The English king lost Normandy when he was under interdict of the pope. So it sucked sometimes...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Louis the Pious' (successor of Charlemagne) official decree Pactum Ludovicianum confirmed the freedom of Papal elections and the autonomy of the Papal States. In theory the Emperors job was to make sure, that the elections where uncorrupted. Louis son and co-emperor Lothar, after hearing of a rumor that pope Eugenius II's election had been manipulated by some faction in the Roman nobility went a little overboard, setting up an imperial representative in Rome. And, making all Romans swear an oath of Loyalty to the Emperor (Excepting the feudality which they had sworn to the Pope). But Lothar mad no claim to judge the rightfulness of a Pope. Such a claim would be a reversal of the official Frankish policy towards the Papacy going al the way back to King Pepin the Short. From there the emperor's slowly developed the idea that they were above the pope in authority in Christendom.
That is not true, Otto himself was unable to force John XII (not a very moral man, he was a product of this period of the Papacy dominated by ambitious laymen/women) to give up the Papacy, in favor of his appointed antipope Leo. Whatever else John XII may have been, he was a competent administrator and never tried to alter the Catholic doctrine, but more importantly he was legitimately elected. So, the people of Rome favored John XII (even after John died suddenly) during this whole episode. After his death, they[the people and clergy of Rome] refused to accord the Emperor any role in the election of John's successor, and they wouldn't even consider Leo. After they elected a humble monk Benedict V the Emperor was enraged. He sent an army down to Rome, laid siege to the city, and forced Benedict to resign (which he did to avoid further humiliation to the papacy) making Leo pope by default. Leo VIII was accepted by the people and clergy of Rome (who no doubt realized it was pointless to continue arguing with the Emperor who had an army in the city) one of only four men in the entire History of the Church to go from antipope to true pope. This time Otto was not challenged, he was after all a faithful and loyal Catholic, even if he was a bit touchy. And, Leo was an orthodox Catholic at least. And any way, Leo didn't last long (less then a year), when he died the clergy and the Emperor agreed on John XIII. After that there was a sucession of troubles which required the Emperor to be involved, fortunately most were good and loyal Catholics who the popes needed to maintain order during papal successions.
It must be pointed out that it is a Dogmatic Catholic belief that each pope is as sovereign as any other. And, that the pope has the authority to choose a successor not only by nomination, but by deciding on the way in which the next pope shall be chosen. Ergo any method the pope decides is the way it's going to be is the way it's going to be. He could say the emperor will choose, and the very next pope (chosen by the emperor) could say a group of cardinals will choose. The Emperor only has the authority to choose a pope if the pope says so. Just as the Emperor in theory only has the right to call himself Emperor if the pope crowns him. In any case the authority is in the end supposed to be with the pope. Not the other way around, as some Emperors tried to get.
It availed him nothing. He would have done worse if not for the fact that even in Germany, the people understood the Pope did have the right to judge an Emperor. After Gregory VII died surprisingly little is actually noted of Henry IV, he marched around Germany and Italy but his reign was ever after weak and hollow without a true Pope to back him. Guibert of Ravenna (antipope Clement III 1080-1100) was as useless as he was immoral. He had been excommunicated by Gregory in 1078 for an irreligious life and was only memorable for the fact that he actually kept Urban II, the dually elected successor to Victor III(who died after accepting office), and successor to Gregory VII, from entering Rome for a year(Though that was probably more due to Henry's partisans in the City). Afterward, I can't even find any reference to Guibert.
Barbarossa was a great general but like many powerful warlords was a bit of a child. He simply didn't like the fact that his imperial title technically came from the pope. The Holy Roman Emperor was King in his own lands, but he was also Emperor of all Christendom in Theory, and received this imperial crown and authority(especially in Italy) from the pope an no other. Frederick wanted to be an Emperor in the old Roman fashion, he wanted direct rule from all Imperial lands(i.e. the cities of northern Italy), but Adrian IV would not "play ball." So When Adrian died, the emperor conspired with one Bishop Octavian against Alexander III (Who was the legitimately elected Pope). After the [emperor's] Council of Pavia (which even anti papal historians admit was a joke) declared Octavian pope Victor IV, Frederick attempted to keep the true pope(besieged in central Italy) from any communication with the outside world by imprisoning and mutilating the messengers. Never the less, most of Christendom accepted Alexander III as true pope. After Milan was crushed by the Emperor's army, Adrian escaped Italy for France where with the support of the English and French kings he held a council at Tours in May 1163, which condemned the antipope. Later in April 1164, antipope Octavian(Victor IV) went insane and died. The antipope party (lead by Frederick's loyal adviser Archbishop Rainald of Cologne who was probably the real instigator of this whole mess) uncanonically elected Guy of Crema antipope Paschal III, further undermining Frederick's position even in his own lands of Germany.
You must understand that raising an antipope never really worked for any secular King. One way or another they lost the gambit. The longer a true pope holds out against the pretender the less likely any one who backs the antipope will win. And, it simply isn't popular to do it.
In March 1167 Alexander III declared Frederick's subjects absolved from their alliance to the schismatic Emperor. The cities's of northern Italy bolstered by this move rebelled against the tyrant (most notable Milan, which had suffered most cruely at the hand of the Emperor) forming the Lombard League. In July the Emperor took Rome(fortunately Alexander had escaped), where he installed antipope Guy who then crowned Frederick and his wife Emperor and Empress (Which is kind of funny as it betrays the weakness of the Emperor's whole argument that he didn't get his authority from the papal throne). But soon after plague struck the city, decimating Frederick's army (something like 25,000 men died) and killing Rainald of Cologne, thus forcing Frederick out of the city. But, Frederick couldn't leave Italy with the Lombard League gaining power.
At this point he probably should have given up, and accepted the independent governments of the Italian cities, but not good old Barbarossa
. Eventually Frederick had to sneak back across the alps in disguise. When antipope Guy died, the Emperor set up a third antipope, only further damaging the Emperor's credibility. By now no one was taking the Emperor's popes seriously. Frederick recrossed the alps in 1174 and laid siege to the newly built town of Alessander (named by the Lombard League for the pope). The siege ended during Holy Week when Frederick committed utter sacrilege by violating the Truce of God observed from Good Friday to Holy Saturday. This is the Holiest period of the liturgical year! It was a blasphemy for a Christian to engage in battle while Christ suffered on the Cross. Fortunately the cities defenders rallied against the Emperor's troops as they entered the city and defeated them on Holy Saturday.At this point Frederick absolutely should have accepted the peace treaty the League offered him, but no. For two more years he continued the schism until on May 29, 1176, Frederick lost a decisive battle against the League near Legnano. Finally realizing that he could not continue he essentially gave up. In the Treaty of Anagni November 4, 1176, he recognized Alexander III as true pope. Alexander revoked the Emperor's excommunication, and the validity of the antipope's ordinations. At Venice in July, 1177 he reaffirmed Anagni and made peace with the Lombard League, allowing them their self-government, their fortifications, and their right to ally with one another.
So after all that, Frederick I, considered one of the greatest rulers of his time, gained nothing. In fact he lost quite a bit of respect, both from his peers, the other Kings of Christendom, and from his own subjects. Raising an antipope isn't a good option, it shouldn't really work(it never really did, it usually just made things worse).
Not every Emperor before Henry IV dominated the papacy, re: my points above. Besides the domination of the papacy was never a right, nor did the title Patrician (or Emperor for that matter) imply anything like it. I'll say it again "the Emperor in theory only has the right to call himself Emperor if the pope crowns him. Understand that the Holy Roman Empire was essentially created by the Church, and based it's authority on the authority of that Church. Some Emperor's just wanted it the other way around.
There was no "Germany" at the time.
I hope I've given the basic details, if you disagree or have issues with any of my above points, please voice them.
Well I wouldn't say it was anarchy. Anarchy means no government. Both the Italian cities and the German states had governments. I think you are getting your history from a bias pro-nation state source; after all what was so good about the nations that France and England became? Or for that matter, what was so good about the nations that Germany and Italy became.
And great nations like Germany and Italy never sacrificed the welfare of there people for power? I won't ask you to define welfare but, you at least might want to reexamine your understanding of the pros and cons of Modern Centralized Nations verses. Old Independent States, if only to form a better understanding of each. Don't be so quick to discredit something just because it's considered antiquated.
As for the Popes trying to usurp power... Well I won't deny that some popes did, but the conflict between them and the Holy Roman Emperors was more about keeping the Papacy independent i.e. to stop potential caesaro-papism. Do you really believe that the Christian Religion should have been subject to a secular ruler?
The Popes like all men are sinners, some more so then others. But, do you really think that Frederick I was justified in what he did?
An impossibility because of the nature & origin of the Imperial Crown. However, Frederick II would have done it in an instant given half the chance.
You can't simply depose the pope, not even an ecumenical council could ever do that. You can't even imprison him with much success (Theres no place in Christendom you'd be able to keep him for long). You would have to kill him.
But some Emperors wanted more.
Lie? What makes you think it was a lie? Even the Muslims understood he was a heretic of the Church. Ibn al-Djusi of Jerusalem, wrote of him when he entered that city in 1228
"His conversation reveals that he does not believe in the Christan religion. When he spoke of it, it was to redicule it"
Van Cleve, Frederick II, pp. 225.
Frederick II was a liar, a tyrant, and a coward. The fact of the matter is he has earned far more respect form modern so called intellectuals then he deserves. Little history: the papacy had for the longest time feared what would happen if Southern Italy and Sicily where ever united with a belligerent Emperor. The Popes knew that if they ever had to face such a fate it might well be the end of the Papacy's independence, then Christendom would be divided into civil war. They had to face it with Frederick's father, but the papacy was not prepared for Frederick himself.
Frederick, on the occasion of his coronation promised the Pope he would never unite Sicily with the Empire, he didn't need to, he had more power in Sicily then he did in the Empire. In December 1220, he showed his true nature as a absolutist monarch. At a Diet in Capua he declared he would control all successions to the estates of the nobility and all marriages of the children of his barons, and he annulled all city charters for self-government. The Papacy was in a vise. Frederick had promised to go on Crusade (in 1216) but dragged his feet for 11 years while the crusade in Egypt failed. Pope Honorius III reminded him in 1221 that he needed to go and fulfill his vow, he even threatened him with excommunication. In 1223 Frederick promised to go in 1225, in 1225 he promised to go in 1227. Honorius' successor, Gregory IX got tired of Frederick's mockery of his own vow and demanded he go no later then August 15, 1227 as he had promised Honorius III two years earlier.
In August Frederick had his men assemble in Brundisi which, as always in the summer was a pit of malarial disease. The Emperor claimed illness, he recovered quickly, but gave up the expedition, though thousands of his men he still sent off to Palestine to die or eventually make their way back leaderless. Gregory IX excommunicated the Emperor as he promised. In his encyclical explaining the action Gregory pointed out Frederick's own statement back in 1216 when he took the cross, that anyone failing to fulfill a crusader vow should be excommunicated. The pope also made clear to the emperor that this excommunication was also a comment on Frederick's abuse of the Church in Sicily and Southern Italy, in a letter to the HRE (Van Cleve, Frederick II,pp.196-197).
Of course Frederick, impious as he was ignored the excommunication. In 1228 Frederick finally left for Palestine, even though he wasn't supposed to as he was under excommunication. I just love what one article I found on the web says about his so called Crusade.
"He obtained rule of the Holy Land not through military prowess and bloodshed but by skillful persuasion and delicate diplomacy. His methods did not please everybody in Rome."
Apparently Frederick believed the setup he and Egyptian Sultan al-Kamil agreed on would be considered a great victory. The Christians could have Jerusalem and a ten year truce was signed, the conditions of it were that the Christians build no fortifications in the city and after the ten years Jerusalem would go back to Muslim hands. This is often looked upon by modern historians as a great diplomatic victory. It was a joke and Frederick knew it at the time. The article I looked at also says this about Frederick's entry into Jerusalem, and his subsequent "Crowning" as King of Jerusalem (apparently for a ten year reign).
"Frederick was crowned King of Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the only Holy Roman Emperor to be so honoured. This Fifth Crusade could be considered the very zenith of Frederick's political life."
Frederick picked the Crown up off an empty altar and placed it on his own head without even the Patriarch's presence. He made a speech applying some of the messianic psalms to himself. Then he went to the Dome of the Rock to speak to the Muslims present (he spoke Arabic) saying "God has now sent you the Pigs." Using the Muslims vulgar word for Christians.
"They were disquieted by his remarks against his own faith. They could respect an honest Christian; but a Frank who disparaged Christanity and paid crude compliments to Islam roused their suspicion. It may be that they had heard the remark universaly attributed to him that Moses, Christ, and Mahomet were all three imposters. In any case he seemed a man withought religion."(Runciman, Crusades, III, p.190)
Frederick was pissing every one off, Templars, Hospitallers, the Patriarch, the entire Latin east was being made fun of. The fruit of his supposed victory was that after the ten years were up, Jerusalem in 1244, was sacked by the Sultan of Egypt. Of the around six thousand Christians in the city only three hundred escaped to the coast. While that slaughter was going on the "King" of Jerusalem was despoiling the Lombard plan.
Frederick returned to Italy and was eventually received back into the Church in 1230 by the pope on the condition that he return all Church lands he had taken during his excommunication, and pardon all those who had sided with the Church. The next year he issued the Constitution of Malfi, which gave him near godlike authority in Sicily. He was setting himself up as a Pagan-Roman Emperor, or Eastern Sultan. Even his modern admirers admit this was an absolute totalitarian government. In Ernst Kantorowicz' Biogrophy(if you can call it that, it was more like a gospel) of Frederick II, published in Germany in 1931, he writes...
"In the Book of Laws he unhestitatingly takes up his position of the philosophical query of the day: Did God creat the world or did God only mould existing primeval matter? God fashioned existing matter, he says-that is, just like the Emperor... It was a commonplace that the Creation and the Redemption were the beginning and the middle of an epoch, to which end should be like. This fulness of time had now come, under the scepter of the Emperor of Justice, Frederick II, the expected Messianic ruler whom the Sibyls had foretold."
Of course the northern city states of Italy saw where all this was leading, Frederick was intent on establishing his unrestricted despotism in Italy and probably the whole Empire. In 1231 they reformed the Lombard League and resolved to raise an army for their defense should the Emperor propose to enforce his will. Frederick however was a little busy at the time, first suppressing an uprising in Sicily, and then one in Germany led by his son Henry, who he imprisoned and drove into madness, (Henry committed suicide by riding his horse off a cliff during a prison transfer). In 1235 at the Diet of Mainz Frederick declared his intent to subjugate the Lombards if they continued their resistance to his rule.
In the winter of 1236 Pope Gregory IX warned Frederick that any attack on the Lombard city states without papal approval was a violation of the treaty signed by Barbarossa. And the Church had guaranteed the liberties of the cities for over 50 years. Frederick paid about as much attention to the Pope as he ever did and invaded Italy in August. By November he took Vicenza executing many of the city's leaders. On November 27th he defeated the army of the Lombard League at Cortnuova. He then demanded Milan's unconditional surrender and the people begged the Pope for help. By now the Pope's legates were reporting to him of the mistreatment of the emperor's prisoners, (mutilation, torture, unwarranted attacks against their families). The Pope demanded in the summer of 1239 that Frederick stop or face excommunication again. In reply Frederick claimed that the Pope had no authority over the Church. On Palm Sunday 1239 he was excommunicated for claiming authority over the city of Rome, arousing the people against the pope, imprisoning and slaying clergymen in Sicily, and keeping 20 Cathedrals and 2 Monasteries without bishops or abbots respectively. When Frederick heard the news he ordered the removal of all Franciscans and Dominicans from Sicily and Southern Italy, executed or exiled all priests who would not violate the pope's interdict by saying Mass, and appointed bishops without the pope's permission.
On April 20th 1239 Frederick sent a letter to the Kings and Princes of Christendom in which he demanded a general council to settle this issue. In June Frederick decreed the death penalty for anyone bringing any letters from the pope into his realms. He also announced that his totalitarian administration would be enforced in Northern Italy. During that summer he hanged the son of the Doge of Venice and burned at the stake the daughter of the mayor of Revenna who dared to resist him. By the end of that year Frederick was preparing for a full scale invasion of the Papal states. At the beginning of 1240 he and his army reached his birthplace the town of Jesi. Calling it:
"The place of our illustrious birth where our divine mother brought us into the world, where our radiant cradle stood...Thou of Bethlehem city of the March are not least among the cities of our race for out of thee the leader is come, the prince of the Roman Empire that he might rule thy people and protect thee and not suffer that thou be in the future subject to a foreign hand." [the pope].(Kantorowicz, Frederick II p. 512)
By February, Frederick was outside Rome. In a solemn procession Pope Gregory IX made his way to St. Peter's Basilica accompanied by a crowd of Frederick's partisans, no doubt booing and hissing, in front of whom he made a speech asking who will care for Roman when the Romans don't give a damn? It surprised them and helped them decide that they really did prefer the Pope. The city walls were then manned and Frederick bravely ran away, later claiming Pope Gregory, "...had induced some boys and old women and a very few hired troops to assume the Cross against us." Which begs the questions, Why did he run away? Now Pope Gregory called a council to judge the dispute between he and Frederick. Frederick said he wouldn't allow it and would arrest and imprison anyone trying to go to it. On February 12th of 1241 Pope Gregory IX proclaimed a crusade against Frederick II. In that same spring over 100 prelates, including a substantial number of bishops and 3 Cardinals, were captured by Frederick while trying to reach the council by sea. In August Frederick seized the castle near Monte Fortino in Campagnia where several of the Pope's nephews and relatives had taken refuge and hung them all. That same month Pope Gregory IX died, probably after hearing the news. There was a long interim (2 years) before the election of the next pope due to the fact that some cardinals were still held by Frederick and others were just too frightened to travel. In 1243 Pope Innocent IV was elected Pope. At first he also tried to make peace with Frederick but that turned out to be an impossibility as the Italians had been thoroughly divided into two camps, Guelf in support of the Pope and the Ghibelline in support of the Emperor. Innocent eventually continued Gregory IX's condemnation of Frederick II. In mid-November 1244 the Pope crossed the Alps to get to France and organize a council at Lyons which of course the Emperor had demanded, Gregory had asked for, and Frederick had changed his mind and said would never happen. This Council eventually found Gregory guilty of everything. Many of the attendees wanted the Pope to declare Frederick deposed, but the Pope said he would give Frederick one last chance to appear before him and bring those Cardinals and bishops he had been holding all this time. Frederick said no, because he hadn't been invited and that the old grey haired bishops were really pirates he had captured on the high seas, really, I kid you not, this is a true story! Of course the Council thought that was hilarious and the Pope finally declared Frederick II deposed, on July 17, 1245.
Frederick declared, "I have been the anvil long enough. now I shall play the hammer." It was a weak and shrill response from a weak and shrill spirit. From that point on Frederick's power only decreased, essentially declared an outlaw by a the Council of Lyon, he was rejected by most of Christendom. In 1249 his army was surprised by Parmesans, whose city they had been besieging, defeating it and seizing the royal treasure, including Frederick's crown while he was out hawking. His most loyal followers either abandoned him or became victims of his increasing paranoia. No doubt some of the conspiracies he saw around him were real (such as the one involving Orlando di Rossi), but not all. Frederick was quite cruel to those he suspected, blinding them, or torturing them to death. Finally he died in December of 1250.
Killing the Hohenstaufens was never a specific aim of the Popes, the Crusade was aimed only at ending Hohenstaufen power. At any time Frederick's sons, or even Frederick himself could have asked for forgiveness and been pardoned; but after the atrocities of Frederick no Hohenstaufen would ever be recognized as a ruler anywhere, the Hohenstaufen line was, for all intents and purpose, declared ignoble (i.e. no longer a noble house) by a Council of Christendom.
The pope may be divine, but that counts for nothing when my Imperial soldiers drag him out of the vatican, if I can, I will seize Rome, remove the pope, and not appoint a successor, thus disbanding the Paple States.
Leper you sound a bit biased against poor Frederick II.
Perhaps not a pious ruler but I don't think your description of him as a coward is entirely accurate.
Though you have proven he was a tyrant and a liar. But I'm sure that with those kinds of activities there would be much bias against him and historians of the time might see to slander him.
I don't think he is as bad as you think. A history book I have says Frederick II was the greatest of the hohenstaufen dynasty in fact.
Perhaps not a pious ruler but I don't think your description of him as a coward is entirely accurate.
Though you have proven he was a tyrant and a liar. But I'm sure that with those kinds of activities there would be much bias against him and historians of the time might see to slander him.
I don't think he is as bad as you think. A history book I have says Frederick II was the greatest of the hohenstaufen dynasty in fact.
And I tell you, try to do so and find yourself fighting your noblemen and Crusader Armies
my royal domains shall stretch from the coast of palestine to the beaches of normany. No man, no woman, no pope nor king shall avoid paying my yearly tribute.
or alternatively,
maybe the pope is too valuable an ally to get rid of outright?
or alternatively,
maybe the pope is too valuable an ally to get rid of outright?
Well I would be the first to admit that. The fact is though I have read the Histories both pro and against Frederick II.
I consider most of his actions to be cowardly, but then I suppose it's not fair to compare him to say Baldwin IV King of Jerusalem in that area. Frederick also had no end to his pride (a sure sign in anyone of a cowardly nature). It takes courage to admit when you are wrong, other Kings and emperor's were able to do it. Even if they didn't entirely mean it, the HRE Henry IV did at Canossa (one hopes he may actually have been sincere, despite his later actions), Henry II of England did it at Becket's tomb. Even the great Frederick Barbarossa at least had enough class not to continue his schism beyond a certain point and for that I can respect him, and more so I think he was a fairly good Emperor and Prince of Christendom. But, Frederick II never admitted he was wrong (which he was). However in the interest of fairness, maybe you can give a specific example of a brave act on Frederick's part?
Perhaps, but given the near universal adulation he has received from modern historians you'd think it should balance out. Not for me. As I've said, I've read both sycophantic versions of his reign, and critical. In the end the kind of things many historians think were good about him I would view as a criticism. In any case I doubt very seriously whether the modern historians who hail his reign as the most enlightened of the time would really enjoy living under him.
I guess it depends on how you measure greatness. He wound up being condemned by the very Christendom he tried to govern, resulting in the complete destruction of his dynasty. If you really think that makes him great, well... If otherwise, you might want to ask (as I did) just what is it that modern intellectuals find so great about him.
Last edited:
Leper King:
Frederick II was a pompous asshole. What is reported however that he supposedly said needs to be treated with extreme caution. The official documents alone show a severe ego problem, but you have to accept that he enjoyed a tremendous amount of support, and was able to pull amazing diplomatic successes (like against his revolting son Henry (VII). His illegitimate son Manfred managed to get a grip on both sicilies after 1250 despite the pope's opposition, which he could not have done if Frederick II had just been a bloodthirsty tyrant.
If all the accusations esp of heresy were true, one has to wonder why Loius XI rejected the idea of getting drawn into a war against a Frederick - answer is even he rejected the more radical papist ideas and rather went crusading to Egypt than Sicily.
Btw, Frederick was not just heavily admired by nationalist historians - many in Germany considered him a traitor of the back-projected national idea for his two big privilegia.
"You can't simply depose the pope, not even an ecumenical council could ever do that."
Byzantine emperors could do it, could they not... a little after the time we're talking about, the counciliarist idea was very strong and the issue heavily disputed within the church. A bit earlier we have Philipp IV's nice idea to have a (dead) pope declared a heretic by a council....
Frederick II was a pompous asshole. What is reported however that he supposedly said needs to be treated with extreme caution. The official documents alone show a severe ego problem, but you have to accept that he enjoyed a tremendous amount of support, and was able to pull amazing diplomatic successes (like against his revolting son Henry (VII). His illegitimate son Manfred managed to get a grip on both sicilies after 1250 despite the pope's opposition, which he could not have done if Frederick II had just been a bloodthirsty tyrant.
If all the accusations esp of heresy were true, one has to wonder why Loius XI rejected the idea of getting drawn into a war against a Frederick - answer is even he rejected the more radical papist ideas and rather went crusading to Egypt than Sicily.
Btw, Frederick was not just heavily admired by nationalist historians - many in Germany considered him a traitor of the back-projected national idea for his two big privilegia.
"You can't simply depose the pope, not even an ecumenical council could ever do that."
Byzantine emperors could do it, could they not... a little after the time we're talking about, the counciliarist idea was very strong and the issue heavily disputed within the church. A bit earlier we have Philipp IV's nice idea to have a (dead) pope declared a heretic by a council....
strange..
my history book from western civilization 1 says frederick I was massively popular throughout germany with the PEOPLE.
and frederick II apparently liked to perform strange experiments on people, but he created the a strong centralized state in Sicily that was in fact the best organized state in Europe.
my history book from western civilization 1 says frederick I was massively popular throughout germany with the PEOPLE.
and frederick II apparently liked to perform strange experiments on people, but he created the a strong centralized state in Sicily that was in fact the best organized state in Europe.
Friedrich II didn't create the centralized Sicilian state - that was something that his Hauteville ancestors did...
I don't know the proper procedure for quoting directly from a textbook but the book i'm reading from here is "Western civilization volume I: to 1715 by Jackson J. Spielvogel". I dont know if i have to mention that but I am following Leper King's lead.
"Until 1220 Federick spent much time in Germany; once he left in 1220, he rarely returned. He basically gave the German princes full control of their territories, voluntarily surrendering any real power over Germany to keep it quiet while he pursued his main goal, the establishment of a strong centralized state in Italy dominated by his kingdom in Sicily. He turned Sicily into the best-organized state in Europe, establishing a strong centralized government staffed by bureaucrats under his absolute authority as 'supreme legislator and judge.'"
In contract, this is a quote from a insert about his supposed deeds:
"'Frederick II, king of Germany and Sicily and would be ruler of all Italy, was viewed even by contemporaries as one of the most unusual rulers of his time. This account of his 'idiosyncracies' is by Salimbene de Adam, A Fransican friar, whose Chronicle is one of the 'richest sources of information' about medieval life in thirteenth-century Italy. He was, however, also known to be notoriously biased against Frederick II.'
Salimbene de Adam, Chronicle
Note that Federick almost always enjoyed having discord with the Church and fighting her on all sides, although she had nourished him, defended him, and raised him up. He held the true faith to be worthless. He was a cunning, crafty man, avaricious, lecherous, and malicious, easily given to wrath.
At times, however, Federick was a worthy man, and when he wished to show his good, courtly side, he could be witty, charming, urbane, and industrious. He was adept at writing and singing, and was well-versed in art of writing lyrics and songs. He has a handsome, well formed man of medium height. I myself saw him and, at one time, loved him. For he once wrote Brother Elias, Minister General of the Friars Minor, on my behalf asking him to return me to my father. He also could speak many and various language. In short, if he had been a good Catholic and had loved God, the CHurch, and his own soul, he would scarcely have had an equal as emperor in the world...
Now, it is necessary to speak of Federick's idiosyncracies.
His first idiosyncracy is that he had the thumb of a certain notary cut off because he written his name in way ifferent from the way the Emperor desired....
His second idiosyncracy was that he wanted to discover what language a child would use when he grew if he had never heard anyone speak. Therefore, he placed some infants in the care of wet-nurses, commanding them to bathe and suckle the children, but by no means ever to speak to or fondle them. For he wanted to discover weather they would speak Hebrew, the first language, or Greek, Latin, Arabic, or the language of their parents. But he labored in vain, because all of the infands died....
Furthurmore, Frederick had many other idiosyncracies: idle curiousity, lack of faith, perveristy, tyranny, and accursedness, some of which I have written about in another chronciel. Once, for example, he sealed up a live man in a cask and kept him there until he died in order to prove that the soul totally perished with the body . . . . For Frederick was an epicurean, and so he and the learned men of his court searched out whatever Biblical passage they could find to prove that there is no life after death...
This sixth example of Federick's idiosyncracy and idle curiousity. . . was that he fed two men a fine meal, and he sent one to bed to sleep, the other hunting. And that evening he had both men disemboweled in his presence, in order to determine which one had digsted his food the best. The decision by his doctors went to the man who had slept after the meal...
I have heard and known many other idiosyncracies of Frederick, but I keep quiet for the sake of brevity, and because reporting so many of the Emperor's foolish notions is tedious to me."
* * * * * * * *
Ugh! Thats a lot of typing.
anyways i think he is an awesome ruler. I think Leper King may be right that he is a 'ass' or whatnot but he was still one of the most damn effective rulers of his day. He accomplished much, even if it was short lived like Frederick I.
And I do accept that, at least in southern Italy and Sicily. I did mention the political division of the Italians didn't I? Yes right here: "At first he[Pope Innocent IV] also tried to make peace with Frederick but that turned out to be an impossibility as the Italians had been thoroughly divided into two camps, Guelf in support of the Pope and the Ghibelline in support of the Emperor."
But, just because he had support doesn't prove anything about his true character, Napoleon and Hitler both had a "tremendous amount of support." And let's face it, for someone to get the kind of diplomatic victories he did would by necessity have to be charismatic.
Louis IX was a saint. In many ways he was to good for his time(though his was certainly a prince of the period), it is a fact of reality that often good people cannot see the evil ambition in others. Louis always pushed for some kind of peace between the Emperor and the pope. But, his efforts were usually scorned by the Emperor. Even after Frederick was deposed by the council of Lyon, Louis tryed to setup a meeting between the Pope and the Emperor at Cluny, probably still hoping Frederick II like his namesake Frederick I, would realize he had lost and sue for peace. No such luck of course.
A. Byzantine Emperors could depose the Patriarchs of Constantinople, but not the Pope. When they tried (back when they had control of Italy), it didn't work out for them.
B. The Counciliarist way never succeeded (and is considered now a heretical position against the doctrine of infallability).
C. Philipp IV of what? I'm not familiar with any Philipp IV of anything before the time we are talking about. Never the less at this time Counciliarism was not the law of the Church (and would never be), so, no act of a council had any binding until the Pope approved it. The only instance I know of a Pope being accused by a council of heresy was the case of Pope Honorius I (625-638). However, Honorius' successor (who's job it was to ratify the acts of the council) changed the meaning to more of a post-pontifical censure not for herasy, but "for failing to teach" i.e. the truth against the herasy in question(Monothelite), which Honorius wasn't of course guilty of, but should have taken action against. Honorius' successor (St. Leo II) explained this in several letters we still have (one of which was to the Empeor Constantine Iv); a masterful semantic performance, and an indication that the pope's of the time did believe in the infalability of their office.
In the entire 2000 year history of the Chrurch the only way a pope's pontifocate ever ended was through death or voluntary resignation. It is a Catholic doctrine that no authority in the Church is higher than the pope, therefore only the Pope has a say over his pontifocate.
I'll give you a situation to illiutrate. Let's say you were to remove the pope from power and imprison him. Even if you set up your own pope in Rome; assuming the real pope dosen't resign in favor of the new one, he will still be the True Pope, and the guy you have in Rome will be an antipope. Keeping the true pope locked up was very bad. The people of western Christandom (at least in this period), were usually more loyal to their Church than they were to their king, and in all cases where situations like this happened the ruler, or whoever held the Pope, would face potential revolt in parts of if not all of his realm. Then you have to deal with the other princes of Chrestandom... Even if you survive all that, you will still lose default, because you can't destroy the papacy (unless the developent team decides they don't need any Catholics to buy the game), there will always be another Pope to fight you.
Usually it's a good idea to cite your sources, at least if you expect people to take you seriously. In formatting it you should always give the author's name, the title of the book(inculding volume number), and if it's a quote the page number.
The convention is to cite the title in italics. . So like one of the quotes I gave I cited like this .... Van Cleve, Frederick II, pp. 225.
In a informal discussion like this you probably don't have to be so rigid.
Well, the Scandinavian countries did, although their crowns wasn't new of course...
Leper King:
You seem convinced that the popes were perfect saints, and the emperors were evil men trying to destroy Christanity. While this is not the case. For example, the church did nothing to stop indulgence pedlers, because of the income they brought in. The Pope and higher church officals didn't follow there vows, many had concubines, or secret wives, many had grand palaces and villas. The Holy See was one of Europe's greatest markets. The Popes relished in their power to appoint and overthrough Kings and Emperors. Whatever claiment to a throne who had the most money, could most of the time secure a papal banner, for a price.
This of course doesn't apply to all popes in the medieval ages, but a good number of them.
You seem convinced that the popes were perfect saints, and the emperors were evil men trying to destroy Christanity. While this is not the case. For example, the church did nothing to stop indulgence pedlers, because of the income they brought in. The Pope and higher church officals didn't follow there vows, many had concubines, or secret wives, many had grand palaces and villas. The Holy See was one of Europe's greatest markets. The Popes relished in their power to appoint and overthrough Kings and Emperors. Whatever claiment to a throne who had the most money, could most of the time secure a papal banner, for a price.
This of course doesn't apply to all popes in the medieval ages, but a good number of them.
I wonder if it'll be possible to have a royal marriage with the pope in CK. You couldn't in EU2, but I could at least see a king marrying his daughter to the pope's son or whatnot to help cement good rleations between the two.
* * * * * * *
who thinks new crowns should be creatable?
With the right support, should I be able to create the kingdom of Visby for example?
* * * * * * *
who thinks new crowns should be creatable?
With the right support, should I be able to create the kingdom of Visby for example?
No, I made no such claim. In fact, I would say most of the Emperor's were good and loyal son's of the Church.
This is called a Question-begging epithet. Using the word "relished" to force home an otherwise unsupported conclusion i.e. that the pope had no legitimate reason to censure monarchs.
It seems to me that most people who think the pope was wrong for censuring Kings and Emperors, must be supporters of absolutist regimes !?!?!?
Originally posted by The Leper King
[B
It seems to me that most people who think the pope was wrong for censuring Kings and Emperors, must be supporters of absolutist regimes !?!?!?
No we are just good protestants.
Jaron I like the idea of creating new nations, sergei said it's possible just very very hard, oh and nations can be destroyed too.
The Leper King:
But, just because he had support doesn't prove anything about his true character, Napoleon and Hitler both had a "tremendous amount of support."
Because they appealed to strong ideologies, mostly nationalism. Did Frederick II appeal to the 50 % of italians and germans who were heretic in the 13th century ?
Louis always pushed for some kind of peace between the Emperor and the pope. But, his efforts were usually scorned by the Emperor. Even after Frederick was deposed by the council of Lyon, Louis tryed to setup a meeting between the Pope and the Emperor at Cluny...
Louis IX was not just a "saint", he (or rather, his advisers) also persued realpolitik. He finally supported his brother Charles in his conquest of Sicily 1263/1266, he went on two crusades, he fought against the English and Ramon VII of Toulouse.... He tried to mediate because he considered it a shame that Pope and Emperor were at war, not because he wanted to reconcile the Pope with a heretic.
Byzantine Emperors could depose the Patriarchs of Constantinople, but not the Pope. When they tried (back when they had control of Italy), it didn't work out for them.
Didn't it work for Constans II ? Well I'd have to read up on this, maybe when I have the time....
B. The Counciliarist way never succeeded (and is considered now a heretical position against the doctrine of infallability).... at this time Counciliarism was not the law of the Church ...
Well since Vatican I. In the dispute between Boniface VIII. and Philipp IV., the Sorbonne held that by canonic law, the Council can judge the pope for heresy - I'm just not sure whether this was explicitly in canonic law or just their interpretation.
C. Philipp IV of what? I'm not familiar with any Philipp IV of anything before the time we are talking about.
Around the time we're talking about, 1285-1314 IIRC.
In the entire 2000 year history of the Chrurch the only way a pope's pontifocate ever ended was through death or voluntary resignation.
Hmm... a matter of interpretation. The Council of Constance deposed both Popes IIRC, of course you could claim this was invalid and only their death or resignation actually ended their pontificate....
But, just because he had support doesn't prove anything about his true character, Napoleon and Hitler both had a "tremendous amount of support."
Because they appealed to strong ideologies, mostly nationalism. Did Frederick II appeal to the 50 % of italians and germans who were heretic in the 13th century ?
Louis always pushed for some kind of peace between the Emperor and the pope. But, his efforts were usually scorned by the Emperor. Even after Frederick was deposed by the council of Lyon, Louis tryed to setup a meeting between the Pope and the Emperor at Cluny...
Louis IX was not just a "saint", he (or rather, his advisers) also persued realpolitik. He finally supported his brother Charles in his conquest of Sicily 1263/1266, he went on two crusades, he fought against the English and Ramon VII of Toulouse.... He tried to mediate because he considered it a shame that Pope and Emperor were at war, not because he wanted to reconcile the Pope with a heretic.
Byzantine Emperors could depose the Patriarchs of Constantinople, but not the Pope. When they tried (back when they had control of Italy), it didn't work out for them.
Didn't it work for Constans II ? Well I'd have to read up on this, maybe when I have the time....
B. The Counciliarist way never succeeded (and is considered now a heretical position against the doctrine of infallability).... at this time Counciliarism was not the law of the Church ...
Well since Vatican I. In the dispute between Boniface VIII. and Philipp IV., the Sorbonne held that by canonic law, the Council can judge the pope for heresy - I'm just not sure whether this was explicitly in canonic law or just their interpretation.
C. Philipp IV of what? I'm not familiar with any Philipp IV of anything before the time we are talking about.
Around the time we're talking about, 1285-1314 IIRC.
In the entire 2000 year history of the Chrurch the only way a pope's pontifocate ever ended was through death or voluntary resignation.
Hmm... a matter of interpretation. The Council of Constance deposed both Popes IIRC, of course you could claim this was invalid and only their death or resignation actually ended their pontificate....