Ancient Near East Assyria and Babylon 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". Following Tukulti-Ninurta's reign, the title was occasionally used by monarchs of Assyria and
Babylon. Later Assyrian rulers to use
šar šarrāni include
Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC) and
Ashurbanipal (r. 669–627 BC). "King of Kings", as
šar šarrāni, was among the many titles of the last
Neo-Babylonian king,
Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BC). 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.
Urartu and Media The title of King of Kings occasionally appears in inscriptions of kings of
Urartu. 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, , is Median in form which suggests that the Achaemenids may have taken it from the Medes rather than from the Mesopotamians. 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;
Iran Achaemenid usage 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 in the sixth century BC. They conquered
Asia Minor and the
Lydian Kingdom 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. 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. 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 in
Old Persian), 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". An inscription in the Armenian city of Van by
Xerxes I reads;
Parthian and Sasanian usage (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) was adopted first by
Mithridates I (r. 171–132 BC), though he used it infrequently. 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) until 91 BC. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The title Shahanshah was criticized by later Muslims, associating it with the
Zoroastrian faith and referring to it as "impious".
Buyid revival ''
'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. 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. 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. 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. After the death of Mardavij, many of his troops entered into the service of the founder of the Buyid dynasty,
Imad al-Dawla. 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. Those of his successors that likewise exercised full control over all the Buyid emirates would also style themselves as Shahanshah''. 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". When discussing peace terms, Abu Kalijar in turn addressed Jalal in a letter with the title
Shahanshah. 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. 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.
Classical Antiquity Hellenic usage 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" (), 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. 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. Some non-Seleucid rulers even assumed the title for themselves, notably in
Pontus (especially prominently used under
Mithridates VI Eupator).
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. 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). In the
Ptolemaic Kingdom,
Caesarion was proclaimed "King of Kings" in the
Donations of Alexandria.
Ancient India 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. These words also occur in
Aitareya Aranyaka and other parts of
Rigveda .The monarchs of the
Gupta Empire assumed the imperial title of
Maharajadhiraja. The
Bhauma-Kara kings assumed the imperial title of
Maharajadhiraja. The
Gurjara-Pratihara monarch in the tenth century was titled the
Maharajadhiraja of Aryavarta. The imperial title of
Maharajadhiraja was used by rulers of the
Pallava dynasty, the
Pala Empire and the
Salasthamba dynasty. 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. The title of King of Kings (
rajadhiraja) was also common among the rulers of the
Kushan Empire.
Armenia 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. 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. 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.
Palmyra 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. 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. 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.
Middle ages Champa 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).
Ethiopia The rulers of the
Ethiopian Empire used the title of
Nəgusä Nägäst, which was used by the
Aksumite Kingdom's monarchs since the reign
Sembrouthes . The title is 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.
Georgia 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.
Java and Sumatra In Java and Sumatra, some monarchs, such as
Kertanagara and
Adityawarman, used the title of
Maharajadhiraja. According to the royal seals, the monarchs of
Pagaruyung officially used the titles
Maharaja-Diraja,
Sultan, and
Yang Dipertuan. == Feminine forms and usages==