Nobility titles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

I don't think there was title for the Aztec Emperors per ce, but the name Motecozuma (called Montezuma by the Spaniards) means "Our strict/harsh ruler", and may have been more of a title than a real name. I don't know about Aztec names, but Mayan and Olmec names for an example generally was the date they were born on ("Eight Deer" for an example is a name mentioned, which means that guy was born on the eight day in the month of the deer). Just felt like popping in and saying that, I just read about it you see...).

---

I now remember their title: "huetlatoque" (sing.: huetlatoani). They ruled over a confederation of city-states, each ruled by a tlatoani. There were some reforms under Nezahualcoyotl in the early 1430's, but only on the level of tlatoani.

A recent, interesting book on this subject:
S.T. Evans, Ancient Mexico & Central America, Thames & Hudson London, 2004.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Concerning the title of Emperor, you could include the Ottomans as they had the Persian title "Padisha" (Great King/Sultan, I think) and many also took the title Keyser-i-rum (Emperor of Rome).

---

This is a very interesting example. The Ottomans somehow wanted to establish their power and gaining prestige by taking over the title of the Byzantines, after conquering the big C.
Secondly, they were an eastern, islam civilization after all. The islamic version of the "Pope" and "emperor" were united when the Ottomans took the title of Caliph. There are arguments to compare pope and emperor with caliph and sultan, but then often in one person: the ruler at the Ottoman Porte. When referring to the titles in the first post in this thread, they are all western (medieval) titles.


:idea2:
Arch


edit: my posts always suffer from my bad english ....

Quote:

---

This is a very interesting example. The Ottomans somehow wanted to establish their power and gaining prestige by taking over the title of the Byzantines, after conquering the big C.

---

Like the Byzantines many also referred to themselves as protector of the Greek Orthodox church, and much of their court ceremony was copied from the Byzantines, as was that of previous Islamic states, but also with a dash of Persian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yes, I know that Czar means Emperor. But when they talk on history channel about russian imperial family, for example, mostly they say "russian czar" (or tsar, tzar), not "russian emperor" . I was just wondering is there a rule how that word should be spelled. Or maybe there is no particular rule since it is not an english word...

---

I think that Tsar is a pheonetic english spelling. Czar is more similar to the word in other slavic langauges. Car (croatian), Clsar (Czech), and Caesarz (Polish).

Czar became another word for emperor when Peter the Great proclaimed himself Emperor of all Russia (or the Russia's).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

If I understand it correctly, a marquis (or marcher lord) was usually given authority over turbulent borderlands, a march or mark, usually with a hostile enemy on the other side. They tended to be given even more authority than usual within their own domain, still subject to the king, but able to enforce a sort of martial law due to the unstable nature of their lands.

---

Marquis (which is a French title BTW) is from the German Markgraft. Graft is the German form of Count, mark can mean march or border. You'll find several flavors of Count in Germany. Burg graft (castle count), Land graft (land or forrest count), and Pfalz graft (count palatine).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Concerning the title of Emperor, you could include the Ottomans as they had the Persian title "Padisha" (Great King/Sultan, I think) and many also took the title Keyser-i-rum (Emperor of Rome).

---

Padishah=Great King. It came to be accepted in Europe that the Islamic form of emperor was Padishah. Another aside is that the Iranian Shahanshah (king of kings) is an odd but royal (rather than imperial) title.

Just out of curiosity, have a look at wiki's entries for Tsar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Just out of curiosity, have a look at wiki's entries for Tsar.

---

The spelling tsar is the closest possible transliteration of the original using standard English spelling, while the scholarly transliteration is car, with the letter 'c' standing for 'ц' ('ts') in Slavic languages employing the Latin alphabet (e.g., Serbian, Czech, Polish). Tsar has been accepted in Standard English for the last century as a correct usage. The use of "czar" is typically found in American English and has also been accepted into general use for more than a century there. The French adopted the form tsar during the 19th century, and it became more frequent in English towards the end of that century, following its adoption by The Times (see the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition). The spelling tzar with 'z' is also very common, and represents an alternative transliteration of the first letter ц, derived from German.

I could have at least looked in wikipedia before I asked the question :wall:

This is feudal hierarchy in the West :book::

Emperor
King (rex)
Prince
Grand Duke
-------------
Those are princes.

Duke (dux)
Margrave (comes marcae)
Count (comes)
Viscount (vicecomes)
Baron (baro)
-------------
Those are barons.

Baronet
Knight
-------------
Those are knights.

Esquire (squtaria)
-------------
Esquire is gentry.

Situation in Eastern Europe is complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justicar

The title of Earl/Jarl is one of the oldest amidst Germanic speaking peoples, though it only survives today in Britain and Scandinavia, as far as I'm aware.

---

In English a comes is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English eorl, "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is Graf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

After Roman times there were actually only exact two Emperors in Europe - the Greek Emperor, ie. the Byzantine Basileus, and the Holy Roman Emperor, ie. the "German" one.

---

Greek Emperor? :laugh4: Are you kidding? It was Roman Emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yes, I know that Czar means Emperor. But when they talk on history channel about russian imperial family, for example, mostly they say "russian czar" (or tsar, tzar), not "russian emperor" . I was just wondering is there a rule how that word should be spelled. Or maybe there is no particular rule since it is not an english word...

---

Initially, title was Tsar of All Russians. Pyotr I Great proclaimed himself as Emperor after he won over Sweden in Great Northern War. After that rulers of Russia had title Emperor. And Pyotr title was pretty long…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

If I understand it correctly, a marquis (or marcher lord) was usually given authority over turbulent borderlands, a march or mark, usually with a hostile enemy on the other side. They tended to be given even more authority than usual within their own domain, still subject to the king, but able to enforce a sort of martial law due to the unstable nature of their lands.

---

I will add:

Quote:

---

Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories. These are the "Marches" (Mark in German, marca in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German Markgraf, or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) – comes marcae, marchicomes, or marchio in Latin. The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, marchionissa in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was Brandenburg, which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.

---

:book:

Quote:

---

Greek Emperor? Are you kidding? It was Roman Emperor.

---

He wasn't. The emperor in Constantinople was far more Greek than he ever was Roman.

Also, "tsar" does not mean emperor. It is a title that a Bulgarian ruler managed to wean off the Byzantine emperor after he inflicted a crushing defeat on him. This title was "Caesar," a position of subservience to the emperor. It was more akin to king than it was to emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

He wasn't. The emperor in Constantinople was far more Greek than he ever was Roman.

---

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81066
Nice discussion on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Also, "tsar" does not mean emperor. It is a title that a Bulgarian ruler managed to wean off the Byzantine emperor after he inflicted a crushing defeat on him. This title was "Caesar," a position of subservience to the emperor. It was more akin to king than it was to emperor.

---

It depends. Serbian tsar literally meant Emperor. Second serbian tsar awarded the title king to one of the feudal lords (Vukasin Mrnjavcevic). Although he was strong enough to disobey tsar Uros V, formaly he was subserviant to him. So tsar was higher than a king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

He wasn't. The emperor in Constantinople was far more Greek than he ever was Roman.

Also, "tsar" does not mean emperor. It is a title that a Bulgarian ruler managed to wean off the Byzantine emperor after he inflicted a crushing defeat on him. This title was "Caesar," a position of subservience to the emperor. It was more akin to king than it was to emperor.

---

Actually Caesar (and it's slavic derviatives) does mean emperor. Emperor had two levels to the Romans. The Augustus was the senior emperor, the Caesar the junior emperor. So if the Serbian ruler took the title Tsar. It mean't he was claiming a position akin to junior Roman emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It depends. Serbian tsar literally meant Emperor. Second serbian tsar awarded the title king to one of the feudal lords (Vukasin Mrnjavcevic). Although he was strong enough to disobey tsar Uros V, formaly he was subserviant to him. So tsar was higher than a king.

---

The original title meant a position below that of basileus, the Byzantine Greek term for emperor (though it meant king, once upon a time). I'm sure it meant more to Bulgarian and Serbian rulers than did their simple, native titles (khan, king, etc.), but in the end it originally meant nothing more than a status as friend and subordinate of the emperor in Constantinople -- which was, to the Byzantines, of course, more than good enough for some Slavic savage, even if he had defeated them.

Also, note that Peter the Great took on the title emperor, which stood above his titles of tsarship.

Quote:

---

Actually Caesar (and it's slavic derviatives) does mean emperor. Emperor had two levels to the Romans. The Augustus was the senior emperor, the Caesar the junior emperor. So if the Serbian ruler took the title Tsar. It mean't he was claiming a position akin to junior Roman emperor.

---

See above. What's important here is to remember that things had changed in the time period between Diocletian and the Byzantine court of the 9th century (or was it the 8th?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

The original title meant a position below that of basileus, the Byzantine Greek term for emperor (though it meant king, once upon a time). I'm sure it meant more to Bulgarian and Serbian rulers than did their simple, native titles (khan, king, etc.), but in the end it originally meant nothing more than a status as friend and subordinate of the emperor in Constantinople -- which was, to the Byzantines, of course, more than good enough for some Slavic savage, even if he had defeated them.

Also, note that Peter the Great took on the title emperor, which stood above his titles of tsarship.

---

Peter the Great taking the title Emperor of all Russias had more to do with westernization of Russia than anything else. By assuming that title he didn't gain any more authority than he already had.

As a rule, there could be one emperor in a church. There was one in catholic world and one in orthodox. To assume title of emperor/tsar, serbian king Dusan had to be crowned by patriarch of constantinople. Since he refused, Dusan had to make Serbian orthodox church autocephalous (independent) to be crowned tsar.

The point is that tsar is the highest ranking title and above king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

The original title meant a position below that of basileus, the Byzantine Greek term for emperor (though it meant king, once upon a time). I'm sure it meant more to Bulgarian and Serbian rulers than did their simple, native titles (khan, king, etc.), but in the end it originally meant nothing more than a status as friend and subordinate of the emperor in Constantinople -- which was, to the Byzantines, of course, more than good enough for some Slavic savage, even if he had defeated them.

---

Basileus is more properly translated as soveregin. As originally it refered more to the person than his office. And Aristotle exposed that a Basileus was, what we would call a constitutional monarch (restrained by law). While a Tyrant was would be an absolute monarch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Also, note that Peter the Great took on the title emperor, which stood above his titles of tsarship.

---

Actually it replaced several of his titles of Tsarship. Peter changed his fathers title of Czar & Grand Prince, Autocrat of all Greater, Lesser & White Russia,

of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod

to

Emperor & Autocrat of all Russia,

of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod,


But that was just the primary line of a very long list of titles. One of which was "Dominator of the northern countries."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

See above. What's important here is to remember that things had changed in the time period between Diocletian and the Byzantine court of the 9th century (or was it the 8th?).

---

In some ways yes and some ways no. The Slavs took the title of Tsar because they weren't Romans. And thus couldn't be crowned emperor.