3 ms·

"Emperor" is an English word, referring to the ruler of an empire. It is derived from the Latin title "imperator" (meaning commander; same root as the word "im

"Emperor" is an English word, referring to the ruler of an empire. It is derived from the Latin title "imperator" (meaning commander; same root as the word "imperative"). The Old French connection is interesting - thanks. I guess most English words derived from Latin arrived via Old French. But this doesn't shed any light on why the Japanese Emperor is called an emperor in English. He's called an emperor because he rules an empire. As I understand it, the emperor of Japan ruled over a number of subordinate, regional rulers, right up until the late 19th C. I understand "emperor" to mean a person who rules over kings, which is what the Emperor of Japan did. Why do I need to get involved with Japanese semantics, when the word we are discussing is an English word, being used correctly to refer to a ruler over kings? So if we're speaking of a ruler over kings, how's that different from the Emperor Napoleon, or the Empress of India? Ruling over kings implies dominating the armies of those kings (a king with no army is known as an "exile"). You can't maintain an empire without at least threatening martial force. Nearly all emperors have been fighting men - either to establish the empire, or to maintain it. Emperors with no army get deposed, or the empire disintegrates.

numpad0 5y ago
I had to look up when did the Japanese monarchy lost its own military capacity - it was the aftermath of Jōkyū Disturbance(1221). Kamakura shogunate defeated force of a retired emperor and began disarming the Kyoto royal court(government). Since then, and through Meiji Restoration(1867) that transferred shogunate control back to Kyoto then to Meiji Government in Tokyo City, the pre-modern formal government in Kyoto remained a puppet of military shogunates and later democratic governments. "The emperor of Japan ruled over a number of subordinate" is technically correct but it's mere matter of formality, or it could be said that formality had been their point of existence for along time. They've been out of the game for long time, not even around invention of gunpowder, but around the emergence of curved Japanese swords.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Thank you for this; I think I will look-up some Japanese history tomorrow (so far, I've been pulling factoids out of my fundamental orifice, a practice that HNers will reliably pull me up on).
Bayart 5y ago
Alright, since it's an interesting subject I'll take a detour : The only reason the Emperor of Japan is called an Emperor in Western translations is probably because within Japanese historiography it's considered the highest possible title for a head of state of any kind and in European precedence tradition the equivalent is Emperor, with the exception of the King of France [1]. All that to say that there's no need to call back to the military history of the term to explain its significance in the context of Japan. [1]: the Medieval Empire, that is what is commonly referred to as the HRE, being an outgrowth of the Frankish realm, there's been a tacit understanding that the King and the Emperor were of equal standing and wouldn't dispute each other's claims. Hence the notion that the King [of France] is Emperor in his Kingdom, which is of great importance in the conceptual history of sovereignty. Note that the King of France in the Age of Discovery had an Empire, but never claimed an imperial title as it was a core ideological principle that no title could possibly be above King of France. You can see some of that in the Japanese 天皇.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > the Medieval Empire, that is what is commonly referred to as the HRE, Sure, the HRE name is three lies for the price of one, but its at least specifically understood in its referent; “the Medieval Empire” is...not. Byzantium, most notably, being a thing.
  - Bayart 5y ago
    I'm using that terminology because, unless stated otherwise, in historical European documentation Empire used by itself usually means the HRE. Furthermore including the Eastern Roman Empire as part of European Medieval history is dubious, or at least novel (and I'd wager the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Cold war and the EU have something to do with that shift in perspective). The European title precedence tradition I'm referring to, and from which the translation of 天皇 as Emperor is affiliated to, was solidified in the context of Late Medieval/Renaissance diplomacy [1], in which the Eastern Roman Empire was neither considered as part of the Western world (it was quite literally the East), not relevant as it had become a rump state. [1]: If you're so inclined, read about the councils of Constance and Basel-Florence-Ferrara. They involved a lot of international politics, petty quarrels on precedence and as a bonus, the almost-but-not-quite end of the Great Schism. My favourite tidbit is the Spanish and Swedish bishops arguing over who among them were the true Goths.

numpad0 5y ago

I had to look up when did the Japanese monarchy lost its own military capacity - it was the aftermath of Jōkyū Disturbance(1221). Kamakura shogunate defeated force of a retired emperor and began disarming the Kyoto royal court(government). Since then, and through Meiji Restoration(1867) that transferred shogunate control back to Kyoto then to Meiji Government in Tokyo City, the pre-modern formal government in Kyoto remained a puppet of military shogunates and later democratic governments. "The emperor of Japan ruled over a number of subordinate" is technically correct but it's mere matter of formality, or it could be said that formality had been their point of existence for along time. They've been out of the game for long time, not even around invention of gunpowder, but around the emergence of curved Japanese swords.

denton-scratch 5y ago
Thank you for this; I think I will look-up some Japanese history tomorrow (so far, I've been pulling factoids out of my fundamental orifice, a practice that HNers will reliably pull me up on).

Bayart 5y ago

Alright, since it's an interesting subject I'll take a detour : The only reason the Emperor of Japan is called an Emperor in Western translations is probably because within Japanese historiography it's considered the highest possible title for a head of state of any kind and in European precedence tradition the equivalent is Emperor, with the exception of the King of France [1]. All that to say that there's no need to call back to the military history of the term to explain its significance in the context of Japan. [1]: the Medieval Empire, that is what is commonly referred to as the HRE, being an outgrowth of the Frankish realm, there's been a tacit understanding that the King and the Emperor were of equal standing and wouldn't dispute each other's claims. Hence the notion that the King [of France] is Emperor in his Kingdom, which is of great importance in the conceptual history of sovereignty. Note that the King of France in the Age of Discovery had an Empire, but never claimed an imperial title as it was a core ideological principle that no title could possibly be above King of France. You can see some of that in the Japanese 天皇.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> the Medieval Empire, that is what is commonly referred to as the HRE, Sure, the HRE name is three lies for the price of one, but its at least specifically understood in its referent; “the Medieval Empire” is...not. Byzantium, most notably, being a thing.
- Bayart 5y ago
  I'm using that terminology because, unless stated otherwise, in historical European documentation Empire used by itself usually means the HRE. Furthermore including the Eastern Roman Empire as part of European Medieval history is dubious, or at least novel (and I'd wager the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Cold war and the EU have something to do with that shift in perspective). The European title precedence tradition I'm referring to, and from which the translation of 天皇 as Emperor is affiliated to, was solidified in the context of Late Medieval/Renaissance diplomacy [1], in which the Eastern Roman Empire was neither considered as part of the Western world (it was quite literally the East), not relevant as it had become a rump state. [1]: If you're so inclined, read about the councils of Constance and Basel-Florence-Ferrara. They involved a lot of international politics, petty quarrels on precedence and as a bonus, the almost-but-not-quite end of the Great Schism. My favourite tidbit is the Spanish and Swedish bishops arguing over who among them were the true Goths.