In an American Military History class I'm taking at uni, we covered WWI a couple of weeks ago. When the professor briefly covered the Russian Revolution, a friend of mine in the class-- who is from Russia-- asked why he referred to Nicholas II as a "Czar", saying that the last Russian emperor to call himself that was Peter the Great and it was incorrect for anyone after. Needless to say this stunned the professor and the class (full of mostly history majors, haha) as we've never heard this before. My Russian friend was very adamant that the term "Czar" was not used after Peter, and that Russian rulers were only called "Emperors" after him.
Has anyone else heard of this? Every book I've ever read that mentioned it always referred to "Czarist Russia", etc. before the Revolution. I don't doubt my friend, but is this just a language issue or some massive historical oversight of the West?
Your Russian friend is correct, but only in a narrow and pedantic sense. Peter I accepted the title All-Russian Imperator in 1721 and it became the first title used by subsequent Romanovs. This was part of Peter I's efforts at building up his prestige and self-styling as a modern European monarch who had no peers. The tsar title implied he was still Muscovite, but imperator is a more ambitious. The title of tsar still remained in use and became part of the various monarchical appendages that signified areas over which the tsar had suzerainty, such as the Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Siberia, etc. The title Tsar also entered into the vernacular as a shorthand for the Russian ruler and subsequent emperors after Peter I sometimes preferred Tsar over Emperor. Tsar came easier as a form of address for a Russian monarchy increasingly reliant upon Russian history and tradition to legitimize itself.
For further reading, check out Richard Wortman's Scenarios of Power for an analysis of Romanov's self-presentation and how it evolved over the centuries.
It's neither a language issue, nor an oversight - it's a simplification. There are some terms used in history that weren't used in real life - "Czarist Russia", "Byzantine Empire", "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (or "Commonwealth of Both Nations").
In case of Russia - Peter named himself an emperor, that's true. There has always been a great argument if the title "czar" means the same as "emperor" or the same as "king". I'd stick with the latter, because khans of small khanates, rulers of Georgia and Bulgaria were also called czars. It was a pretty common title - and back then there could be only one Emperor, Emperor of Rome (there were two - after the fall of Constantinople Russians have coined the theory of Muscovy being the third Rome, however noone backed this claim apart for them). The interesting fact is that the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania didn't recognize the title of Czar of Russia and insisted on calling Russia Grand Duchy of Muscovy - that has changed in 1764, years after Peter has named himself an emperor.
The fact that Peter coronated himself as an emperor is however pretty important. It was part of a dream of europeization of Russia - a dream that was just an illusion. The name of the country might have changed, but the socio-economical system stayed the same. Tsarskoye samoderzhaviye was a thing until the revolution. Although, it's important to remember that there were parts of the Russian Empire (especially Kingdom of Poland, the same probably applies to Finland) that were far more free in terms of socio-economic relations.
Russia was not an "official" empire prior to 1721, right before the death of Peter the Great. It was The Muscovite Tsardom (kingdom). Thus the ruler was referred to as a Tsar (Czar). The reasoning for this is the marriage of Grand Prince Ivan III to a Byzantine princess In the 1400s. The Russians believed that by doing this they had become the sole true heir of the Roman Empires legacy after the fall of Byzantium, and took many Byzantine customs, such as the double headed golden eagle emblem, and Czar referring to Caesar. Thus Grand Prince Ivan III of Muscovy and all the Rus, became Czar Ivan.
With the ascension of Peter the Great, the Tsardoms borders were advanced to finally include a coastline which allowed access to Europe via the Baltic, as opposed to the port of Archangel which was only available 6 months of the year and forced traders to go round Norway to the arctic. This allowed the Russians to build a competent navy with the help of the Dutch, as for Russia to become a true Empire it required a mighty navy to exert it's influence afar and compete with it's Rivals, most specifically the Swedish and Ottoman Empires.
By the end of Peters life, his conquests and domestic changes had changed Russia forever, to both it's subjects and to the rulers of Europe. No longer was it a landlocked backwater, but a legitimate European power and player in European affairs. By 1721 the Russian Empire was declared with Peter as it's Autocrat. From what I can interpret the rest of Europe saw him now officially as an Emperor, as opposed to simply a king, but the term Czar to the Russians simply just transferred over.
References: Peter the Great: His life and times, Robert Massey; Random assortment of University lectures
Peter the Great changed the official title to "imperator," which means "emperor." Tsar is also normally translated as "emperor." Both inside and outside of Russia, people speaking informally often didn't bother to make the distinction. If you'd like to show your Russian friend that Russians also used the word "tsar" to the end of the monarchy, show him this link, which is a russian newspaper account of Nicholas II opening the first duma in 1906. The inscription says "the tsar and the nation" (or, perhaps "the tsar and the people"). http://visualrian.com/storage/PreviewWM/0802/36/080236.jpg
As for the spelling "Czar" vs. "Tsar," it's not about USA-UK English, it's about changing fashions in transliteration. The Cz spelling was once common, but is now archaic, both in the UK and the USA.
