the "emperor"-related content than of the "empire"-related content.

--Francis Schonken 12:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I too was worried about empire creeping into this page which should be about the title. I know it is impossible to completely divorce the title from its historical context. That would require deleting "Historical development" which is most of the article. We could truncate it but that might appear to be a simple list of times and places where "emperor" is used. Some might object to the loss of data (some obscure) the article has accumulated over time.

Here's my suggestion: Keep "Historical development" and its major subsections (Roman, Qin, Persian, and Other). Under each subsection keep only the first part (ancient rome, China, Iran). All other parts (HRE, russia, india, ect) will be reduced to a list with short notes. "Other traditions" is exempt due to its uniqueness.--Countakeshi 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah no, you seem to misunderstand: you deleted:

After the 13th century and the fall of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the universalistic aspirations of the Emperors became increasingly theoretical, and their control over Italy [...] became increasingly tenuous.

Which is info about dynasties, extent of power of the Emperors, etc... then you kept:

Pressure [...] made the empire untenable, so that [...] Francis I, [...] allowed the dissolution of the Empire on August 6, 1806.

which is "rise and fall of empires".

I don't know how to make this clear to you. Your hacking into the text of this article is sometimes very deplorable, along with some very good contributions too. I don't know how to make clear which are the deplorable ones and which are the commendable ones. --Francis Schonken 13:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my intention was to reduce sections into title adoption, changes of title, and end of title use. This unintentionally but usually corresponds with "rise and fall of empires". "Extent of power" was considered "rise" and could be found in the Holy Roman Empire article itself so I deleted it. "Extent of power" varies so much it would be best left for other articles. As for dynasties, I would omit them simply because of their sheer number (imagine China).--Countakeshi 14:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"extent of power of the Emperors" meaning "the level of power of the office (of emperor) within his realm, whatever that realm is" - Not "the amount of square kilometers of the Empire". I think indeed you don't understand. Extent of power of the Emperors belongs in an Emperor article (who stopped you from creating additional Emperor articles if needing more space?); Extent of the Empire in the Empire articles. Please go work on "Empire" articles if you can't see the difference. --Francis Schonken 14:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is becoming very unwieldy. Surely just providing links to other pages: Roman Emperor, Byzantine Emperor, Holy Roman Emperor is enough. We dont need to duplicate information. The readers can just surf to individual articles they want to learn more about. Please give briefer summaries.--Countakeshi 23:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you guys are on about. The notion of an empire and of an emperor are closely intertwined. So long as we are not talking about Empires without Emperors (e.g. the British Empire or the American Empire, or whatever), I don't see the problem with having section headings on the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, or whatever. It seems absurd to have sections saying the same thing, but with different titles. The "Roman Empire" section was not about the Roman Empire, but about the office of Emperor within the Roman Empire. It makes sense to specify the Roman Empire, because the other parts of ancient Rome (the Kingdom and the Republic) did not have Emperors. I'm also not sure why we should hack out material at all. For instance, in the Holy Roman Empire stuff above, why can't we leave in both some discussion of the decreasing power of the Emperors after the Hohenstaufen and the dissolution of the Empire (which, after all, entailed the end of the Empire). Both would seem to be necessary for a brief discussion of the office of Holy Roman Emperor - certainly the latter is. john k 07:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the article is about (or should be about) Emperors. "Roman Empire" is sometimes used as translation of "Imperium Romanum" (which started before Imperial Rome), so creating confusion when used on this page (etc...). Another example: "Austria" as used presently on the Emperor page only partly overlaps with later geographical forms of the "Austrian Empire", so I'd rather merge the present "Austria" section with "Holy Roman Emperor" section (it was no more than a two-year postlude to the multi-centennial epoch of Holy Roman Emperors) than pushing it all in "by geography" format (which is more suited on the many "Empire" pages in wikipedia, that are also more suited in clarifying the changes in geographical extent of the governed regions).

When there is a dislocking between "title of Emperor" and related "Empire" (which happens more often than John seems to see, see also next section), the present page should rather follow the "Imperial title" line than the "by Empire" line (again, there are enough pages to proceed with that last line of thought). I think this is reasonable, don't you? --Francis Schonken 10:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A two-year postlude? What are you talking about? The title of Emperor of Austria lasted for 114 years (1804-1918)! Beyond this, I really don't understand what you are talking about. At any rate, the important thing about focusing on the Emperors (an idea with which I agree, but I find the differences usually difficult to discern - the absence of an Emperor in an Empire that usually has one is not unrelated to the existence of said Empire) is going to be in the article text, not the headers, which are just for ease of use. I particularly dislike the idea that we have to head it "Byzantium" because you don't like the word "Empire." "Byzantium" and "Byzantine Empire" in this sense mean exactly the same thing. I don't understand why you think the word empire should be banned from this page. john k 15:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Imperium maius

Text moved from article page by Francis Schonken:

In Christian Europe the use of the title emperor is more than an affectation. A king recognises that the church is an equal or superior in the religious sphere, emperors do not. This was illustrated by Henry VIII of England who started to use the word imperium in his dispute with the Pope over his first divorce. By stating that they were emperors the Russian Tsars claimed to be the head of the (Russian Orthodox) church and did not recognise any superior authority but God.

I really don't know what this is about, anyway again it makes a concoction of "empire" and "emperor", or in this case trying to imply that Henry VIII was "emperor" while he used the word "empire" - I don't even know whether all the claims in this paragraph are verifiable (did Henry use "empire" really the first time when making religious claims? Was he even using the word "empire" in the religious manner suggested? etc...)

So I moved this section here for further discussion. I think it is of insufficient value (even if sources can be found to support it), to keep it on the article page. Henry VIII was no emperor; the rest are surmisings; "A king recognises..." I haven't the faintest idea what the added value is w.r.t. the already mentioned "The monarch assumes divine or other high-ranked religious characteristics (see: imperial cult, caesaropapism)", to which I added (imperium maius), as characteristic for emperors (Francis Schonken 20:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)):

• Henry VIII was the first English king to claim that the crown was the Imperial crown See the Act in restraint of Appeals(1533) Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same. the Act of Supremacy (1534)"the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm"[2] and those in his relms had to acknowledge this[3] as they were by Acts of Parliament
• In 1542, Henry changed the title "Lord of Ireland" to "King of Ireland" after being advised that many Irish people regarded the Pope as the true head of their country, with the Lord acting as a mere representative authority.(text from the [[[Henry VIII of England]] article see also [4][5][6]
• This is why Tudor's became great historians and argued that the British Monarchy could be traced back to Brutus and New Troy. Google for references.

The James and Charles I's ideas on the Divine Right of Kings was a logical progeression of this way of thinking. And we all know here Charly ended up. --PBS 11:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Latin Emperors

Just to be conclusive here: None of the Latin Emperors before 1261 lived anywhere but Constantinople. Only one actually had a significant continental title - Baldwin I, the first Emperor, was Count of Flanders and Hainault. He was captured in battle by the Bulgarians shortly after taking the throne, and executed. His brother Henry, who succeeded him in his imperial title, did not succeed to Flanders and Hainault. Henry was already in Constantinople (or thereabouts) when he succeeded to the title, and stayed there until his death ten years later (in 1216). His successor was his brother-in-law, Peter of Courtenay, who was captured in battle and died in captivity. Peter's son Robert succeeded him - he also stayed in his realm most of the time, had no continental possessions to speak of, and died in Greece. Robert's brother Baldwin II succeeded him, and, again, stayed in Constantinople for all of his reign, until that city was retaken by the Nicaean Emperors in 1261. Thereafter, Baldwin and his son Philip, who were titular emperors, had no significant European lands to speak of. After Philip's death, the imperial title did become as you say - a title batted back and forth by various continental potentates who cared nothing for Greece or the Empire there. But that was not until long after 1261. People need to stop "clarifying" things by adding incorrect information. john k 07:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's another example of the emperor title not being clear: depending on reading of historians both Jeanne of Flanders (FYI "Johanna van Constantinopel" on Dutch wikipedia) and her sister Margaret II of Flanders ("Margaretha II van Constantinopel" on Dutch wikipedia) were the real Empresses after Baldwin, while Henry was no more than "regent" (not "Emperor"). Note that also the English Count of Flanders article notes both Jeanne and Margaret as "of Constantinopel", like their father Baldwin. Part of the historical uncertainty has to do with Baldwin "disappearing", with some uncertainty about his whereabouts for some time. Jeanne and Margaret being minor when he did, they even technicly couldn't give the title of Emperor to their uncle (so considering him an usurper to the Imperial throne is what some historians do). Some gentlemen's agreements may have become effective with retro-active effect later, but there's uncertainty whether and how they did. Anyway Margaret later showed no lenience towards usurpers of her West-European dominions. But that made she was probably too busy with that, and not with far-away Constantinople.

Even if considering Henry the "true" successor to the Imperial throne, there were several more episodes of the Emperor not being present in Constantinople, for example, from 1217 to 1219 Yolande was technically only "regent" for a missing Emperor who's wereabouts were unclear (true, he went not missing in Western Europe, but in Asia Minor). From 1219 to 1221 it took the new Emperor (son of a king ruling in Western Europe) three years to arrive in Constantinopel. When he died a new "regency" intermezzo followed.

Yes, I think we need to make separate lists: those who reigned the Latin Empire (as it is now on Latin Empire, and those who had the title of Emperor/Empress (e.g. on a separate Latin Emperor page) - It will make clear that nearly half of the time before 1261 the Emperors were not present, had other engagements in Western Europe, and were of noble blood in other reigning dynasties.

I have never seen either Jeanne or Margaret listed as Empress of Constantinople, nor have I ever heard them called it. If they used the title that is a mere curiosity - Henry, Yolande, and their heirs were always considered the proper emperors. As to the other interregnums, I suppose, but you are relying on some pretty dubious stuff to justify a clearly wrong interpellation. The implication of the material you put in was that for nearly all of its history, there were no Latin Emperors in Constantinople. While there were, indeed, a few times that there was no actual ruler (particularly the 1219-1221 interregnum), that is not the same. And Baldwin II was, so far as I am aware, in Constantinople for his minority. (And during his minority his father-in-law John of Brienne was Co-Emperor). Also, Robert was not the "son of a king ruling in Western Europe." He was the son of Pierre de Courtenay and Yolande. As was Baldwin II. And I would really love to see a real source that calls either Margaret or Jeanne Empress of Constantinople. This is not a matter of a legalistic, retroactive "by the laws of the Latin Empire [assuming it had any - I see no reason to assume that the Latin Empire functioned by male-preference primogeniture], Jeanne and Margaret were rightful Empresses of Constantinople." It is not up to us to decide who the rightful monarch was, and who was a usurper. John, Henry III, and the Lancastrian Kings of England are all recognized as proper kings, while Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany, Edmund Mortimer, and Richard of York are never so recognized. We do not recognize the Jacobite pretenders, either, or Henri V, or any of a multitude of other people who may have been "rightful" monarch of some place of which they were not actual monarch. The basic fact is that there actually was a Latin Empire, and that that Latin Empire recognized Henry, Peter, Yolanda, Robert, John of Brienne, and Baldwin II as its rulers. After the end of the Empire, the remaining feudatories of the Latin Empire continued to recognized Baldwin II, Philip, Catherine of Courtenay, Catherine of Valois, and the various Taranto princes as Emperor. Nobody, so far as I am aware, with any connection to the actual kingdom ever recognized Jeanne or Margaret or their heirs as Empress. john k 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, Jeanne or Margaret can be described as "Jeanne of Constantinople" or what because their father was Emperor, making them princesses of Constantinople, even if they are not considered to have reigned. The Dutch Wikipedia articles do not claim them as Empresses, I notice. john k 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If that separate page is made, of course all the detail of the Latin Emperors (all-in-all a title of limited practical significance) needn't be repeated on the general "Emperor" page. --Francis Schonken 09:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the article as it is discusses very many details of the Latin Emperors - just how they came to exist, the time that they existed, and that their title continued to be recognized by a few feudatories for about a century after the demise of the Empire proper in 1261. john k 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong, the only despot of Epirus that actually made himself emperor was Theodore Ducas from 1227-1230. His successors remained as despots.--Countakeshi 11:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that his successor John was also Emperor. The Nicaean Emperors captured Thessalonica from him in 1242 and he went back to the Despot title. It was, indeed, only a brief period (1227-1242) that they claimed to be Emperors. john k 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

@Fastifex

Please stop inserting statements like:

, which would have reflected Britain's de facto rank as greatest colonial power, while the royal style left His Britannic Majesty, in terms of protocol, the junior of archrivals France and Germany, weak Austria, poor Russia and even the Ottoman 'sick old man' Turkey

and:

radical

and:

rather nominal, de facto

in the emperor article. They're not referenced, not suitable in this overview article (if references are available, please insert in British Emperor, Kingdom of Mysore, or whatever article that is going in details over these issues)

• in terms of "emperor" George III's refusal to adopt the title is a non-event, barely worth mentioning in the "Emperor" article, and certainly not with an elaborate paragraph of steered interpretation of "what should have been".
• The degree of "radicalism" and changing "[...] the Mughal's (or: British) vassals [...]" to the convoluted and not additionally clarifying "[...] Mughal's (rather nominal, de facto British) vassals [...]" are not helpful in this overview article.

--Francis Schonken 11:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, also changing the operational link Ahmed Shah Durrani to the redlink Ahmed Shah Durranni can be considered useless playing games; the least you could have done is made a piped link or redirect page to Ahmed Shah Abdali --Francis Schonken 11:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of rolling over when you bark. Just in case you're allergic to the word greatests (I didn't mean it qualitative, as the term de facto confirms) and not just to British excellence (I'm allergic to neither, nor British) I've changed that, but since the title emperor carried no other right or advantage in the western world, protocol is the inevitably relevant thing to consider. Few muslim rulers were ever more radical then Tippu, especially in India, as I point out at several places (I'll look into British emperor too later; information being available somewhere else is however no excuse for withholding it where relevant too, expecting readers to link endlessly is sadistically unrealistic), always supported by sources in the sources section (Wikipedia is not a scientific monography, so no specific footnotes all over the place, even Britannica doens't do that); but not in Mysore, because that did not exist then as uch, it was one of several princely states absorbed by Khudadad. As for the link, I just copied the last version at that time, not realizing it was a red link- as I don't play games, once I read about the infortunate problem (a good thing you spotted it) I did what I consider better: in stead of just changing the one link here, I created a redirect, so now both names work. Fastifex 13:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, this has taken long enough. You want to push POV (even the basic provisions of, e.g., Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View#A simple formulation for converting opinions into facts are ignored by Fastifex); you refuse to give references (see: WP:V); you refuse to see that things that are not mentioned in the more detailed articles, should not go as "undoubted fact" in an article that gives an overview of a broad slice of history (... spanning over two millenia of emperors, why should we give any attention to "would-be"-history of non-emperors? - see e.g. wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance and wikipedia:Trivia); etc...

I placed a formal warning at User_talk:Fastifex#NPOV_warning_re._emperor, and am going to revert the emperor article next. I also would like to ask assistance of others to be vigilent regarding POV-pushing in this article. --Francis Schonken 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions by User:Imladjov

The questions below are copied from user talk:Francis Schonken#Emperor Article, so they were addressed at Francis, by Imladjov. I attempt to answer them here, partly because I don't have all the answers, and others might be interested or able to complete answers (or improve/correct what I say); but most of all I move this here because I suppose this is the most suitable place to talk about the emperor article.

1. What exactly is wrong with noting the explicit titles used by the rulers of the "Latin Empire" (which, as a name, is a modern convention) or the "Empire of Trebizond" (more or less the same)?

   Nothing is "wrong" with it, I sought to limit article size. Then choices need to be made. I propose to move the details to the specific articles (in this case Latin Empire and Empire of Trebizond). As there is no mathematical truth about what is "detail" and what is "general info" suitable for the type of overview the Emperor article is, I propose to discuss that here, and take a decision in consensus by those interested. My first approach is that Emperors like those of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, the Empire of Trebizond (and even more so the short-lived "Empire of Elba", I'm still preparing to reduce that section to about half it's length) should not take too much place in a "Space and Balance" type of approach. As said, there's no mathematical formula to be applied here, so basically we should try to find consensus.

   I take your point on saving space in this already long article.Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Why did you revert the Greek spelling of basileus? As a Byzantinist I can guarantee that the breves over the α and the ι were not in usage, and are indicated only in some modern textbooks for learning ancient Greek as a teaching aide.

   For Ancient Greek I follow the diactrics as they are in my dictionary (Grieks-Nederlands Woordenboek by Dr. F. Muller Jzn and Dr. J. H. Thiel, Wolters, 2nd print). If possible I for instance also check spellings in Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, ed. Nestle-Aland, 25th/22nd print, 1963/1969.

   As I suspected, you reflect the way the word would be entered in a dictionary. But this is not the standard usage and you will never find an actual Greek text spelling basileus with breves. Polytonic Greek is already cluttered with diacritics and this purely academic device really does not help in the casual representation of the title in Greek. I hope you will remove the breves.Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, dictionaries are "standard" for me. If you have another source that defines "standard" for orthography of ancient Greek (preferably a source that can be shared by wikipedians), that would be OK for me. Alas, just a wikipedian saying what he knows about being standard or not, does not really qualify in wikipedia's WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:RS approach. But I'm open to sources you might cite. --Francis Schonken 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   The convention of the dictionary uses breves to indicate that the α and ι in question are short rather than long, precisely because the Greek spelling does not actually indicate this. By the same token a dictionary (at least in English) might insert accent marks or syllable dividers which do not otherwise appear in the spelling of a word. Anyone familiar with Greek (Ancient, Middle, or Modern), can vouch that the breves do not form part of the actual spelling. In the authoritative Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott, published by Oxford University Press (my recent edition is from 1996) and used as a standard reference for classicists working in English, the entry on basileus (pages 309-310) uses the breves only once, in the initial look up listing of the word as an aid to students who may need to know the quality (long or short) of these vowels to reproduce the correct pattern of derivative forms. The numerous examples of the word in the entry are all without breves, as is the orienting listing of the word on top of the page. Unless Wikipedia is in fact a Greek dictionary for the purposes of linguistic instruction, breves simply do not belong here; they are not used in citing Greek terms outside of grammar books and the like. The term appears without breves in Greek texts such as the ones I cite below. Imladjov 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   The current version in the article, basileus with two breves, isn't correct and ought to be changed. It's necessary to remember that dictionaries often have their own conventions for inserting diacritics additional to those used in real text. My English dictionaries give basˑil or basˈil for a similar English word, but that doesn't mean these forms would be correct in English text. The breves are present in the Greek-Dutch dictionary to help Dutch students to compose Greek verse according to the rules (I know, because I learnt to do it that way, and have now, thank heaven, forgotten again). If you read Greek, check any Greek text and you will see that basileus is written with one accent and without the breves. If you don't, please accept it as a cross-linguistic fact that you have to understand a dictionary's conventions before copying forms out of it! Andrew Dalby http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/ 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I neglected this thread too long.

   • What you two say makes perfect sense to me.
   • Thus far I'm rather a proponent of discarding pronunciation/diction related elements added to standard letters as much as possible. But if, in this article, we write autokratōr (and not "autokrator") I don't see why we shouldn't write βᾰσῐλεύς.

   • Actually, this is not the same thing. I changed autokratôr to autokratōr because the macron was more appropriate than the circumflex. However, the macron on the o does not indicate a dictionary notation for pronunciation, it indicates that Greek here uses a different letter, omega (ω), rather than omicron (ο). This is not an artificial dictionary distinction like the breves on basileus. ODB style does not show the macrons and so plain "autokrator" would be acceptable, but since we are concerned about representing the actual foreign word, I support "autokratōr". Either way, this has nothing to do with the breves. Imladjov 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

   • What I'm still looking for (and that would of course solve the issue) is some resource wikipedians could use for reference when writing a word in Classic Greek. I'm not that much of an expert, so I do what I'd expect any wikipedian would do: take a "standard" dictionary and write the word *exactly* as it is there (That's why I misspelled Augoustos, it isn't in my dictionary, and the place where I found the word in the Greek New Testament, inflected, the accent was on a different place).

   • Some dictionaries list words with pronunciation aides and then show the actual examples without them, as Liddell & Scott. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, which I reference in articles on Byzantine topics, usually has the standard Greek rendition of a term after the actual entry in ODB style (e.g., AUTOKRATOR (αυτοκρατωρ) -- with all the polytonic accents I cannot type in). That could be the standard reference work you are looking for, although it may be even less commonly accessible than a version of Liddell & Scott (which is used by Classicists and Byzantinists alike).

   • The Liddell & Scott reference work might do perfectly. Alas, I have no access to it. But iōf you remove the breves based on that work, that's OK for me, I'll leave it at that.

   In sum, I still see a dictionary as the most *practical* verifiable source for the spelling of Classical Greek words (where I was thus far assuming that dictionaries worldwide would be using the same orthography...). I had hoped there'd be some practical communal source that would be making this kind of discussions redundant. Maybe something like that will be available some day. --Francis Schonken 13:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

   (PS for Andrew, better not to include url's in signatures, not that I mind all that much, but some wikipedians do, while considered some sort of "linkspam". I hope I won't need to recount you a previous instance of a rather hostile confrontation on the issue, just a discrete tip I give you. Leaving the URL to your wanadoo page on your user page would not be a problem.)

   Thanks, Francis, good point. I'll drop it. In fact I have now dropped it, I think. Andrew Dalby 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3. basileus was actually used, albeit most often informally, as a term for the Roman Emperor throughout the Hellenized East well before the 7th century. At that point it became the standard and exclusive usage for "emperor", being augmented with older titles like tōn Rōmaiōn and autokratōr later, as other emperors had to be recognized in Francia and Bulgaria, respectively. I have now added a reference to the standard study of these titles by Ostrogorsky, although its accessibility is limited for most users by its language (Serbo-Croatian).

   I had understood that in antiquity Autokratōr was also used in the Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire, for indicating the emperor ruling in Rome. That is before the byzantine empire was split off. That's why I asked for a reference. Thanks for giving the Ostrogorsky reference. If you have a reference of a text in English that would even be better (I'm no native English speaker myself, so also I have to rely on non-English sources often, note that there is some advise for that to be found in wikipedia:reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English). I've still got some reference-checking to perform myself, but can I already ask you this question: does Ostrogorsky, in his discussion of the titles that were used, go back to Antiquity, or does he limit his discussion to the era of the byzantine empire? Anyway, my Greek dictionary, as mentioned above, has Autokratōr in the meaning of Emperor for Koine Greek, according to the legenda of the dictionary at least used in this meaning by Plutarch and Lucian, so that would place the use of Autokratōr in the meaning of Emperor *earlier* than the Byzantine era.

   Ostrogorsky's article is the best treatment, but one may refer to the entries for "Autokrator", "Basileus", and "Emperor" in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991. Technically speaking, the basic imperial title Imperator Caesar ... Augustus was rendered in Greek as Autokratōr Kaisar ... Sebastos, although the form Augoustos was also occasionally used instead (or alongside) of Sebastos. The feminine Augousta was pretty standard and retained in Byzantine Greek. These are the most technical and official equivalents, but in general usage the emperor could be referred to by the then standard term for monarch, basileus (and similarly despotēs for Latin dominus). This usage (basileus) became predominant in Greek by the reign of Constantine I, as the Roman Empire had almost completely shed its old republican inhibitions. It should be noted that the technical terms above could occasionally be used even after Herakleios started using simply pistos en Khristō basileus in 629. For example, as late as the mid-12th century, Manuel I Komnenos is entitled in one particularly florid occasion as Manouēl en Khristō tō theō pistos basileus ho porphyrogennētos, Rōmaiōn autokratōr (=imperator Romanorum) eusebestatos (~divus), aei sebastos (=semper Augustus), augoustos (=Augustus)....Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   ...But anyway only applicable from the Byzantine era on. Where I don't even know where exactly in the approach of Ostrogorsky and the Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, the Byzantine era starts... Do they speak from the Dominate era on?; or only from the final split of the Roman Empire?; or only from the epoch of the annihilation of the Western empire?

   Anyhow, for the first three centuries of Roman Emperors (at which time Greek as a language was at least as important as lingua franca in the Roman Empire as Latin, probably even more important, certainly in the Eastern half of the Empire) the Ostrogorsky/Byzantine terminology was not applied,

   • New testament (written in Greek): Basileus only applied to (vassal) kings like Herod, never afaik for Emperors like Augustus (see e.g. Luke 2:1) or Tiberius...
   • Still have to check Plutarch, do you have any knowledge of an on-line version of the Vitae in Greek?

   --Francis Schonken 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   I do not happen to have a Greek text of Plutarch handy, but here are some random examples from contemporary authors writing in Greek, which I think suffice to demonstrate the point:

   • Pausanias, Description of Greece, Attica xlii 5, has Emperor Hadrian as basileus Adrianos (hysteron de basileus ōkodomēsen Adrianos lithon leukou). Pausanias wrote in the middle of the 2nd century.
   • Herodian, History of the Empire, ii.3.3, relates that Pertinax was acclaimed Augustus and emperor by the senate, saying pantes homothymadon euphēmēsan Sebaston te kai basilea prosēgoreusan. Herodian wrote in the second quarter of the 3rd century. Referring to Commodus' mother Faustina, Herodian calls her basilissa (i.7.4). Elsewhere he specifies that "Rome is where the emperor is" (ekei te hē Rōmē, hopou pot' an ho basileus ē) (i.6.5).

   So regardless of how one defines the Byzantine Period, in Greek, which was the common language of the eastern portions of the Empire (and was often in official, not just informal usage), the term basileus had been used to designate the emperor long before the Dominate, Constantine, and Herakleios. Imladjov 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Still requires further checking of 1st century sources, including a more thorough check of the New Testament. I'm more acquainted with Latin sources of that era, e.g. Tacitus, and they definitely avoid monarchy-related terminology (that is: words that in their era had an implication of monarchy, like Basileus already had in Herodotus' time in Greek). Maybe the Greek-speaking part of the Roman empire had less reserve in that sense when speaking in the 1st century about their "emperor", but I still suspect that in the time the New Testament was written (2nd half of 1st century), it would still not be done, in Greek, to talk about the Roman Emperor under the name of Basileus. Another point I'm still not clear about is whether it is correct to say that in Roman administrative terminology autokrator in Greek would be the equivalent of imperator in Latin? And that in the same sense, this was the *used* title for the Emperor in the era (Augustus to somewhere in the 1st century?) when it wasn't yet customary to be outspoken about the monarchic character of what we now know as "Emperor"?

   • Autokratōr is the technical equivalent of the title Imperator itself. It is used to refer to the emperor in general in some Greek sources, for example the history of Cassius Dio (early 3rd century), but the more common Greek term basileus was used before and after (by Pausanias and Herodian, as in the examples above). Liddell & Scott mention (as examples) occasions of basileus and basileus Rōmaiōn used for the Roman emperor in the 1st century, including the writings of Antipater of Thessalonica. It is sufficiently clear that at the beginning the usage of basileus for "emperor" was more rare and more informal. Nevertheless, it is attested, and we cannot pretend that the equation happened under the Dominate or later yet. Moreover, since 30 BC, the Roman Emperor was technically the basileus of Egypt, whether or not that was intended to reflect his Roman de facto monarchy. Now, as to New Testament usage, I can only point to Acts, 17:7, where we read "they are acting against the orders of Caesar, saying that there is another basileus, Jesus" ("ουτοι παντες απεναντι των δογματων καισαρος πραττουσιν βασιλεα λεγοντες ετερον ειναι ιησουν"). So here Caesar (in this case Emperor Claudius) is obliquely referred to as a basileus. Imladjov 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Your Greek rendering of augoustos requires not only an acute accent but also a smooth breathing mark over the first υ.

   Was not "my" rendering. I think it used to be in some other wikipedia article too (Augustus (title)? but I can't find it there any more); oh found it here: Roman Emperor#Titles and Positions: Αὔγουστος, – is that what you meant? I'd be only too glad to have the spelling correct.

   Yes, your new spelling would be correct.Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

5. The article List of Bulgarian monarchs exists and works, just check.

   thanks!

   I am going to link up the article List of Serbian monarchs.Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Finally, I am not sure that elimination of Romano-Byzantine imperial tradition from the list of characteristics for determining emperors is altogether fair. The term is directly derived from this tradition and so, in the strictest sense, it is precisely those rulers that are emperors. That is not to say that various other (mostly eastern) potentates were not of equal rank (something worked out by diplomatic conventions after sufficient contact between states).

   "elimination of Romano-Byzantine imperial tradition from the list of characteristics for determining emperors", sorry I think you're not reading what is there: "(In the European-Western tradition:) The monarch traced his imperial title to Roman precedent or recognition by a Roman (Byzantine) emperor or supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Oecumenical Patriarch);" – I only added "(In the European-Western tradition:)".

   But please, don't speak about "the term", the Romano-Byzantine imperial tradition uses some ten or so terms that not all of them have a completely overlapping meaning, so speaking about the terminology of the Romano-Byzantine imperial tradition(s) is much more correct.

   Point taken. As a Byzantinist I may have a more restricted understanding of the terminology, which may not be entirely appropriate for the universal aspect of the present article.Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. I hope you act on the Greek terms above, I have not edited them, in part because I want to see your reasoning, and in part because I do not know whether I can successfully insert polytonic Greek.

For the polytonic greek: put {{lang|grc| before a (group of) Greek word(s), and }} after it, and it should all be OK. If you're looking for individual letters, with their correct combination of diacritics, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#Greek (and the "Greek extended" tables below it). --Francis Schonken 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed reply. For responses, please see inline above. Imladjov 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Added two answers above (for the rest, I think we agree) --Francis Schonken 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded to above comments --Imladjov 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some more replies added.

Something else, weren't we talking about soldier emperors vs. barracks emperors at some point? Don't know where that issue was raised, anyhow, if soldier emperors is the *more common* name for that specific series of 3rd century emperors (e.g. some of the 1st century "year of four emperors" emperors were also "soldiers", but not usually indicated as "barracks emperors" I believe, but then it all depends what is usual terminology in English). Anyway, the most common term should be used as wikipedia page title. If you're sure that soldier emperors is more common, a WP:RM should maybe best be initiated on the Barracks emperor page, to move it to the more common name. Or at least the "Soldier emperors" expression should be mentioned on that page, which is not the case currently (soldier/s occurs several times on that page, but not a single time in the expression "Soldier emperor/s"). --Francis Schonken 13:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am too new to Wikipedia to know much about the dynamics of changing entry titles, so I leave that up to you. All I can say is that in my experience as a student and teacher of Roman history in English, I have encountered "Soldier Emperors" far more often than "Barracks Emperors", and that seems to be confirmed by the Google search. However, a cross-reference may suffice. --Imladjov 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Needless template

I have removed the Roman template again because it is needless and adds POV to the article including its own category and implies that "emperor" is more tied to Rome than other civilisations. Here on WP it is stressed that equilibrium and moderation is fundamental. Adding this template only adds POV to article and does not help anything. The world does not revolve around Rome, in case anyone didnt notice. Khorshid 09:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Micronation "emperor"

What is the reason for including this micronation alongside the Roman emperors and actual states over which they had control? Anyone can declare himself emperor of nothing. At least Joshua Norton appears to be notable historically. —Centrx→talk • 20:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he? I mean, historically more "notable" than the mentioned micronation emperor? I mean, it's not as if either of them played a role of "ruling an empire" in history. But neither did all the "Latin Emperors of Constantinople" really, in the century after they were thrown out of their empire, for example. This article is about the word "Emperor" and where & when it applies. For some it is no more than a footnote in history. The current phrasing of the Emperor article leaves no doubt about that. I don't see why a self-appointed "emperor" that never ruled anything whatsoever outside his own house, would be less or more noticeable than an emperor that ruled a micronation as a kind of civil rights activist? Or have you got sources that give more insight in the one or the other? --Francis Schonken 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be that Norton should not be included either, but the history of it makes it more reasonable to include. While he did not rule any state, according to the article he was well-known in San Francisco of the late nineteenth century, for twenty years, and had a front-page obituary in the Chronicle, and even now was perhaps going to have a bridge named after him and has numerous literary and cultural references. Dale Anderson however, declared himself emperor two years ago of a barely notable organization as a publicity stunt and, if anyone aside from a select group of activists has heard about it, they will neither remember nor care after another two years. As for the Latin Emperors, they were at least a lineage of real emperors before, rather than self-proclaimed, ever-powerless, and little known, and according to Latin Empire, had some real authority even after as minor princes unto the end. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

All the Latin Emperors, as I understand it, were considered the legal lieges of whatever of the various crusader states remained in Greece and the Aegean until the end of the line, most importantly the Principality of Achaea. And iirc, from the early 14th century onwards, the Latin Emperors were also Princes of Achaea. john k 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese section of this page is out of date

I don't like making formal changes to the pages, but the Japanese section of this page is now out of date with the birth of a new male heir to the throne by Prince Akishino and Princess Kiko.

"Emperor of Japan"

I get the feeling that the custom of referring to the Japanese monarch as an "emperor" is only an historical artifact. He hardly fulfills any of the criteria listed in the beginning of this article. --Himasaram 10:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to the "Distinction between..." part and if so, except for the second point (and 5th which is exclusive to Christianity), he still fulfills all criteria. The first point is filled, of course. Third is historically true as Okinawa was an independent country and the eastern part of Japan was considered different countries (hence shogun was created to pacify them). Fourth one is tricky as Tenno's religious acts are not widely known. Niinameno-matsuri, which took place on Nov. 23rd, is the latest religious act where Tenno offered this year's harvest to kami and ate them himself as well. It's held in full cooperation with Ise Shrine and it was first recorded during the era of Empress Kōgyoku or 7th century. He actually has about one religious act per month but they are somber occasions and non-Japanese media rarely bother to send anyone to report them. --Revth 08:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)