Re: [sig] Kniaz: King or Prince?
- Hello E D,
I would like permission to re-post your email in full minus of course the
first paragraph :
"I'll retract the Pict-Scythian theory connection. I read on a site that
the Romans said that the Picts resembled people in the Iberian Peninsula."
I can either leave or take out you email address; your decision.
I would like to re-post it as information to another yahoo.groups:
Crimea_Cities · Simferopol_Sevastopol_Yalta_Crimea
A point of contact group for those interested in the Krymska Oblast in the
Ukraine. I have listed the more major cities of Simferopol; Sevastopol;
Yalta only because these are the most visited cities in the Krymska Oblast
but there are many other smaller cities of interest in the area as well.
Strictly speaking it addresses Kyiv but I believe any accurate knowledge
regarding Kyiv or any thing factual about the Ukraine needs to be seen by as
many as possible.
William R Cline Jr..
From: E D <White_Croat@...>
Subject: [sig] Kniaz: King or Prince?
" I'll retract the Pict-Scythian theory connnection. I read on a site that
the Romans said that the Picts resembled people in the Iberian Peninsula.
KNIAZ: KING OR PRINCE? "
- One more thought:
Why do you suppose that Machiavelli called his famous book on leadership,
"The Prince" ("Il Principe" in its
original title)? He certainly was not writing a book of advice for people
who were second to
their thrones, even though there were Kingdoms in Italy at his time as well
(and their rulers were called
At 10:24 AM 10/7/2001, you wrote:
>KNIAZ: KING OR PRINCE?
>IN THE HISTORICAL PERIOD of 860-1240 A.D. the ruler of state of Rus, with
>its capital of Kiev, was called Kniaz. In Western Ukraine the ruler of the
>Halych-Volyn state was called Korol. Some writers consider Korol as King but
>Kniaz as the lesser title, Prince. Many historians in the Western world
>writing about the history of Rus, Ukraine and Russia have been faced with
>the problem of what title should be used for the ruler of Kievan
- Hey there!
--- E D <White_Croat@...> wrote:
> KNIAZ: KING OR PRINCE?[lotta snipping here]
> DEFINITION OF PRINCE[totally irrelevent...grand prince is not a prince]
> DEFINITION OF KING[also irrelevent, grand prince is not a king either]
Paul put it best...you can't compare, but if you
really want to, find out what a "GRAND PRINCE" is.
Emperor, King, Grand Prince, and Grand Duke are unique
titles, as they cannot be held by someone who does not
actually own the land. (Example, when the Grand Duchy
of Baden, near my home, was dissolved, the man who
would have been Grand Duke became a Count; the man who
would have been King of Wuerttemberg, also nearby,
became a Duke.) These are very high titles, not to be
confused with Prince and Duke, which are subordinate
titles (usually) and which titles can be used without
ownership of the land associated with them. Grand
Princes and Dukes are called "royal highness",
implying, well, "royalness".
A website I found lists these titles:
tsar - Emperor
tsaritsa - Empress
velikii kniaz - Grand Duke
velikaia kniaginia - Grand Duchess
kniaz (Prince) - kniaz
graf (Count) - graf
kniaz (Duke) - kniaz
baron - baron
Note that they translate kniaz as 'prince' in one
place and as a 'duke' somewhere else.
Grand Prince is usually used for Russians, and Grand
Duke for Germans and Italians, as a convention.
Like Paul, I think it would be unwise to fret over a
translation. They are always somewhat haphazard, and
seldom translate directly.
JEFFREY C. SMITH
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839
"Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." -- G. W. Bush
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
- In a message dated 10/8/2001 4:40:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Emperor, King, Grand Prince, and Grand Duke are uniqueFirst, I am not contesting what Janos said, and I fully agree with Paul. The
> titles, as they cannot be held by someone who does not
> actually own the land.
issue of the meaning of "kniaz" was not stated properly. There is one more
reason why: the meaning of the word (and power/authority associated with it)
varied quite a bit over time (imperial titles, which is what Janos was
quoting, have nothing to do with medieval titles).
Just a little comment: as for land *ownership*, it's more complicated than
that. In medieval Russia, before and during the Mongol era, kniaz'ia (plural
of kniaz) ruled over certain lands, owned some in their own (personal) right,
and ordinary Russians could also own lands, free of the kniaz's authority,
except for taxes, military defense, judicial authority, etc -- pretty much
the modern concept of ownership.
The kniaz'ia could move from one land to another, fight over rulership of
this or that land (some lands had more prestige, and therefore their rulers
had more authority), levy taxes (as set by law), etc. So technically, what
made a kniaz a kniaz was 1) inheritance (it's a patrilinear title), 2)
rulership (but not ownership) or a land, 3) how good they were at keeping 1)
(staying alive) and 2) (not being overrun by neighbors).
The best explanation of the system I've read is by Janet Martin, _Medieval
Russia_. I recommend the book, even though it's a bit of a dry read; it is,
after all, a textbook.
Per fess embattled azure and gules, two otters passant or.
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Predslava/RussianHistoryTriviaPage.html">Russian History Trivia Page</A>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]