Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (8) Exarchate of Ravenna

Exarchate of Italy 600 AD – map by Shuaaa2 for Wikipedia “Exarchate of Ravenna” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

 

 

(8) EXARCHATE OF RAVENNA (584 – 751 AD)

 

Yes – this special mention entry is literally the Roman empire rather than some separate entity, as it’s the province of the eastern Roman Empire after their reconquest of Italy. However, the exarchate of Ravenna (also called the exarchate of Italy) seems sufficiently distinct – as well as tenuous, albeit enduring for two centuries – for its own special mention, as well as a segue between my previous special mention and the next one. Also in fairness, it does meet my foremost criteria for high-tier special mention by actually having Rome in it.

The exarchate of Ravenna emerged from the Gothic War, a slogging match for almost two decades from 535 and 554 between the eastern Roman Empire and the Ostrogothic Kingdom, in which the Romans found themselves the victors of a proverbial Pyrrhic victory in Italy.

Sure – they defeated the Ostrogothic Kingdom and recaptured Italy after fighting off yet more invasions by the Franks and Alemanni, but an Italy devastated and depopulated by war, and worse, with the eastern Roman Empire so exhausted that they found themselves incapable of resisting an invasion by the Lombards, yet another German invader.

So the exarchate of Ravenna, founded in 584 AD, was tenuous from its very inception – presiding over territory snaking across central Italy to Rome itself and mostly clinging to the coastal cities and southern parts of Italy, as the Lombards were ensconced in the hinterland of the peninsula. (The eastern Roman imperial territory in the Italian islands – Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica – was separately governed).

And it was also tenuous in presiding over increasingly fractious and fragmented territories, nominally subject to the exarch in Ravenna as the representative of the emperor in Constantinople, but in reality asserting their own sovereignty even before being swallowed up by the ever-encroaching Lombards (until the Lombards in turn were swallowed up by the Franks in the Carolingian Empire, the origin of the Holy Roman Empire).

The exarchate crumbled away, with the last exarch in Ravenna killed by the Lombards in 751. As for Rome itself, it had been administered as the Duchy of Rome within the Exarchate, but the Duchy was increasingly supplanted by the papacy, culminating with the papal states under the patronage of the Carolingian or Holy Roman Empires.

However, the eastern Roman empire retained territory in southern Italy that was reorganized as the Catapanate of Italy, which endured in dwindling form until conquered by the Normans in 1071, finally extinguishing five centuries of the eastern Roman empire in Italy.

So there’s yet two more tongue-in-cheek dates for the fall of the Roman Empire – 751 and 1071. And the Exarchate of Ravenna did lead in a way to my next special mention entry.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (7) Ostrogothic Kingdom

 

(7) OSTROGOTHIC KINGDOM (493 – 553 AD)

 

The immediate successor to Odoacer’s Kingdom of Italy in my previous special mention – the Ostrogoths led by Theodoric the Great took over the kingdom after killing and replacing Odoacer. The kingdom itself carried on much the same as before, including in territory – it’s the same picture as one might observe of maps of the two kingdoms.

That understates the brilliant ploy of the eastern Roman Emperor Zeno that lay behind it – a classic illustration of winning without fighting by having others do your fighting for you. In this case, having the Ostrogoths fight Odoacer.

The Ostrogoths had settled within the eastern empire in the usual manner of German allies or foederati – except that they retained more independence than the Romans preferred. If anything, the eastern empire was at some risk of becoming an Ostrogothic colony – with large numbers of Goths entering service in the Roman army, as well as comprising “a significant political and military power in the court of Constantinople”.

“The thought occurred to Zeno and his advisors to direct Theodoric against another troublesome neighbour of the Empire – the Italian kingdom of Odoacer”

That suited everyone at the time, except of course Odoacer – who despite being Zeno’s nominal viceroy in Italy, was menacing eastern Roman territory (among other things), although not any more once Theodoric was done with him.

Theodoric the Great assumed a similar position to Odoacer, nominally a subject of the eastern Roman emperor and ruling from Ravenna as their viceroy in Italy. “In reality, he acted as an independent ruler, although unlike Odoacer, he meticulously preserved the outward forms of his subordinate position”. An Ostrogothic Augustus, one might say – similarly appeasing the eastern roman empire as Augustus did the Senate by keeping up appearances of their rule. Speaking of the Senate, they continued to function mostly as before, as did the Roman administration, law, church and elite.

I have a soft spot for the Ostrogothic Kingdom ever since their starring role in L. Sprague de Camp’s SF novella, Lest Darkness Fall, in which the time travelling protagonist finds himself stranded there and seeks to stave off the pending Dark Ages.

We are accustomed to thinking of the Dark Ages kicking in with the fall of the western Roman Empire, but that is arguably premature of us, at least in Italy – with Roman Italy carrying on much as before until the destruction of the Ostrogothic Kingdom by the Byzantines in the Gothic Wars, which truly turned Italy into the Dark Age wasteland we see in our mind’s eye.

The Gothic Wars came about for Theodoric’s successors, when the Ostrogothic Kingdom’s relations with the eastern empire – always somewhat strained, even under Theodoric – finally ruptured into war and the eastern empire under Justinian the Great sought to reclaim the western half of the empire, a war fought for about two decades and that led to my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – Philosophy & Science: Top 10 Books (4) Camille Paglia – Sexual Personae

 

(4) CAMILLE PAGLIA:

SEXUAL PERSONAE: ART & DECADENCE FROM NEFERTITI TO EMILY DICKINSON (1990)

 

Men are from Apollo and women are from Dionysus – or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Pag!

Camille Paglia that is – neo-Dionysian and prose-poet provocateur par excellence.

Her mythic milkshake of Frazer and Freud brings all the boys – and girls – to the yard!

She out-Nietzsches Nietzsche with uberman AND uberwoman, even if the latter is a bit of a bitch-goddess, to borrow from William James. Mind you, her uberman is also a creature of extremes – “there is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper”.

But no one speaks better about herself – and most things really – than the consummate prose-stylist who is Camille Paglia.

“That symbolized everything I would do with my life and work. Excess and extravagance and explosiveness….”

Or of her book that is her magnum opus and my top ten entry accordingly, Sexual Personae – a book rejected by at least seven different publishers as too hot to handle before it was published by Yale University Press – “it was intended to please no one and offend everyone”. In other words, my kind of book.

“In the book, Paglia argues that human nature has an inherently Dionysian or chthonic aspect, especially in regard to sexuality…Following Friedrich Nietzsche, Paglia argues that the primary conflict in Western culture is between the binary forces of the Apollonian and Dionysian, Apollo being associated with order, symmetry, culture, rationality, and sky, and Dionysus with disorder, chaos, nature, emotion, and earth.”

Or in other words, Apollo is boring but practical and Dionysus is damn good fun or hot slice of crazy.

“The entire process of the book was to discover the repressed elements of contemporary culture, whatever they are, and palpate them”. Mmm…palpate. Hail to the p0rnocracy!

Apart from her Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy, Paglia also celebrates the Christian-pagan dichotomy – with the latter flourishing in art, eroticism and popular culture.

She believes that the “amorality, aggression, sadism, voyeurism, and pornography in great art have been ignored or glossed over by most academic critics” and that sex and nature are “brutal pagan forces.”

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (6) Kingdom of Italy

 

Map of the Kingdom of Odoacer in the year 476 following the usurpation of Emperor Romulus Augustus and Odoacer’s declaration as “Rex Italiae” by Shuaaa2 for Wikipedia “Odoacer” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

(6) KINGDOM OF ITALY (476-493 AD)

 

The immediate successor to the western Roman Empire in Italy and neighboring territory in the Balkans, commencing as it did with its Germanic ruler Odoacer deposing the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD, the date traditionally seen as marking the end of the western Roman Empire.

It therefore ranks as a high tier claimant to the succession of the Roman Empire, not only for its immediate continuity with the western Roman empire but also for my foremost criteria of possession of Rome, as well as the actual imperial capital at the time, Ravenna.

Odoacer did not purport to have any imperial authority beyond his kingdom and indeed expressly represented himself as the client of the eastern Roman emperor Zeno, ruling his kingdom on behalf of the eastern empire under the title of duke of Italy (dux Italiae) bestowed on him by Zeno. To that end he sent back to Zeno the imperial regalia of Romulus Augustulus.

And really it seemed like business as usual for the Romans in Italy. Odoacer simply abandoned the pretense of the succession of puppet emperors to German leaders. Romulus Augustulus was himself a child emperor, little more than a frightened figurehead for his father, possibly much relieved at avoiding the hot seat of the western imperial throne – and apart from deposing him, Odoacer left him to peaceful retirement.

Odoacer also left the Roman Church alone, despite being of the Arian Christian faith pronounced to be heresy by the Church. In addition, he ruled with the loyal support of the Roman Senate in Ravenna – in part probably because the Senate no longer had to contend with their own emperor.

Indeed, while the former empire west of Italy went its own way, Roman Italy itself doesn’t seem too distinct for the next couple of centuries or so from internal strife within the former empire – except instead of Roman generals contending with each other, it was barbarian German warlords contending with each other, or with Roman generals from the eastern empire after its resurgence under Justinian.

Odoacer’s reign of almost seventeen years was relatively peaceful when compared to other periods of Roman internal strife in Italy – until it wasn’t, which brings me to my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

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

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

 

(12) HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (800 / 962 – 1806 AD)

 

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.

Or 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.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (5) Russian Empire

 

(5) RUSSIAN EMPIRE (1472-1917)

 

The second of the two most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the eastern Roman Empire – and the one which managed to pull it off without conquest or even any of the same territory of the former empire (except for the most far flung parts at its greatest extent in the Crimea and the Caucasus).

Indeed, it didn’t even have my foremost criteria for top-tier or high-tier claimant to succession from the Roman Empire by having either Rome or Constantinople, instead breezily styling Moscow as the third Rome – a lesson in audacity for any claimant as heir to the Roman Empire. Just style your capital as the fourth Rome. What next? London? Tokyo? Canberra, seat of the Tsar of all the Australias?

In fairness, the Russian Empire did set its sights on Constantinople in its foreign policy – and more to the point, did have a tenuous claim to dynastic succession from the eastern Roman Empire. “Ivan III of Russia in 1472 married Sophia (Zoé) Palaiologina, a niece of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI” and styled himself Tsar, adapted from Caesar. It also claimed a more abstract succession as the new Orthodox empire, champion of that religious denomination elsewhere.

So now we can add another date to those proposed for the fall of the Roman Empire – 1917, when the last ‘Roman’ emperor fell to the ultimate plebeian revolt in the Russian Revolution.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Complete Top 10)

 

A Roman Legion (from Trajan’s Column), from “Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae” (The Mirror of Roman Magnificence) – public domain image, Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

Roma Eterna!

At the time of writing this, a meme from social media has come to the attention of mainstream media that men think about the Roman Empire a lot (from the viral trend of asking how often they did).

It reminds me of that old anecdote (of dubious authenticity) that the average male thinks of sex one in every seven seconds, which always begged the question to me of what all those other males were thinking about in those other seconds. Well, I guess we know the answer now.

So given its enduring topicality, I thought I’d compile my Top 10 Roman Empires.

Wait – what? Top 10 Roman…Empires? Plural?! Wasn’t there only the one Roman Empire?

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

My tongue is (mostly) in my cheek, but there has been a tendency to demarcate the Roman Empire into different parts, even while maintaining the fundamental continuity between those parts.

The foremost demarcation is the division of the Roman Empire into its western and eastern halves, reflecting the empire’s own division of imperial administration, with the latter enduring for a millennium after the fall of the former but which was named retrospectively by historiographical convention as the Byzantine Empire to distinguish it from being the direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

For that matter, the ‘classical’ Roman Empire is sometimes demarcated into two parts, the Principate to describe the empire instituted by Augustus in 27 BC, and the Dominate to describe the empire as reformed under Diocletian in 284 AD – the latter ultimately overlapping with the division of imperial administration into western and eastern halves.

The eastern Roman Empire is similarly often demarcated into two parts – its original ‘Latin’ empire (literally by its official imperial language) and its transition to its ‘Greek’ empire from the seventh century or so.

One could also parse either the ‘classical’ Roman empire or eastern Roman Empire further by imperial dynasty (or periods when there was no dynasty).

This top ten mostly won’t be concerned with such academic divisions, but don’t be surprised if those eastern and western divisions feature prominently. Rather, it will be concerned with the exceptions to the rule of the Roman Empire – the various breakaway or vestigial states that were either substantial claimants to the Roman Empire or usurping it. Indeed, you could think of it as my Roman Empire iceberg meme – in this case my iceberg of Roman Empire continuity.

Hence I won’t be doing my usual top ten countdown but just counting them out, mostly in chronological order albeit with some exceptions. The top three entries are all within the fundamental continuity of the Roman Empire as the iceberg above the surface, with the subsequent entries as the iceberg beneath the surface becoming more remote or wild breakaway or vestigial states. Don’t worry – I’ll have even wilder entries in my special mentions as we follow the iceberg all the way down claimants to the succession of the Roman Empire.

Note that reference to substantial – arguably the various breakaway states or claimants might extend to any territory controlled by any rivals or usurpers to the imperial throne but let’s not go crazy here. It’s not like we’re just any with delusions of imperial grandeur in the Crisis of Third Century or something. This top ten must have some standards beyond the local barracks emperor.

So that said, these are my Top 10 Roman Empires…

 

 

The Roman Empire under Trajan 117 AD – by Tataryn for Wikipedia “Roman Empire” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

(1) ROMAN EMPIRE

(27 BC – 330 / 395 / 476 AD)

 

There it is – Roman Empire original recipe. Why’d you have to go and mess with the classics?

But of course you must have been expecting this – that in a list of Top 10 Roman Empires, THE Roman Empire would rank on top. By Roman Empire, I mean the ‘classical’ Roman Empire – what most people think of as the Roman Empire.

Of course, it’s not the whole of the Roman Empire – as I did for the Roman Empire in top spot in my Top 10 Empires, spanning from the legendary founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople. However, as I stated in my introduction, this top ten is essentially my Roman Empire iceberg, in which I look at different permutations of the empire beneath the surface of that span or fundamental continuity, becoming more remote or wild breakaway or vestigial states the deeper we go.

Usually the classical Roman Empire is at least what historians have termed the Principate or the empire founded by Augustus from the Roman Republic in 27 BC, essentially by making as little fuss as possible about it being an empire with himself as emperor, although his successors made a lot more fuss about it. Generally, it also extends to what historians term the Dominate, the empire as reformed by Diocletian, anywhere from the start of his reign in 284 AD onwards.

As to where it ends, there are a number of points of demarcation, typically from the division of empire into its western and eastern imperial halves – as defined by Constantine founding Constantinople as the capital of the eastern empire in 330 AD, more usually when the division of imperial administration became permanent in 395 AD, or when the western empire fell (or more precisely, the last western emperor was deposed) in 476 AD. Of course, one can simply continue on with the eastern Roman empire to its fall in 1453, or perhaps some earlier point to mark the transition of the empire from ‘classical Roman empire’ to ‘medieval Greek empire’, typically either the end of the reign of Justinian in 565 AD or that of Heraclius in 641 AD.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

 

The eastern Roman empire at its greatest extent in 555 AD under Justinian the Great – map by Tataryn for Wikipedia “Byzantine Empire” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

(2) EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE / BYZANTINE EMPIRE

(330 / 393 – 1453 AD)

 

We’re still well above the surface of the Roman Empire iceberg here – in the fundamental continuity of the Roman Empire from its classical empire to its eastern empire that endured for over a millennium after the fall of its western half. Historiographical convention has snubbed it as the Byzantine Empire, so as to avoid acknowledging it as the glorious continuation of the Roman Empire – it just stayed more to the east and became more Greek after a certain point. But for familiarity with that convention and for convenience (as it’s shorter), I’ll keep using Byzantine rather than eastern Roman Empire.

There seems to be two recurring arguments among Roman history enthusiasts – whether one ranks the Roman Republic over the Roman Empire, and whether one ranks the Byzantine Empire over the Roman Empire. I’ll have a look at the former in my special mentions but there’s a solid argument to be made for ranking the Byzantine Empire over the classical Roman Empire.

Sure, the Byzantine Empire wasn’t as big as the Roman Empire. After its relatively brief glory days as half the former Roman Empire – or its briefer and even more glorious days when it took a damn good swing at reclaiming the western half under Emperor Justinian – it spent most of its time at about a quarter the Roman Empire. At best, that is – because it spent substantial amounts of time as not much more than its capital in Constantinople.

But for sheer endurance, it has to take the title from the Roman Empire, lasting for a millennium past the fall of the western half, including feats of rebounding from defeats that bordered on resurrection. More like Lazarus Empire, amirite?

And that endurance and those feats were achieved against a more formidable and seemingly eternal encirclement by enemies, from west and east, by land and sea – from which the Byzantines could rarely catch a break, except by soundly defeating one or more of those enemies, and usually not even then.

In the end however, the empire suffered one defeat too many – wounded, fatally as it turned out, from the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204, although it resurrected itself even from that for two centuries. Alas, it simply lacked the scale of time or resources to see it through, particularly against a rising rival empire in its prime – the Ottoman Empire, which finally conquered Constantinople in 1453.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

The Western Roman Empire in 400 AD by Shuaaa2 for Wikipedia “Western Roman Empire” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

 

(3) WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

(330 / 395 – 476 AD)

 

That “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”.

We’re still at the surface of the Roman Empire iceberg – in the fundamental continuity from the classical Roman Empire, after its formal division into de facto separate eastern and western empires in 395 AD (although they still saw themselves as the one empire) – with the latter pretty much falling stillborn from that division, somehow limping through the 81 years of its sorry existence until the barbarians clubbed it on the head and put it out of its misery.

We’re a long way from the Rome that made the Mediterranean their Mare Nostrum, along with making everything else part of their Pax Romana. Hell, Rome wasn’t even the capital of the western empire from 402 AD – that was Ravenna and historians should really call it the Ravennan empire rather than add insult to the injury to the western empire’s ignominious decline.

Indeed, there’s been a video meme to this effect – with Ryan Gosling’s sad sack of a beaten character from Blade Runner 2049 standing in for the western empire, in contrast to Ryan Gosling’s exuberant showboating Ken from the Barbie film standing in for the eastern empire.

Or for that matter, a meme of that heartfelt scene from Avengers: Endgame with Thor back from the future seeing his mother one last time in the past – Freya as the Roman empire in the 2nd century saying sadly to Thor as the Roman empire from the 5th century “The future has not been kind to you, has it?”

I exaggerate for rhetorical effect, but it’s not hard to see the eastern empire abandoning the western empire as a hopelessly lost cause or an act of cutthroat triage, much like the western empire then did with Britain.

And perhaps I exaggerate the plight of the western empire, but not by much. While I tend to see the western Roman empire as doomed with just too many things coming together against it – not least too many barbarians – it might have at least endured longer or better than it did, but for two of the worst emperors in Roman history, compounded by the length of their reigns somehow enduring for most of it, nearly 60 years or so between them.

I am of course talking about Emperors Honorius and Valentinian III, although they might as well have been the same emperor, given how uncannily similar they were – with each of them betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back, Stilicho for Honorius and Aetius for Valentinian III (literally for the stabbing in the back part), each with one of the two notorious sacks of Rome following shortly afterwards, the Visigoths for Honorius and the Vandals for Valentinian III.

On the other hand, there was also Emperor Majorian reigning from 457 to 461 AD – the empire’s last best hope for someone like Aurelian two centuries earlier to pull it out of its spiral of doom, as Majorian defeated all of Rome’s enemies he fought even in that twilight of the empire, until he too was betrayed and assassinated. After that, it was all downhill into the Dark Age, until the last western emperor was deposed in 476 AD.

Yet for all that, it still is what I see as the Roman Empire proper, even if much diminished, hence the ranking. And as I observed in my Top 10 Empires, I just have a particular interest in empires holding the line against all odds as they decline and fall. And let’s face it – even as a shadow of its former self, I still see it as being able to take any of the others below it in the top ten.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

 

 

The partition of the eastern Roman empire after the Fourth Crusade by LatinEmpire for Wikipedia “Empire of Nicaea” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

(4) EMPIRE OF NICAEA

(1204-1261 AD)

 

First in the trinity of residual successor states to the eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 – as the one that actually put its money where its mouth was for its claim as the legitimate successor of the empire.

Aptly enough perhaps for its conventional historiographic title of the Nicene Empire, echoing the Nicene Creed similarly named for Nicaea – although historians sadly missed out on the opportunity for it to be known as the Nice Empire.

For that matter, historians missed out on the opportunity for it to be known as the revenant Roman Empire. It did more than succeed the empire – it clawed the empire back from the grave, reclaiming Constantinople in 1261 in an amazing feat of resurrection, but like all revenants it wasn’t ever quite the same.

Credit for that feat goes to the final imperial dynasty, the Palaiologos dynasty, as founded by its first and best emperor, Michael VIII Palaeologus – although credit might also go the preceding Laskarid dynasty that had founded and sustained the Nicene Empire essentially from scratch.

Calling the restored eastern empire a revenant might be a little unfair – after all, it endured for about two centuries, albeit ultimately dwindling to little more than the city of Constantinople itself but with some reversals of fortune or rebounding before that. With a little more breathing space and a lot more luck – as well as fewer enemies and of course fewer of those interminable Byzantine civil wars always at the worst possible time – it might have rebounded more or at least endured longer.

Alas it was not to be – although I tend to think it was always doomed to fall to the Ottomans, as almost everyone else did at that time, with a few notable exceptions.

However, it is still part of the continuity of the Roman empire – the Roman empire in exile as it were – more so than any other entry in the balance of this top ten (or deeper down the iceberg), hence its top-tier ranking.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

Map of the approximate borders of the Empire of Trebizond shortly after the establishment of the Latin Empire, with the short-lived possessions in western Anatolia conquered by David Komnenos – map by Samhann for Wikipedia “Empire of Trebizond” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

 

(5) EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND & PRINCIPALITY OF THEODORO

(1204-1461 / 1475 AD)

 

One of the three major residual successor states to the eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 – and the one with coolest alternative name, the Trapezuntine Empire.

(Which always prompts to my mind images of the Trapezoid Empire, itself prompted by that pyramid scheme in The Simpsons protesting that their model was more of a trapezoid).

Like the other two vestigial states, it claimed to be the legitimate successor of the eastern Roman Empire – but pushed that claim the least of the three of them, preferring to do its own thing on the Black Sea coast and peacefully abandoning its claim in 1281 or so by treaty with the Nicene imperial state that did succeed in claiming back the empire.

Interestingly, the Trapezuntine Empire was formed before the fall of Constantinople, essentially as a descendant of the last truly great imperial dynasty took the opportunity presented by the encampment of Crusaders outside Constantinople for a military adventure to found his own empire, in alliance with the kingdom of Georgia.

Before that, Trebizond had a long history of doing its own thing even when part of the Roman empire and the Trapezuntine Empire just carried on that history, only more so through the wealth of its trade and pimping out its princesses famed for their beauty.

And there must be something to that foreign policy of bling and booty as Trebizond survived longest among the eastern Roman successor states (setting aside the residual Serbian or Italian dependency that was in Epirus), outlasting the fall of Constantinople until it too was besieged and conquered by the Ottomans in 1261. Even then, its bizarro Byzantine offshoot in a sliver of Crimea, the Principality of Theodoro, lasted another 14 years until it too fell to the Ottomans in 1475.

As such, it is the only Roman state outside the continuity of the empire itself – classical empire, eastern and western empires, Nicene empire – in this top ten that I rank as top tier.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

 

(6) GALLIC EMPIRE

(260 – 274 AD)

 

And now we start to dip beneath the surface of the Roman Empire iceberg, with one of two breakaway states as the Roman Empire broke into three parts during the Crisis of the Third Century – in the western part of the Roman Empire as the Palmyrene Empire took over the eastern part.

The Gallic Empire – the name given to it by modern historiography – was established by a Roman commander (of German origin) Postumus in 260 in the wake of barbarian invasions of Gaul and instability in Rome. At its height it included Roman territories in Germania, Gaul, Britannia and Hispania.

There followed a series of contenders for it, resulting in and becoming more heated after Postumus’ assassination in 269, albeit with the ’empire’ losing much of its territory in the process (particularly Hispania) – before a certain restorer of the world, Emperor Aurelian, took all of it back at the Battle of Chalons in 274, because he was just that good.

In fairness to the Gallic Empire, they largely kept to themselves as a de facto separate state, not attempting to invade Italy or otherwise seize the central Roman administrative apparatus.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

Palmyrene Empire in 271 AD by Ennomus – Wikipedia “Palmyrene Empire” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

(7) PALMYRENE EMPIRE
(270-273 AD)

 

And now we come to the other usurper state during the Crisis of the Third Century when the Roman Empire split into three, with two breakaway empires at either end of it, west and east.

The Palmyrene empire was the more dangerous of the two, since it seized most of the wealthier eastern part of the empire, including the empire’s breadbasket in Egypt.

Ironically, the Palmyrene empire originated from the city of Palmyra (now in modern Syria) which while styling itself as a kingdom loyally defended the eastern borders of the Roman Empire from the Sassanid Persians, under its king Odaenathus, who defeated the Persians in 260 AD.

For his loyalty to and defense of the Roman Empire, he was rewarded with the position of Governor of the East, holding the highest political and military authority in the region, superseding that of the Roman provincial governors.

Unfortunately, he and his son were assassinated, so the Palmyrene kingdom now came under the control of its queen, widow of Odaenathus – one of those femme fatale figures to the empire that so alarmed Rome like Cleopatra before her, Zenobia.

Although it’s somewhat sad that Cleopatra eclipses Zenobia in popular imagination, since the shade of Cleopatra wishes she was Zenobia – Zenobia did what Cleopatra could only dream of doing, forge an eastern empire as a genuine rival to Rome.

Zenobia trod lightly at first, but her Palmyrene kingdom slowly transformed into the Palmyrene empire in open rebellion against the Roman Empire and conquering much of the latter’s eastern territory from 270 AD, although historians debate to what extent that rebellion was aimed at Palmyrene independence or more ambitiously at the imperial throne in Rome itself.

And she might have succeeded, certainly in the former and perhaps even the latter, had she not been opposed by the legendary restorer of the world himself, Emperor Aurelian, who made short work of her Palmyrene Empire in 272, as well as a brief revival of its rebellion under her successors in 273

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

Yeah – basically something like this

 

(8) BRITANNIC EMPIRE

(286-296 AD)

 

Yeah, we’re going deeper down the Roman Empire iceberg with this one, with one of the more dubious empires in this top ten – Wikipedia refuses to dignify it as such and calls it the Carausian revolt instead, but I have a soft spot for it, if only for the name history has given it on occasion as the Britannic Empire.

However, it’s more than the name. Although its founder, Roman naval commander Carausius did not claim succession from the Roman empire but only sought to usurp part of it for himself, that part did endure for ten years or so, which is pretty impressive even by the standards of some more substantial usurpers on this list.

Also, you have to admire his audacity, which at another time or in other circumstances might have paid off – foremost among those circumstances perhaps being that his loyalist Roman opponent was the glorious Constantius, father of the even more glorious Constantine the Great.

Carausius had risen through the ranks from humble origins and was appointed to naval command in Gaul, tasked to clear the English Channel of Frankish and Saxon pirates or raiders. Instead, he collaborated with them to enrich himself – or so he was accused of doing, being sentenced to death for it. In his most audacious move, he responded with the ultimate defence – declaring himself emperor over Britain and northern Gaul.

And he had substantial forces for his empire – his own fleet of course, augmented by new ships he had built. In addition, he not only had the three legions stationed in Britain, but a legion he had commandeered in Gaul, a number of foreign auxiliary units, a levy of Gaulish merchant ships, and barbarian mercenaries.

Given such forces, it might be said that he had reasonable prospects – particularly if he had confined himself to Britain, with its more defensible position combined with naval power. To me, his biggest mistake might have been biting off more than he could chew with northern Gaul as well – where his forces were readily defeated by those of Constantius in 293, which prompted his assassination by his subordinate Allectus, who fared no better when Constantius invaded and retook Britain itself.

It might also be said that Carausius was a man before his time – and after it, with the misfortunate timing of pulling his stunt at just the wrong time. Had he been around to pull this stunt during the Crisis of the Third Century, it might have paid off – and he might have pulled it off for good if he’d been around to do it when Emperor Honorius was prepared to abandon Britain altogether, with the end of Roman imperial rule traditionally dated to 410 AD.

There was just something about Britain that inspired Roman usurpers. Governor of Britain Clodius Albinus took his shot at usurping the imperial throne in the so-called Year of Five Emperors. Another imperial usurper, Magnus Maximus also raised the standard of revolt from Britain in the fourth century – and after elevating two disappointing usurpers, the Roman army in Britain chose one of its soldiers to be yet another claimant to the throne as Constantine III in 407 AD. He actually did reasonably well for a usurper, taking the legions from Britain and setting up shop in Gaul in such a way Emperor Honorius was forced to recognize him as co-emperor from 409 to 411, until Honorius had a competent general to take a swing at him.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

The Domain or Kingdom of Soissons in Gaul, 476 AD – map adapted by Publius-Vergilius-Maro from Bernard Baruch, Merovingian Military Organization for Wikipedia “Kingdom of Soissons” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

(9) DOMAIN OF SOISSONS

(457 – 486 AD)

 

In the fifth century, the western Roman Empire fell and all Gaul was conquered by German tribes. All? One small province of Romans remained, known to history as the Kingdom or Domain of Soissons.

Yes – it’s Asterix but replayed for real with a Roman province holding out in Gaul against the Germans. What can I say? I’m a romantic – and I have a soft spot for stories of lost legions, let alone whole holdout provinces.

 

Hmm – this looks familiar…

 

Also yes – we’re going deeper down the Roman empire iceberg to this remnant or rump state from the fall of the western empire. There were arguably others but the Domain of Soissons is perhaps the best defined of them and my favorite as romantic Roman last redoubt.

The Domain of Soissons originated in 457 when the empire’s last best hope for a figure like Aurelian to pull it out of its doom, Emperor Majorian, appointed Aegitus as military commander or magister militum of Roman Gaul. Alas, the empires last best hope was not to be – as like Aurelian, Majorian was stabbed in the back, but unlike Aurelian, before he was able to save the empire.

Aegitus however kept a small part of that hope alive, as he and his son Syagrius maintained their rule in a remnant of Roman Gaul against the Visigoths and the Franks, even beyond the fall of the empire itself in 476, until finally defeated and conquered by the Franks in the Battle of Soissons in 486.

The Domain of Soissons even took a couple of shots at succeeding to the helm of the western Roman Empire – first, according to one writer, by threatening that empire with an invasion of Italy, and second, rejecting the rule of the barbarian king Odoacer in Italy by sending a messenger to the eastern Roman Emperor to claim the succession of the western Roman Empire for itself. Sadly but perhaps realistically, the eastern Roman emperor chose to offer legitimacy to Odoacer instead.

After that, the Domain of Soissons cut all ties with Italy and had no further recorded contact with the eastern Roman empire, although continuing to maintain that it was merely governing a Roman province.

Eterna Roma!

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

Epirus 1205-1230 by Cplakidas for Wikipedia “Despotate of Epirus” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

(10) DESPOTATE OF EPIRUS & EMPIRE OF THESSALONIKA
(1205-1337 & 1356-1479 AD)

 

The last surviving vestigial state of the eastern Roman Empire, originating when the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople in 1204 and enduring (briefly) after the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453.

Admittedly, the eastern Roman Empire was not in good shape before the Fourth Crusade, arguably with the fault lines of its dissolution already in place, but it broke apart entirely when the Fourth Crusade struck it a death blow – not its finest moment for either the empire or the Crusades and certainly not the smartest for the latter.

I think it’s fair to call it a death blow as the empire as such ceased to exist, with the Crusaders founding their so-called Latin Empire in the heart of the former east Roman empire around Constantinople – scattering three residual states of the empire vying as successor to it. Amazingly, the empire came back from the dead, reviving under one of those residual successor states, but like all revenants it was never the same again.

One of those states was the so-called Despotate of Epirus, so-called because that title, like that of the Byzantine Empire, is a modern historiographic convention rather than a name in use at the time.

Like the other two, it claimed to be the legitimate successor of the eastern Roman empire – and even took a decent but ultimately unsuccessful swing at it by expanding in Greece towards Constantinople, in what is styled as the Empire of Thessalonika, until their imperial aspirations came to an abrupt end with their disastrous defeat by the Bulgarian Empire in 1230.

From there it gets convoluted but essentially the original Epirus part broke away from the new Thessalonika part, before both were swallowed up again by the successor state that did go on to revive itself as the east Roman Empire – with Thessalonika being straight up reabsorbed in 1246, while Epirus bounced back and forth until its final reconquest in 1337.

Only to slip the imperial leash again in 1356 during one of the eastern Roman empire’s interminable civil wars, bouncing from Serbian dependency to being inherited by Italian rulers, until it too fell to the Ottomans – although in its case, some small parts of it endured beyond the fall of Constantinople, with the very last stronghold in the town of Vonitsa, holding out until 1479.

Shout-out to those other eastern Roman holdouts that (briefly) survived the fall of Constantinople, most notably the so-called Despotate of the Morea – which had become a tributary to the Ottomans but rebelled, prompting the Ottomans to conquer them outright by 1460 or 1461 (depending which holdout you go by).

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

 

Friday Night Funk: Top 10 Music (Mojo & Funk) (7) Jamiroquai – Love Foolosophy

(7) FUNK: JAMIROQUAI – LOVE FOOLOSOPHY (A FUNK ODYSSEY 2001)

B-Side: Don’t Give Hate a Chance (2005)

 

“Baby baby, I feel these sweet sensations

Honey honey, looks like a superstar”

It doesn’t get much funkier than Jamiroquai – indeed, Wikipedia lists the band’s genres as “funk, acid jazz, jazz funk, nu-funk, pop and disco-rock”.

Jamiroquai is best known by its lead singer Jay Kay, dubbed the cat in the hat – particularly in his incarnation as the Buffalo Man, the silhouette character on their album covers – and his idiosyncratic style of dancing, showcased to best effect in the trippy video to Virtual Insanity, their best-selling single.

Or to its fans, the use of their single Canned Heat in that dance scene from Napoleon Dynamite. (Vote for Pedro!)

Their breakthrough album, particularly in the American music scene, was Travelling without Moving – apparently the best-selling funk album according to the Guinness Book of Records, with the aforementioned Virtual Insanity as its flagship single. Personally, I prefer the single Alright as funkier (“Let’s spend the night together, wake up and live forever”), although my true soft spot is for the sci-fi boogie of Cosmic Girls and its cheesy lyrics:

 

“I’m scanning all my radars

Well she said she’s from a quasar

Forty thousand million light years away

It’s a distant solar system

I tried to phone but they don’t list ’em

So I asked her for a number all the same

She said, step in my transporter

So I can teleport ya

All around my heavenly body…

She’s just a cosmic girl

From another galaxy”

However, my favorite Jamiroquai single and accordingly this entry is from their fifth album A Funk Odyssey (aptly enough in 2001) – Love Foolosophy.

Close-runner-up is a single from their sixth album Dynamite (and their singles compilation High Times) – (Don’t) Give Hate a Chance.

 

And as for the balance of my Top 10 Jamiroquai songs:

(3) Alright (Travelling Without Moving 1997)

(4) Cosmic Girl (Travelling with Moving 1996)

(5) Supersonic (1999)

(6) Little L (A Funk Odyssey 2001)

(7) You Give Me Something (A Funk Odyssey 2001)

(8) Corner of the Earth (A Funk Odyssey 2001)

(9) Feel So Good (A Funk Odyssey 2001)

(10) Feels Just Like it Should (2005)

Although Supersonic (Synkronized 1999) is a close runner-up, particularly for its trippy video

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (Rome): Top 10 Roman Empires (Special Mention) (4) Ottoman Empire

 

Map of Ottoman Empire in 1683 by Chamboz for Wikipedia “Ottoman Empire” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

 

(4) OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1453-1922)

 

“Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople

Been a long time gone, Constantinople”

 

The first of the two most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the eastern Roman Empire – and the one which had the force of right of conquest to it, something the Byzantines themselves might have recognized as part of their own imperial doctrine, as well as substantially overlapping with the territory of the eastern Roman empire at its height under Justinian the Great.

It also had my foremost criteria for a top-tier or at least high-tier claimant to succession from the Roman Empire – possession of one of the two Romes, Rome or Constantinople, once Constantinople fell to Ottoman conquest in 1453.

“After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II declared himself Roman Emperor: Kayser-i Rum, literally “Caesar of the Romans”, the standard title for earlier Byzantine Emperors in Arab, Persian and Turkish lands… Mehmed’s claim rested principally with the idea that Constantinople was the rightful seat of the Roman Empire, as it had been for more than a millennium”.

Indeed, Mehmed apparently took a swing at the first and original Rome itself, emulating Justinian the Great and “reuniting the Empire in a way it hadn’t been for nearly eight centuries” – starting a campaign in Italy with the invasion of Otranto in 1480 but which was cut short by his death in 1481. His successors didn’t follow up on that but instead ” repeatedly (albeit never successfully) attempted to conquer the capital of the rival contenders to the Imperial Roman title” with their sieges of Vienna. Those rival contenders of course being the Habsburgs as claimants for the Holy Roman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire also had the “additional though questionable claim of legitimacy” from past alliances between the Ottoman dynasty and the Byzantines through marriage.

Hence one of the dates proposed on occasion (albeit also often tongue in cheek) for the fall of the Roman Empire is 1922, the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Philosophy & Science: Top 10 Books (5) John Gray – Straw Dogs

 

(5) JOHN GRAY –

STRAW DOGS: THOUGHTS ON HUMANS & OTHER ANIMALS (2002)

 

“I’ve got a Nietzsche trigger finger!”

No, seriously – this brag (by another entry in this top ten) might well sum up the philosophical pessimism and thoroughgoing misanthropy of John Gray.

That or how I learned to stop worrying and love that humanity sucks.

Indeed, one might quip that Gray out-Nietzsches Nietzsche. For Gray, Nietzsche was a pansy who didn’t go far enough in proclaiming God as dead, since he substituted his own myth of the superman for God. (He literally writes that in this book. Well, except the pansy bit).

And yes, Gray’s oeuvre might be summed up as humans suck – a philosophy of posthumanism or anti-humanism.

Hence the subtitle of this book, which encapsulates the book’s thesis that humans have yet to reconcile themselves with evolutionary theory that they’re just another type of dumb animal.

What are we but fish that couldn’t swim and had to crawl or apes that couldn’t climb and had to think? That’s my quip but it might as well be Gray’s. Indeed for Gray, that thinking part is overblown – “Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life.”

One might well wonder what was the point of writing the book then, if all this thinking business is just an illusion – but I do love me some grumpy philosophical pessimism, which this book has in spades.

“Gray attacks humanism as a worldview in conflict with the view of humanity as part of the evolution of life on the planet…a secular version of the Christian view of humans as differentiated from the natural world. Gray blames humanism, and its central view of humanity, for much of the destruction of the natural world, and sees technology as just a tool by which humans will continue destroying the planet and each other”.

My favorite philosophy is aphoristic, which this book also has in spades, meandering between pithy quips and “short essays on different topics”.

Straw Dogs was praised by none other than English author J.G. Ballard, himself of a somewhat pessimistic philosophical bent and “who wrote that the book “challenges most of our assumptions about what it means to be human, and convincingly shows that most of them are delusions”.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)