Monthly Archives: October 2024

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (8) Worst: Constantine II

Posted on by

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

 

 

(8) WORST: CONSTANTINE II –

CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(337 – 340: 2 YEARS 7 MONTHS)

 

A whiny little toad, who tried to usurp his younger brother and got pawned instead.

Letting his father’s name down, Constantine II spent his time whining that he didn’t get more than the western third of empire he got in 337 AD as one of three brothers because he was the eldest.

He was of course fine with his brother Constantius – the one who actually got things done – doing the dirty work of whittling down their father’s male relatives in what is known as the massacre of the princes so the three brothers could inherit their father’s empire. He just thought he was entitled to more of it. Constans got the central third, including Italy, while Constantius got the eastern third – you know, the third fighting the Persian Sassanids.

So Constantine bullied his younger brother and ward Constans as an easy target. And yes – I said ward, because Constantius had designated Constantine II the guardian of Constans until Constans came of age.

Constantine II successfully bullied Constans into giving him part of Africa but squabbled over Constans retaining Carthage, refused to relinquish his guardianship when Constans turned eighteen, and just tried to usurp Constans instead, marching into Italy with his troops in 340 AD.

Only to be ambushed and killed by the forces of Constans – not even by Constans or his main forces, but by a detachment of troops Constans sent ahead of himself and his main forces while taking care of imperial business in Dacia, fighting actual enemies of Rome.

Congratulations, Constantine II – you played yourself.

Constans then got his brother’s third of the empire, consisting of Hispania, Gaul and Britain

 

MAXIMUS

 

Yeah, right.

 

DEIFICATION OR DAMNATION

 

No damnation or deification as far as I’m aware

 

EMPIRE DEBASER

 

I’ve gone with empire debaser for him – it can’t be said that he broke or debauched the empire, but I think it can be said he debased it. His father had fought to unify the empire and eliminate usurpers – only for Constantine II and his brothers to divide it, compounded by him trying to usurp his brother’s realm – preempting the successful usurpation of Constans by Magnentius a decade later.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yeah – Dovahhatty does it right, ranking him as a virgin, as in my feature image.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention) (20) Hollywood & Playboy

Posted on by

 

 

(20) HOLLYWOOD & PLAYBOY

 

If the Capitol, Pentagon, or White House represents the American empire’s Augustus, then Hollywood is its Virgil. Or some might say, its Caligula or Nero. Or some even more wild voices might say, a decadent American empire all of itself, at odds with the Republic – Hollywood Babylon.

Or the point where the frontier became film, from the American West to the western, that archetype of American film which one might argue that all American films still are at heart. Or where the West became the road, where all roads lead to the road movie.

We might be at the wildest of my wild tier or bottom of my empire iceberg here but aren’t we just talking about the apex of American cultural imperialism or “soft power”? Well yes, but that doesn’t mean Hollywood can’t rank special mention as empire.

Of course, my preceding special mention for Joshua Norton might outrank this one as the wildest tier or bottom of my empire iceberg but perhaps that he made his imperial proclamation from San Francisco demonstrates a consistent Californian or West Coast exuberance when it comes to American empire – or empires.

I’m joking and I’m serious. After all, if a religious military order like the Teutonic Knights or even more so a company like the East India Company can each rank special mention in my top empires, why not the American entertainment industry for which Hollywood is a geographical focus and metonym? And outside Washington DC, the only other metonym of American influence or power as evocative as Hollywood is Wall Street (except perhaps for Silicon Valley, also on the West Coast and indeed in California).

Hollywood may not have the military and political control over territory as the Teutonic Knights, although it has often been the Homer of the Pentagon’s Iliad or overseas odysseys – but there does seem to be a certain metaphorical parallel between crusading military orders carving out their empire in the converted eastern frontier of Europe with American studios doing the same in their settled western frontier.

The better comparison might be with the East India Company – perhaps not quite to the extent of the latter’s monopoly in world trade (or the latter’s military force), but at least a similar dominance of the world entertainment industry and popular culture. Hollywood was fortunate in that its rise overlapped that of the United States to global dominance in the twentieth century.

That prompts a segue to the second part of this entry – Playboy as empire.

Yes – again I’m joking and serious. In jest, I strive to reserve my final special mention for some kinky entry where the subject permits – and I believe this fulfills my obligation.

In seriousness, like Hollywood – with which there is considerable overlap, at least in its magazine interviews, celebrity pictorial features, and guest list at the iconic Playboy Mansion – Playboy is a metonym for the American adult entertainment industry in general.

Some might argue that is essentially synonymous with Hollywood, particularly those who describe the latter as Hollywood Babylon – it even shared much the same Californian geographical focus, most famously San Fernando Valley. I’ve read that American predominance in the world adult entertainment industry is – or at least was – even more pronounced than that of Hollywood for the general entertainment industry, such that it might even rank (or have ranked) as the American East India Company in terms of monopoly and share of world trade. I don’t know how true or accurate that is but if so, it should be a source of patriotic pride – USA! USA! USA!

Setting aside that metonym for the adult entertainment industry in general, there’s something to be said for the corporate holdings of Playboy itself as an empire. Of course, you could say that of many companies or corporations, drawing parallels with empires in financial, economic and even cultural spheres. Indeed, McDonalds or Coca Cola would perhaps be the iconic archetypes, particularly as the symbolic vanguards of American influence or power, the contemporary equivalent of gunboat diplomacy.

But there’s something to be said of the American adult entertainment industry in general and Playboy in particular, as the global vanguard or dare I say it, missionary position, of American sexual liberalism – and libertinism, the American Sexual Revolution.

Also, I can’t help but identify parallels with the rise and fall of the Playboy magazine with the Roman empire, with Hugh Hefner as its founding Augustus – and its Tiberius, albeit in the Mansion rather than Capri and with bunnies instead of minnows.

Of course, that may be because I was raised on Playboy as much as Rome in my youth – literally, if covertly on my part, as my father had the entire collection of Playboy magazines, until my mother descended on them like the Vandals.

That last seems something of a microcosm for the fall of Playboy as print magazine (and clubs) – echoing the fall of the western empire in that, a little like the eastern empire, the Playboy corporate brand and holdings have survived the fall of the magazine, not least as a cultural icon. I believe that much like the Holy Roman Empire and various states claiming succession from the Roman Empire, some international versions of the magazine are still ongoing in print.

Dare I jest that Playboy will always be my Holy Roman Empire? Or like the Last of the Romans, I still hold to the Playboy lifestyle and Playboy philosophy – nay, the Playboy religion, my bacchae and golden ass, my holy grail of adventurous bed and questing beast, so much so I made pilgrimage to the Playboy Mansion when I visited Los Angeles.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Horror Films (6) Let Me In

Posted on by

Poster art for the film

 

 

(6) LET ME IN (2010)

 

It wouldn’t be a top ten list of horror films without at least one vampire film.

Although is it just me or are there very few vampire films that are genuine horror (as in genuinely scary)? Is it just that we’re too familiar with vampires (or that they’re too played out) for them to be a true source of horror? Sure, there are many vampire films, but they seem to me to be effectively films in (or at least combining) other genres. (And don’t get me started on the abomination that is Twilight).

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a fan of quite a few vampire films, which I rank in my special mentions (and indeed stake my top ten vampire films), but they tend to not quite cross my threshold of genuine horror.

And again, don’t get me wrong – I have been genuinely scared (in that I had actual nightmares – my horror litmus test!) by vampire novels, including the big daddy of them all, Dracula. (Although it probably helps if you read it in your childhood with a fever). Not to mention Stephen King’s Dracula in Maine, also known as Salem’s Lot.

However, it takes a return to the depiction of vampires as alien predatory entities to humanity to invoke horror on the screen for me – the shark-like predators of 30 Days of Night, or the Lovecraftian parasites in the TV series The Strain.

So that is why I found Let Me In a refreshingly revamped horror film – revamped also from its origin in the Swedish novel and film Let The Right One In. For one thing, there is just something inherently unsettling about child vampires – in this case, the vampire girl played by Chloe Grace Moritz. For another, the horror was not so much from any scares in it, but again more conceptual or existential – particularly in the relationship between the vampire girl and an alienated and bullied boy. In the words of TV Tropes, the film “is most notable for being simultaneously heartwarming and horrifying. Although it has few outright scares, it can be a deeply disturbing movie, as the main characters’ relationship invokes both young love and a temptation into darkness”.

You know it’s a good horror film, when Stephen King raves about it – “Let Me In is a genre-busting triumph. Not just a horror film, but the best American horror film in the last 20 years.”

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP-TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (8) Best: Diocletian

Posted on by

 

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

 

(8) BEST: DIOCLETIAN –

NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY

(284 – 305 AD: 20 YEARS 5 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

Dominus of the Dominate – Diocletian ended the Crisis of the Third Century and stabilized the empire, instituting what has been called the Dominate, as opposed to the Principate founded by Augustus, via the system of government for which he is best known, the Tetrarchy.

“It is perhaps Diocletian’s greatest achievement that he reigned twenty-one years and then abdicated voluntarily and spent the remaining years of his life in peaceful retirement.”

That was a rare achievement for emperors in the third and fourth century – few emperors died naturally with most dying violently. He was also the first emperor to abdicate voluntarily to peaceful retirement, from which he could not be coaxed back, growing cabbages that have become the stuff of legend.

“If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed.”

That people sought to coax him back as emperor suggests something of a mixed quality to his reign that was summed up by the Youtuber Spectrum (who also ranked him in eighth place) – “the dude who tried to fix all the issues of the empire and to be honest kind of failed”.

His pet Tetrarchy failed when he wasn’t in it to hold the hands of his co-emperors – and of course it also inherently involved the concept of the division of the empire that would ultimately become permanent between its eastern and western halves. As Adrian Goldswothy observed, it meant fewer civil wars in a more muted form of the crisis of the third century, rather than a true return to the lost comparative stability of the first and second centuries.

The less said about his economic policies such as his edicts for price controls the better, as they were often an abject failure, resulting in higher tax burdens, inflation, reduced social mobility and effectively pre-empting feudalism. Diocletian also institutionalized the Roman equivalent of the military-industrial complex and bureaucratic state, although some historians have considered the burden of the latter to be overstated.

And of course, there was his Great Persecution of Christianity, which would ultimately prove to be ineffective and counter-productive, as well as seeing him maligned by subsequent Christian emperors after this persecution had been replaced by tolerance and the favoritism.

Even the Dominate which he instituted moved the style of government, particularly to modern democratic eyes, away from the more senatorial and collegiate style of the Principate, to one that was more authoritarian, autocratic, bureaucratic, and despotic.

However, it was one that served the needs of the empire at the time better than the Principate and continued to do so with modifications until at least into the seventh century.

Above all, it kept the borders of the empire secure under Diocletian and thereafter for almost a century – with Diocletian, who had risen to the throne from humble origins through a distinguished military career, campaigning successfully against Germanic tribes and Sarmatians at the Danube (taking the victory title of Sarmaticus Maximus), a rebellion and usurper in Egypt, and the Sassanids in Persia.

 

MAXIMUS

 

O boy – Germanicus Maximus, Sarmaticus Maximus, Persicus Maximus, Britannicus Maximus (suppressing the Carausian Revolt or so-called Britannic Empire), Carpicus Maximus, Armenicus Maximus, Medicus Maximus, and Adiabenicus Maximus. Half of those come from campaigns against the Sassanid Persians – arguably the empire’s best campaigns against the Sassanids, reversing the defeats of the Crisis and securing the empire’s best terms of victory against the Sassanids that would endure for half a century.

 

DEIFIED AND DAMNED

 

Well, it was the Dominate after all – divine honors came with the territory. He even called himself Jovius.

However, Christianity has a long memory of its persecutions – there was no formal damnatio memoriae but he was removed from monuments and his memory was diminished under Constantine, both to magnify Constantine himself and because of Constantine’s Christianity.

 

EMPIRE MAKER

 

Yes, yes – technically there was only one empire maker as such, but Diocletian qualifies for his Tetrarchy and the Dominate, effectively instituting a new Roman empire from the Crisis of the Third Century.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty does Diocletian right as a chad in the video named for the Tetrarchy – and as the emperor holding the whole thing together despite the deficiencies of his fellow tetrarchs.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Horror (7) It Follows

Posted on by

The scene from the film for my feature quote in which the basic premise is explained to the heroine

 

(7) IT FOLLOWS (2014)

 

“It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity or remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop…ever, until you are dead!”

No, wait – that’s the Terminator but it’s essentially the same as the “It” in It Follows. Think the Terminator as sex demon – and not in a good way, the way that would involve my fever dreams of Kristanna Loken’s T-X.

As in the shapeshifting demonic stalker, invisible to all but whom It is stalking, as STD allegory kind of way.

“You’re not going to believe me. But I need you to remember what I’m saying. Okay? This thing…it’s going to follow you. Somebody gave it to me, and I passed it to you, back in the car. It could look like someone you know, or it could be a stranger in a crowd. Whatever helps it to get close to you. It could look like anyone…but there is only one of it. And sometimes…sometimes I think it looks like people you love. Just to hurt you. […] You get rid of it, okay? Just sleep with someone as soon as you can. Just pass it along. If it kills you, it’ll come after me. Do you understand?”

That quote from the cowardly cad Hugh who infects the female protagonist with it pretty much sums up the film’s plot and premise. Otherwise the mythos of It – where It came from or anything meaningful about It other than Its relentless pursuit of Its prey, albeit at leisurely walking pace – remains tantalizingly unknown, adding to the creepiness.

The film received critical acclaim and grossed many times more than its shoestring budget – which is something of the appeal of horror films for studios – prompting a sequel presently in development, They Follows.

It has also achieved, dare I say it, a cult following “with many calling it a modern horror classic and one of the best horror films of the 2010s” – “smart, original and, above all, terrifying, It Follows is the rare modern horror film that works on multiple levels – and leaves a lingering sting.”

Part of those levels or that sting is the deeper thematic interpretations with respect to the source and symbolism of It – of which the most obvious is that STD allegory but which extends to other meanings.

As per its director – “I’m not personally that interested in where ‘it’ comes from. To me, it’s dream logic in the sense that they’re in a nightmare, and when you’re in a nightmare there’s no solving the nightmare. Even if you try to solve it…We’re all here for a limited amount of time and we can’t escape our mortality… but love and sex are two ways in which we can at least temporarily push death away.”

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Horror Films (8) The Babadook

Posted on by

 

 

(8) THE BABADOOK (2014)

 

“Why can’t you just be normal?”

Well, I guess there’s no hope of that – the kid’s Australian. As is the rest of this psychological or supernatural horror film.

I say psychological or supernatural because the titular monster that haunts the widow protagonist – or is that antagonist? – struggling to raise the son she admonishes as lacking normalcy works on both levels, perhaps literally.

And that’s pretty much all one can say of this film’s premise and plot without spoiling it, except of course for the ultimate moral of the story that pop-up books are evil. And the meme that the Babadook is apparently gay because Netflix categorized him that way.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (9) Worst: Arcadius

Posted on by

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVIII: Barbarians at the Gates

 

(9) WORST: ARCADIUS –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE
(395 – 408 AD: 13 YEARS 3 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

And now we come to the worst imperial dynasty, the Theodosian dynasty – the dynasty virtually synonymous with the fall of the Roman empire, and effectively the Roman counterpart to the barbarians at the gates. Or dare I say it, Rome’s own home-grown barbarians in the gates?

Theodosius was the last emperor to (briefly) rule the empire as a whole, institutionalizing its imperial division by inflicting his two terrible sons on it, Honorius and Arcadius – one on each of its western and eastern halves. The western empire did worse with the son it got but it’s as if the empire was trying hard to churn out the worst possible imperial clones to ensure its fall. As we’ll see, the western empire did that twice over with Valentinian III as a virtual clone of Honorius but it’s like the eastern empire also got their Honorius clone with Arcadius.

Arcadius was much like his brother in the western empire, weak and useless, puppeted by subordinates but luckier in that the eastern empire was more robust. He was also fortunate to have capable administrators, notably the prefect Anthemius. I’m also prepared to give Arcadius slightly more credit than his brother because he seems to have had major health issues which incapacitated him and led to an early death, sparing history more of his reign.

Like his brother, Arcadius also caused major issues for the empire’s supreme military commander Stilicho as the latter attempted to shore up the eastern half of the empire against its Germanic barbarian invaders as he did the western half. Those Germanic barbarian invaders were the Visigoths led by Alaric, rampaging in the Balkans (before rampaging in Italy itself). Arcadius stymied Stilicho’s attempts to defend the eastern empire, albeit as always under the influence of subordinates – before incredibly declaring Stilicho as public enemy and appointing Alaric, the leader of the Goths sacking the eastern empire, as magister militum or military commander to defend that same empire.

At least Arcadius didn’t actively betray and execute Stilicho, as opposed to his brother as western emperor. However, the damage was done, albeit ultimately more to the western empire and Rome itself, with this and other actions widening the ever more gaping division between the western and eastern empires.

 

EMPIRE-BREAKER

 

Well, obviously – but less so than others in his dynasty, notably his brother in the western empire.

 

MAXIMUS / DEIFICATION

 

No need to bother with imperial victory titles or deification – nothing to see here, although in fairness I think the institutionalization of Christianity had done away with deification by then.

 

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

The first depiction by Dovahhatty of an emperor as virgin in this top ten but by no means the last – and appropriately presented as more pitifully pathetic than others. The virgin part is of course from the metaphorical virgin-chad meme – he was succeeded by his son Theodosius II.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (9) Best: Valentinian

Posted on by

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XXVII: Imperial Wrath

 

(9) BEST: VALENTINIAN –
VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE
(364 – 375 AD: 11 YEARS 8 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides – by barbarians. And he will strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger. And they will know his name is…Valentinian

Apologies to Tarantino, although I think Valentinian would have dug Tarantino’s vibe. Certainly I think if any characteristic described Valentinian, it was furious anger, albeit that of the righteous man.

I mean, he literally died of anger – from a stroke yelling at envoys from Germanic tribes for not sticking to peace treaties, although I prefer the Dovahhatty version where Valentinian had his stroke choking them out in pure rage.

It’s not a bad way to go – and who doesn’t secretly yearn for something similar, going out in a blaze of glory at work, yelling at someone who richly deserves it as I rage into, not against, the dying of the light. No? Just me, then?

Valentinian was the last great western emperor, “due to the successful nature of his reign and the rapid decline of the empire after his death” – certainly the last worthy of the title of the Great as he is also known as Valentinian the Great (although I understand that was by a convention that did not so much connote greatness as a term that also effectively translated as the first of his name).

Hell, I’ll say he was the last great emperor in either half of the empire until after 476 AD. Yes – I’m looking at you, Theodosius the so-called Great. I’ll deal with him later but I tend to agree with Dovahhatty who has Theodosius muse to himself “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'”. Okay – I don’t quite go that far but you won’t be seeing him on the best or great side of the ledger. Just don’t confuse him with his father and Valentinian’s top general, Theodosius the Elder or ‘Count’ Theodosius (as his military title loosely translates).

And yes – I haven’t forgotten about Majorian. It’s just that Valentinian was the last emperor to campaign beyond the Rhine or indeed secure the borders of the empire against barbarians, as he skilfully and successfully defended against Germanic invasions – to keep the barbarians at the gates

After Valentinian’s death, the barbarians were inside the gates – “the calls are coming from inside the house!”. The Romans weren’t fighting them beyond the borders or even at the borders, but inside the borders, where they were to stay.

After Valentian, it’s depressing that the mark of a good emperor – such as Majorian – was one who fought and defeated the barbarians inside the empire. And that was depressingly rare, literally only a couple of emperors. Even emperors fighting at all were rare, as that was increasingly done by their military leaders – increasingly drawn from the barbarians themselves – who ruled the empire in all but name, although in fairness quite a few of them also fought and defeated barbarians inside the empire, including my favorites Stilicho and Aetius.

Back to Valentinian, it was like the fourth century trying to replay all the greatest hits of the crisis of the third century but Valentinian was having none of it and kicked it all back to the curb – Germanic tribes in Gaul and Germania, the ‘Great Conspiracy’ of rebellion and invaders in Britain, rebellion and usurpers in Africa, and Germanic tribes at the Danube.

You don’t rack up those victory names for nothing. Okay, occasionally emperors did, but not Valentinian – I’ve seen listed for him Germanicus Maximus, Alamanicus Maximus (with the Alamanni as perhaps his favorite punching bag), Francicus Maximus (for the Franks) and Gothicus Maximus.

Sadly, his brother Valens – whom Valentian made his eastern co-emperor – did not quite have the same mettle or military prowess, which is what led to those barbarians inside the gates after a little battle of which you might have heard, the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD.

His sons had even less. So much for the so-called Valentinian dynasty, which saw the empire crumble, albeit not as much as the – shudder – Theodosian dynasty. The only Valentianian dynasty was Valentinian.

Valentinian occasionally has the reputation – among some modern historians as well as contemporaries – as a brute, but he founded schools, as well as providing state-funded orphanages, medical services in Rome’s poorest districts and penalties for infanticide. He was also capable in administration, particularly financial administration – he improved tax collection (including relief for the poor) and was frugal in spending. And unlike his brother Valens, he actually upheld religious tolerance (apart from slapping the odd pagan).

Okay, there’s the story about his two pet bears which he used to execute people, but I’m not sure I believe that. There’s also the story of Valentinian and his wife swinging with Justina, the hottest woman in the Roman Empire, such that he made a law to have Justina as his second wife (and mother of his son Valentinian II). That’s probably as much gossip as the story about the bears but it makes me respect him even more.

 

MAXIMUS:

 

As I noted before – Germanicus Maximus, Alamanicus Maximus, Francicus Maximus and Gothicus Maximus.

 

DEIFIED:

 

Despite being Christian, the empire still retained its classical paganism and its deification of emperors – so he was deified

 

EMPIRE SAVER:

 

One of the last, if not the last, in the classical Roman empire.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty of course has him as a chad – as depicted in my feature image, one of my favorite scenes from the Unbiased History of Rome series – and indeed hails him as the last great western emperor.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Horror Films (9) The Ritual

Posted on by

 

 

(9) THE RITUAL (2017)

 

What can I say? Despite mixed reviews, I’m a fan of this British supernatural folk horror film’s “monster”, which still has one of the most strikingly innovative designs I’ve seen in horror film, and with literal mindbending effect on its prey – or sacrificial victims – to match.

Not to mention the sense of forested claustrophobia and creeping doom for its British hiker protagonist and friends taking the worst shortcut ever through the weird woods of Sweden.

Ah yes, it’s that old fantasy or horror trope – don’t go into the woods. Or Sweden.

Apparently it’s (loosely) based on a novel of the same name by Adam Nevill – “and is best described as the love child of The Blair Witch Project and The Wicker Man”, except far better than the former, not least for seeing the horror stalking the protagonist hikers.

 

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (10) Worst: Petronius Maximus

Posted on by

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XXIX: Fall of Rome

 

 

(10) WORST: PETRONIUS MAXIMUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS

(455 AD: 2 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

If Majorian was the zenith of the non-dynastic last western Roman emperors after the end of the Theodosian dynasty in 455 AD, Petronius Maximus was the absolute nadir – and hence matching wildcard tenth place entry in my top ten worst Roman emperors.

I mean, while the other non-dynastic last western Roman emperors apart from Majorian were generally useless or puppets, Petronius Maximus was actively destructive, with a cowardly low rat cunning quality to boot.

Admittedly, his most destructive acts were prior to becoming emperor – because they were how he ascended to the imperial throne in the first place. They were two-fold – firstly duping his predecessor Valentinian III into assassinating the man who was effectively the one holding the empire together, Flavius Aetius, and secondly then orchestrating the assassination of Valentinian III, adding treacherous insult to injury by enlisting two loyal followers of Aetius among his predecessor’s bodyguard to do it.

All that evil wasn’t enough for him to ascend the throne – there were other contenders to the throne, including Marjorian (and one anticipates history would have turned out better with Majorian becoming emperor then instead). So Petronius Maximus, a wealthy Senator and aristocrat, bribed his way through the Senate and imperial officials to the throne.

He then sought to consolidate his position as emperor by marrying Licinia, the widow of his imperial predecessor – the fiend! – but then effectively sowed the seeds of his downfall by also marrying her daughter Eudocia to his son. That involved cancelling her betrothal to the son of the Vandal king Gaeseric in north Africa – who promptly set about preparations for their infamous sack of Rome.

However, Petronius Maximus wasn’t done with being a rat. With the Vandals sailing for Italy and the citizens of Rome in panic or flight, he abandoned any defence of the city and sought to organise his escape instead.

Fortunately, karma kicked in and he was abandoned by his bodyguard and entourage to fend for himself, when he was set upon by an angry mob (or soldier – accounts vary) and killed, with his mutilated corpse thrown into the Tiber.

Good riddance but sadly his downfall was also that of Rome in its second sack, as the Vandals of course still sacked the city – and still got the girl, as Gaeseric took Eudocia back to Africa with him (along with her mother and sister as well as many other citizens as slaves). Well at least someone got a happy ending, compared to being married to Petronius or his son.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

MAXIMUS:

 

Well except for his ill-deserved name, although I suppose you could say Petronius Maximus did defeat Petronius Maximus.

 

DAMNED:

 

No formal damnatio memoriae – probably because the Senate and Romans were too busy with Rome being sacked – but someone should have damned him. I’ll take him being killed by the mob and tossed in the Tiber as an informal damnatio memoriae.

 

EMPIRE BREAKER

 

O yes – but sadly not the biggest empire breaker in this top ten.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Frankly, Dovahhatty ranks him too high as a wojak.