[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Response II and Roman emperors



<Hence, I have always wondered why the title of "Caesar" should have been
co-opted in the Modern Era as an imperial title (as the Prussian/German
"Kaiser" and Russian and Bulgarian "Tsar"), rather than "Augustus".  I guess
it may have more to do with the respect accorded to Julius Caesar than any
of his imperial successors.>

Actually, you can blame the Byzantines:

The title kaisar became an honorary title, bestowed usually on members of
the imperial family, but occasionally on others as well: Justinian II
conferred it to Tervel, khan of the Bulgars, in 705, Andronicus II gave it
to Roger de Flor, leader of the Catalan Grand Company, in 1304.  Another
title was created by Alexius Comnenus in the early 12th c.: sebastocrator, a
portmanteau of sebastos and autokratôr, for his brother Isaac, which took
precedence over kaisar.  Initially meant to upgrade the relatively debased
kaisar, it was bestowed later to Stepan Nemanja of Serbia on his marriage
with the Emperor's niece in 1191.  The word, transformed into Czar in Slavic
languages, came to mean "king" rather than "emperor".
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/emperor.htm

This is cribbed (with attribution) from Ostrogorsky, History of the
Byzantine State, 1969, a book I started because I knew nothing about
Byzantium and have reread since because the story is fascinating.  If the
trilobites leave you time, I'd recommend it.