Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ScoffSlaphead72 t1_ixkocgz wrote

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

This is actually where I believe we got the hierarchy for emperors and kings. As in an emperor of a region being above the local kings of the region. For example, Germany after unification was ruled by an Emperor (Kaiser) and he ruled over regional kings like the king of bavaria or Saxony. I am trying to think of a better example but the only other I can think of is the HRE.

62

MidniteMustard t1_ixkqnmr wrote

Japan had a similar setup with daimyos, shoguns, and the emperor.

Doubtful it's related to Rome, but still an interesting similarity.

41

phenomduck t1_ixkxydf wrote

It's not super surprising to have a similar system pop-up.

Ruler of one region defeats the other. The victor, in order to more easily control a larger region, leaves the defeated ruler locally in charge as long as they swear allegiance to the larger empire.

37

chineseduckman t1_ixl6k7o wrote

>as long as they swear allegiance

*pay massive amounts of money in taxes/tribute

29

francisdavey t1_ixlk3fu wrote

There was only one shogun (when there was any). The emperor > shogun relationship was not at all like emperor's relationship with kings or imperial subjects in the Holy Roman Empire for instance.

The shogun *nominally* ruled on behalf of the emperor but in fact the emperor was a ceremonial figure and had no actual power (except, perhaps, at the outset of the Ashikaga Shogunate, when there was what we might think of as a civil war between pro- and anti-Ashikaga factions, one of which was "imperial").

Sometimes the shogun was themselves a figurehead - eg during much of the Kamakura Bakufu when it was the Hojo regents that were actually in control or at least nominally so.

Daimyo are more complicated and a bit more like feudal subjects in the Reich sense. But only a bit.

14

Orngog t1_ixl5k5e wrote

What about Mesopotamia?

5

ColonialGovernor t1_ixla6oo wrote

I find the King and emperor relationship a good example. Just a twist with the Caesar is that i think it also implies succession. Maybe like a king and crown prince relationship.

5

Welshhoppo t1_ixlhphe wrote

Sometimes usurpers would call themselves Caesar to try and appease the ruling Emperor. "I'm not really after your job, I'm just helping you out see. I'm totally just a Caesar."

Although that was later under the Tetrarch when the distinction was made by Diocletian.

7

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmmbxs wrote

My names Brutus, I'm not trying to stab you, just trying to scratch your back. ;)

5

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmm4oe wrote

That isn't where that system originated. It goes back to the Persians, mycaneans, Egyptians, and nearly the whole civilized history of the near east. Probably the most recorded widespread Era of this was the middle to late bronze age. It was an ever changing patch work of large empires with their "kings of the world" imposing their authority over smaller kings of territories. The tradition goes back as far as the sumerians. Another example is when the hittite emperor writes to the mycanean king and calls him a "great king" and differentiates between that kings Control over his petty kings. The same can be seen between Egypt and the hittites in the treaty of kadesh.

4

ScoffSlaphead72 t1_ixmn6vv wrote

It's not where it originated but it's where the language and specific style of it in european monarchies came from.

3