Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of Empire & Imperialism (Special Mention) (14) Neo-Imperialism

Book by Kwame Nkrumah, who coined the concept of neo-colonialism (with cover art from his iconic portrait photograph) (fair use)

 

 

 

(14) NEO-IMPERIALISM

 

In contemporary history or politics, imperialism is usually asserted to be neo-imperialism – informal rather than formal empire.

That is, former imperial powers (usually Western) are asserted to have maintained their imperialism beyond the end of their formal empires by simply substituting neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism, which leverages other forms of power or influence, typically economic power, rather than military force, into an informal empire, or means of control other than formal annexation or rule – and newer imperial powers just tend to start that way, skipping formal empire altogether.

Of course, neo-imperialism may still involve military force when it needs to, but generally neo-imperialism by definition proposes more subtle or indirect means of coercion or influence.

And of course, neo-imperialism can be a nebulous and vague concept, as virtually anything can be said to be neo-imperialism – or taken to extremes, where nations (and corporations) can’t do anything right, even between polar opposite policies or courses of action.

Damned (as neo-imperialist) if they do and damned (also at neo-imperialist) if they don’t, as it were.

 

 

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention: Revisited) (14) Teutonic Knights

 

Map of the Teutonic Order around 1300 by Marco Zanoli for Wikipedia “Military order (religious society)” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(14) TEUTONIC KNIGHTS 

 

It’s time to splash out with some wilder entries, as I usually do in my special mentions – although this entry is not as wild as you might think.

Yes – it’s pretty wild to think of a religious order, even one founded as a military society during the Crusades, as an empire. The Teutonic Knights or Teutonic Order was founded as the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem.

But perhaps not that wild – after all, the Crusaders and their states or military orders served as precursors of European imperialism, as for example with the Reconquista leading directly into the Spanish Conquest of the Americas.

And the Teutonic Knights were arguably the most imperial of military orders, even carving out their own state – the State of the Teutonic Order – in the Baltic during the Northern Crusades. Although let’s not get too much in the past tense as the Teutonic Order still exists, albeit purely religious since 1810 after the military order was disbanded by Napoleon.

Also, I’m on a roll with German imperialism – I’ve managed to include all three German empires (from First to Third Reich) in my special mentions, so this is a bonus round for the imperialism of this definitively German military order, reflected in its very name. That’s pretty much it for German imperialism, except for a few weird African or American colonial ventures by German states prior to modern Germany (Brandenburg-Prussia, Augsburg, and so on).

Anyway, “after Christian forces were defeated in the Middle East”, the Order moved to Transylvania, where it got the taste for blood as an empire (heh) – attempting to build their own state before the Pope and the King of Hungary intervened to boot them out.

If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again. Which the Order did in Prussia as well as the present-day Baltic states, creating the aforementioned State of the Teutonic Order during the Northern Crusades (merging with the Livonian Brothers of the Sword)

From there, the Teutonic Knights “initiated numerous campaigns against its Christian neighbours, the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Novgorod Republic…and they also became a naval power in the Baltic Sea” but waned in power after being decisively defeated by a Polish-Lithuanian army at the Battle of Grunwald.

 

 

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (7) Odyssey

Arguably the most horrific scene of the 2026 Nolan film from the promotional trailer, evoking Goya’s painting Saturn Devouring HIs Son (fair use)

 

 

 

(7) ODYSSEY

 

Let’s face it – the Odyssey is essentially monstrous survival horror.

And divine survival horror – or slasher horror, with Poseidon as the slasher and Odysseus as the final girl.

As some observed upon watching Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey film, some of its scenes – particularly the Cyclops and Circe, although I think that overlooks the underworld – evoked horror, prompting speculation of Nolan’s untapped potential as a director of horror.

Certainly, however, the original epic evokes much of the same horror as elsewhere in classical mythology, not to mention that it is the literal epic template for horror fiction, as it is for all Western literature.

It prompts to mind the interpretation of Robert Graves that the Odyssey is one underworld scene after another, including the actual descent into the underworld. For that matter, that descent into the underworld – or katabasis – is reminiscent enough of horror, what with setting out the blood for the dead to feed and all. Who are these coming to the sacrifice, indeed…?

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of Empire & Imperialism (Special Mention) (13) Republican & Democratic Imperialism

Republican imperialism at its finest – Vercingetorix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar (1899) by Lionel Royer (public domain)

 

 

(13) REPUBLICAN & DEMOCRATIC IMPERIALISM 

 

Republican and democratic imperialism seem obvious oxymorons.

Well, certainly democratic imperialism does – republican imperialism somewhat less so as it simply requires that the imperial state be a republic rather than formal monarchy or government by emperor.  Indeed, the top empire in my Top 10 Empires originated as republican imperialism although it evolved into a formal empire – the Roman Empire. Other examples of republican imperialism include the Venetian Empire as well as the modern French Empire (once France was a republic) and less formal empires such as the American empire, Soviet (and modern Russian) empire, and the Third Reich.

However, democratic imperialism remains an oxymoron – “the intersection, overlap, or tension between democratic political systems at home and the practice or justification of overseas empire, hegemony, or foreign intervention.”

The third top empire in my Top 10 Empires, the British Empire, is perhaps the classic example of democratic imperialism, albeit progressively over time with increasing enfranchisement – which coincided with increasing reluctance or sentiment for maintaining its empire. However, that was reflected also by other empires such as the American empire or those of increasingly democratic or enfranchised western European nations – at least French, Dutch, and Belgian empires, as well as arguably also German and Italian empires.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention: Revised) New Entry (13) Turkic – Timurid Empire

 

Map of the Timurid Empire in 1400, Demis Map Server (from reference The Jalayirids: Dynastic State Formation in the Mongol Middle East Map 3, Wikipedia “Timurid Empire” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

 

(13) TURKIC – TIMURID EMPIRE

 

Yeah, you know those horse blitzkriegs or nomadic empires by mounted nomadic pastoralist tribes from the Eurasian steppes – “those psychos on horseback” – that keep popping up in my top ten history lists?

A large number of them were Turkic, as one of the more prevalent ethnicities of Eurasian mounted nomadic pastoralist tribes – particularly after the so-called Turkic expansion throughout Eurasia from the 5th century AD onwards.

They are distinct from the Mongolic peoples but the Turkic expansion overlapped with the Mongol Empire as the latter enlisted Turkic peoples and confusingly gave rise to various Turko-Mongol “traditions” or ethnocultural syntheses. And to confuse things further, the Turkic expansion extended to the Middle East – giving rise to Turko-Persian tradition – and more famously, Anatolia, as the origin of the Turks who formed the Ottoman Empire and present nation of Turkey.

There’s enough Turkic empires for their own top ten, originating with the first definitive Turkic empire in the 6th century – the Göktürk Khaganate, variously titled the First Turkic Khaganate, the First Turkic Empire, or Turkic Khaganate, which also “became the first Central Asian transcontinental empire from Manchuria to the Black Sea”.

Indeed, Turkish nationalists have compiled their own top ten of Turkic empires, or rather, a top sixteen – the 16 Great Turkic Empires, albeit counting some disputed as Turkic, going back to the Xongniu or Huns.

However, one empire that is not disputed as Turkic – or rather, Turko-Mongol – is the Timurid Empire, founded by Timur or Tamerlane, “the last of the major nomadic conquerors of the Eurasian Steppe” and in doing so, mauled other states of such formidable reputation as the Golden Horde, Mamluk Sultanate, the Ottomans, and Delhi Sultanate. Or as I like to call him, the Timurnator. He was even eyeing off Ming China before his death

“The Timurid conquests and invasions started in the late 14th century with Timur’s control over the Chagatai Khanate” – one of the successor states of the Mongol Empire which I otherwise would have seen as the runt of the litter – and ended at the start of the 15th century with the death of Timur. Due to the sheer scale of Timur’s wars, and due to the fact that he was generally undefeated in battle, he has been regarded as one of the most successful military commanders of all time. These wars resulted in Timur’s supremacy over Central Asia, Persia, the Caucasus, the Levant, and parts of South Asia and eastern Europe, and they also resulted in the formation of the short-lived Timurid Empire”.

While his empire persisted for a century after his death, it slowly fragmented but one of his successors, his great-great-grandson Babur, conquered India to forge a whole new empire that was arguably the most powerful imperial state in the subcontinent prior to the British – the Mughal Empire, which survived even in decline to the nineteenth century.

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (6) Classical Mythology

Yeah, they tear him apart after what we see here – and one of them is his mother. Pentheus being torn apart by maenads in a Roman fresco in Pompeii (public domain)

 

 

(6) CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY

 

Remember my introduction’s reference to modern horror fiction prompting to mind Greek dramatic tragedy and its catharsis – its intense feelings of fear and pity?

Well, here we are, as classical mythology was the usual subject of that Greek dramatic tragedy and catharsis. Or for that matter, the usual structure of Greek dramatic tragedy of hubris followed by nemesis, with the latter usually personified as the goddess Nemesis or similar figures such as the Furies.

And as I said, it wouldn’t take too much to tweak most Greek tragedies into horror films.

The Bacchae by Euripides demonstrates the horror inherent in classical mythology. The tragedy is based on the myth of Pentheus, king of Thebes, who is opposed to the new god Dionysus and his cult. It’s easy to see it as modern horror fiction, from the folk horror of The Wicker Man to cosmic horror – Dionysus as Yog Sothoth, perhaps?

A conflation of folk and cosmic horror pretty much sums up the horror of classical mythology, particularly the latter with brutal divine punishments or cruel divine wrath. There are also monstrous creatures and the body horror of metamorphoses, often combined – and both tend to be instruments of divine punishment or wrath. Even when your adversaries or antagonists are human rather than supernatural in classical mythology, it often resembles slasher horror.

As for the Bible and Biblical mythology, modern horror fiction tends not to adapt classical mythology directly – few or no minotaurs, sphinxes, chimeras, or hydras for example – but instead draws on its themes, tropes, and above all its templates of dramatic tragedy.

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (5) Apocalypse

“Death on a Pale Horse” (and all hell followed after him) – Death as the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse, 1865 engraving by Gustave Dore (public domain)

 

 

(5) APOCALYPSE

 

As I said in my previous entry, the Bible and Biblical mythology tend not to be directly horror, except perhaps for the book in this entry – the Book of Apocalypse.

The Book of Apocalypse pretty much reads as horror fiction, with faithful Christians as the final girl.

Beyond that, it has many elements or figures that recur as tropes in horror fiction, not least the Beast, the Antichrist figure most famously adapted in The Omen film franchise. Even Apocalyptic Jesus can present as a terrifying figure, what with that sword coming out of his mouth and all.

Of course, these tropes loom largest and in their most literal form in religious horror – but they recur in more metaphorical form in other sub-genres of horror fiction.

For a quick apocalyptic roll call, it’s literally one damned thing after another – or one beast after another, as the Great Beast or Beast of the Apocalypse as it is called, is not the only beast in the Apocalypse. You have the Four Horsemen, Star Wormwood, Abaddon, the Locusts of the Bottomless Pit, the Dragon and the Woman Clothed in the Sun (the latter something of a final girl herself), the False Prophet, and Mystery Babylon.

O – and whole swathes of humanity die.

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (4) Bible & Biblical Mythology

“The Vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones” by Gustave Dore in 1866 – from the Book of Ezekiel 37:1-14, a passage evoking horror fiction (public domain)

 

 

(4) BIBLE & BIBLICAL MYTHOLOGY

 

Wait – what? The Bible or Biblical mythology as horror?

I mean, have you read the Bible?

In fairness, the Bible and Biblical mythology tend not to be directly horror, except perhaps for the book in my next entry.

Rather, they tend to be more indirectly horror – that is, they or elements within them tend to be tropes of, or readily adapted to, horror. Indeed, there’s a whole sub-genre of horror fiction that just does the latter – religious horror.

Of course, the focus of religious horror tends to be the figure literally named as the adversary in the Bible, Satan, or the other lesser adversarial figures under him. Satan and his demons are somewhat muted (and mostly absent) for horror in the Old Testament, but the New Testament ramps them up in horror, not least in its stories of demonic possession or exorcism which continue to be tropes in horror fiction. The story of the demon Legion remains genuinely terrifying, not unlike The Exorcist film in its narrative.

The underworld of the Bible and Biblical mythology remains the most horrific of any mythic underworld, both of itself and for its demonic denizens, although again this is muted or mostly absent in the Old Testament and ramped up in the New Testament.

Mind you, even the supernatural force of God or forces of Heaven can be terrifying, whether in visions or intruding into our own world. “Be not afraid” as Biblical angels say to soothe the terror from their appearance – and it does not take too much to reimagine encounters with angels, such as Jacob wrestling with the angel (or whatever you interpret it to be), as horror.

Outside the supernatural elements, the Bible or Biblical mythology leans more towards slasher horror with its human violence – or inside its supernatural elements for that matter, with God as arguably the biggest slasher of all. The Plagues of Egypt – or cycles of punishment for Israel – can read like the Saw films.

Finally, there are many episodes, passages or stories within the Bible that are easy to reimagine as horror in one form or another – for example, the Levite’s concubine or the Witch of Endor, I’m struck by how often that has effectively been done by artists – and by just how many artists have done Biblical horror art, as it were. Durer, Dore, Bruegel, Dali, and so on – enough for the subject of its own top ten list.

 

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of Empire & Imperialism (Special Mention) (12) Defensive Imperialism

Map of all the territories once occupied by the Roman Empire, along with locations of limes and borders (public domain image)

 

 

(12) DEFENSIVE IMPERIALISM

 

“Now look at what you made me do!”.

Alternatively, I needed my empire to defend myself.

As ridiculous as it may seem, empires have asserted that their imperialism was defensive or reactive, and historian have even agreed with or asserted it for them.

“Defensive imperialism is a security-motivated theory of empire-building that views territorial expansion as a reactive response to external threats rather than planned, aggressive conquest…states often conquered reluctantly out of fear, self-protection, or broken treaties”.

The most famous example of defensive imperialism is the one that may also seem most surprising, the Roman Empire. Indeed, the theory of defensive imperialism originated “in Roman studies in the late 19th century”, albeit it persisted after that and was “closest to the argument favored by the Romans themselves”.

“The theory draws its strength from the apparent inconsistency of Roman foreign policy, the slowness with which their rulers acted (or reacted), and their reluctance to annex. In this pattern economic and ideological factors appear secondary at most.”

Perhaps not coincidentally given the theory was contemporary with the British Empire approaching its peak, defensive imperialism was also asserted for the British Empire – “in the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, figures like James Bryce compared Roman expansion to the British Empire, arguing that external dangers and frontier instability forced further conquest”.

Admittedly, claims of defensive imperialism are the exception rather than the rule, particularly for pre-modern empires that tended to cheerfully revel in conquest for its own sake – what is best in life is “to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations in their women”. That quote from the Conan film is famously adapted from one attributed to Genghis Khan in a historical biography of Genghis Khan (Charles Lamb’s “Genghis Khan: The Conqueror of All Men”), which notably also included “to take their horses and goods”. While the latter was probably apocryphal, it certainly reflected the ethos of the Mongol Empire.

Even so, claims of defensive imperialism are significant. After all, two of the top three empires in my Top 10 Empires have asserted it for themselves or had historians assert it for them, the Roman and British Empires – and another entry, the Macedonian Empire, might arguably be added to them, at least in so far as Alexander the Great claimed his invasion of Persia to be a “retaliatory defensive act of justice” (for the Greek-Persian Wars and Persia’s control of or interference with Greek cities).

Claims of defensive imperialism haven’t exactly gone out of fashion either – “scholars point out that ancient and modern powers frequently weaponize defensive language and just-war theory to legitimize pre-emptive strikes and territorial control”.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention: Revisited) (12) Holy Roman Empire

 

Map of the Carolingian Empire in 814 AD – Wikipedia “Holy Roman Empire” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(12) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

 

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

The thousand year Reich, subsequently styled as the First Reich – which means I’ve featured all three Reichs in my special mentions.

It was, as Voltaire famously quipped, neither holy nor Roman nor an empire.

The Holy Roman Empire had some substance to it, but also embodied an idea – or worse, a snub by Pope Leo III to the eastern Roman Empire and its empress Irene by crowning Charlemagne as Roman emperor, in Rome no less, in what must surely rank as a medieval meme.

Of course, underlying that idea was the enduring influence or template of the western Roman Empire, a legacy which many in the European kingdoms or nations subsequent to it sought to revive, even at the expense of the eastern Roman Empire.

That idea had some force to it under Charlemagne, who had achieved the largest unified polity in western Europe since the Roman Empire – although his empire should more accurately be styled as the Frankish Empire- but it soon fell apart after it was divided between his sons.

From that division, Germany emerged as a separate realm from the Frankish Empire, largely from the eastern Frankish empire, and it was from Germany that the Holy Roman Empire truly arose. Historians tend to distinguish the Frankish Empire from the Holy Roman Empire proper, with Otto I as the first Holy Roman Emperor in 962, even if that cuts down that thousand year Reich (from Charlemagne’s coronation in 800) to a mere 844 years.

Again, the idea had some force to it under Otto and his successors, even if it oscillated between that idea as reflected in its title as Roman Empire and the reality as reflected in its title as Empire or Kingdom of the Germans. It was still a snub to the eastern Roman empire, who were deeply insulted by the Pope crowning Roman Emperors – although in fairness, “the Pope was the only one of these people who actually lived in Rome itself” so “it could be argued he was the most entitled to decide who was Emperor of the Romans”.

The actual term Holy Roman Empire began to be used only during the reign of Friedrich or Frederick Barbarossa two centuries and two dynasties later, and under him, the idea had some teeth to it (as well as transforming him into a legendary figure) and continued to do so until his grandson Friedrich II, who attempted to run an Italian-German empire from Sicily.

That reflected the internal struggles within the Empire – with German nobles, with Italian cities or communes, and above all, with the Papacy. “The Empire and the Papacy, both competing for secular and religious power over all Christendom without the means to enforce it, essentially destroyed each other’s credibility. This was not helped by a fairly consistent policy of Emperors to neglect the basis of their power in Germany to grasp at its shadow in Italy – because in order for a German king to become Emperor, he had to go to Italy and be crowned by the pope”.

From there, the empire that had originated as a meme essentially devolved back into one – falling into irrelevancy or worse, the joke of an empire “that mostly clung to life because the ruler of Austria wanted to call himself an emperor and the rest of Europe was willing to humor him”. As Marx quipped, history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

And above all, it was incredibly convoluted, both in history and structure – an emperor elected by powerful regional lords and clergy, in an empire that went from 300 to 1800 “sovereign kingdoms, duchies, free cities, and other entities”.

Hence Voltaire’s famous quip about it – and Napoleon doing away with the whole dog’s breakfast of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.