Talk:Tsar/Archive 3

Bulgarian historians' view of Ferdinand's tsardom
Thesis: for the Bulgarians at the time, "kniaz" (Prince)and "kniazhestvo" (Principality) were terms that reflected the country's status as a vassal of the Ottoman empire. The transition to "tsar" (King) and "tsardom" (Kingdom), which occurred together with the prclamation of independence in 1908, signified full independence.

Quote: from "История на България", 1993, by Bozhilov et al., chapter "Обявяване на независимостта на България" (Proclamation of Bulgaria's independence). The quote is in Bulgarian, but as far as I understand, Imladjov understands the language. The significant part is summed up in English.

''Правните и финансовите затруднения от нейния (на България) многосмислов васалитет тежат над българското политическо и стопанско развитие. След Съединението българската държава плаща заради Източна Румелия още 130 000 турски лири анюитет (годишна вноска)... Българското общество, правителствата и княжеската канцелария напрегнато очакват благоприятна политическа обстановка и подготвят изкусна дипломатическа акция за отмяната на този обременителен и унизителен статут. През 1903 г. австро-унгарският император Франц Йосиф подшушва на Николай II, че може да има и още един цар в Европа. Последният Романов подигравателно се разсмива, без да подозира, че за реализацията на този слух ще способствува след пет години собственото му правителство.''

In other words, the pending adoption of the title "tsar" is listed as a natural concomitant of complete independence (not as part of aspirations towards conquering of Constantinople or anything). Note also that Emperor Frantz Joseph is supposed to have whispered to Emperor Nicholas II that another tsar might appear in Europe soon - not another emperor (he would hardly consent to that).--194.145.161.227 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this particular quotation can be used in any way to show that in modern Bulgaria the title "tsar" means "king" in any way. You are simply citing information regarding the Bulgarians' expectation that vassalage and financial obligations to the Ottoman Empire would be removed, etc.  Yes this shows the desire to end vassal status and obtain sovereignty.  But a sovereign could be either king or emperor or (in modern Europe) even a prince or a grand duke.  The last two sentences also fail to inform on the subject.  "In 1903 the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph whispered to Nicholas II that there might be one more tsar in Europe.  The last Romanov mockingly laughed out, without suspecting that the realization of this rumor would be aided by his own government five years later."  So, how does that say anything about "tsar" being something different than "emperor"?  Apart from the quesion why this particular text (even if by someone as eminent as Božilov) should be seen as authoritative, there is little to derive from here.  The wording does not even preclude the impression that Franz Joseph himself is a "tsar" (which he would have been for some of his Slavic subjects), although it is more likely that Nicholas, as the tsar par excellence is the one meant.  I vaguely recall a reference to a diplomatic spat after 1908, precisely because both Nicholas II and Ferdinand I were tsars, while the latter was of course only recognized as king. Best, Imladjov 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously we don't interpret the text in the same way (it's not particularly authoritative, it's just a random example of how Bulgarian historians, from the early XXthe century to this day, from textbooks to academic texts, have interpreted the title issue). I thought I had explained what I meant quite clearly. You are isolating the sentences from one another, but the decisive here is the combination between them: tsardom is mentioned as a self-evident part of independence.


 * As for the account/anecdote about Franz Joseph, assuming that it's true, I think it's obvious that he would have said "emperor" (empereur, Kaiser?) and not "tsar" if he had meant anything but Nicholas' specifically Russian/Slavonic title of "tsar". Let's assume that Franz Joseph used "tsar" simply as a curious local synonym of emperor (he if anybody must have been aware of the value of the title in diplomatic terms). But if he had regarded "tsar" as a synonym of "emperor", surely he wouldn't have implied that he intended to recognize Ferdinand as an emperor? If the story isn't true, then at least it shows that the (Bulgarian?) people who made it up had no idea about the supposedly controversial imperial nature of the title (since they wouldn't have depicted Franz Joseph agreeing to it). Regards, --194.145.161.227 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The irony of Franz Joseph's remark is precisely that someone other than him and Nicholas (and particularly Nicholas as the tsar) would dare proclaim himself tsar.  Were tsar merely another word for king, the significance of the statement becomes lost.  But this is far too little to base any sort of definite argument on, and one would have to have access to the original language and publication before staking anything on it. Imladjov 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-reading Polyaviannyi, to which you referred me, I see a mention of the same incident and also a clear reference to the considerations that led to the adoption of the title "tsar" for Ferdinand in 1908. Here is what the author actually says: "His title was discussed by the Government, which clearly preferred "tsar" before "king" (kral) and "of Bulgarians" to "Bulgarian"."  In other words, the article you cited expressly differentiates between "tsar" and "king," although "tsar" was chosen as the title employed by the monarch recognized merely as "king of the Bulgarians." This result is clearly exceptional and paradoxical.  It cannot be used as evidence for tsar = king. Imladjov 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It only shows that the terms "tsar" and "kral" both existed, and that the Bulgarian government wanted to use the first one. This is explained by my interpretation of the distinction as well as by yours, if not better. "Kral" is a foreign title, for Bulgarian ears. Apart from that, Polyaviannyi does seem to share similar view to yours. He appears to think that imperial tsardom is somehow relevant for the adoption of the title, and is, IMO, unable to interpret or explain the quote that I took from his text in a meaningful way. But I don't see why I shouldn't trust his quotations of primary sources. --194.145.161.227 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The text quite clearly equates "king" with kral and shows "tsar" as something other. Once again, although the author may be completely accurate here, this is too little, too secondary, and too unreferenced to stake much on it.  (Note here too the reaction of the Russian emperor who took Ferdinand's claim to "tsardom" as a maniacal act.  A royal claim would hardly have caused such a stir.) Imladjov 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe Nicholas did regard "tsar" as a synonym of a Russian emperor (after all, he was the only ruler officially called "tsar" at that point). Anyway, my main argument was not based on the anecdote.--194.145.161.227 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you continue to insert the following blatantly false assertion, I will have to continue to revert your edits: "In modern usage in the Russian and Bulgarian languages (but not in Serbian), the original imperial connotations of the term have been blurred and it is used as the default word for a monarch, thus as an equivalent of English "king"." Imladjov 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What can I say to that? I'm sorry, but every word of my edit that you quoted is a perfectly true and balanced statement of a linguistic fact, and I find your insistence on deleting it quite amusing. In fact, you yourself haven't been denying that the word is used in that way, you are just saying that the way it's used by other people than Western academics is irrelevant. I will quote a Bulgarian (and possibly a Russian) dictionary to you tomorrow. And, of course, revert whenever possible in the meantime. --194.145.161.227 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Vladimir Dal's dictionary (published in 1863-1866): ЦАРЬ м. вообще, государь, монарх, верховный правитель земли, народа или государства.


 * Translation: Car' = in general, a sovereign, a monarch, the supreme ruler of a land, a people or a state.--194.145.161.227 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And interestingly enough the one term not given as a synonym here was korol'  ("king"). The same dictionary does contain an entry for "king," as follows: "КОРОЛЬ м. государь, управляющий королевством; владельческий сан, почитаемый ниже императора", meaning "King, male ruler governing a kingdom; a ruler's rank, honored below that of an emperor". No equation with tsar.
 * Or with emperor. Both "tsar" and "king" are first of all explained as государь, sovereign/ruler. "Imperator" is not equated with "tsar" (implying that the very distinction between an imperator and a kral is characteristic of the "outside", non-Russian world). Please, define an emperor, so that we are able to check whether Vladimir Dal's definition is compatible with that. For me, it's obvious that "the supreme ruler of a state" is a king. Dal obviosuly didn't mean to say that all the Western kings aren't real "supreme rulers". --194.145.161.227 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The discrepancy between title and reality in modern Bulgaria (and just possibly in Poland) is not enough to conclude that tsar = king, when everywhere where tsar is officially and precisely defined, it is equated with emperor. If tsar were equivalent to king or in all cases merely the default word for ruler, then I still ask for evidence of standard usage in Bulgarian and Russian including, e.g., tsars of England, Greece, Morocco, Jordan, Afghanistan, Thailand, etc. Those are all kings, at least in UN English convention.  That convention obviously does not apply to pre-modern and non Romano-Christian rulers who are no more "kings" than they are "tsars" or "emperors" in a precise sense of the word.  Those who wish to test such usage while braving slow servers and the Cyrillic alphabet, may consult online a very thorough Russian compilation called "Rulers of the World" (Praviteli mira), published in four volumes in 2002, at: www.genealogia.ru/ru/lib/catalog/rulers/title.htm
 * Just a warning, that site can be murderously slow. Imladjov 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I don't think anyone is trying to say that "Tsar" is equivalent to "Korol" in Bulgarian, but that "Tsar" can be equivalent to the English word "King." Now, it is true that "Korol" is the normal Bulgarian translation of the English "king," but obviously not in all contexts.  What I note about these definitions is that it's quite clear that "Tsar" in Bulgarian means a monarch generically, while "Korol" does not - Korol means "a monarch who is designated as a King".  This would be about the opposite of the situation in English, where a "king" is a generic monarch while a "Tsar" is "a monarch who is designated as a Tsar."  Also, I'm not sure why an Israelite melech is not a king, but a Saudi malik is.  At any rate, I don't think anybody is saying that "Korol" is not the main Bulgarian word for "King" in the technical sense of "monarch who is designated a king."  You are asking 194 for something that his point does not require, because that's not what he's arguing. john k 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because a Saudi malik has defined himself as king in various diplomatic context, and the same is true for any modern monarch who bears that title in English. An Israelite melek would not have even known what a king (in its own more precise cultural meaning) is, and if he did, there is no indication that he may not find another English title more appropriate.  You are effectively asking us to define terms not on the basis of their precise meaning but on their imprecise occasional application.  Imladjov 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And he has defined himself as king in various diplomatic context not because he has meant anything with it, not because he has much in common with a Western king "in its own more precise cultural meaning"; he's done it because "king" is the default word for a monarch in English. What, I beg you to explain for the emptieth time, is the precise meaning of "emperor", so that we can recognize that we mean it when we mean it?--194.145.161.227 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Within a Christian/Western context, an emperor would be a monarch of supreme secular status (ranking above a king or any lower grade), imitating or ultimately deriving his authority from a tradition of Roman (or Byzantine) imperial ideology and its extensions (translatio imperii, etc). To obtain legitimacy, an emperor (at least within a Medieval context), has to be created or at least recognized by appropriate authorities, historically another emperor and/or the Pope. This obviously does not extend to modern phenomena like colonial empires. Imladjov 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's the "translatio imperii" ideology. If we are consistent with it, there should be only one (Roman) emperor, and everyone else (kings, princes or whatever they like to call themselves) should be his subordinates. Well, as we all know, this never really worked; and, of course, it is not contained in the modern use of the term. Theoretically, there can be a thousand tsars. --194.145.161.227 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. A Byzantine emperor is a Roman emperor. Simple enough.  A western (eventually Holy Roman) emperor is part of a tradition starting with Charlemagne being crowned by the Pope and then recognized (albeit reluctantly) as an emperor by the Byzantine court. A Bulgarian emperor is part of a tradition starting with Simeon being crowned as emperor by the Patriarch of Constantinople (then regent of the Byzantine Empire) and being recognized by Byzantine emperors (and probably the Pope). The Serbian emperors imitated Byzantine emperorship, although they failed to secure Byzantine recognition; they did receive recognition from an emperor (the Bulgarian one) and were crowned by patriarchs (a Serbian and a Bulgarian ones).  The Muscovite rulers claimed ideological and genealogical descent from the Byzantine Emperors and obtained recognition from the Holy Roman Emperor.  In all the Slavic cases above the imperial title is "tsar."  In official diplomatic sources they are all referenced as imperator or basileus and reference foreign emperors as tsar.  That is the original meaning of the term.  You seem to imply that it has shifted.  That simply cannot be demonstrated, because the exceptions (Congress Poland and modern Bulgaria) do not entail a clear re-definition of the term and there is no general use of it to designate monarchs of precisely kingly status.  Imladjov 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Byzantines clearly hated to acknowledge the Holy Roman people's and evryone else's imperial title (and their Roman-ness), and they preferred to avoid it whenever they could (also by adding autokrator to their own title). Similarly, when Moscow said it was the Third Rome, this was incompatible with acknowledging that the Holy Roman people were "a Rome" in any way. Even some Holy Roman historians were reluctant to call the Byzantine rulers "emperors", although they were, admittedly, more "pluralist". What the Bulgarians felt is unclear, but they definitely had a tendencey to call themselves "emperors of Bulgarians and Romans". This concept of "emperor" was contradictory and out of touch with reality from the very beginning; in theory, nobody should recongnize anybody else, because there can be only one true heir of the Roman Empire. But even if you espouse the more "pluralist" position that did become prevalent, as it was more realistic, the fact remains that nothing of the sort is associated with the word "tsar" today. A "tsar" isn't recognized by the Pope, at best you can say that he is probably recognized by his own patriarch. You can say that ceasaropapism is modelled on the Byzantine empire, but that's not a reason to call every Orthodox ruler "Emperor".--194.145.161.227 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not about reluctance or about espousal of claims. This is about placing them within a tradition and obtaining some modicum of legitimacy or acceptance.  The translatio imperii is not necessarily linear, it branches out.  Incompatibility between branches is irrelevant, and the claim that there could be only one heir to Rome is plainly absurd, especially as we are dealing with practice, not theory.  A tsar does not have to be recognized by the pope but some have been.  A tsar has to inherit another tsar, and the first in a line must obtain some recognition from a legitimate source, be that a pope or another (Byzantine) emperor or what.  This is not the Holy Roman Empire where each new emperor is at least in theory elective and merely king until crowned by a pope.  Of course not every Orthodox ruler is called an emperor, but that is because not every Orthodox ruler is called a tsar.  In case you are missing this I am by no means trying to call the modern tsars of Bulgaria emperors.  All I am saying is that the proper meaning of the term "tsar" is "emperor."  More general and inexact application does not change that meaning. Imladjov 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course I find this offensive. Who are you to deny my rulers the right to call themselves whatever they want, and who are you to explain that it is incorrect - especially as the title means that, in the vernacular of my people? As repeated a thousand times, there is no such a thing as a proper meaning. Meaning shifts. I assure you that we don't have in mind a pope - or another Emperor's consent, when we use the word "tsar". Ferdinand didn't have any, at the time. He didn't claim that he had. And which tsars, crowned by the Pope, are you referring to? I've heard speculations about Simeon, but I think it hasn't been proven yet. Kaloyan clearly failed. All the Russian people were Orthodox. Our flirts with the Pope were mostly brief and unsuccessful.--194.145.161.227 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is incorrect is your interpretation of the title. Ferdinand knew full well what he was doing and why he was doing it. If modern Bulgarian had shifted the meaning of "tsar" to correspond to "king," than such a shift would be plainly noticeable instead of focusing on a single dubious exception. The papal OR (not always AND) imperial consent was a medieval prerequisite. Ferdinand did not really need either (all he had to is claim tradition as the ruler of independent Bulgaria), although by his time acceptance of a claim by the Great Powers would have been necessary to truly receive general recognition. Especially for Bulgaria the pope was very much optional in establishing legitimacy. Kaloyan failed, but he claimed (in at least one case probably correctly) that at least three of his predecessors had been recognized by the papacy. Imladjov 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, if Ferdinand and everyone else had interpreted the title in the way you do (the extremely meaningful "an emperor is somebody whom the Pope or another Emperor recognizes as emperor", as opposed to the even more meaningful "an emperor is somebody who calls himself emperor"), he wouldn't have been able to confine himself to "claiming tradition as the ruler of independent Bulgaria". That clearly wouldn't have been enough, by his own definition. But guess what, he didn't care, and nobody noticed. Why? Perhaps because the definition of the title had got blurred? --194.145.161.227 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the part about that being a medieval definition? On Ferdinand, what can I say. Read. Imladjov 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did, because I thought that you had given us the only definition that you are operating with. It would have made things much simpler. Now, you are saying that the definition had evolved, and every Bulgarian knew that a tsar was a ruler recognized as emperor by "the appropriate authorities". And which would these be, in Ferdinand's time, in your opinion? Whatever your answer is, the fact remains that, since you insist that that requirement was generally known and part of the Bulgarian concept of a tsar, and since you insist that the requirement wasn't met, you can't explain why everybody in Bulgaria felt perfectly comfortable with that tomfoolery. --194.145.161.227 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated elsewhere, in Ferdinand's time there was a dual concern with legitimacy (and here Ferdinand only needed to cite tradition) and recognition by the Great Powers. The paradox in his titles addresses these concerns. Imladjov 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We are talking about precise definitions, not concerns. I have nothing more to add to what I've already said. Of course "tsar" didn't mean "a Bulgarian who is recognized as emperor by the great powers". --194.145.161.227 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Imladjov understands what I mean when I say "default". "Default" does not mean "only one". Not even "the most frequent one". It means "the one used when nothing else is specified" (the equivalent to the term "unmarked" in linguistics). I don't deny that modern "exotic" kings in the Pacific and the like are called "koroli/krale" - I guess, because our contact with them is through Western sources. But if I imagine that the Martians have a king, I'll call him a tsar. If the fish have a king (as in fairy tales) - I'd call him a tsar. So please, explain how you define an emperor, so that we are able to conclude whether I have an "emperor of the fish" in my brain or not.--194.145.161.227 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Assuming that the king of the Martians does not first get his precise status cleared with the UN, why does your assumption that he should be "tsar" in Bulgarian mean that "tsar" equals "king" in English?  Imladjov 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to explain to you what "default" means. I guess I failed. --194.145.161.227 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not arguing about what "default" means. We are arguing about what "tsar" means. And the default word for a monarch in one language need not have the same meaning as the default word for a monarch in another.  For example, say that the French are used to living under kings (rois), and the Chinese under emperors (huang di).  Would you argue that roi and huang di mean the same thing? Imladjov 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, being the "default word for a monarch" is a very important part of the meaning of a word. Frankly, I don't even know whether "huang di" is the default word for monarch in Chinese (if they use it only for their own ruler, I wouldn't call it default). Apart from that, sure, Chinese dogs are usually different from Portuguese ones, and being a shoemaker in Ancient Rome was different from being a shoemaker in Medieval Japan, but the meaning is roughly the same. --194.145.161.227 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But you don't seem to understand that two terms being default for the same thing in different languages does not necessarily mean that they are generally equivalent. Imladjov 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * IF we are looking at the meaning that the speakers of the languages concerned want to convey, when they use the term, then I dare say that the difference between Bulgarian "tsar" and English "king" is very small. The traditional medieval Christian concept is not present in anybody's conscience nowadays, and it wasn't present in the Bulgarians' conscience in Ferdinand's time.--194.145.161.227 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to reference that (esp. about what was in Ferdinand's mind) and to prove it, especially considering that you're wrong. Just read the literature. Imladjov 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Imladjov - Polyaviannyi is distinguishing between "Tsar" and "Kral," not between "Tsar" and "King." What if you showed me a passage in German where someone says "George preferred the term Fürst to the term Prinz, because the latter seemed too dull," or some such? Would it be fair to gloss Prince as "Prinz" and then say this demonstrates that "Fürst" can't be translated as "Prince"? Perhaps I will translate it into Italian and refer to it as a dispute between whether or not Ferdinand was going to change his name to "Carlo" or "Cesare." 194 - is there a word in Bulgarian which more explicitly means "Emperor" than "Tsar" does? That would be useful to know. For instance, what are Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Emperors, Byzantine emperors, and such like referred to as in Bulgarian? For instance, in modern Greek, "Basileus" means King, while "Autokrator" means Emperor.
 * Kral is king. Basileus means different things at different times and/or in different contexts. It has reacquired the earlier meaning of king, but in the Middle Ages it was used virtually exclusively as "emperor."  Autokrator also had that connotation (at first more emphatically), but it was not used exclusively so.  In Bulgarian the usage of Tsar for foreign emperors is no longer standard except for the rulers of Russia and especially Serbia.  Byzantine, Roman, and Holy Roman emperors are now called imperator, although occasionally vasilevs (basileus) and kajzer (Kaiser), the same way we might call a Russian emperor "tsar."  In medieval and early modern usage, the word tsar was used for any emperor, carefully distinguishing from the subordinate Byzantine dignity of kaisar (καισαρ).Imladjov 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Roman Emperors, Holy Roman Emperors, Byzantine emperors are all "imperator" in both modern Russian and modern Bulgarian (as explained - disaprovingly - in the article). If "tsar" means "emperor" when referring to the ruler of Bulgaria (in Bulgarian) and Russia (in Russian) - then it's the only instance in which it has that meaning. Anyway, the very concept of a word meaning something without anybody knowing that it means that is just ridiculous. --194.145.161.227 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, my basic position is this - "Tsar" is a title which is basically untranslatable in English, which is why it has become an English word in its own right. Its closest equivalent is "Emperor," but the two terms are not precisely equivalent in the way that "Emperor" is equivalent to the German "Kaiser." The question of whether Russian tsars were equivalent to western Emperors remained unclear until Peter the Great replaced "Tsar" as his primary title with "Imperator" in 1721. Additionally, in a few contexts, "Tsar" has been used in Slavic languages (Russian, Bulgarian) as a direct translation of the western title "King", and in early times it was sometimes said that, in Russian at least, the term was equivalent to "King." The word is also used as a generic term for monarchs, as in the translation of titles of ancient (Biblical and otherwise) monarchs and such like, in the same way that English uses the word "king."
 * The relationship between Emperor and Tsar is precisely that between Emperor and Kaiser, down to the parallel etymological development. After dealing with Byzantine and Slavic primary and secondary sources for a very long time, I can testify that no informed precise source makes an equation between king (rex) and tsar.Imladjov 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that "The relationship between Emperor and Tsar is precisely that between Emperor and Kaiser", if it were not for the fact that Kaiser happens to designate all the emperors in the history of the world (Roman, Japanese, etc.), while Tsar designates only Russian and Bulgarian rulers, + many others that aren't emperors. The difference is there and can't be ignored. --194.145.161.227 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about the development of a language? For example why your Cyrillic alphabet looks similar to the Latin one used in this site, as opposed to the Cyrillic of the 10th century?  Until Peter the Great, Slavonic sources called Byzantine and Roman emperos tsars.  When Peter changed all sorts of conventions in Russian society and government, many of these changes were adopted (gradually) by the south Slavs.  So when he chose to call himself an imperator instead of a "tsar," the Latin word entered Slavic languages as well.  Since Bulgarian in particular was shaped by Russian conventions as a literary language, Bulgarian usage (like the Russian one) started applying imperator to foreign rulers.  Obviously the Medieval Slavs did not know of the emperor of Japan, and if they did they may not have recognized him as one. Imladjov 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point? The German word for the Emperor of Japan is still "Kaiser", and the Russian and Bulgarian words are still "Imperator".  And why is it that etymology is so damned important for "Tsar" but is completely meaningless as to the relationship between Hebrew melech and Arabic malik? john k 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that both you and 194 are simply refusing to look at sources and scholarship and are forming some sort of generalized impressions that you are trying to impose on an article that was factually accurate, detailed (perhaps too detailed), and properly referenced. I really do not know how you can end up with such conclusions, but maybe you should read a few books.  You cannot take the English arbitrary term for the ruler of ancient Israel and the Bulgarian aribtrary term for the same and then argue that two terms must be exactly equivalent to each other because they have been employed to refer to the same monarch.  So an English reference to King David and a Bulgarian reference to Tsar David do not make the Slavic word "tsar" equal to "king" or the reverse. Imladjov 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that they are exactly equivalent, you are the one who is talking about exact equivalents. And personally, I never denied that "tsar" originally had a meaning which is rather close to "emperor". All I've been saying is that - quote - this meaning has been blurred in modern usage - unquote. It has. A tsar is, as Vladimir Dal put it, the supreme ruler of a state. That's the definition. Nothing about "translatio imperii", popes and the like. You are taking one particular ideology and saying that it is the only "correct" one. --194.145.161.227 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to precision of historical titles a dictionary like that is not necessarily the best place to look. For that matter the designation of "tsar" as supreme ruler is a little more emphatic than that for king.  Look at the entries.  What do you mean "rather close"?  It is precise and explicit.  Name sources, primary and secondary, that disprove that!  The meaning of the term has not changed (though Greek basileus has changed), what has partly changed is its application.  But that is different from meaning.  Tsar means emperor, even if it is occasionally used to designate person who may not be of imperial status (e.g., "Tsar" David).Imladjov 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "rather close", because the meaning of the very term 'emperor' has been changing. A Bulgarian or Serbian "emperor" could never be exactly the same as a Byzantine emperor (let alone later definitions of emperor that you disapprove of :)). As for "meaning", I'll repeat that when the application changes, the meaning changes at the same time. There can be no meaning outside of the application. --194.145.161.227 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then look at the primary sources, and demonstrate how the "tsar" of either Bulgaria or Serbia is any less an emperor in a document where he is named together with the Byzantine emperor, regardless of which emperor issued the document. There are several such charters.  And the terms are equivalent, except for the designators ("of the Romans", "of the Bulgarians", "of the Serbians").  An emperor being a supreme secular ruler outranking a king is a state of affairs that has not changed. Imladjov 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I said that it can never be exactly the same, because a Byzantine emperor has true oikumenic pretenses, and the ambition to be a Roman emperor. To me, Bulgarian and Serbian "imperia" are empty phrases, a devalvation of the term. But of course, that can hardly be proved with documents. It's just my view. Despite these reservations I never deleted the assertion that "tsar" originally meant "emperor".--194.145.161.227 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about pretensions, we are talking about the title "tsar" which corresponds in these documents to "basileus." The Bulgarian and Serbian imperia may be completely "empty" (however one estimates that), but this too is not the point, which is about the meaning of a particular term.  You are not supposed to express personal views and individual research in editing Wikipedia, you are supposed to supply accurate and verifiable information. Imladjov 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not supposed to. So I didn't. As I just mentioned, I haven't touched any part of the article concerning the meaning of "tsar" in the Middle Ages. i just mentioned my personal opinion here, mostly because John had been discussing that issue. I have been confining myself to modern usage, and even though I have my doubts, too, I would only deal with the Middle Age stuff if I found a more reliable secondary source that supports these doubts. I think that John's dictionary research does show convincingly that many Westerners didn't think of "tsar" as equivalent of "emperor" (neither do modern Westerners, for that matter), but that in itself doesn't automatically prove that the word didn't actually mean "emperor" for the Russians (and that's what counts, IMO; hence my disagreement with you, too). So I'm not dealing with that issue for the time being. --194.145.161.227 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume that you alone are cognizant of what constitutes modern usage in this case? Given your position (distinction blurred with tsar usually = king), I am actually very skeptical of that.  At least if you could marshall some proof...  And by the way, I agree that self-perception is very important (where we disagree is what that self-perception was in modern Bulgaria). Imladjov 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you know perfectly well that most Bulgarians (and even Russians, although their case is more special) would agree with me, if given the choice between translating tsar as "king" or "emperor". After all, you had already included several mentions of that in the very article. But I promised you to quote Bulgarian dictionary definitions tomorrow, and so I will. --194.145.161.227 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that many Bulgarians (not sure about the Russians) are probably likely to translate "tsar" as king. But just having a limited knowledge of English titulature and its implications does not mean that "tsar" has shifted in meaning.  Default words are one thing, meanings of words something slightly different.  I would not accept a default word substitution as a translation of meaning.  Imladjov 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How can the "meaning of a term" be independent of the "application" of a term? The meaning of a word is the same thing as "how one may use a word." And, at any rate, "Tsar" does not exactly mean "Emperor," which is all we're trying to say. It is a title which means something rather like "Emperor," but not exactly, which is why we have a word "Tsar" in English. As I understand it, in Bulgarian and Russian, the word "Imperator" is now used to indicate Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Emperors, Emperors of Japan, and such like. "Tsar" is only used for native rulers, and for some other pre-Greco-Roman ones who are not generally called "Emperors" in English and other western languages. Furthermore, at earlier times it seems clear that, in the west at least, the terms were not regarded as equivalent - as noted, the Russian Tsars between 1547 and 1721 were not recognized as Emperors by any of the western powers, and it is rather unclear if the Tsars even put forward the pretension that they should be. It is true that Russian rulers were intermittently called "Emperors" by western sources, but this bears no clear relation to the formal assumption of the title of "Tsar" in 1547. Maximilian I apparently wrote a letter to Great Prince Vasili III calling him "Emperor." (I think it was Kaiser, in German, rather than Imperator, in Latin, but I'm not sure). At any rate, between 1547 and 1721, "Tsar" was sometimes translated as Emperor by westerners, and sometimes said to be equivalent to King. While obviously both the eastern Slavic term "Tsar" and the western terms "Emperor," "Kaiser," and variants derive from the same Roman roots, they have never been considered to be precise equivalents of each other. If "Tsar" simply meant "Emperor," then we wouldn't be arguing about it. It's not as though anybody argues about whether "Kaiser" is equivalent to "Emperor." john k 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

John, you are obviously not sufficiently familiar with the sources. Please familiarize yourself with them if you wish to make such sweeping statements. Throughout medieval diplomatic practice the term tsar is a precise equivalent of emperor. In other words, it means precisely emperor. There is no title which is "something rather like emperor," or something between emperor and king (I used to think so as a child). You cannot question the title on the basis of misinformed, inaccurate, or hostile sources. In that case, you may wish to challenge the right of the Carolingians or Ottonians to call themselves emperors, because the Byzantines repeatedly refused to do so with various exceptions. Or if you wish to challenge the equivalence between "Emperor" and "Tsar," you should also challenge that between "Emperor" and "Kaiser." The only difference here is that the latter is far more familiar to English readers (now and in the past), whereas the former has remained rather exotic and used particularly in reference to Russia (thereby adding to the impression that it is actually something else). Charlemagne's biographer Einhard called the Caliph Harūn al-Rašīd "king of the Persians." Does this mean that we must posit that caliph and king are the same thing? Obviously not. Right? And this is not about etymology, it is about meaning. Imladjov 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Anyone who is called an "Emperor" in English is called a "Kaiser" in German. Many people called "Emperors" in English (including some Russian rulers) are called "Imperator" in Russian, and are not usually called "Tsar." Furthermore, some uses of the Russian "tsar" cannot be translted into English as "Emperor." Alexander I was "King of Poland," not "Emperor of Poland." Ferdinand I was "King of the Bulgarians," not "Emperor of the Bulgarians." The titles of Russian tsars before 1721, and of Bulgarian tsars in the middle ages, are generally left untranslated. Nobody is saying that "Tsar" is generally equivalent to "King." I would agree that it's meaning is much closer to "Emperor". But the Tsars of Russia in the 17th century were not generally recognized as Emperors by the rest of Europe, and the same is obviously true of the Bulgarian rulers after 1908. I have found two specific instances where a slavic usage of "Tsar" is translated into English, French, etc. as "King," "roi," etc. I can't think of any instances where Russian or Bulgarian use of "Tsar" is translated as "Emperor" in normal usage. It is normally left untranslated, and is in s tiny number of cases (already mentioned) translated as "King". On the other hand, the German "Kaiser" is normally translated into English as "Emperor," although of course not always. I agree that "Tsar" is more close in meaning to "Emperor" than it is to "King." But it is pretty much never actually translated as Emperor. It is left untranslated, in the same way that numerous other similar terms that don't have precise English equivalents are left untranslated. john k 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed your contention that "tsar" may be translated as "king" in the cases of Congress Poland and modern Bulgaria. This is not really translation.  You cannot compare pre-1721 tsars of Russia to post-1908 tsars of Bulgaria.  There can be no argument that the Russian tsars had imperial status.  Whether "tsar" is translated or not (and given all this confusion it probably ought to be) hardly establishes that it is something "like" emperor any more than it would establish that it is something "like" king.  You have to look at the historical development and the sources, in particular the domestic sources and the most primary of diplomatic sources.  In effect many of your misgivings seem to be contingent on more secondary materials. Imladjov 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's not a translation. What is referred to as a "Tsar" in Bulgarian is referred to as a "Roi" in French.  That's a translation.  And nobody is denying that "Tsar" is something like "Emperor."  But the two words aren't interchangeable, and I think it really is open to question whether the Russian tsars before 1721 had imperial status - none of the western governments consistently recognized them as having such, and indeed, many western travelers thought "Tsar" was equivalent to "King" - including the Imperial ambassador, who you would think would be relatively alert for potential challenges to his master's supremacy (certainly, after 1721, the Austrians were fairly quick to object to Peter's assuming the title of Emperor, and were only allayed by a discovered letter from Maximilian I to Vasili III that calls the later "Emperor."  "Tsar" is a title whose meaning is related to "Emperor," and which can be (and has been) construed as meaning "Emperor."  But it hasn't always been so construed, and has occasionally been construed as meaning "King" (which was clearly what happened in Bulgaria in 1908).  That "Tsar" had imperial connotation is clear.  That "Tsar" does not mean the same thing as "Kral" is equally clear.  But we aren't disagreeing with you on either of those points. john k 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your sources are 4 (?) unofficial western references. What about all the other sources, many of them far more official than this which list "tsars" as imperator or basileus?  What about the vernacular literature in which "tsar" and emperor equivalent?  What about the diplomatic negotiations and the wars that were fought precisely over the acceptance of the title by the Byzantine court?  Whether the often uninformed or prejudiced westerner understood or chose to understand the title "tsar" as imperial is not fully relevant here.  The Congress Poland and the modern Bulgarian examples seem to have far more to do with conflicting pretensions than with actual translation.  Yes, roi des bulgares may designate the person calling himself "tsar of the Bulgarians," (and vice versa), but that does not mean that it is a real translation. Imladjov 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What sources are those? You have yet to list any.  Maximilian I apparently wrote a letter to Vasily III, a velikii kniaz, calling him either Imperator or Kaiser (can't recall if the letter was in Latin or German).  Does that make velikii kniaz equivalent to Emperor?  Beyond that, what do you have?  You claim that there's a lot of sources, but haven't actually cited any.  At any rate, I've never tried to claim that there are not sources that use "Tsar" as equivalent to "Emperor."  Obviously, Shakespeare did, and so did one of the OED examples.  Obviously also, "Tsar" did mean Emperor in Serbian, in Polish, and in Czech, and given the close relationship of all the Slavic languages, that's going to influence things.  But, nevertheless, there was clearly a great deal of confusion in the west as to whether Tsar was meant to be equivalent to Emperor.  It seems to me that, given that the hierarchical Emperor/King/Grand Duke/Duke/etc. system of monarchical precedence   with which we are familiar derived out of western European practice, the fact that no western power before 1721 recognized the Russian tsars as Emperors, and, indeed, that one of the people one would expect to be most concerned with this issue, the Imperial ambassador to the Russian court in 1549, did not even think that the Russians intended "Tsar" to be recognized as equivalent to "Emperor," it's hard to say that Tsar, as used by Ivan the Terrible in 1547, was equivalent to Emperor, since nobody actually treated it that way.  Rather, they treated it with confusion.  They knew that the term "Tsar," what with it's resemblance to German "Kaiser" seemed to be a cognate for "Emperor," but they weren't sure that the translation worked right.  Confusion only evaporated after 1721.  One might note that references after 1721 who suggest that "Tsar" is equivalent to "Emperor" are not of any value, because after that time the ruler commonly called a "Tsar" was also explicitly an Emperor, so that somebody saying that might simply think the terms are equivalent, not realizing the Tsar also has the title of Imperator.  In terms of the King of Poland issue, I fail to see how this has anything to do with conflicting pretensions.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.  What it looks like to me is that Alexander is pretty obviously using "Tsar of Poland" as the Russian translation for "King of Poland," and I don't see what kind of pretensions are involved here.  In the Bulgarian issue, it's certainly true that Ferdinand had imperial pretensions, but it's also true that "Korol" was a title only used for foreign rulers, and quite possibly "Tsar" was chosen more because it sounded like a native title than because of its imperial overtones (which were certainly there).  Beyond that, you seem to have an incredibly narrow understanding of what a "translation" is.  It seems to me that if, writing in Russian, one says "Tsar of Poland," and then, writing the same text in French, one says "Roi de Pologne," that "Tsar of Poland" and "Roi de Pologne are, in this context at least, translations of one another.  That doesn't mean that the Russian "Tsar" is always equivalent to the French "Roi," but it means that in this instance they are considered equivalent. I don't see how this is debatable. john k 16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand the dogmatism with which Imladjov is trying to argue that "Tsar" is precisely identical to "Emperor." It just isn't. The two terms are related, and perhaps in Polish, Serbian, and Czech they are the same. But they aren't in Russian and Bulgarian, and have never been treated as such. john k 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called reading up and trying to establish accuracy. Imladjov 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Never say never. I can't read the minds of ole Simeon and Ivan the Terrible. But I do know what the modern usage is, and this can't be ignored or dismissed. --194.145.161.227 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)