A title higher than emperor?

[Achaemenid Rome]

In the typical Western view, could there be a non-clerical, hereditary, "feudal" title higher than emperor?

Perhaps if the Mongols had taken over the Holy Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire and set up puppet states, the puppet states being led by figurehead emperor, then you could see Khagan as superior to Emperor?

 

[Kumarbi]

Emperor-of-Emperors?

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Emperor-of-Emperors?

How though?

And would that be called Arch Emperor?

 

[Kibbutznik]

Wouldn't the Mongols just replace the Holy Roman Emperor if they became that strong?

One could see something comparable to the Islamic Caliph, but without religion.

 

[Kumarbi]

How though?

And would that be called Arch Emperor?

That was kind of a joke.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Wouldn't the Mongols just replace the Holy Roman Emperor if they became that strong?

Well, if they didn't want to convert to Christianity, they could set up a puppet Christian emperor while having the Khan run the military. Sort of similar to the foederati at the end of the western Roman Empire, but Mongol instead of Germanic.

One could see something comparable to the Islamic Caliph, but without religion.

That's just the Pope. (With religion)

 

[Kumarbi]

Anyway I had a similar problem in a TL idea I had about a surviving Spanish Empire. I eventually settled on Supreme Emperor (Emperador Supremo) of the League Imperial.

 

[LSCatilina]

In the typical Western view, could there be a non-clerical, hereditary, "feudal" title higher than emperor?

Giving you had a tendency to the devaluation of honores, I'm not so sure you'd have really a competition to even more devaluation.
You might see, rather than new titles, precised titulature such as a resurgence of "August Emperor" or "Imperator totius" in some happenances.

That said, it would be a mistake to give feudal titles any form of clear hierarchy (it's really much of a latter feature, attempting in the XVIIth/XVIIIth to rationalize a whole mess) : a king wasn't automatically supposed to be subservient of an emperor (at least technically at first, Kings of France could be considered as equals of HREmperors).

 

[Napoleonrules]

Since Germany and Russia (and Bulgaria along with other Slavic languages) used the name Caesar to come up with the word for Emperor (or more properly tsar means king) in their languages (Caesar is properly pronounced with a K which makes German much more original to the Latin than English). The Roman's however used Caesar to mean the second level, the level below the Emperor from whom they took the first Emperor (Augustus) and used his name for the title. We could see Augustus be the root for someone above emperor. In fact it's very strange imperator became the root for such a high status... it's root is the title for an army commander.

 

[water123]

Ehhhh. I feel like Genghis Khan wouldn't really get the concept of an European emperor.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Giving you had a tendency to the devaluation of honores, I'm not so sure you'd have really a competition to even more devaluation.
You might see, rather than new titles, precised titulature such as a resurgence of "August Emperor" or "Imperator totius" in some happenances.

Well, there was the Byzantine title Caesar (καῖσαρ) which was subservient to the Emperor, because Caesar was usually awarded to the junior co-emperor or the heir apparent.

If the Byzantines were able to place a ruler on the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, that kaiser would be an emperor, but also inferior to the Eastern Basileus/Autokrator.

That said, it would be a mistake to give feudal titles any form of clear hierarchy (it's really much of a latter feature, attempting in the XVIIth/XVIIIth to rationalize a whole mess) : a king wasn't automatically supposed to be subservient of an emperor (at least technically at first, Kings of France could be considered as equals of HREmperors).

True. But maybe if there was a surviving title generally perceived as higher than emperor, even anachronistically, even in romanticism and not reality, then when new empires were declared from no earlier basis in the 19th century (such as the German Empire), said leaders could instead declare themselves <title higher than emperor>. Whatever that title may be.

Ehhhh. I feel like Genghis Khan wouldn't really get the concept of an European emperor.

Eastern Europe was conquered by Batu Khan under Ogedei's orders. Genghis Khan had died by that point.

I don't see why Mongols wouldn't understand the idea of an emperor. But Mongols could understand that they need to place a Christian puppet ruler to rule over the Christians.

 

[Kumarbi]

Since Germany and Russia (and Bulgaria along with other Slavic languages) used the name Caesar to come up with the word for Emperor (or more properly tsar means king) in their languages (Caesar is properly pronounced with a K which makes German much more original to the Latin than English). The Roman's however used Caesar to mean the second level, the level below the Emperor from whom they took the first Emperor (Augustus) and used his name for the title. We could see Augustus be the root for someone above emperor. In fact it's very strange imperator became the root for such a high status... it's root is the title for an army commander.

Augustine could work as a title.

Like Charles The Great, Augustine of Christendom

 

[water123]

Eastern Europe was conquered by Ogedei, Batu, and later khans, not Genghis

Still. The Khans, especially if they became more successful, were generally (at least until the days of entities such as the latter Golden Horde and even then) more interested in land for their horses than trying to get into the European political system if they could avoid it. Unless you can get them to convert to Catholicism, the Horde would just continue to expand until internal troubles or outside pressure ended it. And I find the concept of a large, settled, coherent, united post Mongol state to be pretty unlikely.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Since Germany and Russia (and Bulgaria along with other Slavic languages) used the name Caesar to come up with the word for Emperor (or more properly tsar means king) in their languages (Caesar is properly pronounced with a K which makes German much more original to the Latin than English). The Roman's however used Caesar to mean the second level, the level below the Emperor from whom they took the first Emperor (Augustus) and used his name for the title. We could see Augustus be the root for someone above emperor. In fact it's very strange imperator became

Well, there was the Byzantine title Caesar (καῖσαρ) which was subservient to the Emperor, because Caesar was usually awarded to the junior co-emperor or the heir apparent.

If the Byzantines were able to place a ruler on the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, that kaiser would be an emperor, but also inferior to the Eastern Basileus/Autokrator.


True. But maybe if there was a surviving title generally perceived as higher than emperor, even anachronistically, even in romanticism and not reality, then when new empires were declared from no earlier basis in the 19th century (such as the German Empire), said leaders could instead declare themselves <title higher than emperor>. Whatever that title may be.

Eastern Europe was conquered by Batu Khan under Ogedei's orders. Genghis Khan had died by that point.

I don't see why Mongols wouldn't understand the idea of an emperor. But Mongols could understand that they need to place a Christian puppet ruler to rule over the Christians.

During Genghis' lifetime they did reach Kiev and in fact even put its ruler to death with 5 other regional rulers. Though the force was recalled by Genghis without any permanent occupation. Genghis knew of, and planned to attack and occupy what we know today as Hungary because of that basin's great pastures.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Chakravartin. Don't matter how powerful your puny emperor is if your chariot rolls by without obstruction.

(Kidding, no. Emperor in its various forms is the highest title in a Latin Christian context and its improbable anyone would need a higher title post Roman Empire, imo.)

 

[water123]

It's much less that the Mongols wouldn't understand the concept of an Emperor. They probably just wouldn't care. The whole point of their conquests was to acquire more farmland. A more successful Mongol invasion would more or less just lead to China or even Persian level depopulation, a lot of Mongol loanwords in European languages, and maybe even the evangelization by a form of Tengriism.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, there was the Byzantine title Caesar (καῖσαρ) which was subservient to the Emperor, because Caesar was usually awarded to the junior co-emperor or the heir apparent.

It didn't escaped the general devaluation of titles tough. Junior emperors or heir appearants were eventually quickly considered as imperial colleagues rather than Caesar, the title being eventually trampled over by sebastocrat and despot.
Note that Byzantine titulature, tough, isn't only nobiliar but administrative in nature more than it was for Latins until the Late Middle Ages.

If the Byzantines were able to place a ruler on the throne of the Holy Roman Empire

Aaand you lost me.

Seriously, Byzantine emperors barely considered HREmperors as emperors to begin with, they would probably either claim the full imperialship in Italy sooner than to give German's claims much consideration. And that's telling.

True. But maybe if there was a surviving title generally perceived as higher than emperor

Thing is, in the general devaluation of titles, only emperor (and king, altough the boat was rocked on this one in the Early Middle Ages) really escaped the desacralization. And then acknowledging its devaluation, and a fortiori accompaniying its devaluation seems a bold choice for not much reason.
Either you devalue so much the imperial title it becomes meaningless, either you try to do so but fail at it, and you just created a legitimised rival.

Not that you couldn't tweak your way around, trough use of August Emperor, as an equivalent to High King, but I wouldn't see a brand new overlording title just popping around.

Augustine could work as a title.

Like Charles The Great, Augustine of Christendom

IOTL, Carolingians and Ottonians emperors used the title of "August Emperor" which more or less carried this idea of overlordship over Christiendom.

 

[Kumarbi]

IOTL, Carolingians and Ottonians emperors used the title of "August Emperor" which more or less carried this idea of overlordship over Christiendom.

And now it can be a title on it's own, without an "Emperor" in it.

 

[LSCatilina]

And now it can be a title on it's own, without an "Emperor" in it.

Probably not : August tended to be an adjective since too much time, and too much being considered as an augmentative (see Philippe Auguste) to be left alone (especially, as pointed above, seeing the huge sacralisation of the imperialship.

 

[Kumarbi]

Probably not : August tended to be an adjective since too much time, and too much being considered as an augmentative (see Philippe Auguste) to be left alone (especially, as pointed above, seeing the huge sacralisation of the imperialship.

You've got a point there.