Is the title "king” too European?

To me, "King" is kind of a default term for the ruler of a nation when no better translation is available. While it can carry European connotations depending on how it's used it can be applied to practically any culture. If you want to make up your own word, that's good too, but I've seen the word "king" used in settings reminiscent of everything from Japanese to Mesopotamian cultures.

 

There's also "prince," which used to be used as a generic title for the ruler of a country, but that's not the common definition nowadays.

Anyway, the OP is better off just using "king." You could the leader of a fictional Aztec stand-in the "tlatoani," but I find it to be a stretch that they would have the exact same word as the real life Aztecs did for their leader.

Now, I can understand titles like "duke," or "count" being too European.

 

King, emperor, prince, whatever their origin, have become generic names for rulers. Almost too generic, maybe, but useful a lot of the time. I've borrowed from other cultures for titles a time or two (like using the Irish 'Ri' for king once, even though the culture had nothing to do with Ireland) but I'm more inclined to make something up.

 

I think a lot of people here are missing the obvious fact that we speak English (I’d assume since this an English language forum) so of course the English term would become the default.
It’s be a little strange to just start using the term “raj” for a monarch unless used specifically for an Indian-style setting. But if you want to call the “Indian” ruler a king, it’s like “sure, that’s an accurate term”.

 

King works because it gives a quick frame of reference. Using a new word requires explanation. Me, I have no problem either way as a reader.

 

Sorry, I don’t think I was very clear. I was trying to say that an English-speaking audience would likely see it as a non-culture-specific title.

 

I don't know about other folks, but I don't have a set definition of "king" outside of a ruler, in particular once within the realms of fantasy. I take a very general view, rather than thinking of an historical system or something more detailed. Even by modern standards, a king/queen can be a king/queen and have zero real power.

 

Yeah, my experience of kings in fantasy stories is more general than all of a single, specific variety. More or less power, more hands-on with the whole of the kingdom or less hands-on, shifting levels of influence the further from the capital city you go—or not—and all kinds of interlocking power structures/struggles, for instance with the addition of a strong religious organization running parallel but separate (or in tandem, or actually in power while the king is just a figurehead, or...Maybe it's a network of powerful guilds, or a cabal of wizards, or....)

"King" is more of an expectation, I suppose. Not so much related to my expectations—I will get the details from the rest of the story—but involving the expectations of the characters of the story and the wider populace. What's a king to do? Or, not do? How should I (asks random peasant on the street) feel about my king falling ill and being near death? Do I look to the king for protection when barbarians are at the city walls howling for my death? Or do I make preparations to leave the city on the sly, because I have no such expectation of my king (because he's a do-nothing or an idiot, I know. Or he just doesn't care about us. Or he can't do anything, for whatever reason.) And so forth.

 

Off the top of my head, non European leaders that are/were referred to as Kings include:
King of Thailand, king of Jordan, King of Hawaii, Aztec Kings, king of Tahiti, King of Samoa, king of the Mayans and King of the Incas.

They all have their own names in their own languages, but that is how they are referred to by English speakers. Even the pharaohs are often referred to as Kings or Queens - King Ramses, King Tutankhamen, Queen Nefertiti, Queen Cleopatra etc.

King is perfectly fine.

 

You can use specific term if you want, but king is a good generic term. And no, it would not feel out of place in a Precolumbian American setting any more than term "Emperor" would. Ottoman ruler was called Sultan, but Ottoman Caliphate is usually called Ottoman Empire, making him an Emperor.

In the end, defining his authority and powers is more important than the term you use. As a rule, you don't really need more than three titles:
Duke - a ruler of a country that is not sovereign (so under authority of a foreign monarch - e.g. Duchy of Croatia in 7th century)
King - ruler of a country that has single dominant ethnicity without major minorities (e.g. Croats in Croatia, Serbs in Serbia, French in France)
Emperor - ruler of a country that has multiple major ethnicities (e.g. Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire), or else dominant ethnicity rules several major ethnicities (e.g. French Empire, Russian Empire), or else is comprised of many statelets (e.g. Holy Roman Empire, Japanese Empire)

 

So depends. There are hundreds of ways to say "leader/ruler". For example in my books, you have king, Zhariik (term for a male leader), Zharekii or Zhariik-bahra (prince same language as Zhariik), maliik(king in the giants language), Amyris (prince in giant tongue), Reiis (r-ee-ss) (fae language which is universal to mean a king/prince or even queen/princess).

 

My go-to is Sovereign or Imperator (the original form of Emperor). Of course, king is a generic title that can refer to civilizations that predate Europe. For instance, Ancient Mesopotamian research dubs their leaders kings, and nobody cares.