From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. WikiProject Germany      (Rated B-Class) Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-Class) Middle Ages Portal Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. Crusades task force WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

WikiProject Echo has identified Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Spanish language Wikipedias.

Contents 1 Death 2 SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH HIS DEATH DATE 3 Summary? 4 THEY MIXED UP THE FREDERICKS 5 Titling 6 democratic monarchy 7 Henry the Lion 7.1 Pass 7.2 Dominium mundi 7.3 Heir general 7.4 Reign and Cathar Wars 7.5 Not the pirate 7.6 D.O.B.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

Ok then.

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.

[edit] 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.

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heir general

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)