Jump to content

The title of Emperor


Recommended Posts

Because cultural acceptance.

^^This.

The Valyrians didn't have kings, so Aurion picked the most important-sounding Essosi title he could find. He might have taken it from Yi Ti or from Ghiscar or from Sarnor.

Aegon, on the other hand, ruled Westeros. Most Westerosi didn't know what an "emperor" was, but they knew the guy on top of the social pyramid was the king. So Aegon stripped all the kings of their royal titles and made himself the only king, to show everybody who was in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emperor is only a higher title than king on paper. As Mrs.Grumpy said, Westeros culturally has kings. If in Westeros, the word "king" refers to a powerfull nobleman with no one on top of him, then why not use it.

Finally, "king" sounds a lot more medieval than "emperor". The words don't have the same conotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"King" and "Emperor" are different titles with different historical connotations. Often an Emperor rules alongside a legislative body: this is why Napoleon took the title Emperor instead of King, as an acknowledgement that his system was fundamentally different than the one deposed by the Revolution.



In practice, of course, there are emperors who are absolute monarchs and kings who are figureheads, and the two terms are largely interchangeable.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"King" and "Emperor" are different titles with different historical connotations. Often an Emperor rules alongside a legislative body: this is why Napoleon took the title Emperor instead of King, as an acknowledgement that his system was fundamentally different than the one deposed by the Revolution.

In practice, of course, there are emperors who are absolute monarchs and kings who are figureheads, and the two terms are largely interchangeable.

Well Emperors are a higher rank than kings. Aegon was an Emperor in all but name.

That was true in Europe, but Westeros isn't Europe. They have no emperors, dukes, counts, marchions or barons, just kings and lords (and during the late 300 years, Lord Paramounts too).

In Westeros emperors aren't above kings because they never had emperors. The king was the top guy in their culture.

"King" and "Emperor" are different titles with different historical connotations. Often an Emperor rules alongside a legislative body: this is why Napoleon took the title Emperor instead of King, as an acknowledgement that his system was fundamentally different than the one deposed by the Revolution.

That isn't always true. The Roman Senate was merely decorative during most of the Roman Empire, all the power belonging to the Emperor, backed by army. The Byzantine Emperors ruled as absolute monarchs too.

And there were many kings who shared power with a Parlament. The English kings, the Aragonese kings...etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was true in Europe, but Westeros isn't Europe. They have no emperors, dukes, counts, marchions or barons, just kings and lords (and during the late 300 years, Lord Paramounts too).

In Westeros emperors aren't above kings because they never had emperors. The king was the top guy in their culture.

That isn't always true. The Roman Senate was merely decorative during most of the Roman Empire, all the power belonging to the Emperor, backed by army. The Byzantine Emperors ruled as absolute monarchs too.

And there were many kings who shared power with a Parlament. The English kings, the Aragonese kings...etc.

All of which I acknowledged: words are wind. The title of "President" has been (and continues to be) held by men with absolute power as well (and by men who pass that power an title to their sons, to boot), but those men call themselves President because they prefer the connotation. The connotation of Emperor is different than the connotation of King, if only slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was true in Europe, but Westeros isn't Europe. They have no emperors, dukes, counts, marchions or barons, just kings and lords (and during the late 300 years, Lord Paramounts too).

Yes, which is something that bothers me actually.

But I just tried to clarify the real life notion especially since Westeros seems to be based on Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between King and Emperor in Europe is simple: at least to Christian states which see themselves as successors of Rome, "Emperor" means the Emperor of Rome.

And it's certainly plausible that, just as William I the Conqueror was King of England, not Emperor, because he wasn't Emperor of Rome, Aegon I the Conqueror was King of All Westeros, not Emperor, because he wasn't Emperor of Valyria.

But of course there are a lot of differences. Westeros is not a former Valyrian state the way Brittania was a Roman one. The was no equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire that people treated as a successor of the Western Empire, nor was there a still-surviving Eastern Empire. There was no Valyrian Pope to crown the Emperor, or Electorate to anoint him. And so on.

So, I think out-of-universe, the answer probably is to parallel William, but in-universe, the parallels are very thin at best, and we really don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about Emperors like Napoleon or Wilhelm. They clearly were elevated above kings. It's just easier to remember that Emperors in the Western world even outranked kings when talking about hierarchy.

imo like other Emperors, Aegon just could have created the title for himself regardless if he held any power in Valerya or not, since he doesn't continue a dynasty but creates one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about Emperors like Napoleon or Wilhelm. They clearly were elevated above kings. It's just easier to remember that Emperors in the Western world even outranked kings when talking about hierarchy.

imo like other Emperors, Aegon just could have created the title for himself regardless if he held any power in Valerya or not, since he doesn't continue a dynasty but creates one.

Napoleon viewed himself as the successor of Charlemagne, whp viewed himself as the continuation of the ran empira.

Wilhelm I and II viewed their empire as a restaured Holy Roman Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo like other Emperors, Aegon just could have created the title for himself regardless if he held any power in Valerya or not, since he doesn't continue a dynasty but creates one.

But you see, that wasn't Aegon's style. Aegon just put himself at the top of the already existing power structure, he didn't really change anything. He left everything in Westeros pretty much the same, but put himself on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valyria was inspired (among other things) by the roman empire, and the Targaryens have been inspired (again among other things) by Arthurian legends, with the Pendragons = dragon's heads.

I dunno. Arthur was a providential king born among the Britons who defended the land against foreign invaders. Aegon was a foreign invader who conquered Westeros. Aegon is more like William the Conqueror than Arthur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. Arthur was a providential king born among the britons who defended the land against foreign invaders. Aegon was a foreign invader who conquered Westeros. Aegon is more like William the Conqueror than Arthur.

I was talking about his father and uncle : Ambrosius and Uther, who are described as "dux bellorum" : latin war chiefs= conquerors=> And eventhough they came from an empire (Rome), crowned themselves "kings" of Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...