Monthly Archives: January 2025

Top Tens – Fantasy & SF: Top 10 Fantasy Books (8) Christopher Moore – Island of the Sequined Love Nun

Posted on by

 

 

 

(8) CHRISTOPHER MOORE –

ISLAND OF THE SEQUINED LOVE NUN (1997)

 

Christopher Moore is a writer of comic contemporary fantasy, who has combined the narrative voice (and Californian geography) of John Steinbeck and the comic absurdist fantasy of Kurt Vonnegut.

Like other writers, Moore has constructed his own storyverse, with its focus in California (Moore himself lives in San Francisco) and particularly the sleepy town of Pine Cove. Sleepy that is, until invaded by demons and their weary summoners (Practical Demonkeeping), Godzilla (the fantastically named Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove) or near-miss zombie apocalypses (The Stupidest Angel).

As for which Moore novel is my personal favorite, there’s some tight competition – such as the Bloodsucking Fiends vampire love trilogy set in San Francisco or A Dirty Job psychopompic thriller also set in San Francisco (which crosses over with Bloodsucking Fiends).

However, my personal favorite is yet another fantastically named novel, The Island of the Sequined Love Nun. In this novel, Moore steps outside the main Californian venue of his storyverse to the Micronesian island of the title of the Shark People. Protagonist pilot Tucker Case is fleeing the literal and metaphorical debris of an unfortunate incident involving alcohol, sex and a plane crash. Blacklisted as a pilot in the United States and pursued by the goons of Mary Jean Cosmetics for the destruction of their pink plane, he takes the only job opportunity available to him – flying between a tiny Micronesian island and Japan for “an unscrupulous medical missionary” and “his beautiful but amoral wife”. The latter is the eponymous blonde high priestess, impersonating the pinup girl on the sacred Second World War bomber of the island’s cargo cult, exploiting the Shark People for a sinister purpose. However, bomber pilot Captain Vincent Bennidetti may be deceased but has also ascended by the power of belief to present-day deity of the Shark People – and he is not about to abandon his flock without some supernatural intervention (and a talking fruit bat named Roberto). That is, when he’s not playing poker with his fellow deities – and losing to Jesus…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars: (2) Nazi-Soviet War

Posted on by

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

(2) NAZI-SOVIET WAR / GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

(22 JUNE 1941 – 8 MAY 1945)

 

Wait – what?

Wasn’t the Nazi-Soviet War – called the Great Patriotic War by the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia – essentially just the Second World War, as in the central or primary theater of military conflict of the war? The First Front, as Winston Churchill readily admitted in his history of the war?

Yes – and that’s my point. The Nazi-Soviet War might well be viewed as THE Second World War – with all the other conflicts in the Second World War overlapping or as prelude or aftermath to the war between Germany and the Soviet Union.

And it is a war that can effectively be considered or studied in isolation from other theaters or conflicts, as a subject all of itself. Or indeed, many subjects, including as subject or subjects of its own top ten lists – notably battles, but arguably even of a top ten wars list or continuity iceberg like this.

It was fought, on land and in air, between the armed forces of the Soviet Union and those of Germany with its European allies – the latter often overlooked, albeit Germany remains of primary importance – with little overlap, at least in terms of military forces, with the other conflicts or theaters elsewhere. Yes – there were also naval forces involved but they were peripheral to the scale of conflict on land and in air.

The primary overlap – in terms of military forces was of course the increasing drain of military commitments imposed by the Western allies on Germany or its European allies in other fronts – albeit for Germany’s European allies that included their increasingly desperate search to desert their alliance with Germany for exit strategies from the war.

However, those commitments remained secondary, even arguably a sideshow, to Germany’s primary conflict on its Eastern Front. Sometimes I quip that the Second World War was, for the Western allies, a timely Anglo-American intervention in a Nazi-Soviet War. Timely that is, for the fate of western Europe and Germany itself, that might otherwise have seen more extensive Soviet occupation and one or two irradiated cities – as at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Soviet Union was quite capable of defeating Germany on its own.

Note that I am speaking in terms of military forces. The Western allies did of course also provide extensive economic support to the Soviet armed forces but I’m speaking strictly in terms of armed forces in actual fighting – as per Stalin, “how many divisions has he got?”. However, it is a pet peeve of mine when people attribute the survival of the Soviet Union in 1941 or even 1942 to Allied economic support or Lend-Lease. Such things are difficult to quantify and Allied economic support certainly aided Soviet victories from 1943 onwards – but is far less clear for the successful Soviet defense of itself in 1941 or 1942 as the large majority of Lend-Lease was from 1943 onwards.

There is also its sheer scale of combatants and casualties – still the largest invasion and land war in history.

In terms of scale of combat, the Soviet Union mobilized over 34 million men and women for its armed forces – almost twice as many as the next largest combatant, Germany (as well as more than twice as many than either the United States or China.

Indeed, the Soviet Union represented more than a quarter of men or women mobilized in the entire war (over 127 million). And when one considers that the large majority of men mobilized by Germany (about 18 million) were for its war with the Soviet Union, as it was for its European allies, then easily over a third of all men and women mobilized for armed forces in the Second World War were or in for the Nazi-Soviet War.

Not to mention the scale of casualties – the Soviet Union had almost 27 million people killed, at least a third of the highest estimates for 80 million people killed in the whole war. When you consider once again the large majority of those killed for Germany and its European allies were in the Nazi-Soviet War, then you’d be getting close to half all casualties in the entire war – particularly if one were to include casualties for Poland (and I think there’s a strong argument for that).

There’s also the sheer scale of impact – which can be simply stated that on any account of it, the Nazi-Soviet war was the decisive conflict within the Second World War. It’s instructive to recall the ideologies underlying this impact – and perhaps a bit humbling to reflect how much the victory of liberal democracy in the twentieth century depending on the contigency of the casualties communism could sustain fighting fascism (as well as the concentration of economic power in the United States).

And then there’s the narrative of the Nazi-Soviet war, reasonably well known in broad outline albeit somewhat distorted or obscured in historiography until recently.

The broad outline essentially follows each year of the war. The first year of war – from 22 June 1941 to June 1942 essentially follows the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa – and its defeat in its advance on Moscow.

The second year of war – from June 1942 to June the following year – essentially follows the German campaign in Case Blue against Stalingrad and the Caucasus Mountains – and its defeat.

The first two years of the Nazi-Soviet War often seem to present something of a paradox, as observed by H.P. Willmott:

“From today’s perspective, it seems incredible that Germany could have conquered so much of the Soviet Union in 1941 and 1942 and that on two separate occasions could have brought her to within measurable distance of defeat. Hindsight provides the element of inevitability that suggests German defeat in his campaign was assured because the first time, Hitler raised the scale of conflict to levels that Germany could not sustain…and herein lies a paradox: before the campaign began there would seem to have been no means whereby Germany could prevail, yet once the campaign started it would seem impossible for her to lose”.

That paradox is resolved by a closer study of the war, but a large part of it is that the Soviet Union fought back from the outset, if not always well then certainly hard – imposing costs in casualties and time which Germany and its allies ultimately could not pay.

Something of this can be observed in the diminishing returns of Germany’s successive campaigns – that whereas the German campaign in 1941 was on all three parts of the front (north, central, and south – albeit shuffling between them as it went), the German campaign in 1942 was only on one part of the front, in the south.

Those returns diminished further with the German campaign that commenced the third year of the war – Operation Citadel against Kursk – where the German campaign was not only on one part of the front, the centre, but a smaller part even of that. And for the first time, the German campaign was defeated in the summer when it was launched.

Thereafter, the Germans were on the defensive or outright retreat from the relentless Soviet advances, albeit slowly in that third year. While it was the Soviet army that had originated (prior to the war) the true ‘blitzkrieg’ of the war – the concept of the ‘deep battle’ or ‘deep space battle’, a strategy aimed at destroying enemy command and control centers as well as lines of communication – it lacked the means to employ this strategy fully until the fourth year of war, when it had sufficient elite or experienced armored and mechanized formations as well as the logistics and mobility to support them.

And oh boy, it showed with the Soviet campaign that opened the fourth and final year of war – Operation Bagration, named for a Russian general in the Napoleonic Wars, on the anniversary of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June. The Red Army took one of Nazi Germany’s three army groups on the Eastern Front, Army Group Center in Belorussia and Poland, completely by surprise – effectively destroying it, while exposing Army Group North to siege in the Baltic states and Army Group South to attack in the Balkans.

Operation Bagration well deserves to be compared as equal to the success of Operation Barbarossa for Nazi Germany, but without the same sting of ultimate defeat as the latter – although at least one subsequent Soviet campaign was arguably even better.

Indeed, by 1945, it is possible to argue, as Willmott does, the complete transposition of the German and Soviet armies in terms of military proficiency. By 1945, “the operational and technical quality of the Soviet army was at least the equal of the Wehrmacht at its peak” (with the Soviet Vistula-Oder offensive in January 1945 “perhaps the peak of Soviet military achievement in the course of the European war”).

On the other hand, “the German army of 1944-45, for all its reputation, had the characteristics so meticulously catalogued when displayed by the Soviet army in 1941: erratic and inconsistent direction, a high command packed with place-men and stripped of operational talent, the dead hand of blind obedience imposed by political commissars upon an officer corps despised and distrusted by its political master, failure at every level of command and operations”.

 

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – Fantasy & SF: Top 10 Fantasy Books (9) James Lovegrove – Pantheon

Posted on by

 

 

(9) JAMES LOVEGROVE –

PANTHEON (2009 – 2019)

 

“Watch closely, everyone. I’m going to show you how to kill a god”

That’s not from James Lovegrove’s Pantheon series – it’s from the film Princess Mononoke – but it captures much of the same spirit (heh).

This is also a departure from the usual rule for my wildcard tenth place entry as the best entry from the present or previous year – that’s because I’ve only recently gotten into James Lovegrove’s Pantheon series and want to follow it through to the end of the series of nine books.

The premise of his Pantheon series is straightforward – each is a standalone story with a human military or paramilitary protagonist reacting to or resisting one of the titular pantheons of gods (and goddesses) literally returning to the modern world to rule it. Note that standalone as each story features only one pantheon at a time – they don’t return in combination or all at once, although that would make an interesting premise of competing pantheons. Obviously the titular pantheon in the first book The Age of Ra is the Egyptian one – the series continues through The Age of Zeus, The Age of Odin, and so on.

The premise of these series particularly resonates with me because it reflects my own unwritten – and let’s face it, only partly baked – story ideas involving the same premise, both for single pantheons and multiple pantheons returning in combination. So kudos for Lovegrove for actually baking the cake and icing it – although I suppose there’s still room for competing pantheons.

It’s a similarly dark premise to David Brin’s Thor Meets Captain America (and even more so its sequel The Life Eaters) – hence why I also like those works as well. And it’s a somewhat parallel premise to that of a higher entry on this list.

 

SF & HORROR

 

Demonstrating the overlap between the genres, The Pantheon series is also classified as military science fiction – which it definitely overlaps if you see the gods as alien or extradimensional beings or entities. I class it as fantasy because, you know, the antagonists are gods with supernatural powers.

Not much horror – although it wouldn’t take too much tweaking of the premise to adapt it to horror. Heck – a surviving older pantheon or god is the common premise of folk horror.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Films (Revised) (10) Robert Eggers – Nosferatu

Posted on by

Theatrical release poster

 

 

(10) ROBERT EGGERS –

NOSFERATU (2024)

 

“He is coming”

My wildcard tenth place entry in my Top 10 Films as best film of 2024.

Yes, I know that I should technically include it in one of my genre film top ten lists – specifically my Top 10 Horror Films (although I will certainly add it to my special mention for vampire horror films) – but I’m substituting it for my previous Eggers entry in this top ten, The Northman.

Although come to think of it, there’s something of a running theme for horror or at least dark fantasy elements in all four of the films Eggers has directed so far – The Northman had arguably the fewest such elements, but Nosferatu follows on from the atmospheric horror of his first film The Witch, aptly enough as Nosferatu has been a passion project Eggers has had bubbling since then and he intended it to be his second film.

If there’s one thing for which Eggers is known, it’s for making mythic worlds – films that utterly and viscerally immerse their audience into the world of their stories, characteristically with “their central elements of mythology and folklore”, down to the finest detail.

He did it with The Witch, he did it with The Northman, and he did it here in his Gothic horror passion project. Indeed, I’d argue that he did it best here – for one thing he has the dark fantasy elements to play with from vampire folklore and for another he improves upon the more ponderous pacing that is arguably a side effect of his world-immersion to make his best paced film yet.

If you know Dracula – particularly the book – you know the central plot of this film. Nosferatu is a remake of the 1922 German silent film of the same name (also remade by Werner Herzog as the 1979 German film Nosferatu the Vampire which is the version I saw). That film in turn was based on the book Dracula, transferred to Germany (instead of England) with the names of characters changed to avoid copyright, most notably the titular vampire renamed to Count Orlok.

Forget the more suave depictions of Dracula or indeed any vampire – Count Orlok as he appeared in the original film (and the 1979 remake) was a distinctively grotesque figure, albeit perhaps unintentionally comic at times.

However, forget that unintentionally comic appearance at times here – as played by Bill Skarsgard (upping the ante on his previous eldritch horror depiction of Pennywise), Orlok is still grotesque but also a towering and terrifying figure of apocalyptic plague, literal and metaphorical. And that’s not just by sight but also by sound – with his reverberating, sepulchral voice.

He’s also gloriously moustachioed, evoking the appearance of Dracula in the book – in turn drawn from the original Dracula, Vlad Tepes or Vlad the Impaler. You certainly get the impression of a literally larger than life Romanian nobleman, that has torn himself through centuries and swum through oceans of blood, both when alive and undead, by sheer size and force of will. And again that’s not just by sight but also by sound – with his accent and speaking what I have read to be a reconstructed form of the ancient Dacian language of pre-Roman Romania. That’s how far back the Orlok of Eggers’ film goes…

As usual, Eggers excels in the atmospheric and visual nature of his films – with the use of darkness so palpable here that it is virtually a character in its own right (and indeed usually is as part of Orlok). Much of the film has a dream-like quality, or rather a quality of nightmare – not coincidentally as Orlok has the power to invade the dreams or minds of his victims, being as much like a lich as he is a vampire.

That’s helped by the dark blue-tinted scenes at night resembling the black and white of the original film but also by the frequent firelit smoky scenes. Even in daylight, the scenes seemed to have a sepia tone.

The only drawback is the naked virgin on horseback – I would have liked to see much more of her, or even a whole film about her as naked virgin vampire hunter. Apparently she was played by a Czech model Katerina Bila – you’re welcome.

Although that also did prompt me to missing an appearance by Eggers alumni Anya Taylor-Joy – she (or her body double) always likes to get naked in his films. Don’t get me wrong – while I have thing for Taylor-Joy with those fey eyes of hers and it would have been interesting to see what she did with the central role of Ellen, Lily Rose-Depp succeeds in bringing an ethereal, otherworldly nature to the role.

 

FANTASY & SF

 

And how! The most dark fantasy elements of any of his films except for The Witch – and writ more large even than that film.

 

COMEDY

 

Eggers…isn’t big on comedic elements. So, no – or few and far between.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – Fantasy & SF: Top 10 Fantasy Books (10) Lev Grossman – The Bright Sword

Posted on by

 

 

(10) LEV GROSSMAN –

THE BROKEN SWORD (2024)

 

As usual, this is my wildcard tenth place for most the newest entry of enduring interest, typically as best of the present or previous year – in this case published in 2024.

Lev Grossman isn’t a wildcard entry as I previously read The Magicians trilogy – which in a nutshell, combines a dark adult version of Hogwarts with a dark adult version of Narnia, Brakebills University and Fillory respectively.

In The Magicians, magic is dangerous. And it costs, usually in sacrifice or profound loss. That’s whether it’s the curriculum of spells in Brakebills University or other sources of magic elsewhere. To paraphrase Hemingway, magic tends to break everyone (although most of the magicians are somewhat broken in the first place) – but those that will not break, it kills.

The Bright Sword brings something of the same theme to Arthurian epic – or more precisely post-Arthurian epic:

“The first major Arthurian epic of the new millennium, The Bright Sword is steeped in tradition, complete with duels and quests, battles and tournaments, magic swords and Fisher Kings. It’s also a story about imperfect men and women, full of strength and pain, trying to reforge a broken land in spite of being broken themselves”.

Aspiring knight Collum arrives at Camelot to prove his quality for the Round Table – two weeks too late, as King Arthur has died at the Battle of Camlann with only a handful of his knights left, the self-professed dregs of the Round Table.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Second World Wars (1) Second World War

Posted on by

Map of participants in World War Two by Svenskbygderna – Wikipedia “World War” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

 

(1) SECOND WORLD WAR

(1 SEPTEMBER 1939 – 2 SEPTEMBER 1945)

 

Well, obviously.

In any Top Ten Second World Wars list, the Second World War has to be the top entry – alternatively you can think of it as the baseline for all other entries or the surface of the Second World War continuity iceberg.

So I define that baseline according to the conventional historical frame and timeline of the Second World War – the war against Germany and its allies, subsequent to its invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, outlasting the surrender of Germany itself for a few months against Germany’s last ally standing, Japan, until the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945.

Otherwise, the narrative of the Second World War is worthy of its own top ten – indeed several top tens – and is well known, even in popular culture and imagination, albeit often distorted or sensationalized. It featured almost every aspect of modern warfare, while remaining unique in others – not least being fought to a conclusive result and destruction of enemy states rarely paralleled in modern history.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Books (Revised) (2) Homer – Iliad & Odyssey

Posted on by

 

 

Homer Simpson as Odysseus from “D’oh, Brother Where Art Thou?” in “Tales from the Public Domain” (episode 283 – S13 E14) – aptly enough given his namesake and still one of the best televised adaptations of the Odyssey

 

 

(2) HOMER – ILIAD & ODYSSEY

 

The timing seemed apt as Christopher Nolan recently announced his planned cinematic adaptation of the Odyssey – and I had planned to swap this from its previous special mention to replace Bulfinch’s Mythology, so I’ve revised it into my second top spot in my Top 10 Mythology Books.

 

“Sing, Muse, of the wrath of Achilles”.

Also “tell me, Muse, of the cunning man who traveled far and wide after he had sacked the famed city of Troy”

We’re going old school here, the oldest school there is – the Iliad and the Odyssey, the rosy-fingered dawn of Western literature, preceding even literacy as those two epic poems were performed or sung rather than written by their author Homer, with tradition holding that he memorized both and probably changed the story each time he told them. (And no, not that Homer, although I couldn’t resist using him as my feature image). Although everything about Homer – or is that Homers? – is contested, such as whether he was indeed illiterate, or blind, or a man (I do have a soft spot for the theory that while a male Homer authored the Iliad, a female Homer authored the Odyssey), or Greek, or indeed even existed at all, at least as a single person.

“The Greeks held Homer in something like reverence” – as they and everyone else damn well should have or should – “viewing his works as the foundation of their society, in much the same way as modern Europeans view the Bible”. As do I and have since childhood, in which they (or at least the Odyssey) have been hugely influential for me personally, comparable to my god-tier mythologies or books of mythology, such if you were to peel back the layers of my psyche you’d find them deep within it. Of course, that wasn’t because anyone sung them to me – although again they damn well should have – or even that I read them in their original poetic form, but as a prose adaption of the Oydssey for children, which still remains the version of the Odyssey lodged within my psyche. Sadly, I can’t recall the name of its author, except that it was female – aptly enough for that female authorship theory for the Odyssey or both, and aptly enough in that I recall it brought the female characters, upon which its protagonist heavily relies, vividly to life.

Indeed, the Iliad is my Old Testament and the Odyssey is my New Testament. Aptly enough, given the Bronze Age battle hymns of Iliad and Old Testament, or the hero’s return from death in Odyssey and New Testament.

And while we’re on such comparisons, the Second World War is the American Iliad and the Cold War the American Odyssey.

However, I have always preferred the Odyssey to the Iliad. When people think of the Iliad, they usually think of all the things that aren’t actually in it – the whole mythos of the Trojan War in what is usually referred to as the Trojan Cycle. Instead, the Iliad is an incredibly brief snapshot of the Trojan War – a few weeks or so in the final year of a legendary ten year war. And of course most of that is the greatest Greek warrior Achilles sulking in his tent, because the Greek leader Agamemnon deprived him of the booty, in both senses of the word, of a Trojan girl taken captive. Until of course Achilles’ boyfriend Patroclus is killed by the greatest Trojan warrior Hector – at which time, it’s personal. Well until the Trojan king Priam begs Achilles if the latter could please stop dragging Hector’s dead body behind him while doing victory laps in his chariot.

Ultimately though, the Iliad is just men killing each other and squabbling over women. The Odyssey on the other hand is a ten year maritime magical mystery tour – or dare I say it, Poseidon adventure, as the Greek hero Odysseus just tries to return to his kingdom Ithaca after the Trojan War, barely escaping death as he is tossed from flotsam to jetsam in one shipwreck after another from Poseidon’s wrath. I mean, seriously, he could have walked home faster from Turkey to Greece, although Poseidon probably still would have got him somehow. And he loses all his ships and men en route, returning home as lone survivor – and stranger, as even then he has to remain disguised as a beggar to infiltrate his own household and outwit his wife’s persistent suitors partying it up there. And let me tell you, every dog has its day. Literally and heartbreakingly, as he is recognized by his faithful dog Argos who has awaited his return for twenty years (only to finally pass away with that last effort). But also figuratively and with undeniable satisfaction as he outwits and defeats the suitors.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****
S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

Top Tens – Fantasy & SF: Top 10 Fantasy Books

Posted on by

Theatrical release poster for the 1982 Conan the Barbarian film – still arguably the defining image of fantasy in popular culture, so much so that it is often dubbed the Conan pose (as originating in pulp fiction covers, particularly when combined with the leg cling trope not in this poster)

 

“Fantasy isn’t just a jolly escape: It’s an escape, but into something far more extreme than reality, or normality. It’s where things are more beautiful and more wondrous and more terrifying.” – Terry Gilliam

Exactly what it says on the tin – counting down my Top 10 Fantasy Books.

In effect, it runs parallel to my Top 10 Literature list, albeit there is quite the fantasy overlap in that list, in that this is my top ten list of fantasy literature. Comics tend to be fantasy or SF – at least the ones I like – but I have a separate Top 10 Comics list. Similarly, I like many fantasy or SF films or TV series, but they have their own top ten lists.

But what is fantasy?

Magic is often seen as or argued to be the defining feature of fantasy, not least by me.

Which prompts to mind this quotation from TV Tropes – “Fantasy: it’s stuff with magic in it, not counting psychic powers, or magic from technology, or anything meant to frighten, or anything strongly religious, or the technology behind the magic that is magitek, or — where did that clean-cut definition go?”

Fictional genres can be notoriously difficult to define or difficult to distinguish from other fictional genres, with the two looming largest – and closest – to fantasy being science fiction and horror, with all three often being classed within the category of speculative fiction.

Again as per TV Tropes – “While the core of the fantasy genre is clear enough, there is no succinct definition that encompasses it all. The boundary with science fiction is notoriously ambiguous and the boundary with horror is often no less fuzzy.”

Indeed, I will note where science fiction or horror loom large or close to the fantasy for my entries.

That core of the fantasy genre is often defined as high fantasy – fantasy set in a so-called secondary world or world other than our own, even if linked to or evolving into our own in some way. Hence the counterpart of fantasy set in our own world is often defined as low fantasy. These distinctions within the genre of fantasy, usually classed as sub-genres of fantasy, intrigue me even more than the distinctions between fantasy and other genres – and fantasy sub-genres are worthy of their own top ten.

Whether in its core of hard fantasy or in other sub-genres, fantasy tends to be defined as such by common features or themes. And yes – magic or supernatural elements is the primary feature or theme, but not always. There are fantasy works with low or no magic.

Secondary worlds are another common feature or theme, as are imaginary beings or creatures – here be dragons! – and what TV Tropes calls the appeal to a pastoral ideal.

Anyway, here are my Top 10 Fantasy Books – or my Top 10 Fantasy Literature.

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars

Posted on by

Screenshot of collage of images used as feature image for Wikipedia “World War II” – some public domain (top right, middle left, bottom left and right) and others (top left and middle right) licensed from German archive footage under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en

 

TOP 10 SECOND WORLD WARS

 

One of my favorite quips is that the Second World War is the American Iliad while the Cold War is the American Odyssey.

As usual, I’m joking and serious – but seriously, I’d go even further in that the Second World War is the modern Iliad, the modern historical epic of war.

And as such, I thought I’d compile my Top Second World Wars

Wait – what? Top 10 Second World…Wars? Plural?!

No – I’m not missing another noun there, such as Top 10 Second World War Battles, Top 10 Second World War Theaters, or Top 10 Second World War Campaigns. Those are subjects for their own top ten lists, indeed quite extensive ones, along with other Second World War subjects, albeit there is some overlap between theaters or campaigns and the present subject.

No – this isn’t some rhetorical sleight of hand, where I define some other previous conflicts as the first and second world war respectively. Again, the subject of conflicts that might be categorized as world wars – including but beyond the two world wars labelled as such – is surprisingly extensive, deserving of its own top ten.

So…what then? Wasn’t there only the one Second World War?

Well, yes – except perhaps when there wasn’t.

My tongue is (mostly) in my cheek – it’s one of my top ten lists where I look at a subject which has a fundamental continuity… but which also can be demarcated into distinct parts in their own right. If you prefer, you can think of it as my Second World War iceberg meme – in this case an iceberg of Second World War continuity. Hence, I won’t be doing my usual top ten countdown but just counting them out.

I can illustrate my point by posing a simple question – when did the Second World War start?

A simple question with what seems a straightforward answer – 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.

But is it so straightforward? Well, perhaps for the fundamental continuity of the war waged by and against Germany, but that is to focus on Europe rather than Asia. If one shifts to a historical focus on the latter, one might well substitute 7 July 1937, with Japan launching its full-scale war on China. Even then, one could look back to the earlier Japanese invasion of Manchuria on 19 September 1931 – or for that matter, even in Europe, to the background to the German invasion of Poland.

And that is my point. While wars may have a fundamental continuity that leads to them being described as a single whole in history with definitive starting or ending dates, they may also consist of – or evolve from or into – overlapping conflicts, particularly when they have a sufficient span or scale. Perhaps none more so than considering the largest war in history, at least in absolute terms, fought on a global scale for six years – the Second World War.

So that said, these are my Top 10 Second World…Wars.

Top Tens – History (Rome): Complete Roman Emperor Rankings (1-98)

Posted on by

Collage of the first Roman emperor Augustus and the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus from Dovahatty- Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus and Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome respectively

 

Dilettantes think about the Roman Empire. True Roman connoisseurs rank the Roman emperors.

And obsessive-compulsive Roman connoisseurs compile their complete rankings of Roman emperors, albeit with abbreviated entries.

I’ve previously ranked the Roman emperors but I did so in my usual top ten format – my Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors, twenty special mentions for each category (best and worst), and honorable mentions in each category (best and worst) for emperors of “ambiguous legitimacy” (typically as usurpers) or “varying ascribed status” (typically as child emperors).

So here they all are in abbreviated entries as one complete ranking from best to worst – for the “classical” Roman emperors from the first emperor Augustus to the last western emperor Romulus Augustulus. Well, except for Zeno because screw that guy! Just kidding – he was actually pretty decent as emperor but I have omitted him because he only briefly reigned (in the eastern empire) before Romulus Augustulus was deposed (indeed he was reigning eastern emperor at that time) with most of his reign being after the end of the western empire.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

(1) AUGUSTUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(16 JANUARY 27 BC – 19 AUGUST 14 AD: 40 YEARS 7 MONTHS 3 DAYS)

 

Felicior Augusto – “May you be more fortunate than Augustus…”

THE Roman emperor – the first and best emperor, the definitive and archetypal emperor, the OG and GOAT emperor.

The most august emperor – the most Augustus of Augustuses.

 

(2) TRAJAN – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(28 JANUARY 98 AD – 9 AUGUST? 117 AD: 19 YEARS 6 MONTHS 10/14 DAYS)

 

Melior Traiano – “and greater than Trajan”

The Optimus Prime of Roman emperors – Optimus or Optimus Princeps, “the best” or “the best emperor”.

 

 

(3) AURELIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 270 AD – NOVEMBER 275 AD: 5 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

Restitutor Orbis – the Restorer of the World.

 

Aurelian, Aurelian, we love you

But we only have five years to save the Roman Empire!

 

(4) HADRIAN – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(11 AUGUST 117 AD – 10 JULY 138 AD: 20 YEARS 10 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

The definitive Roman emperor, famed for his Wall.

 

(5) CONSTANTINE – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(25 JULY 306 AD – 22 MAY 337 AD: 30 YEARS 9 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

In hoc signo vinces – “in this sign thou shalt conquer”.

Constantine the Great – Diocletian may have created the Dominate but Constantine…dominated it (heh).

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

(6) MARCUS AURELIUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(7 MARCH 161 AD – 17 MARCH 180 AD: 19 YEARS 10 DAYS)

 

Best known as the Stoic philosopher-emperor and for his Meditations.

The cool old emperor in Gladiator.

 

(7) PROBUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE 276 AD – SEPTEMBER 283 AD: 6 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

Usually overlooked among Roman emperors, Probus deserves to be hailed with Aurelian as the saviors of the empire in the Crisis of the Third Century – one of “the soldier emperors who saved Rome”.

 

(8) DIOCLETIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(20 NOVEMBER 284 AD – 1 MAY 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 the Dominate and the Tetrarchy.

Also achieved the capstone of imperial achievement – peaceful retirement.

 

(9) VALENTINIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(25/26 FEBRUARY 364 AD – 17 NOVEMBER 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

 

(10) MAJORIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS: WESTERN EMPIRE

(28 DECEMBER 457 AD – 2 AUGUST 461 AD: 4 YEARS 11 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

As per Edward Gibbon, Majorian “presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species”.

 

Majorian (and Probus) might well be ranked by me above other top-tier candidates for my top ten (from my special mentions) but I consider their achievements earn them that ranking – particularly in relative terms of the position they inherited – and are unfairly overlooked among emperors.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(11) VESPASIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(1 JULY 69 – 23 JUNE 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

 

Founder of the Flavian dynasty and restorer of the Pax Romana from the civil war of succession in the first century.

 

(12) CLADIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(24 JANUARY 41 AD – 13 OCTOBER 54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

 

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”.

Turned the empire around after inheriting it from its worst emperor – an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances.

 

(13) DOMITIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(14 SEPTEMBER 81 AD – 18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

 

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva). His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency. Whether or not as per Spectrum he “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”, he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

 

(14) TIBERIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(17 SEPTEMBER 14 – 16 MARCH 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Successor to Augustus – consolidated the empire and left the imperial treasury in huge surplus.

 

(15) ANTONINUS PIUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(10 JULY 138 AD – 7 MARCH 161 AD: 22 YEARS 7 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

My man Tony Pius, the man who maxed the pax of the Pax Romana – “His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate” – which I would hazard to guess makes it the most peaceful in the entire history of the classical empire, given how much less peaceful the Dominate was.

 

(16) MARCIAN – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(25 AUGUST 450 AD – 27 JANUARY 457 AD: 6 YEARS 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS)

 

Sadly overlooked and underrated among Roman emperors – except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, with his reign often looked back on as a golden age and the people of Constantinople shouting “Reign like Marcian!” at the accession of subsequent emperors.

Took on the Huns in their own heartland – “Marcian secured the Eastern Empire both politically and financially”, and left the treasury with a surplus, reversing its near bankruptcy in which it had been when he acceded to the throne.

 

(17) CONSTANTIUS III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(8 FEBRUARY – 2 SEPTEMBER 421 AD: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

An emperor who should be ranked highly for his achievement in stabilizing the fifth century western empire, an achievement that would have been more enduring but for his short reign, truncated by illness.

 

(18) CLAUDIUS II / CLAUDIUS GOTHICUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 268 AD – AUGUST 270 AD: 1 YEAR 11 MONTHS)

 

The first of the so-called Illyrian emperors who renewed and led the Roman empire – turned the tide on the Crisis of the Third Century, laying the foundations for Aurelian and Probus to restore the empire, particularly by the victory of his title against the Goths, “one of the greatest in the history of Roman arms”.

 

(19) CONSTANTIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 305 AD – 25 JULY 306 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

Constantius might well have ranked higher but for his short reign as augustus or senior emperor in the West – the capstone of achievements as junior emperor or caesar for over 12 years from 293 AD, defeating the Carausian Revolt and Germanic tribes at the Rhine.

 

(20) TITUS – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(24 JUNE 79 AD – 13 SEPTEMBER 81 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS 20 DAYS)

 

Built on the achievements of his father Vespasian – literally building in the case of completing the Colosseum, the achievement for which he is best known as emperor, and figuratively, coinciding with his most outstanding achievement being prior to his imperial accession, winning decisive victory in the First Jewish War.

 

And yes – I’ve shuffled those special mention entries from my original ranking, notably upgrading Constantius II after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

And now we come to some special mention matched pairings, in which one emperor is similar to or echoed by another emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century – also while good, drop down a tier from top-tier to high-tier, often coinciding with a mixed or even negative reputation.

 

(21) CONSTANTIUS II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – 3 NOVEMBER 361 AD: 24 YEARS 1 MONTH 25 DAYS)

 

(22) GALLIENUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY:

WESTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – SEPTEMBER 268 AD: 15 YEARS)

 

Two beleagured emperors who holding the line of the empire during their reigns.

Constantius II has a mixed reputation but deserves his place among the good emperors for holding the empire together for almost two and a half decades – despite his brothers fighting each other, usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire for most of his reign.

Gallienus was the Crisis counterpart of Constantius II – holding the line as the empire faced “disease rampant, endless barbarian invasions, entire provinces seceding, and God knows how many usurpers”.

 

 

(23) LUCIUS VERUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(7 MARCH 161 AD – JANUARY / FEBRUARY 169 AD: 7 YEARS 11 MONTHS)

 

(24) CARUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 282 AD – JULY / AUGUST 283 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors who won impressive victories against the successive Persian empires, Parthians and Sassanids.

Lucius Verus – the mad lad or party boy adoptive brother and co-emperor of Marcus Aurelian everyone forgets about when they talk about the Five Good Emperors. “Meditate this, Marcus!” Led the Romans to victories over the Parthians, regaining control in Armenia and territory in Mesopotamia as well as sacking the Parthian royal city of Ctesiphon.

Carus – Crisis of the Third Century counterpart mirroring Lucius Verus, arguably outdoing Lucius’ Parthian War as the active leader of a campaign by an empire still recovering from the nadir of the Crisis of the Third Century against the tougher Sassanids, again sacking the Persian royal city of Ctesiphon.

 

(25) JULIAN – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(3 NOVEMBER 361 AD – 26 JUNE 363 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

(26) VALERIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – JUNE 260 AD: 6 YEARS 9 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with impressive achievements, particularly in the military field prior to their accession, but undone by defeat against the Persians.

Julian – “Thou has conquered, Galilean”. The Apostate or the Philosopher, reflecting his attempted revival of classical paganism.

Valerian – Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Julian, similar in that his reign has also been defined by his defeat by the Sassanid Persians, although unlike Julian he was captured rather than mortally wounded in battle.

 

(27) NERVA – NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD – 27 JANUARY 98 AD: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS 9 DAYS)

 

(28) TACITUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(DECEMBER 275 AD – JUNE 276 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

Nerva – the first (and least) of the Five Good Emperors. Yes, his only real achievement might have been ensuring the peaceful transition to a good successor, but that’s still an impressive achievement, given how many Roman emperors screwed even that up.

Tacitus – no, not the historian that everyone knows when they hear the name, but Crisis counterpart of Nerva. Both were essentially (elderly) senatorial caretaker or placeholder emperors, enabling the stable succession of imperial authority from an assassinated predecessor.

 

C-TIER (MID-TIER)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE SEPARATING GOOD FROM BAD EMPERORS

 

(29) PERTINAX – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FIVE EMPERORS

(1 JANUARY – 28 MARCH 193 AD: 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

(30) MAXIMINUS THRAX –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(MARCH 235 AD – JUNE 238 AD: 3 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

Poor Pertinax – he essentially tried to pull off a Nerva, but was unlucky to be faced with a more aggressive and frankly out of control Praetorian Guard. Indeed, in terms of his brief administration, he was better than Nerva, particularly in financial reform, but just didn’t get the same chance Nerva did.

Maximinus Thrax – archetypal barracks emperor, who secured the German frontier of the empire, at least for a while.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (HONORABLE MENTION)

 

ULPIA SEVERINA – FIRST AND LAST EMPRESS OF THE CLASSICAL ROMAN EMPIRE

(275 AD: 5-11 WEEKS – 6 MONTHS?)

 

I’m not giving her a numbered ranking since her ‘reign’ as widow of Aurelian really boils down to a few coins minted in her name (and she does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Roman emperors accordingly).

However, I’ll just leave her here as I like the romantic speculation of her as first and last empress of the classical Roman Empire.

 

 

(31) VETRANIO – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(1 MARCH – 25 DECEMBER 350 AD: 9 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

One of three good usurpers of the classical Roman empire – counter-usurper against another usurper (Magnentius), abandoning his claim when meeting Constantius II and earning himself peaceful retirement

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY EUGENIUS-JOHANNES LINE SEPARATING GOOD USURPERS FROM BAD EMPERORS?

 

(32) EUGENIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(22 AUGUST 392 AD – 6 SEPTEMBER 394 AD: 2 YEARS 15 DAYS)

 

One of the great what-ifs of the late Roman empire – that the western empire would have fared better or at least stalled its fall longer if he and military commander Arbogast had won the Battle of the Frigidus in 394 AD. Or even better, if they had not fought it at all, with the eastern emperor Theodosius recognizing Eugenius as western emperor instead. At very least, the western empire would have been spared Honorius.

 

 

(33) JOHANNES – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(20 NOVEMBER 423 AD – MAY 425 AD: 1 YEAR 6 MONTHS)

 

If Eugenius would have spared the western empire Honorius, Johannes would have spared it Valentinian III.

 

AND NOW…THE BAD

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay, that might seem wrong, ranking Septimius Severus and Theodosius just over the line as ‘bad’ emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or usurpers such as Eugenius and Johannes, when ranking them alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more accurate…but I just can’t forgive them their wretched dynasties. Also…

 

(34) SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(9 APRIL 193 AD – 4 FEBRUARY 211 AD: 17 YEARS 9 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

Yes, probably the best of the bad options in the Year of Five Emperors but as per Spectrum “he was the one who started debasing the currency like a madman in order to increase his soldiers’ pay. On one hand, keeping himself in power was the reason why. On the other, a lot of the problems the empire faced later down the line and possibly the reason it fell in the first place can be chalked up to him”.

 

 

(35) THEODOSIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(19 JANUARY 379 AD – 17 JANUARY 395 AD: 15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Theodosius the so-called Great. Founder of the worst dynasty of the classical Roman empire. Yes, again he probably did the best of bad options open to the empire after the Battle of Adrianople but was kicking the can down the road for the empire to pick up later – with the fall of the western empire. As per Dovahhatty, “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'”

 

MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS II LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay – one might extend the line through Leo to Theodosius II as borderline ‘bad’ emperors. Again, it might seem wrong ranking either just over the line as bad emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or Eugenius and Johannes – when again ranking them as alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more apt, but…

 

(36) LEO – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(7 FEBRUARY 457 – 18 JANUARY 474 AD: 16 YEARS 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

Yes – he did found the Leonid dynasty and hence earned the title of Leo the Great, a dynasty that was decent enough and saw the eastern empire outlast the western empire. Yes – he also overthrew the Gothic military clique under Aspar that dominated the eastern empire, hence earning the title of Leo the Butcher.

And yes – he also attempted to save the western empire as it fell, particularly with his naval expedition to reclaim north Africa from the Vandals but…for the disastrous defeat of that expedition at the Battle of Cape Bon, bankrupting his eastern empire and dooming the western one, even if that defeat was primarily the fault of the fleet’s commander (and Leo’s brother-in-law) Basiliscus. That had to cost him my ranking as good emperor.

 

(37) THEODOSIUS II – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 408 AD – 28 JULY 450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

Yes – I have more respect for the eastern empire in general and Theodosius II in particular after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire as neither was quite as supine towards the fall of the western empire as is usually perceived. And also after all, the reign of Theodosius did see the eastern empire avoid the same scale of disaster that befell its western counterpart.

But…his reign also saw the empire ravaged by the Huns effectively to the point of surrender by tribute to them – which also precluded a joint naval expedition with the western empire against the Vandals in north Africa to salvage the western empire. And it also saw one intervention too many in the western empire to reclaim it for Valentinian III, when it would have been better left to Johannes.

 

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

(38) GRATIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 NOVEMBER 375 AD – 25 AUGUST 383 AD: 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(39) CONSTANS – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – JANUARY 350 AD: 12 YEARS 4 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with uncannily similar reigns, despite being separated by forty years or so and successive dynasties – both succeeded great emperors and founders of dynasties (for whom the dynasties were named) as their sons, both began as child emperors in circumstances where others had designs on them as puppets, both were western emperors who were reasonably robust in defending the western empire, and both were usurped and killed when their legions deserted them due to them ‘favoring’ their barbarian soldiers in suggestive ways

 

(40) VALENS – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(364 AD – 378 AD: 14 YEARS 4 MONTHS 12 DAYS)

 

Gothicus Minimus, amirite?

I mean, his infamous defeat at the Battle of Adrianople has got to cost him in the rankings. However, it shouldn’t cost him disproportionately to a reasonably competent imperial administration, hence I don’t rank him in the bottom tier – and still ahead of most other emperors, although that is more a result of just how bad most Roman emperors were…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(41) CONSTANTINE III – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(407-411 AD: 4 YEARS)

 

The usurper I rank as least bad, because it’s hard not to have a sneaking admiration for him – a common soldier in Roman Britain who rose to usurp Honorius to the point that the latter had to recognize him as co-emperor for a short period. Also because he rose to literal legendary status in Britain, even as high as being identified as the grandfather of King Arthur. He’d at least outrank Constantine II if ever I was to rank my Top 10 Constantines (note to self – rank my Top 10 Constantines, although that will have to await my Byzantine emperor rankings as most of the Constantines were eastern Roman emperors).

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Constans – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Constantine.

 

(42) MAGNUS MAXIMUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(25 AUGUST 383 AD – 28 AUGUST 388 AD: 5 YEARS 3 DAYS)

 

(43) MAGNENTIUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(18 JANUARY 350 AD – 10 AUGUST 353 AD: 3 YEARS 6 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

Two usurpers, similar to each other as they usurped similar emperors – Constans in the case of Magnentius and Gratian in the case of Magnus Maximus. The latter took his title as the best and greatest – he wasn’t either but he and Magnentius were not too bad as usurpers go, although I rank them both below the emperors they usurped (but not by much).

Shout-out to Victor as son and co-emperor of Maximus, suffering the same fate of defeat and execution as his father – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Maximus.

 

(44) MAXENTIUS – USURPER: TETRARCHY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(28 OCTOBER 306 AD – 28 OCTOBER 312 AD: 6 YEARS)

 

Usually derided as an usurper and opponent of Constantine but as per Spectrum – “Everyone gives him sh*t but this dude started out from a terrible position and still ended up doing a lot. With not much more than a few Praetorians and some raw recruits, he established control of Italy and parts of Africa, managed to defeat not one but two emperors in a defensive campaign, and managed to last six years while pretty much everyone was hostile to him”.

Ironically, that sees him outrank all other members of the Tetrarchy other than Diocletian (who died before his accession), Constantius, and Constantine – which is probably more a comment on their bad quality. He out-maneuvered his own father Maximian, while also defeating Severus II and Galerius. It’s probably a little unfair to Licinius though, given that Licinius allied with Constantine to defeat him. Still, he had it coming by Constantine. Speaking of the Tetrarchy…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

TETRARCHY –

 

(45) GALERIUS (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(1 MAY 305 AD – MAY 311 AD: 6 YEARS)

 

(46) MAXIMIAN (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(1 APRIL 286 AD – 1 MAY 305 AD: 19 YEARS 1 MONTH)

(NOVEMBER 306 AD – 11 NOVEMBER 308 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

(47) LICINIUS (WESTERN THEN EASTERN EMPIRE):

(11 NOVEMBER 308 AD – 19 SEPTEMBER 321 AD: 15 YEARS 10 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(48) MAXIMINUS II / MAXIMINUS “DAZA” (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(310 AD – JULY 313 AD: 3 YEARS)

 

(49) SEVERUS II (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(AUGUST 306 AD – MARCH / APRIL 307 AD: 8 MONTHS)

 

The Tetrarchy was a bit of a hot mess when Diocletian wasn’t around to hold the hands of his co-emperors (except of course for Constantius and his son Constantine) – mostly because of the quality of these guys as his co-emperors, with most of them ultimately proving to be only foils to Constantine in one form or another. That pretty much sums them up – screwing up without Diocletian until they were pawned by Constantine.

So I’ve lumped them all together in my rankings – perhaps somewhat unfairly for Galerius who might have ranked higher (perhaps as high as Valens or Gratian, although he was defeated by Maxentius), just about right for Maximian and Licinius (although perhaps Licinius might have ranked highest among these Tetrarchy emperors for political cunning and endurance), and pulling up Maximinus II and Severus II. (Severus might well have ranked down with the more F-tier Crisis emperors, with Maximinus not too far behind).

 

 

(50) DECIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD – JUNE 251 AD: 1 YEAR 8-9 MONTHS)

 

(51) PHILIP THE ARAB – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(FEBRUARY 244 AD – SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD: 5 YEARS 7-8 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors in succession presiding over almost eight years of the Crisis that were just a cut above the worst emperors of the Crisis.

And it was a close call between them – Philip had the longer reign but I just like Decius more, what with his exhortation to his troops after his son was killed in battle (and before his own death in that battle): “Let no one mourn, the death of one soldier is no great loss to the Republic”.

 

(52) SEVERUS ALEXANDER – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(14 MARCH 222 AD – MARCH 235 AD: 13 YEARS 8 DAYS)

 

(53) GORDIAN III – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 238 AD – FEBRUARY 244 AD: 5 YEARS 6 MONTHS)

 

And now we come to two similar emperors, both effectively commencing as child emperors – indeed the first and second youngest sole emperors of the whole empire respectively – puppeted by their mothers. Gordian was the weaker of the two – Severus Alexander may well have become more effective but for the military coup that overthrew and killed him, kicking off the Crisis of the Third Century. As per Spectrum, “he could have turned out into a good emperor but unfortunately his mother took too long to die”.

 

 

(54) JOVIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY)

(27 JUNE 363 AD – 17 FEBRUARY 364 AD: 7 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

Jovian really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign was seen as a bit of a joke. It wasn’t really his fault – all he did was have defeat handed to him from his predecessor and then die, but he probably did the best anyone could in those circumstances.

 

 

(55) MACRINUS – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

(11 APRIL 217 AD – 8 JUNE 218 AD: 1 YEAR 1 MONTH 28 DAYS)

 

With better luck or management, Macrinus may well have crossed over my Thrax-Pertinax line into special mentions for good emperors – and indeed might well be regarded as similar to Pertinax himself, attempting to introduce necessary reforms to salvage the empire but thwarted in the attempt.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(56) PROCOPIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(28 SEPTEMBER 365 AD – 27 MAY 366 AD: 7 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Procopius gave it a damn good shot usurping the eastern emperor Valens, in the capital Constantinople no less, such that Valens almost gave up in despair. Almost gave up, that is, but not quite – with Valens pulling through to win and execute Procopius.

 

(57) NEPOTIANUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(3-30 JUNE 350 AD: 27 DAYS)

 

Counter-usurper to Magnentius in Rome – ranks better than the brevity of a reign of only 27 days might suggest – for doing it by literal gladiatorial coup. I have to admire his sheer ballsiness in that he didn’t even have any soldiers for his attempt, but instead entered Rome with a band of gladiators. Gladiators! And pulled it off enough that Rome’s prefect and loyal supporter of Magnentius had to flee the city. This is what the Gladiator sequel film should have featured!

 

(58) MARTINIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(JULY – 19 SEPTEMBER 324 AD: 2 MONTHS)

 

(59) VALERIUS VALENS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(OCTOBER 316 AD – JANUARY 317 AD: 2-3 MONTHS)

 

Think of that trope of someone trying to stop or at least stall an implacable pursuer by desperately throwing things, ineffectual or otherwise, at them or in their path, only for that pursuer to effortlessly brush or shrug those things aside as barely an inconvenience.

When the Tetrarchy had boiled down to a civil war between the last two men standing – Licinius as eastern emperor and Constantine as western emperor – that someone was Licinius, his implacable pursuer was Constantine, and the things Licinius desperately threw at Constantine were these two guys.

 

(60) SALONINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(260 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Saloninus was briefly co-emperor as son of the reigning emperor Gallienus. Gallienus had sent him to Gaul, not as co-emperor but as caesar – only to be declared emperor by his troops in a short-lived effort to stave off revolt before handing him over anyway

 

(61) HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(MAY/JUNE 251 AD: LESS THAN 1 MONTH)

 

(62) HOSTILIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE-JULY 251 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Co-emperors as sons of the emperor Decius.

Hostilian was the surviving son of Decius, whom Decius’ successor Trebonianus Gallus proclaimed as his co-emperor to lend some legitimacy and continuity to his reign, only for Hostilian to die of disease shortly afterwards.

Herennius died in battle – the same Battle of Arbritus against the Goths in which his father Decius was defeated and killed.

 

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(63) GALBA – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(8 JUNE 68 AD – 15 JANUARY 69 AD: 7 MONTHS 7 DAYS)

 

(64) OTHO – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(15 JANUARY – 16 APRIL 69 AD: 3 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The two emperors who kicked off the Year of Four Emperors. Of Galba, Tacitus said “that all would have agreed he was equal to the imperial office if he had never held it”, while the Gospel of Suetonius gives a very unflattering portrait of Galba as emperor – imperial office seems to have brought his worst qualities, “cruelty and avarice”, to the fore.

And Otho? Well, he was worse – Nero-level worse.

 

CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY EMPERORS –

 

(65) NUMERIAN:

(JULY / AUGUST 283 AD – NOVEMBER 284 AD: 1 YEAR 3-4 MONTHS)

 

(66) AEMILIANUS:

(JULY – SEPTEMBER 253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

 

(67) FLORIANUS:

(JUNE – SEPTEMBER 276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

 

(68) QUINTILLUS:

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

 

(69) GORDIAN II:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(70) GORDIAN:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(71) PUPIENUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

(72) BALBINUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

The archetypal weak emperors of the Crisis of the Third Century – imperial claimants, usually proclaimed by their legions but occasionally the Senate or even mobs, usurping the throne for less than a year before being usurped and killed in turn.

Balbinus and Pupienus were co-emperors, as were Gordian and his son Gordian II – all hawked up and spat out by the Year of Six Emperors. Quintillus may have been emperor as little as 17 days – and also was up against Aurelian. Florianus and Amelianus were defeated by better rivals. Numerian was a little like Jovian, except with the Praetorian Guard playing weekend at Bernie’s with his corpse.

 

(73) VALENTINIAN II – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(28 AUGUST 388 AD – 15 MAY 392 AD: 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Precursor of the weak puppet last western emperors. Speaking of which…

 

LAST WESTERN EMPERORS –

 

(74) ANTHEMIUS

(12 APRL 467- 11 JULY 472 AD: 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

(75) AVITUS

(9 JULY 455 AD – 17 OCTOBER 456 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(76) JULIUS NEPOS

(24 JUNE 474 AD – 28 AUGUST 475 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(77) ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS

(31 OCTOBER 475 AD – 24 JUNE 476 AD: 10 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(78) GLYCERIUS

(3/5 MARCH 473 – 24 JUNE 474 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 19/21 DAYS)

 

(79) OLYBRIUS

(APRIL – 2 NOVEMBER 472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

(80) LIBIUS SEVERUS

(19 NOVEMBER 461 AD – 14 NOVEMBER 465 AD: 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

The archetypal weak emperors of the dying western empire – embodying the terminal decline of imperial office to the figureheads or puppets of the barbarian warlords who ruled the empire or its remnants in all but name, best symbolized by the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus.

I’ve lumped them all together, which might be a little unfair for Avitus and Anthemius, who at least tried to do something to stall the fall, effectively through alliances with the Visigoths and eastern empire respectively.

 

(81) BASILISCUS – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(9 JANUARY 475 AD – AUGUST 476 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS)

 

Botched the Battle of Cape Bon against the Vandals in north Africa – somehow survived the consequences of that to pull off a coup and reign as emperor briefly before the previous emperor struck back.

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Marcus. You guessed it – only mentioned in parenthesis with his father in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

 

(82) CARINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(283 AD – AUGUST / SEPTEMBER 285 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

The Crisis of the Third Century hadn’t stopped being terrible yet – personified by Carinus before he was defeated by Diocletian, a defeat brought about in part by sleeping with the wives of his officers.

 

(83) TREBONIANUS GALLUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century

 

TOP 10 WORST EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(84) VOLUSIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

As per Dovahhatty – “Now son, may we rule long and incompetently”.

Son of Trebonianus Gallus. Just as useless as his father but didn’t even achieve his uselessness on his own as he was appointed as co-emperor by his father, hence the ranking just below his father.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(85) GETA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY – 26 DECEMBER 2011 AD: 10 MONTHS AND 15/22 DAYS)

 

As bad as his older brother, just not as good at being bad – hence his brother assassinated him first.

 

(86) DIDIUS JULIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FIVE EMPERORS

28 MARCH – 1 JUNE 193 AD (2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

Did…did you just buy the Roman empire, dude?

 

(87) VITELLIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS

(19 APRIL – 20 DECEMBER 69 AD: 8 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The third and worst of the Four Emperors. As per Spectrum – “you know, when the legacy you leave behind is nothing more than being a fat bastard, you know you were never a good emperor in the first place”.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(88) PRISCUS ATTALUS – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(409 AD – 410 AD: LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

 

Puppet of the Visigoth leader Alaric – the first western emperor to be raised to that office by a barbarian and a precursor of the last western emperors to come.

 

LEO II – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(18 JANUARY – NOVEMBER 474 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

PHILIP II – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JULY / AUGUST 247 AD – SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

DIADUMENIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

(MAY – JUNE 218 AD: LESS THAN 1 MONTH)

 

Three ephemeral child emperors to whom I’m not giving a numbered ranking because, well, it seems unfair to rank them against their adult counterparts, particularly because they all died young – Diadumenian and Philip II were both killed along with their fathers and Leo II died of disease. Leo II is something of an exception to the rule of my dishonorable mentions as he was recognized as a legitimate emperor (heir to his grandfather Leo) but died within a few months.

On the subject of unranked child emperors, shout-out to Marcus, the son and co-emperor of his father Basiliscus (mentioned in parenthesis with his father in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors).

 

SILBANNACUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 253 AD?)

 

A mystery numismatic imperial claimant about whom nothing was written or is known except for two coins in his name, hence numismatic. He does appear in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors hence why I include him here but with an unnumbered ranking.

Shout-out to Sponsian – a similar mystery imperial claimant known only from coins but who is not included in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS

 

(89) PETRONIUS MAXIMUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 MARCH – 31 MAY 455 AD: 2 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

The nadir of the last western Roman emperors.

Duped his predecessor Valentinian III into assassinating Flavius Aetius, the supreme military commander holding the empire together and who had defended it against the Huns – then orchestrated the assassination of Valentian III.

Killed while attempting to flee the sack of Rome by the Vandals – something for which he was largely responsible by cancelling the betrothal of Valentinian’s daughter to the Vandal prince (and marrying her to his own son instead to shore up his legitimacy).

 

(90) ARCADIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 – 408 AD: 13 YEARS 3 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

He and his brother are why the Theodosian dynasty was the worst imperial dynasty and virtually synonymous with the fall of the Roman empire. 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.

 

(91) CONSTANTINE II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 – APRIL 340 AD: 2 YEARS 7 MONTHS)

 

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

 

(92) CARACALLA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY 211 – 217 AD: 6 YEARS 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry – the Incredible Hulk of the Roman Empire, not in superhuman strength but in violent temper, smashing his way from one end of the empire to another.

 

(93) COMMODUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY

(17 MARCH 180 – 192 AD: 12 YEARS 9 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

His accession was the exact moment Rome went from a kingdom of gold to a kingdom of iron and rust, according to contemporary historian Cassius Dio (and almost literally in the form of him debasing the currency)

I mean, you have seen the gospel according to Ridley Scott – Gladiator – haven’t you? Yes, it’s – ahem – not entirely accurate to history, but it does capture the essence of Commodus, even if that is turned all the way up to eleven (and combined with that of Caligula) in the film.

Essentially preferred role playing as Hercules or as a gladiator to imperial administration or military policy.

 

(94) VALENTINIAN III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(23 OCTOBER 425 – 16 MARCH 455 AD: 29 YEARS 4 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

“Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”.

Like his predecessor Honorius, he was a model of supine inactivity as the empire crumbled, except for betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back. Literally in the case of Valentinian III with Aetius – well, perhaps not literally in the back, but literally stabbing Aetius, the only time he ever drew a sword, striking down the unarmed Aetius and with a pack to back him up no less.

One of the notorious sacks of Rome duly followed – by the Vandals, albeit via Petronius Maximus. Between Valentinian and Honorius with their inexplicably long reigns – of similar length of 30 years each – they broke the western Roman empire and presided over its fall.

 

(95) HONORIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 AD – 15 AUGUST 423 AD AD: 28 YEARS 6 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Chicken boy.

Dovahhatty summed him up best – “Honorius continued on living as he always had, laying around, babbling like an idiot as the world around him fell apart, but for one exception. One day Honorius turned it all around and decided, for once, to do the best possible thing he could do for the empire and died, after ruling Rome for a godawful thirty years.”

Like Valentinian III with Aetius, Honorius betrayed the loyal subordinate Stilicho who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back – just not as literally as Valentinian III, having him executed instead.

But for Constantius III, effectively the successor of Stilicho, saving Honorius’ empire for him, the empire may well have crumbled and fallen as rapidly as it did after Valentinian III.

Oh – and that chicken boy reference? It comes from the story that Honorius initially reacted with alarm to being told that Rome had “perished” after its sack by the Visigoths – as he had thought it a reference to his favorite pet chicken he had named Roma and he was relieved to find out it was only in reference to the actual city. It’s probably apocryphal but just too true to his character and symbolic with respect to it involving a chicken that I accept it anyway.

 

(96) ELAGABALUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(16 MAY 218 AD – 13 MARCH 222 AD: 3 YEARS 9 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

Certainly one of the weirdest emperors, Elagabalus is what happens when you let an omnisexual teenager of dubious mental stability loose with absolute imperial power AND his own cult. It’s like Elagabalus read Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars with its lurid depictions of imperial depravity and said hold my beer – or his weird sun god cult (as opposed to Aurelian’s cool sun god cult).

 

(97) NERO – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(13 OCTOBER 54 AD – 9 JUNE 68 AD: 13 YEARS 7 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

What can I say? You just can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius. Or the Book of Apocalypse, with Nero literally as the Beast of the Apocalypse – or as I like to quip, that sixy beast, given that the Number of the Beast was alphanumeric code for Nero Caesar.

 

(98) CALIGULA – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(18 MARCH 37 AD – 24 JANUARY 41 AD: 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS 6 DAYS)

 

“Would that the Roman people had but one neck”

Ah – Caligula, dreaming of choking out all Rome, the archetype of legendary cruelty and depravity as well as that of the capricious and insane tyrant, so much so that there is a trope of the Caligula named for him (and we all know the type, depressingly frequent in history and culture).

As I said for Nero, what can I say? You can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius, or the Revelations of Bob Guccione in his 1979 Caligula film. Or with the Gospel of Robert Graves which follows Suetonius, or the Revelations of Judge Dredd with Caligula as its Chief Judge Cal in The Day the Law Died.