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

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

 

 

(12) DEFENSIVE IMPERIALISM

 

“Now look at what you made me do!”.

Alternatively, I needed my empire to defend myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

(12) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

 

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (3) Vampires

 

Santanico Pandemonium poster art Season 2, From Dusk Till Dawn TV series – one of my favorite female vampires. Yes – it’s not Salma Hayek from that scene in the film but Eiza Gonzalez is more vamped up in the poster here

 

(3) VAMPIRES

 

And now we get to the hungrier folklore of the dead, distinct in their corporeal form from ghosts – back from the dead as revenants. They came back wrong. Not much good comes out of coming back from the dead as a rule. It usually involves preying upon life to sustain one’s unnatural, undead being – treading water, but in blood, as it were.

There is a whole host of vampiric or ‘vampire adjacent’ beings or creatures in folklore and mythology, going all around the world and back to the dawn of history or beyond.

While the archetypal vampire of European folklore – “the folklore for the entity known today as the vampire” – is relatively recent, originating “almost exclusively from early 18th-century southeastern Europe”, the broader archetype of the hungry corporeal dead goes back at least to ancient Mesopotamia, as John Blair points out in his book Killing the Dead.

And so too does killing the dead (again) as per the book’s title – the various means of preventing vampires (as in the various means of preventing a corpse from becoming a vampire, or at least causing too much trouble as one), identifying vampires, and most importantly of all, protecting against or destroying them.

When the dead aren’t ghostly in horror, they’re hungry. The corporeal dead, and killing them, is a substantial part of horror fiction.