Emperor

This article is about Emperor/Empress in the meaning of "monarch", for all other uses, see: Emperor (disambiguation) or Empress (disambiguation)

An emperor is a (male) monarch, usually the sovereign ruler of an empire or another type of imperial realm. Empress is the feminine form. As a title, "empress" may indicate the wife of an emperor (empress consort) or a woman who is a ruling monarch (empress regnant). Emperors are generally recognized to be above kings in honour and rank.

Distinction between Emperor and other types of monarch

Both kings and emperors are monarchs. There is no single rule to distinguish the one from the other; several factors, like interpretations of historians, the size and characteristics of the governed realm, and the title(s) chosen by the monarch play a part in distinguishing the one from the other. General characteristics indicating that a monarch is to be considered an emperor rather than a king include:

• The monarch goes by a title that usually translates as "emperor" in English, and/or is accepted as the equivalent of "emperor" in international diplomatic relations;
• The monarch rules (de facto or nominally) over other monarchs, without stripping monarchy-related titles from these subjects ("vassals" or non-sovereign monarchs);
• The monarch rules several formerly sovereign countries, or peoples from different nations or ethno-cultural provenance.
• The monarch assumes divine or other high-ranked religious characteristics, which may manifest itself in several ways:
  • Imperial cult, for example in Ancient Rome and Japan.
  • Caesaropapism - Imperium maius - Investiture Controversy: In Christian Europe a king recognises that the church is an equal or superior in the religious sphere, emperors do not. This was illustrated by Henry VIII of England who started to use the word imperium in his dispute with Pope Clement VII over the annulment of his first marriage. By stating that they were emperors the Russian Tsars claimed to be the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and did not recognise any superior authority but God.
• European (Christian) tradition: The monarch traced his imperial title to Roman precedent or recognition by a Roman (Byzantine) emperor or supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Oecumenical Patriarch), see also: translatio imperii.

Where the title chosen by the monarch has become a separate concept in the English language, the distinction whether this monarch would have been an "emperor" or a "king" is often no longer made: for instance pharaoh, caliph, sultan or khan as a concept of a type of monarch is usually defined separately, making it redundant to apply the emperor/king distinction to these types of monarchy.

Roman and Christian tradition

Roman and Byzantine Emperors

In the Roman tradition a large variety in the meaning and importance of the Imperial form of monarchy developed: in intention it was always the highest office, but it could as well fall down to a redundant title for nobility that had never been near to the "Empire" they were supposed to be reigning. Also the name of the position split in several branches of Western tradition, see section on the Origin of the Western terminology below.

Importance and meaning of Coronation ceremonies and regalia also varied within the tradition: for instance Holy Roman Emperors could only be crowned emperor by the pope, which meant the coronation ceremony usually took place in Rome, often several years after these emperors had ascended to the throne (as "king") in their home country. The first Latin Emperors of Constantinople on the other hand had to be present in the newly conquered capital of their Empire, because that was the only place where they could be granted to become Emperor.

Early Roman Emperors on the other hand avoided any type of ceremony or regalia different from what was already usual for republican offices in the Roman Republic: the most intrusive change had been changing the color of their robe to purple. Later new symbols of worldly and/or spiritual power, like the orb became an essential part of the Imperial accessories.

Rules for indicating successors also varied: there was a tendency towards male inheritance of the supreme office, but as well election by noblemen, as ruling Empresses (for empires not too strictly under salic law) are known. Ruling monarchs could additionally steer the succession by adoption, as often occurred in the two first centuries of Imperial Rome. Of course, intrigue, murder and military force could also mingle in for appointing successors, the Roman Imperial tradition made no exception to other monarchical traditions in this respect. Probably the epoch best known for this part of the Imperial tradition is Rome's third century

Ancient Rome - origin of Western terminology

see: Roman Emperor

When Republican Rome turned into a monarchy again, in the second half of the 1st century BC, at first there was no name for the title of the new type of monarch: ancient Romans abhorred the name Rex ("king"), and after Julius Caesar also Dictator (which was an acknowledged office in Republican Rome, Julius Caesar not being the first to hold it).

In fact Augustus, who can be considered the first Roman Emperor, avoided naming himself anything that could be reminiscent of "monarchy" or "dictatorship". Instead, these first Emperors constructed their office as a complicated collection of offices, titles, and honours, that were consolidated around a single person and his closest relatives (while in the republic the "taking of turns", often in shared offices, had been the principle for passing on power). These early Roman emperors didn't need a specific name for their monarchy: they had enough offices and powers accumulated so that in any field of power they were "unsurpassable", and besides: everybody just knew they had supreme power. If needed that supreme power could be demonstrated by a process for high treason, exile, poisoning, or whatever, for those who gave semblance not to understand.

As the first Roman Emperors did not rule by virtue of any particular republican or senatorial office, the name given to the office of "head of state" in this new monarchical form of government became different depending on tradition, none of these traditions consolidated in the early days of the Roman Empire:

• Princeps (as, for example, in Tacitus' Annals). This tradition did not continue. An echo can be found in Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, where "Prince" is used as a generic name for "monarch", and later in the first dynasties of Imperial monarchs of ancient Rome being called principate by historians. This name for the Roman monarch appears to go back to the office of Princeps senatus (which can be translated as "first of the senate"), an office since Augustus held exclusively by the ruling monarch.
• Caesar (as, for example, in Suetonius' Twelve Caesars). This tradition continued in many languages: in German it became "Kaiser"; in certain Slavic languages it became "Tsar"; in Hungarian it became "Császár", and several more variants. The name derived from Julius Caesar's cognomen "Caesar": this cognomen was adopted by all Roman emperors, exclusively by the ruling monarch after the Julio-Claudian dynasty had died out. In this tradition Julius Caesar is sometimes described as the first Caesar/emperor (following Suetonius). This is one of the most enduring titles, Caesar and its transliterations were in continuous use from the time of Caesar Augustus to Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria's removal from the throne in 1946.
• Augustus was the honorific first bestowed on Emperor Augustus: after him all Roman emperors added it to their name. Although it had a high symbolical value, something like "akin to divinity", it was generally not used to indicate the office of Emperor itself. Exceptions include the title of the Augustan History, a half-mockumentary biography of the Emperors of the 2nd and 3rd century. Augustus had (by his last will) granted the feminine form of this honorific (Augusta) to his wife. Since there was no "title" of Empress(-consort) whatsoever, women of the reigning dynasty sought to be granted this honorific, as the highest attainable goal. Few were however granted the title, and certainly not as a rule all wives of reigning Emperors.
• Imperator (as, for example, in Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia). In the Roman Republic Imperator meant "(military) commander". In the late Republic, as in the early years of the new monarchy, Imperator was a title granted to Roman generals by their troops and the Roman Senate after a great victory, roughly comparable to field marshal. For example, in 15 AD Germanicus was proclaimed Imperator during the reign of his adoptive father Tiberius. Soon thereafter "Imperator" became however a title reserved exclusively for the ruling monarch. This led to "Emperor" in English and, among other examples, "Empereur" in French. The Latin feminine form Imperatrix only developed after "Imperator" had gotten the connotation of "Emperor".
• Αὐτοκράτωρ, βασιλεύς: although the Greeks used equivalents of "Caesar" (Καίσαρ) and "Augustus" (in two forms: Αὔγουστος or translated as Σεβαστός/"Sebastos") these were rather used as part of the name of the Emperor than as an indication of the office. Instead of developing a new name for the new type of monarchy, they used αὐτοκράτωρ ("autokratōr", only partly overlapping with the modern understanding of "autocrat") or βασιλεύς ("basileus", until then the usual name for "sovereign"). "Autokratōr" could be seen as a translation of the Latin "Imperator" (it was certainly used as its replacement in Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire), but also here there is only partial overlap between the meaning of the original Greek and Latin concepts. For the Greeks "Autokratōr" was not a military title, and was closer to the Latin dictator concept ("the one with unlimited power"), before it came to mean Emperor. Basileus appears not to have been used exclusively in the meaning of Emperor before the 7th century, although it was a standard informal designation of the emperor in the Greek-speaking East.

After the problematic year 69, the Flavian Dynasty reigned for about half a century. The succeeding Nervan-Antonian Dynasty, ruling for most of the 2nd century, stabilised the Empire. This epoch became known as the era of the Five Good Emperors, and was followed by the short-lived Severan Dynasty.

During the Crisis of the 3rd century, Barracks Emperors succeeded one another at short intervals. Three short lived secessionist attempts had their own emperors: the Gallic Empire, the Britannic Empire, and the Palmyrene Empire though the latter used rex more regularly. The next period, known as the Dominate, started with the Tetrarchy installed by Diocletian.

Through most of the 4th century, there were separate emperors for the Western and Eastern part of the Empire. Although there were several dynastic relations between the Emperors of both parts, they also often were adversaries. The last Emperor to rule a unified Roman Empire was Theodosius. Less than a century after his death in 395, the last Emperor of the Western half of the Empire was driven out.

The Eastern Emperors after 476

see Byzantine Emperor

Byzantine Emperors (Second Rome)

Historians generally call the eastern part of the Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire due to its capital Constantinople, whose ancient name was Byzantium (now Istanbul). After the fall of Rome to barbarian forces in 476, the title of "emperor" lived on in rulers of Constantinople (New Rome).

The Byzantine Emperors completed the transition from the idea of the Emperor as a semi-republican official to the Emperor as a traditional monarch when Emperor Heraclius retained the title of Basileus, already a synonym for "Emperor" (but which had earlier designated "King" in Greek) in the first half of the seventh century. A specifically Byzantine development of emperor's position was cesaropapism, position as leader of Christians.

In general usage, the Byzantine imperial title evolved from simply "emperor" (basileus), to "emperor of the Romans" (basileus tōn Rōmaiōn) in the 9th century, to "emperor and autocrat of the Romans" (basileus kai autokratōr tōn Rōmaiōn) in the 10th.^[1] In fact, none of these (and other) additional epithets and titles had ever been completely discarded.

The Byzantine empire produced also three reigning empresses: Irene, Zoe, and Theodora.

Latin Emperors

In 1204, the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople, and soon established a Latin Empire of Constantinople under one of the Crusader leaders. The Latin Empire was, however, unable to consolidate control of the whole of the former territories of the Byzantine Empire. Driven out of Constantinople in 1261, some territories in Greece still recognized their authority for some time. Eventually, the Imperial title became redundant and did not even contribute any longer to the prestige of the noblemen in their own country: it remained dormant after 1383. It produced three reigning empresses, two of which reigned outside of the city in the remnants of their empire.

Byzantine ('Greek') Emperors after the 4th Crusade

In Asia Minor, after being driven out of Constantinople, relations of the last pre-Crusader emperors established the Empire of Nicaea and the Empire of Trebizond. Similarly, the Despotate of Epirus was founded in the Western Balkans (the rulers of the latter took the title of Emperor for a short time following their conquest of Thessalonica in 1224).

Eventually, the Nicaean Emperors were successful in reclaiming the Byzantine imperial title. They managed to force Epirus into submission and retake Constantinople by 1261, but Trebizond remained independent. The restored Byzantine empire finally fell due to Ottoman invasion in 1453. The Trapezuntines produced three reigning empresses before they too were defeated by the Ottomans in 1461.

Frankish revival of the first Roman title

See: Holy Roman Emperor

After the discontinuation of the title of Emperor in Western Europe, it was revived in the Middle Ages. What connected these Emperors to "Rome" was that they were supposed to be crowned by the Pope, usually in Rome. So in this branch of Roman Emperors, Roman had an implied connotation of Roman Catholic, hence the epithet Holy.

Charlemagne and the Carolingian heirs

On 25 December, 800, Charles I, King of the Franks, was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III in Rome. This was seen both as a reaction to the supposed vacancy of the Eastern Empire, due to the presence of a woman, Irene on the throne in Constantinople, and as a revival of the Western Roman Empire, and descendants of Charlemagne continued to be crowned in Rome until the late 9th century. After the death of Charles the Fat in 888, the Popes intermittently bestowed the imperial title upon whomever was momentarily the most powerful lord in northern Italy, and after Berengar of Friuli was deposed in 922, the title lay vacant for decades.

Holy Roman Emperors

In 962, Otto I, King of the Eastern Franks was again crowned Emperor by the Pope. His successors became known as Holy Roman Emperors. The Holy Roman Empire, such as it was, consisted of the German Kingdoms, Italy, and Burgundy (including most of the Low Countries), but it continued to have theoretical claims of universal suzerainty over the Latin west.

After the 13th century and the fall of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the universalistic aspirations of the Emperors became increasingly theoretical, and their control over Italy, still seen as the locus of the proper empire, became increasingly tenuous. Rather than being hereditary, emperors were chosen by the prince-electors, in a process codified by the Golden Bull of 1356.

Coronations in Rome became rarer and rarer, until in 1508, King Maximilian I, after receiving permission from the pope, declared himself Emperor-Elect without having been crowned in Rome. Although Maximilian's grandson and successor, Charles V, was crowned in Bologna in 1530 by the Pope, he was the last, and thereafter the position of Holy Roman Emperor was a wholly German post until the Empire's dissolution in August 6, 1806.

Even in Germany itself, real control was increasingly tenuous, as various local princes increased their power, so that the Habsburg emperors who ruled almost continuously from 1438 until the end of the empire derived their power much more from their hereditary lands in the south-eastern part of the monarchy than from their position as emperor. As religious differences added to the tensions, compromise was needed (Peace of Augsburg, 1555). The Habsburg dynasty attempted to reassert authority over the Empire in the Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) that recognized princes sort of sovereign instead of dependents.

The impotence of the Emperors' position became most nakedly apparent during the brief reign of Charles VII from 1742 to 1745. As Duke of Bavaria, Charles was the only non-Habsburg emperor for the last three hundred fifty years of the empire's existence, and his utter inability even to protect his own hereditary lands from the forces of his enemy, Maria Theresa, the Habsburg heiress, showed how empty the position of Holy Roman Emperor had become.

The conquests of the French revolutionary armies in the 1790s made the Empire itself untenable, so that Emperor Francis II in 1804 took the title of Emperor of Austria (see below), and ultimately, allowed the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire a few years later.

Overview

Byzantium's Orthodox heirs: Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia

Byzantium's close cultural and political interaction with its Balkan neighbors Bulgaria and Serbia, and with Russia (Kievan Rus', then Muscovy) led to the adoption of Byzantine imperial traditions in all of these countries.

Bulgaria

In 913 Simeon I of Bulgaria was crowned emperor (tsar) in a makeshift ceremony officiated by the Patriarch of Constantinople and imperial regent Nicholas I Mystikos outside of the Byzantine capital. This unpopular concession was swiftly revoked by the succeeding Byzantine government, and the decade 914–924 was spent in destructive warfare between Byzantium and Bulgaria over this and other matters of conflict. The Bulgarian monarch, who had further irritated his Byzantine counterpart by claiming the title "emperor of the Romans" (basileus tōn Rōmaiōn), was eventually recognized, albeit reluctantly, as "emperor of the Bulgarians" (basileus tōn Boulgarōn) after a meeting with the Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lakapenos in 924. The concession was confirmed at the conclusion of permanent peace and a dynastic marriage in 927. In the meantime, the Bulgarian imperial title may have been also confirmed by the Pope. The title was recognized again after Bulgaria recovered its independence following a period of Byzantine Domination (1018–1185). In its final simplified form, it read "emperor and autocrat of all Bulgarians and Greeks" (car i samodăržec na vsički bălgari i gărci in the modern vernacular). The "Greek" component in the Bulgarian imperial title indicates both rulership over Greek-speakers and the derivation of the imperial tradition from the Romans (represented by the "Greek" Byzantines). 14th-century Bulgarian literary compositions clearly denote the Bulgarian capital (Tărnovo) as a successor of Rome and Constantinople, in effect, the "Third Rome". It should be noted that after Bulgaria obtained complete independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1908, its monarch took the traditional title of "tsar", but was recognized internationally only as a king.

Serbia

In 1345 the Serbian King Stefan Uroš IV Dušan proclaimed himself emperor (tsar) and had himself crowned as such at Skopje on Easter 1346 by the newly created Patriarch of Serbia, and by the Patriarch of Bulgaria and the autocephalous Archbishop of Ohrid. His imperial title was recognized by Bulgaria and various other neighbors and trading partners but not by the Byzantine Empire. In its final simplified form, the Serbian imperial title read "emperor of Serbians and Greeks" (car srbljem i grkom in the modern vernacular). It was only employed by Stefan Uroš IV Dušan and his son Stefan Uroš V in Serbia (until his death in 1371), after which it became extinct. A half-brother of Dušan, Simeon Uroš, and then his son Jovan Uroš, claimed the same title, until the latter's abdication in 1373, while ruling as dynasts in Thessaly. The "Greek" component in the Serbian imperial title indicates both rulership over Greek-speakers and the derivation of the imperial tradition from the Romans (represented by the "Greek" Byzantines).

Russia

In 1472, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Palaiologina, married Ivan III, grand prince of Moscow, who began championing the idea of Russia being the successor to the Byzantine Empire. This idea was represented more emphatically in the composition of the monk Filofej addressed their son Vasili III. After ending Muscovy's dependence on its Mongol overlords in 1480, Ivan III had begun the usage of the titles emperor (tsar) and autocrat (samoderžec' ). His insistence on recognition as such by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire since 1489 resulted in the granting of this recognition in 1514 by Emperor Maximilian I to Vasili III. His son Ivan IV emphatically crowned himself emperor (tsar) on 16 January, 1547.

On 31 October, 1721 Peter I was crowned emperor with a new style, "imperator", which is a westernizing form equivalent to the traditional Slavic title "tsar". He based his claim partially upon a letter discovered in 1717 written in 1514 from Maximilian I to Vasili III, Sophia's son and Ivan IV's father, in which the Holy Roman Emperor used the term in referring to Vasili. The title has not been used in Russia since the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II on 15 March, 1917. The apparent distinction between the titles of "tsar" and "imperator" in post-1721 usage have led to the mistaken impression that the title of "tsar" is an intermediate rank between those of "emperor" and "king", or else equivalent to the latter.

Imperial Russia produced four reigning empresses, all in the eighteenth century.

Further Western traditions and revivals (and their derivatives)

Heirs of the Holy Roman Empire

Austria

see: Emperor of Austria

On 11 August, 1804 anticipating the eventual collapse of the Holy Roman Empire at the behest of Napoleon I, Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor assumed the additional title of Emperor of Austria (as Francis I thereof). The precaution was a wise one, because two years later on August 6 1806 he was obliged to proclaim the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire.

Emperor Karl of Austria, the last ruling hereditary monarch in that country, "relinquished every participation in the administration of the State" on November 11 1918.

Germany

Following victory after the Franco-Prussian war and the founding of the German Empire, the Prussian king had himself crowned German Emperor or Kaiser as Wilhelm I on January 18 1871, as part of the competition with the Emperor of Austria (whose Habsburg dynasty had de facto been hereditary in the Holy Roman Empire for centuries) for dominance in the German-speaking lands. With defeats in World War I and revolution breaking out, Emperor Wilhelm II abdicated on 9 November 1918 and a republic was established.

Other Emperors residing in Western Europe

France

The kings of the Ancien Régime and the July Monarchy used the title Empereur de France in diplomatic correspondence and treaties with the Ottoman emperor from at least 1673 onwards. The Ottomans insisted on this elevated style while refusing to recognize the Holy Roman Emperors or the Russian tsars due to their rival claims of the Roman crown. In short, it was an indirect insult by the Ottomans to the HRE and the Russians. The French kings also used it for Morocco (1682) and Persia (1715).

First French Empire

See also: First French Empire

Napoleon Bonaparte who was already First Consul of the French Republic (Premier Consul de la République française) for life, declared himself Emperor of the French (Empereur des Français) on May 18, 1804. Despite being ruled by an emperor, it continued to be the French Republic (République Française) until 1808, when it was renamed the French Empire (Empire Français).

Napoleon relinquished the title of Emperor of the French on 6 April and again on April 11, 1814. Napoleon's infant son, Napoleon II, was recognized by the Council of Peers, as Emperor from the moment of his father's abdication, and theoretically reigned as "Emperor" for fifteen days, June 22 to July 7 of 1815.

Elba

Since 3 May 1814, the Sovereign Principality of Elba was created a miniature non-hereditary Monarchy under the exiled French Emperor Napoleon I. Napoleon I was allowed, by the treaty of Fontainebleau with (27 April), to enjoy, for life, the imperial title. The islands were not restyled an empire.

On 26 February 1815, Napoleon abandoned Elba for France, reviving the French Empire for Hundred Days; as this broke the terms of his parole, the Allies declared an end to Napoleon's sovereignty over Elba on 25 March 1815, and on 31 March 1815 Elba was ceded to the restored grand-duchy of Tuscany by the Congress of Vienna. After his final defeat, Bonaparte was stripped of every imperial privilege during his second exile to Atlantic Isle of St. Helena.

Second French Empire

See also: Second French Empire

Napoleon I's nephew Napoleon III resurrected the title on December 2, 1852 after establishing the Second French Empire in a presidential coup. He reigned as a constitutional Monarch. His endeavours to return to France its imperial status included setting up a Habsburg Archduke as vassal emperor in Mexico, but failed. He lost the throne when he was deposed on September 4, 1870 by the Third Republic in the aftermath of the defeat in the Franco-German war.

Iberian Peninsula

The origins of the title Imperator totius Hispaniae (Latin for Emperor of (All) Spain^[2]) is murky. It was associated with the Leonese monarchy perhaps as far back as Alfonso the Great. The last two kings of the Pérez Dynasty were called that in a contemporary source.

King Sancho III of Navarre conquered Leon in 1034 and began using it. His son, Ferdinand I of Castile also took the title in 1039. Ferdinand's son, Alfonso VI of Castile took the title in 1077. It then passed to his son-in-law, Alfonso I of Aragon in 1109. His stepson and Alfonso VI's grandson, Alfonso VII was the only one who actually had an imperial coronation in 1135.

The title was not exactly hereditary but self proclaimed by those who had, wholly or partially, united the Christian northern part of the Iberian peninsula, often at the expense of killing rival siblings. The popes and Holy Roman emperors protested at the usage of the imperial title as a usurpation of leadership in western Christendom. After Alfonso VII's death in 1157, the title was abandoned.

Britain

Main article: British Emperor

In the late 3rd century, by the end of the epoch of the barracks emperors in Rome, there were two Britannic Emperors, reigning for about a decade. After the Roman departure from Britain, Cunedda the Imperator forged the Kingdom of Gwynedd however all his successors were kings and princes.

England

There was no set title for the king of England before 1066 and monarchs chose to style themselves as they pleased. Imperial titles were used inconsistently beginning with Athelstan in 930 and ended with the Norman conquest of England.

Henry VIII began claiming his crown was an Imperial Crown during the Reformation. However, this did not lead to the creation of the title of Emperor in England.

United Kingdom

In 1801, George III rejected the title of Emperor when offered. The only period when British monarchs were given the title of Emperor in a dynastic succession started when the title Empress of India was created for Queen Victoria. When a royal marriage made it obvious to the British in 1877 that their Queen Victoria would be outranked by her own daughter who would someday become German Empress, the British government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, conferred the additional title Empress of India by an Act of Parliament; it was also formally justified as the expression of Britain succeeding as paramount ruler of the subcontinent the former Mughal 'Padishah of Hind', using indirect rule through hundreds of princely states formally under protection, not colonies, but accepting the British Sovereign as their 'feudal' suzerain. That title was relinquished by George VI with effect from August 15 1947, when India was granted independence.

Two decades earlier the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 had stated that the United Kingdom and the dominions were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". Along with the Statute of Westminster, 1931 this changed the way the British parliamentary monarchy ruled the overseas dominions, moving from a colonial British Empire towards a new structure for the interaction between the Commonwealth Realms and the Crown.

(Post-)colonial emperors modeled on Europe

The Post-Columbian Americas

Brazil

Brazil declared independence from Portugal in 1822, and made Dom Pedro, eldest son of the then-King of Portugal, who was acting as regent, Emperor as Pedro I on 12 October. The empire came to an end with the overthrow of Emperor Pedro II in 1889.

Haiti

Haiti was declared an empire by its ruler, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who made himself Jacques I, in 20 May, 1805. He was assassinated the next year. Haiti again became an empire from 1849 to 1859 under Faustin Soulouque.

Mexico

In Mexico, there were two short-lived attempts to create an Empire. Agustín de Iturbide, the general who helped secure Mexican independence from Spanish rule, was proclaimed Emperor Agustín I in 12 July, 1822, but was overthrown the next year.

In 1863, the invading French under Napoleon III (see above), in alliance with Mexican conservatives, proclaimed an empire and invited Archduke Maximilian, younger brother of the Austrian Emperor, to become emperor as Maximilian I. The childless Maximilian also adopted Agustín's grandson as his heir to bolster his claim. After the withdrawal of French protection in 1867, Maximilian was captured and executed by liberal forces.

Central African Empire

In 1976, President Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, proclaimed the country to be the Central African Empire, and made himself Emperor as Bokassa I. The expenses of his coronation ceremony actually bankrupted the country. He was overthrown three years later and the republic was restored.

East Asian tradition

The East Asian tradition is different from the Roman tradition, having arisen separately. The most common links between East Asian emprors are they all tried to find the argument from the legitime successor of