Hubbry Logo
King of KingsKing of KingsMain
Open search
King of Kings
Community hub
King of Kings
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
King of Kings
King of Kings
King of Kings
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The title King of Kings was prominently used by kings such as Darius the Great (pictured). The full titulature of Darius was Great King, King of Kings, King of Persia, King of the Countries, Hystaspes' son, Arsames' grandson, an Achaemenid.
Part of a series on
Imperial, royal, noble, gentry and chivalric ranks in West, Central, South Asia and North Africa

King of Kings[n 1] was an imperial title employed primarily by monarchs based in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Commonly associated with Iran (historically known as Persia in the West[8]), especially the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires, the title was originally introduced during the Middle Assyrian Empire by King Tukulti-Ninurta I (reigned 1233–1197 BC) and was subsequently used in a number of different kingdoms and empires, including the aforementioned Persia, various Hellenic kingdoms, India, Armenia, Georgia, and Ethiopia.

The title is commonly seen as equivalent to that of Emperor, both titles outranking that of king in prestige, stemming from the late antique Roman and Eastern Roman emperors who saw the Shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire as their equals. The last reigning monarchs to use the title of Shahanshah, those of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran (1925–1979), also equated the title with "Emperor". The rulers of the Ethiopian Empire used the title of Nəgusä 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 versions Amir al-umara ("Emir of Emirs") and Beylerbey ("Bey of Beys") appeared.

In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God. "King of Kings" (Ancient Greek: βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, romanized: basileùs ton basileuónton) is also used in reference to Jesus Christ several times in the Bible, notably in the First Epistle to Timothy and twice in the Book of Revelation.

Historical usage

[edit]

Ancient India

[edit]
Chandragupta I of Gupta, generally known as Maharajadhiraja, i.e., the king of kings.

In Ancient India, Sanskrit language words such as Rājādhirāja and Mahārādhirāja are among the terms that were used for employing the title of the King of Kings.[9] These words also occur in Aitareya Aranyaka and other parts of Rigveda .[10]

The monarchs of the Gupta Empire assumed the imperial title of Maharajadhiraja.[11]

The Bhauma-Kara kings assumed the imperial title of Maharajadhiraja.[12]

The Gurjara-Pratihara monarch in the tenth century was titled the Maharajadhiraja of Aryavarta.[13]

The imperial title of Maharajadhiraja was used by rulers of the Pallava dynasty, the Pala Empire and the Salasthamba dynasty.[14]

The regnal name of some Chola emperors, such as Rajadhiraja I and Rajadhiraja II, was Rajadhiraja.

The Vijayanagar rulers assumed the imperial title of Maharajadhiraj.[15]

The title of King of Kings (rajadhiraja) was also common among the rulers of the Kushan Empire.[16][17]

Ancient Mesopotamia

[edit]

Assyria and Babylon

[edit]
King of Kings was among the many titles used by King Ashurbanipal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (depicted strangling and stabbing a lion).

The title King of Kings was first introduced by the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (who reigned between 1233 and 1197 BC) as šar šarrāni. The title carried a literal meaning in that a šar was traditionally simply the ruler of a city-state. With the formation of the Middle 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 and Babylon.[2] Later Assyrian rulers to use šar šarrāni include Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC) and Ashurbanipal (r. 669–627 BC).[18][19] "King of Kings", as šar šarrāni, was among the many titles of the last Neo-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-grandfather Sargon II used the full titulature of Great King, Mighty King, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad.[21]

Urartu and Media

[edit]

The title of King of Kings occasionally appears in inscriptions of kings of Urartu.[2] Although no evidence exists, it is possible that the title was also used by the rulers of the Median Empire, since its rulers borrowed much of their royal symbolism and protocol from Urartu and elsewhere in Mesopotamia. The Achaemenid 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 of Tušpa mentions King Sarduri I of Urartu as a builder of a wall and a holder of the title King of Kings;[22]

This is the inscription of king Sarduri, son of the great king Lutipri, 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

Iran

[edit]

Achaemenid usage

[edit]
Xerxes the Great of the Achaemenid Empire referred to himself as the great king, the king of kings, the king of the provinces with many languages, the king of this great earth far and near, son of king Darius the Achaemenian.

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 the Lydian Kingdom were conquered in 546 BC, the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC, Egypt in 525 BC and the Indus River region in 513 BC. The Achaemenids employed satrapal 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 own Pharaohs. Though it was eventually defeated, the Great Satraps' Revolt of 366–360 BC showed the growing structural problems within the Empire.[24]

The Achaemenid Kings used a variety of different titles, prominently Great King and King of Countries, but perhaps the most prominent title was that of King of Kings (rendered Xšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām in Old Persian),[2] recorded for every Achaemenid king. The full titulature of the king Darius I was "great king, king of kings, king in Persia, king of the countries, Hystaspes' son, Arsames' grandson, an Achaemenid".[25][26] An inscription in the Armenian city of Van by Xerxes 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

Parthian and Sasanian usage

[edit]
Mithridates I of Parthia (r. 171–132 BC) was the first post-Achaemenid Iranian king to use the title of King of Kings. Beginning with the reign of his nephew Mithridates II (r. 124–88 BC), the title remained in consistent usage until the fall of the Sasanian Empire in 651 AD.

The standard royal title of the Arsacid (Parthian) kings while in Babylon was Aršaka šarru ("Arsacid king"), King of Kings (recorded as šar šarrāni by contemporary Babylonians)[28] was adopted first by Mithridates 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 a crown as the customary headgear on Parthian coins and undertaking several campaigns westwards into former Achaemenid lands.[4]

The title was rendered as šāhān šāh in Middle Persian and Parthian and remained in consistent use until the ruling Arsacids were supplanted by the Sasanian dynasty of Ardashir I, creating the Sasanian 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 the Roman 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 was Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD). His reign ended with the defeat and conquest of Persia by the Rashidun 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 with Chinese help, these attempts failed and the descendants of Yazdegerd faded into obscurity.[34] The title Shahanshah was criticized by later Muslims, associating it with the Zoroastrian faith and referring to it as "impious".[35]

Buyid revival

[edit]
Panāh Khusraw, better known by his laqab 'Adud al-Dawla, revived the title of Shahanshah in Iran in the year 978 AD, more than three centuries after the fall of the Sasanian Empire.

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 the Samanids and Saffarids. Although Iranian resentment against the Abbasid 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]

The Shi'a Buyid dynasty, of Iranian Daylamite origin, came to power in 934 AD through most of the old Iranian heartland. In contrast to earlier dynasties, ruled by emirs and wanting to appease the powerful ruling Abbasid caliphs, the Buyids consciously revived old symbols and practices of the Sasanian Empire.[37] The region of Daylam 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 the Ziyarid 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 Sasanian Khosrow I made for himself.[38] At the time he was murdered by his own Turkic troops, Mardavij was planning a campaign towards Baghdad, 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 himself Shahanshah 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 as Shahanshah.[40][41]

During times of Buyid infighting, the title became a matter of importance. When a significant portion of Firuz Khusrau's (laqab Jalal al-Dawla) army rebelled in the 1040s and wished to enthrone the other Buyid Emir Abu 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 title Shahanshah.[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 title Shahanshah, 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 of al-Malik al-Adil Shahanshah was lawful.[44]

Hellenic usage

[edit]
Although the Hellenic Seleucid rulers frequently assumed old Persian titles and honors, the usurper Timarchus is one of few concrete examples of a Seleucid ruler using the title "King of Kings".

Alexander the Great's conquests ended the Achaemenid Empire and the subsequent division of Alexander's own empire resulted in the Seleucid 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 the Seleucid 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 both Antiochus I (r. 281–261 BC) in the Borsippa Cylinder and for Antiochus 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 usurper Timarchus (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 in Pontus (especially prominently used under Mithridates VI Eupator).[47][48] Pharnaces II had appeared as King of Kings in inscriptions and royal coins, and Mithridates 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 the Ptolemaic Kingdom, Caesarion was proclaimed "King of Kings" in the Donations of Alexandria.[50]

Armenia

[edit]
The King of Kings Tigranes the Great of Armenia with four vassal Kings surrounding him

After the Parthian Empire under Mithridates II defeated Armenia 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" in Atropatene) 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 title King of Kings.[52] The Armenian kings of the Bagratuni dynasty from the reign of Ashot III 953–977 AD to the dynasty's end in 1064 AD revived the title, rendering it as the Persian Shahanshah.[53]

Georgia

[edit]

King of Kings was revived in the Kingdom of Georgia by King David IV (r. 1089–1125 AD), rendered as mepet mepe in Georgian. All subsequent Georgian monarchs, such as Tamar 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]

Palmyra

[edit]

After a successful campaign against the Sasanian Empire in 262 AD, which restored Roman control to territories that had been lost to the Shahanshah Shapur I, the ruler of the city of Palmyra, Odaenathus, founded the Palmyrene kingdom. Though a Roman vassal, Odaenathus assumed the title Mlk 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 at Antioch, 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 mother Zenobia soon relinquished it, instead opting for the Roman Augustus ("Emperor") and Augusta ("Empress") respectively.[58]

Ethiopia

[edit]

The title King of Kings was used by the rulers of the Aksumite Kingdom since the reign Sembrouthes c. 250 AD.[59] The rulers of the Ethiopian Empire, which existed from 1270 to 1974 AD, also used the title of Nəgusä 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 of Nəgus ("king"), this practice was ended by Haile Selassie (r. 1930–1974 AD), who somewhat paradoxically still retained the use of Nəgusä Nägäst.[7]

Champa

[edit]

From the 7th century to 15th century, grand rulers of Chamic-speaking confederation of Champa, which existed from 3rd century AD to 1832 in present-day Central Vietnam, employed titles raja-di-raja (king of kings) and pu po tana raya (king of kings). However, some, such as Vikrantavarman II, held the title of maharajadhiraja (great king of kings) instead of raja-di-raja. The early kings of Champa before decentralization referred themselves by several different titles such as mahārāja (great king), e.g. Bhadravarman I (r.380–413), or campāpr̥thivībhuj (lord of the land of Champa) used by Kandarpadharma (r. 629–640).

Java and Sumatra

[edit]

In Java and Sumatra, some monarchs, such as Kertanagara and Adityawarman, used the title of Maharajadhiraja.[60]

Feminine forms and usages

[edit]

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".

King of Kings

[edit]

Queen of Kings

[edit]
"Queen of Kings" redirects here. For the Alessandra Mele song, see Queen of Kings (song).

Queen of Queens

[edit]

In religion

[edit]

Judaism

[edit]

In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name 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]

Christianity

[edit]
See also: Christ the King
Christ as King of Kings, a Russian icon from Murom, 1690

"King of Kings" (βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων) is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the New Testament: once in the First Epistle to Timothy (6:15) and twice in the Book 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 and Ethiopia) employed the title and it was part of the motto of the Byzantine Emperors of the Palaiologan 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 kings rēx or rēgas (ρήξ, ρήγας), hellenized forms of the Latin title rex.[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, the Kings of Axum and the Shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire, leading to "King of Kings" being equated to the rank of "Emperor" in the view of the West.[74]

Islam

[edit]

Following the fall of the Sasanian Empire in 651 AD, the title of Shahanshah was sternly criticized in the Muslim world. It was problematic enough that the adoption of Shahanshah by the Shia Buyid 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 variant Shahanshah) is condemned in Sunni hadith, a prominent example being Sahih 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 himself Malik 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]

Mandaeism

[edit]
See also: King of Kings (Mandaean prayer)

In Mandaeism, the phrase Classical Mandaic: ࡌࡀࡋࡊࡀ ࡖࡊࡅࡋࡅࡍ ࡌࡀࡋࡊࡉࡀ, romanized: malka d̠-kulhun malkia, lit. 'King of [All] Kings' is used to refer to Hayyi Rabbi (God in Mandaeism) in some prayers, including in Prayer 176 of the Qulasta.[77]

Modern usage

[edit]

Iran

[edit]

After the end of the Buyid dynasty in 1062, the title of Shahanshah was used intermittently by rulers of Iran until the modern era. The title, rendered as Shahinshah, is used on some of the coins of Alp Arslan (r. 1063–1072), the second sultan of the Seljuk Empire.[78]

The title was adopted by Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), the founder of the Safavid dynasty. Upon his capture of Tabriz in 1501, Ismail proclaimed himself the Shāh of Iran and the Shahanshah of Iran.[79] The term šāhanšāh-e Irān, King of Kings of Iran, is richly attested for the Safavid period and for the preceding Timurid period (when it was not in use).[80] Nader Shah, founder of the later Afsharid Dynasty, assumed the title šāhanšāh in 1739 to emphasize his superiority over Muhammad Shah of the Mughal Empire in India.[81]

The title Shahanshah is also attested for Fath-Ali Shah Qajar of the Qajar 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 the Pahlavi dynasty. Both reigning members of this dynasty, Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1925–1941) and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (r. 1941–1979), before they too were overthrown as part of the Iranian revolution in 1979, used the title of Shahanshah.[84] Although Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had reigned as Shah for twenty-six years by then, he only took the title of Shahanshah on 26 October 1967 in a lavish coronation ceremony held in Tehran. 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 himself Shahanshah at the age of 21 after the death of his father in 1980.[86]

Libya

[edit]

In 2008, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was bestowed with the title of "King of Kings" after a gathering of more than 200 African tribal 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 of Benghazi, Gaddafi was given gifts including a throne, an 18th-century Qur'an, traditional outfits and ostrich 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]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

King of Kings

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
King of Kings is an ancient royal title denoting a exercising over subordinate monarchs, originating in Mesopotamian civilizations and achieving its most enduring prominence in the Iranian empires from the Achaemenid period onward. The appellation, rendered in Akkadian as šar šarrāni and in as xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām, emphasized hierarchical supremacy rather than literal rule over multiple kingdoms, symbolizing absolute imperial authority. The title's earliest documented application appears in Assyrian records under Tukulti-Ninurta I (r. ca. 1243–1207 BCE), who employed it to assert amid conquests in the . It gained systematic imperial connotation with the , where Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE) inscribed it repeatedly in the multilingual Behistun relief to legitimize his rule over a vast multi-ethnic domain spanning from the Indus Valley to the Mediterranean. Successive Persian dynasties, including the Parthian and Sasanian, perpetuated the title—often as šāhān šāh—to project continuity of Persian kingship and divine favor, influencing its adoption by peripheral rulers like Pharnaces II of the seeking Persian-style legitimacy. Beyond , the title echoed in Armenian, Indian, and Ethiopian regal traditions, underscoring Persian , while its employment persisted into the under Iran's Pahlavi shahs until the 1979 revolution abolished the . Defining characteristics include its association with elaborate court protocols, satrapal governance, and monumental propaganda, which reinforced the king's role as cosmic mediator and conqueror, as evidenced in royal and edicts prioritizing empirical assertions of loyalty from tributary states over abstract ideologies.

Etymology

Linguistic origins and earliest attestations

The title "King of Kings" traces its primary linguistic origins to the Akkadian phrase šar šarrāni, a Semitic compound denoting a supreme ruler exercising dominion over subordinate kings, with attestations appearing in inscriptions from the mid-2nd millennium BCE in Mesopotamian contexts. This formulation emphasized hierarchical sovereignty, distinct yet related to the contemporaneous Akkadian šar kiššati ("" or "king of totality"), which evolved from the Sumerian lugal kiš referencing the ancient city of Kiš and implying universal rule over all lands. The šar kiššati title, first prominently used in the Old Akkadian period around the 23rd century BCE, symbolized comprehensive authority derived from control over the symbolic center of kingship at Kiš, later universalized in Assyrian and Babylonian royal ideology by the BCE. In , parallel superlative constructions emerged independently. Old adopted and adapted the Mesopotamian concept into xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām by the Achaemenid era ( BCE), literally "king of kings," borrowed via intermediaries from earlier Near Eastern models like šar šarrāni, reflecting a synthesis of imperial titulary without direct Semitic etymological descent. This evolved into Middle šāhān šāh, maintaining the genitive structure for overlordship. Similarly, in , rājādhirāja ("king over kings") combined rājā (king) with adhirāja (paramount sovereign), a native Indo-Aryan formation attested in Vedic and epic texts from the late BCE onward, denoting a mahārāja's supremacy without Semitic influence. These Indo-European variants underscore a conceptual convergence on hierarchical kingship, grounded in first-attested epigraphic and textual evidence rather than shared lexical roots with Akkadian.

Equivalents and translations in other languages

The title "King of Kings" manifested in linguistic equivalents across ancient and medieval cultures, adapting the notion of a paramount ruler over subordinate monarchs. In , the primary equivalent was šāhanšāh (شاهنشاه), compounded from šāh ("") and denoting over multiple realms, traceable to Achaemenid usage where it contrasted with the simpler šāh.
Language/RegionTermTranscription/Notes
Greekβασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλέωνBasileus tōn basileōn, a direct calque used in classical texts to describe Persian overlords and later applied to Hellenistic sovereigns claiming universal kingship.
Sanskrit (Indian)राजराज (rājarāja)"King of kings" or emperor, signifying a ruler paramount among rajas, as listed in classical lexicons for supreme monarchs.
Ge'ez (Ethiopian)ንጉሠ ነገሥት (nəgusä nägäst)Literally "king of kings," employed in imperial titulature to assert dominion over vassal states in the Horn of Africa.
Old Malay/Javanese (Southeast Asian)Parameswara (variant forms implying supreme over kings)Inscriptions describe rulers like Ādityawarman as "king of all supreme kings," adapting Indic concepts in epigraphy to denote overlordship in archipelago polities.
These terms preserved the hierarchical essence of the original without implying equivalence in administrative structure or divine mandate, serving primarily as honorifics in royal decrees and chronicles.

Historical usage

In ancient

In ancient , the concept of overlordship akin to a "king of kings" manifested in the Mauryan Empire through imperial conquests and administrative structures that subordinated regional rulers, as evidenced by Ashoka's rock edicts from the 3rd century BCE, which describe his dominion over numerous kingdoms and janapadas without explicitly using the title Mahārājādhirāja. These edicts, inscribed across the subcontinent, highlight Ashoka's control over territories from present-day to southern , implying a hierarchical paramountcy where local kings were vassals or integrated into the imperial framework, supported by a centralized bureaucracy detailed in Kautilya's , a text associated with Mauryan governance around 300 BCE. However, explicit adoption of the title Mahārājādhirāja, translating to "great king of kings," emerged later in the , first attested with (r. c. 319–335 CE), who issued gold coins bearing this imperial designation to signify over subordinate rulers. The Gupta rulers, including Samudragupta (r. c. 335–375 CE), employed Mahārājādhiraja in inscriptions such as the Allahabad Pillar, which enumerates victories over frontier kings and Aryan rulers, underscoring the title's role in denoting military and political over diverse polities like the mahajanapadas' successors. This usage reflected achievements in administrative centralization, with land grants and provincial governance systems that maintained imperial oversight while allowing semi-autonomous feudatories, fostering economic prosperity through standardized coinage and trade networks documented in numismatic and epigraphic records from the CE onward. Yet, such titles also aligned with reinforcement of the varna system, as Gupta inscriptions often invoked Brahmanical ideologies that positioned the king as protector of , potentially entrenching social hierarchies amid expanding imperial authority, though direct causal links remain interpretive based on textual analyses rather than unambiguous epigraphic proof. The title's application thus highlighted a balance between conquest-driven unification and ideological consolidation in post-Mauryan polities.

In ancient Mesopotamia and the Near East

In ancient Mesopotamia, the Akkadian title šar kiššati, rendered in cuneiform as 𒈗𒀭𒋼𒋛, denoted "king of the totality" or "king of the universe," signifying a ruler's claimed supremacy over all lands and subordinate monarchs. This epithet originated in the Akkadian Empire around the 23rd century BCE, evolving from the Sumerian "lugal kiš" (king of Kish), a city symbolizing universal primacy, and was invoked in royal inscriptions to legitimize conquests and tribute extraction from vassal states. Empirical records, including cylinder seals and stelae, demonstrate its use tied to military campaigns that expanded territorial control, such as naval expeditions to the Persian Gulf under Sargon of Akkad, fostering regional hegemony through enforced submission. Neo-Assyrian kings prominently adopted šar kiššati in their annals to proclaim dominion amid expansive warfare, with (r. 668–627 BCE) exemplifying this by integrating it into titulary alongside campaigns against and , where he deported populations and amassed tribute from defeated rulers like the Elamite Humban-haltash III in 647 BCE. These inscriptions detail systematic tribute systems—gold, silver, horses, and personnel from vassals across the —corroborating the title's role in causal mechanisms of imperial stability, as Assyrian garrisons and deportations deterred rebellions while channeling resources to . Similarly, Babylonian ruler (r. 605–562 BCE) employed the title in foundation inscriptions, such as those from his rebuilding of Babylon's walls and temples, asserting overlordship following victories over at in 605 BCE and Judah's submission, evidenced by tribute lists including Judah's Jehoiachin and temple vessels. This usage underscored a hierarchical order where subject kings paid annual dues, reducing fragmentation in the . In adjacent Near Eastern polities, equivalents emerged during anti-Assyrian resistance. Urartian kings, centered around from the 9th century BCE, inscribed titles like "king of kings" and "" on stelae, as seen with Rusa I (r. 735–714 BCE), who fortified strongholds against Assyrian incursions and extracted tribute from tribes, reflecting adaptive empire-building amid conflicts that saw Urartu control territories from to the . Median rulers around the 7th–6th centuries BCE, in northwestern Iran, reportedly incorporated similar grandiose epithets during their consolidation under (r. ca. 625–585 BCE), whose coalition sacked in 612 BCE, incorporating Assyrian administrative practices and networks to stabilize the post-Assyrian vacuum, though direct epigraphic evidence remains sparser than for Mesopotamian cores. These adaptations highlight the title's propagation via conquest dynamics, where victorious overlords reframed defeated elites as subordinates, empirically linking ideological claims to sustained tribute flows and military deterrence across the region.

In ancient and medieval Iran

The title "King of Kings" (xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām in Old Persian) first appears in Achaemenid royal inscriptions, prominently in the Behistun Inscription of Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE), where he proclaims himself "great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king on this great earth far and wide." This usage underscored the Achaemenid emperors' sovereignty over a vast, multicultural domain stretching from the Indus Valley to the Aegean, incorporating numerous vassal rulers and satrapies. Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 BCE), founder of the empire, likely adopted similar titles drawing from Median and Babylonian precedents, as evidenced by Mesopotamian texts portraying him as overlord of kings, though direct Old Persian attestation is absent. The title facilitated administrative decentralization, with local kings retaining autonomy under imperial suzerainty, contributing to the empire's stability through policies of religious tolerance—allowing subject peoples to maintain their customs and deities—and extensive infrastructure like the 2,500-kilometer Royal Road system, which enhanced communication and trade across diverse territories. Following conquests and Seleucid rule, the Parthian Arsacid dynasty (247 BCE–224 CE) revived the title, with Mithridates I (r. 171–138 BCE) as the first to explicitly employ šāhān šāh ("King of Kings"), signaling continuity with Achaemenid imperial ideology. Arsacid rulers positioned themselves as heirs to Persian kingship, ruling over a federation of client kingdoms from to , which preserved empire longevity via flexible vassalage rather than rigid centralization. This approach echoed Achaemenid tolerance, accommodating Zoroastrian, Greek, and local cults, though less emphasized than military prowess against . The (224–651 CE), founded by (r. 224–242 CE), intensified the title's ideological weight, inscribing it on coins as "Ardashir, King of Kings of the Iranians" to assert divine mandate from and legitimacy over Iranian lands (Ērānšahr). Unlike the more pluralistic Achaemenids, Sasanians elevated as state orthodoxy, commissioning texts like the and imposing it on nobility, which critics link to internal rigidity and periodic persecutions of and , potentially straining multicultural cohesion. Yet, infrastructure advancements, including canal networks and fortified roads, sustained control over a domain rivaling Rome's, with the title reinforcing hierarchical kingship—Ardashir as overlord of regional šahrabs—until Arab invasions. In the medieval period, the (934–1062 CE), of Daylamite origin, revived the title amid Abbasid caliphal decline, with (r. 949–983 CE) proclaiming himself šāhānšāh after consolidating power from to . This assertion of pre-Islamic Persian sovereignty legitimized Buyid dominance over fragmented Islamic polities, blending Shia legitimacy with Iranian imperial tradition to govern diverse Sunni and Shia subjects, though without the Sasanian religious impositions, focusing instead on fiscal reforms and patronage of Persian culture. The title's persistence across these eras highlights its causal role in framing Iranian rule as universal yet federated, enabling endurance through ideological synthesis of conquest and accommodation.

In the Hellenistic world and successor states

In the wake of the Great's conquests, Seleucid rulers governing expansive territories encompassing Achaemenid domains adapted imperial titles to assert continuity with Persian traditions, employing basileus megas (Great King) as a functional equivalent to shahanshah (King of Kings) to denote supremacy over monarchs and diverse subjects. This titulature, evident in diplomatic texts and inscriptions from the late 4th to 2nd centuries BCE, facilitated legitimacy amid multicultural rule, blending Macedonian military hierarchy with Oriental overlordship claims. Numismatic evidence, including tetradrachms and didrachms struck under kings like Antiochus I (r. 281–261 BCE), featured epithets emphasizing grandeur, reflecting competition for prestige against emerging rivals such as the Parthians, who later formalized basileus basileōn. Such offered advantages in stabilizing heterogeneous empires through cultural accommodation—Seleucid kings patronized Babylonian temples and adopted Akkadian-style proclamations, as seen in Antiochus I's cylinder inscription invoking restorative kingship over —but also exposed vulnerabilities to overextension, with vast holdings from Asia Minor to fragmenting under internal revolts and nomadic incursions by the 2nd century BCE. , while more insular, echoed this in diplomatic rhetoric toward eastern powers, using amplified basileus forms to project influence beyond the , though direct adoption of "King of Kings" remained rarer, prioritizing pharaonic over explicit Persian emulation. By the 3rd century CE, in the Roman orbit's eastern fringes, Palmyrene leaders revived overt "King of Kings" claims amid imperial vacuums. Septimius Odaenathus, after repelling Shapur I's invasions in 260–263 CE and reclaiming captives from , adopted rex regum to evoke Sassanid dominion, consolidating control over , Arabia, and Armenia's approaches. His consort , regent for (r. circa 267–272 CE), propagated the title on bilingual coins—Greek basileus basileōn alongside Latin equivalents—alongside Roman honors like dux Romanorum, signaling a hybrid sovereignty that challenged both Aurelian's restoration and Persian resurgence. Papyri from and coin hoards corroborate this, illustrating Palmyra's brief apex as a trade nexus leveraging Greco-Oriental prestige, yet the title's ambition accelerated collapse: overreach into and by 272 CE invited Roman retaliation, fragmenting the by 273 CE. This episode underscores how Hellenistic successor adaptations fueled short-term fusion but often precipitated disintegration against centralized foes.

In the Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, and early Croats)

In , the Bagratid rulers adopted the title šahan šah (King of Kings), drawing from Persian imperial nomenclature to legitimize their sovereignty amid Abbasid and Byzantine pressures. This usage emerged prominently in the , with kings at explicitly bearing the designation alongside their royal prerogatives, as reflected in royal charters and coinage that positioned them as overlords of subordinate principalities. The title served strategic purposes in diplomatic correspondence, such as appeals to the caliphate for recognition, thereby inflating status to deter invasions and consolidate internal alliances against Arab emirs. Georgian monarchs of the , a branch of the same Bagratid lineage, similarly invoked mepe mepeta (King of Kings) to symbolize unification of fractured principalities like Iberia, , and proper during the 11th–12th centuries. David IV (r. 1089–1125), known as the Builder, prominently featured the title on copper coins minted circa 1099–1125, pairing it with epithets like "sword of the " to rally Christian forces against Seljuk dominance following victories at Didgori in 1121. This assertion of overlordship extended to charters claiming mastery over eastern and western realms, countering nomadic incursions while fostering ecclesiastical and feudal loyalty. Early Croatian rulers in the 7th–9th centuries, operating in the western periphery with possible ancestral ties to Caucasian nomadic groups via migration theories, focused on tribal consolidation under dukes like Višeslav (r. ca. 800) and (r. 845–864) but lacked direct attestations of "King of Kings" variants in Latin or Slavic sources. Instead, charters such as the Trpimirović foundations emphasized dux or ban hierarchies for legitimacy against Avar khagans and Frankish marchlords, with any imperial echoes likely indirect via Byzantine diplomatic inflation rather than explicit adoption. Surviving inscriptions prioritize unification narratives over superlative titles, reflecting localized power dynamics rather than Caucasian imperial emulation.

In Africa and Southeast Asia (Ethiopia, Palmyra, Champa, Java, and Sumatra)

In the Kingdom of Aksum, rulers adopted the title negusä nägäst ("King of Kings") in Ge'ez, with inscriptions attributing its prominent use to Ezana (r. c. 330–356 CE), who inscribed it alongside claims of sovereignty over vassal territories and linked Aksumite legitimacy to biblical narratives of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. This title signified overlordship in a federation of tributary states, sustained by Red Sea trade in ivory, gold, and spices from the 1st century CE onward, enabling Aksum's expansion into Yemen and Nubia before environmental shifts and isolation contributed to decline by the 10th century. In during the 3rd century CE, Septimius Odaenathus (d. 267 CE), after defeating Sassanid forces at in 263 CE, assumed the title "King of Kings" to evoke Persian imperial authority, consolidating control over Roman eastern provinces through alliances and military prowess. His widow (r. 267–272 CE) perpetuated analogous pretensions for her son , minting coins with regal iconography that asserted independence amid Rome's internal crises, though Palmyra's brief hegemony ended with Aurelian's reconquest in 272 CE. Southeast Asian polities, influenced by Indian via maritime routes, sporadically employed equivalents like rājādhirāja ("king of kings") to legitimize . In (c. 2nd–15th centuries CE), monarchs such as those of the 4th-century Simhapura line integrated such titles in inscriptions, underscoring amid conflicts with Vietnamese and Khmer rivals, bolstered by trade in aromatics and slaves. The Sailendra dynasty in (c. 8th–9th centuries CE) inscribed variants denoting "king of kings" on monuments like , reflecting Buddhist patronage and control over Central Java's rice-surplus economy intertwined with commerce. On , Srivijaya's rulers (c. 7th–13th centuries CE) used rājādhirāja to claim paramountcy over Malay chieftains, facilitating durable trade networks in pepper and that extended to and , though naval defeats by Chola forces in 1025 CE exposed vulnerabilities to external aggression. These adaptations highlighted localized assertions of universal sovereignty, often ephemeral amid ecological and geopolitical pressures, yet enabling cultural persistence through temple complexes and navigational expertise.

Queen of Kings and similar titles

The feminine counterpart to the title "King of Kings" typically adapts the superlative structure to denote a supreme female ruler over kings, though direct linguistic parallels vary by tradition and are empirically uncommon outside specific imperial contexts shaped by dynastic needs rather than routine gender symmetry. In Ethiopian Ge'ez usage, the term Negesta Negestat (ንግሥተ ነገሥታት), rendered as "Queen of Kings," directly mirrors the male Negusa Negast by substituting the feminine negesta for negus, conceptually asserting parallel sovereignty in a system where empresses ruled as elect of God over tributary kings. In Persian imperial nomenclature, the empress title (شاهبانو), derived from (king) and banu (lady), functioned as a conceptual analogue to shahanshah (king of kings), emphasizing the holder's authority as chief consort or regnant over the realm's hierarchical kingships, though it lacked the explicit repetitive intensification of the male form and was more often honorific for wives than a standalone claim of dominion. Similar adaptations appear in other Near Eastern and Caucasian traditions, where "queen of kings" phrasing occasionally surfaced in royal inscriptions to evoke equivalence, but these remained exceptional, reflecting causal constraints of patriarchal inheritance norms that prioritized male succession and limited feminine titles to supportive or interim roles unless reinforced by military or religious legitimacy. Such titles underscore a linguistic pattern of nominal —replacing or modifying the base root for —while conceptually aiming for parity in rulership claims, yet their rarity evidences systemic barriers in pre-modern states, where assertions of "queen of kings" depended on the absence of viable heirs rather than inherent symmetry in governance structures.

Historical examples of feminine usage

, daughter of the Sasanian ruler , ascended as in 630 CE amid the empire's collapse following her father's overthrow and execution in 628 CE, adopting the feminine title bānbishn bānbishnān ("Queen of Queens") as a variant of the male shahanshah to assert imperial continuity during a succession vacuum lacking viable heirs. Her brief reign involved minting silver drachms inscribed with her name and royal symbols, administrative reforms to curb , and a diplomatic truce with the under , which temporarily halted frontier warfare and preserved resources against emerging Arab threats. However, -based legitimacy challenges fueled revolts, including by the usurper , culminating in her assassination after approximately eight months, underscoring how patriarchal norms exacerbated dynastic instability despite her efforts to invoke traditional royal ideology. Azarmidokht, Boran's sister and also daughter of , succeeded her in 631 CE as the second Sasanian , employing a similar feminine regal form during ongoing civil wars and the empire's fragmentation, which causal analysis attributes partly to the absence of established protocols for female succession amplifying factional rivalries. Her rule, lasting mere months, featured attempts to consolidate power through alliances, such as elevating Hormizd V as co-ruler, and coinage production affirming her sovereignty, yet it ended in deposition and death amid accusations of incompetence tied to her sex, illustrating how invocation of feminine titles provided short-term legitimacy but invited exploitation by male claimants in a Zoroastrian-influenced system prioritizing patrilineal authority. In the , Musa (fl. late 1st century BCE), an Armenian noblewoman elevated from concubine to of , effectively wielded power as for her infant son from circa 2 BCE to 2 CE, minting coins with her portrait and the title basilissa (queen) alongside Arsacid imperial motifs akin to "King of Kings" equivalents, thereby manipulating succession dynamics to avert collapse after Orodes' death. This arrangement stabilized the throne temporarily by sidelining adult rivals, but her orchestration of Phraates V's murder to install a puppet ruler provoked Roman intervention under , highlighting how female-led adaptations of overlord titles could sustain rule amid heir shortages yet provoke external backlash due to perceived deviations from gender hierarchies.

Religious significance

In Judaism

In the Hebrew Bible, the title "king of kings" (melech melachim in Hebrew or melech malchaya in Aramaic) denotes supreme earthly authority, applied to foreign monarchs whose power is depicted as divinely ordained yet transient. Daniel 2:37 explicitly hails Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon as "king of kings," crediting Yahweh with granting him dominion over nations, metals symbolizing successive empires, and ultimately affirming divine control over human rulers. Ezekiel 26:7 similarly designates Nebuchadnezzar as "king of kings" in a prophetic oracle against Tyre, portraying his military campaigns as instruments of God's judgment despite Babylonian imperial pretensions to autonomy. Ezra 7:12 employs the Aramaic form for Artaxerxes I of Persia in a royal rescript authorizing temple restoration, underscoring Persian overlordship over vassal states while embedding Jewish exilic return within imperial frameworks. These post-exilic references, concentrated in texts from the Babylonian and Achaemenid periods (circa 6th-5th centuries BCE), emphasize Yahweh's oversight of empires, subordinating pagan kings—who often claimed divine status or —to monotheistic , where their rises and falls serve providential ends rather than inherent supremacy. Rabbinic texts extend the title upward to as Melech Malchei Ha-Melachim ("King of Kings of Kings"), a liturgical in prayers and midrashim asserting absolute sovereignty beyond earthly hierarchies, as in interpretations of Deuteronomy 10:17's "Lord of lords" amplified to critique imperial hubris. This formulation, absent as a direct Tanakh phrase for but rooted in expansions, counters deified ruler cults by privileging unmediated divine kingship, evident in tractates like Berakhot where 's rule eclipses all potentates.

In Christianity

In the New Testament, the title "King of kings" is applied to Jesus Christ in contexts emphasizing his divine sovereignty and eschatological victory. Revelation 17:14 states that the Lamb "will conquer [the kings of the earth], for he is Lord of lords and King of kings," portraying Christ as the triumphant leader of his faithful followers against beastly powers. Similarly, Revelation 19:16 describes the rider on the white horse—identified as the Word of God—with the inscription "King of kings and Lord of lords" on his robe and thigh, symbolizing his absolute rule at . 1 Timothy 6:15 anticipates manifesting "in his own time" as "King of kings and Lord of lords," a description patristic interpreters extended to Christ as the visible expression of divine kingship. These usages elevate the title beyond earthly monarchs, framing Christ as the causal source of all , whose reign resolves historical tyrannies through direct intervention. Early Church Fathers integrated the title into apologetics against imperial cults, affirming Christ's preeminence over Roman emperors. Clement of Alexandria and Origen depicted Christ as the Logos embodying kingly roles like shepherd and pilot, adapting Hellenistic royal imagery to underscore spiritual lordship amid persecutions from 100-300 CE. This interpretation inspired resilience, as seen in martyr narratives where believers invoked Christ's kingship to defy earthly demands for worship, contributing to Christianity's survival and eventual dominance by the 4th century under Constantine. However, medieval applications sometimes conflated it with sacral kingship, justifying divine-right monarchies that claimed delegated authority from Christ, as in Carolingian coronations from 800 CE onward. Such developments preserved doctrinal unity and cultural patronage but invited criticisms of overreach, evidenced by conflicts like the Investiture Controversy (1075-1122), where papal and imperial claims to supreme rule led to schisms and violence, revealing causal tensions between spiritual ideals and temporal power consolidation. Theological views on the title diverge between literal and metaphorical emphases. Eastern Orthodox traditions uphold a literal eschatological fulfillment, viewing Revelation's depictions as prophetic of Christ's visible parousia and millennial reign over subdued nations, integrated into liturgical feasts like the Exaltation of the Cross. In contrast, amillennial perspectives in Western traditions, such as Augustine's City of God (c. 426 CE), interpret it metaphorically as Christ's current spiritual dominion through the church, where "kings" represent all authorities subdued by influence rather than awaiting a future political . Premillennial evangelicals revive literalism, citing empirical patterns of imperial in history (e.g., to ) as precursors to Revelation's climax, arguing causal realism demands recognizing the title's predictive precision over allegorical dilutions. These interpretations reflect broader debates on , with literalists prioritizing scriptural plain-sense reading supported by apocalyptic genre precedents, while metaphorical views emphasize realized kingdom ethics amid critiques of historicist overreach in Christendom's alliances with state power.

In Islam

In Islamic theology, Allah is designated as Al-Malik (The Sovereign or The King) in Quran 59:23, emphasizing absolute dominion over creation, and as Malik al-Mulk (Owner of the Sovereignty) in Quran 3:26, which underscores His unrivaled authority to grant and revoke kingship among humans. This epithet is interpreted by scholars as signifying Allah as the supreme sovereign above all earthly rulers, often rendered in English as "King of Kings" to convey transcendence over temporal powers, aligning with the doctrine of tawhid (divine oneness) that rejects any rival or intermediary in sovereignty. Prophetic traditions reinforce this exclusivity; a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari narrates the Prophet Muhammad stating that the most despised name before Allah on the Day of Judgment would be a man calling himself "Malik al-Amlak" (King of Kings), affirming that no human holds such a title, as kingship belongs solely to Allah. Early Islamic leadership under the Prophet and Rashidun caliphs eschewed royal titles to embody egalitarian governance reflective of divine absolutism, with Muhammad reportedly rejecting offers of kingship from tribes like the Aws and Khazraj to prioritize prophetic authority over monarchical pretense. Later caliphs and sultans, however, echoed kingship motifs in titles such as "Sultan al-Sultan" (Sultan of Sultans), used by Abbasid and Ottoman rulers to denote hierarchical command within the ummah while nominally subordinating themselves to Allah's will, facilitating administrative unification across diverse territories from the 8th century onward. These adaptations drew criticism from purist scholars for risking dilution of tawhid, as human claims to amplified sovereignty could imply usurpation of divine attributes, though proponents argued they served practical governance without endorsing literal equality to Allah. Theological debates persist on interpreting such titles metaphorically to avert (tashbih), with Ash'ari and Maturidi schools insisting Allah's "kingship" denotes eternal, non-spatial rule unbound by created forms like thrones or crowns, preserving transcendence as articulated in 112:1-4. Mu'tazilite thinkers historically emphasized rational negation of likeness to creation, viewing literalist readings as compromising divine incomparability, yet mainstream Sunni consensus upholds the attributes as real but unlike human analogs, balancing scriptural literalism with causal realism of Allah's uncaused agency. This framework enabled caliphal systems to project unified moral order under Allah's viceregency, as seen in the Abbasid era's expansion (750-1258 CE), where rulers invoked divine sovereignty to legitimize conquests and jurisprudence without personal deification.

In Mandaeism and other traditions

In , the supreme deity —rendered as "The Great Life" and the transcendent source of all emanations—is designated with the title malka d-malkia ("King of Kings") in key liturgical texts, including Prayer 176 of the Qolasta, a collection of ritual prayers central to Mandaean practice. This epithet highlights Hayyi Rabbi's absolute over the hierarchical worlds of (alma d-nhura) and subordinate uthras (angelic beings), within a gnostic cosmology that posits him as remote from material creation, which is instead managed by lesser emanations to preserve divine purity. The , Mandaeism's primary scriptural compilation dating to between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE, reinforces this through cosmological narratives where Hayyi Rabbi's kingship precludes any rival powers, aligning with the religion's monotheistic rejection of demiurgic flaws found in syncretic gnostic parallels. Scholarly analyses, such as those by Kurt Rudolph, attribute the title's adoption to Mandaeism's historical with Mesopotamian, Jewish, and Iranian elements during its formative period in the Parthian and early Sasanian eras, though Mandaean tradition insists on pre-Abrahamic origins independent of such borrowings. In , the analogous imperial title šāhān šāh ("King of Kings") served secular rulers like Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE), who invoked 's authority to legitimize their dominion, but was not directly applied to the himself, reflecting a distinction between divine and earthly hierarchy rather than a cosmological kingship. This usage underscores causal influences from Achaemenid without equating to a "King of Kings" in sacred texts like the .

Modern usage

In Iran

The Pahlavi dynasty revived the title Shahanshah ("King of Kings") to evoke 's ancient imperial legacy, framing modernization as a restoration of pre-Islamic grandeur rather than imitation of Western models. Pahlavi, who seized power in a 1921 coup and proclaimed himself on December 15, 1925, initiated this nationalist project by centralizing authority, expanding the military to 127,000 troops by 1941, and enacting reforms like compulsory and a unified legal code to supplant clerical influence. His April 25, 1926, symbolized the break from the Qajar era's fragmentation, positioning the dynasty as heirs to Achaemenid sovereignty amid efforts to rename Persia "" in 1935, highlighting roots over Arab-Islamic overlays. Mohammad Reza Shah, ascending in 1941 and consolidating rule after the 1953 coup against Mossadegh, elevated the title formally at his October 26, 1967, coronation, where he crowned himself and Empress Farah amid rituals blending Zoroastrian and Sassanid elements to legitimize autocratic rule. In a 1971 speech marking the Persian Empire's 2,500-year anniversary, he declared the event a "revival of our national glory," linking Shahanshah to the Great's tolerance and administrative prowess while justifying the White Revolution's land redistribution, which expropriated 1.5 million hectares from feudal landlords by 1971, and women's enfranchisement in 1963. Oil revenues, peaking at $20 billion annually by 1974, funded infrastructure like the extension and dams, fostering 12% annual GDP growth from 1963 to 1973 and aligning with Western powers via (1955) and $16 billion in U.S. arms deals by 1978. These policies yielded prosperity—urbanization rose from 27% in 1940 to 47% by 1976—but drew for authoritarian excess, including SAVAK's documented 3,000 political executions and 60,000 imprisonments by 1978, and cultural that alienated traditionalists by promoting mini-skirts and pre-Islamic festivals over Shia observances. The 1979 Revolution rejected Shahanshah as tyrannical pomp, with Khomeini's January 1978 tapes branding the "a of " and the "satanic," culminating in the dynasty's abolition on , 1979, and exile, as revolutionaries viewed the title's revival as a disconnect from Islamic .

In Ethiopia and Rastafari interpretations

Haile Selassie I employed the title Negusa Negest (King of Kings) upon his coronation as on November 2, 1930, a designation traditionally held by rulers claiming descent from the biblical King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, as chronicled in the medieval text . His 44-year reign advanced modernization through initiatives like the 1931 constitution, expanded education (increasing literacy from near zero to serving thousands by the 1960s), infrastructure such as roads and railways, and diplomatic efforts including founding the Organization of African Unity in 1963, positioning as a symbol of anti-colonial resistance after his 1936 appeal against Italian invasion. However, these reforms coexisted with a persistent feudal system where nobles controlled over 70% of , exacerbating inequality and limiting broader economic progress, such as coffee exports reaching only 30,000 tons annually by the despite potential. Selassie's rule ended amid escalating crises, culminating in his deposition on September 12, 1974, by the military council following widespread unrest. The 1972–1974 Wollo famine, which killed an estimated 200,000 people due to and poor response, fueled student protests starting in 1967 and intensifying into 1974 strikes by taxi drivers, teachers, and laborers over and . These events exposed systemic failures, including delayed aid distribution and imperial detachment, contradicting narratives of infallible leadership. In , a movement originating in during the 1930s amid economic depression and inspired by Marcus Garvey's prophecy of a black king arising in Africa, Selassie's 1930 coronation fulfilled biblical expectations from 19:16, rendering him (God incarnate) as the returning messiah and literal King of Kings. Adherents interpret his titles—Elect of God, Conquering —as divine affirmations, venerating as and rejecting (Western oppression), with practices like nyabinghi gatherings emphasizing his symbolic role in black liberation. Despite Selassie's adherence to Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity and explicit denials of divinity, such as in a 1967 interview where he affirmed worship belongs to God alone, theology persists in viewing such statements as protective misdirection or spiritual tests. Post-deposition veneration intensified challenges for , with his 1975 death under custody prompting interpretations of incorruptibility (no body initially confirmed) or eternal spirit over physical form, sustaining the faith's estimated 1 million adherents worldwide by prioritizing eschatological return over empirical reign outcomes like mismanagement. This theological framework, while empowering anti-colonial identity, overlooks documented lapses that precipitated his fall, highlighting a disconnect between messianic idealization and historical causality.

In Libya and other 20th-21st century claims

In March 2008, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was proclaimed "King of Kings of Africa" by more than 200 traditional African rulers assembled in Benghazi, Libya, during a forum aimed at promoting continental unity under his vision of a "United States of Africa." The title, evoking imperial precedents, served Gaddafi's pan-Africanist agenda, which included advocating for a single African military force, currency, and passport to counter Western influence and foster economic integration through the African Union (AU). As AU chairperson from February 2009 to January 2010, Gaddafi invoked the moniker in speeches to rally support for federalism, positioning himself as a unifying figure amid his financial contributions to AU peacekeeping and debt relief for member states. Gaddafi's adoption of the title highlighted ambitious goals for African self-reliance, including infrastructure projects like the and opposition to foreign military bases, which some African leaders credited with advancing regional . However, it was inextricably linked to his personalistic rule, characterized by cult-of-personality displays—such as donning robes and during the —and a of state-sponsored violence, including the 1988 bombing and domestic repression that alienated international partners. Critics viewed the initiative as a veneer for Gaddafi's authoritarian consolidation, with the title's grandiose tone underscoring Libya's isolation rather than genuine federation. The claim effectively ended with Gaddafi's overthrow during the 2011 Libyan Civil War, triggered by Arab Spring protests and culminating in his capture and death on October 20, 2011, in . Post-2011, no substantive revivals of the title emerged in AU contexts or elsewhere, as fragmented into rival factions and Gaddafi's pan-African projects dissipated amid intervention and civil strife, though some intellectuals later praised his unity efforts retrospectively. Other 20th- and 21st-century invocations of "King of Kings" outside established Ethiopian usage remain negligible, lacking institutional backing or verifiable adoption by political entities.

References

  1. https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Law/shah_shahanshah.htm
  2. https://www.marefa.org/%25D9%2585%25D9%2584%25D9%2583_%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D9%2583%25D9%2588%25D9%2586
  3. https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/aryan/inscription_of_darius_grt.htm
  4. https://www.academia.edu/34274944/Pharnaces_II_and_his_Title_King_of_Kings_
  5. https://cdli.earth/articles/cdlp/19.0.pdf
  6. https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/
  7. https://www.academia.edu/4508983/Mesopotamian_Influences_on_the_Old_Persian_Royal_Ideology_and_Religion_the_Example_of_Achaemenid_Royal_Inscriptions
  8. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rajadhiraja
  9. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shahanshah
  10. https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=emperor&dir=es
  11. https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/50590/what-royal-title-can-an-absolutistic-ruler-have
  12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13639811003665488
  13. https://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/timeline/4/
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145832
  15. https://academic.oup.com/book/27690/chapter/197833231
  16. https://www.thetorah.com/article/nimrod-mighty-hunter-and-king-who-was-he
  17. https://www.attalus.org/armenian/kvan1.htm
  18. https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-ashurbanipal
  19. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/77b2c5db-900a-4f70-b297-cf8eafac8c1e/download
  20. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iii/
  21. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bisotun-iii/
  22. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1880-0617-1941
  23. https://www.parthava.org/2023/05/14/the-parthians/
  24. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1855-0503-1
  25. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ardasir-i/
  26. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azod-al-dawla-abu-soja/
  27. https://www.mintageworld.com/media/detail/12851-shahanshah-adul-al-dawla-the-greatest-monarch-of-buyid-dynasty/
  28. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.08.18/
  29. https://www.academia.edu/37804271/From_Great_King_to_King_of_Kings_The_Development_of_Imperial_Titles_in_the_Seleucid_and_Parthian_Empires_2018_
  30. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/history-queen-zenobia-defied-rome
  31. https://www.historyhit.com/queen-zenobia-of-palmyra/
  32. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bagratids-dynasty
  33. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ARMENIA.htm
  34. https://www.britishcouncil.ge/en/king-david
  35. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/GEORGIA.htm
  36. https://dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/ezana3/
  37. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/ezana-aksum
  38. https://earlyworldhistory.blogspot.com/2012/03/ezana-abreha.html
  39. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/zenobia-queen-of-palmyra/
  40. https://friesian.com/sangoku.htm
  41. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/nscwps12.pdf
  42. https://www.persee.fr/doc/befeo_0336-1519_2016_num_102_1_6231
  43. https://ethiopiancrown.org/imperial-and-traditional-ranks-and-titles/
  44. https://www.britannica.com/topic/shah
  45. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sahrbanu/
  46. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1493/twelve-great-women-of-ancient-persia/
  47. https://www.academia.edu/49092541/Journal_of_the_Numismatic_Association_of_Australia_Vol_30
  48. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azarmigduxt/
  49. https://biblehub.com/daniel/2-37.htm
  50. https://torah.org/torah-portion/livinglaw-5766-shoftim/
  51. https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/09/lord-of-lords-and-king-of-kings-as.html
  52. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/rex-gloriae-the-kingship-of-christ-in-the-early-church/
  53. https://daily.jstor.org/making-sense-of-the-divine-right-of-kings/
  54. https://www.preceptaustin.org/revelation-19-commentary
  55. https://myislam.org/99-names-of-allah/al-malik/
  56. https://sunnah.com/muslim:2143b
  57. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/320/oa_edited_volume/chapter/2388807
  58. https://www.askthesheikh.com/what-does-islam-say-about-anthromophic-philosophy-and-transcendent-view-of-allah-swt/
  59. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isru/hd_isru.htm
  60. https://www.mandaeanunion.org/en/component/k2/itemlist/category/45-mandaean-identity
  61. http://www.gnosis.org/library/Mandaean_Religion_Rudolf.html
  62. https://www.the-persians.co.uk/darius3.htm
  63. https://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/zoroastrianism_under_achaemenids.php
  64. https://www.royalark.net/Persia/pahlavi.htm
  65. https://thelionandthesun.org/906/birth-of-the-pahlavi-dynasty-reza-shahs-coronation-and-his-ascention-to-the-throne/
  66. https://books.google.com/books/about/Speech_by_his_Imperial_Majesty_Mohammad.html?id=x31PzQEACAAJ
  67. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-iranian-revolution-a-timeline-of-events/
  68. https://english.mojahedin.org/article/how-khomeini-hijacked-irans-1979-revolution/
  69. https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2022/01/emperor-haile-selassie-god-of-the-rastafarians/
  70. https://worldhistoryedu.com/haile-selassie-biography-reign-overthrow-death/
  71. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2019/02/04/the-romantic-rewriting-of-haile-selassies-legacy-must-stop/
  72. https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20240912-ethiopia-s-broken-crown-the-fall-of-haile-selassie-50-years-on
  73. https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/haile-selassie-emperor-of-ethiopia-and-architect-of-modern-africa/
  74. https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/bhm-heroes/haile-selassie-king-god-or-redeemer/
  75. https://religionunplugged.com/news/zimbabwe-rastafari-defy-time-and-celebrate-haile-selassies-eternal-legacy
  76. https://www.modernghana.com/news/652146/the-myth-about-jah-rastafari.html
  77. https://www.globalissues.org/news/2009/04/24/1309
  78. https://www.thecollector.com/gaddafi-muammar-african-union/
  79. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/african-intellectuals-remember-late-muammar-gaddafi-as-pan-african/2397444
  80. https://world.time.com/2011/10/26/gaddafi-now-dead-has-third-world-solidarity-died-with-him/
  81. https://www.trtworld.com/article/12737692
  82. https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011
  83. https://studies.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/articles/reports/documents/2011127141817876580Africa%2520and%2520the%2520Arab%2520World%2520after%2520Gaddafi.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.