This is poorly titled but I don't know how else to put it: in germany and russia, we saw the titles Kaiser and Tsar for their Emperors.
But what if, through some ASB, or some really powerful leadership before Otto I, britain and ireland united under an Anglo-Saxon king and he declared an Empire? How would they localize Ceasar, or would they look to a Celt to create the moniker?
 
I honestly doubt that a variant on Caesar would be used. Emperor of the Britons (Imperator Britannorum), a title accredited to Arthur IIRC, seems to be the most likely title.
 
For a Romano-British (early medieval) one, I've seen "Amheradyr" used as a phonetic transliteration of "Imperator". But for an Anglo-Saxon one "Bretwalda" or "Brytenwalda" seem more fitting.

I agree with Arcavius that the Latin designation, in any case, would be simply "Imperator", but perhaps we could see "Imperator Anglorum" to emphasize the Anglo-Saxon heritage, even if they claim the whole of the British Isles.
 

Zen9

Banned
This is poorly titled but I don't know how else to put it: in germany and russia, we saw the titles Kaiser and Tsar for their Emperors.
But what if, through some ASB, or some really powerful leadership before Otto I, britain and ireland united under an Anglo-Saxon king and he declared an Empire? How would they localize Ceasar, or would they look to a Celt to create the moniker?
Bretwald might be the modern form of Bretwalda, an Anglo-Saxon term for 'wide ruler' that was effectively an overlord of several kingdoms and ultimately over most of Britain under Offa.
Had say the Vikings not turned up in numbers then a disunited England might lead to this term being used.

Overlord
High king

Maybe even under the right circumstances Offa ? After all it worked for Caeser...
 
You are specifying Anglo-Saxon. I have suggested in other threads a while back, the possibility of Britain retaining its Roman provincial structure as the Empire lost its cohesion, and some Brittanic-Latin dynasty deriving a claim from Roman administration and more or less controlling all of Great Britain south of Hadrian's Wall eventually replicating the OTL origins of the legend of Arthur. And this surviving Celto-Latin regime, perhaps allowing some Anglo-Saxons to settle but preventing them from taking over the whole island, might emerge, perhaps in lieu of Charlemagne, as the Roman Church's favored champion and be encouraged to claim the Imperial purple, but retain its distinct British features enough to insist on a new Imperial title, analogous to Caesar, but based on essentially "Arthur." The imperial rulers would thus be called "the" Arthur. I would imagine if they could keep Britain itself more or less secure, and use it as a resource and manpower base, they could claim generally prevailing if perhaps fluctuating control of western Gaul, extend it into the Low Countries, and more or less assert some power over Iberia, off and on, especially if they can do something to assist the Christian resistance to the Islamic invaders. With Church help and advocacy akin to how it attempted to aid Charlemagne, perhaps power could be projected into most of modern OTL France and thus connected to Italy, where the Popes would be keen to draw some fighting power to stabilize their position. Thus a Holy Arthurian Empire of the far west of Europe, variously adventuring into Scandinavia and with fluctuating fortunes in Iberia, might emerge.

The Saxons, if as OTL triumphant, would lack the sorts of preexisting ties to the Roman Church hierarchy a surviving Celtic-Latin Britain would, so it seems implausible the Church would turn to a power based so far west, or that the Heptarchy kings would much value a Roman framework for any high kingships someone among them might impose. It would take a while for them to become Christian at all in fact, just as OTL.

I think then if you want to have a British Caesar, you need to prevent the collapse of the Roman organization of Britain's provinces, draw them together under some Dux, and have this local dynasty energetically uphold and use the Roman structures and claim continuity with Rome itself, and thus have the power to contain the Saxon invasion. Sadly that means no England at all, or anyway it being limited to Anglia or some such; a Latin influenced Brittanic language or strongly British influenced Latin would form the base of the vernacular, I think the former far more likely, and Latin, perhaps evolving into a distinct form, the language of high governance. Perhaps Latin would be relinquished much as OTL to the Church and high scholarship and the business of the imperial realm would be centered, north of the Alps anyway, on a court refinement of the Celtic dialect would be the language of state. Which, if the Empire could maintain itself a few centuries or longer, would be disseminated among the ruling circles of all its territories, though insofar as the Lowlands and Scandinavia are drawn in, to them this would remain alien and local power there would do as much as they could in some Germanic dialect.

To survive, they would have to be strong enough to not be overrun too much by the "Vikings."
 
What if the usurper Constantine III/II didn't promptly up and leave to try and defeat invaders in Gaul. Let's say he remained in Britain, recognised by the troops and later as a sort of Co-emperor (as IOTL).

He's also the supposed father of Uther Pendragon according to myth recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Of course, this would preclude Arthur being the title of the Emperor of the British. I'd go with High King personally.
 
What if the usurper Constantine III/II didn't promptly up and leave to try and defeat invaders in Gaul. Let's say he remained in Britain, recognised by the troops and later as a sort of Co-emperor (as IOTL).

He's also the supposed father of Uther Pendragon according to myth recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Of course, this would preclude Arthur being the title of the Emperor of the British. I'd go with High King personally.
I like High King too, it seems more Celtic/British.
 
Bretwald might be the modern form of Bretwalda, an Anglo-Saxon term for 'wide ruler' that was effectively an overlord of several kingdoms and ultimately over most of Britain under Offa.
Had say the Vikings not turned up in numbers then a disunited England might lead to this term being used.

Overlord
High king

Maybe even under the right circumstances Offa ? After all it worked for Caeser...
Bryt/bret(ten)wald indeed.
I suspect that like OTL the first part becomes associated with Britain/Britannia and we might see the unique title Brittenwald i.e. Sovereign of Britain.

(NB Sovereign itself comes from Superanus overlord)
 

Zen9

Banned
Bryt/bret(ten)wald indeed.
I suspect that like OTL the first part becomes associated with Britain/Britannia and we might see the unique title Brittenwald i.e. Sovereign of Britain.

(NB Sovereign itself comes from Superanus overlord)
Yes I recall reading Bret/Bryt originally had nothing to do with Britain, but the conflation of the meanings is obvious. My understanding is it's from a term for wide or great....

Hmmm....the Brittenwald of Britain. Kinda catchy ; )
 
Yes I recall reading Bret/Bryt originally had nothing to do with Britain, but the conflation of the meanings is obvious. My understanding is it's from a term for wide or great....

Hmmm....the Brittenwald of Britain. Kinda catchy ; )
Yeah from context of usage "broad" seems to fit as the original meaning. It's interesting that the "Southumbrians" used essentially "broadlord" rather than the more explicit "overlord". Kind of highlights the more confederal nature of the role.
 

Zen9

Banned
Yeah from context of usage "broad" seems to fit as the original meaning. It's interesting that the "Southumbrians" used essentially "broadlord" rather than the more explicit "overlord". Kind of highlights the more confederal nature of the role.
And a possible outcome of no Viking invasion and the unifying response.
England being a geographic description rather like Germany was.
 
And a possible outcome of no Viking invasion and the unifying response.
England being a geographic description rather like Germany was.
Well I think you'll need some Vikings in order to weaken the Northumbrians who tended not to have broad rulers and generally had a single definite king.
 

Zen9

Banned
Well I think you'll need some Vikings in order to weaken the Northumbrians who tended not to have broad rulers and generally had a single definite king.
True they did gain overlordship for a while before Offa.
Defeating the last pagan English King....Penda
 
Let's say Northumbria and the East Coast still gets raided with the odd attempted settlement but it's not as bad as OTL - maybe Ireland is a richer target or West France less stable.
Anyways Northumbria weakens and perhaps fragments but the Midlands are mostly safe. Mercia is then the natural kingdom to lead the fight back into East Anglia and north across the Humber. The Mercian king then installs clients in the saved kingdoms, perhaps some settlement ala Normandy is allowed but Northumbria as a single kingdom is no more and the Bretwalda system is naturally extended to the North.
A couple of cycles of fragmentation under weak Mercian kings followed by strong ones who centralise, expansion to Cumbria and the Welsh, and we eventually get a more centralised HRE-like state lead by mostly hereditary Brittenwald.
 
Top