Beat me to the tone lowering

[deleted]

My Uncle Joe ran a neighborhood grocery store in Chester Pa. back in the 30's and 40's. He had no formal education beyond High School, but could converse in German, Polish, Yiddish, just by doing business with his customers. I'm pretty sure the same held true with so many diverse tradesman across ancient borders.

Love that YouTube channel!

The Romans colonized and settled Hispania and Gaul and Dacia, in large part because their wars of conquest there were also wars of annihilation and depopulation.

Such numbers are necessarily a rough estimate, but Gaul probably had a population of ~5 million before Roman conquest. Historians generally agree Caesar killed about a million, and enslaved another million or so. So it was a HUGE reduction in population.

The conquests in the east were nothing of the sort. Pompey basically just marched through and collected surrenders. The local populations were huge and urbanized, and the Latinate Roman population was never large. So while local elites might have learned Latin, the average person in the street never did.

It already has a name, one known throughout Wales. Cantre'r Gwaelod.

That's just the pretense to justify being granted a special title to circumvent the disliked rex. In actual practice "princeps" basically was conceived to indicate rulership as an alternative to rex and is essentially equivalent to rex.

Until it was eliminated, even if other titles were typically favoured, Princeps was the title that legally most indicated "the ruler of the empire" (it essentially meant that it was "right" for you to be in charge).

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mesopotamia-historical-region-Asia/Sumer-and-Akkad-from-2350-to-2000-bce

Smith island as well.

Very different situation.

There's still a lot of Doggers in the UK actually

Isn't it a bit wrong to say that Princeps are a majesty and kingly title? Augustus received the title Princeps civitatis which is first citizen, since Rex and Dictator would create resentment amongst the influential people.

There was only one shogun (when there was any). The emperor > shogun relationship was not at all like emperor's relationship with kings or imperial subjects in the Holy Roman Empire for instance.

The shogun *nominally* ruled on behalf of the emperor but in fact the emperor was a ceremonial figure and had no actual power (except, perhaps, at the outset of the Ashikaga Shogunate, when there was what we might think of as a civil war between pro- and anti-Ashikaga factions, one of which was "imperial").

Sometimes the shogun was themselves a figurehead - eg during much of the Kamakura Bakufu when it was the Hojo regents that were actually in control or at least nominally so.

Daimyo are more complicated and a bit more like feudal subjects in the Reich sense. But only a bit.

Well you could have a situation like Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico

So in the Roman era there wasn't necessarily a fixed pure title universally used to mean "emperor" as we think of it today as Emperors usually had multiple titles unique to them. In particular many titles including Imperator could often be granted to other individuals (though not always common) and the most important titles varied: Augustus, Princeps, Caeser, Imperator, Dominus. And let's not mention the greek ones.

An emperor of the US titled in the Roman way would be something like: "The Majestic Field Marshal President Biden Washington" (note no use of Emperor/king as Roman emperors pretended to be democratic)

Imperator (the actual title) originally meant something akin to "Field Marshal" today, that is "a high ranking military office". While it is the most closely associated to attaining real power, it would at times be granted to notable generals or other individuals and as a title of 'General' wouldn't have had the same sense of "king" that we think of Emperor today.

Augustus and Princeps were both more like "Majesty" and "Great" types of titles and likely conveyed more of a "kingly" nature.

Caeser, while initially of key importance, over time became associated with heir's and would eventually be the equivalent of "crown prince".

Dominus was later added by Diocletian to replace Princeps, with the meaning basically being "lord".

Interesting, any chance of a source?

It depends what you mean by "emperor", if you go by historic definition of a ruler of several peoples, or you go by the "Roman" meaning of emperor, which meant ruler of the Roman Empire.

To fit the first definition you have to satisfy it's requirements, just calling yourself like that won't change anything.

To fit the second option you need to be the legitimate ruler of the Roman empire, and the "legitimate" is the tricky part of the question.

Pretty similar, often "conquering" some city state just meant they pay you tribute.

Sometimes usurpers would call themselves Caesar to try and appease the ruling Emperor. "I'm not really after your job, I'm just helping you out see. I'm totally just a Caesar."

Although that was later under the Tetrarch when the distinction was made by Diocletian.

Realistically both had plenty of people fluent in the language of the other, because they were neighbouring peoples with trade relations. Most people in the ancient world were multilingual and some languages were established as the main one for regional trade. For example during the Roman empire, any Roman officer/educated person spoke Latin and Greek, and all the peoples under them spoke their native language plus Latin or Greek.

The people of Glastonbury would probably take exception to that

Lately, First Nations people is the preferred term

I say we name this place Avalon after the place King Arthur was supposedly taken after being mortally wounded by Mordred

Check out the history time YouTube video about doggerland! So interesting

Nelson’s Trafalgar: the Battle that Changed the World by Roy Adkins is a great read