Talk:Tsar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

My edits

The few of my edits that concerned content rather than organisation were based on the following consideration: We should distinguish between the etymology (including the meanings used in more or less recent history) and the modern meaning of a word (or in this case, title). While all the historically attested meanings should be mentioned, one shouldn't call one of them, even the most ancient one, "the [only] genuine meaning". Thus, it is incorrect to:

1. Mention only "Emperor" as the native meaning of tsar, in the lead paragraph and elsewhere, when it is obvious that entire languages at their modern stage use the term in a different way, and that an entire country (my home country, Bulgaria) has used it officially in that different way during its recent history.

2. Call what is simply the only existent usage in these languages, both among scholars and laymen, "informal", "misleading", "a misconception", "occasional", and "anachronistic" - rather than a simple semantic shift. --85.187.44.131 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an accurate appraisal of the linguistic and historical significance of the term. "Tsar" cannot designate "king," because a "king" (specifically rex, roi, könig, re, rey, etc) is something else which is designated in Russian as король, in Bulgarian as крал, and in Serbian as краљ. One would never find a reference to "Tsar Richard the Lionheart" of England or "Tsar Philip the Fair" of France. Titles were extremely contentious in monarchic diplomacy until the modern period and the distinction is therefore very important. Ambiguity is introduced only by the discrepancy between traditional and diplomatic forms in the modern period (e.g., the modern Bulgarian kings who styled themselves tsars like the Greek kings who styled themselves basileis), and by more informal usage of the term as a generic indication of monarchical status. Thus the Russian and Bulgarian usage of "tsar" for Sennacherib of Assyria does not mean that "tsar" equals "king" simply because in English we call Sennacherib a "king." In fact neither designation is fully accurate, as it borrows a term from the Roman/Barbarian/Christian titulature and imposes it anachronistically on a very different society.Imladjov 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can find occasional references to Western kings (of royal, not imperial status) as Tsars in earlier periods, when the modern use of the term hadn't been established. See e.g. (http://medstud.ceu.hu/index?id=10&cikk=106):

"The official explanation of this change in the title of the Prince of Bulgaria offered to the Third Great National Assembly of Bulgaria in June 1887 stated as the main reason Ferdinand's close relationship to the "French Tsar" Louis Phillippe (whose grandson he was) and thus his belonging to the Orlean Branch of the Royal Bourbon House. Another arguments were Ferdinand’s relations with “Royal Duke and Husband of the English Tsarina (his uncle and spouse of Queen Victoria Prince-Consort Albert) and brotherhood to the "Belgian Tsar" (his cousin Leopold II, son of Albert and Victoria)."

But even if that were not so, your argument wouldn't change anything. The reason why Bulgarians and Russians don't call Western rulers "tsar" is not because they view "tsars" as "emperors", it's simply because kral/korol' is the traditional designation for West European royalty. In the abstract world of the Russian and Bulgarian fairy tale, the ruler is always a "tsar" (but not the Russian/Bulgarian tsar). Tsar is simply the default, unmarked term for a monarch.

Generally, the term "Emperor" itself has a very vague meaning, but none of the meanings listed in the relevant Wiki article fit the Greek and Bulgarian monarchs of the XXth century. BTW, you seem to be an adherent of - solely - the last meaning in the list (continuity with the Roman Empire). In fact, I don't see why one should prohibit other uses of the word (e.g. to refer to the Chinese and Japanese emperors, or to the Empress of India). --194.145.161.227 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that the Greek and Bulgarian rulers of the XXth century meant "emperor" with their title, and wanted to be called "emperors" by the outside world, do provide it. I think that the passage I cited above suggests that that wasn't the case as far as Ferdinand was concerned, but I might be wrong. --194.145.161.227 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't Basileios always the Greek word for "King," even if it was also used for the Byzantine Emperors? It seems to me that that's a different case. In terms of Bulgaria, my understanding was that Ferdinand liked to think of himself as an Emperor, and kept a full Byzantine regalia in his closet somewhere, just in case he got to take Constantinople, but that he was universally recognized as a King by the rest of Europe, and never particularly objected to this. One might also add that the various subsidiary "Tsar" titles of the Russian monarchs in the 19th century ("Tsar of Poland," and so forth) suggest that "Tsar" was, at the least, seen as being inferior to the alternate title of Imperator. john k 21:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We have an article about basileus. It appears that the word originally meant something like chieftain, then turned into "king", and then at some point the Byzantines got the idea that only their emperor was a real "basileus", while the others were merely princes and "sub-kings" (archo:n, re:x). As for Ferdinand, he might have had ambitions of the kind you mentioned, but I don't think that's connected with the title "tsar". For the Bulgarians, "tsar" meant and means an independent monarch as opposed to kniaz (prince), and that was the significance of the adoption of the title at the time, in 1908 (together with the declaration of independence from Turkey). As mentioned above, an official explanation given for that desire earlier in 1887 suggested equality between "the French tsar" (=independent king), "the Belgian tsar" (=independent king) and the new "Bulgarian tsar". That's also the traditional way in which Bulgarian historians have interpreted the adoption of the "tsar" title in medieval times, but they are probably wrong about that, at least to some extent - that seems to be the consensus among Western historians, at any rate. As for "tsar of Poland", I had the same idea as you, but, of course, it's all OR and I don't feel like looking for sources right now. --194.145.161.227 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. The whole issue is quite complicated. I think it's fair to say that "Tsar" has sometimes been seen as equivalent to Emperor, but not always. BTW, before 1721, was the Russian title "Tsar" ever translated in references in western countries as either "Emperor" or "King"? john k 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, I have no idea. In particular, the Grimms' German dictionary says that the first occurrence of the word in the German language (1576) was in the sentence "czar heisset in der Reussen sprach ein könig" (http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?lemid=GZ01241).--194.145.161.227 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes me think to look in the OED. So here goes

1. The first reference in the OED, from someone named Eden in 1555, is similar Wheras now this prince [presumably Ivan the Terrible?] is cauled an Emperour, I haue thought good to shewe the tytle, and the cause of this error. Note therefore that Czar in the Ruthens tounge signifieth a kynge, wheras in the language of the Slauons, Pollons, Bohemes, and other, the same woorde Czar signifieth Cesar by whiche name Themperours haue byn commonly cauled. So, basically, what is being said here is that "Czar" is, in the west Slavic languages, used as a word for the Holy Roman Emperor, but that in the East Slavic languages it means "king."
2. The second, from G. Fletcher in 1591, seems to say the opposite: Sometimes [there is a] quarrell betwixt them [the Russians, presumably] and the Tartar and Poland ambassadours, who refuse to call him czar, that is emperour. However, one might note that the earlier reference notes that in Polish, Czar means Emperor. Thus it may be that the Poles refuse to call him "Tsar" because in Polish it indicates Emperor, even if it does not do so in Russian.
3. The next reference is from J. Davies in 1662: The word Czaar signifies King, which may be seen in their Bible, where the Muscovites, speaking of David and his successors..they call them Czaars. This seems pretty clear. Czar means king, says Davies. The Kings of Israel are called Czars in the Russian Bible.
4. None of the other examples is very clear, but OED also has a specific note on this issue: According to Herberstein its actual sense in Russian was "king," but it was gradually taken as "emperor," a sense which it had in other Slavonic languages. john k 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to the English-language article by Dmitry I. Polyviannyi is hardly enough to justify the absurd claim that in modern usage "tsar" designates "king." The author is obviously careless with the use of titles, and the quality of his English may further contribute to the problem. John Kenney is absolutely right in pointing out that Ferdinand of Bulgaria wanted to be an emperor -- in fact not only a Bulgarian one but also a Byzantine one. The title "tsar" which he assumed was the title he wanted, both because it was imperial, and because it had been traditional for the Bulgarian rulers of the past (since 913), whose historical tradition was claimed as precedent for the Third Bulgarian State. The title "king of the Bulgarians" (roi des bulgares) which was used diplomatically, has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "tsar," and everything to do with the diplomatic exigencies of the time. Even if Ferdinand was to obtain recognition as sovereign monarch, he had no chances of being recognized as "emperor" by established emperors like Francis Joseph of Austria and Nicholas II of Russia. The dualism of his titles, used in separate contexts, does not alter the meaning of either term ("tsar" or "king"), it simply reflects the effects of reality and propaganda: to his people he is presented as the heir of the Bulgarian emperors of old; to the world he is the sovereign king of Bulgaria, something that the Great Powers were willing to accept.

I think it's putting the case way to strongly to say that the title "king of the Bulgarians" had nothing to do with the meaning of the word "tsar." The word "tsar" simply does not have a direct equivalence with "Emperor." It may suggest Emperor, and be derived from Caesar and all that, but Peter the Great's taking of the title "Emperor" separately suggests that, in the west, it was not seen as being equivalent to Emperor. Which means that translating Tsar as "King" seems just as acceptable as translating it as "Emperor." john k 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but here you are absolutely wrong. Tsar is precisely imperator. Read any Slavonic translation of a Byzantine chronicle. Read for example John Fine's Early Medieval Balkans, or most other recent works dealing with Byzantium and Bulgaria or Serbia. I would say read Ostrogorsky's Avtokrator i samodržac, but it actually is in Serbian. Peter the Great's change of style to imperator was part of his Westernizing reforms, not of an upgrade in monarchical status. Russian rulers were already emperors, but Peter wanted to westernize his court and his country. He did that in all aspects of society. In terms of government and propaganda, this meant the importation of western conceptions and institutions that had not yet been introduced. Peter created a senate, which was in fact the body that conferred the title of "emperor and autocrat of all Russia" on him in 1721. This was part of the celebration of a triumph over Sweden, and Peter was acclaimed "Peter the Great, father of his country, Emperor of all Russia," all of these elements (minus Russia) laden with Roman (western) imperial ideology. I do agree that this change is confusing and it has led to the misconception about the status of a "tsar." It does not, however, change its meaning. A lot of the factors are discussed in the article. The works by Fine and Ostrogorsky are cited there. On Peter I am sure there are plenty of better places to look, but see for example David Warnes, Chronicle of the Russian Tsars, Thames and Hudson, London, 1999, 108-109.Imladjov 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think I anywhere denied that Tsar can be used as a translation for "Emperor." Just that it isn't always so used. At any rate, my understanding was that Peter took the title "Imperator" in order that the various western powers would recognize him as being an Emperor, something that was not consistently done, at the very least, with the old title. There was already confusion about the status of a Tsar, as the OED entries suggest, and Peter wished to put an end to it by taking a title that could only possibly be translated as Emperor. Furthermore, the later Russian use of "Tsar" as a subsidiary title only increases the confusion or ambiguity - the Emperors were Emperors of all the Russias, and also of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, and Novgorod (i.e. the seats of the former Great Princes). They were Tsars of Poland and Georgia (formerly Kingdoms), and of Astrakhan, Kazan, Tauric Chersonesus, and Siberia (formerly Khanates). None of the places for which the title "Tsar" was formally used were places with any kind of Imperial tradition. It seems clear that, whatever the initial meaning, in the formal titulary of the Russian Emperors in the 19th century, Imperator=Emperor, Tsar=King, and Velikii Knyaz=Great Prince or Grand Duke. Unless you are saying that it would be appropriate to refer to the "Congress Empire of Poland" or the Tsars as "Emperors of Georgia." In the Polish case, at least, we seem to have a clear instance of the French roi de Pologne (a title established by treaty in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna) being translated into Russian as "Tsar of Poland." john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing the standard or official usage of states that had tsars (Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia), and states dealing with them diplomatically. Your understanding of why Peter the Great replaced the title "tsar" with imperator seems close enough to the mark for me, but not the implication that tsar was not precisely imperator. Peter may have been reacting in part to the seeming difference between the titles, but that does not mean that such a difference actually existed. On the "subordinate" titles of tsar in the full imperial titulary please see my response below. But note that within a Russian context, no "subordinate" title makes reference to tsar (and "subordinate" titles do exist, such as the grand princes of Smolensk, Nižnij Novgorod, etc). So tsar is imperator. If the title had been "imperator and autocrat of all Russia, tsar of Moscow, grand prince of Kiev and Vladimir," you would have a case. But it is not. Imladjov 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Greek case is indeed different, particularly because in its long history the term "basileus" had gradually changed its meaning several times: from chief, to prince, to king, to emperor, to emperor (exclusively), to emperor and (informally) generic monarch. When the modern kings of Greece took the title they were looking back to both Classical Greek and Byzantine imperial traditions (Constantine I of Greece is said to have considered calling himself Constantine XII in succession of Constantine XI Palaiologos). For a number of reasons the classical model was emphasized more, but here too we have the adoption of a title that had for a long time been traditional for the monarch ruling over Greeks and Greek-speakers, regardless of the disparity between his current royal (kingly) status and that of the medieval emperors. The king of Greece could not be accepted diplomatically as emperor, because the Great Powers would not allow that.

As a somewhat reverse example to Ferdinand calling himself tsar and actually being recognized (by the international community) as king, we may look at the Shahs of Persia (Iran). These rulers had recognized imperial status, but the commonly used designation "shah" actually designates "king." The Iranian monarch's actual title was "shahanshah" (i.e., "king of kings"), and hence the imperial status of its holder. Does the common usage of "shah" mean that the Iranian monarchs were kings or that "shahanshah" means "king"? Certainly not.

I'm not sure how this relates. The Shah had a title which means "Emperor," and is referred to as an "Emperor" if his title is translated into English. That when we do not translate the title we use a shorter form, which happens to be identical to the word for "King," seems neither here nor there. john k 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying that the usage of a particular term for a monarch of a different status does not change this status or vice versa. Imladjov 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But it seems clear that Russian Tsars before 1721, for instance, did not unambiguously have the status of "Emperors" - note the various English travellers writing back to say that, in Russian, Tsar is the word for "King," even though they obviously knew that in West Slavic languages it was the term used for the Holy Roman Emperor. It is even more clear that Ferdinand of Bulgaria, whatever his imperial ambitions, was not considered an Emperor by anyone, even though his title was "Tsar." The title of "Tsar of Poland" was, referred to internationally, and presumably in Poland itself, as "King of Poland." The Russian Tsar can obviously mean either "King" or "Empmeror," depending on context. john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You will always be able to find some instance where someone either does not accept or finds a way to denigrade a ruler's claim to one title or another. The reluctant acceptance of the imperial status of Bulgarian rulers by Byzantium is a good case in point. The concession was made as early as 913, and as late as c.1320 Byzantine chroniclers often (though not always) liked to refer to the Bulgarian ruler as a mere arkhōn ("ruler," "prince," "king") or to sometimes qualify his imperial status (e.g., "the so-called emperor..."). But all the official documents issued by either court accepted the imperial status of the other monarch. A snide remark by Herberstein (who is on top of all a foreign source) is not enough to claim that the contemporary "tsar" is not precisely emperor. It is nevertheless curious why he says this, and I am wondering whether this does not merely reflect the de facto absence of a royal (kingly) title in Russian usage (thereby assuming "tsar" must reflect it rather than the superior imperial title). On Ferdinand of Bulgaria, we cannot say that he was not considered an emperor by himself, and perhaps even by his people. I am very skeptical that most subjects of Ferdinand would have had the faintest notion that his "tsar" was actually a kral (king), or what the latter would have actually meant. Of course Ferdinand was a king, and he accepted this status in his diplomatic dealings with foreign powers (since French was Bulgaria's diplomatic language, roi des Bulgares). To his people, however, he was a successor of the medieval tsars. But that in itself does not make a "tsar" a "king." Imladjov 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The recourse to many early testimonies as to the meaning of the word "tsar" can actually be very confusing because the authors can be poorly informed. They in fact run into the same misleading logic which confuses many modern Slavic speakers when they have to translate this title into English (or another western language). Because in many cultures "king" is the usual title of the local monarchs, it has become de facto the generic word for monarchs who are not explicitly something else. But by the same token, in Russia and Bulgaria "tsar" is the usual title of the (Russian and Bulgarian) monarchs, and it has become de facto the generic word for monarchs who are not explicitly something else. It should come as no surprise that in English we have ended up calling the Biblical rulers of Israel and Judah (who used the title melek) "kings," since England had and has kings, and English monarchs in the Middle Ages were expected to behave themselves in reference to their Biblical "predecessors" as part of the religious environment of the time. By the same token in societies ruled by emperors, like medieval Byzantium and Bulgaria, the Biblical monarchs became "basileis" and "tsars". Neither usage is technically accurate. These terms, and in particular "king" and "tsar" actually have an inherent meaning corresponding to Latin "rex" and "imperator" and their historical evolution is connected with it. It is only the informal usage that is vaguer and more encompassing but that does not in itself alter the technical meaning of the term.

Are you really saying that use of Basileus in Greek for Biblical kings derives from the fact that medieval Byzantium had Emperors? The Septuagint, the Greek bible, was translated before Christ, and before the Roman Empire. The use of Basileus for Melech obviously dates back at least this far, and has nothing to do with Byzantium, which didn't exist. Given that this was the first translation of the Bible ever, it seems pretty dubious to say that it is "technically inaccurate" to do so. Beyond this, I think everyone has acknowledged that "Tsar" is the slavic generic term for a monarch (or, at least, the East and Southeast Slavic generic term for a monarch), while "King," "Roi," "König," "Rex," "Re," etc. etc. is the west European generic term. I think we would all acknowledge, additionally, that in spite of this, these terms are not precisely equivalent to one another. Nevertheless, the fact that both mean "generic monarch" is significant, and means that we shouldn't be too quick to reject the equivalence. john k 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, I agree that when the Old Testament was translated into Greek basileus could be employed for "king" (although note that even here we are introducing a rather anachronistic term in its more general meaning of monarch). I also agree that when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin "basileus" was not yet quite exclusively limited to "emperor." This makes it possible for the Biblical kings to appear as basileus in Greek and rex in Latin. The language of the Greek text would not have changed when the Greek term came to exclusively mean "emperor," but also in part because the Byzantine emperor was the generic monarch for his Greek-speaking subjects and he (and the churchmen around him) sought to draw on Biblical parallels as the chosen and guided of God and his servants. These monarchs appeared as tsars in Bulgarian Slavonic (which produced the first systematic translation of Byzantine religious literature in the 9th and 10th century), because they were basileis (at that point, "emperors") in the Greek text. I must note, however, that this may not have been entirely automatic. The Biblical monarchs may have held special status (as did the Hellenistic kings who were portrayed as predecessors to the Roman emperors), probably for religious reasons. The Greek leaders at Troy were described as kings (kral) and other non-imperial rulers as knjaz, which shows that the Slavonic scribes were not unaware of the existence of other terms and did not apply the term "tsar" entirely generically. I disagree that "tsar" is the generic Slavic term for monarch. In Serbia, that would be kralj (king). In pre-913 Bulgaria that was knjaz (now translated as "prince," but in many cases equivalent to "king" and rendered in Latin as rex), in pre-16th century Russia it was also knjaz or velikij knjaz (usually translated as "prince/grand prince" or less accurately as "duke/grand duke"). The term "tsar" was applied by the Serbians Bulgarians and Russians only for emperors and for the Mongol overlords of Russia (who had in some symbolic way replaced the theoretical secular suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor). There are a few occasional exceptions in which for the purposes of flattery the term could be used for a contemporary monarch (e.g., some of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania who dominated much of what once was Kievan Rus'). But these are exceptions that prove the rule, or perhaps correspond to the treatment of the Mongol overlords. The generic sense of the title "tsar" is very much like the generic sense of the title "king" in English. We do not call Augustus and Justinian I kings (they are emperors), nor Mehmed II and Saladin (they are sultans), i.e., this usage is limited only to monarchs who do not belong to a clearly deliniated system (in these particular cases Romano-Christian or Islamic), such as the rulers of Assyria. So such terms may sometimes be employed in a generic sense, but they have a precise meaning as well, which is obviously paramount. Imladjov 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not denying that in Serbian, or in the western Slavic languages, "Kral" rather than "Tsar" is the generic term for a monarch. In Bulgaria and Russia, however, "Tsar" seems to have become such. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, while "Kral" may sometimes be used in Bulgaria and Russia for foreign monarchs, it never seems to be used for native monarchs, whatever their international status. Even when Russians came to rule over countries which previously had a ruler designated Kral/Krol, they referred to themselves as Tsars of it (notably Poland). BTW, how do these languages translate the titles of current Arab "kings" (Malik) like the King of Saudi Arabia or the King of Jordan? This word is obviously exactly the same as the Hebrew Melech, which they translate as Tsar (in Biblical translations, at least). I'm also interested to know what word Byzantine Greeks used for western Kings? Did they just use the Latin Rex? What were the Crusader Kings of Thessalonica called in Greek? john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But the usage of "tsar" in modern Bulgaria was based on a propagandist appeal to tradition and continuity. It is not a conscious attempt to redefine the meaning of the term "tsar." If that had happened, it would have probably caused as much trouble within the country (assuming the Bulgarians cared) as if Ferdinand had demanded that the Great Powers accept him as an emperor. I will consult an expert on the usages of "king of Poland" and "tsar of Poland." I am fairly certain both were used, at different times, though the latter perhaps rather informally or unilaterally. But will get back to that. The Russians did not, however, at any point conceive of Poland as an "empire" or "tsardom." However, even if officially calling him an imperator, they never stopped calling their sovereign a "tsar." The Kings of Saudi Arabia, etc, are kral/korol' in modern usage. Muslim rulers called Sultan or Amir are usually called that in modern East/South Slavic historiography. For western kings the Byzantines used rēx or rēgas, for eastern and east European ones usually arkhōn, until the Slavic derivative of "Charles" came into usage, when one finds the rulers of Hungary and Serbia as kralēs. In modern Greek the ruler of Thessalonica is basileus (at least in one work I had handy) but will have to check on the Byzantine sources. Imladjov 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to older usage, it may be noted that the difference between "tsar" and "king" is reflected in very clear terms both in the Medieval and Early Modern period. For example, the medieval Bulgarian translation of the Byzantine Chronicle of Constantine Manasses calls the Roman, Byzantine, and Bulgarian rulers tsars but the leaders of the Greeks at Troy kings. The Serbian monarchs issued monastic charters differentiating between the grants issued by their own kings and their neighbors' tsars, and after 1345 included reference to both a Serbian tsar (Stefan Uroš IV Dušan) and a Serbian king (his son Stefan Uroš V). During the co-called Bulgarian Renaissance (17th to 19th century) lists of Bulgarian rulers in historical works were typically divided between kings (corresponding to what have more recently been called khans and princes) and tsars.

Certainly the Serbs had a sense of Kral (or whatever the Serbian form is) and Tsar as separate, and saw "Tsar" as being equivalent to Emperor. So, apparently, did the Poles and Czechs, as my OED example states, because they were closely familiar with the Holy Roman Emperor (whose German title "Kaiser," is obviously similar to the Slavic "Tsar"). That doesn't necessarily show what the Russians thought in the 16th century. Certainly my OED examples show that English people did not generally consider "Tsar" to be equivalent to "Emperor." john k 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Russians (or their government) made a conscious effort to upgrade the title of their rulers from c.1480 until the formal coronation of Ivan IV as "tsar" in 1547. As early as 1489 they demanded recognition as emperors, and this was apparently granted by the Holy Roman Empire in 1514. The title the Russians sought recognized was that of tsar. The title they abandoned (or rather subordinated) was that of velikij knjaz, which had been rendered variously in Latin, including as "king" (rex). The Bulgarian sources likewise make a very clear distinction between emperors and kings, although the latter appear in them understandably rarely. But the usage is sufficient to clearly show that "tsar" was not a generic title that could be applied to monarchs of explicitly kingly status. Imladjov 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that the Russians after 1721 clearly distinguished between the title of "Imperator" and that of "Tsar," formally using the latter only in relation to subordinate territories. john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not quite so. In spite of the formal insistence on imperator, "tsar" was not wholly supplanted, in popular but also some (semi-)official (especially church) usage. Please see also above and below, but again the subordinate territories in which the usage "tsar" is encountered are not Russian (or not Russian proper). The usage of "tsar" for the Mongol khans, for example, already somewhat peculiar, would have hardly merited being updated to imperator as the Russian title had.Imladjov 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an English Wikipedia article which reflects the historical significance of the term "tsar." Here it is relevant that this was the imperial title used by the rulers of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia, and to note such derivatives as "drug czar," etc. It is less relevant to note that Biblical and some other non-Western monarchs have generically come to be referred in Russian and Bulgarian as tsars, because that is not here used as an exact, explicit title. Such usage was amply attested in the earlier version of the article. So was the frequent misconception which keeps being pushed by recent edits. I restate: "tsar" MEANS "emperor." Whether someone calling himself a tsar is always and everywhere accepted as an emperor is another matter. Whether the term is sometimes used to designate rulers of a monarchical status that is technically neither imperial nor royal is also another matter. Whether there is frequent misconception about this term is yet another matter, but certainly not a reason to undermine the accuracy of a Wikipedia article, and the occasional mistake by a careless or uninformed early or modern author is irrelevant. All these usages were discussed in considerable detail in the earlier version of the article, to which I will revert. Best, Imladjov 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, if "Tsar" means "Emperor" with no ambiguity, why on earth did Peter the Great take the additional title of "Imperator"? As far as I am aware, it is generally not considered correct to refer to Michael Romanov as "Emperor of Russia." Tsar is a term whose meaning is closely related to "Emperor," but which does not precisely indicate the same thing. The example of the modern Bulgarian monarchs, and of Peter the Great, and of the various early English usage examples in the OED (supported, apparently, by the single scholar the OED chooses to cite), is that "Tsar" can also be seen as roughly equivalent to "King," and that whether it means "King" or "Emperor" is dependent on context and other things. I don't see how this is debatable. Nobody is saying that Tsar doesn't sometimes mean Emperor, just that it doesn't unambiguously and always mean emperor. If it did, Peter the Great simply would have had no reason to take the additional title, among other things. john k 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Peter did not want you to fall under the very misconception that he has helped create. He replaced the exotic title of "tsar" in order to westernize the appearance of his authority and integrate it more fully within its (western) European context. This is merely a translation. If this were an upgrade, then why no new coronation? Tsar means precisely emperor, in spite of the confusion surrounding its precise meaning. Imperator in Peter's style is not an additional title, it just replaces Tsar (in respect to Russia). The usage Tsar vs. Emperor is stylistic and perhaps cultural. Most foreign rulers have their titles translated into English. Russian once were perhaps exotic enough to "escape" that, even for emperors after Peter. The latter's reform is certainly to "blame" here, but it does not mean that "tsar" was anything else than emperor in spite of the ease of forming such an impression. The OED references are both ambiguous and indecisive for our needs. Davies' argument from the equivalence of say King David with Tsar David can be easily dismissed for reasons I need not repeat. Fletcher reflects what would have been the actual state of affairs. Eden actually makes little sense given the historical realities of the time. But I would not be at all surprised that a distant foreign source in that day and age could make such an error. My points are based on primary evidence from the respective countries and on contemporary diplomatic exchanges, which would have been more careful and better informed in their usage (e.g., the Doge of Venice writing to the imperator of Bulgaria), etc. When it comes to actual Emperors and actual Kings, "tsar" is only used for the former. When it comes to monarchs outside the formalized Romano-Christian hierarchical system, the term occasionally acquires a more generic usage in modern texts (e.g., "tsar" of Assyria, etc). I think in an English Wikipedia article on "tsar" the significance of the title to rulers who actually used it is obviously of far more relevance than the occasional usage of that title in a foreign language to describe a foreign monarch. What I mean is, one may look for tsar in regards to e.g. Serbia, but one would not seek to know anything about a "tsar" of Assyria. Imladjov 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But the monarchs actually referring to themselves as "Tsars" are sometimes called kings - notably the post-1908 Tsars of Bulgaria, or the way the Russina "tsar" title is translated in subsidiary titles after 1721. Again, you're going to have to explain why Russian Emperors after 1721 used "Tsar" in their official titulary only in places where one would expect to see "King." We should also remember that the use of "Tsar" for "Emperor" would seem fairly natural to many westerners - notably Germans, who used the similar "Kaiser," and definitely for western Slavs like the Poles, who referred to the Holy Roman Emperors as "Tsars." I don't really buy that Peter had to take the new title solely in order to make things clearer to westerners. It seems clear that usage itself was confusing - remember the Eden reference, where he clearly understands that in Polish, "Tsar" does mean "Emperor," but does not believe that it means this in Russian. john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the modern kings of Bulgaria are kings. They use the title of tsar. I agree it is a paradox, but that in itself does not mean that this exceptional (and counterintuitive or outright wrong) usage ought to be considered defining for the actual precise meaning of the term. Again, we do not question the imperial status of the rulers of Iran because we usually call them just shahs instead of shahanshahs. On Eden (or rather Herberstein) see above and below. Imladjov 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said that the notion of emperor is limited to the Christian world, so where does Persia come in? And how do you define "real" imperial status? Concerning "the actual precise meaning of the term", I already pointed out that the meaning of a word can only be inferred from the way it is used in practice. Already the Ancient Greeks established that meaning is assigned to words by convention (the^sei) and not by nature (physei). --194.145.161.227 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Shakespeare: "My father was the Emperor of Russia", says a girl in the "The Winter's Tale". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Nobody is saying that "Tsar" can't mean "Emperor." (At least, I don't think anybody is saying this). Just that it has also been translated as "King." Why is Shakespeare any more dispositive than the 1555 source which explicitly says that Tsar is equivalent to King? Also note - the 1555 source is specifically talking about the correct way to translate "Tsar." Shakespeare is simply using the term "Emperor of Russia." The former source seems rather more authoritative. Also note that The Winter's Tale is the play in which Bohemia infamously has a sea coast. We would not use this to argue that Bohemia actually had a sea coast in Shakespeare's time, would we? john k 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that for the time being, I am only inserting the claim that the modern use of the term (especially in bulgaria) means "monarch". I'm not dealing with XVIth century Russia, or with the Middle Ages. However Imladjov insists that the actual use of the term and the meaning that people ascribe to it are incorrect and irrelevant. Imladjov has also stated, in a personal message to me, that his statements in the article are referenced; however, I have no way of knowing which sentence is based on which book (for example, sentences such as "The impression that the title of tsar is equivalent to king or otherwise an intermediate position between king and emperor is a common misconception shared even by many modern Slavic speakers, especially by non-specialists writing in foreign languages" seem to be an OR-ish remark intended for other Wikipedians). Anyway, implying that a title "really" means something, except that none of the native speakers knows it, as well as calling the use of a word in its actual linguistic meaning "incorrect anachronistic use", is just ridiculous and an example of an extremely arrogant and elitist world view. If a scholarly source has espoused that most regrettable view and if an in-line reference to that source (I'd prefer an exact quotation) is provided, then I will take the trouble to provide counter-references. For the time being, I'm just reverting. --194.145.161.227 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Before reverting you probably should prove that in modern Bulgarian usage the Medieval emperors of the country are now called imperator and not "tsar", and that the kings of England and France are called "tsars", perhaps then you would be able to persuade. Tsar is certainly not a mere synonym for kral, monarh, vladetel, etc. You should certainly read the relevant literature which I have taken the time to reference. On modern Bulgaria, see Stephen Constant's Foxy Ferdinand as I suggested. Wikipedia information has to be accurate and verifiable. Your edits are neither. Imladjov 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No I needn't prove that, because my position is clear. In modern use, a "kral" is a Western independent monarch, a "tsar" is any other (including Bulgarian) independent monarch. I haven't denied that "tsar" probably meant "emperor" at least at some point in the Middle Ages, and that we still call our medieval rulers "tsars" (but we don't mean "emperor" by that, and we never associate it with "emperors"). It suffices to open a Bulgarian dictionary of loanwords and it becomes clear that "imperator" is not translated or explained as "tsar". Anyway, when you are saying that tsar "means" emperor - what does "emperor" mean, in your point of view? It implies a number of different things - which one do you think is relevant in this case? --194.145.161.227 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I responded at length to individual points by Imladjov above, but I want to lay out briefly the basic questions:

1. Given that 16th century westerners like Heberstein obviously knew that "Tsar" meant "Emperor" in western Slavic languages, why did they deny that it meant the same thing in Russian if the meaning was unambiguous?
2. If Tsar means Emperor unambiguously, and never meant king, why was the title "Tsar of Poland" used as a translation of the treaty term Roi de Pologne, especially given that there was no history of this usage in Poland itself, where "Tsar" clearly meant "Emperor"?
3. More broadly, why in the official titulary of the Tsars in the 18th/19th/20th centuries, is "Tsar" formally used as a title only to represent Russian rule over places formerly ruled by either Kings (Poland, Georgia) or Khans (Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Crimea), and never with respect to Russia itself, or to the old Grand Principality locations of Moscow, Vladimir, Kiev, and Novgorod, over which the Tsar is Imperator?

Since the Mongol overlords of Russia, the Khans of the Golden Horde, were called "tsars" (see above) in their capacity as suzerains (perhaps in relation to the Greek imperial term autokratōr), their successors enjoyed the same status. Respecting this status was initially important to the Muscovite rulers because they had derived their own legitimacy as grand princes in Russia from them. When these successor states were absorved into Muscovy (mostly in the 16th century), the Muscovite ruler included the titles of "tsar of ..." in his own. When Peter the Great replaced the word "tsar" with "emperor" in regards to Russia, I suppose it was unnecessary or inappropriate to do the same for the obsolete and traditional titles reflecting rulership over the Mongol successor states.

Note, though, that the Mongol successor states began as subsidiary states to the Khans of the Golden Horde. And the Khan of the Crimea (who was only annexed in the 18th century), was a vassal of another Emperor, the Ottoman Sultan. I don't see how one can imagine that Catherine the Great's Russia saw the Khan of the Crimea as being equivalent to an Emperor. john k 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The Mongol successor states began as rival states within a disintegrating Golden Horde. Their rulers had their Chingisid descent as their main source of appeal and gathered support from Mongol/Turkic and Russian notables who sought to exploit that fount of legitimacy for their own purposes. Again, titles need not correspond to political reality. They are based primarily on tradition and propaganda. Imladjov 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that tsar is not kept in relation to Russia itself (but other obsolete titles like grand prince do occur) is in fact an indication that tsar is equivalent to imperator.

I don't see how that follows at all. john k 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise it would have been kept as a subsidiary title. So instead of "Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, of Moscow, etc" you would have "Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Moscow, etc." Imladjov 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgia is a somewhat complicated case. It does not fall very clearly within the western Romano-Christian system of monarchic deliniation, which may allow a more generic usage. But the major kings of Georgia actually used the traditional eastern imperial title of "king of kings" (like the Iranian shahanshah), which may be another reason why "tsar" was deemed appropriate here.

Except that, again, the later Georgian kings were vassals of the Ottoman Sultans, who were definitely Emperors. Again, did Alexander I really think that the Bagratid King of Georgia was his equal? john k 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why so? The Emperors of Trebizond were occasionally vassals to the Saljuks of Rum, to the Ilkhanids, and to other Muslim neighbors. The Emperors of Bulgaria were occasionally vassals to the Golden Horde and to the Ottoman Turks. The Emperors of Byzantium were occasionally vassals to the Ottoman Turks too. The Emperor of Serbia may have been vassal to the King of Hungary. These are titles, not overarching political realities. And political realities ultimately do play an important part. Obviously Alexander I of Russia would not have seen a Georgian king as his equal, regardless of the latter's title. Imladjov 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no alternative to that. The Slavic term for king is derived from the name of Charlemagne and is strongly associated with the Papist usage. Only those rulers whose use of the title was sanctioned by the Pope (e.g., Danilo of Halych) were traditionally styled kings in Russia. The Pope was perceived as having a monopoly on the title of "king", although it was continued to be applied to Protestant rulers after these seceded from Rome. All the other rulers - Orthodox and Muslim in particular - were known as tsars. In the West, the title of "tsar" was perceived as superior to "king", although this was not necessarily the case in Russia. For instance, Pope Julius III in his letter of 1550 addressed Ivan IV as 'universorum Ruthenorum Imperator' and the Teutonic Knights styled Ivan III as 'Kaiser' in 1487. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the title of "tsar" was seen as clearly superior to that of "king" in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Byzantium, I cannot see how it could possibly have been seen differently in Russia. It is however possible that velikij knjaz was not seen as superior to "king." Imladjov 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The usage of "tsar of Poland" is rather confusing. I do not know much about it, but technically Poland was a kingdom, and at least for a while after 1815 the Russian emperor was technically its king. From the Polish point of view, "tsar" meant emperor, and perhaps the usage was to some extent informal, reflecting the actual imperial status of the monarch. Moreover, at some point (don't make me look it up), Poland effectively lost its special status, and perhaps the "tsar of Poland" title replaced that of "king."

I am fairly certain that this is not what happened. As I understand it, "Tsar of Poland" was the title initially used by Alexander I when he was given Congress Poland in 1815. One would add that the term "Congress Kingdom" was used in the west to refer, at least, to the territory well after the end of special privileges in 1831. john k 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you assume that Herberstein of all people (he is the imperial envoy) would have been ready to unquestionably accept the Russian ruler as bona fide emperor? That does not really impact the meaning of actual terms. Imladjov 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heberstein, of course, would not have accepted the Russian ruler as bona fide Emperor, but why on earth would he not report that the Russian ruler considered himself to be an Emperor? Why would he say, instead, that "Tsar" means "King" in Russian? If the Russian Tsar was claiming to be the equal of Charles V, wouldn't this be something that Charles V would want to know about? Presumably, Heberstein is either saying this because a) it is true and uncontroversial; or b) the Russian officials themselves were telling him this, in order to placate his master. If the latter is true, then that rather defeats your point that Ivan took the title of "Tsar" as him trying to claim equal status with the western Emperor. Evidently, even as they were doing this they were busy telling the Imperial ambassador that by taking the title of "Tsar", Ivan had no intention of claiming equality with the Holy Roman Emperor. This is a rather odd way of going about asserting your equality to the Holy Roman Emperor. john k 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So in view of that, do you wish to base your estimation of the meaning of "tsar" on the testimony of a possibly misinformed or hostile witness? This is why it is best to rely on official diplomatic sources, like the ones mentioned by Ghirla, the letter of 1514 (Maximilian I to Vasilii III), and many others. Imladjov 16:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not had patience to read the discussion above, but as a native Russian speaker I may elucidate some points. The term "king" is applied by Russians mostly if not exclusively to Western European monarchs (although there are kings of Greece and Thailand). The term "tsar" is usually applied to all the monarchs of the antiquity, from Sargon and Priam to the Sassanians. The kings of Georgia and Armenia naturally fall into the same category with Orthodox rulers of Bulgaria: they were all tsars.

Alexander I assumed the title of the Polish tsar, because he was also termed "tsar" of Georgia, Kazan and Astrakhan. I suppose it was deemed suitable to include Poland here, because "tsar" is perceived as a more prestigious title in Russian parlance and there was no reason why the ruler of Poland should be inferior to the ruler of Astrakhan. Furthermore, I cannot imagine the term "king", with its strong Roman Catholic connotations, accepted by the champion of the Russian Orthodoxy, just like the Russian Patriarch would not style himself "Pope". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in the case of Poland Alexander quite clearly was using "Tsar" as the Russian equivalent of "King/Roi/Rex/Krol." john k 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a brief mention on my comments above: looking more closely at the OED material, it seems clear that my fourth point (mentioning what Heberstein says) is actually the same as the first point - Eden is actually translating Heberstein, an apparently German traveller in Muscovy in 1549. At least, I think that's the gist of it. Note that, as a German, I don't see why Heberstein would have any problem with the idea that Tsar is equivalent to Kaiser. Presumably he said that it wasn't because he had some reason to think it wasn't.

Thanks. john k 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to stop responding up above, because it's getting too confusing. It seems to me that the disagreement mostly revolves around the question of what, exactly, an "Emperor" is. For Imladjov, as far as I can tell, there is some kind of Platonic ideal of "Emperor," and any term which derives from one used by Roman or Byzantine Emperors is an exact equivalent of the English "Emperor" (except for Basileus, the earlier usage of which makes this impossible). But the fact is that this is not true. English "Emperor," French "Empereur," German "Kaiser," and Latin "Imperator" are all exact equivalents of one another. But Russian "Tsar" is not an exact equivalent of these, and has never been treated as such. It is certainly true that Simeon I and Ivan IV were taking on the mantle of the Roman emperors when they took the title "Tsar," in the same way that Charlemagne and Otto the Great took that same mantle when they were crowned "Imperator" by the Pope. This means that, in some ways, the title of "Tsar" and "Imperator/Emperor" are comparable. But the meaning of the western Emperor/Imperator/etc. is only comparable to the Russian Tsar, it is not the same, as shown by the century and a half of confusion about whether or not the Russian Tsar was really an Emperor or not. The terms are similar, but they are not exact equivalents. This true on both sides of the divide - as I understand it, the term in Russian for the Holy Roman Emperor was always "Imperator," and not "Tsar," [correct me if I'm wrong on that one - I'm not completely sure] and similarly, "Tsar" has generally been left untranslated in western languages. In some cases (Bulgaria in 1908, Poland in 1815) "Tsar" has explictly been translated as "King" in western languages. If Ferdinand had really wanted to say he was a Byzantine Emperor, he would have called himself "Imperator," and I'm sure he would have done this if he had gotten Constantinople.

In the cases of Bulgaria and Poland you cannot claim that "tsar" has been translated as "king." There is no real translation involved. The Russian monarch's control of the Kingdom of Poland as a nominal personal union was a state of affairs recognized at an international congress; his title of "king of Poland" derives from that agreement. His title "tsar of Poland" may be a unilateral invention. Likewise, "roi des bulgares" does not necessarily translate "tsar of the Bulgarians" in the regular sense of the word. Ferdinand called himself tsar, was accepted as such by his government and his subjects, but obtained international recognition only as king. Does this make sense? Imladjov 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it is proved that he and his subjects, at least his court ideologists, meant "emperor" of the "translatio imperii" kind, when using the term "tsar". However, they didn't. He never demanded to be called "emperor" internationally, and at that point the "translatio imperii" meaning of the word "emperor" had become largely irrelevant (Franz Joseph was popularly regarded as an emperor mostly for the same reasons as the English king - for ruling a multinational state; hardly anybody thought of him as a "Roman emperor" of some sort, although, of course, his imperial status did have its roots in the Habsburg Holy Roman stuff).--194.145.161.227 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, read Stephen Constant on Ferdinand (I am sure there are more scholarly works on this as well). Ferdinand was very much under the influence of translatio imperii ideology in the Russian sense, seeking to derive his descent (successfully) from the Byzantine emperors of the past. But more importantly for the term "tsar", he was seeking to establish a traditional succession to his medieval predecessors in Bulgaria. That this was in many ways imaginary need not be disputed. But the meaning of the term is rooted in that precedent. As for Franz Joseph, let us not convolute the issue with modern notions of what constitutes an empire (colored by imperialism, etc). Fran Joseph is an emperor because his predecessor Franz I was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and kept the imperial title (in reference to Austria and its crownlands) after he gave up the empire. At this point new empires were created (namely Austria and France), but both of them derived at least some of their symbolism from the Holy Roman and Roman Empires in the past. Imladjov 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ferdinand was seeking to establish a traditional succession to his medieval predecessors in Bulgaria. But the Bulgarian national ideology of the time had nothing to do with the "translatio imperii" ideology of the Middle Ages, and nobody associated "tsar" with "emperor". I can quote to you a history by Nikola Stanev, from the early 1940s, where he describes Simeon I's seeking of the "tsar" title as part of his struggle for a "proper" state, independent from Byzanthium (I'm not saying I agree with him, although there might be some truth in that, in a way). I can quote similar thoughts by other, later Bulgarian historians, who regard the translation of "tsar" as "imperator" in Kaloyan's letters to the Pope as a simple mistake in translation (again, I don't agree with that statement as a whole). I'm just saying that the ideology is different. --194.145.161.227 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian nationalism demanded continuity. So did Ferdinand for his own amour propre. The question is not only did anyone associate "tsar" with emperor (Ferdinand and Nicholas II certainly did) but whether anyone expressly associated "tsar" with king either? Apparently that was not the case as "kral" was dismissed as one of the options for the title of the monarch. The modern Bulgarian monarch is a "tsar" only because his took the title used by his predecessors. He may not be an emperor like them, but that does not mean that the meaning of "tsar" has changed. Imladjov 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I already explained that "kral" is a foreign title, we've never had krale. The hitherto used "Kniaz" was associated with the status of a vassal. The term "tsar" wasn't chosen by the Government because of the orginal imperial connotations (which nobody thought of; in fact, the sultan had also been called "tsar"), it was chosen because that's what the rulers of Bulgaria had "always" been called. It wasn't meant to mean "emperor" - people didn't use the word to express the idea of "emperor" - ergo, it didn't mean "emperor". The overall message is -please leave our language alone. --194.145.161.227 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, another thing to consider is that "Tsar" derived from "Caesar," but that in the Byzantine Empire "Caesar" actually denoted a ruler of the level below the Emperor - a young prince who had been associated in power by the Emperor as an heir, perhaps, but not actually the Emperor. A search of the alt.talk.royalty archives on google for "+Imperator +Tsar" brings up a lot of interesting discussion of this issue. Also noted is that apparently Simeon I of Bulgaria proclaimed himself separately "Imperator" after he had proclaimed himself "Tsar," and, in fact, got this former title recognized by the Pope. (And another thing to add is that in modern Greek Basileus means simply "King," while Autokrator is used to mean "Emperor.")

Look, I'm not trying to say here that "Tsar" can't be roughly equivalent to "Emperor," just that it is certainly not exactly equivalent to it. The words are not synonyms. In English, we have a word "Tsar," and a word "Emperor." In Russian, they have a word "Tsar" and a word "Imperator." A Tsar is kind of like an emperor, but doesn't connote exactly the same thing, which is why we don't usually translate it as "Emperor." I don't think the article should say the terms are equivalent, and I don't think the article should say that "Tsar" cannot properly be equivalent to "King," when it has quite obviously been used in this way. See here, by the way, for a good review of Russian titles through the years. The author's summary of the word "Tsar" seems about right to me:

The Slavic term "Czar / Tsar" ( “Царь” ) is derived from the word "Caesar". In the Western European system no title of territorial dominion is corresponding directly to the title of Czar. There was certain confusion about the Russian monarchs' position in the hierarchy of the European rulers before the 18th century. It was resolved only when the Western European countries recognized the title of Emperor introduced in Russia by Peter I "the Great".

Best, john k 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying this before Imladjov says it: tsar wasn't derived from Byzantine kaisar; the latter is Slavic "kesar'". Also, Simeon appears to have called himself basileus at some point (at least one inscription), and tsar at some point; it's possible or likely that he used them as synonyms. I have never heard of him calling himself "imperator" during that period; I doubt that the word even existed. Later, the Bulgarian "tsar" was rergularly translated as "basileus" in Greek, and (consequently?) as imperator in Latin. This does not make your other arguments less convincing.

That said, I suspect that the Bulgarian rulers didn't quite understand the significance of the term (and the fact that even the existence of more than one emperor/basileus is, in fact, a departure from the Platonic ideal); that might explain the correspondence between Kaloyan of Bulgaria and the Pope, where Kaloyan insists on being crowned "imperator" as the most self-evident thing, and seems not to understand that the Pope would only view him as a "rex" instead. --194.145.161.227 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)