Emperor

The German title Kaiser (feminine Kaiserin) is derived from the name of the Roman politician Gaius Iulius Caesar, who was the de facto head of state at the end of the Roman Republic. The rule, and rarely the domain, are accordingly referred to as the emperorship. In antiquity, since the time of Augustus, Caesar's great-nephew, the rulers of the Roman Empire were called Imperator Caesar Augustus (see also Principate and Late Antiquity). While in the Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire the emperorship existed until 1453, the Western Roman emperorship became extinct in 476 or 480, depending on the point of view.

In the European Middle Ages, after the "renewal" of the Western emperorship by Charlemagne in 800, the rulers of the Frankish Empire and later of the Holy Roman Empire, crowned by the Pope, were also called emperors. The already existing sacral aspect of the emperorship was interpreted in a more Christian way than before, the Western emperors were seen as protectors of the Occident and the Christian faith. In connection with this, they were also supposed to have the honorary sovereignty over the Latin-Christian kings, although this was in fact not or hardly enforceable. The medieval emperorship was thus a "heightened kingship". In modern times, the title lost its sacred and universal character, became increasingly identical with the title of king and, moreover, was also applied to non-Christian, non-European rulers, especially if they claimed a divine origin. Since 1979, the only monarch still referred to as emperor is the Tennō of Japan.

Etymology

The Old High German keisar is derived from the Latin proper name Caesar of Gaius Iulius Caesar, which was pronounced [kaisar] in antiquity, and [kaisar] or [kaisaros] in Greek. The change of the proper name Caesar to the ruler title Caesar occurred in a process lasting eight and a half decades from the death of Gaius Iulius Caesar in 44 BC to the accession of Emperor Claudius in 41 AD. At the same time, keisar, probably the oldest Latin loanword in Germanic, came into being. The historically and culturally Catholic peoples of eastern Central Europe such as the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians speak of "Cesarz", "Císař" and "Császár" respectively. It was not until the Middle Ages, on the other hand, that the Old Slavic borrowing arose, which later led to the word czar.

In the Romance languages, on the other hand, a word borrowed from imperator - the title of the military commander-in-chief in the sense of general, which Augustus had also used, but which only became a fixed part of the Roman imperial titulature from Nero onwards - denotes the emperor, for example the Italian imperatore, the Spanish emperador or the French empereur, to which the English emperor also goes back. Also in the Albanian word mbret for "king" the imperator can still be recognized.

In Middle High German writings, the spellings kayser, keiser or keyser usually appear.

The title of emperor in the ancient Roman Empire

The emergence of the title of emperor under Augustus

After Gaius Iulius Caesar had won sole rule over the Roman Empire in the civil war between 49 and 45 BC, he did not dare to assume the title of king, which was hated by the Romans. However, since the early Roman Republic had known the extraordinary office of dictator for times of need, Caesar had himself elected dictator perpetuus ("dictator for life") by the Senate.

In addition, he bore the title Imperator, which, like Imperium, derives from imperare ("to command") and originally denoted the military command of a legion. At the time of the Republic, any commander of a legion could be proclaimed emperor by his troops. Later, the title was reserved for emperors alone. It denoted the actual source of their power, the military power.

However, it is not Caesar who is generally regarded as the first emperor in history, but his great-nephew Gaius Octavius, who later became Augustus. He took Caesar's name after his assassination in 44 BC, as the dictator had adopted him in his will. He called himself Gaius Iulius divi filius Caesar (i.e. "Gaius Iulius Caesar, son of the deified") from 42 BC to 38 BC, and Imperator Caesar divi filius until 27 BC (he did not officially use the epithet Octavian, by which he is known to historians).

After he too had eliminated all competitors for power, he disguised his de facto monarchical position, formally secured by the granting of some important exceptional powers (tribunicia potestas, imperium proconsulare maius), by the modest-sounding title princeps, which had previously denoted a first among equals as princeps senatus ("first of the senate"), but was now understood as "first citizen". From this title came the words principe (Italian) and prince (French, English), meaning "prince". The German word "Prinz" derives from Old French prince.

For the alleged "restoration of the republic", the Senate awarded Octavianus the honorary title Augustus, the "Exalted One", in 27 BC, under which he has gone down in history. Henceforth he was officially called Imperator Caesar Augustus, and all three components of his name became ruler titles over time: Not only Caesar and Augustus, as well as the title Imperator (the praenomen imperatoris) used as a given name, but also his offices of state, the highest in Rome, became practically hereditary in his family, so that the Principate was de facto a monarchy, while de iure one continued to live in the res publica. At the same time, the origin of the emperorship as an exceptional office was always preserved by the fact that the office never also became de iure hereditary: Even in late antiquity, the presumptive successor had to become the co-emperor of his predecessor while he was still alive in order to ensure a smooth succession to the throne. At the same time, the eternal exceptional character of the imperial position ensured that the Roman rulers were always threatened in their position, on the one hand, because their legitimacy was fragile, but on the other hand, they possessed a fullness of power that was not limited by any law or opposition. Their options for action were limited only by the fact that they had to reckon with assassinations and usurpations in the event of a loss of acceptance.

From the time of Emperor Claudius onwards, the name Caesar became a definitive part of the Roman sovereign's titulature. The empire's neighbours therefore soon used it as a designation for the Roman monarch - in the Germanic and Slavic languages as well as in Persian and Arabic, this custom established itself early on. In the Romance languages, on the other hand, the designation of the ruler is usually derived from imperator.

At the latest since Vespasian, each emperor was given all special powers bundled together when he took office and was recognized by the Senate. From then until the end of antiquity, all Roman rulers bore the three names or titles Imperator Caesar Augustus, supplemented by their individual names and any epithets. The origins of the emperorship in the exceptional powers of Augustus always remained recognizable.

The Emperor in Late Antiquity

In late antiquity, the meaning of the title Augustus changed. In the time of the tetrarchy of Emperor Diocletian, there were two Augusti, i.e. senior emperors, each of whom had his own domain. Formally, the empire remained a monarchy in which only one ruler allowed others to share in his emperorship; if the hierarchy was not clear, rank disputes threatened to lead to civil war. A tendency towards this development had already become apparent during the imperial crisis of the 3rd century, when several emperors appointed co-emperors. Caesar was now usually referred to as a junior emperor and designated successor (see below). After 285, there was only rarely (324-337; 361-364) a single Augustus, and colleges of emperors consisting of Augusti (and sometimes Caesares) became the rule. Since Valentinian I and Valens, one emperor usually ruled as Augustus in the west, another in the east. This development became de facto final after the death of Theodosius I, the last emperor of the entire empire, in 395 (division of the empire in 395), since the western emperorship became extinct in 476/80. From the point of view of the Eastern Roman emperors, however, this only meant that the West was again subject to them - a claim that Justinian then actually tried to enforce militarily. In fact, in terms of constitutional law, there had never been a division of the Roman Empire, but only a division of the empire; when this ended, the remaining Augustus had a formal claim to rule over the entire (former) empire.

Late antique emperorship largely, but never completely, dispensed with the ideology of the Augustan principate; from Diocletian onwards, emperors unabashedly presented themselves as monarchs and documented their position through insignia such as the diadem as well as elaborate court ceremonial. In fact, however, they tended to have less power than in the early and high imperial period; this was especially true of the Western Roman rulers.

In the West, the line of Roman emperors ended in 476 with Romulus Augustulus and in 480 with Julius Nepos; in the East, Herakleios laid down the title Imperator (or Autokrator) around 625 and henceforth used the designation basileus - thus the late antique emperorship ended, and the Greek-Byzantine one began.

Special meanings of the title "Caesar

For the first time under Galba, then consistently since the time of Emperor Hadrian, the title Caesar (without the addition Augustus) was applied to the designated successor of the ruler. The reform of the empire under Emperor Diocletian then provided for a quadrarchy (tetrarchy) of two senior emperors (Augusti) and two junior emperors (Caesares) subordinate to them. This remained common for a long time, so Constantine the Great made his sons Caesares. Only emperor Valentinian I. raised his son Gratian to Augustus. From then on, only those sub-emperors who were not sons of the ruling Augustus were elevated to Caesares.

In the Byzantine Empire, Caesar remained part of the official imperial titulature until Justinian II. Thereafter, it continued to appear as a special honorary title, almost exclusively within the imperial family. Under Alexios I Komnenos, the title loses this meaning and is later devalued to an honorary title.

The sacred aspect of the emperorship

Among the highest offices in ancient Rome had also belonged that of the chief priest, the Pontifex Maximus, which Caesar had already held. Since 12 BC all emperors were also Pontifex Maximus. This gave Augustus and his successors a sacral dignity in addition to their secular one. The sacral dimension of the emperorship could look back on a long tradition that had already begun in the Ancient Near East and, especially during Hellenism, had also penetrated into the Mediterranean region. Caesar had already been deified after his death, his successor Augustus was thus implicitly also brought close to the gods, and this line was continued in ancient Rome. It finally culminated in the rigid court ceremonial of late antiquity. After the Christianization under Constantine the Great, the pagan title Pontifex Maximus was discarded (albeit only under Gratian and Theodosius I), but the sacrality of the emperor's dignity remained largely untouched, as the idea of a divine dignity developed.

The Byzantine emperors, the Russian tsars and the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire also derived a priest-like position from the sacred rites of their coronation, which were sometimes understood as a sacrament, as well as the claim to be equal to the pope as the highest secular dignitaries. This claim and the associated interference of the emperors in the ecclesiastical sphere led in the Occident in the 11th century to a serious conflict between the Roman-German emperorship and the Roman papacy, the Investiture Controversy, in which the latter largely prevailed and later even claimed for itself to have the emperorship and even the election of the Rex Romanorum. This claim, however, was finally rejected in the 14th century (see Golden Bull). But in the other occidental kingdoms, too, a dispute arose, though not in such severity. In the East, on the other hand - both in Byzantium and in Russia - the emperors and the tsars always succeeded in maintaining primacy over the patriarchs of their respective Orthodox churches.

The precarious position of the Roman emperor

In the eyes of many ancient historians, the Roman monarchy was an "acceptance system" (Egon Flaig): like any legitimate government, the Roman one depended on the consent or at least toleration of the majority; due to its origins in an exceptional office, however, it was particularly difficult for Roman rulers to secure it. Still formally living in the res publica, there was no single, indisputable source of legitimacy (such as succession or election) for an autocrat. For this very reason, the imperial position was not de iure hereditary. Although the emperorship as such was unquestioned quite soon after Augustus, the person of the monarch was particularly easy to question in Rome, and his legitimacy particularly easy to doubt. The emperor therefore had to be accepted by the relevant groups in the empire if he was to hold on to power. These groups were initially (27 BC to about 260 AD) the Senate, the plebs urbana in Rome, and the military (Praetorians and legionaries). No authority could emerge that made the authority of one person to rule binding as a whole; there was never a universally accepted rule in the case of disputed succession. Neither the senate nor the plebs urbana nor the army had the power to install or depose an emperor - if one of these groups proclaimed a new ruler, he first had to buy, blackmail or fight for the consent of the other groups. The army, however, as the most important factor of power, rapidly gained a de facto supremacy. In 37 AD the soldiers raised Caligula to emperor by acclamation, which the other two institutions had to accept of necessity. But even the army was not homogeneous in itself. No part of the army could speak in the name of others, so that sometimes the armed confrontation between different candidates for emperor had to bring the decision (Four Emperors' Year, Second Four Emperors' Year). Only if one part of the army gained the upper hand could it decide on the elevation to emperor. The system of tetrarchic rule introduced by Diocletian led to a corresponding number of armies, which could under certain circumstances confront each other again - this case also occurred during the dissolution of the Roman tetrarchy after 306.

The assumption of rule by usurpation required that the incumbent emperor died or was overthrown. Therefore, the pretender had to try to dominate the center if possible. This was true for the principate epoch (including the time of the soldier emperors). Except for Postumus, Zenobia, and the emperors of the Tetrarchy, almost all strove to gain dominion over the entire empire. In the later 4th century, when multi-emperorship had become established and a regional division of responsibilities among the members of the imperial college was becoming more common, this changed radically. The usurpers after Constantine I usually did not want to rule the whole empire, but only their sub-area (like Magnus Maximus).

This situation left two possibilities: Either the regional emperors subordinated themselves to the central emperor, or the dominions were de facto divided. This last development had the consequence that the Roman Empire could hardly react to tensions as a whole anymore. There was no longer a centre of the whole empire, but several centres. There was no longer a capital and no institution that united the empire from Syria to Spain. Developments diverged: in the east, the imperium held on; in the west, it was gradually marginalized by the army masters (magistri militum) in the 5th century. Nevertheless, the military power of the empire remained relatively intact for a long time, and the two halves of the empire, which had in fact been definitively divided since 395, often cooperated closely, seeing each other not as separate states but as one and the same res publica. Until 450, both halves were ruled by closely related emperors.

Valentinian I had strengthened the office of the army around 370. He had elevated his son Gratian to the second Augustus in the Western Empire. When Valentinian died, the two army masters Equitus and Merobaudes elevated the 4-year-old son Valentinian II to Augustus. Gratian accepted this act. Thus, for the first time and in disobedience to the will of the deceased and in opposition to the incumbent emperor, the army masters had acted as emperor-makers; however, Valentinian was Gratian's half-brother, so this was not an act against the imperial family. Fifteen years later, a confrontation between Valentinian and Arbogast took place, in the course of which the emperor sought to dismiss his army commander, but was unsuccessful. The latter tore up the document of dismissal with the words: "You have not given me the office and will not be able to take it away from me" (Zosimos IV 53f.). Arbogast had been elevated by the officers to succeed his predecessor (probably his father), the Frankish army master Bauto, after his death, the first real usurpation of the office of army master. The young emperor had to accept this. Thus the office of army-master came to stand alongside the office of emperor as an independent institution. The succeeding emperors of the West had lost control of the army. This was the beginning of the end of the Western Roman Empire. This decline was sealed at the latest with the assassination of Emperor Valentinian III in 455 by followers of Flavius Aëtius, who had been slain by his own hand shortly before: The liberation blow was unsuccessful.

In Eastern Rome, on the other hand, the rulers succeeded in maintaining room for manoeuvre vis-à-vis powerful aristocrats and military leaders; decisive here were the last three decades of the 5th century, when Emperor Leo was able to kill the overpowering army commander Aspar and Anastasius was also able to push back the power of the Isaurians by 498. Henceforth the Eastern Roman emperors were again the undisputed rulers in the empire, and in the 6th century the most important of them, Justinian, was even able to extend his rule again over large parts of the lost West. Under him, the court ceremonial of late antiquity, which was intended to remove the emperor and make him as unassailable as possible, also reached its zenith; it was retained and refined in Byzantine times.

Statue of Augustus