King of Kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title King of Kings was prominently used by kings such as Darius the Great (pictured). The full titulature of Darius was Great King, King of Kings, King of Persia, King of the Countries, Hystaspes' son, Arsames' grandson, an Achaemenid.

King of Kings was a ruling title employed primarily by monarchs based in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Commonly associated with Iran (historically known as Persia in the West), especially the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires, the title was originally introduced during the Middle Assyrian Empire by king Tukulti-Ninurta I (reigned 1233–1197 BC) and was subsequently used in a number of different kingdoms and empires, including the aforementioned Persia, various Hellenic kingdoms, India, Armenia, Georgia, and Ethiopia.

The title is commonly seen as equivalent to that of Emperor, both titles outranking that of king in prestige, stemming from the late antique Roman and Eastern Roman emperors who saw the Shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire as their equals. The last reigning monarchs to use the title of Shahanshah, those of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran (1925–1979), also equated the title with "Emperor". The rulers of the Ethiopian Empire used the title of Nəgusä Nägäst (literally "King of Kings"), which was officially translated as "Emperor". Sultan of Sultans is the sultanic equivalent of King of Kings.

In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God. "King of Kings" (Ancient Greek: βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, romanized: basileùs ton basileuónton) is also used in reference to Jesus Christ several times in the Bible, notably in the First Epistle to Timothy and twice in the Book of Revelation.

Historical usage

Ancient India

In Ancient India, Sanskrit language words such as Chakravarti, Rājādhirāja and Mahārādhirāja are among the terms that were used for employing the title of the King of Kings. These words also occur in Aitareya Aranyaka and other parts of Rigveda (1700 BC – 1100 BC).

The monarchs of the Gupta Empire assumed the imperial title of Maharajadhiraja.

The Gurjara-Pratihara monarch in the tenth century was titled the Maharajadhiraja of Aryavarta.

The imperial title of Maharajadhiraja was used by rulers of the Pallava dynasty, the Pala Empire and the Salasthamba dynasty.

The Vijayanagar rulers assumed the imperial title of Maharajadhiraj.

The title of King of Kings was also common among the rulers of the Kushan Empire.

Ancient Mesopotamia

Assyria and Babylon

King of Kings was among the many titles used by King Ashurbanipal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (depicted strangling and stabbing a lion).

The title King of Kings was first introduced by the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (who reigned between 1233 and 1197 BC) as šar šarrāni. The title carried a literal meaning in that a šar was traditionally simply the ruler of a city-state. With the formation of the Middle Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian rulers installed themselves as kings over an already present system of kingship in these city-states, becoming literal "kings of kings". Following Tukulti-Ninurta's reign, the title was occasionally used by monarchs of Assyria and Babylon. Later Assyrian rulers to use šar šarrāni include Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC) and Ashurbanipal (r. 669–627 BC). "King of Kings", as šar šarrāni, was among the many titles of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BC).

Boastful titles claiming ownership of various things were common throughout ancient Mesopotamian history. For instance, Ashurbanipal's great-grandfather Sargon II used the full titulature of Great King, Mighty King, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad.

Urartu and Media

The title of King of Kings occasionally appears in inscriptions of kings of Urartu. Although no evidence exists, it is possible that the title was also used by the rulers of the Median Empire, since its rulers borrowed much of their royal symbolism and protocol from Urartu and elsewhere in Mesopotamia. The Achaemenid Persian variant of the title, Xšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām, is Median in form which suggests that the Achaemenids may have taken it from the Medes rather than from the Mesopotamians.

An Assyrian-language inscription on a fortification near the fortress of Tušpa mentions King Sarduri I of Urartu as a builder of a wall and a holder of the title King of Kings;

This is the inscription of king Sarduri, son of the great king Lutipri, the powerful king who does not fear to fight, the amazing shepherd, the king who ruled the rebels. I am Sarduri, son of Lutipri, the king of kings and the king who received the tribute of all the kings. Sarduri, son of Lutipri, says: I brought these stone blocks from the city of Alniunu. I built this wall.

— Sarduri I of Urartu

Iran

Achaemenid usage

Xerxes the Great of the Achaemenid Empire referred to himself as the great king, the king of kings, the king of the provinces with many languages, the king of this great earth far and near, son of king Darius the Achaemenian.

The Achaemenid Empire, established in 550 BC after the fall of the Median Empire, rapidly expanded over the course of the sixth century BC. Asia Minor and the Lydian Kingdom were conquered in 546 BC, the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC, Egypt in 525 BC and the Indus River region in 513 BC. The Achaemenids employed satrapal administration, which became a guarantee of success due to its flexibility and the tolerance of the Achaemenid kings for more-or-less autonomous vassals. The system also had its problems; though some regions became nearly completely autonomous without any fighting (such as Lycia and Cilicia), other regions saw repeated attempts at rebellion and secession. Egypt was a particularly prominent example, frequently rebelling against Achaemenid authority and attempting to crown their own Pharaohs. Though it was eventually defeated, the Great Satraps' Revolt of 366–360 BC showed the growing structural problems within the Empire.

The Achaemenid Kings used a variety of different titles, prominently Great King and King of Countries, but perhaps the most prominent title was that of King of Kings (rendered Xšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām in Old Persian), recorded for every Achaemenid king. The full titulature of the king Darius I was "great king, king of kings, king in Persia, king of the countries, Hystaspes' son, Arsames' grandson, an Achaemenid". An inscription in the Armenian city of Van by Xerxes I reads;

I am Xerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the king of the provinces with many tongues, the king of this great earth far and near, son of king Darius the Achaemenian.

— Xerxes I of Persia

Parthian and Sasanian usage

Mithridates I of Parthia (r. 171–132 BC) was the first post-Achaemenid Iranian king to use the title of King of Kings. Beginning with the reign of his nephew Mithridates II (r. 124–88 BC), the title remained in consistent usage until the fall of the Sasanian Empire in 651 AD.

The standard royal title of the Arsacid (Parthian) kings while in Babylon was Aršaka šarru ("Arsacid king"), King of Kings (recorded as šar šarrāni by contemporary Babylonians) was adopted first by Mithridates I (r. 171–132 BC), though he used it infrequently. The title first began being consistently used by Mithridates I's nephew, Mithridates II, who after adopting it in 111 BC used it extensively, even including it in his coinage (as the Greek BAΣIΛEΥΣ BAΣIΛEΩN) until 91 BC. It is possible that Mithridates II's, and his successors', use of the title was not a revival of the old Achaemenid imperial title (since it was not used until almost a decade after Mithridates II's own conquest of Mesopotamia) but actually stemmed from Babylonian scribes who accorded the imperial title of their own ancestors onto the Parthian kings. Regardless of how he came to acquire the title, Mithridates II did undertake conscious steps to be seen as an heir to and restorer of Achaemenid traditions, introducing a crown as the customary headgear on Parthian coins and undertaking several campaigns westwards into former Achaemenid lands.

The title was rendered as šāhān šāh in Middle Persian and Parthian and remained in consistent use until the ruling Arsacids were supplanted by the Sasanian dynasty of Ardashir I, creating the Sasanian Empire. Ardashir himself used a new variant of the title, introducing "Shahanshah of the Iranians" (Middle Persian: šāhān šāh ī ērān). Ardashir's successor Shapur I introduced another variant; "Shahanshah of the Iranians and non-Iranians" (Middle Persian: šāhān šāh ī ērān ud anērān), possibly only assumed after Shapur's victories against the Roman Empire (which resulted in the incorporation of new non-Iranian lands into the empire). This variant, Shahanshah of Iranians and non-Iranians, appear on the coinage of all later Sasanian kings. The final Shahanshah of the Sasanian Empire was Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD). His reign ended with the defeat and conquest of Persia by the Rashidun Caliphate, ending the last pre-Islamic Iranian Empire. The defeat of Yazdegerd and the fall of the Sasanian Empire was a blow to the national sentiment of the Iranians, which was slow to recover. Although attempts were made at restoring the Sasanian Empire, even with Chinese help, these attempts failed and the descendants of Yazdegerd faded into obscurity. The title Shahanshah was criticized by later Muslims, associating it with the Zoroastrian faith and referring to it as "impious".

Buyid revival

Panāh Khusraw, better known by his laqab 'Adud al-Dawla, revived the title of Shahanshah in Iran in the year 978 AD, more than three centuries after the fall of the Sasanian Empire.

Following the fall of the Sasanian Empire, Iran was part of the early caliphates. From the 9th century on, parts of Iran were ruled by a series of relatively short-lived Muslim Iranian dynasties; including the Samanids and Saffarids. Although Iranian resentment against the Abbasid Caliphate was common, the resentment materialized as religious and political movements combining old Iranian traditions with new Arabic ones rather than as full-scale revolts. The new dynasties do not appear to have had any interest in re-establishing the empire of the old Shahanshahs, they at no point seriously questioned the suzerainty of the Caliphs and actively promoted Arabic culture. Though the Samanids and the Saffarids also actively promoted the revival of the Persian language, the Samanids remained loyal supporters of the Abbasids and the Saffarids, despite at times being in open rebellion, did not revive any of the old Iranian political structures.

The Shi'a Buyid dynasty, of Iranian Daylamite origin, came to power in 934 AD through most of the old Iranian heartland. In contrast to earlier dynasties, ruled by emirs and wanting to appease the powerful ruling Abbasid caliphs, the Buyids consciously revived old symbols and practices of the Sasanian Empire. The region of Daylam had resisted the Caliphate since the fall of the Sasanian Empire, attempts at restoring a native Iranian rule built on Iranian traditions had been many, though unsuccessful. Asfar ibn Shiruya, a Zoroastrian and Iranian nationalist, rebelled against the Samanids in 928 AD, intending to put a crown on himself, set up a throne of gold and make war on the Caliph. More prominently, Mardavij, who founded the Ziyarid dynasty, was also Zoroastrian and actively aspired to restore the old empire. He was quoted as promising to destroy the empire of the Arabs and restore the Iranian empire and had a crown identical to the one worn by the Sasanian Khosrow I made for himself. At the time he was murdered by his own Turkic troops, Mardavij was planning a campaign towards Baghdad, the Abbasid capital. Subsequent Ziyarid rulers were Muslim and made no similar attempts.

After the death of Mardavij, many of his troops entered into the service of the founder of the Buyid dynasty, Imad al-Dawla. Finally, the Buyid Emir Panāh Khusraw, better known by his laqab (honorific name) of 'Adud al-Dawla, proclaimed himself Shahanshah after defeating rebellious relatives and becoming the sole ruler of the Buyid dynasty in 978 AD. Those of his successors that likewise exercised full control over all the Buyid emirates would also style themselves as Shahanshah.

During times of Buyid infighting, the title became a matter of importance. When a significant portion of Firuz Khusrau's (laqab Jalal al-Dawla) army rebelled in the 1040s and wished to enthrone the other Buyid Emir Abu Kalijar as ruler over the lands of the entire dynasty, they minted coins in his name with one side bearing the name of the ruling Caliph (Al-Qa'im) and the other side bearing the inscription "al-Malik al-Adil Shahanshah". When discussing peace terms, Abu Kalijar in turn addressed Jalal in a letter with the title Shahanshah.

When the struggle between Abu Kalijar and Jalal al-Dawla resumed, Jalal, wanting to assert his superiority over Kalijar, made a formal application to Caliph Al-Qa'im for the usage of the title Shahanshah, the first Buyid ruler to do so. It can be assumed that the Caliph agreed (since the title was later used), but its usage by Jalal in a mosque caused outcry at its impious character. Following this, the matter was raised to a body of jurists assembled by the Caliph. Though some dissented, the body as a whole ruled that the usage of al-Malik al-Adil Shahanshah was lawful.

Hellenic usage

Although the Hellenic Seleucid rulers frequently assumed old Persian titles and honors, the usurper Timarchus is one of few concrete examples of a Seleucid ruler using the title "King of Kings".

Alexander the Great's conquests ended the Achaemenid Empire and the subsequent division of Alexander's own empire resulted in the Seleucid dynasty inheriting the lands formerly associated with the Achaemenid dynasty. Although Alexander himself did not employ any of the old Persian royal titles, instead using his own new title "King of Asia" (βασιλεὺς τῆς Ἀσίας), the monarchs of the Seleucid Empire more and more aligned themselves to the Persian political system. The official title of most of the Seleucid kings was "Great King", which like "King of Kings", a title of Assyrian origin, was frequently used by the Achaemenid rulers and was intended to demonstrate the supremacy of its holder over other rulers. "Great King" is prominently attested for both Antiochus I (r. 281–261 BC) in the Borsippa Cylinder and for Antiochus III the Great (r. 222–187 BC) throughout his rule.

In the late Seleucid Empire, "King of Kings" even saw a revival, despite the fact that the territory controlled by the Empire was significantly smaller than it had been during the reigns of the early Seleucid kings. The title was evidently quite well known to be associated with the Seleucid king, the usurper Timarchus (active 163–160 BC) called himself "King of Kings" and the title was discussed in sources from outside the empire as well. Some non-Seleucid rulers even assumed the title for themselves, notably in Pontus (especially prominently used under Mithridates VI Eupator). Pharnaces II had appeared as King of Kings in inscriptions and royal coins, and Mithridates Eupator had appeared as King of Kings in an inscription.

It is possible that the Seleucid usage indicates that the title no longer implied complete vassalization of other kings but instead a recognition of suzerainty (since the Seleucids were rapidly losing the loyalty of their vassals at the time).

Armenia

The King of Kings Tigranes the Great of Armenia with four vassal Kings surrounding him

After the Parthian Empire under Mithridates II defeated Armenia in 105 BC, the heir to the Armenian throne, Tigranes, was taken hostage and kept at the Parthian court until he bought his freedom in 95 BC (by handing over "seventy valleys" in Atropatene) and assumed the Armenian throne. Tigranes ruled, for a short time in the first century BC, the strongest empire in the Middle East which he had built himself. After conquering Syria in 83 BC, Tigranes assumed the title King of Kings. The Armenian kings of the Bagratuni dynasty from the reign of Ashot III 953–977 AD to the dynasty's end in 1064 AD revived the title, rendering it as the Persian Shahanshah.

Georgia

King of Kings was revived in the Kingdom of Georgia by King David IV (r. 1089–1125 AD), rendered as mepet mepe in Georgian. All subsequent Georgian monarchs, such as Tamar the Great, used the title to describe their rule over all Georgian principalities, vassals and tributaries. Their use of the title probably derived from the ancient Persian title.

Palmyra

After a successful campaign against the Sasanian Empire in 262 AD, which restored Roman control to territories that had been lost to the Shahanshah Shapur I, the ruler of the city of Palmyra, Odaenathus, founded the Palmyrene kingdom. Though a Roman vassal, Odaenathus assumed the title Mlk Mlk dy Mdnh (King of Kings and Corrector of the East). Odaenathus son, Herodianus (Hairan I) was acclaimed as his co-monarch, also given the title King of Kings. Usage of the title was probably justified through proclaiming the Palmyrene kingdom as the legitimate successor state of the Hellenic Seleucid empire, which had controlled roughly the same territories near its end. Herodianus was crowned at Antioch, which had been the final Seleucid capital.

Though the same title was used by Odaenathus second son and successor following the deaths of both Odaenathus and Herodianus, Vaballathus and his mother Zenobia soon relinquished it, instead opting for the Roman Augustus ("Emperor") and Augusta ("Empress") respectively.

Ethiopia

The title King of Kings was used by the rulers of the Aksumite Kingdom since the reign Sembrouthes c. 250 AD. The rulers of the Ethiopian Empire, which existed from 1270 to 1974 AD, also used the title of Nəgusä Nägäst, sometimes translated to "King of the Kingdom", but most often equated to "King of Kings" and officially translated to Emperor. Though the Ethiopian Emperors had been literal "Kings of Kings" for the duration of the Empire's history, with regional lords using the title of Nəgus ("king"), this practice was ended by Haile Selassie (r. 1930–1974 AD), who somewhat paradoxically still retained the use of Nəgusä Nägäst.

Champa

From the 7th century to 15th century, grand rulers of Chamic-speaking confederation of Champa, which existed from 3rd century AD to 1832 in present-day Central Vietnam, employed titles raja-di-raja (king of kings) and pu po tana raya (king of kings). However, some, such as Vikrantavarman II, held the title of maharajadhiraja (great king of kings) instead of raja-di-raja. The early kings of Champa before decentralization referred themselves by several different titles such as mahārāja (great king), e.g. Bhadravarman I (r.380–413), or campāpr̥thivībhuj (lord of the land of Champa) used by Kandarpadharma (r. 629–640).

Ptolemaic Kingdom

Caesarion was proclaimed "King of Kings" in the Donations of Alexandria.

Feminine forms and usages

"Queen of Kings" redirects here. For the Alessandra Mele song, see Queen of Kings (song).

The feminine form of "King of Kings" is "Queen of Queens", but some female monarchs assumed the title "Queen of Kings", while others simply used the masculine title "King of Kings".

King of Kings

• In the Alupa dynasty, the female monarch Ballamahadevi used the masculine title maharajadhiraja ("Great King of Kings").
• In the Bhauma-Kara dynasty, the female monarchs Tribhuvana Mahadevi III, Dandi Mahadevi and Dharma Mahadevi used the masculine title maharajadhiraja ("Great King of Kings") alongside the feminine title paramesvari.
• In the Kingdom of Georgia, Tamar assumed both the titles of mepeta-mepe ("King of Kings") and dedopalta-dedopali ("Queen of Queens").

Queen of Kings

• In the Ptolemaic Kingdom, Cleopatra VII was proclaimed "Queen of Kings" in the Donations of Alexandria.
• Similarly to her mother Tamara, as Georgia's monarch, Rusudan assumed the title "Queen of Kings and Queens".
• In the Ethiopian Empire, the title as an empress-regnant of Zewditu was Nəgəstä Nägäst ("Queen of Kings"). This title is different from Nəgusä Nägäst ("King of Kings"), the title of male emperor, and Itege, the title of empress-consort.

Queen of Queens

• In the empires of Iran, there was the title bānbishnān bānbishn ("Queen of Queens"), matched the title shahanshah ("King of Kings") and abbreviated as bānbishn. Musa, Boran and Azarmidokht were female monarchs, equivalent in rank to shahanshahs.
• According to murals in the Gelati Monastery, the title dedopalta-dedopali ("Queen of Queens") was used for queens-consort of Imereti.

In religion

Judaism

In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God, using the double superlative to put the title one step above the royal title of the Babylonian and Persian kings referred to in the Bible.

Christianity

See also: Christ the King

"Christ as King of Kings". A Russian icon from Murom (1690).

"King of Kings" (βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων) is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the New Testament: once in the First Epistle to Timothy (6:15) and twice in the Book of Revelation (17:14, 19:11–16);

... which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, ...

— First Epistle to Timothy 6:15

"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

— Book of Revelation 17:14

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. ... And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

— Book of Revelation 19:11–12, 16

Some Christian realms (Georgia, Armenia and Ethiopia) employed the title and it was part of the motto of the Byzantine Emperors of the Palaiologan period, Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων (Basileus Basileōn, Basileuōn Basileuontōn, literally "King of Kings, ruling over those who rule"). In the Byzantine Empire the word Βασιλεὺς (Basileus), which had meant "king" in ancient times had taken up the meaning of "emperor" instead. Byzantine rulers translated "Basileus" into "Imperator" when using Latin and called other kings rēx or rēgas (ρήξ, ρήγας), hellenized forms of the Latin title rex. As such, Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων in the Byzantine Empire would have meant "Emperor of Emperors". The Byzantine rulers only accorded the title of Basileus onto two foreign rulers they considered to be their equals, the Kings of Axum and the Shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire, leading to "King of Kings" being equated to the rank of "Emperor" in the view of the West.

Islam

Following the fall of the Sasanian Empire in 651 AD, the title of Shahanshah was sternly criticized in the Muslim world. It was problematic enough that the adoption of Shahanshah by the Muslim Buyid dynasty in Persia required a body of jurists to agree on its lawfulness and the title itself (both as King of Kings and as the Persian variant Shahanshah) is condemned in Sunni hadith, a prominent example being Sahih al-Bukhari Book 73 Hadiths 224 and 225;

Allah's Apostle said, "The most awful name in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the king of kings)."

— Sahih al-Bukhari Book 73 Hadith 224

The Prophet said, "The most awful (meanest) name in Allah's sight." Sufyan said more than once, "The most awful (meanest) name in Allah's sight is (that of) a man calling himself king of kings." Sufyan said, "Somebody else (i.e. other than Abu Az-Zinad, a sub-narrator) says: What is meant by 'King of Kings' is 'Shahanshah."

— Sahih al-Bukhari Book 73 Hadith 225

The condemnation of the title within the Islamic world may stem from that the concept of God alone being king had been prominent in early Islam. Opposing worldly kingship, the use of "King of Kings" was deemed obnoxious and blasphemous.

Modern usage

Iran

After the end of the Buyid dynasty in 1062, the title of Shahanshah was used intermittently by rulers of Iran until the modern era. The title, rendered as Shahinshah, is used on some of the coins of Alp Arslan (r. 1063–1072), the second sultan of the Seljuk Empire.

The title was adopted by Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), the founder of the Safavid dynasty. Upon his capture of Tabriz in 1501, Ismail proclaimed himself the Shāh of Iran and the Shahanshah of Iran. The term šāhanšāh-e Irān, King of Kings of Iran, is richly attested for the Safavid period and for the preceding Timurid period (when it was not in use). Nader Shah, founder of the later Afsharid Dynasty, assumed the title šāhanšāh in 1739 to emphasize his superiority over Muhammad Shah of the Mughal Empire in India.

The title Shahanshah is also attested for Fath-Ali Shah Qajar of the Qajar dynasty (r. 1797–1834). Fath-Ali's reign was noted for its pomp and elaborate court protocol. An 1813/1814 portrait of Fath-Ali contains a poem with the title; "Is this a portrait of a shahanshah, inhabitant of the skies / Or is it the rising of the sun and the image of the moon?".

The Qajar dynasty was overthrown in 1925, replaced by the Pahlavi dynasty. Both reigning members of this dynasty, Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1925–1941) and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (r. 1941–1979), before they too were overthrown as part of the Iranian revolution in 1979, used the title of Shahanshah. Although Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had reigned as Shah for twenty-six years by then, he only took the title of Shahanshah on 26 October 1967 in a lavish coronation ceremony held in Tehran. He said that he chose to wait until this moment to assume the title because in his own opinion he "did not deserve it" up until then; he is also recorded as saying that there was "no honour in being Emperor of a poor country" (which he viewed Iran as being until that time). The current head of the exiled house of Pahlavi, Reza Pahlavi II, symbolically declared himself Shahanshah at the age of 21 after the death of his father in 1980.

Libya

In 2008, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was bestowed with the title of "King of Kings" after a gathering of more than 200 African tribal kings and chiefs endorsed his use of the title on 28 August that year, stating that "We have decided to recognise our brotherly leader as the 'king of kings, sultans, princes, sheikhs and mayors of Africa". At the meeting, held in the city of Benghazi, Gaddafi was given gifts including a throne, an 18th-century Qur'an, traditional outfits and ostrich eggs. At the same meeting, Gaddafi urged his guests to put pressure on their own governments and speed the process of moving towards a unified African continent. Gaddafi told those that attended the meeting that "We want an African military to defend Africa, we want a single African currency, we want one African passport to travel within Africa". The meeting was later referred to as a "bizarre ceremony" in international media.

Universal monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_monarchy 

 

A universal monarchy is a concept and political situation where one monarchy is deemed to have either sole rule over everywhere (or at least the predominant part of a geopolitical area or areas) or to have a special supremacy over all other states (or at least all the states in a geopolitical area or areas).

Concept

Universal monarchy is differentiated from ordinary monarchy in that a universal monarchy is beholden to no other state and asserts a sovereignty over all states of the contemporary geopolitical system. The concept is linked to that of universal empire, but combines the possession of imperium with the monarchic form of government.

The concept has arisen in Ancient Egypt, Europe, Asia and Peru, and is encapsulated in the Latin phrase Dominus Mundi (lit. 'Lord of the World'). Though in practice no universal monarchy, or indeed any state, has ever ruled over the whole world, it may have appeared to many people, particularly pre-modern, that it did.

Critical of the concept in Europe in the Middle Ages were philosophers such as Nicole Oresme and Erasmus; whereas Guillaume Postel was more favourable and Dante was a convinced adherent. Later, Protestants would seek to reject the concept, identifying it with Catholicism.

History

Egypt and Mesopotamia

For the ancient Egyptians, four directions of the world were regarded as "united in one head" of king. Ramses III was presented as the "commander of the whole land united in one." Except for the Amarna period, Egypt's official ideology did not recognize coexistence of two or more kings. "The monarchy in Egypt constituted a unity, a single fraction, with universal application." The Hymn of Victory of Thutmose III and the Stelae of Amenophis II proclaimed: "There is no one who makes a boundary with him ... There is no boundary for him towards all lands united, towards all lands together." Thutmose III was acknowledged: "None presents himself before thy majesty. The circuit of the Great Circle [Ocean] is included in thy grasp." Asiatic kings recognized Tutankhamen: "There is none living in ignorance of thee."

The King was believed to be Son of the Sun and to rule all under the sun. The ascent of a king was associated with sunrise. The same verb "dawned" was used for the ascent of king and the rising of the sun. On Abydos Stelae, Thutmose I claimed: "I made the boundaries of Egypt as far as the sun encircles ... Shining like Ra ... forever." The sun symbolized universality both in space and time. The Story of Sinuke expresses both: May all the gods "give you eternity without limits, infinity without bonds! May the fear of you resound in lowlands and highlands, for you have subdued all that the sun encircles."

The genre of king lists also illustrates the universality of monarchy. Introduced into the Egyptian tradition in the reign of Unas (2385–2355 BC) of the Fifth Dynasty, the ideological purpose of the genre was to stress the royal universality as the only legitimate king stretching back in an unbroken succession to the time of gods.

The contemporary Mesopotamian civilization had a much weaker tradition of universal monarchy, but it also developed a King list with the same ideological purpose to stress the royal universality as the only legitimate king stretching back in an unbroken succession to the time of gods. Mesopotamian kings did not claim to rule all that the sun encircles, but they did claim to be "King of the Four Corners" of the world and "King of the inhabited world".

Europe

See also: Dominium mundi

In Europe, the expression of a universal monarchy as total imperium can be seen in the Roman Empire, and as the predominant sovereign state during its Byzantine period, where the emperor by virtue of being the head of Christendom claimed sovereignty over all other kings even though in practice this could not be enforced. The Byzantine conception went through two phases, initially as expounded by Eusebius that just as there was one God so there could only be one Emperor, which developed in the 10th century into the conception of the Emperor as the paterfamilias of a family of kings who were the other rulers in the world. Such concepts were a feature of the Ottoman Empire's successor state, particularly when military rule was augmented by the Caliphate.

The idea of a sole sovereign emperor would re-emerge in the West with Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. The idea of the Holy Roman Empire possessing special sovereignty as a universal monarchy was respected by the surrounding powers and subject states, even when the empire had undergone severe fragmentation. The symbolism of the "All the world is subject to Austria" (A.E.I.O.U.) phrase of Frederick III can be seen as an expression of the idea of all states being subject to one monarchy. The medieval hierocrats, on the other hand, argued that the pope was a universal monarch.

Charles V's empire encompassing much of western Europe and the Americas "was the nearest the post-classical world would come to seeing a truly worldwide monarchy, and hence the closest approximation to universal imperium." It was envisaged by its supporters as a world empire that could be religiously inclusive.

Subsequently, the idea of a universal monarchy based on predominance rather than the actual total rule would become synonymous with France attempting to establish hegemony over western Europe, particularly under Louis XIV, exemplified by the concept of Louis XIV as the Sun King around which all the other monarchs became subordinate satellites. In 1755, during the reign of Louis XIV's successor Louis XV, Duke Adrien Maurice de Noailles, a member of the Council of State and formerly a key foreign policy advisor to the king, warned of a British challenge for "the first rank in Europe" through the domination of Atlantic commerce. Noailles wrote, "However chimerical the project of universal monarchy might be, that of a universal influence by means of wealth would cease to be a chimera if a nation succeeded in making itself sole mistress of the trade of America."

Monarchy was strong in Russia. The Russian Monarchy was Orthodox, autocratic, and possessed a vast contiguous empire throughout Europe and Asia and can be seen to have similarities and differences with Byzantine rule. The British Monarchy was "Protestant, commercial, maritime and free" and was not composed of contiguous territory. It had both similarities and differences with the Spanish Empire. Both were "Empire on which the sun never sets." While Catholicism provided ideological unity for the Spanish Empire, British Protestant diversity would lead to "disunity rather than unity". It was only later that federalism and economic control were seen as a means to provide unity where religious diversity could not, as with the idea of an Imperial Federation as promoted by Joseph Chamberlain.

Napoleon came close to creating something akin to a universal monarchy with his continental system and Napoleonic Code, but he failed to conquer all of Europe. Following the Battle of Jena when Napoleon overwhelmed Prussia, it seemed to Fichte that the universal monarchy was inevitable and close at hand. He found a "necessary tendency in every civilized state" to expand and traced this tendency to antiquity. An "invisible" historical spirit runs through all epochs and urges states onward. "As the States become stronger in themselves... the tendency towards a Universal Monarchy over the whole Christian World necessarily comes to light." The last attempt to create a European universal monarchy was that attempted by Imperial Germany in World War I. "If Germany is victorious", thought Woodrow Wilson in 1917, "the German Kaiser would have been suzerain over most of Europe".

Published after World War I, The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler envisages global "Caesarism." The formation of the "battling society of nations" marks the beginning of every civilization. This society ends by contest "for the heritage of the whole world." The strongest race wins and seizes the management of the world. Synchronously occurs an "accelerating demolition of ancient [political] forms that leaves the path clear to Caesarism." This phase began in China c. 600 BC, the Mediterranean c. 450 BC and the modern world c. 1700. Comparing these three ages, Spengler states that "Caesarism" is an inevitable product of such an age and it "suddenly outlines itself on the horizon." In China the culmination occurred with the First Emperor, in the Mediterranean with Sulla and Pompey and is forthcoming in our world. There now sets in the final battle in the struggle Democracy vs "Caesarism" and the latter will prevail. The transition from "Napoleonism to Caesarism" is an evolutionary stage universal to every culture and taking two centuries. Hence global "Caesarism" is likely to appear in "one century." The Spenglerian century ended in 2022 short of global "Caesarism," albeit two years before its end Donald Trump had been advised to cross the Rubicon.

East Asia

A similar phenomenon occurred in China. The title "Son of Heaven" emerged during the Zhou dynasty. The title denotes universality – ruling all under Heaven. The Book of Odes says:

Beneath all heaven

There is no land that is not the king's;

Throughout the borders of the earth,

None who are not his subjects!

The title also denotes a higher, "heavenly" rule ("Celestial Empire"), in contrast to kings who rule between heaven and earth, and by extension today to presidents who are mere base earthly rulers. Imperial China, as well as Japan, was regarded by its citizens as a Universal Monarchy where all other monarchs were regarded as tributaries. In China this was exemplified in the Chinese name for the state which survives to this day, Zhongguo, meaning "Middle/Central Kingdom". Since the title Son of Heaven originated during the Zhou dynasty, the Chinese perceived universal monarchy as the only correct rule. During the centuries-long period of independent states (771–221 BC), none of the known thinkers tried to develop a concept of separate national identity or independence:

Yet, when we examine the writing of the hundred schools of the [later] Zhou period, we are forcefully struck by the ongoing tenacious hold of the ancient idea of universal kingship even during this period of division. No outlook emerges that is prepared to treat the multistate system as normative or normal ... No Chinese Grotius or Puffendorf emerges.

The inscription of the First Emperor of China said: "Wherever life is found, all acknowledge his suzerainty." The Sinocentric paradigm survived until the 19th century. When George III (1780–1831) proposed them trading contacts, the Chinese declined, because "the Celestial Empire, ruling all within the four seas ... does not have the slightest need of your country's manufactures." They added that George III must act in conformity with their wishes, strengthen his loyalty and swear perpetual obedience.

The Chinese concept of universal monarchy was taken up by the Mongols, who under Genghis Khan were able to enforce this concept more widely than China. The Chinese Son of Heaven also contributed to a counterpart in Japan, but in some aspects, the Japanese made their monarchy more universal. The Chinese emperor was bound to the Mandate of Heaven. No such mandate existed for Tenno. Descended from the Sun goddess Amaterasu in the immemorial past, one Dynasty is supposed to rule Japan forever. The Chinese ended their dynastic cycle in 1911; the Japanese Dynasty continues until the present day and today is the oldest active dynasty in the world, albeit Douglas MacArthur undeified it in 1945.

The Hindu/Buddhist concept of the Chakravartin is a perfect illustration of the ideal of a Universal Monarch.

The Islamic world

In Sunni Islam, the concept of the Caliphate can be considered a universal monarchy. Crucially, the Caliph is not necessarily a spiritual leader; rather, he is the secular head of the Muslim community and is (theoretically) bound by and subject to Islamic law. The word Khalifah can be translated variously as successor, steward, deputy, or viceregent, with the implication that the Caliph is the worldly successor to the Prophet Muhammad (and importantly is not his spiritual successor; as Muhammad is considered to be the last prophet, Sunni Muslims hold that he can have no spiritual successor). The duties of the Caliph, in theory, include the administration of Islamic law; the enactment of policies for the welfare of Muslims; the custodianship of Islamic holy sites and care of pilgrims; the custodianship of conquered non-Muslims and mediation of their interests relative to those of Muslims; the prosecution of holy wars (both offensive and defensive); and the representation of the diplomatic interests of the global Muslim community, even beyond the borders of the Caliphate's domains (a precedent set during Muhammad's life, with respect to the early Islamic community in Ethiopia).

In Shia Islam, the concept of the Imamate is comparable to the Sunni Caliphate, but it is not identical. The Shia Imam is considered to be both the spiritual and the secular leader of the global Muslim community; therefore, the Imam not only holds authority over policy and administration but is also the infallible final arbiter in the interpretation of law and theology. However, like the Sunni caliph, the Shia imam's authority as a monarch is considered universal. The Imamate is tied to the Ahl al-Bayt; dynasties that claim the Imamate also claim descent from Muhammad via Ali and Fatimah, and pass the title of Imam down from father to son, with different Shia denominations following different lineages. For example, the Twelver Shia Muslims follow the line of the Twelve Imams, of whom the last has supposedly been in occultation since the 9th century CE; however, the Nizari Shia Muslims follow a different and still-living line of Imams, of whom the Agha-Khan IV is the current head.

Inca

In the Americas, the Inca monarchy was universal in the sense of a sole rule over the whole contemporary geopolitical area, around which were only unsettled societies. The Inca people called their state the "realm of the four quarters of the world."), a concept of universality in space analogous to "four quarters" of other universal monarchies. As the Chinese called their country "Country in the middle," the Incas called their capital, Cusco, "the navel of the world". This civilization did not develop writing, but the Spanish reports and Inca Garcilaso de la Vega tell that the Inca monarchy was one of the most absolute and divine in history.

Inca "was respected as god". As the kings of Egypt and Japan, the Inca were Sons of the Sun. And as the Egyptian kings, the Inca were mummified and worshipped as gods by subsequent generations. Their names, like Viracocha Inca, also imply their divinity and Burr Cartwright Brundage associated the above name with the Near Eastern concept of King of Kings. The title of the Incas, Sapa Inca (lit. 'the only emperor'), implied that no other emperor could exist anywhere in the world. The Inca oral tradition preserved a King list, an ideological genre of universal monarchies implying the universality in time and space. The Inca were of divine origins. Like the founder of the Japanese Dynasty, the Inca founder, Manco Capac was the son of the god Sun.

Features

Cosmopolitanism

Universal monarchies were the cradle of cosmopolitanism. The earliest in history concept that men of all colors are equal comes from ancient Egypt. The Great Hymn to the Aten dated during the reign of Akhenaten of the Eighteenth Dynasty (c. 1353–1336 BC) reads: The "tongues of peoples differ in speech, their characters likewise; their skins are distinct, for Aten distinguished the peoples." But Aten cares for all of them. "In all lands of the world, you set every man in his place, you supply their need, everyone has his food..."

The Persian universal monarchs tolerated the cultures, languages, and religions of the subordinated peoples and supported local religious institutions. They ceased the mass deportations practiced by the previous Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, and allowed Jews to return from the Babylonian captivity to their land and restore their Temple.

Following the rise of the Maurya to a universal dynasty in India, Buddhism replaced Brahmanism as the dominant creed and challenged its strict caste hierarchy. Buddhism advocated cosmopolitan social and religious equality. However, the Mauryan universal monarchy was short-lived, and after its dissolution into independent kingdoms, Brahmanism made a comeback with Buddhism retreating to "underground survival" in India. Nevertheless, cosmopolitan Buddhism would find fertile soil in the universal monarchies of China and Japan.

Following the rise of Alexander the Great to the universal monarch, Stoicism became the dominant school of Hellenistic philosophy. The Stoics articulated a form of Greek citizenship that disrespected the walls of the polis hitherto thought to constrain human communities. Its founder, Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – c. 262 BC), advised that inhabitants of all poleis should form "one way of life and one order." Stoics were radically cosmopolitan by contemporary standards and preached to accept even slaves as "equals of other men because all men alike are products of nature." Later Stoic thinker Seneca in his Letter exhorted, "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies." The Stoics held that external differences, such as rank and wealth, are of no importance in social relationships. Instead, they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. According to the Stoics, all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another. Stoicism became the foremost and most influential philosophy under the Hellenistic and Roman universal monarchs and often is called an official philosophy of the monarchy.

Through Paul the Apostle, Stoicism influenced the cosmopolitan revolution in Christianity. Paul decisively broke with the Judaist xenophobia and opened the new religion to all humanity. The chosen people were no longer ethnically defined. Combining the Stoic ideal with Christ, Paul called Christ-followers to embrace the ideal of a single humanity living in harmony with a divinely ordered cosmos. Hitherto reserved to the Jews, salvation became available to the Gentiles. A book titled Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers... and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, concludes: The cosmopolitanisms which emerged in the concerned regions in the Axial Age were products of universal monarchies.

Under the universal monarchy on the other side of Tibet, cosmopolitanism flourished too. The Tang dynasty saw the influx of thousands of foreigners who came to live in Chinese commercial hub cities. Expatriates spilled in from all over Asia and beyond, with a bounty of people from Persia, Arabia, India, Korea, and Southeast and Central Asia. Chinese cities became bustling epicenters of commerce and trade, abundant in foreign residents and the plethora of cultural riches that they brought with them. A census taken in 742 AD showed that the foreign proportion of the registered population had massively increased from nearly a quarter in the early seventh century to nearly half by the mid seventh century, with an estimated 200,000 foreigners in residence in Canton alone. Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism were practiced undisturbed in China, as well as in Japan, where the three coexisted with Shinto.

Divinity

Generally, comparative historical research on monarchies finds that universal monarchs were more absolute and divine than the modern European absolute kings. The ideologies of modern absolute monarchies claimed the monarch to be subject to divine, not human, law. "But he was no ancient emperor; he was not the sole source of law; of coinage, weights and measures; of economic monopolies... He owned only his own estates." Caesar is the republic, proclaimed Ovid (Tristia 4:4-15). And modern historians find him right. "In his person Augustus accumulated the pillars of power: armed forces, control of the elite, wealth and patronage of the public clientelae. That is why Augustus, perhaps more than Louis XIV, would have been entitled to say: L'etat, c'est moi."

The Egyptian and Inca kings were mummified and worshipped for generations as gods (chapters on Egypt and Inca above). The Egyptian royal tombs – pyramids – is perhaps the best expression of the level of veneration. 700,000 workers worked on the Epang Palace and Emperor's mausoleum (Sima Qian I:148, 155), containing Terracotta Army. The foundation platform of Epang sized 1270 × 426 m. Some estimates make the mausoleum the largest burial complex of a single ruler ever to have been constructed anywhere in the world. With the rise of universal monarchs in Japan, impressive megalithic tombs covered their land. Egyptologists debate whether the Son of the Sun was above or below the gods; Sinologists and Japanologists agree that their Sons of Heaven were above the gods and similar to the status of God in Abrahamic religions.

A divinity threshold was crossed the moment of universal conquest. Following the Qin universal conquest in 221 BC, the First Emperor of the universal realm was titled "Huang" meaning 'august', and "Di", meaning 'Divine'. Sima Qian explicitly states the causal link between the universal conquest and divinity. The Inca ruler, with the establishment of his universal monarchy, changed his royal "Capac" title, somewhat equivalent of "Duke," for the divine name by which he was thereafter known to history, "Viracocha Inca."

Following another universal conquest, Alexander the Great broke with much of the Macedonian royal tradition, where kings were mortal like the rest of humans. Alexander and his successors became divine and some added to their names Epiphanes, meaning 'divine'.

Augustus is another word for "Divine," and Augustus' image reminds that of Jesus. The Calendar Inscription of Priene (9 BC) uses the term "gospel" referring to him and describes him as "Savior" and "God manifest." Augustus "had wiped away our sins" shortly before Jesus did it again. Augustus' less fortunate predecessor, having crossed the Rubicon toward the universal monarchy, became "Divus" and traced his origins to Venus.

Monotheism

The rise of extremely absolute and divine personality on earth triggered a similar process in Heaven. Main gods rose to more universal and transcendent status and on several occasions universal monarchies generated monotheism. Akhenaten undertook the earliest know attempt, albeit short-lived. The Great Hymn to the Aten is the earliest record in world history to proclaim God as "sole" beside whom there is "none". Beginning with Sargon II, Assyrian scribes began to write the name of Ashur (god) with the ideogram for "whole heaven." According to Simo Parpola, the Neo-Assyrian empire developed a complete monotheism.

The Assyrian case is crucial regarding Judaism — the only ancient monotheism which is not a product of universal monarchy. Notably, the Jewish religion became monotheist in the Babylonian captivity. One hypothesis maintains that the Jewish priests adopted the local monotheism and replaced Ashur with Yahweh. The Assyrian monotheist concept of "(all) the gods" was translated into Hebrew as Elohim, literally "(all) the gods." This explains the puzzle of Psalm 46:4–5 with God dwelling in his City on the river. There is no river in Jerusalem. The City of Assur was on the river. "Yahweh's emergence as a major player on the divine scene mirrored those of... Marduk and Assur." The former, as Yahweh, had a temple without an image to express his monotheist nature. Some scholars also supposed the influence of the Egyptian universal monarchy, particularly of the Great Hymn to the Aten on Psalm 104.

Synchronously with Judaism, the Persian universal monarchy elaborated Zoroastrianism considered by most as monotheistic. Eventually, two most popular monotheist legacies of universal monarchies became Christianity and Islam. One God, one Emperor, one empire, proclaimed Eusebius (AD 290–330). One study names Islam as the clearest example of convergence between monotheist religion and universal monarchy. The edict of Chinggis Khan stated: "This is the order of the everlasting God. In heaven there is only one eternal God; on earth there is only one lord..." Similar proclamations by him and his heirs were issued, alternatively embellished with Quranic, Confucian, or Biblical verses, depending on their prospective audiences.

Vision of history

For ancient Egypt, China, Japan and Inca, the beginning of history was marked by the emergence of universal monarchy. This event in terms of their traditions originated during the time these people saw as what we would call prehistory. Universal monarchies lacked linear, teleological, utopian or progressive vision of history of the Western kind. For them, the ideal state is not in an utopian future but a historic past and no further progress was even theoretically possible. All what was needed ever since the rise of universal monarchy was to maintain it, and if lost, restore it as soon as possible. Thus history acquired cyclical pattern.

German Sociologist Friedrich Tenbruck, criticizing the Western idea of progress, emphasized that China and Egypt remained at one particular stage of development for millennia. This stage was universal monarchy. The development of Egypt and China came to a halt once their empires "reached the limits of their natural habitat," that is, became universal.

Periods when monarchies were more universal – Shang, Zhou, Han and Tang dynasties in China, Gupta and Mughal dynasties in India, the Heian Japan, the Augustan and Antonine Rome – were remembered by posterity as "Golden Ages." Edward Gibbon described the Antonine age as best in human history. The Islamic Golden Age also begins during the universal Abbasid dynasty. The Spanish, Portuguese and British Golden Ages similarly coincide with periods when their monarchies came closest to universal.

Seeing the ideal model in the past, most universal monarchies had a greater concern with history than their non-universal colleagues did. The difference is striking comparing the volumes of historical records of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, China and India, or Rome and the post-Roman Europe. Not always, but as a rule, the more monarchy is universal in space and lasting in time, the more history it writes.

Regarding future, universal monarchies are prominent in their optimism. They did not expect apocalypse or cosmic recycling, nor even lesser disasters like destructive warfare or imperial fall characteristic for Mesopotamian and Hebrew prophetic literature. Instead, they believed in eternal orderly existence. Those monarchies were deemed universal in both space and time. In Japan even dynasties were not supposed to rise and fall. One dynasty was believed to ever last. Gods provided the Egyptian kings with "eternity without limits, infinity without bounds." A great culture of eternity evolved. The pyramids, mummies and Terracotta Army were designed to last forever. The years of the early Roman Principate, especially the rule of Augustus, are witness to the radical increase of references to aeternitas (eternity) especially in Augustan poetry (Virgil, Tibullus, Propertius, Horace and Ovid). The change reflected a new mentality towards the permanence and stability of the state. The Augustan poets proclaimed Rome “Urbs Aeterna,” which translates from Latin as the “Eternal City,” and Rome is known as such until today.