Talk:Caesar (Byzantine title)

Name
, I boldly copied content from two articles that you contributed to, since an expansion is imminent. Now, I see that sources use both kaisar and caesar. For instance, a quick look-through first pages of Gbooks hits shows that the works of Moravcsik, Bartusis, Laiou, Browning, use kaisar, while Nicol and Sakellariou use kaisar in brackets, and Treadgold, Dvornik, Oikonomides use only caesar. What is your stance on this? Since there seems to be no rule in WP (Kouropalates–Curopalate vs. Cubicularius–Koubikoularios), although Greek transliteration is indeed in favour.--Z oupan 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Zoupan! Well, the rule, which I have followed on WP as well, is that when the title is clearly of Latin origin, the Latin name is preserved, e.g. nobilissimus or magister officiorum. Kaisar is acceptable as a variant form when the context is purely Byzantine, but the Byzantine title is nothing more than the continuation of the Late Roman title, and is by far the more recognizable of the two; therefore I would recommend moving to Caesar (Byzantine Empire), although perhaps a better choice would be something like Caesar (junior emperor), and to include the holders of the title form the post-Tetrarchy period onwards, including the Caesares in Serbia, BTW. Constantine  ✍  09:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though somehow "Caesar (Byzantine)" sounds better, as in stressing the concept/culture/legacy (using adjective) rather than state in article title. "Caesar (junior emperor)" stresses the fact of inheritance, which however is not the case with most of these Byzantine caesares. Anyway, the similar cats should be in line, which would mean that Kephale (Byzantine Empire) would be moved or followed. What do you think?--Z oupan 10:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that adjectives are discouraged as disambiguators. "Caesar (junior emperor)" does not, in my eyes, inherently imply any inheritance. On second thoughts, however, calling a post-12th-century Caesar a "junior emperor" is rather inaccurate. TBH, I think that the original title Caesar (title) is the best; either way you will have to explain the origin of the title, so a section on its use as an imperial title from Augustus to the Tetrarchy will necessarily be included. However there is much in that article that is irrelevant; the Ottoman use for instance has nothing to do with the Byzantine caesares, but borrows the usual Perso-Arabic term Qaysar-i Rum, so a differentiation is desirable. Long story short, something like Caesar (Byzantine title) would be fine, as it covers both the political and cultural context well. Ditto for Kephale, I'd say. Constantine  ✍  14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)