How many people realize that "Emperor" is supposed to mean "direct heir to Augustus Caesar?"

The Byzantine Empire WAS the Roman Empire, with a direct line of succession back to Augustus.

The Holy Roman Empire claimed to be the recreation of the Western Roman Empire that fell in 453. Before resorting to being crowned by the Pope, Charlemagne tried to marry a Byzantine princess, who had no interest in wedding a pants-wearing barbarian.

Sultan Mehmet II claimed the title "Emperor of Rome" after actually conquering the Romans, creating the Roman Empire.

Ivan the Terrible of Russia claimed the title "Tsar" because he was the last surviving descendant of the Palailogos dynasty, the last to rule the Roman Empire.

Napoleon conquered so much of the Holy Roman Empire that he claimed the title of Emperor for himself. Francis II responded by declaring himself to be Emperor of Austria, keeping the title that his family had held for generations.

The British, on the other hand, just decided to start calling themselves an Empire because they had a lot of territory. Posers.

I think Akihito would disagree.

Sorry, 476, not 453.

Actually, the word tenno (Akihito's official title) is applied uniquely only to him, so the Japanese would be the first to tell you that the Japanese "emperor" is not equivalent to the Roman and other emperors.

Fair.

Though on the point of Napoleon, I think it has less to do with succeeding the Holy Roman Empire and more to do with simple emulation of the Romans. I would also note that the French used the more direct form "Emperor" which was in reference to the equivalent of "general," unlike the borrowings from the title "Caesar," (like Tsar or Kaiser) which was in reference to many Roman Emperors pre-Constantine who sought Apotheosis more along the lines of Julius Caesar than his adopted son Augustus.

Or "Empereur" as the French title, rather.

The Mongol Empire of my ancestors wasn't exactly related to the Roman Empire either. Khagan simply meant "Khan of Khans" - a title above King because there were always lots of Kings in the world. Emperor may have been the chosen term of the west, but there has been a de jure title above King-level pretty much everywhere.

What is a cognate? A word with the same meaning in different languages, so if the english translation of the Japanese Emperor's title incorrect? Are they cognates? Do the Japanese think he's the legitimate successor to Augustus Caesar?

Same with the Great Khan, though i've never seen any Khan afforded the respect implied by the title Emperor.

@Pastoralan i think you are just plain wrong on this...

Though i'm doing some reading and it is interesting to note that is exactly what the Ottomans meant, when the conquered Constatinople - bringinga final end to the Eastern Roman Empire, in 1453, they claimed a new title, that of Emperor of the Romans.

Literally claimed that they had now conquered the Romans, and by right of conquest that they had earned the title. (Though their emperors also used other titles, like Khan of Khans...)

Way more interesting is the usage of the term Empire, and how it came to take on it's modern meaning. When did Britian start to refer to itself as an Empire? And when did the Aztecs and Incans start being refer to by other as Empires??

That is to say, when did the modern english word 'Empire' with the associated term 'Emperor'/'Empress' start to refer to any state ruling over multiple different national groups with a single Monarch (mono- one, -arch ruler ~as in the opposite of anarchy - a monarch literally means a single ruler. Which kinda makes the idea of a constitutional monarchy rather oxymoronic)

Emperor and Empress came to mean some mind of 'king-pope' in the Eastern Roman Empire - where the dual role or head of state and head of church was held by the Emperor (until the translated it into native Greek from the Latin spoken in Rome, and refered to their leaders as AutoKrats and Basileus)

Quick search reveals that the term "British Empire" caught on in the late 1600s. Legally, there never was a British Empire; Queen Victoria was proclaimed "Empress of India." Don't have time to research the etymology more thoroughly.

The German Empire, while using the term "Kaiser" as a title, predicated on German nationalism and didn't use Roman symbolism.

I assume that the "Ceasar Augustus" to whom you refer is Octavious who changed his name to Augustus after seeing off Brutus & Marcus Antony & married Lydia, the mast skilled poisoner of her time. Octavious was a nephew of Julius Caesar ( can't recall whether he was an "adopted nephew" or "bloodline nephew" )
Anyway, I don't think that being that Augustas' heir wasn't that healthy a situation to be in, given that Lydia managed to eliminate all rivals to her son Tiberius who was a son from a previous marriage, and not a son of Augustus ) although Lydia did overlook Claudius, who did remarkably well to survive and eventually become Emperor of Rome.

Typos.. Lydia, the most skilled poisoner and manipulator

Japanese and Chinese Emperors never traced any roots to rome, Japan is the only nation where an Emperor is still head of state, and the Emperor is considered the most important figure in the Shinto 'religion' (if that is the right cognate)

Simularily with Vietnam, though the title was not recog ised outside of Vietnam.

Only Mongols descended from the Great Khan up until the fall of the Yuan dynasty are recognised as Emperors, again, no real relation to Rome.

Byzantium was indeed the continuation of Roman tradition, ad ruled by Roman Emperors, up until 1453, when the Ottomans claimed the title. Likewise the Czar of Russia (Czar derived from Caesar) married one of the last descendants of the Byzantium Emperors and claimed to be a third Rome, at least as some kind of spiritual successor.

The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to revive the western Roman tradition (far less legitimate than the Eastern Roman Empire, as the HRE was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire) here again we see a connection between religion and Emperors - with the Pope crowning the Emperor to add legitimacy. However this title never managed to re-unite western Christendom.

The first French Emperor had no such problem, Napoleon simply declared himself Emperor and had a Coronation without need for the Pope, he was followed by his Nephew, who as President of the Republic organised a coup and declared hinself Emperor (which the people of France then voted in favour of, securing his position of Emperor of the French - not of France noteably)

The First British Empress was Victoria, who was annoyed that her daugther (Wife to the German Emperor at the time) had teh ically a higher rank than she did. So the Empire of Indi was declared, with Victoria as it's Empress. Thus resolving the issue. Though it is notable that term British Empire (or indeed English Empire) goes back earlier, to a rejection of the Pope's legitimacy as religious leader in England. (ie if uou don't accept the papacy, you need your own Empire...)

The Empires of Mexico and Brazil are similarily self-declared titles with no influence from Rome (or the Pope). And despite claims to the contrary, no Emperor of the United States has ever been recognised.

The Austrian Empire is kinda stupid, and mostly a result of the internal politics of Austro-Hungary, along with Austria's changing place within the German states, as the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be and Prussia became the dominant force in what was to become the brief German Empire (ruled by a Kaiser again derived from Caesar).

So many but not all uses of the word Emperor are derived from the 'August' Caesar Octavious of Rome. (Thiugh he takes the name Caesar from his adoptive father Julius Caesar. (Notable the months of August and July are still named after Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus)

When you talk about other cultures where they have had the title of their ruler translated into English as Emperor, it becomes unclear whether the definition is being bent. But if (in english) the word meant 'those claiming to be the legitimate ruker of rome' then it would not be applied outside of Europe. And even within Europe, the title was applied in Britian ad France without such claims (and to a lesser extent in Germany).

The title of Roman Emperor passes directly down through Byzantium to 1453, by which time a western 'Emperor' is being crowned in the Holy Roman Empire by the Pope. (The Patriarch of Constantinople probably still crowned the Byzantium Empire)

Then both the Ottomans and Russia Czars claim the title. At which point it ceases to really hold this meaning. In My Humble Opinion.

I'm curious about how this works in other languages. It's true that in English for several centuries, the word has had a broader meaning. But I wonder if that's because the English for several centuries have been trying to stretch the meaning of Empire so they can lay claim to it.

Your examples of Napoleon and the German Empire are both off I would say...Napoleon specifically arranged for the Pope to be present at his Imperial coronation to indicate his link to the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore the people of the time clearly understood his actions to indicate a transfer of the Empire from German to French control. The French Empire was restored by Napoleon III, and the king of Prussia only declared himself the German Emperor after defeating the French Empire (Kaiser Wilhelm I was crowned in Versailles).

But

Ok, i'll take that much. As i didn't go into too much deepth in my reading...

What i think is interesting is the Islamic equivalent in the form of the Caliphate. Which has a similar hustory (if only a thousand years shorter and a closer link to reliious authority... Though the direct connection to Popes - and Patriarchs in the Eastern Orthodox tradition - doesn't really make that definition clear...)

In fact, the parallel with the Japanese Emperor's position in Shintoism, makes this a commonality. Though the head of the British Empire (and later of the Commonwealth) sharing the position as the head of the Church of England feels a bit off...

And i guess ancient Roman Emperors (ie before Constantine) did consider themselves as Gods, representations of the sun god on Earth. And sometimes elevated to God-hood after death (like modern Catholic tradition of elevating people to Sainthood)

I did read somewhere a theory the Constantine considered himself the son of God in this same vein (and thus the Second Coming of Jesus in Christian traditio ) though the evidence provided was the defacing of his tomb, which only proved that someone scribbled out what he had written about himself...

Can't find any evidence to that. Only that the first Emperor of Christians was elevated to the status of a Pagan god upon his death. Which is rather the odd mix.

"Napoleon specifically arranged for the Pope to be present at his Imperial coronation to indicate his link to the Holy Roman Empire."
And yet he crowned himself. He didn't feel a divine right to rulership so much as a public one, because his coronation followed a constitutional referendum where France declared the Bonaparte family an imperial family.

"And despite claims to the contrary, no Emperor of the United States has ever been recognised."

I won't stand for this slander against Norton I!

Why does this matter? Who cares.