Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pokeputin t1_ixli9zb wrote

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

It depends what you mean by "emperor", if you go by historic definition of a ruler of several peoples, or you go by the "Roman" meaning of emperor, which meant ruler of the Roman Empire.

To fit the first definition you have to satisfy it's requirements, just calling yourself like that won't change anything.

To fit the second option you need to be the legitimate ruler of the Roman empire, and the "legitimate" is the tricky part of the question.

13

[deleted] t1_ixlqcll wrote

[deleted]

4

Vladimir_Putting t1_ixlr0os wrote

>I should also be noted that because of this the emperor of japan would not be an emperor until like the 19th century

Weren't there multiple peoples inhabiting the Japanese islands, under Imperial rule, before the 19th century?

The "Japanese" aren't completely homogeneous to my understanding.

2

Pokeputin t1_ixlskfc wrote

I don't think personal unions count because despite having same head of state the countries remain separate and act each in their own interest so effectively they don't have a single ruling power.

That's why for example The British Commonwealth isn't an empire despite the king of the UK being head of state in all those countries.

I guess it makes sense to say all peoples in an empire should be under the common title though, but I think it can be tricky to define because sometimes you have states that are under a title in name, but practically independent and vice versa.

2

Ferengi_Earwax t1_ixmng7a wrote

Queen Victoria was crowned empress of India. More as a title to flatter her, but its technically correct because she was the figured head monarch of distinct countries/peoples.

2

Pokeputin t1_ixmphcv wrote

I was talking about the current British Commonwealth, during Queen Victoria Britain was obviously an Empire.

2