Talk:Emperor/Archive 1

message: The status of Vietnam as an empire is questonable at least, certainly it has never been as powerful as China, and during the entire reign of the Nguyen dynasty the monarch who called himself "Emperor" among his own people was only recognized as king by the Chinese, a vassal of the Chinese Emperor. This lasted until the Sino-French War when France defeated China and forced the Qing Emperor to recognize France as overlord for Vietnam, they also made sure that the great seal from China, used by the Vietnamese, was destroyed and replaced by a new one. After that time, the French always referred to the nominal Nguyen monarch as "roi d'Annam" similar to the Chinese (An Nam means 'conquered south').
Certainly it is true that those who were under the control of the Vietnamese ruler were forced to recognize him as "Hoang De" (Emperor) but most people have always called him "Vua" (king) and during the whole Nguyen dynasty reign, from Gia Long to Bao Dai, the so-called Vietnamese Emperor always openly recognized either the Qing Emperor or the French governments as their superior, so I would say, while they were emperors in Vietnam, in reality Vietnam cannot be considered an empire like the others, certainly not so during the Nguyen dynasty, it would be, perhaps, more correct during the early Le dynasty.
Also, the only time the country was actually called "Empire of Vietnam" was during the period of rule by the Japanese (there wasn't even real independence), before that it was states within Indochina, before that Dai Nam, before that Viet Nam, before that Nam Viet, etc, the most grand name the country ever had on its own was Dai Viet, but it was only during the brief weeks in 1945, just before the Japanese surrender that the "Empire of Vietnam" existed and even then, it in no way had real control over the country, it was under enemy occupation by Japan.
NguyenHue
:Thanks for the information, that's really facinating, but I don't believe autonomy or independence is a prerequisite for being an Empire? If they called themself an Empire (which, to me seems like a very flexible term) then they're an Empire. But I'm not all that sure about it. --Duemellon 13:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese status Questionable 

message: If the Mauryas are to be described as Emperors (should the Guptas, as well?), we should explain what their titles were in Sanskrit, shouldn't we? john k 01:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mauryas 

message: Text moved from article page by Francis Schonken:
:In Christian Europe the use of the title emperor is more than an affectation. A king recognises that the church is an equal or superior in the religious sphere, emperors do not. This was illustrated by Henry VIII of England who started to use the word imperium in his dispute with the Pope over his first divorce. By stating that they were emperors the Russian Tsars claimed to be the head of the (Russian Orthodox) church and did not recognise any superior authority but God.
I really don't know what this is about, anyway again it makes a concoction of "empire" and "emperor", or in this case trying to imply that Henry VIII was "emperor" while he used the word "empire" - I don't even know whether all the claims in this paragraph are verifiable (did Henry use "empire" really the first time when making religious claims? Was he even using the word "empire" in the religious manner suggested? etc...)
So I moved this section here for further discussion. I think it is of insufficient value (even if sources can be found to support it), to keep it on the article page. Henry VIII was no emperor; the rest are surmisings; "A king recognises..." I haven't the faintest idea what the added value is w.r.t. the already mentioned "The monarch assumes divine or other high-ranked religious characteristics (see: imperial cult, caesaropapism)", to which I added (imperium maius), as characteristic for emperors (Francis Schonken 20:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperium maius

message: I have removed the Roman template again because it is needless and adds POV to the article including its own category and implies that "emperor" is more tied to Rome than other civilisations. Here on WP it is stressed that equilibrium and moderation is fundamental. Adding this template only adds POV to article and does not help anything. The world does not revolve around Rome, in case anyone didnt notice. Khorshid 09:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needless template

message: What is the reason for including this micronation alongside the Roman emperors and actual states over which they had control? Anyone can declare himself emperor of nothing. At least Joshua Norton appears to be notable historically. —Centrx→talk • 20:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he? I mean, historically more "notable" than the mentioned micronation emperor? I mean, it's not as if either of them played a role of "ruling an empire" in history. But neither did all the "Latin Emperors of Constantinople" really, in the century after they were thrown out of their empire, for example. This article is about the word "Emperor" and where & when it applies. For some it is no more than a footnote in history. The current phrasing of the Emperor article leaves no doubt about that. I don't see why a self-appointed "emperor" that never ruled anything whatsoever outside his own house, would be less or more noticeable than an emperor that ruled a micronation as a kind of civil rights activist? Or have you got sources that give more insight in the one or the other? --Francis Schonken 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that Norton should not be included either, but the history of it makes it more reasonable to include. While he did not rule any state, according to the article he was well-known in San Francisco of the late nineteenth century, for twenty years, and had a front-page obituary in the Chronicle, and even now was perhaps going to have a bridge named after him and has numerous literary and cultural references. Dale Anderson however, declared himself emperor two years ago of a barely notable organization as a publicity stunt and, if anyone aside from a select group of activists has heard about it, they will neither remember nor care after another two years. As for the Latin Emperors, they were at least a lineage of real emperors before, rather than self-proclaimed, ever-powerless, and little known, and according to Latin Empire, had some real authority even after as minor princes unto the end. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the Latin Emperors, as I understand it, were considered the legal lieges of whatever of the various crusader states remained in Greece and the Aegean until the end of the line, most importantly the Principality of Achaea. And iirc, from the early 14th century onwards, the Latin Emperors were also Princes of Achaea.  john k 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micronation "emperor" 

message: I get the feeling that the custom of referring to the Japanese monarch as an "emperor" is only an historical artifact. He hardly fulfills any of the criteria listed in the beginning of this article. --Himasaram 10:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it that you are referring to the "Distinction between..." part and if so, except for the second point (and 5th which is exclusive to Christianity), he still fulfills all criteria. The first point is filled, of course. Third is historically true as Okinawa was an independent country and the eastern part of Japan was considered different countries (hence shogun was created to pacify them). Fourth one is tricky as Tenno's religious acts are not widely known. Niinameno-matsuri, which took place on Nov. 23rd, is the latest religious act where Tenno offered this year's harvest to kami and ate them himself as well. It's held in full cooperation with Ise Shrine and it was first recorded during the era of Empress Kōgyoku or 7th century. He actually has about one religious act per month but they are somber occasions and non-Japanese media rarely bother to send anyone to report them. --Revth 08:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emperor of Japan"