Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Regulai t1_ixliwlz wrote

Reply to comment by Svarthofde in Coins study suggests ‘fake emperor’ was real, say scientists by IslandChillin

So in the Roman era there wasn't necessarily a fixed pure title universally used to mean "emperor" as we think of it today as Emperors usually had multiple titles unique to them. In particular many titles including Imperator could often be granted to other individuals (though not always common) and the most important titles varied: Augustus, Princeps, Caeser, Imperator, Dominus. And let's not mention the greek ones.

An emperor of the US titled in the Roman way would be something like: "The Majestic Field Marshal President Biden Washington" (note no use of Emperor/king as Roman emperors pretended to be democratic)

Imperator (the actual title) originally meant something akin to "Field Marshal" today, that is "a high ranking military office". While it is the most closely associated to attaining real power, it would at times be granted to notable generals or other individuals and as a title of 'General' wouldn't have had the same sense of "king" that we think of Emperor today.

Augustus and Princeps were both more like "Majesty" and "Great" types of titles and likely conveyed more of a "kingly" nature.

Caeser, while initially of key importance, over time became associated with heir's and would eventually be the equivalent of "crown prince".

Dominus was later added by Diocletian to replace Princeps, with the meaning basically being "lord".

45

kesint t1_ixllduk wrote

Isn't it a bit wrong to say that Princeps are a majesty and kingly title? Augustus received the title Princeps civitatis which is first citizen, since Rex and Dictator would create resentment amongst the influential people.

12

Regulai t1_ixlna24 wrote

That's just the pretense to justify being granted a special title to circumvent the disliked rex. In actual practice "princeps" basically was conceived to indicate rulership as an alternative to rex and is essentially equivalent to rex.

Until it was eliminated, even if other titles were typically favoured, Princeps was the title that legally most indicated "the ruler of the empire" (it essentially meant that it was "right" for you to be in charge).

16

Myriachan t1_ixmuug3 wrote

“Imperator” means like, “one who commands” and so could be considered “commander”. I guess “imperator” in Latin and “commander” in English both have the connotation of military leader.

English “emperor” does come from “imperator”, but with significant semantic drift.

6

Regulai t1_ixn05xt wrote

Its a very indepth topic, but I chose field marshal because I feel it best captures the full intent of how the title was used.

Originally imperator was more of a mere description referring to anyone who holds imperium, but over time it started to be used as a specific title that would be acclaimed by high ranking men after great victories. And then under empire was highly restricted to essentially only the main leaders. Added note in roman society 'command' was a significant status with significant legal implications and not something to be viewed as just a "military leadership" role

The closest parable to this sense is the 5 star marshal rank, which is a supreme rank but is not a standard position but instead typically given as an honor after wars and victories to leaders of militaries. And in fact dictators often take field marshal as their key title for much of this reason.

2

IolausTelcontar t1_ixmb3p9 wrote

Commander in Chief is basically Imperator in the US.

4

Regulai t1_ixmlasz wrote

"General of the Army" (the 5 star rank equivalent to marshal) would actually be the closer parable. In the US the title is mostly only given out as a great honour particularly after victory/war.

Imperator similarly is an honor title granted for success. Many emperors would in fact be proclaimed imperator multiple times for major achievements they attained, as opposed to a simple title equivalent to head of the army.

9