Always wondered about that.
I know that properly pronounced in Latin, the 2 words sound exactly the same, right?
But what made the Germans use a surname to describe an “Über- Monarch”? (my term)
What - they couldn’t come up with a noun that meant the same thing as “Emperor”?
Like maybe “Hoch-König” ? 
Quasi
Until someone who actually has a clue chimes in, here’s some info:
I’m sure they could have, but why bother? The word was already there, being used with essentially that meaning (I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the Germans didn’t even know it was originally a surname). Borrowing a word from another language that has the precise meaning you want when your language doesn’t already have such a word strikes me as a very normal and common thing to do.
Unless your language is French.
Even in antiquity the name “Ceasar” has been used as a kind of de-facto title.
In medieval Germany it was an important point that the Germans didn’t have an emperor, they had the Emperor of the Romans, successor of the original Gaius Iulius. It was supposed to be a unique title explicitely connected to the original bearer. The Byzantine Emperors and later the Tsars were remote enough that for a long time in practice “Kaiser” was a one-off, not so much a generic term.
As a parallel example, the personal name of the Emperor Charlemagne (Karl) became the ordinary word for “king” in various Slavic languages.
Caesar is also where Czar comes from.
Okay, see if I have this right…
It’s as if they’re saying, “Er ist nicht nur ein König, er ist sowie Kaiser!”
("He’s not just a king, he’s a “Caesar!”)
And if I don’t have it right, (and I should know this, I suppose), then it’s all to do with lineage, and there were 3 German emperors, and they were all Casear’s descendants?
Something tells me I’m about to head further into ignorance;)
Very complicated, ja?
I see there’s also this spelling of the word: Qaisar. So if you stretch it a bit (okay, a lot;)), I could be considered the “Emperor of Modems”!
I think I’d rather be the 'Emperor of Ice Cream"!:rolleyes:
Q
Not quite. It was the Holy Roman Empire that was viewed as a continuation of Roman Catholic civilization during the middle ages, and thus their leader got the same title as the emperors of the Roman Empire.
Just as the Russian Tsars claimed that they inherited the title of “Eastern Roman Emperor” from the Byzantines after their fall; or how Victoria took the title of “Empress of India” after the death of the last Moghul. It helps if you think of “emperorship” as a physical object, like a football, that can be passed from country to country.
Note, also, that the Ottoman Sultans were never referred to as emperors (although their dominion is now called the “Ottoman Empire”, even though by our standards they undoubtedly were.
It was Napoleon, in fact, who messed the system up by creating the title of Emperor of France out of nothing; but then, he probably saw himself as Julius Caesar’s equal, and thus entitled.
No. By the time that Domitian became emperor in 69, he was hailed as “Caesar” even though he was no relation to Julius or Augustus in any way. By that time, Caesar had stopped being a name and had simply become a synonym of Emperor. That is how the word moved into Greek, then the various Slavic languages, eventually making it to Russian as czar, as noted above.
(I’m sure there were still people in the Caesar family of the Caius gens running around, but the emperors were all called Caesar, regardless of their bloodline.)
Initally the Roman emperors were related to Augustus by blood or adoption. It isn’t so far of a leap to go from declaring “that guy is adopted into our family of Caesar & he will be your next emperor” to “I have marched on Rome and am your next emperor, so now I am an adopted Ceasar.” Adds needed legitamacy when really you are just an ambitious thug with a few loyal leigons.
Thus, declaring yourself the Caesar became a title even after any pretence at actual family relationship was impossible. And as said above many other empires especially the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empire were the decendants of the Roman Empire.
Okay, so is an emperor better than being “just a king” (quotes my own) or am I trying to compare apples to oranges?
Sorry y’all, I know it sounds like I’m being deliberately obtuse, but I’m trying to get a grip on this.
Right now, the best I can do is think of this whole question as a “timeline”. Like in: “Okay, during this time the people called 'em “emperors”, but then later on, they were kings.”
No change in monarchy nor its responsibilities, just a name change?
Thanks for hangin’ with me on this one.
Quas
Someone may come along with a better answer but I’d say a king rules over a group of ethnically/culturally/linguistically/whatever related people from a single geographic reigon. An emperor rules over a collection of many different ethnically/culturally/linguistically/whatever unrelated peoples from a wide geographic area. And each people may have a king in place but reporting to and owing loyalty to the emperor .
[quote=“Quasimodem, post:12, topic:487109”]
Okay, so is an emperor better than being “just a king” (quotes my own) or am I trying to compare apples to oranges?/QUOTE]
Well, generally, an emperor rules over kings. So, for instance, in Germany, you had the King of Bavaria, the King of Saxony, etc, and on top, you had the German Emperor. In India, you had the maharaja of Nepal, the Emir of Khaypur, the Raja of Mudhal, etc, all under the Emperor/Empress of India. In the Holy Roman Empire, you had, in theory, at least, pretty much all of Western Europe under the Holy Roman Emperor.
No, not at all. “Emperor” was a title, and it could be passed on from person to person or even from nation to nation. The last Byzantine emperors ruled, essentially, a single city - and yet they were still called emperors, because they had inherited the title from their predecessors all they way back to Constantine the Great.
Tobe a emperor, you had to (a) be an independent ruler and (b) inherit the title from last emperor. That’s it.
“Emperor” comes from Imperator (“Commander”), which was a military rank akin to a general and was originally adopted by Augustus as a way to avoid the title of King, and thus keep up the charade that Rome was still a Republic.
Eventually, of course, Imperator/Emperor came to be a title which connoted even more power than “King,” and over more jurisdiction, but the irony is that it was initially intended to dress Augustus’ title down, rather than up.
Okay! 
Caught it that time.
Thanks
Bill
It’s good to be the king… but even better to be the emperor (or empress). Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli got Parliament to approve the title “Empress of India” for Queen Victoria in 1876 because she was miffed that, even though she ruled far more territory than any of them, Europe at the time was full of emperors and empresses. Both wanted to show that she was just as important as them, if not more so. A contemporary cartoon: File:Victoria Disraeli cartoon.jpg - Wikipedia
There is another meaning to “empire” that was used in England during Henry VIII’s reformations, and that was to mean what we today would call a sovereign state. Henry referred to England as an “empire” in his legislation - meaning that he did not have any feudal obligations to any other person on earth, unlike kings or princes who owed fealty to the Holy Roman Emperor or to the Pope. England was a completely independent state. Note, however, that he did not adopt the title of “Emperor” - he was a king ruling an empire.
Early Romans did have kings (rex), but the Roman Republic rejected the notion of a single hereditary sovereign. So, when Augustus took over, he had to avoid the stigma of kingship.
And actually, it was the Romans themselves that converted the name to a title, very early.
Starting with Tiberius, whenever a sitting emperor designated his heir, the designate would add “Caesar” to his name.
Starting with Claudius, the name “Caesar” was assumed upon accession. (He hadn’t been designated the successor.)
After that, any “junior monarch” in and around Rome took on Caesar as a title.
Upon the establishment of the Tetrarchy, there were designated two emperors and two sub-emperors with the title “Caesar.”
