Wikipedia

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

edit

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[1] and Erasmus;[2] whereas Guillaume Postel[3] was more favourable and Dante was a convinced adherent. Later, Protestants would seek to reject the concept, identifying it with Catholicism.[4]

History

edit

Egypt and Mesopotamia

edit

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."[5] 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."[6] 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."[7][8] Thutmose III was acknowledged: "None presents himself before thy majesty. The circuit of the Great Circle [Ocean] is included in thy grasp."[9] Asiatic kings recognized Tutankhamen: "There is none living in ignorance of thee."[10]

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.[11] On Abydos Stelae, Thutmose I claimed: "I made the boundaries of Egypt as far as the sun encircles ... Shining like Ra ... forever."[12] 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."[13]

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.[14]

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".[15]

Europe

edit
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,[16] 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.[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] The medieval hierocrats, on the other hand, argued that the pope was a universal monarch.[21]

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."[22] It was envisaged by its supporters as a world empire that could be religiously inclusive.[23]

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,[24] 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."[25]

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.[26] The British Monarchy was "Protestant, commercial, maritime and free"[27] 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".[28] 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."[29] 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".[30][31]

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."[32] The Spenglerian century ended in 2022 short of global "Caesarism".

East Asia

edit

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![33][34]

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.[35][36]

The inscription of the First Emperor of China said: "Wherever life is found, all acknowledge his suzerainty."[37] 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.[38]

The Chinese concept of universal monarchy was taken up by the Mongols,[39][40] 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.[41][42]

The Islamic world

edit

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

edit

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.[43] The Inca people called their state the "realm of the four quarters of the world."[44][45]), 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".[46] 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.[47][48]

Inca "was respected as god".[49] 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.[50] 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.[51] The title of the Incas, Sapa Inca (lit. 'the only emperor'),[52] 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

edit

Cosmopolitanism

edit

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..."[53]

The Persian universal monarchs tolerated the cultures, languages, and religions of the subordinated peoples and supported local religious institutions.[54] Local elites were integrated in the imperial administration.[55] The Persians 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 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."[56] 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."[57] 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[58] and often is called an official philosophy of the monarchy.[59]

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.[60][61][62] 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.[63]

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.[64] Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism were practiced undisturbed in China, as well as in Japan, where the three coexisted with Shinto.

Divinity

edit

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."[65] 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."[66]

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.[67] 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.[68]

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.[69] 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."[70]

Following another universal conquest, Alexander the Great broke with much of the Macedonian royal tradition, where kings were mortal like the rest of humans.[71][72] Alexander and his successors became divine and some added to their names Epiphanes, meaning 'divine'. By 323 BC, several Greek states were worshipping Alexander as a living god. Cults were offered to his successors with greater frequencies and magnificence. Michael J. Puett finds that universal empire and deification of monarch developed together. He compares Macedonia with China, where universal empire coincided with a new type of theomorphic claim.[73]

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"[74] 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.[75]

Monotheism

edit

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.[76][77] 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."[78] According to Simo Parpola, the Neo-Assyrian empire developed a complete monotheism.[79]

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.[80] 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.[81] "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.[82] Some scholars also supposed the influence of the Egyptian universal monarchy, particularly of the Great Hymn to the Aten on Psalm 104.[83][84][85][86]

Synchronously with Judaism, the Persian universal monarchy elaborated Zoroastrianism considered by most as monotheistic.[87] It has been supposed that Darius elevated Ahuramazda to monotheist status to associate the sole king with the sole god.[88]

Eventually, two most popular monotheist legacies of universal monarchies became Christianity and Islam. One God, one Emperor, one empire, proclaimed Eusebius (AD 290–330).[89] One study names Islam as the clearest example of convergence between monotheist religion and universal monarchy.[90] 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.[91]

Vision of history

edit

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.[92][93][94]

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.[95]

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.[96] 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.[97][98]

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.[99]

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."[100] 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.[101] The Augustan poets proclaimed Rome “Urbs Aeterna,” which translates from Latin as the “Eternal City,” and Rome is known as such until today.

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Mastnak, Tomaž. Crusading peace: Christendom, the Muslim world, and Western political order University of California Press, (2002), p 329.
  2. ^ Persson, Hans-Åke and Stråth, Bo. Reflections on Europe: defining a political order in time and space. Peter Lang. (2007), pp. 51–52
  3. ^ Kuntz, Marion Leathers. Guillaume Postel, prophet of the restitution of all things: his life and thought, Springer, (1981), p. 171.
  4. ^ Simms, Brendan & Riotte, Torsten (Editors). The Hanoverian dimension in British History, 1714–1837, Cambridge University Press, (2007), pp. 168–169.
  5. ^ Ancient Records of Egypt. Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, ed. James Henry Breasted, London: Forgotten Books, 1988, vol. 2/1015, p. 418; vol. 4/398–400, pp. 198–200.
  6. ^ Donald Redford, "The concept of kingship during the Eighteenth Dynasty," Ancient Egyptian Kingship, eds. D. E. O'Connor, & D. P. Sullivan, Leiden& New York: Brill Academic, 1995, p 168.
  7. ^ Ancient Records of Egypt, vol 2/792, p 311;
  8. ^ Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East c. 1600 – 1100 BC, Padova: Palgrave, 1990, p. 58.
  9. ^ Ancient Records of Egypt, vol 2/657–661, pp. 264–265.
  10. ^ Ancient Records of Egypt, vol 2/1032, p. 424.
  11. ^ James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt. Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, London: Forgotten Books, 1988, vol II, p 24.
  12. ^ Ancient Records of Egypt, 2/98, p 40.
  13. ^ Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Reading, ed. Miriam Lichtheim, London: University of California Press, vol I, p 230.
  14. ^ Amelie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000 – 330 BC, London & New York: Routledge, 1995, vol I, p 31.
  15. ^ P. Michalowski, "Memory and deed: The historiography of the political expansion of the Akkad state", Akkad: The First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions, ed. Mario Liverani, Padua: Palgrave, 1993, pp. 88–89.
  16. ^ Nicol, D.M. Byzantine political thought in Burns, J. H. The Cambridge history of medieval political thought c. 350-c. 1450 Cambridge University Press 1988 pp. 52–53
  17. ^ Nicol, D.M. Byzantine political thought in Burns, J. H. The Cambridge history of medieval political thought c. 350-c. 1450 Cambridge University Press 1988 p. 57
  18. ^ Bryce, James The Holy Roman Empire p. 209
  19. ^ Brissaud, Jean A History of French Public Law John Murray (1915) p. 77
  20. ^ "AEIOU". Die Welt der Habsburger. Retrieved 2 August 2018.
  21. ^ Sisson, Keith (2016). "Popes over Princes: Hierocratic Theory". In Sisson, Keith; Larson, Atria A. (eds.). A Companion to the Medieval Papacy: Growth of an Ideology and Institution. Leiden: Brill. pp. 122–23. ISBN 978-9004299856.
  22. ^ Armitage, David The Ideological Origins of the British Empire Cambridge University Press (2000) p. 32
  23. ^ Ocker, Christopher; Printy, Michael; Starenko, Peter (Editors) Politics and Reformations: Communities, Politics, Nations, and Empires Brill Academic Publishers (2007), 495.
  24. ^ Simms, Brendan & Riotte, Torsten (Editors) The Hanoverian dimension in British History, 1714–1837 Cambridge University Press (2007) p. 168
  25. ^ Shovlin, John (2010). "Selling American Empire on the Eve of the Seven Years War: The French Propaganda Campaign of 1755-1756". Past and Present (206): 121–149. doi:10.1093/pastj/gtp046.
  26. ^ Gavrov, Sergey [1] Modernization of the Empire. Social and Cultural Aspects of Modernization Processes in Russia URSS (2004) p. 50 [2]
  27. ^ see Armitage, David The Ideological Origins of the British Empire Cambridge University Press (2000)
  28. ^ Armitage, David The Ideological Origins of the British Empire Cambridge University Press (2000) p. 66
  29. ^ Fichte, "Characteristics of the Present Age," 1806, Theory and Practice of the Balance of Power, 1486-1914: Selected European Writings, (ed. Moorhead Wright, London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1975), pp. 87–89.
  30. ^ Fischer, Fritz. Germany's Aims in the First World War. (1967)
  31. ^ Niall, Ferguson, Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (1999).
  32. ^ Spengler, Oswald (1922). The Decline of the West: Perspectives on World-History, (tr. Atkinson, Charles Francis, (London: George Allen & Unwin LTD), vol II, p 416, 419, 422, 428-432, 464-465, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.264078/mode/2up?view=theater
  33. ^ Cited in Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian, ed. Burton Watson, Hong Kong: Columbia University Press, 1962, vol II, p 291.
  34. ^ Compare with the Egyptian kings who ruled "as far as the four pillars of heaven," or "as the heaven on every side." Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 BC. Studies in Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave, 2001, p 30.
  35. ^ Benjamin I. Schwartz, "The Chinese perception of world order. Past and Present," The Chinese World Order: Traditional Chinese Foreign Relations, eds. John King Fairbank, Massachusetts: Cambridge, 1968, p 279.
  36. ^ Also Yuri Pines, "'The One that pervades all' in ancient Chinese political thought," T'oung Pao, 2000, p 298, 319.
  37. ^ Chris Peers, Warlords of China, 700 BC to AD 1662, London: Oxford, 1998, p 95.
  38. ^ Cited in Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York: Perseus Books, 1997, pp. 14–15.
  39. ^ Marshall, Robert Storm from the East: from Genghis Khan to Khubilai Khan University of California Press (1993) p. 156
  40. ^ Sicker, Martin The Islamic world in ascendancy: from the Arab conquests to the siege of Vienna Greenwood Press (2000) p. 107
  41. ^ Bhandarkar, D. R. Lectures on the Ancient History of India from 650–325 B.C. University of Calcutta (1919) pp. 85–86
  42. ^ Beér, Robert The encyclopedia of Tibetan symbols and motifs Serindia Publications 2nd Revised edition(2004) pp. 160–161
  43. ^ Arnold J. Toynbee, "Preface," Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006).
  44. ^ Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, 2:11. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru, (tr. Harold Livermore, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006), p 11.
  45. ^ Alan Colata, Ancient Inca, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p 1.
  46. ^ Garcilaso de la Vega, 2:11; p 11.
  47. ^ Alan Colata, Ancient Inca, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 8–9.
  48. ^ Rafael Karsten, A Totalitarian State of The Past: The Civilization of the Inca Empire in Ancient Peru, Helsinki: Societas Scientarum Fennica, 1949.
  49. ^ Garcilaso de la Vega, 3:6, 20; p. 13–14.
  50. ^ "Mummification: The lost art of embalming the dead". livescience.com. 2020-07-15. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  51. ^ Empire of the Inca, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963, p 78.
  52. ^ AncientPages.com (2016-01-27). "Who Was The Sapa Inca?". Ancient Pages. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  53. ^ Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol 1, p 98.
  54. ^ Myles Lavan, Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, p 18.
  55. ^ Brien, Pierre (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. (tr. Daniels, Peter T. Indiana: Eisenbrauns) p 79.
  56. ^ Lavan 2016, p 7.
  57. ^ Cited in Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967, p 253.
  58. ^ Lavan 2016, p 8.
  59. ^ Chaim Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p 145.
  60. ^ Epistle to the Romans, 2:16, 26.
  61. ^ John C. Dwyer, Church History: Twenty Centuries of Catholic Christianity, New York: Paulist Press, 1998, p 27.
  62. ^ William Wrede, Paul, tr. Edward Lummis. London: Philip Green, 1907, p 179.
  63. ^ Lavan, p 12.
  64. ^ "China's Tang Dynasty: A Cosmopolitan Golden Age". TheCollector. 2022-03-30. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  65. ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1987, vol I, p 478.
  66. ^ Paul J. Vanderbroeck, Popular Leadership and Collective Behavior in the Late Roman Republic, c. 80 – 50 BC, Amsterdam: Brill, 1987, p 197.
  67. ^ Shelah, Gideon (2014). "Collapse or transformation? Anthropological and archeological perspectives on the fall of Qin," Birth of an Empire: The State of Qin Revisited, (eds. Pines, Yuri et al, Berkeley: University of California Press), p 129.
  68. ^ Yuri Pines, The Everlasting Empire: The Political Culture of Ancient China and Its Imperial Legacy, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012, p 58.
  69. ^ Records of the Grand Historian, 5:218; 6:245, 275, (tr. Burton Watson, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, pp 123, 141, 162.
  70. ^ Burr Cartwfight Brundage, Empire of the Inca, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963, p 78.
  71. ^ Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Connecticut: University of Michigan Press, 1931, p 4.
  72. ^ Duncan Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Leiden & New York: Brill, 1993, p 6.
  73. ^ Puett, Michael J. (2002). To Become a God: Cosmology, Sacrifice, and Self-Divinization in Early China. (London: Harvard University Press), p 235-236, 258.
  74. ^ Horace, Odes (Horace), 4:15, (London: Loeb Library, 1956).
  75. ^ Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius Oxford University Press, 1971, p 267.
  76. ^ Donald Redford, "The Sun-disc in Akhenaten program: Its worship and antecedents," Journal of American Research Center in Egypt, 13: (1976), pp. 47–61.
  77. ^ Aidan Dodson, Amarna Sunrise. Egypt from Golden Age to Age of Heresy, New York: University of Cairo Press, 2014, p 204.
  78. ^ Jack M. Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York: Scribner, 1995, vol 3. p. 1830.
  79. ^ Simo Parpola, "Monotheism in Ancient Assyria," One God Or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. Barbara Nevling Porter, Los Angeles: CDL Publishers, 2000, vol 1, pp. 165–209. http://www.aina.org/articles/miaa.pdf
  80. ^ Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, p 225.
  81. ^ Parola 2000.
  82. ^ Michael Hundley, "The Making of Monotheism," Huffington Post, 2017, https://www.academia.edu/34577234/The_Making_of_Monotheism
  83. ^ James Henry Breasted, A History of the Ancient Egyptians, Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2008, p. 273.
  84. ^ Dominic Montserrat, Akhenaten: History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 2002, p. 101.
  85. ^ Arthur Weigall, The Life and Times of Akhnaton, New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, pp. 155–156.
  86. ^ Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World, Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2010, p. 70.
  87. ^ James William Boyd, "Is Zoroastrianism dualistic or monotheistic?" Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 47/4: (1979), pp. 557–588.
  88. ^ Ehrenberg, Erica (2012). "Dieu et mon droit: Kingship in late Babylonian and early Persian times," Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. (ed. Brisch, Nicole, University of Chicago Press, p 110, https://isac.uchicago.edu/research/publications/ois/ois-4-religion-and-power-divine-kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond
  89. ^ Pines, Yuri & Biran, Michal & Rüpke, Jörg (2011) The Limits of Universal Rule: Eurasian Empires Compared, (New York: Cambridge University Press), p 22, https://books.google.com/books?id=eyoNEAAAQBAJ
  90. ^ Pines, Yuri & Biran, Michal & Rüpke, Jörg (2011) The Limits of Universal Rule: Eurasian Empires Compared, (New York: Cambridge University Press), p 23, https://books.google.com/books?id=eyoNEAAAQBAJ
  91. ^ Biran, Michal (2021). "The Mongol imperial space," The Limits of Universal Rule: Eurasian Empires Compared, (eds. Pines, Yuri & Biran, Michal & Rüpke, Jörg, New York: Cambridge University Press), p 227.
  92. ^ Redford 1986, p. 132.
  93. ^ Pines 2000, pp. 319, 324.
  94. ^ Derk Bodde, China's First Unifier: A Study of the Qin Dynasty as Seen in the Life of Li Ssu, 280 – 208 BC, University of Hong Kong Press, 1967, p 2.
  95. ^ Friedrich Tenbruck, (1994). Translated by J. Bleicher. "Internal History of Society or Universal History?" Theory, Culture, Society, (11): p. 87.
  96. ^ The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (London 1776), vol 1, ch 3.
  97. ^ Bernard Porter, Britannia's Burden: The Political Evolution of Modern Britain 1851–1890, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994, ch 3.
  98. ^ Eric Hobsbawn, The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991. Boston: Abacus, 1995, ch 9.
  99. ^ Ostrovsky 2007, pp. 12–13.
  100. ^ Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol 1, p 230.
  101. ^ Balbuza, Katarzyna (June 11, 2014). "The idea of aeternitas of state, city and Emperor in Augustan poetry," Klio, vol 96 (1), https://doi.org/10.1515/klio-2014-0003
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_monarchy&oldid=1250911650"