Talk:Frederick Barbarossa/Archive 1

Death
The typical story is that after crossing the desert he was so frantic in seeing water that he jumped into the lake/pond and his armour weighed him down, drowing him. Irony eh?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.134.223 (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH HIS DEATH DATE
His death date says "June 68,2819" on the page,someone with proper knowledge please chane it. The article states:
 * Eager to make amends with the Papacy, Frederick concluded a treaty with Rome in March 1153, by which he promised in return for his coronation to defend the papacy and make no peace with king Roger I of Sicily, or other enemies of the Church, without the consent of Eugenius.

However, Roger I of Sicily died (according to our article) in 1101, a full 21 years before Frederick was born. What gives? Lupo 08:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly - something is wrong here....

Fixed. It was Roger II of Sicily, the first King, but second with that name. Roger I was just Count of Sicily. GhePeU 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary?
Instead of the article immediately jumping into a long essay about him, shouldn't there be a small summary of all this stuff at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.228.74 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.166.68 (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2005 (UTC)

Someone should look into the Baradello castle in Como, Italy and the link between the name Barbarossa and Baradello. The Baradello castle was fabled to be one of Frederick Barbarossa's bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.46.225 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

THEY MIXED UP THE FREDERICKS
That's why the dates make no sense. Frederick Barbarossa was first. Frederick II of Swabia was, well, second. He ruled from Sicily, fought the Lombard League, united the empire--for awhile at least--and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor until a falling out with the pope ended with Frederick II of Swabia's excommunication.

They've got the father and son and I think even the grandfather all mixed up here and throughout all the Hauhenstaufen references. Sources? Tons of 'em. Look almost anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.184.20 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is fully correct, AFAIK. I didn't check every date, but the history of Frederick's life and the flux of events agreed with, for example, his biography written by R. Wahl. You're mixing up the Dinasty who ruled in Swabia and the Imperial succession.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.162.2.222 (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. The "German culture" section almost certainly reffers to Frederick II who is not Frederick I. Barbarossa but his grandson. Just read this section. Frederick Barbarossa probably never even visited Sicily... Isidoros47 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Titling
All of the other articles of the HR Emperors have their name, regnal number, a comma, then the title "Holy Roman Emperor". This one, however, says simply "Frederick Barbarossa"...shouldn't it say, "Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor", as "Barbarossa" was merely an epithet? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It used to say that, then it was moved months ago and apparently no one bothered to fix it. I'll change it back. Adam Bishop 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

democratic monarchy
elected king? wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.27.180 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, an elective monarchy is pretty unusal. In a sense, the HRE was an oligarchy. Apparently, there were initially 7 Prince-electors, who voted on whom would be the Emperor. Over time, it stopped be an election and became a hereditary office, with dynastic succession.


 * We typically think of crowns as being hereditary, but many factors could effect who became King in a country. Two quick examples can be found in Henry IV of England, who laid claim to the crown of France based on his interpretation of the lineages, and Henry IV of France, who was able to win the War of the Three Henrys to gain control of the French crown.


 * I was made really sad when I read that Voltaire came up with the saying that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. I thought it was my high school history teacher, Frank Garlicki. Sigh. --Habap 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Elective monarchies were fairly common in the Middle Ages. Denmark was an elective monarchy until the 17th century, I believe, as were all the eastern European monarchies (Poland all the way until 1795), and the Holy Roman Empire (until its demise in 1806).  The Papacy is obviously an example of a surviving elective monarchy.  I'm not sure what you mean about Henry IV of England - it was Edward III who first claimed the French throne, Henry V who revived the claim, and got a treaty signed with Charles VI of France making him the heir, and Henry VI who actually supposedly "inherited" it on the death of his grandfather Charles VI (although this was contested by Charles's son, Charles VII, who made good his claim to the throne).  As to Henry IV of France, there was no genealogical irregularity to his succession.  The death of François, Duke of Anjou, King Henry III's youngest brother, in 1584 left the king as the last agnatic descendant of King Philip III of France.  Henry of Navarre, as heir-male to Philip III's younger brother Robert, Count of Clermont, was thus the legal heir under the Salic law, France's system of agnatic primogeniture.  Navarre never claimed the throne during the life of his cousin Henry III, and fought only to have his rights as the heir presumptive recognized.  These rights were contested by Henry of Guise, who, as a member of the House of Lorraine, had no legitimate claim to the French throne.  Eventually, Henry III turned on Henry of Guise and had him murdered, and ended up making peace with his cousin Navarre and recognizing him as the legal heir.  When he too was murdered, Henry of Navarre claimed the throne as Henry IV.  The Guises refused to recognize him because he was a Protestant, and proclaimed his uncle (Henry IV's father's younger brother) the Cardinal de Bourbon as King Charles X (even though the Cardinal was at that time his nephew's prisoner).  Henry continued to fight the Guises for the next few years, but after the Cardinal's death in 1590 they lacked a proper candidate - the next in line after the Cardinal was the Prince of Condé, who was an infant, and the son of a Protestant, and after that was the moderate Catholic Prince of Conti, who recognized Henry IV.  The various Catholic groups supported different candidates - the young Duke of Guise (son of the murdered Henry of Guise), his uncle the Duke of Mayenne, and King Philip of Spain's daughter Isabella, whose mother was the eldest sister of Henry III.  Ultimately, Henry IV's triumph in the civil war was more the result of his status as the rightful genealogical heir than his status as king was a result of his winning the war.  Henry did not become king because he won the war, he won the war because he was the King. john k 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooops. I did mean Henry V of England. Interesting stuff, John. --Habap 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I meant to express with my examples was that succession in monarchies wasn't just a simple father-to-son process. I thought that Agnatic succession in Salic law was created to deal with the many situations in which there was controversy. (Actually, I hadn't known it was called agnatic and I thought Salic law was only about succession.) In the instances of Henry V of England and Henry IV of France, parties had to agree on whom would be the next King and law was simply one of the factors that determined succession, without political and military power probably being more important (in my humble and under-informed opinion). --Habap 11:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--Habap 11:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Salic Law is only about succession. But it's the name of a particular type of agnatic succession, the one practiced in France and Germany.  Agnatic succession is a general term, while Salic Law refers to its usage within a particular cultural context, if that makes sense. Agnatic succession as practiced in Japan doesnot qualify as "Salic," really.  It is true, though, that the Salic Law in France arose out of the confused situation following the deaths of Louis X in 1316 and then of Charles IV in 1328.  And of course military force and power helped determine the French Wars of Religion, but there's absolutely no way Henry of Navarre could possibly have become king if not for his hereditary claim.  It's certainly true that the actual course of events was not very regular, and one can find tons of examples of irregular succession and usurpation (Henry IV of England actually is a good example of usurpation of the English throne).  But that's not the same thing as an electoral monarchy, where the constitution is designed to have the monarchy be elective. john k 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to our article on Salic law, it's not only about succession. This set of laws determined matters such as inheritance, crime, murder, and so forth. If that's wrong, we need to change the article. --Habap 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry the Lion
I believe that the passage about the twilight days of Henry the Lion is misleading. It gives the impression that from his banishment in 1181 to his death in 1195 he gave no further trouble. In fact he continued to be a constant pain in the neck, not only to Barbarossa but to Henry VI.

qp10qp 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pass
So Barbarossa died because he drowned? Or was it a heart attack caused by shock? The section is vague, and if someone could tell me the answer, it would help. Oyo321 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is pretty well documented that Barbarossa drowned. I have never heard of a death by heart attack until I read this article. It is commonly accepted that his armor weighted him down and he drowned to death. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it true that he went over land to the Crusdae because he was scared of sailing that far and, ironically, drowning? I remember a professor at college telling me that - he refused to sail across the Mediaterranean but ended up drowning in 1 metre of water Andrew Riddles (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jotischky subscribes to the view that he drowned but says it's possible he had a heart attack that contributed to him being overcome by the current. Gh0ti-2 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dominium mundi
Hi, I came across the article Dominium mundi at the list of requests for cleanup after translation. I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but as I worked on the lead section, I came across a few other articles (this one, Investiture Controversy, Separation of church and state (medieval), and others) that seemed to overlap with it in various ways. I think it would be really helpful if someone with knowledge of the history of this period would take a look at the article and see if perhaps parts of it (or all of it) could be merged. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heir general
Just as a side note, Frederick I's current heir-general is none other than Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.144.59 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reign and Cathar Wars
Er, which Cathar Wars? There's no mention of it at all in the section. Jack the Stripper (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the pirate
The bit in "Frederick Barbarossa in fiction" having to do with The Pirates of the Caribbean is false. The character is based on the pirate/privateer Barbarossa as is noted in the Hector Barbossa article. Livingston 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

D.O.B.
According to my source, Marcel Pacaut - Frederick Barbarossa, his birth date was either 1125-26.... not 1122 (Page 46) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUGZ85 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Judith of Bavaria
The Ancestry template reads that Judith of Bavaria was the daughter of Henry and Wulfhild. However, its article states that she was the daughter Arnulf and Judith. Which one is correct?--RR (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on Judith of Bavaria concerns a woman who lived 200 years earlier, anyways. I'm not sure whether the "of Bavaria" is right, but given I'm no expert in this field I can't tell whether it's wrong, so I'll leave that as it is. But I removed the wikilink - the article about Judith of Bavaria is in no way similar to the Judith mentioned here. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Culture
The Culture section seems vague and opinionated to me. Monado (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Age of Empires
Since the sentence in the Barbarossa in Age of Kings section "Henry the Lion narrates each level's introduction and epilogue" may contain spoilers, I have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"German Culture"?
This section appears to have only the vaguest connection to Barbarossa. I don't understand why it is such a prominent part of what should be a biographical article. john k (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Universities
Originally the problem was that the article referred to the University of Prague as a "German" university, which it may well have been when it was founded, but this kept getting changed to "Holy Roman university", which didn't look correct to me. I was going to change it to a compromise "imperial university", but then I thought the whole section could be trimmed, since none of it had anything to do with Frederick. What relevance do these universities, founded centuries later, have for Frederick I? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam, the establishment of the universities at a later date in Germany, and the HRE denotes the civic turmoil which resulted from the Investiture Controversy. Frederick I was important in this conflict with the Pope. Germany had been a leader in education, but the conflict with the pope had sapped the intellectual strength of the HRE, and threw it several centuries behind much of Europe. The first German university was at Heidelberg. Someone put the University of Prague in the article, then kept changing to and from a "German University." A E Francis (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this should be clarified in the article, then. At the moment it just looks random, out of place info. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam, I have amended the body of the article. A E Francis (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

first of all excuse my english please...

I have changed the German university in Prague to Holy Roman university. The university in Prague was not german, actualy there was no Germany in that time and 'german' nation was not defined at all. But you definitely know that. When Charles IV found the university in Prague he was not the HRE emperor yet. He founded it as a university of four nations > Bohemian, Bavarian, Saxon and Polish(Silesian). Main language on university was Latin. A lot of teachers came from today's Italy. Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't know what's so "German" about this university though I would say that there was an idea of a "Germany" by that time which may or may not include Bohemia. But "Holy Roman university" sounds just ridiculous. The institutions of the empire are called "imperial" (="Reichs-") and I don't think the university had anything to do with the HRE as institution. I would say it's "the first university in the HRE". ^^--91.10.116.32 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the entry to read, "the first university established within the boundary of the Holy Roman Empire was..." Maybe this is better, and doens't sound so silly. A E Francis (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, however, not true, as Bologna and Padua were also within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. At any rate, why on earth is the article on Frederick Barbarossa talking about a university founded over 150 years after his death at all?  The University of Prague was considered a German university at the time of its foundation - it was founded, in fact, by a King of Germany who made his capital there.  And Bohemia was intermittently considered part of Germany until 1866.  If it must be mentioned, it should be called a German university. john k (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

>to John Kenney> I agree there is not necessary to mention Charles University in Barbarossa's article.

The other point > Charles University was not founded as German university from the same reason there is not possible to say it was founded as Bohemian or Czech university. (it consisted from four nations in but nations mainly meant 'direction from where students were comming' and the language of instruction was Latin. From the very beginning in multinational empire rulers tried to keep university 'free' which worked pretty well, unfortunately serious nationalistic clashes lead to divide of the university to German/Czech in 1882 :(  For more information about foundation please refer at least to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_University_in_Prague & http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%9Bjiny_Univerzity_Karlovy_(1347-1740). I recommend to read something more as wikipedia articles are very brief. (# M. Svatoš (red.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy I. (1347/48 – 1622). Praha 1995; I. Čornejová (red.), Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy II. (1622-1802). Praha 1995 ;

the other part > Bohemia as part of Germany is complete nonsense. Modern Germany was founded in 1871 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany Bohemia was part of Germany only in short period of WWII as 'Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren'. Hope this doesn't require further argumentations...

Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It does in fact require further argument. Certainly the modern state of Germany was founded in 1871, but Germany existed before then. And it usually included Bohemia. See Kingdom of Germany and Germanic Confederation. The parts of the Holy Roman Empire which were not Italy or Burgundy were, in fact, "Germany." And that included Bohemia. Compare with the modern state of Italy, which was founded in 1861. That doesn't mean we can't say that Milan was part of Italy before 1861. john k (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK> If I simplify > Bohemia was independent, part of HRE or part of Habsburg empire(Austria)... It has never been part of Germany as there was no Germany. Germany was indefinite and changing term and HRE was not Germany. University was found for raising Charles's empire which was not called Germany or was German (in today's nationalistic view). Btw. Try to tell Austrians their university in Vienna is German university. :))) Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, there absolutely was "Germany," and it had a political meaning. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the Kingdom of Italy. Bohemia was under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Germany, although from the 13th century on it was also itself a kingdom.  And of course the University of Prague is not a German university at present, but it was a German university at the time of its foundation, just as the University of Vienna was.  john k (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to enjoying that :) Once Again - not true > what makes Charles university German in the time of its foundation? It was in the Kingdom of Bohemia, people multinational(in Prague majority of people Czech), Charles was born half Luxembourg and half Czech, he spoke French ... his first title and lands were in Luxembourg and later in Moravia and Bohemia. His position in today's Germany was very weak and he had almost no lands there. At the time of foundation he was King of Bohemia and King of Romans. Look at founding charter nothing 'german' mentioned at all. Language on university was Latin and it was 'free'. Historical seal of Charles university portraits Charles kneeling before Bohemian saint Wenceslaus.

Regarding Bohemia > Bohemia was not under ANY jurisdiction in these times. Bohemia had kings from 11th century, hereditary kingdom was confirmed at 1212. It was independent part of HRE not 'Germany', for specific rights(none) of HRE emperors in Bohemia please read Golden Bull of Sicily which was later confirmed again by Charles IV in his Golden Bull. Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * King of the Romans meant "King of Germany". The Kingdom of Bohemia was part of the Kingdom of Germany, even though it had its own kings and was effectively independent.  But let's stop arguing about this.  I think we should remove the whole culture section from the article. john k (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Bohemia had no chancellery represented through one of the German bishops as Italy, Burgundy and Germany had; also Bohemia was declared a kingdom while being within the German kingdom, so it was a sub-kingdom to Germany. You can certainly say the university in Prague was 'German' by the time of its foundation because it belonged to the kingdom of Germany but on the other hand it wasn't 'German' meaning part of the German-speaking lands which has also been a definition of 'Germany'.--MacX85 (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear John Kenney: I think removing the whole section is rash. We should still mention the Investiture controversy, of which Frederick Barbarosa was a central player. The civil turmoil created by this mutli-century conflict left the German portion of the HRE in a state of retrogression. Part of this is seen in the delay in establishing universities. I am not worried about the mention of universities, per se, but it is historical fact that learning was retarded by this controversy. I think this should be mentioned in some say. A E Francis (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the section on German Culture, but edited out the part concerning the universities. I still think it is an important issue to mention, since the cultural turmoil which engulfed greater Germany was important both to the development of Frederick Barbarosa, and was caused or extended by him. The way it is written is an overview which looks a topics both before and after Frederick. The only part of this which has been contentious is the matter of the Charles University in Prague. That issue is quite peripheral to Frederick Barbarosa. Perhaps the section on German Culture could be rewritten. But I think, overall it is important and should be included, in some way. A E Francis (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As written, the section is not connected to Barbarossa at all, and mostly does not concern the period of his rule. It belongs in an article on the history of Germany in the Middle Ages, not in a biographical article about a medieval ruler. john k (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The chaos which followed the Investiture controversy allowed Barbarosa to arise. It is also necessary to understand the conditions that allowed him to exist, and which he perpetuated. The constant battles betweeen Germany and the Northern parts of Italy continually sapped the strength of the northern part of the HRE. This led to social turmoil which Barbarosa did nothing to remedy. That in turn led to a retrogression of learning in the German states - a condition that was not resolved during the entirety of the middle ages. These seem to be important issues to cover. Maybe the section can be written in a more coherent way. A E Francis (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for very diplomatic solution. Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all very appropriate for an article on the history of Germany in the middle ages, assuming it can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. But the text of that section still barely talks about Barbarossa. This material seems potentially to be novel synthesis, but it is certainly only connected to Barbarossa in the most tangential way. john k (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Kenney: If you insist on deleting this section, it is incumbent upon you to replace it with something that addresses the issues of German culture. It is easy to delete things. Now you have taken on the responsibility of providing a replacement. So please replace it with something of value, forthwith. Otherwise, your deletion is little more than an exercise of your vanity. A E Francis (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not incumbent on me to do any such thing. The material has nothing to do with the subject of this article.  There is no reason to replace it.  I did not remove it because it is bad (although it may be - I haven't investigated the sourcing to see if it involves original synthesis or not - there were certainly at least one error of fact), but because it is irrelevant.  If I wrote a long essay about American culture in the article about Martin Van Buren, another editor would be justified in removing it as irrelevant.  Same deal here.  This material might be appropriate in an article about the Investiture Controversy (assuming it is not novel synthesis).  But it is simply unconnected to Frederick's life.  There is no need for a section about German culture in an article about a medieval German monarch not particularly noted for his promotion of culture.  john k (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned a few weeks ago I didn't think this section was particularly relevant either. It is a good idea to establish the background for Frederick's reign; historical context is perfectly relevant when it is well-written and obviously connected to the topic, but this section jumps all over the place, doesn't have much to do with Frederick, and it seems to me that the useful bits simply repeat the information that is already included at the beginning of the article (which is a more natural place for it anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney: If you are going to delete something, it is incumbent upon you to replace it with something else. Otherwise, you have shown yourself to be a gadfly with a notion and a big ego. You can hit a delete button, but you can't write. At least you haven't demonstrated such on this page. I would say you are part of the reason people who can write apply their talents less and less to Wikipedia. If there are errors in the section, please correct them. If you study the subject, with secondary sources, it will be discovered that the social turmoil of the investiture controversy and its aftermath were important factors during the time of Frederick Barbarosa. There should be some mention of that in the article. You don't like what I have written. Please replace it with something which is more to your liking. A E Francis (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is incumbent on me to do no such thing, and I don't see why you keep making personal attacks on me. I am removing the material because I think it doesn't belong in the article.  You may disagree, but it is certainly not incumbent on me to rewrite a section which I don't think belongs in the article in the first place.  For example, I hope we can both agree that if someone had inserted a large section about German culture and the Investiture Crisis in the article about Louis XIV of France, that an editor would be justified in deleting it, even if there were a few tenuous attempts to connect the material to Louis XIV.  Here, we obviously disagree about the relevance of this material to the article.  But the reason I removed it is because I do not think it is relevant to the article.  As such, I don't have any obligation to write a new version of the section - I don't think there should be such a section.  The ultimate logic of your position appears to be that anyone can add any irrelevant business of any sort to an article, and that it then has to stay forever, because you can't delete it without "replacing it with something else." john k (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, maybe A E has the lawyer's tendency to prolixity, but all the relevant info from that section is either at the beginning of the article, or should be moved there. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney: I am not making a "personal attack" as you have claimed. I am only stating the obvious. I have offered to compromise on this section. By deleting it, you have said, "my way or the highway." In other words there is no compromise with you. It is going to be your way or not at all. That looks a lot like a gadfly with a notion and a big ego, as I previously wrote. But to be honest with you, it isn't worth arguing about anymore. A E Francis (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obviously a personal attack to assume that a content disagreement arise out of another contributor's personal failings. In what possible way does repeatedly saying that I have a big ego help move the discussion forwards?  Do you think I would be more inclined to compromise by you calling me names?  At any rate, what Adam Bishop said above - the background of the Investiture controversy is largely discussed in the beginning of the article.  If there's any more information that would be useful, it should be placed here.  Material on Frederick's specific legacy (as opposed to the broader legacy of the medieval emperors, which doesn't belong here) could perhaps go in a legacy section, but there was maybe a sentence of that in the section that I removed. john k (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote before, it is not worth arguing about. I am not interested in getting into a childish sandbox fight with an egomaniac. I put it up - you delete it. I editied and put it up again - you delete it again. I am not putting it up again. You got your way. Now take your toys and go home. A E Francis (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Never laughed?
It is true that Barbarossa never laughed? Does someone have a better source than this? Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not true. In fact I think I remember Otto of Freising decribing him as a cheerful character.--MacX85 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

what is this
what is this spose to mean. i am doing a project on Rydolf hess and i dont qite understand this all. it is very confusing. is there any way you could explain the barbarossa in a simpler way if you dont mind please. I would gradually appreciate it.


 * thankyou,
 * tyler morrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.29.88 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read your comments on Wikipedia, I really don't think they can get 'simple enough' for you to comprehend it - no matter who is writing it. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Am enjoying this great historical figure
Hope you do not mind my edits, which add what to me are fascinating details of this man's life and the legend he created, a far greater legend than we moderns can comprehend. The more one reads about Frederick Barbarossa, the more interesting he becomes.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Image in the info box
Apologies, but I just cannot get the image to work in the info box without it duplicating the caption. If someone could fix it, that would be great. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor → Frederick Barbarossa — This is his most common name, and WP:NCROY provides a specific exemption from the normal guidelines in such cases. john k (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as we have Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we also have Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, and Charles the Fat followed by Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, so that's not unprecedented. john k (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be changed to Charles I..., Charles II... & Charles III..., IMHO. But the chances of that occuring is impossible. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So Charles the Bald should be Charles II, Holy Roman Emperor for the two years he spent as emperor rather than the 34 years he spent as king of France? You are taking this current crusade you have going (which is the opposite of what you were saying only a couple of months ago) to ridiculous extremes.  Shouldn't you be analyzing any given individual move based on the actual situation, rather than an ideal world that you yourself acknowledge isn't ever going to come to pass?  john k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing adminstrator shall decide on the merits of my argument. Also, if a consensus is reached to 'move' this article, then argument becomes moot. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, do you propose to move Charlemagne to Charles I of France or to Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor? Genuinely curious. walk  victor falktalk 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, your consequence is admirable. But I think you should put your chips on the table and request to move Alexander the Great to Alexander III of Macedon . Cheers! walk  victor falktalk 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator shall decide the merits of my argument. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Barbarossa is just a nickname applied because he had a red beard, it is not his overwhelmingly used common name. The case is therefore similar to Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland and should not be the article title. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your first clause relates to the second one. Whether or not Barbarossa is a nickname applies because he had a red beard, it is certainly considerably more commonly used for him than "John Lackland" is for King John.  And Richard is problematic because there's no single form of "Lionheart" that is dominant - there's "The Lionheart", "The Lion-hearted", "Coeur de Lion," and so forth.  I don't see, though, how this isn't an overwhelming form - virtually all references use Barbarossa; I'd say it's more common than even William the Conqueror, who is referred to as "William I" or by some other name (William the Bastard, William of Normandy) more frequently than you see "Frederick I" or any other name for Barbarossa. john k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for now. The question of WP:NCROY is would it be surprising to see him called something else? For Barbarossa, I think the answer is yes; and John Kenny seems to have checked the reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In this case his full title and ordinal should be used. Frederick Barbarossa does not in any way indicate that the article is about the Holy Roman Emperor. Barbarossa was really just a nickname, not his common name such as Robert the Bruce or Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really grasp this argument. Why should the article title indicate that the article is about the Holy Roman Emperor in any way besides giving the name by which that emperor is commonly known?  The title Barack Obama only indicates that it is about the president of the United States if you know who he is.  Frederick Barbarossa would be the same.  Harun al-Rashid and Akihito are already the same.  The reason for including titles or geographic designators in articles on European monarchs is for disambiguation, not to identify the person to somebody who's never heard of them. john k (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose His "red beard" is hardly the most memorable feature of Frederick. His tirles should be more prominently featured. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- Exactly. Barbarossa was his nickname, not Common name, and Frederick wasn't even part of the nickname.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said that common name had anything to do with memorable features? Is Charles the Bold's boldness his most memorable feature?  What does that even mean? john k (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles the Bold is a Common name same as Robert the Bruce or Catherine the Great.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So is Frederick Barbarossa. john k (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Whether "Barbarossa" is a nickname or not is irrelevant. I never saw him referred to as anything other than Frederick Barbarossa while studying him at university. It's clearly his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It appears that none of the oppose arguments are based on anything but personal preferences and imaginary distinctions. "Barbarossa" is clearly quite commonly used for this Emperor; we should follow suit. In Google Books, for example, '"Frederick Barbarossa"' (with the quotation marks used in the query) occurs more often (71,000 to 46,000 in my search) than 'Frederick "Holy Roman Emperor"', even though the latter term also refers to the other Fredericks who were Holy Roman Emperror. Ucucha 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's surprising, considering the fame of Frederick II! Srnec (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Will the nominator be proposing moves for Otto the Great or Lothair of Supplinburg also? There is perfect consistency of naming from Otto I to Francis II that I don't want to break just for old Redbeard. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move for Otto the Great. I'm not sure about Lothair - I'd certainly think about it, but then I'd add Adolf of Nassau to the mix.  I'd also consider the possibility that Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor should be moved to Francis I of Austria.  He was Emperor of Austria for over twice as long as he was Holy Roman Emperor. john k (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about Francis, but I decided that he is more well-known as the last Holy Roman Emperor than as the first Austrian Emperor. I could be wrong. The issue with Lothair is that he could be numbered Lothair II (and sometimes is), kind of like Frederick III of Sicily, who may also be numbered Frederick II. Adolf is not a big deal to me because the kings of Germany are all over the map. For example, we have Wenceslaus, King of the Romans right beside Rupert, King of Germany. The numbered, non-imperial German kings are somewhat consistent but there are a lot of exceptions, like Henry Berengar, Frederick the Fair and Henry II of Sicily, which I'm pretty sure is a Wiki-invention for a name. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Henry II of Sicily is ridiculous. He should probably be at Henry VII of Germany or some variation thereof. john k (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nicknames were attached to many early medieval rulers because the chroniclers needed some way to identify a particular ruler who only had a single given name in most cases. So in the case of the Frankish Charles', you had the Great, the Bold, the Fat, the Simple and so on. Modern conventions have it that you identify a particular ruler by simply numbering them, and the fact is that the title of "Roman Emperor" was the most prestigious and in medieval political theory at least, the most important ruler in Christendom. That being said, I would not be opposed to a renaming of Frederick to become “Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor” Oatley2112 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. My Google Books searches also confirm that "Frederick Barbarossa" is the common name of the subject. And I'm with john k - I don't understand how "Frederick Barbarossa" is qualitatively different than "Catherine the Great" or "Charles the Bald" - they all seem to be cognomens and common names for these rulers. Dohn joe (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oatley2112's suggestion is a good one as it includes the nickname without losing the all-important title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind Oatley's suggestion as a compromise. On the other hand, why is the title "all-important"?  The titles of Charlemagne or Catherine the Great or Charles the Bold are not. john k (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COGNOMEN: 2. Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. For Holy emperors, this is clearly the case for Frederick Barbarossa, just as much as Henry the Lion and Henry the Fowler. walk victor falktalk 10:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, this is the common name which would tell readers who the article is about and what he is most usually called in sources.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per GoodDay. There is no reason to change the title as this naming convention is very common and should reflect consistency across the project. As far as one name being more common than the other, is this really a topic that is so well known that most people reading the article will care?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Frederick Barbarossa does not indicate that it's the Holy Roman Emperor that is the subject. What's next on the menu Richard III of England being moved to "Richard the Hunchback" or Charles II "the Merry Monarch"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither does Germany indicate that it is the country that is the subject. Your point? (Besides, unlike your examples, "Barbarossa" is very commonly used for this emperor.) Ucucha 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that his title needs to be part of the article's name or is the fact that he was an emperor of the Holy Roman Emire being disputed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Italian Wikipedia's article on him is entitled: Federico I sacro Impero Romana and in the opening sentence is has detto Barbarossa-hence his nickname.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the title need to say that he is Holy Roman Emperor? Does our article on Germany need to say in the title that Germany is a country, or that it is a Federal Republic? Does our article on Charlemagne need to be renamed to say that he was emperor? Ucucha 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay has already explained that quite succintly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He asserted it; that is something different from explaining. Ucucha 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When he said we have Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor and Frederick III. Holy Roman Emperor. Honestly, Frederick Barbarossa could be an actor, singer, writer, wrestler, anything. The current title explains exactly who he was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the purpose of a title is only to identify the subject, not to describe it. And "Frederick Barbarossa" is the title that is most likely to identify him, because that is the name by which most people know him. If you don't know who he was, then the first sentence of the article tells you right off. Dohn joe (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama or David Cameron could be an actor, singer, writer, or wrestler, too. Titles are supposed to identify subjects to people who have heard of the subject, not to people who haven't. john k (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Gryffindor (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Puzzling
The article says Frederick suffered from the effects of the unhealthy Italian summer. What's that about? Sca (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not the Italian summers per se, wich are unhealthy, but the effects of the warm weather. During the summer the swamps and rivers in the lowlands were a breeding area for insects that spread diseases like malaria. Whole armies died by the epidemics caused by this circumstances. Therefore the emperors stopped or paused their campaigns in Italy during summertime and retreated to more mountainous areas. 84.156.230.164 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Venice
The article currently relates the treaty to the famous events at Canossa in 1077. I proposed deleting this sentence as it is misleading in the extreme. Please comment if this change bothers you.Ph8l (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)ph8l

Needs a good summary
Lots and lots of detail, but this article REALLY needs a good introduction. Why was Frederick I so famous? He was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Italy and Germany and had a red beard. But what did he DO? Many paragraphs later I think there's something about uniting Germany and a Crusade, but I lost interest by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.53.73 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace
Am I blind or is there no mention of his birthplace in the article? Shouldn't it go with his date of birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are blind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.77.137 (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Damn! I must be blind too, because I can't see it either! I believe the birthplace was Waiblingen,Germany and it should obviously go with his date of birth. I'll put it in if no one objects. Campolongo (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

+