 | | General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions |
August 25th, 2011, 11:56 AM
|
#11 | | Lecturer
Joined: Jun 2010 From: Rhondda, South Wales Posts: 315 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Thessalonian Yes but Sumerian kings date before Egyptian Pharaohs. Therefore, the first god-king should be a Sumerian not an Egyptian. | Yes, but the earliest Sumerian king who can be archaeologically verified is Enmebaragesi...who reigned sometime around 2600 BC. Given that the Sumerian King list gives him a reign of 900 years, I'd be inclined to take things with a pinch of salt.
If we're going to accept mythical kings, then Osiris was the Pharaoh of Egypt. | | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 12:35 PM
|
#12 | | Archivist
Joined: May 2011 Posts: 114 |
chinese Emperors "Son of Heaven" From BC221-AD1910 | | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 01:14 PM
|
#13 | | Academician
Joined: Aug 2011 From: Scotland Posts: 65 |
It seems there are a few different types of claim to divinity.
Priest King: The King himself is perhaps not inherently divine, but is generally at least theoretically temporally absolute and through this temporal power derive an intercessionary role with God or Gods. Essentially a theocratic monarchy. The High Kings of Ireland and Roman Emperors through their title of Pontifex Maximus are examples.
Chosen by Heaven: These rulers are blessed by Heaven, but can also be rejected by Heaven and thereafter may be deposed temporally should they rule unjustly, represented by natural disasters, famines and droughts, the Emperors of China were renowned as the Son of Heaven and embodied this concept.
Divine Right: Related to but slightly distinct from the Chinese concept, in that Divine Right holds that it is never just for the King to be rebuked by earthly authorities and any attempt to check his power is by definition sacreligious. This was a brief but potent strain in Christian absolutism, and a related idea existed in Korea.
Divine Bloodline: Probably the most extreme of all the various types, not only giving unquestioned authority and the top priestly role to the monarch but also claiming a Godly lineage that sets them above mere mortals. The Emperor of Japan traditionally held, and perhaps technically yet holds this kind of status.
| | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 01:30 PM
|
#14 | | Historian
Joined: Nov 2009 From: Nebraska Posts: 3,467 |
Perhaps Gilgamesh?
| | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 01:33 PM
|
#15 | | Historian
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Loch na Seilg, Alba Posts: 2,578 |
The High Kings of Ireland were married to Banbha in their coronation rituals.
| | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM
|
#16 | | Historian
Joined: Jan 2010 From: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 1,768 |
Perhaps we want to add, what King James said about kings as Gods. As Redcap mentions, the concept of divine kings associated with Christianity. To understand his reasoning of kings as Gods, we need to know of the Scholastic education of the Middle Ages, which was pretty limited to Aristotle's world view and the church dogma. So, to understand the mind set of King James, we need go back to Aristotle's "The Nicomachean Ethics". Because this is what those who fought for liberty, and then the democracy of the US, were fighting against. Quote: James VI & I on Divine Right
Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth: For if you wil consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King. God hath power to create, or destroy, make, or vnmake at his pleasure, to giue life, or send death, to iudge all, and to bee iudged nor accomptable to none: To raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soule and body due. And the like power haue Kings: they make and vnmake their subiects: they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable to none but God onely. They haue power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of their subiects like men at the Chesse; A pawne to take a Bishop or a Knight, and to cry vp, or downe any of their subiects, as they do their money. And to the King is due both the affection of the soule, and the seruice of the body of his subiects. | We think of Aristotle as a leading man of Athens, and we think of Athens as a place of democracy, but we should know, Aristotle's Athens is not the Athens of Pericles. It is the Athens defeated by Sparta and that Aristotle praises the way of Sparta. Pericles who lead Athens at its highest point, must have of been turning over in his grave when Aristotle praised the Spartan laws and control over the people, because this was everything Pericles' Athens stood against. I think most know, Aristotle was not a friend of democracy, but they may not know Aristotle's part in the Church and King tyranny that gripped Europe through the Middle Ages, and the reasoning that associates kings with God is not ancient history.
PS. Some Christian churches today, oppose democracy and believe the King is returning.
| |
Last edited by athena; August 25th, 2011 at 01:57 PM.
|
| |
August 25th, 2011, 02:25 PM
|
#17 | | Academician
Joined: Aug 2011 From: Scotland Posts: 65 |
More from our friend Jamie Saxt, first line sums up his thoughts on Divine Right to a tee: Quote:
GOD giues not Kings the stile of Gods in vaine,
For on his Throne his Scepter doe they swey:
And as their subiects ought them to obey,
So Kings should feare and serue their God againe
If then ye would enioy a happie raigne,
Obserue the Statutes of your heauenly King,
And from his Law, make all your Lawes to spring:
Since his Lieutenant here ye should remain,
Reward the iust, be stedfast, true, and plaine,
Represse the proud, maintayning aye the right,
Walke alwayes so, as euer in his sight,
Who guardes the godly, plaguing the prophane:
And so ye shall in Princely vertues shine,
Resembling right your mightie King Diuine.
| | |
Last edited by Redcap; August 25th, 2011 at 02:31 PM.
|
| |
August 25th, 2011, 06:03 PM
|
#18 | | Historian
Joined: Nov 2009 From: Texas Posts: 1,577 |
Roman emperors were divine by vote, though I am confused on the process. Did the Senate actually vote the divinity into effect or was it simply an acknowledgement that the Emperor was divine?
| | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 10:49 PM
|
#19 | | Restitutor Canadensis
Joined: Nov 2010 From: The Great Indoors Posts: 2,530 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumenes Roman emperors were divine by vote, though I am confused on the process. Did the Senate actually vote the divinity into effect or was it simply an acknowledgement that the Emperor was divine? | Good question. From what I've read, it seems like the vote was to decide whether the deceased's spirit was worth worshiping, sort of like the way the beatification process works in the Catholic church. Anyway, it's unclear how 'godly' the Emperors were seen as, but they almost certainly weren't anywhere near as highly regarded as the central gods.
| | |
| |
August 25th, 2011, 11:35 PM
|
#20 | | Rplegacy Emperor
Joined: Jun 2009 From: western Terranova Posts: 3,275 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Thessalonian Who would be the oldest recorded god-king then? | that would be Gilgamesh, the King of Ur, who was supposedly "two parts god and one part man"
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |