Top Tens – Films: Top 10 Horror Films (4) Dead & Buried

Film poster art

 

(4) DEAD & BURIED (1981)

 

And now for one of my true guilty pleasures, as things continue along the schlockier and more idiosyncratic vein of my fifth place entry – but hot damn, I have a soft spot for this film, ever since I stumbled upon it. Yes, it’s somewhat obscure and off the beaten cinematic track. It had a decent enough scriptwriting pedigree – written by the writers of Alien – but it didn’t perform well at the box office and was even initially banned as a “video nasty” in the United Kingdom, yet acquired something of a cult following.

It’s a zombie film with a bit of a difference – and a hell of a few twists, particularly a “twist ending that would give M. Night Shyamalan a run for his money”. Grisly mob lynchings start being committed against tourists passing through the small, sleepy peaceful New England town of Potter’s Bluff, only for the victims to then appear again in the town – while the sheriff investigates, drawn from one level of existential horror to another.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors (7) Best: Probus

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

 

(7) BEST: PROBUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(276 – 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”. Although Aurelian got the empire through the worst of the third century, the empire may well still have fallen apart under the onslaught of new invasions and revolts without an emperor such as Probus at the helm.

Probus was one of so-called Illyrian emperors, hailing from the region of Illyricum or other Danubian provinces as the core of the Roman army, that renewed the Roman empire, most immediately in its third century crisis, but which also were its best emperors for the next three centuries. The Illyrian emperors usually rose to prominence and served with distinction as military commanders in succession – indeed, Probus had reconquered Egypt from Zenobia in Aurelian’s war against the breakaway Palmyrene Empire – and it was said that he had “fought with success on almost every frontier of the empire” before he rose to emperor.

The Crisis of the Third Century still loomed large in other internal revolts, as well as barbarian invasions of the empire and the enduring threat of the Sassanid Persians.

It was particularly for the latter that Probus had been appointed supreme commander of the east by his imperial predecessor Tacitus and was in camp in Asia Minor when his troops rallied for him as emperor when Tacitus died. After first defeating his rival claimant Florianus (the half-brother of his predecessor), he campaigned west to defeat the Goths along the Danube.

He and his generals then campaigned in Gaul to defeat the barbarians that had invaded the empire – Alemanni, Franks, Burgundians and Lugii (reputedly 400,000 of them and the entire tribe of Lugii were wiped out during his campaigns) – and claiming the titles of Germanicus Maximus and Gothicus Maximus. After defeating the barbarians who had invaded Gaul, he then crossed the Rhine to campaign successfully against the barbarians in their homelands and restore the fortifications of the defensive line constructed by Hadrian between the Rhine and the Danube.

Probus wasn’t done yet – he fought the Vandals at the Danube (including defending his home province of Illyria), his generals defeated the desert nomad Blemmyes in Egypt, and he defeated usurpers or revolts in the west including, as usual, Britain.

In the meantime, he had also sought to cultivate and extend the army’s discipline, above all by his principle of never allowing soldiers to be idle and engaging them in civic works to reconstruct the empire when not in combat (planting vineyards, repairing bridges or canals, draining marshes and so on). He did something similar by a tribute of manpower from vanquished barbarian tribes, establishing the precedent of settling barbarians within the empire as auxiliaries on a large scale, albeit a precedent that was not as successful under subsequent emperors.

It was reputed that he even lamented the necessity of a standing army or soldiers, anticipating a future in which Rome’s enemies had been defeated so that its army would not be necessary – but first he had to deal with the Sassanids and was preparing for an eastern campaign against them when he was assassinated, with some sources attributing it to disgruntled soldiers rebelling against their orders for civic works or overhearing his laments.

“Probus was an active and successful general as well as a conscientious administrator, and in his reign of six years he secured prosperity for the inner provinces while withstanding repeated invasions of barbarian tribes on almost every sector of the frontier. After repelling the foreign enemies of the empire, Probus was forced to handle several internal revolts but demonstrated leniency and moderation to the vanquished wherever possible.”

He was also diligent in respecting the authority of the Senate and hailed by Gibbon as “the last of the benevolent constitutional emperors of Rome” – with the Senate never again playing an active role in the management of the empire under his successors.

 

MAXIMUS

 

Gothicus Maximus and Germanics Maximus – he celebrated a triumph in Rome in 281.

 

DEIFICATION OR DAMNATION

 

Deified!

 

EMPIRE-SAVER

 

The Illyrians saved the empire!

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Damn right – with Probus as chad in the prelude to the Tetrarchy

 

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

Top Tens – Films: Top 10 Horror Films (5) The Hitcher

 

 

(5) THE HITCHER (1986)

 

Things are about to get a whole lot…schlockier (and more idiosyncratic) in my top five horror films. But as I like to say, there’s no such thing as a bad B-grade horror film. (Although I’m not entirely sure that there’s such a thing as an A-grade horror film either).

 

It’s not exactly high art – indeed, it’s mostly exploitative – but there’s just something about The Hitcher, a “road action-horror” film with Rutger Hauer in the title role (or Sean Bean if you saw the remake but you really should have watched the original).

The plot is simple enough – a young man driving across the United States narrowly escapes death at the hands of the titular hitcher, a travelling serial killer, but then finds himself in a weirdly co-dependent cat-and-mouse game with the killer. Like many slasher films, the killer (who goes by the name of John Ryder), is not supernatural, but seemingly comes close in his invulnerability and his ability to shadow the protagonist.

Or in this case, Hauer seems to be replicating his replicant role from Blade Runner (and as usual, Hauer is awesome in this). As I have argued with a friend who insists upon classifying every SF film as action – if you want to see a non-SF action The Terminator, see The Hitcher. (My usual sarcastic line when he states The Terminator is action not SF – “Really? The film with its entire premise as a cyborg travelling in time back from a future Robot War isn’t SF?!)

As a bonus (at least according to TV Tropes), the film was inspired by The Doors’ song Riders on the Storm – “There’s a killer on the road / His brain is squirming like a toad / Take a long holiday / Let the children play / If you give this man a ride / Sweet family will die”. Even more so as the film opens on the road in a storm and the Hitcher gives his name as John Ryder.

 

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

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

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

 

 

(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

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

 

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

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

 

 

(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

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)