| Part ofa series on |
| Imperial, royal, noble, gentry and chivalric ranks inWest,Central,South Asia andNorth Africa |
|---|
King of Kings[n 1] was an imperial title employed primarily by monarchs based in theMiddle East and theIndian subcontinent. Commonly associated withIran (historically known asPersia inthe West[8]), especially theAchaemenid andSasanian Empires, the title was originally introduced during theMiddle Assyrian Empire by KingTukulti-Ninurta I (reigned 1233–1197 BC) and was subsequently used in a number of different kingdoms and empires, including the aforementioned Persia, variousHellenic kingdoms,India,Armenia,Georgia, andEthiopia.
The title is commonly seen as equivalent to that ofEmperor, both titles outranking that ofking in prestige, stemming from thelate antiqueRoman andEastern Roman emperors who saw theShahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire as their equals. The last reigning monarchs to use the title ofShahanshah, those of thePahlavi dynasty inIran (1925–1979), also equated the title with "Emperor". The rulers of theEthiopian Empire used the title ofNəgusä Nägäst (literally "King of Kings"), which was officially translated as "Emperor".Sultan of Sultans is the sultanic equivalent of King of Kings and similarly,Khagan can mean "Khan of Khans". Later, lesser versionsAmir al-umara ("Emir of Emirs") andBeylerbey ("Bey of Beys") appeared.
In Judaism,Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as aname of God. "King of Kings" (Ancient Greek:βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων,romanized: basileùs ton basileuónton) is also used in reference toJesus Christ several times in the Bible, notably in theFirst Epistle to Timothy and twice in theBook of Revelation.
InAncient India,Sanskrit language words such asRājādhirāja andMahārādhirāja are among the terms that were used for employing the title of theKing of Kings.[9] These words also occur inAitareya Aranyaka and other parts ofRigveda .[10]
The monarchs of theGupta Empire assumed the imperial title ofMaharajadhiraja.[11]
TheBhauma-Kara kings assumed the imperial title ofMaharajadhiraja.[12]
TheGurjara-Pratihara monarch in the tenth century was titled theMaharajadhiraja ofAryavarta.[13]
The imperial title ofMaharajadhiraja was used by rulers of thePallava dynasty, thePala Empire and theSalasthamba dynasty.[14]
Theregnal name of someChola emperors, such asRajadhiraja I andRajadhiraja II, wasRajadhiraja.
TheVijayanagar rulers assumed the imperial title ofMaharajadhiraj.[15]
The title of King of Kings (rajadhiraja) was also common among the rulers of theKushan Empire.[16][17]
%2c_c._645-635_BC%2c_British_Museum_(16722368932).jpg)
The title King of Kings was first introduced by theAssyrian kingTukulti-Ninurta I (who reigned between 1233 and 1197 BC) asšar šarrāni. The title carried a literal meaning in that ašar was traditionally simply the ruler of acity-state. With the formation of theMiddle 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".[1] Following Tukulti-Ninurta's reign, the title was occasionally used by monarchs of Assyria andBabylon.[2] Later Assyrian rulers to usešar šarrāni includeEsarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC) andAshurbanipal (r. 669–627 BC).[18][19] "King of Kings", asšar šarrāni, was among the many titles of the lastNeo-Babylonian king,Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BC).[20]
Boastful titles claiming ownership of various things were common throughout ancient Mesopotamian history. For instance, Ashurbanipal's great-grandfatherSargon II used the full titulature ofGreat King,Mighty King,King of the Universe,King of Assyria,King of Babylon,King of Sumer and Akkad.[21]
The title of King of Kings occasionally appears in inscriptions of kings ofUrartu.[2] Although no evidence exists, it is possible that the title was also used by the rulers of theMedian Empire, since its rulers borrowed much of their royal symbolism and protocol from Urartu and elsewhere in Mesopotamia. TheAchaemenid 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.[2]
An Assyrian-language inscription on a fortification near the fortress ofTušpa mentions KingSarduri I of Urartu as a builder of a wall and a holder of the titleKing of Kings;[22]
This is the inscription of king Sarduri, son of the great kingLutipri, 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
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 theLydian Kingdom were conquered in 546 BC, the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC,Egypt in 525 BC and theIndus River region in 513 BC. The Achaemenids employedsatrapal 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.[23] Egypt was a particularly prominent example, frequently rebelling against Achaemenid authority and attempting to crown their ownPharaohs. Though it was eventually defeated, theGreat Satraps' Revolt of 366–360 BC showed the growing structural problems within the Empire.[24]
The Achaemenid Kings used a variety of different titles, prominentlyGreat King andKing of Countries, but perhaps the most prominent title was that of King of Kings (renderedXšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām inOld Persian),[2] recorded for every Achaemenid king. The full titulature of the kingDarius I was "great king, king of kings, king inPersia, king of the countries,Hystaspes' son,Arsames' grandson, an Achaemenid".[25][26] An inscription in the Armenian city of Van byXerxes I reads;[27]
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
The standard royal title of the Arsacid (Parthian) kings while in Babylon wasAršaka šarru ("Arsacid king"),King of Kings (recorded asšar šarrāni by contemporary Babylonians)[28] was adopted first byMithridates I (r. 171–132 BC), though he used it infrequently.[29][30] 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)[4] until 91 BC.[31] 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.[32] 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 acrown as the customary headgear on Parthian coins and undertaking several campaigns westwards into former Achaemenid lands.[4]
The title was rendered asšāhān šāh inMiddle Persian andParthian and remained in consistent use until the ruling Arsacids were supplanted by theSasanian dynasty ofArdashir I, creating theSasanian 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 theRoman 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.[3] The final Shahanshah of the Sasanian Empire wasYazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD). His reign ended with the defeat and conquest of Persia by theRashidun Caliphate, ending the last pre-Islamic Iranian Empire.[33] 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 withChinese help, these attempts failed and the descendants of Yazdegerd faded into obscurity.[34] The title Shahanshah was criticized by later Muslims, associating it with theZoroastrian faith and referring to it as "impious".[35]
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 theSamanids andSaffarids. Although Iranian resentment against theAbbasid 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.[36]
TheShi'aBuyid dynasty, of IranianDaylamite origin, came to power in 934 AD through most of the old Iranian heartland. In contrast to earlier dynasties, ruled byemirs and wanting to appease the powerful ruling Abbasid caliphs, the Buyids consciously revived old symbols and practices of the Sasanian Empire.[37] The region ofDaylam 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 theZiyarid 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 SasanianKhosrow I made for himself.[38] At the time he was murdered by his own Turkic troops, Mardavij was planning a campaign towardsBaghdad, the Abbasid capital. Subsequent Ziyarid rulers were Muslim and made no similar attempts.[39]
After the death of Mardavij, many of his troops entered into the service of the founder of the Buyid dynasty,Imad al-Dawla.[39] Finally, the Buyid Emir Panāh Khusraw, better known by his laqab (honorific name) of'Adud al-Dawla, proclaimed himselfShahanshah after defeating rebellious relatives and becoming the sole ruler of the Buyid dynasty in 978 AD.[n 2] Those of his successors that likewise exercised full control over all the Buyid emirates would also style themselves asShahanshah.[40][41]
During times of Buyid infighting, the title became a matter of importance. When a significant portion of Firuz Khusrau's (laqabJalal al-Dawla) army rebelled in the 1040s and wished to enthrone the other Buyid EmirAbu 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".[42] When discussing peace terms, Abu Kalijar in turn addressed Jalal in a letter with the titleShahanshah.[43]
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 titleShahanshah, 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.[35] 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 ofal-Malik al-Adil Shahanshah was lawful.[44]
Alexander the Great's conquests ended the Achaemenid Empire and the subsequent division of Alexander's own empire resulted in theSeleucid 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),[45] the monarchs of theSeleucid 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 bothAntiochus I (r. 281–261 BC) in theBorsippa Cylinder and forAntiochus III the Great (r. 222–187 BC) throughout his rule.[46]
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 usurperTimarchus (active 163–160 BC) called himself "King of Kings" and the title was discussed in sources from outside the empire as well.[47] Some non-Seleucid rulers even assumed the title for themselves, notably inPontus (especially prominently used underMithridates VI Eupator).[47][48]Pharnaces II had appeared as King of Kings in inscriptions and royal coins, andMithridates Eupator had appeared as King of Kings in an inscription.[49]
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).[47]
In thePtolemaic Kingdom,Caesarion was proclaimed "King of Kings" in theDonations of Alexandria.[50]
After the Parthian Empire under Mithridates II defeatedArmenia 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" inAtropatene) and assumed the Armenian throne.[51] 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 titleKing of Kings.[52] The Armenian kings of theBagratuni dynasty from the reign ofAshot III 953–977 AD to the dynasty's end in 1064 AD revived the title, rendering it as the PersianShahanshah.[53]
King of Kings was revived in theKingdom of Georgia by KingDavid IV (r. 1089–1125 AD), rendered asmepet mepe inGeorgian. All subsequent Georgian monarchs, such asTamar 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.[54][55]
After a successful campaign against the Sasanian Empire in 262 AD, which restored Roman control to territories that had been lost to theShahanshahShapur I, the ruler of the city of Palmyra,Odaenathus, founded the Palmyrene kingdom. Though a Roman vassal, Odaenathus assumed the titleMlk 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.[56][57] 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 atAntioch, which had been the final Seleucid capital.[57]
Though the same title was used by Odaenathus second son and successor following the deaths of both Odaenathus and Herodianus,Vaballathus and his motherZenobia soon relinquished it, instead opting for the RomanAugustus ("Emperor") andAugusta ("Empress") respectively.[58]
The title King of Kings was used bythe rulers of theAksumite Kingdom since the reignSembrouthesc. 250 AD.[59] The rulers of theEthiopian Empire, which existed from 1270 to 1974 AD, also used the title ofNəgusä 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 ofNəgus ("king"), this practice was ended byHaile Selassie (r. 1930–1974 AD), who somewhat paradoxically still retained the use ofNəgusä Nägäst.[7]
From the 7th century to 15th century, grand rulers ofChamic-speaking confederation ofChampa, which existed from 3rd century AD to 1832 in present-dayCentral Vietnam, employed titlesraja-di-raja (king of kings) andpu po tana raya (king of kings). However, some, such asVikrantavarman II, held the title ofmaharajadhiraja (great king of kings) instead ofraja-di-raja. The early kings of Champa before decentralization referred themselves by several different titles such asmahārāja (great king), e.g.Bhadravarman I (r.380–413), orcampāpr̥thivībhuj (lord of the land of Champa) used byKandarpadharma (r. 629–640).
In Java and Sumatra, some monarchs, such asKertanagara andAdityawarman, used the title ofMaharajadhiraja.[60]
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".
InJudaism,Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as aname 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.[70]
"King of Kings" (βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων) is used in reference toJesus Christ in theNew Testament: once in theFirst Epistle to Timothy (6:15) and twice in theBook of Revelation (17:14, 19:11–16);[71]
... 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 andEthiopia) employed the title and it was part of the motto of theByzantine Emperors of thePalaiologan period,Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων (Basileus Basileōn, Basileuōn Basileuontōn, literally "King of Kings, ruling over those who rule").[citation needed] 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 kingsrēx orrēgas (ρήξ, ρήγας), hellenized forms of the Latin titlerex.[72][73] 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, theKings of Axum and theShahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire, leading to "King of Kings" being equated to the rank of "Emperor" in the view of the West.[74]
Following the fall of theSasanian Empire in 651 AD, the title ofShahanshah was sternly criticized in theMuslim world. It was problematic enough that the adoption ofShahanshah by theShiaBuyid dynasty in Persia required a body of jurists to agree on its lawfulness[44] and the title itself (both as King of Kings and as the Persian variantShahanshah) is condemned inSunnihadith, a prominent example beingSahih al-Bukhari Book 73 Hadiths 224 and 225;[75][76]
Allah's Apostle said, "The most awful name in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himselfMalik 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.[34]
InMandaeism, the phraseClassical Mandaic:ࡌࡀࡋࡊࡀ ࡖࡊࡅࡋࡅࡍ ࡌࡀࡋࡊࡉࡀ,romanized: malka d̠-kulhun malkia,lit. 'King of [All] Kings' is used to refer toHayyi Rabbi (God in Mandaeism) in some prayers, including inPrayer 176 of theQulasta.[77]
After the end of theBuyid dynasty in 1062, the title ofShahanshah was used intermittently by rulers of Iran until the modern era. The title, rendered asShahinshah, is used on some of the coins ofAlp Arslan (r. 1063–1072), the second sultan of theSeljuk Empire.[78]
The title was adopted byIsmail I (r. 1501–1524), the founder of theSafavid dynasty. Upon his capture ofTabriz in 1501, Ismail proclaimed himself the Shāh ofIran and the Shahanshah of Iran.[79] The termšāhanšāh-e Irān, King of Kings of Iran, is richly attested for the Safavid period and for the precedingTimurid period (when it was not in use).[80]Nader Shah, founder of the laterAfsharid Dynasty, assumed the titlešāhanšāh in 1739 to emphasize his superiority overMuhammad Shah of theMughal Empire in India.[81]
The titleShahanshah is also attested forFath-Ali Shah Qajar of theQajar dynasty (r. 1797–1834). Fath-Ali's reign was noted for its pomp and elaborate court protocol.[82] 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?".[83]
The Qajar dynasty was overthrown in 1925, replaced by thePahlavi dynasty. Both reigning members of this dynasty,Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1925–1941) andMohammad Reza Pahlavi (r. 1941–1979), before they too were overthrown as part of theIranian revolution in 1979, used the title ofShahanshah.[84] Although Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had reigned asShah for twenty-six years by then, he only took the title ofShahanshah on 26 October 1967 in a lavishcoronation ceremony held inTehran. 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).[85] The current head of the exiled house of Pahlavi,Reza Pahlavi II, symbolically declared himselfShahanshah at the age of 21 after the death of his father in 1980.[86]
In 2008, theLibyan leaderMuammar Gaddafi was bestowed with the title of "King of Kings" after a gathering of more than 200 Africantribal 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 ofBenghazi, Gaddafi was given gifts including a throne, an 18th-centuryQur'an, traditional outfits andostrich 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".[87][88] The meeting was later referred to as a "bizarre ceremony" in international media.[89]
Gupta kings assumed imperial titles such asmaharajadhiraja,parama-bhattaraka, andparameshvara.
Like many independent kings of the time, the Bhaumakara kings too soon assumed the full-fledged imperial titles ofmaharajadhiraja (King of Kings),paramabhattaraka (Most Venerable) andparamesvara (Great Lord).
The Vijayanagar rulers assumed imperial titles such as 'Maharajadhiraj' and religious titles such as 'Rayarajguru', 'Maharajpujit' etc.
the queen Ballamahadevi of the Alupa dynasty in southern Karnataka ruled for many years with the masculine title Maharajadhiraja.
Despite Tamar's resistance, the marriage was celebrated immediately: luri was declared king (mepe), but Tamar asmepeta-mepe,dedopalta-dedopali (king of kings, queen of queens) remained the ruling monarch.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite magazine}}:Missing or empty|title= (help)[full citation needed]ISLAMIC, Seljuks. Great Seljuk. Muhammad Alp Arslan. AH 455–465 / AD 1063–1072. AV Dinar (22mm, 1.90 g, 7h). Herat mint. Dated AH 462 (AD 1069/70).