A question about Tsars and the Byzantines

Onyx

Banned
It seems that the title of Tsar for Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia were created as an an attempt to restore the glory of the Byzantines, which began to decline around the era these kingdoms began to rise.

So I have a question that I need to ask

If the Byzantines still survived as a powerful Empire it still was from 1000, would Kingdoms such as Serbia or a united Rus still evolve in Tsardoms? Or would the title be much insignificant as to an Emperor, yet higher than a King?
 
It seems that the title of Tsar for Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia were created as an an attempt to restore the glory of the Byzantines, which began to decline around the era these kingdoms began to rise.

So I have a question that I need to ask

If the Byzantines still survived as a powerful Empire it still was from 1000, would Kingdoms such as Serbia or a united Rus still evolve in Tsardoms? Or would the title be much insignificant as to an Emperor, yet higher than a King?

The word "tsar" is simply a slavicized version of the Latin "Caesar." It is possible they could adopt the title.
 
It seems that the title of Tsar for Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia were created as an an attempt to restore the glory of the Byzantines, which began to decline around the era these kingdoms began to rise.

So I have a question that I need to ask

If the Byzantines still survived as a powerful Empire it still was from 1000, would Kingdoms such as Serbia or a united Rus still evolve in Tsardoms? Or would the title be much insignificant as to an Emperor, yet higher than a King?

Tsar in Slavic languages I think means Caesar, so they call themselves "King" in their language, turning into a Kingdom. But Tsar may be used still if Byzantines still remain strong.

I think the title of Tsar is worth less than a Emperor, but is equal with King.

Hope that helps.
 
Bulgaria at least used the title before the Byzantines declined.

I suspect a lot more depends on their relationship with Byzantium than its power (although those aren't unrelated). Byzantium might even grant the title caesar - which is increasingly lower in the hierarchy of Byzantine titles under Basileus - to the Russian "king".

Can't see it wanting to do so for Serbia and Bulgaria, which are more problematic to its borders.
 
Or the Russian ruler might do a Charlemagne and start calling himself Basileus, much to Byzantium's annoyance...

Bruce
 

Onyx

Banned
So basically the best way for a Tsardom to occur is that they have to be a powerful King who if he wants to, declares himself Tsar and be granted of this by the Byzantine Emperor in the title "Caesar", am I right?
 
So basically the best way for a Tsardom to occur is that they have to be a powerful King who if he wants to, declares himself Tsar and be granted of this by the Byzantine Emperor in the title "Caesar", am I right?

Nahh, not quite.

Tsar simply has connotations of "Christian Emperor", there's no notion, to my knowledge, of any serious hierachy involved in the title. Symeon originally called himself "Tsar" to assert that he was a legitimate ruler, and that he, not Romanos Lekapenos, was the legitimate Roman Emperor- hence calling himself "Caesar of the Bulgarians and the Romans". From then on, Tsar becomes increasingly the title, as Christianisation progresses.
 
Nahh, not quite.

Tsar simply has connotations of "Christian Emperor", there's no notion, to my knowledge, of any serious hierachy involved in the title. Symeon originally called himself "Tsar" to assert that he was a legitimate ruler, and that he, not Romanos Lekapenos, was the legitimate Roman Emperor- hence calling himself "Caesar of the Bulgarians and the Romans". From then on, Tsar becomes increasingly the title, as Christianisation progresses.

This is true.

To me, Byzantium giving the title "Caesar" and that being translated as "tsar" is more a way that the term could exist without claiming the Emperorship - but it would be very much in the tradition of giving fancy titles to foreigners.

Like a bureaucratic equivalent of the Kaiser being honorary colonel of some cavalry regiment in the UK.

But no one is going to take the title in that spirit - as in, no one is going to claim it for themselves. It'd just be an occasionally noted title some individual *king would have.
 
Last edited:
Top