The word Tsar as well

@@cjoutright9255 what?

@@niceguy1891 the word Tsar, meaning emperor in Russian, is also from the title Caesar

@@cjoutright9255 yes, its already mentioned in the video. Also the bulgars and some other slaves had a tsar.

@@cjoutright9255 Not related but similar is the Persian Shah.

Augustus Jones. Hands down best emporer the Roman Empire ever had.

Caesar was a Roman family name, only after Julius Ceasar became emperor his nephew became also emperor and called himself Caesar under the name Augustus Caesar. The Duke of Burgund was the most powerful rule in Europe taking the king of France prisoner, also the Swiss defeated emperor Maximillian in the Swiss wars and made his wife Marie de Bourgogne a landless orphan. The Swiss became the king slayers of Europe, they could make or destroy kings and dukes such as they made Ludovico Sforza beign duke of Milan.

​@@mattb8754 Emperor* 😉 🦅 🦁 ☀️ 🐝 ⚡ 🦅 ⚡ 🐝 ☀️ 🦁

It would be nice to explain the lower tier nobility as well nice thought @John Scanlan

John, not sure if you’ve already came across the video you were requesting here but there is one exactly explaining what you’re asking for. The channel is called “The Generalist Papers” and the video is called “Ranks of Nobility, Explained”. Check it out. It introduced me to other ranks I didn’t even know existed!!

@@adecadeofpoetry4831 thank you so much!

Ooh Roma-2

Didn't Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI use the title King-Emperor or Queen-Empress in Victoria's case due to India?

@@chrismc410 Kinda, but they weren't emperors of britain, just india, which is kinda weird cause a higher ranking title was subservient to a lesser one, but oh well, feudalism

@@imaginehavingpfp5779 I mean the emperor of India thing was so that the British monarch didn’t want to look weaker than the holy roman emperor and the tsar.

@@chrismc410 the title “emperor of India” was created so vicky wouldn’t be outranked by her granddaughter, the soon to be German empress. By then there wouldn’t be a “holy Roman Empire” for the British monarchs to participate in

Henry the VIII clarified that the British monarchs had the same rights and honour as emperors but were not, because there can only be one emperor in the west, and that was the HRE, same thing with France and Spain.

If the kingdoms were seperated she woild be but shes the queen of unified kingdom. So one kingdom = queen.

IIRC only the Pope(or the Patriarch in the east) can pronounce an emperor, and as the Pope pronounced the HRE rulers emperors other European nations which are usually called Empires such as France, Spain or England were not ruled by Emperors. Ofc Napoleon pronounced himself Emperor, but this is a special case.

The "ruling over multiple states" thing is not really the true historical definition of an emperor. Originally, "emperor" was specifically reserved for someone who ruled a state which could be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire.

Maharaja as suzerain over less powerful princes known as Raja is a bit of a stretch. The title grew out of the original Rajan, thence Raja. Maharaja was 'title-creep', an inflation of the original title, and applied to three positions: 1. A sovereign ruler, large or small, but in most cases NOT an emperor or equivalent; in or around Bengal, an example would be the Maharaja of Cooch Behar; 2. A land-owner, technically, a title-holder under the British Empire NOT entitled to a gun salute - only those rulers with a gun-salute, ranging from 3 to 21 (within India, 9 to 21; the 3 gun states were among the Arabian Gulf states, and they had a 21 gun state as well, the Sultanate of Oman). The largest Indian states, J&K and Hyderabad, were as large as Great Britain (the island with the countries of Wales, Scotland and England); in Bengal, an example would be the Maharaja of Burdwan; 3. An honorific either formally bestowed, or acquired by popular fame, by an eminent figure in an Indian princely state. The famous polo player, himself a Rathore from the Jodhpur royal house, Prem Singh, was known far and wide as Maharaj, with no claims to sovereignty or anything more than descent from a feudatory of the reigning Maharaja; thus, Maharaj Prem Singh An Emperor, rendered in the more commonly encountered Indian languages, would be Samrat or Chakravarty (confusing, as a Chakravarty can also be the name of a Brahmin of very proper descent, for instance, Chakravarty Rajagopalachariar, second Governor General of the Dominion of India, and the successor to Louis, Lord Mountbatten, who was the last Viceroy of the British Crown Colony of India, and representative of the King-Emperor to the sovereign Indian princes, then after 15th August, the first Governor-General of the Dominion of India).

that is the Roamen Empire.

Byzantium was an insignificant town/village close to where Constantinople was founded. Constantinople was the capitol of the (Eastern) Roman Empire until its fall.

@@romaliop We all know what he is referring to. Don't need to be a smart ass.

The Byzantine Empire can also be called the New Roman Empire, considering that Constantinople almost got named New Rome. (Personally, I like to call it the Greek Empire because the Greek language held it together after 600 or so...) It essentially ceased to be an empire with the Crusader conquest of 1204: the Palaeologus Dynasty just ruled a kingdom, and in its second and last century a city-state.

@@Blaqjaqshellaq it wasnt almsot called new rome it was called new rome. It just became known as constantinople and it changed names but it was founded as nova roma.

Thanks :) yea after looking back on it, it appears I did misspell Kaiser

😂

Lolol

If you furriners are going to be pushy about it, throw in Nizam and Nawab, and let's muddy the waters totally.

One of those muddy, slightly misleading historical things. Augustus *founded* the imperial system "on paper", but Julius was so close to an Emperor as makes little practical difference. At least, that's what his murderers would have told you in their own defense. o _o

There is also the fact that the title of the Roman Emperor was Augustus not Caesar, Caesar was the title for the Co-emperor/future Augustus, the tetrarchy was the system where the East and West were split and each had an Augustus and a Caesar each.

Also, Liechtenstein was Europe's last absolute monarchy. Now, out of all monarchies, Liechtenstein is giving more power to the monarch than any of the others.

Fitzkayser feels easier on the tongue, so probably that one?

it's from french, fils du roi, son of the king

@@xXxSkyViperxXx Oh, I'm aware of it's origin. Je peux parler en Français, même si Je suis Américain. L'un de rares. That's why when I originally posted this comment I thought if an Anglo-Norman Emperor had an illegitimate child their last name would be Fitzemperor or Fitzempereur. Unfortunately there aren't really any good English to Norman or even French to Norman translators for me to figure out what the Norman word for Caesar would've been. That's why I speculated that "Kayser" could be the Norman word for Caesar.

Dear @augustuscaesar8287, wrt to your first paragraph, I am sure that you will be even more delighted to learn that the root-word Roy is a lot older than English. You will encounter it in Sanskrit, and by borrowing in very many modern Indian languages, as 'rajan' or 'raja', and by descent in Romani, originally a dialect of Sauraseni Prakrit spoken within India, as Rai, as in 'chief of the tribe'.

Thanks :) Glad my video was helpful

actually there would be some legality there, as in look at how the empires of Nicaea and Trebizond were set up. size did not matter, but in the structure of their government and the amount of relative power yielded by the ruler. the English expanded to great size, but their structure was still roughly the same as before colonialism, and thanks to various reforms, were rather limited in what they could do. the Nicaeans and Trebizuntines were basically despotates, wielding almost absolute power.

There is a legal definition. Empires and Emperors are associated with theoretical successor states to the Roman Empire. Other uses of "Empire" are either against the definition (British, Napoleon) or an attempt to translate a foreign title into a European title.

​@@Jim-Tuner Yh it's all because Charlemagne got titled Emperor of the Romans by the pope, due to the (Eastern) Roman Empire being ruled by a woman at the time, well at least one of the excuses given.

Yes thats correct, the Rex/Regina referred to their rule over the UK and Imperator/imperatrix to their rule over India

@@KobeanHistory All the way from Victoria RI, through Edward VII RI, George V RI and George VI RI.

The Emperor in the HRE was seen as the Supreme authority over the kings. This can be seen when Conrad the second removed a powerful vassal from his ducal titles even when his son (king of Germany) was against it.

Thanks! Im originally from Flanders, Belgium

depending on the time you look at. In early (medival) HRE they definitively held power(as any monarch in that given time so to say), later (post medival) not so much.

The Baron ranks in the lower nobility so they rule over a relatively small amount of land, they serve monarchs or higher ranks of the nobility but are not monarchs themselves. I will make a video about the different Nobility ranks as well sometime in the future where I will explain the nobility ranks in more detail

@@KobeanHistory thank you . I'm history old year

Watch until the end of the video, I mention Liechtenstein separately

Possibly, the Vatican too. I'm pretty sure that the pope is also a sovereign prince.

@@hazchemel The pope is another different title, normally placed above emperors, but its kinda weird cause the emperor didn't kneel to him, but also kinda did

Har-di-har har. There would be blood on the floor. Asian is a trifle broad.

It's Lake of Light by Vinsvept

@@KobeanHistory thanks

You can find it in this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qMh6iMyFt7e-h6s.html

Yes, you're right, the Holy Roman Emperors were still monarchs. I messed up there, I should have said: They weren't technically a hereditary monarchy, even though in later ages it did function as such with the successive elections of the Habsburgs.

@@KobeanHistory There was a de facto hereditary system during the Ottonian and Salian dynasty as well. The emperors designated their heirs and the princes merely approved it. The only times there were formal elections where when one ruler died without leaving a viable heir.

@@KobeanHistory ...and Luxembourg, and Lorraine. and Wittelsbach. All of them featured, though not as long as the main Habsburgs.

If I remember correctly they are both on the level of Kings but Sultan could also be Emperor in some cases.

Even if the Sultan of Turkey was an emperor, I think that present day sultans are equivalent to kings or slightly less than them in the protocol. The Pope is a king. In 1961, the Moroccan monarch upgraded his status from sultan to king. There are two sultanates left, Oman and Brunei. I think that the emirs are equivalent to princes, like the ones of Monaco and Liechtenstein. The emirate of Kuwait was sometimes defined in the past as a principalty. The title of an emir is "His Highness" not "His Majesty". I am sure of this. I don't know for the sultans. An emir is definitely not a king. In 1999 the emir of tiny Bahrein upgraded his status from emir to king. It would be also interesting to take a look at the titles of the 9 monarchs of the federal kingdom of Malaysia. It could help us to have a better insight. Maybe in the future you can make a video about sultans and emirs. Please tell me what you think. Write soon.

@@gmicg yea at some point im planning on looking into it more and making a video on it, probably sometime next year

They were smaller nations within a bigger nation. The difference with the HRE compared to other nations was that the smaller nations within the HRE often went to war with each other, Showing a certain degree of autonomy. While still being unified in wars against nations outside of the HRE.

@@KobeanHistory That's the nature of a feudal structure and not unique to the HRE. The unique thing about it was the the smaller states (still uncomfortable with the expression of "nation") gained more and more autonomy after the late middle ages while other kingdoms managed to establish centralized governments.

​@@Siegbert85 Because technically it was an elective monarchy, which is much different than a fully hereditary one. It was more of a the currently most connected dynasty within the Empire rules system rather than a monarch giving lands to families in exchange services. Neither are centralised but the difference was still there and even for feudal system it was extremely decentralised. Simply put it looks more like an alliance system ruled by the currently more influential partner than the typical kingdom of the time which is based on one dynasty, doesn't mean other kingdoms didn't get rebellious autonomous vassals (ie: france and its myriads of wars versus its duchies who were as strong as kingdoms) but still different.

If you mean where in the video is it, it’s at 08:50

Thanks! Yes they can be independent but there are none left today, there is still Luxembourg which is a Grand Duchy

@@KobeanHistory ok thank you for the information.

Lmao.

An ABSOLUTE monarchy, an elected monarchy.

Even in mediaeval Spain in the Christian part there were emperors and empresses -empress Urracca was empress of Spain in her own right and not a consort.

It was the Frankish kingdom though. Charlemagne adopted the title of emperor of the Romans later in life and thus more or less created the idea of the Holy Roman Empire.

What it want to say was that there was only one emperor title in the catholic world, the « Imperator romanorum ». The monarch of the HRE was only reference as the Emperor because catholic monarch can’t tittle themselves as emperor. Also, bulgarian and russian empire emperor title were supposed to be the one of the Eastern Roman Empire, they claimed to be the new basileus. It’s only in the 19th century that european monarchs decided to styled themselves as emperor of their countries.

Like previously said it was the Frankish Kingdom and it was divided in 3 not 2, there was a middle part between Eastern and Western Francia. Just that the pope gave Charlemagne the title of Emperor/Augustus of the Romans in defiance of the (rightfully) uncooperative (eastern) Roman Empress/Augusta. The HRE used the same title for the prestige of Charlemagne and the Roman Empire that comes with it.

She can't

@@navibangtan4551 She can. She just won't.

In my opinion, she is, but pop culture says she's not, plus, if she assumes the role, it would ignite more power to Scotts, Irish, and Welsh people for independency.

@@rangenard you've got a point but the fact that she is a queen of so many countries justifies her as an empress unlike Japan right now.

@@kevsh4997 the use of the title Emperor in East Asian culture is very different from european one, in East Asian, the title of Emperor originally only meant for the ruler of Chinese Dynasties, other nations adopted the title to show to the world that they are equal to China, only to dismay Chinese and as such these nations only use the title inside their own territory, they would refer to themselves as king only when their diplomats presents in Chinese court

The Pope is technically a monarch as well but since it is unique role I didn't want to include in this video as it is unclear where the role of Pope would fit in the hierarchy of monarchical roles

@@KobeanHistory wow thank you for answer my question and its clear to me now

Yeah, the Pope is a really odd case. He's the Bishop of Rome, the King of Vatican City and also technically-sort-of the spiritual Emperor of all of Catholic Europe (since he's the head of the church as a whole and all Catholic Monarchs are supposed to take their authority from God and mother church). Ultimately, the Pope's position is simply unique. During the mediaeval period his authority sort of mirrored the Divine Trinity; head of the faith, supposedly holding ultimate political power over Catholic Monarchs and also a Monarch in his own right. Three distinct responsibilities in one indivisible office.

@@MrMortull the Pope is actually a "Prince" just like the Cardinals. They are the Princes of the Church.

Not tzar but King.bwfore was a tzar in mediveal Bulgaria. Its biblical translate to bulg.and in Slavic

lsnguage s king means tzar as i read info and fscts.boris and others in new era never was real tzars and also they are not

they are not recognized as such.its just tradition and symbolism from old times..Serbia and Bulgaria have empires before..

He was King and his father etc. Bulgaria was Kingdom in 20century..Empire just was be a name becouse in bible in Slavic countries tzar means King more thsn real car.also he never crowned as s a tzar..

@@djordjesm7431 , ​ хаха, да - признати са за царе. Цар Симеон е първият български цар, а неговият син - Свети цар Петър I , е официално признат за цар и от Източната Римска империя (Византия). Това става през 927 г. , в Цариград, където взима за жена Мария-Ирина Лакапина - дъщерята на император Христофор Лакапин ;)

And yet their domains are still called the Mushroom Kingdom and the Kingdom of Hyrule, respectively. We've met a King of Hyrule a time or two so that confuses things further, although possibly it's a Hylean tradition that their female monarchs remain Princesses? It could also be that Zelda retains her title of Princess in respect of her being the holder of the Triforce of Wisdom, her spiritual position considered more significant than her temporal power as a Monarch. Peach? I've got no idea with her... of course, it might just be that Nintendo didn't quite understand how European Monarchies are meant to work overall. Or they thought that Princesses are more enticing to go rescue than Queens.

@@MrMortull I can give some real explanations for that. Not every kingdom at the time explicitly had a king or queen. Some had arch dukes, or dukes, or princes ruling them. (Archduchys, duchys, and principalities respectively.)

@@MrMortull In Zelda's case, in some instances the king of Hyrule is very much still alive so there's no reason for her to ascend. Also Zelda is a relatively younger princess. Usually young adult to teenaged. Age is a factor in some real kingdoms when a prince or princess to become a king or queen. And in a few instances (BotW being one of them.) Hyrule went through a cataclysm of some sort so a coronation wouldn't be possible at the time. With the mushroom kingdom... Maybe Peach and her kingdom are just minor and relatively unimportant areas in the world.

@@mill2712 What I'm hearing is "It should really be the Mushroom Grand Duchy, but Peach and the Toads have an ego problem". xD

Maybe the title is withheld until a marital union has been filled. I’ve always supposed that.

I have a separate video where I go over sultan and other Middle Eastern ranks: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qMh6iMyFt7e-h6s.html

@@KobeanHistory tnx mate 👍

August was just a title given to Roman Emperors if im not mistaken

Roman Emperor an Augustus, the heir being Caesar. But yes (translation of non European titles aside) Emperor isn't or rather wasn't related to size or power but a link to the Roman Empire. The emperor part was simply from the part of their title that mentioned them as Emperor of the Romans. Yes Holy Roman Emperors, and later German Emperors were titled Emperors of the Romans. Which started due to the (eastern) Roman Empire being ruled by an uncooperative (to the pope and Charlemagne) Empress. Then rulers who idolised the Roman Empire, like Napoleon, claimed it for prestige.

Sultan would be the equivalent of King of Kings so it would fall on the same tier as Emperor

That makes you archduke or king?

I haven’t, check the timestamps, Liechtenstein has it’s own chapter.

Oops yea I made a spelling mistake but I didn't claim old German Duchies were called Archduchies. I didn't even talk about stem Duchies in this video because the video is about the different monarchical positions people have taken and in that sense stem Duchies are ruled by Dukes like any other Duchy. If you look back at the video I specifically state that the title of Archduke was given as an honorary title to the Duke of Lotharingia (look up Bruno the Great for more info). What else did I get wrong according to you?

Apart from the 1 spelling there are no errors, he didn’t talk about stem duchies

@@KobeanHistory I just watched the video again, after a second reply came in, that I got it wrong reg. the archduchies/stem duchies. Guess what: you‘re both right, I got it wrong indeed! Please accept my sincere apologies. Still, I checked on Bruno the Great, and it appears, that he never actually was given the title of archduke, but that rather his court biographer simply invented that title as a concoction of his two major titles as ARCHbishop (of Cologne) and DUKE (of Lotharingia). Lotharingia itself by the way was never called an archduchy, nor was apparently any of Bruno‘s predecessors or successors ever called archduke, it was a totally singular occasion. He was likely also not recognized by his contemporary peers as an „archduke“.

@@marc-julien6826 Thanks I appreciate that, true I didn’t explain the Lotharingia situation that well in the video I should have gone into more detail to clarify

I just cover the European titles in this video, i might do a video in the future on other parts of the world

@@KobeanHistory but Japan isn't European or an empire.

@@spaggitles yes but they use the title of Emperor which is also used in Europe

Sultans are just the same as King or if not Below there's Sultan is not The same as Emperor They're just a King like Sultan brunei known internationally as King of Brunei today In cause if Japan. The Reason why Japan still has the Emperor The Reason was after the WW2 the Conditional Surrender of Japanese Empire in 1947 to keep the Emperor as it's Monarch and the Imperial Family This Condition by Japanese Empire in 1945-1947 has been agreed in condition for Japanese Empire to Stop the War and The WW2 Among Nations who agreed to the Conditional Surrender of Japanese Empire was RUSSIA , USA , UNITED KINGDOM , and Allies

And Yet Japan is Still Empire because they have Emperor

I literally say that in the video, what are the mistakes you are referring to?

You might have to do some more research, you’ll find you’re wrong

@@KobeanHistory i dont nead to becouse i know so in the year 1434 the count of celje saved holy roman emperor he was a german not austrian life after the battle with muslims for a brave act he got the title of a prince which hasburg fake emperor protested.do you know what did the holy roman emperor said to this fake hasburg?who gives you the right to call yourselfe the emperor of holy roman empire ?since i last check this title belong to german emperor's then he add give me one document with a titles you didnt write with your own hand.the golden apple document they writed by their own hand which was never recognized and they become a laughing stock.when nepoleon comes here why did this fake roman emperor suddenly change frome emperor to arch duke? Because he was not the emperor his title was only a duke of Austria that was his title and even this title was stolen they ware criminals liers robbers and etc and ask yourselfe why they ware exiled frome the tirol? 1st as i mention before they are robbers killers backstabers and they didnt have no royal or noble blood inside them .they kill the count of the tirol becouse they ware power hungry only to be hunted down like dogs .and btw holy roman empire never existe it wasn't holy and it wasnt roman ither it was a german empire and german empire had his own emperor .and btw austria was never so big the whole land today belongs to slovenian except smal state of the tirol and uper lands .dou you know why becouse before those userpers come thefe was a great kindom of Caranthania who ware ruled by slovenian kings .the 1st king was Romulus the last roman emperor the last king of noricum and the first king of Caranthania and the last one was king Arnulf The I of koroska .that is history the real history .not the fake history .so ask them why ware they exiled ?and i am youst wondering will they tell you the truth.

Im confused on what your saying are you saying that the hasburgs were not the "true" leaders as in they stole the throne and had no real claim or that the hasburgs never ruled the hre in general?.

@@jozebutinar44 wtf are you even saying? The Habsburg were elected by the imperial princes same as every Holy Roman Emperor before them.

@@Siegbert85 no they ware not that is the truth if that would be truth why did napoeon wanted to take this title frome them? and why sudenly they sai ok we are not emperors ? why did sigismund tell him give me one proff that the title you have are not writen with your own hand ? exlpain that

Bruh

yeah, in Biblical fiction. We're talking reality here

@@Siegbert85 you're the fictional one here

I literally say that in the next sentence if you had cared to listen a second longer before having the need to comment, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting this “example”.

Exactly four. Only after 1857. Do read up on this.