- 4 Jun 2006
- 511
- 38
- 38
This is a key issue in understanding exactly what the Emperor is."Emperor" is treated from various foreign countries as substantial "Sovereign in Japan".
When Westerners use the term "Emperor" they are basing it off a percieved notion of Roman history, whether they realize it or not.
The word "Emperor" in English is derived from l'empereur, which in turn is derived from the Latin word imperator which roughly translates to "commander" or "one with military authority to command soldiers". It was originally an honorific title awarded to generals who won victories in the field, and carried with it certain authority and powers.
What we call "emperors" were really called princeps (or "First Citizen"/"First Man") by the Romans. They were effectively constitutional monarchs at first (based on Augustus' redesigning of the Roman government), but grew more powerful through monopolistic control of the Roman army. By the end of the first century, though, imperator had become synonymous with the term princeps because it had increasingly become awarded only to the emperor. Any man who was declared imperator by his soldiers ended up revolting against the emperor.
By the beginning of the fourth century and Diocletian's establishment of the Tetrarchy, the term princeps was abandoned and replaced with the term dominus which means "master". In the East, Greek language prevailed and the term ニ陳ソニ津槌津柁津哉津鞍津照陳ソニ津柁津哉津 (autokrator) was used.
Thus, the term "Emperor" is actually quite difficult to define in a distinct political sense. There was never a singular Roman equivalent for it. It could mean "ruler of an empire", or it could mean "sovereign with a higher rank than king". It could also carry a degree of divinity.
Just as an aside note, the United States had an emperor. Emperor Norton I.