Emperor title of China and Japan?

Where would you like to put the dividing line, in population or area? Let us come up with with some new emperors and discard some of the older ones.

If there were prefectures in Japan with rulers subject to the person in Kyoto, then he was the Emperor. No?

Naomasa298 said:

They considered themselves an empire, on par with the Chinese. Much offence was caused when a letter from the court of Japan was sent to the court of China that began "The Son of Heaven in the East greets the Son of Heaven in the West".

They have a right to call themselves what they want.

Click to expand...

Onono Imoko carried two letters to sui china.

in the first, it write the son of heaven from where the sun rises greets the son of heaven where sunsets

it breaks the former diplomatic language between china and japan. unluckily, it happens that the second sui emperor is very sensitive, so he ordered to ignore this letter.

Onono Imoko should have considered the effect after the event. in the second letter he carried the phrasing changed to what was described as by Naomasa298. however the english translation unfortunately is just incapable to show the clever revision done by Onono Imoko, because of the lack of concepts in english speaking cultures. he understands that the chinese title of emperor actually consists two parts 皇 and 帝. this two parts were first used together by qin shi huang, who believes his contribution overcomes any person who had the tile with only 皇 or only 帝. thus 皇帝 title is more precious than only 皇 or only 帝. Onono Imoko then simply revised japanese ruler's title as 天皇 without 帝. hence the japanese title becomes lower than the chinese title, in ...some... way.



this story also tells a simple fact, it does not matter how the titles got translated into "emperor". because originally, the titles are quite different in meaning between japan and china, and both countries did not use english.
emperor is simply a widely used translation term, with no implications that chinese emperor or the japanese emperor are the same thing as we see in europe.


and it is a wrong understanding anyway that japan had only one ethnics, one culture....

It is not very precise to translate either title into English as emperor.

In 221 BC, after the then-king of Qin completed the conquest of the various kingdoms of the Warring States period, he adopted a new title to reflect his prestige as a ruler greater than the rulers before him. He called himself Shi Huangdi, the First Emperor. Before this, Huang (&#30343 and Di (&#24093 were the nominal "titles" of eight rulers of Chinese mythology or prehistory: The three Huang (皇, OC *ɢʷˤaŋ, "august, sovereign") were godly rulers credited with feats like ordering the sky and forming the first humans out of clay; the five Di (帝, OC *tˤeks, also often translated "emperor" but also meaning "the God of Heaven"[4]) were cultural heroes credited with the invention of agriculture, clothing, astrology, music, etc. In the 3rd century BC, the two titles had not previously been used together. Because of the god-like powers of the Huang, the cult worship of the Di, and the latter's use in the name of the God of Heaven Shangdi, however, the First Emperor's title would have been understood as implying "The Holy" or "Divine Emperor". On that account, some modern scholars translate the title as "thearch".[3]

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_China

As for Japan:

Origin of the title[edit]
Originally, the ruler of Japan was known as either 大和大王/大君 (Yamato-ōkimi, Grand King of Yamato), 倭王/倭国王 (Wa-ō/Wakoku-ō, King of Wa, used externally) or 治天下大王 (Ame-no-shita shiroshimesu ōkimi or Sumera no mikoto, Grand King who rules all under heaven, used internally) in Japanese and Chinese sources prior to the 7th century. The oldest documented use of the word "Tennō" is on a wooden slat, or mokkan, that was unearthed in Asuka-mura, Nara Prefecture in 1998 and dated back to the reign of Emperor Tenmu and Empress Jitō.[clarification needed]

Click to expand...

In Japanese, the Emperor is called Tennō (天&#30343, which means "heavenly sovereign". In English, the use of the term Mikado (&#24093 for the Emperor was once common, but is now considered obsolete.[2]

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan#Origin_of_the_title

An early and only semi historical Japanese okimi informed the Chinese Huangdi that he and his ancestors had conquered 95 "countries" of "barbarians" - for the greater glory of the Chinese monarch and without any ambition to increase their own power, of course.

Naomasa298 said:

They considered themselves an empire, on par with the Chinese. Much offence was caused when a letter from the court of Japan was sent to the court of China that began "The Son of Heaven in the East greets the Son of Heaven in the West".

They have a right to call themselves what they want.

Click to expand...

Slight mix up.

Son of Heaven from the Rising Sun greats the Son of Heaven from the Setting Sun was first use during Sui Dynasty when Japanese ambassador visited, and then switched to Eastern Emperor Salutes to Western Emperor after Sui ambassador return visit to Japan.

We had Maharajas and Maharajadhiraj. Would that be equivalent to Emperor? Raja is king, Maharaja is the great king and Maharajadhiraj is one who rules even the Maharajas.

What's in a name. Halagu was known just as Halagu.

The common translation for a king in Japanese and Chinese is wang 王. Both Huangdi and Tenno are ranks above wang.

Aupmanyav said:

We had Maharajas and Maharajadhiraj. Would that be equivalent to Emperor? Raja is king, Maharaja is the great king and Maharajadhiraj is one who rules even the Maharajas.

Click to expand...

Naima said:

Maharajadhiraj would be an Emperor , to my Knowledge India is not a single culture but holds in it also several ethnicities, and even languages.

Click to expand...

Actually India has hundreds of ethnicities and languages.

I would say that those titles are not equivalent to emperor.

I would say that maharaja means great king, not the great king, if you notice the distinction.

Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, vassal ruler of part of southern Britain after the Roman conquest, is described as "great king of the Britons" in an inscription. One article explains that as the ruler of parts of several former kingdoms, he had the right to the title of great king as a Roman vassal.

Many Jews, Christians , and Muslims think that the title of king of kings is very high and exalted because it is sometimes used for God the Father in the Old Testament and for Jesus Christ in the New Testament. They sometimes claim that king of kings should thus be reserved for God, despite the fact that God is often called "the King" or "the Lord" and they never try to reserve those titles for God.

The actual title used in the Bible is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And since "lord" is often used to mean "god" or "God" in the bible, the title could be translated as:

1) King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
2) King of Kings and God of Lords.
3) King of Kings and Lord of Gods.
4) King of Kings and God of Gods.

While the full title would be exclusive to God, the partial title of king of kings alone does not seem so exalted. Note that the title of King of Kings was used by Christian Ethiopian rulers for 1,600 years and by many other Christian rulers, and that many Christian Irish rulers used the title of king of over kings which seems even higher than king of kings.

Remember that after defeat Tiridates, the Armenian King of Kings, became a client of the Roman Republic. He and his immediate successor, and possibly later rulers, used the title king of kings while subordinate to the Roman republic and empire.

Queen of Kings Cleopatra VII, and her junior co-ruler King of Kings Ptolemy Caesarion, were subordinate to the triumvir Marc Anthony, ruler of only part of the Roman realm.

Septimius Odaenathus, King of Kings of the East, was a vassal of the Emperor.

In the Roman empire's hierarchical system, a vassal king usage of the King of Kings title did not indicate that he is a peer of the emperor or that the vassalage ties were cut.[99] The title was probably a challenge not to the Roman emperor but to Shapur I; Odaenathus was declaring that he, not the Persian monarch, was the legitimate King of Kings in the East.[73]

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odaenathus

The client king of the Crimean Bosporus was described as king of kings in one inscription.

In 337 emperor Constantine I granted his nephew Flavius Hannibalianus the title Rex Regnum et Ponticarumn Gentum "King of Kings and of the Pontic People".

Medieval rulers of Armenia might have used the title of King of Kings while being nominal vassals of the eastern Roman Emperor.

Medieval rulers of Georgia might have used the title of King of Kings while being nominal vassals of the eastern Roman Emperor.

In medieval Ireland, most kings were subordinate to higher kings who could have used the title of king of kings but mostly used the title of over king. the over kings were subordinate to the kings of provinces who sometimes used the title king of over kings but could have used the title of king of kings of kings. The kings of provinces were nominally subordinate to the High King of Ireland, who could have used the title of king of kings of kings of kings.

And some texts claimed that the high king of all Ireland was subordinate to the king of the Romans - the Holy Roman Emperor - who thus would have justification to call himself a king of kings of kings of kings of kings.

I say that most kings of kings were a lot lower than an emperor. Among the few kings of kings that had more or less imperial status would be the Persian ones of the Achaemenid, Arsacid, and Sassanid Dynasties. The title of the Achaemenid monarchs was "The Great King, the King of Kings, The King of Lands and Peoples, the King of the World" and the title of the Sassanid monarchs was "King of Kings of Iran and of non-Iran".

I believe the title of maharajadhiraja means king of great kings or great king of kings.

Note that the highest title granted by Mughal Padishahs to their Hindu vassals and subjects was maharajadhiraja Bahadur, or one step above a great king of kings.

In 1674 the Maratha ruler Shivaji Bhosle took the title of Chhatrapati from Chhatra "parasol or umbrella" and pati "master, lord, or ruler", apparently meaning universal ruler or emperor. Thus Chhatrapati is considered by some to be equivalent to emperor.




According to Wikipedia:

The Sanskrit word for emperor is Samrāṭ (word stem: samrāj) or Chakravarti. This word has been used as an epithet of various Vedic deities, like Varuna, and has been attested in the Rig-Veda, possibly the oldest compiled book among the Indo-Europeans. Chakravarti refers to the king of kings. A Chakravarti is not only a sovereign ruler but also has feudatories.
Typically, in the later Vedic age, a Hindu high king (Maharajah) was only called Samrāṭ after performing the Vedic Rajasuya sacrifice, enabling him by religious tradition to claim superiority over the other kings and princes. Another word for emperor is sārvabhaumā. The title of Samrāṭ has been used by many rulers of the Indian subcontinent as claimed by the Hindu mythologies. In proper history, most historians call Chandragupta Maurya the first samrāṭ (emperor) of the Indian subcontinent, because of the huge empire he ruled. The most famous emperor was his grandson Ashoka the Great. Other dynasties that are considered imperial by historians are the Kushanas, Guptas, Vijayanagara, Kakatiya, Hoysala and the Cholas.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor#Indian_subcontinent

Chakravartin (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is Sanskrit term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler[1] who rules ethically and benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called sarvabhauma.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravartin

Thus, according to various Wikipedia articles, the words Chhatrapati, Samrat, and Chakravartin more or less translate to emperor in the opinions of some people.

Note that neither maharaja or maharajadhiraja has been considered an imperial title in the last few centuries. Of course I don't know which titles were used by all the "emperors" of all the various "empires" in Indian history, especially in early eras before title inflation, nor how valid it may or may not be be to describe them as "emperors" and "empires".

As far as I know, maybe only the Mauryas and Mughals might be classified as Indian emperors, maybe other dynasties like "the Kushanas, Guptas, Vijayanagara, Kakatiya, Hoysala and the Cholas" should be considered imperial.

Naima said:

What's that?

Click to expand...

lordus maximus tutti-frutti mafius.

As far as Indian usage goes, I agree with you. However I feel, Chhatrapati is not really equivalent to Samrat, Chakravartin, emperor; because all kings will have the parasol over their head, all will be Chhatrapatis.

Naima said:

But Japan? I mean a Little Island with only one ruler , one ethnicity and one culture

Click to expand...

If you want a small Asian Empire then don’t forget the Korean Empire. It only ruled the peninsula with no colonial territories. By declaring an Empire, the Koreans philosophically severed themselves from the Qing Empire, as the Tianxia (where Vaderfan is from, or maybe Vaderfan is from Japanese Tenka) can have only one Emperor bestowed by the Mandate of Heaven. Having your own Emperor is a rejection of the ‘Chinese Way’, and thus, the Sino-Qing sphere of influence. It was way of saying ‘We serve no great but ourselves’. No sadae.

Emperor called ‘Hwangje’ (皇帝).

Citation:

"On 12 October 1987, Gojong ascended to the throne of Gwangmu Emperor, and the name of the country was subsequently changed to Daehan Jeguk (the Great Korean Empire, 大韓帝國) on 13 October (RDAK, vol. 55, Gojong Sillok, 1967d, pp. 324-31). By this time, the Qing court had no choice but to admit the legitimacy of the new empire."

Chan, Robert K. Korea-China Relations in History and Contemporary Implications. Springer, 2017. Page 164.

Click to expand...

Vaderfan. Would this have made the Koreans ‘barbarians’?