König & Kaiser
Karsten Schwarz
(emperor) in European history? Has anyone an idea? Can anyone define the =
historical meanings of "K=F6nige" (kings) and "Kaiser" (emperors)? Every =
hint is welcome. Thank you very much.
-- =
Ute Mayer & Gaudenz Kind
sch...@sozpsy.unizh.ch
Phillip Helbig
>What exactly is the difference between a "K=F6nig" (king) and a "Kaiser" =
>(emperor) in European history? Has anyone an idea? Can anyone define the =
>historical meanings of "K=F6nige" (kings) and "Kaiser" (emperors)? Every =
>hint is welcome. Thank you very much.
>-- =
I'm no expert, but here goes.
King is a general term for a monarch who inherits his title.
Kayser is derived from Caesar (as is Czar/Tsar as well) and means emperor
as in Roman emperor. Perhaps Charlemagne was the first Kayser in this
sense of the word, the title of the Holy Roman Emperors. Eventually Kayser
became just basically the German word for King (like chancellor for
prime minister) when the title became hereditary, obscuring the origin.
Perhaps some early monarchs were Kayser and King at the same time.
Michael Martinez
Karsten Schwarz <sch...@sozpsy.unizh.ch> wrote:
>What exactly is the difference between a "K=F6nig" (king) and a "Kaiser" =
I believe "koenig" is derived from an ancient Germanic word, whereas "Kaiser"
is supposedly derived from "Caesar". "Czar" and "Tsar" are also supposed to
be derived from "Caesar".
Somehow, "Caesar" went from being the name of a Roman emperor's junior partner
(and more-or-less designated heir) to that of an emperor in other lands.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Murff
In <4d3l4b$f...@gabi.gabi-soft.fr> J. Kanze (ka...@gabi-soft.fr) wrote:
: Koenig is basically the same word as king, and is an old Germanic word,
: predating the Roman empire (as witnessed by its form in loan words in
: Finnish, for example). The traditional translation to Latin is rex,
: which could refer to the head of any one of a number of Italic tribes.
I believe the word "King", or "Konig" is derived from "Canning" - one who
is able (similarly the word "canny"). Literally "one who can".
Presumably this is based upon a system where the leader was appointed, or
"elected" in some way as being the most fit to do the job. This is
distinct from the title "Emperor" (Imperator) - a field marshal.
--
Murff... http://www.clues.com/~murff/home.html
J. Kanze
|> What exactly is the difference between a "K=F6nig" (king) and a "Kaiser" =
|> (emperor) in European history? Has anyone an idea? Can anyone define the =
|> historical meanings of "K=F6nige" (kings) and "Kaiser" (emperors)? Every =
|> hint is welcome. Thank you very much.
Koenig is basically the same word as king, and is an old Germanic word,
predating the Roman empire (as witnessed by its form in loan words in
Finnish, for example). The traditional translation to Latin is rex,
which could refer to the head of any one of a number of Italic tribes.
Kaiser is a phonetic rendering of the Latin Caesar; until Napoleon, all
`Emperors' claimed in some way that their office was an incarnation of
the Roman Emperor's.
In medieval times, there were potentially two emperors: a western and an
eastern, as the Roman empire had split. In the east, the Empire
actually continued; there was no time without an emperor, and the death
of an emperor meant an immediate succession of an other. In the west,
the Roman Empire died out; Charlemagne later claimed the title, as did
his grandson, Louis the Pious (who tried to establish it as a hereditary
title). After it died out again, the Hohenstaufen claimed it, and made
it stick until Napoleon, at least as a title (of the Holy Roman Empire).
In the East, the title died out with the fall of Constantinople, but was
almost immediatly adapted by the Russian rulers, who claimed that Moscow
was the new Constantinople. The Russian word Tzar is a direct
adaptation of Caesar.
In recent times, Napoleon simply adapted the title because it sounded
grandiose; the western `successor' was still present. When the
Hapsburgs disbanded the Holy Roman Empire, they hardly wanted to lower
their title, so their newly founded country was the Austrian (later, the
Austro-Hungarian) Empire. Finally, with the unification of Germany in
1870, the Koenigen (of Bavaria, Prussia, etc.) didn't stop being Kings,
so the title was pushed into service for the head of the new German
state. (Note that even in medivial times, the Emperor claimed
precedance over the Kings of Bohemia, Italy, etc.)
--
James Kanze (+33) 88 14 49 00 email: ka...@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils, études et réalisations en logiciel orienté objet --
-- A la recherche d'une activité dans une region francophone
Ken Young
> it stick until Napoleon
the title. Effectively the power of the Holy Roman Emperor depended on
his personal resources as the title conveyed no real power.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
"Capitalism is a dog eat dog system. However with most
other alternatives, the dog starves."
Gerrit Bigalski
>Koenig is basically the same word as king, and is an old Germanic word,
>predating the Roman empire (as witnessed by its form in loan words in
>Finnish, for example). The traditional translation to Latin is rex,
>which could refer to the head of any one of a number of Italic tribes.
just old Germanic, not Latin, that's all. It is believed to have
originally only the meaning "noble".
>Kaiser is a phonetic rendering of the Latin Caesar; until Napoleon, all
>`Emperors' claimed in some way that their office was an incarnation of
>the Roman Emperor's.
>
>In medieval times, there were potentially two emperors: a western and an
>eastern, as the Roman empire had split. In the east, the Empire
>actually continued; there was no time without an emperor, and the death
>of an emperor meant an immediate succession of an other. In the west,
>the Roman Empire died out; Charlemagne later claimed the title,
Well; as the story goes, it wasn't his idea but the pope's; the pope
revived the title "imperator" mostly in it's meaning as "protector of
the church", "lord over all christians". In effect, charlemagne WAS
lord over most christians; in western, "Latin" Europe, that is. In
eastern, "Greek" Europe, there was another emporor and another "pope",
the patriarch of Constantinople; the Roman pope was only slightly
higher in rank, so he could use an own emperor to back him up ...
> as did
>his grandson, Louis the Pious (who tried to establish it as a hereditary
>title). After it died out again, the Hohenstaufen claimed it, and made
Uh - let's sort this out: Louis the Pious was the *son* of
Charlemagne; his sons, grandsons and so on battled for the title as
well as for the rest of the Francian kingdom, everthing fell to pieces
and the title was given to many princes who happened to be lord over
Italy now and then.
In 951 this was Otto the Great, king of Germany, and he got the
hereditary candidateship to the title of an Emperor for all German
kings, well before the (Hohen-) Staufen. (First Stauferkaiser:
Frederick I. Barbarossa, Emperor in 1155)
From then on, every German king only had to cross the Alps to be made
"Emperor of the christian world (western department)" (tm) - in
theory. Many didn't, because they had enough trouble north of the
Alps, and some had quite a quarrel with the pope until he agreed - or
his successor.
In theory the Emperor was king of all (christian) kings, and indeed
once an English king declared himself formally as vassal of the
Emperor (can't remember who and when; must be before 1250), but
practically not even the German nobles were too serious about it.
After the fall of the Staufen in the 1250s there was not much left of
the glory of the emperor-title; it gradually became just the title of
the king of the "Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation)", and in 16th
century the Empire decided that you don't need a pope to crown an
emperor, so every German King became Emperor at once, making him
slightly more noble than other kings (which didn't mean that you can't
beat him up ;-).
>it stick until Napoleon, at least as a title (of the Holy Roman Empire).
>
>In recent times, Napoleon simply adapted the title because it sounded
>grandiose; the western `successor' was still present. When the
>Hapsburgs disbanded the Holy Roman Empire, they hardly wanted to lower
>their title, so their newly founded country was the Austrian (later, the
>Austro-Hungarian) Empire. Finally, with the unification of Germany in
>1870, the Koenigen (of Bavaria, Prussia, etc.) didn't stop being Kings,
>so the title was pushed into service for the head of the new German
>state.
Yes; in 19th century they were very keen on titles, so a king over
kings needed to have a higher title, thus they choosed "Emperor".
>(Note that even in medivial times, the Emperor claimed
>precedance over the Kings of Bohemia, Italy, etc.)
He *was* precedent over the King of Bohemia, him being a vassal and
since 14th century a Elector of the German King; some Kings of Bohemia
were Emperors (for example all Hapsburgs since 1526), and the Emperor
was *automatically* King of (Northern) Italy (not that this was worth
much).
But he *also* claimed precedance over the Kings of England, France,
Denmark and so on, and that was worth *nothing*. Well, nearly.
Gerrit
Rob Landry
mu...@warlock.demon.co.uk says...
>I believe the word "King", or "Konig" is derived from "Canning" - one
who
>is able (similarly the word "canny").
"King" is from Old English _cyning_ or "son of the kin", meaning a tribal
leader.
"Can" originally meant to know, as in "D'ye _ken_ John Peel at th' break
of day..."
There might be a root connection between _cunnan_ (OE infinitive of
"can") and cyn, as the vowels suggest an umlaut relationship. Anybody
know for sure?
Rob landry
um...@cybercom.net
IVA...@delphi.com
Quoting umar from a message in soc.history.medieval
>mu...@warlock.demon.co.uk says...
>>I believe the word "King", or "Konig" is derived from "Canning" - one
>who
>>is able (similarly the word "canny").
>"King" is from Old English _cyning_ or "son of the kin", meaning a
>tribal leader.
>"Can" originally meant to know, as in "D'ye _ken_ John Peel at th' break
>of day..."
Precisely.
>There might be a root connection between _cunnan_ (OE infinitive of
>"can") and cyn, as the vowels suggest an umlaut relationship. Anybody
>know for sure?
The German for king is Ko:nig, or Koenig. That for can is ko:nen. Websters
NID II traces the two words to different Germanic roots. One to Anglo-Saxon,
the other to Danish.
Note that can is a whole set of homonyms: Can: to know, can: to be able,
can: to preserve in cans, can: a metal container.
Each of these meanings has a different history and derivation.
Carolyn Boselli Host of CF 35 SCAdians on Delphi (Medieval Stuff)
Cohost for Caregivers Ref Med Caring for those we love
Does "Bad FAT" mean this disk has high cholesterol?
Michael Martinez
>The German for king is Ko:nig, or Koenig. That for can is ko:nen. Websters
>NID II traces the two words to different Germanic roots. One to Anglo-Saxon,
>the other to Danish.
Well, I don't have a copy of Webster's NID II, but does it give the purported
roots? Danish is closely related to "Anglo-Saxon", believe it or not.
IVA...@delphi.com
Quoting mmartin from a message in soc.history.medieval
>In article <4e45oa$i...@news2.delphi.com>, IVA...@delphi.com wrote:
>>The German for king is Ko:nig, or Koenig. That for can is ko:nen.
>Websters >NID II traces the two words to different Germanic roots. One
>to Anglo-Saxon, >the other to Danish.
>Well, I don't have a copy of Webster's NID II, but does it give the
>purported roots? Danish is closely related to "Anglo-Saxon", believe
>it or not.
Believe it or not, I've known that for at least the last 36 years. But the
roots traced have different meanings also. Yes it did give the roots. But
it's half past midnight, I have a cold, and an invalid father to get up at
8AM, and I'm not going to go back and look now. You'll undoubtedly find it
also in WNID III.
Carolyn Boselli Host of CF 35 SCAdians on Delphi (Medieval Stuff)
Cohost for Caregivers Ref Med Caring for those we love
Dsylexic Agnostic Insomniac- Stays awake wondering if there is a dog.