Talk:Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old posts

He also captured recaptured Jerusalem in the crusades of his time, due to political machinations and established a muslim city in italy I think, but I don't have the sources handy to check up on the details.

Actually he negotiated with the emir of Egypt to get Jerusalem. He got a deal that he couldt keep Jerusalem for 10 years, and as such he did "free" Jerusalem without the use of arms. He had good relations with the muslims (Sicily his kingdom, had a minor muslim population). He also hosted Jews and muslim scientists and artsists at his court.

This genealogical table is not very informative: i think it blinds the reader with all these colours. Can we get rid of it? MvHG 07:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the table, because I do find that it can be informative. If the colours are blinding, perhaps they could be toned down. Eclecticology 19:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

election as King of the Germans

We say Frederick was elected King of the Germans in 1211 at the Diet of Nuremberg. The generally excellent German Wikipedia article says December 9, 1212 in Mainz. Any citations for our version? or theirs? -- Jmabel 04:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've usually heard 1212. Not sure about location. I'll also look at the article, as you asked below, although I'm not sure how comprehensive my knowledge of Frederick II is. john k 22:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed the prob in the german Article. There were many errors in "Personality". Frederick was elected in 1211 in absentia, but was elected again and crowned in 1212 (and crowned, with the rigth insignias, in 1215). Best wishes from Germany Benowar 18:05, 14 December 2004 (UTC) ps: Reference: Stürner, Friedrich II., vol. 1, p. 130 f. In english, i recommend "Abulafia, Frederick II, a medieval emperor" (good overview, but controversial).

can someone please review "Life"?

I've brought in a bunch of material from the German-language Wikipedia to the "Life" section. Some of it straight out contradicted some of ours; it seemed generally better researched, so I have generally followed it. Could someone who knows this period better than me have a general look through this and see if they think anything is not correct? I would not want to stake my life on the accuracy of some details of this article, although I think the general picture is correct. -- Jmabel 22:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone over it - it looks mostly right to me. The bit about 1211/1212 seems to be that he was elected in both (as well as in 1215). The bit about the epidemic when he wanted to go on crusade is true, as far as it goes, but conceals the fact that Frederick had been delaying for years his departure. I also put in considerably more detail on Frederick's involvement with the crusader state (I could probably put in somewhat more, from Runciman, but that might unbalance the article). john k 22:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should indeed pursue the Crusader question, it was an important element underlying the shift of European power at the time. The Zaehringer line was at political odds with the Counts of Urach, who controlled much of south-west Germany, and used that base to bully Frederick religiously (the Urach family roots were in the Church, and a case might be made to suggest that the orthodox Catholicism of Southern Germany lies with them). The second son of Count Eginos IV of Urach, Cardinal-Bishop Konrad, having served as Cardinal-Legate of the Albigensian Crusade 1220-23, where he was the principal founder of what would shortly after be recognised as the Inquisition, was then assigned to bully Frederick into respecting his crusading oath: on the death of Pope Honorius in 1227, he was one of the three Commissioners charged with the selection of the next Pope. Having refused the Holy See out of fear of being accused of selfishness, Konrad did not long survive the selection of his fellow Commissioner, Ugolino de'Conti (Gregory IX). His followers continued to pursue the Emperor long after his death: notable among them were Gerald of Lausanne, as mentioned, but also his successor Bishop Boniface, a member of Brussels' Clutinck clan who were lieutenants to the Dukes of Brabant: it is to be noted that Brabant was heavily influenced by the Empire during this period. Konrad von Urach himself had served his ecclesiastical apprenticship under uncles in the province, the Prince-Bishop of Liège and the Abbot of Villers Jel 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heirs

I've continued the translation into the section on heirs. I believe my translation is accurate, but I'm not sure all of the material I am translating should be trusted. I suspect that some matters are probably disputed by historians, and the German text, while generally well-researched, is not clear in its sourcing of particular facts. It definitely has some dubious links, such as the wrong Henry VII. In a few places, where I knew what was going on I've clarified, in others I'm not sure. General review would be in order. Also:

• Someone may want to add more links.
• There is surprisingly little here on his wives.
• Some of the place names may have English-language equivalents of which I am unaware.
• This article says without qualification that Frederick on his deathbed married Bianca Lancia. Our article on Manfred of Sicily says "Bianca Lancia... is reported on somewhat slender evidence to have been married to the emperor just before his death." Also, on several points, what we say here doesn't line up all that well with what was say in the article on Manfred. Someone who knows this period better than I should sort this out. In particular, (1) no mention there of the fate of his wife and child, and (2) judging by what is there, "continued - after initial attempts at reconciliation - Frederick's conflict with the Pope" seems a bit cursory.
• This article says Conrad I, Duke of Swabia "was publicly executed on the instructions of Charles I of Sicily". However, the article on Charles says "Manfred's defeat and death in battle were followed (1268) by the defeat and execution of his nephew Conradin..." Someone is confused, but who?

I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant on all this, just translating for the most part.

This article in general could do with a lot more sourcing. For example, what is the source of the statement that Frederick could read and write nine languages? It seems likely enough but is the sort of thing that ought to have a cited source. There's a good general set of references, but no way to relate the content of the article back to those sources.

In any event, I will continue the translation at my next opportunity. -- Jmabel 07:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know the source for the statement concerning Frederick's polyglotism, but I can verify it. Page 415 of Holy War - The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World by Karen Armstrong says of Frederick II that "[a]t a time when most people spoke at best only three languages, he spoke nine and wrote in seven" – the exact number of languages he could write is probably unknown. -- Itai 20:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take it from your including a page number you have that at hand. Can you add that, with publication info, to the references and add an appropriate citiation in the article? Or if you just drop the publication info (publisher, place of publication, date, ideally ISBN too) here, I'll do it. -- Jmabel 00:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have actually written the reference, pressed "Show preview", but then at to leave and neglected to press "Save page". Returning several hours afterward, I saw that you did it yourself. Oops. (By the way, I don't know if anybody has said it already, but your work on this article is most commendable.) -- Itai 22:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was looking for more information about Frederick II, and noticed a difference with my text and what is posted here as to the number of languages spoken by Frederick II. My text (The Western Experience, 8th Edition, Chambers et al.) says he spoke 'six' languages, not 'nine'. I haven't changed it because I don't wish to, but I thought I'd let you know. Tehmasp 19:54, August 09 2005

• • • Hi - off the top of my head I can rattle off Latin, German, French, Provençal, Arabic, Greek and then you could quite easily add three other forms of vulgar latin: Tuscan, Sicilian and Apulian (these three used predominantly in the Sicilian School of poetry, of which he was patron). Re his Arabic, I refer to this quote in Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes": ... the emir Fakhr al-Din Ibn al-Shaykh...was amazed when he arrived in Palermo: yes, everything they said about Frederick was true. He spoke and wrote Arabic perfectly, he felt unconcealed admiration for Muslim civilization, and he had nothing but contempt for the barbarous West, especially for the pope of Rome. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'coz!) 04:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: his wives, the only one I know much about is Yolande of Jerusalem, who died in childbirth at the tender age of 16 (I believe - her mother had also died in childbirth in 1212, I think, and Yolande died in 1228). His third wife was a daughter of King John of England, and thus sister to both Henry III and to Richard of Cornwall, who got himself elected king after Frederick's death. Re: Bianca Lancia, I think our article on Manfred is more correct - I've never heard it said without qualification that the two were ever married. Re: Conradin, I'm not sure what's going on. He certainly shouldn't be called "Conrad I, Duke of Swabia" (Among other things, I suspect he was not the first Conrad to be duke of Swabia). But other than that, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Manfred was defeated and killed at Benevento in 1266. 2 years later, Conradin invades Italy with a German army. After initial success, he is defeated and captured by Charles at Tagliacozza, and shortly thereafter publicly executed in the marketplace at Naples on Charles's orders. john k 00:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personality

Translated. Some of this is a bit redundant, internally and with the material above: someone may want to tighten it. Also, as with the previous section, it could possibly use more links. -- Jmabel 06:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that this section gives adequate weight to the extent of Frederick's departure from traditional religious views. In the view of at least some historians it would seem that his views were probably close to those of a modern athiest or agnostic:

His religious scepticism was notorious, and shocked Muslims as well as Christians. He joked at the 'ignorance' of God in commanding a land so infertile as Palestine to the Jews, he mocked at the sacraments, and took a pleasure in uttering blasphemies. According to Pope Gregory IX, he openly assserted that 'the world had been deceived by three men, Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed'

This quote is from "A History of Medieval Europe", 2nd Edition, R.H.C Davis, Professor Emertus of Medieval History at Univ. of Birmingham -- Bdrasin 1/11/2005 10:23 (PT)

Go for it, cite your source. I translated the bulk of this article from the German Wikipedia, so you might want to drop them a note, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bdrasin, I mostly like what you did, except we now have "Many modern medievalists...Other scholars..." These are "weasel words". I gather that at least in the latter case, you have in mind either Davis or someone he quotes, so something like "Other scholars, such as R.H.C. Davis," would be more appropriate. And if you can cite someone on the other side as well, all the better. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

"According to Pope Gregory IX," - Uhm, are you aware of exactly what Pope Gregory IX thought of Frederick? Generally anything from the papacy regarding his religious beliefs should be treated as BEYOND suspect. - AD, Heidelberg, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.196.24 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem

The Barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem did not recognize Frederick as King following his wife's death. Rather, they recognized his son Conrad as King, and Frederick as his regent. When Conrad came of age, they immediately kicked Frederick out as Regent (although, to be honest, he had not been effectively in control for his some time, his Bailli, Roger Filangieri, having been kicked out by the mid 1230s, and had thus only been a titular regent), and appointed their own (the Dowager Queen of Cyprus, who was next in line after Conrad)...Frederick certainly claimed the throne after 1228, but that claim was never actually recognized (Perhaps it was briefly recognized in the immediate aftermath of his crusade, but even then, it's unclear, since they indisputably did recognize him as regent). But Runciman points out at length how much weakened Frederick's position was by Yolande's death. So I'm not sure we should say without qualification that he continued as King after her death. He certainly claimed to be King. But, then, Edward III claimed to be King of France. The situation of an absent regent claiming the throne that rightfully belongs to his son is, though, a bizarre one, so it's unclear exactly how this should be dealt with. john k 07:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In view of that, I've changed this in the chart to say, "and alone or as regent for Conrad after her death". Sounds to me, though, like this merits an entire paragraph in the article, roughly what you just wrote. Do you want to take a shot at it, or should I edit your paragraph here and put it in the article? -- Jmabel 08:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to do it later today. I'll have a look at my Runciman to get the details straight. john k 17:03, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Summary

From the article:

"...many of his contemporaries, because of his lifelong interest in Islam saw in him "the Hammer of Christianity", or at the very least a dissenter from Christendom. The unanimous view of modern medievalists is that this is false. Frederick understood himself as a Christian monarch, but the sense of a Byzantine emperor, thus as God's Viceroy on earth. "

Is this really a unanimous view? I have cited one appairently legitimate historian who seems to hold the view that Frederick was contemptuous of all religeous beliefs, including (especially?) Christianity; see discussion of Personality section. I'm not a professional historian and the book is a bit old (copywrite 1988), but I'd be surprised if this view has been utterly discredited and I think it should be at least mentioned. -- Bdrasin 1/11/2005 10:23 (PT) See my comment above in response to your other remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

In modern german works, Frederick isn´t "the hammer of christianity" - the problem is, that the Hohestaufen Kaiseridee (i don´t know how to translate it in english - it means the political theory of the emperor) relates to the Kaiseridee of the later roman emperors - as god´s viceroy on earth (cf.: Hans Martin Schaller, Die Kaiseridee Friedrichs II. von Hohenstaufen, in: Stupor mundi, ed. Wolf). The propaganda of the pope tried to suggest a other picture - but ALL Hohenstaufen tried to keep the papacy at bay and to establish a empire, like it had been in the early 11. century, with a strong emperor and a pope, who didn´t interfere in secular matters. You see: they failed and the papal propaganda worked well for the next centuries. [Anonymously added 1 March 2005]

So, are you suggesting any edit? or is this just a remark? (I don't think there is an English equivalent of Kaiseridee, we either use Kaiseridee or, as you have, a circumlocution like "theory of imperial power".) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

It´s just a remark - but, perhaps you would like to edit the article to make the problem clear. Please, don´t mix the papal propaganda and the "historical" Frederick (cf. the sources). Some historians dislike him, others worship him - its ambivalent. But - so far as i know, and i am working on this field since five years and know Abuladia, Stürner, Schaller, Kantorowicz etc. - no modern historian really means, that Frederick was some kind of a renaissance prince. He was a christian monarch, no doubt (read the sources, especially his constitutions) - but he was also the august emperor and - dont forget - a man of the norman world of southern Italy. His Kaiseridee was universal - and this tradition reached back to ancient times. So: yes, its problematic. But he also punished christian heretics in the name of the church. He was the "stupor mundi" :-) --greetings from Germany.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.255.155.80 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2005 (UTC)

Parentage and children

I see this was discussed above, but I wanted to try to get rid of that green, yellow and purple table. It could at least use some nicer colours :) I made a much simpler list, if that's acceptable...the previous table is still there, stuck into an HTML comment, so it can be easily reverted. Adam Bishop 06:29, 26 November 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I note that in an earlier part of the article, it mentions that Frederick was educated in Rome, but towards the end, it mentions that he grew up in the backstreets of Palermo. Despite the colourful language, I think the latter is correct. My understanding is that he was raised and educated in Palermo in the tradition of the siculo-norman kings, i.e. with the best Latin, Arab, Greek and Jewish scholars available. In fact the article does not give much weighting to this siculo-norman background. Indeed, the opening paragraph does not even mention that he was King of Sicily, and to this day, sicilians refer to him as Frederick I of Sicily (which he was). He was raised in Sicily (his mother being a siculo-norman) and spent the bulk of his life in his kingdom. Anyone who wants to understand the contradictions and uniqueness of his life, need to come to grips with this aspect of his life first and foremost. Focus too much on the Holy Roman Emperor part, and you are way off track before you even start. Salutamu. --pippudoz 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He definitely was in Rome for a while, protege to the pope; I don't have much to contribute on the rest of this. King of Sicily should certainly be mentioned. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

He was educated primary in Sicily, supervised by german knights (e.g. Markward von Anweiler). He was no beggar - that´s a myth. And yes, he loved his Regnum Sicilie - but as a result of his Kaiseridee he was primary Holy Roman Emperor and not King of Sicily. For his youth and education: Stürner, Friedrich II., vol. 1, pp. 41-113.

It is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that he left his kingdom only a handful of times in his whole life and that so much of what he achieved was done as King of Sicily (legal, artistic, literary, learning, etc.). Please sign off your posts. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'coz!) 04:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it´s not. Read the sources. The conflict between Papacy and Empire resulted because he foperated like his father and Barbarossa. Of course, he loved his regno, but he lived 8 years in Germany, and there he was mainly influenced by the Kaiseridee of the Hohenstaufen - read the constitutiones, or his manifests of his last years - he saw himself like a kind of messianic emperor. Only the way was another: he wanted to achieve his goals and for that he needed his regno - in Germany were the princes too strong. That´s a difference....

• • Allow me to repeat a quote from above - I refer to this quote in Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes":

... the emir Fakhr al-Din Ibn al-Shaykh...was amazed when he arrived in Palermo: yes, everything they said about Frederick was true. He spoke and wrote Arabic perfectly, he felt unconcealed admiration for Muslim civilization, and he had nothing but contempt for the barbarous West, especially for the pope of Rome.

Let us also not forget that his own personal body guards were saracens - he kept a large contingent of muslims in his army because they could always be relied on to fight the Pope's armies if necessary. This sort of behaviour seems far removed from any norms you care to point at anywhere on the continent. If he was not half siculo-norman, and if he had not been schooled in Palermo - it is extremely unlikely that any of this would have been possible. North Europeans are used to thinking they are at the centre of absolutely everything, but that is only because they have trouble looking back further than a few centuries. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'coz!) 23:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Maalouf is not a historian - he is a journalist. Sicily formed his character, but as a emperor, he tried to to follow the path of Henry VI and Barbarossa - but with more ressources and with a different plan, that´s true. If Frederick really speaked arabic fluently isn`t clear - the sources are ambivalent. Read Abulafia or Stürner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.135.235.97 (talk • contribs) 26 Aug 2005.

Angevin

Frederick II was husnand of Isabella of England and included in the Plantagenet category as her consort. John Kenney just removed all members of the family who were not directly descended from the House Anjou but were married into it. Including all Queen consorts serving from 1152 to 1399. I think this makes their articles hard to trace. User: Dimadick (87.202.133.13) 23:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Birth

A recent addition by Attilios says "Some old chronicles account he was born in a public square of the city of Jesi, in northern Italy, while is father was entering triumphantly into Palermo," which would tend to suggest this is in doubt. Older text, still in the article says, as fact "In order to stanch any doubt about his origin, the already 40-year old Constance gave birth to the child publicly in a marketplace." So which is it? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

How Frederick was born is quite dubious. The sources are divergent - both versions are not safe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.140.236 (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Crusade

The second to last paragraph about the Spirituals and Joachimites supporting him and calling him the Antichrist sounds contradictory, unless one explains that Antichrist was a good figure in their eschatology (which I have attempted to do). I also think the mention of the Spirituals and the Joachimites can be combined in one sentence, which I have done. 216.139.189.66 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide a source for such an odd piece of information? No competent book I have ever read on the Spirituals would call Antichrist a good figure. There was much speculation about Antichrist's identity both in the 13th and the 14th centuries, but generally, Antichrist was seen as a figure who might have chosen good, but has become a traitor. See, for instance, David Burr, Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), chapter 6.

As Burr has shown us elsewhere (Spiritual Franciscans, 2001), thinking of "the Spirituals" as a kind of political party with a clear and distinct ideology and set of beliefs is fallacious. Alaraxis 13:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alaraxis that there should be a citation to support the claim that the Antichrist was a good figure. From my readings on the subject, notably Bernard McGinn's The Antichrist, the Joachimites did not consider the Antichrist at all good, but they did believe in a distinct eschatological figure in the person of a holy emperor who would root out corruption (Dante also alludes to such a person). 68.48.189.164 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Muslim views

Similarly, old material says "The Saracens had a good opinion of him…", etc., but Attilios writes, "In his period in Jerusalem, this behaviour was much to the dislike of the Muslims too, who grew mistrustful of a Christian which was not a Christian." Is there citation on this, given that it is quite opposite to what is said elsewhere in the article? And can we integrate this material more smoothly? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. See Runciman's histories of the Crusades chapter "Frederick II". Before my edit there were something like "Muslims adored him", but if you check Runciman you'll se that things were of course different from this oversimplification, and that the same al-Kamil dind not trust so much in Frederick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attilios (talk • contribs) 6 Nov 2005.

• So can someone integrate this contrast between what different scholars say, with citation, smoothly into the article instead of having the narrative voice veer between two opposites? -- Jmabel | Talk

Do not forget that Runciman is not friendly to Frederick. The sources are divergent, too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.140.236 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ligurian Republic"

Can someone clarify "Ligurian Republic" in the article? The only one I'm aware of is in the Napoleonic era. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It means Genoa. Maybe too obscore. I'll correct. Attilios 08:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Two other clumsy phrases

"…kept the treasure with the harem and the menagerie…"; "provided this not damaged the Empire's pride": I'm not sure what these are meant to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

first one, that the treasure was in the camp with the harem and the menagerie. Second one, that the action was possible if this did not damage the Empire's name. Correct freely if you want (remember I'm Italian-born and my English can be doubtful). Attilios 08:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

King of...

[1] removed the title "King of Germany" with the comment that "King of the Romans" and "King of Germany" mean the same thing. Certainly, funtionally they did, and I know he used the title "King of the Romans". Did he not also use "King of Germany"? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

He certainly did, as far as I am aware. He was also, btw, King of Italy and Burgundy. john k 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No, he wasn´t King of Italy (King of the Lombards would be the correct title) or of Burgundy (his grandfather was King of Burgundy). See Stürner and Lexikon des Mittelalters. Correction: The title "rex Italiae" is present in the sources. but the future king of Italy was crowned with the "Crown of the Lombards".

Italy was (in theory, at least) a Lombardic kingdom, so the two are not mutually exclusive. "Italia" was, anyway, an ill-defined region -- Roger II used the rubric "Siciliae et Italiae rex" until the Treaty of Benevento.Bob.appleyard 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Education

I have questioned this before, the claim that Frederick was educated in Rome. That appears both a bold and vague claim, because:

1. when we look at the nine languages that Frederick spoke and wrote fluently, the only place on Earth he could have learned them at that time would have been in Palermo, in the tradition of the siculo-norman kings; and
2. his first son, Henry, was born in Palermo when Fredirick was 17 (remembering he married at the age of 14) - it seems unlikely that he was commuting between Rome and Palermo and grabbing a bit of conjugal bliss in between learning to speak and write nine languages.

Sorry - I still find this claim dubious - maybe he spent a couple of years in Rome - but to insist that the whole of his education was in Rome just does not stack up. -- pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Former Catholics

I commented the category "Former Catholics" in the article. I think it's dubious that Frederick abandoned at all its original faith. I'd call him a sceptic, but without the courage to make a move towards atheism or agnosticism: it was unthinkable at the time!!!! Let me know. Attilios 09:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

I think it's fair enough to be doubtful about it - on the other hand, he was excommunicated on at least two occasions. Then again, the whole of Sicily was excommunicated on at least three occasions, and we're still mostly all catholics! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication doesn't make one stop being a Catholic, so far as I'm aware. john k 03:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Typo?

"Also, it can be forgotten amidst the general enthusiasm over his book on falconry releases frequently that he also wrote a scientific book about birds ..." There seems to be an error in that! AWhiteC 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And its been that way for months. I'm not going to try to work out how it got that way, or exactly what it said before, I'll just drop the thing about falconry; it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, anyway. - Jmabel | Talk

that reads much better. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Genocide and torture

Not a single word about the brutal extinction of the norman nobility. F. acted that cruel that he was despised all over europe by the continental nobility. Many norman prisoners decided to commit suicide because of the methods of torture which Frederick used. Sorry, I can't exactly remember, but I think I found it here [2] or here [3] Sorry for not beeing absolutly sure, don't posess the books in the moment. Foreigner

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. But note that contributions must be from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources, or they may be deleted. Sandstein 09:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes

Yesterday I spent six hours working on the piece, mainly copyediting and trying to make the article read a little better. But I also made four quite big changes which people might like to interrogate. (I just hope that if you change any of these back, you do so piecemeal, rather than reverting the whole article and restoring all the typos, infelicities. etc.)

One consideration of mine was to make the page shorter and lighter, (though it is still tagged as possibly too heavy). For this reason:

I removed the picture of the Bull of Berne: it's actually a very beautiful thing, but it obliged the article to go into details - about the possible post-Frederick forgery of Berne's imperial charter - that I felt interrupted the main thrust of the piece.

I also removed a picture of Frederick's marriage to Isabella, simply because Isabella is hardly mentioned in the article (and because it is a peculiarly weak and uninformative drawing). (I did try to take the previous contributor's comment about Isabella on board but can find nothing about her that would add much to this article. Someone else may do better and justify the inclusion of the picture.)

The flow of the article was interrupted by a list of bullet biographies of Frederick's progeny that on first reading made me think, wrongly, that I'd reached a postscript section and that the article was coming to an end. These either duplicated information in the article or referred to events after Frederick's death. I removed this section, feeling that these offspring have informative enough pages of their own.

Finally, I removed an over-detailed and slightly florid passage about Frederick and Otto IV from the middle of the "Personality" section, where it seemed entirely out of place (having nothing to do with "personality").

I'd like to return to this article often in the future, because there is still an awkwardness about much of it, in my opinion. The great issues are too often, for me, lost in the detail. I'd like people to come to this page and be entranced by this guy, as I have been for many years.qp10qp 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since that sig lacks a link to the account, I will add one: Qp10qp.

I don't have time to really review this now, but these were major changes, and someone should review. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Physicians/Pharmacists

"Many of his laws continue to affect life down to the present day, such as the prohibition on physicians acting as their own pharmacists."

Can anyone find an instance of such a prohibition still existing today? It seems to be a common misconception in the US. I suspect it's a mistake, but haven't removed it from the article since it may be true in Italy or Germany. 70.145.176.21 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Konrad

I don't know if the prohibitions are all still there, or enforceable, but the Royal Colleges of Physicians of London, Edinburgh and Dublin used to prohibit their Fellows (but not those in lower grades) from keeping "open shop" for the sale of medicines. Their ban thus applied to those who correspond to modern consultant or attending physicians specialising in general (internal) medicine. They had instead to write prescriptions for dispensing by apothecaries. Rural areas still have some "dispensing practices," where the general practitioner sells medicines he has prescribed himself, but these doctors are heirs to the "apothecaries" of old, not to the "physicians", who up to the 18th century were an elite group of university-educated practitioners.NRPanikker (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Trial by ordeal

Besides his great tolerance (which, however, did not apply to Christian heretics), he had an unlimited thirst for knowledge and learning. To the horror of his contemporaries, he simply did not believe things that could not be explained by reason. So he forbade trials by ordeal on the firm conviction that in a duel the stronger would always win, whether he was guilty or not.

This particular example was not exactly unusual for the day. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) had outlawed churchmen from participating in trials by ordeal or combat, so it seems that by Frederick's day, such methods were already regarded as old fashioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.36.225 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

Does anyone know more on this: in particular, whether the Fourth Lateran Council decision resulted in a significant reduction in such trials outside of Frederick's realms? - Jmabel | Talk

This is just an off the cuff remark, and I have certainly not researched this subject area, but...to suggest that these sorts of trials vanished soon after 1215 seems a bit of a stretch - are we forgetting that the Inquisition would soon ramp up and continue even worse modi operandi for the next however many centuries? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my understanding that the Inquisition used trial by ordeal. They used torture to extract confessions. john k 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Liber Augustalis forbids trials by ordeal as if they were currently widespread, and as if it was unusual to forbid such a thing. Adam Bishop 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I think I have come across too ambiguously - I am agreeing that such a move would have been unusual (and progressive), precisely because the use of severe forms of justice had been (and probably remained) prolific. Re John's point about the distinction between "trial by ordeal" and using "torture to extract confessions" - once again, it's not my field of expertise, but the distinction does seem to border on being a moot one (no pun intended :-) πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because two things are barbaric does not mean two things are the same. The idea of trial by ordeal is that the ordeal will determine the truth. The idea of torture to extract confessions is that you will torture somebody until they confess to the crime, with their confession becoming evidence of their guilt. The latter is much more clearly in line with our usual notions of law, in that you are attempting to find evidence that the person committed the crime, rather than doing something completely unrelated to the original crime to determine guilt or innocence. john k 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

fair enough - to the untrained eye they do both appear as peas out of the same pod. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, insofar as we have records of such things, trials by ordeal frequently did result in acquittal. Which has led some medievalists to speculate that the ordeal worked through the participation of the local priest, who presumably had extra knowledge of guilt or innocence obtained through the confessional. The ordeal provided a means to access that knowledge without the priest violating the privacy of the confessional. Fourth Lateran outlawed the clergy from participating in traditional forms of justice in order to support the inquisitorial system it was promoting: following this council, while secular authorities could and did continue to hold trials by ordeal, they were a less effective means of carrying out justice.

For a slightly earlier comparison, consider the assizes set up by Henry II of England, which promulgated early forms of jury trial as the normative form of trial. Henry's courts were set up very much in competition with ecclesiastical courts and what remained of traditional Anglo-Saxon justice, and so to have an independent judiciary, it was necessary to have establish a justice system that did not depend on the complicity of the clergy. 130.126.101.243 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just started reading The Quiet Light by author Louis de Wohl, which is a historical novel. It presents a vivid portrait of Frederick II. Freder1ck 03:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Children

I'm a bit suspicious of these uncited unsourced anonymous edits, so rather than simply clean the misspellings, etc., I've brought the matter here, hoping someone more expert on the topic will evaluate them. If I don't hear anything one way or another, I'll probably revert. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That stuff looks dubious, but so does some of the stuff already there, like "Henry Charlote". john k 10:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes with the question marks could perhaps come straight out - if someone wants to raise this possibility, they can do so here first with their references. The bit of about the stillborn child being born after Isabella's death sounds a bit dubious. All other language versions of this article show a 4th child (the offspring is shown in chronological order). The Italian version of this article shows Enrico Carlotto. Carlo = Charles, and while I have never come across "Carlotto", I presume it is some form of diminutive. Either most of the other language versions appear to show something other than the equivalent of "Charles". While I agree that it's worthwhile double checking "Charlote", I would probably support a full revert at the moment. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We should probably draw on the [Foundation for Medieval Genealogy: they have a fairly thorough and well-sourced listing of Frederick's children (drawing mostly on Matthew of Paris for the ones in question). Choess 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

According to that site, Henry's name was initially "Karl Otto," but then he was later known as "Heinrich," and the two names were not used together. I think we should just call him "Henry," which is how he is best known. john k 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you guys (who are probably more knowlegable than I am on this) don't want a simple revert, so I will leave it to you to sort it out. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who correct the list of the children of Frederick II with Isabella and Yolande. Sorry for not post my name. I am very confuse for the exact number and names of the children of Isabella of England. Really existed Jordanus?, how many children had Frederick in this marriage, four or five?, Margaret was the eldest or the youngest? the child who gave birth Isabella and cause her own death, died shortly after, was stillborn or live?. Thanks. Aldebaran69 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not exactly NPOV

So, maybe we should edit the Catholic Encyclopedia derived portions of this article to Wikipedia standards, rather than leave it under Catholic Encyclopedia biases. 204.52.215.107 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personality

I do not agree to the version that Frederick was a religious sceptic - he understood his role as an christian monarch. The statement concerning Moses, Jesus and Muhammed was propaganda, cf. the Regesta Imperii, 5, no. 2454f.. The article should reflect the sources more carefully - the sources relative to Frederick and his time are all ambivalent (the excellent biography of Stürner is a good starting point). Cf. also Hans Martin Schaller, Stauferzeit, 1993; Schaller, one of the best historians of this period, has shown that Frederick was a religious monarch. The politic of the emperor against the papacy was part of his realpolitik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.181.25.196 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Descendants

Frederick II's only surviving legitimate descendants are through his daughter, Margaret, whose descendents became the rulers of Saxony. Does anyone have any information on who Frederick's current heir-general is?

Obviously, the current British royal family is descended from him (House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) but I do not think that they are the senior descendants.

I think in fact they are, due to two cousin marriages among the Saxon house. Descent as follows. Choess 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Friedrich I, Markgraf von Meissen & Landgraf von Thuringia (1257-1323)
• Friedrich II (1310-1349), son
• Friedrich III (1332-1381), son
• Friedrich I, Elector Saxony (1370-1428), son
• Friedrich II (1412-1464), son
• Ernst (1441-1486), son
• Friedrich III (1463-1525), son
• Johann (1468-1532), brother
• Johann Friedrich I (1503-1554), son, deprived of the Electorate
• Johann Friedrich II, Herzog Saxe-Coburg-Eisenach (1529-1595), son
• Johann Kasimir (1564-1633), son
• Johann Ernst (1566-1638), brother
• Johann Philipp, Herzog von Saxe-Altenburg (1597-1639), second cousin once removed
• Elisabeth Sophia (1619-1680), daughter
• Friedrich I, Herzog von Saxe-Gotha (1646-1691), son
• Friedrich II (1676-1732), son
• Friedrich III, Herzog von Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1699-1772), son
• Ernst II (1745-1804), son
• August (1772-1822), son
• Luise (1800-1831), daughter
• Ernst II, Herzong von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1818-1893)
• King Edward VII, and so forth

Ghibelline or Guelf cavalery?

The article contains a picture titled "The unexpected sally of the Ghibelline cavalry from Parma against Vittoria, from an ancient manuscript". Should that be Guelph cavalry? The Guelphs were pro-papal whereas the Ghibellines were pro-imperial. Even the article itself says "In June 1247 the important Lombard city of Parma expelled the Imperial functionaries and sided with the Guelphs".

Top.Squark 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Basic Problems

I recommend heavily the reediting of parts of the article, as it focuses way too much on the sideshows and curiousities of Fredericks reign and personality as the crusade or the zoo, but leaves out best part of his real problems, to be found in the structure of the HRE itself. Thus all that wars he fought on his own terrain seem a bit odd to the reader, as there is no context for them given.

i would really love to do it myself, but i am no native speaker, thence if i would try you might expect respectable results in about ten years.

best regards 87.178.118.119 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your native language? Feel free to work in that first, then request translation. - Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

N / NN

What is with things like "With N, Sicilian countess", "With N, from the family of the Dukes of Spoleto", "married firstly with NN"? I haven't seen this sort of thing put this way before; admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time reading royal pedigrees. Is this a widely used way of putting these things? Can someone indicate what usually accepted source uses it? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

illiteracy

In the article there is a claim that many of the monarchs "were not literate at all." One should realize that monarchs, some Holy Roman Emperors included, were considered illiterate if they were unable to speak, read and write Latin. However, this had no bearing on their command of their native tongue in which they almost always were not "illiterate" in the modern sense of the word. I think revising of this, somewhat zany, article should be considered with that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.96.205 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, go ahead. Michael Sanders 12:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jordan stillborn

I have tagged the statement that Jordan was stillborn. I believe he was born alive and died shortly afterward, or at least in that same year. If someone has a source they could add which proves that he was stillborn please do. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polyglot wonder of the world

"He was known in his own time as Stupor mundi ("wonder of the world"), and was said to speak nine languages and be literate in seven (at a time when some monarchs and nobles were not literate at all). (Armstrong 2001, p. 415.)"

However, Cronica, Giovanni Villani Book VI e. 1. (Rose E. Selfe's English translation) speaks of: "was acquainted with the Latin tongue, and with our vernacular, with German and French, Greek and Arabic," ("Seppe la lingua Latina, volgare, Tedesca, Francese, Greca, Saracinesca.")

The German article follows Villani’s ‘Cronica’, (as for the French, they have Frederick talking Hebrew, Yiddish and Slavonic…I think someone has to change that). I think the ‘Immutator mirabilis’ will be done more justice with the next simple sentence :

He was known in his own time as Stupor mundi ("wonder of the world") and was said to speak six languages: Latin, Sicilian, German, French, Greek and Arabic. J.R.Cartier (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Science

I think the quick reference to his support for science should be a bit expanded. The bits I've read about are:

• He shut up a man in a cask and watched to see if he cold spot the soul escaping though a hole in the cask when the prisoner died.
• He fed two prisoners, sent one out to hunt and the other to bed and then had them disemboweled to see which had digested their meal better.
• He imprisoned children without any conact to see if they would develop a natural language

I actually think he was tackling valid scientific question but perhaps some less gruesome ones could be found as well to provide some counterpoint. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues in first two paragraphs

The first two paragraphs have been directly lifted from http://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/2268. This, in my opinion constitutes plagiarism. Debangshu Mukherjee (talk ) 07:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they got it from answers.com, which is a mirror of Wikipedia. No plagiarism. (And using them as a reference is amusingly inappropriate.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No king of Cyprus

Frederick II was no king of Cyprus, see David Abulafia, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor, Pag.117: "His authority in Cyprus was derived from the creation of a Cypriot kingdom by Henry VI; it was the authority, as Frederick himself insisted, of the Roman emperor over a subject kingdom". J.R.Cartier (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Personality

At his coronation, he may have worn the red silk mantle that had been crafted during the reign of Roger II. More recent research (de:Friedrich II. (HRR)#cite note-8) indicates, that he wore a mantle noew in the Metz Cathedral more probably (cf. [4]). --ThT (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kings and Nobles illiterate in Frederic II time ? No

The time of Frederic II is the time of Courteous Love : The nobles have to be reader and writer of poetry, according to the rules set by Alienor of Aquitaine, queen of France and latter of England. Even in the time of Charlemagne (Charles the Great), i. e. 9th century, this emperor was able to discuss philosophy, litterature and rethoric with the Intelligentsia of the time (CAHILL, "How the Irish Saved Civilization", p.206-207) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.0.131 (talk • contribs) 03:27 3 April 2006 (UTC).

Illiterate here is by medieval standards. Which means that they could not read latin. 216.252.76.143 (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Italian?

Someone is insisting that he should be included in the List of Italians (see discussion there), and backing the claim with the (unpresented) opinions of some eight Italian historians and a link to a "vote for your favourite Italian" webpage. Any thoughts on the matter? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, his mother was Sicilian from a family of Normans, he was born in Jesi, and spend most of his life in (what is now) Italy. The List of Italians seems to refer to a rather vague concept of Italy including almost anyone from Etruscans to present people. Frederick II is known in Italy as Federico and seems to be seen as an important part of Italian history. --ThT (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Illegitimate" and "Holy"

The "illegitimate" term, and the "Holy" in "Holy Roman Emperor" as well, seem to me to be attempts to pawn off a point of view of one class of readers as objective, universally-acceptable descriptions, which they are not. The salient facts seem to be whether a child was born in or out of wedlock, and in Frederick II's case the nature of the wedlock and who recognized it seemed to be at issue. For some readers, these could be vital details. How these affected the decision making of the various actors is of interest, and this is relevant to the article. But the term "illegitimate" and "holy" seem to just add a layer of haze when they are not represented as stemming from a particular point of view. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Image "The birth of Frederick II" Is Suspect

The image captioned "The birth of Frederick II" may be of a different subject, as the coat of arms on the tent is that of Aragon, and nothing like either Hauteville or Hohenstaufen.

The image file is not well sourced at all — it only states "Ancient print".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frederick_II_birth.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.3.188 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Age at coronation

The article gives a date of birth as "26 December 1194" but the Early Years section says this:

"At the death of his father in 1197, Frederick was in Italy travelling towards Germany when the bad news reached his guardian, Conrad of Spoleto. Frederick was hastily brought back to his mother Constance in Palermo, Sicily, where he was crowned as King on 17 May 1198, now Frederick I of Sicily, at only two years of age."

Looks as though he was actually three and a half? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.114.64 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

this article needs more references

There are number of sections that have very few or no references at all. Please leave the {{refimprove}} tag on until these areas are improved. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 02:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

spelling

A German name should be spelled in German, the way it is pronounced in German. Hence, Friedrich son of Heinrich and not Frederick son of Henry which is ridiculous. Oded

Tari/ Augustale

The picture purporting to be an augustale is in fact a tari. This is a serious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.197.122 (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Monarchs' names are always translated as well even to this day. It's because it's their regnal names rather than their actual ones. Same thing with the popes who actually choose another name as regnal name.--MacX85 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Error

In the 3rd para under Early years it currently reads: However, Markward of Annweiler, with the support of Henry's brother, Philip of Swabia, reclaimed the regency for himself and soon after invaded the Kingdom of Naples. But, in the year 1200, which is the year we are talking about, there was no Kingdom of Naples. There was only one single kingdom at the time, and it was called the Kingdom of Sicily. The Kingdom of Naples eventuated when the kingdom was split in two after the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, and even then, it continued calling itself the Kingdom of Sicily for a century or more. Fissatu (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)