Donate to support Crusades history: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr... / 220051141405247 Cited in this video: Fredrick II: A Medieval Emperor by David Abulafia God's War by Christopher Tyerman
Great synopsis. Most historians neglect to mention the dual nature of the Popes during this time - the Pope was the spiritual head of the RC Church AND the temporal head of the Papal States (basically a King). As the 'king' of the Papal States, the Pope had to defend and augment his realm just as any other king and, unfortunately, this distinction is rarely mentioned.
Thanks! I think during this period the Pope's roles as spiritual leader and temporal lord was truly coming into conflict. Frederick envisioned a papacy that behaved like it had in previous centuries: as a spiritual father. The truth is, the papacy was far more influential when it embraced that role and shunned the worldly trappings of temporal lordship. Cynicism about the papacy among Europe's people really starts in this period when the Pope's were neglecting their traditional role and behaving in many ways just like another prince.
true but we must not forget the pope ended with land because of the goths and particularly the lombards meddles in italy....it basicly come from the exarchate of ravenna and rome wich now the empire could not control,so the pope didint wanted anymore raiding here and there and administered the disaster as much as he could.
All these points are spot on. I do however believe the Papal States (as an established country) would have still come about anyways, even without the land they got hold of. But, the lands certainly were at the least a great assistance to their formation.
The emperor really dragged his feet, leading to the failure of the 5th crusade and seems to only have engaged on the 6th crusade under pressure based on what I have read. He had promised as a youth that he would go on crusade, so my pet theory is that he was more sincere as a youth, but grew cynical with age.
Love this video, thank you so much for clarifying all of this. I'm Sicilian born in Germany, there more to Sicily than meets the eye, yes he was a foreigner, but that can be said about all the leaders of Europe Remember that we've been brainwashed by Italy for the last 160 years
Much as I enjoy your videos, I think you conveniently leave out some information to make your point. All historians know that Frederick II delayed his participation on the 5th Crusades to the point that it led to the failure of that crusades. On the 6th Crusades, Frederick sailed in Aug 1227 only to return 3 days later due to "illness", even though his entire army hadn't departed with him, indicating he had never planned to make it to Jerusalem. For that, he was excommunicated. In June 1228, when he did depart for Jerusalem, he did so without papal permission. Meaning since he was excommunicated, he wasn't authorized to represent the pope nor the entire Crusader army. For that, he was excommunicated a second time. When he did arrive in Jerusalem, he arrived with a meager army, none big enough to wage a significant war to dislodge the Muslims from Jerusalem. Indeed, he quickly set an agreement with Al-Kamil, one that would make Frederick King of Jerusalem, gain back some of the lost land but leave Jerusalem without repairing fortifications. Al-Kamil was shrewd to agree to this (his temporary plan) as he was dealing with other conflicts with the likes of Syrians. Indeed, the Hospitallers and the Templars were upset about the fortifications agreement. Sure enough, 14 years later, Jerusalem fell again to the Muslims. Frederick was indeed known to be tolerant of other religions, specifically Muslims. Frederick had a world view much more different that his Christian peers and he had little conviction about the Crusades as part of his legacy. He only participated due to his falling out with the Church as well as the need to be considered King of Jerusalem, a title his father in law had (his wife Isabella was the heiress of Jerusalem until Frederick had rights transferred to himself). When it comes to Crusading, Frederick was an opportunist, not a warrior for God. My family is from Apulia and I have done some research on this. And I am an admirer of Frederick II and what he did for southern Italy but his prowess on the Crusades as well his "adherence" to Christianity is not correctly covered in your video so I disagree with some of your myth busters.
you really have to read Kantorowicz to get the true picture of Frederick. He was not a pious medieval monarch like St Louis IX; he was a Divus Augustus Caesar Romanus at heart and held a deep skepticism of the spiritual world, even to the point of blasphemy, in favor of an almost modern empiricism. He was sinned against by Gregory IX, no doubt, but Frederick was more Antichrist than Christ
You should read Jacques Benoist-Me'chin. The 'illness' was real: Frederick's soldiers fell ill to cholera and it would take a while for them to recover thanks to cleansing via spring water. Frederick's crusade was sincere. The pope Gregory IX was an imbecile. He excommunicated Frederick for being late (in spite of all the costly and genuine preparations) and then excommunicates again for leaving on his crusade! Bottom-line: Frederick II got Jerusalem back through skillful diplomacy allowing all Abrahamic religions to worship there - an arrangement the United Nations would admire. What thwarted the whole thing is the refusal from the Pope to accept the truce worked out by Al-Kamil and Frederick II and the (frankly) venal expectations from the Hospitallers and the Templars. Note the combined military force of the Teutonic knights (brought by Frederick II), the Templars and the Hospitallers could have taken Jerusalem back by force. Al-Kamil knew this and this likely influenced to keep his promises to return Jerusalem. Frederick II was a Christian after all, and though he despised pope Gregory IX (and for good reason), he nonetheless respected the papacy (as D. Abufalia correctly points out).
@@andrew6069 He was neither. As D. Abufalia pointed out: "He was a Hohenstaufen and an Hauteville". His actions were guided by his dual inheritance and yes, his interests and his own self-interests. An AntiChrist? Old 666 himself? C'mon.
yeah, this is pure imperialist propaganda. even Kantorowicz, who is sympathetic to Frederick, completely shatters the picture of Frederick II presented here
So this doesn't quite answer one question I have. What was his father in laws, that is to say John of Brienne's, deal with attacking Sicily during the 6th crusade/war of the lombards? Was he just that pissed off at him for taking his crown?
A lot of the local nobility in Outremer at that time were strongly resistant to the idea of the Crusader states being incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire. They were shortsighted, and didn't realize that joining the empire was their best chance of survival.
Vercingetorix 39 The Sixth Crusade definitely was a Crusade. Frederick didn't just bring troops, he mustered a full army and was prepared to engage the enemy if they resisted. I am not sure whether or not Frederick agreed not to restore the walls. The sources are conflicting on the exact nature of the agreement. All we know is that the Crusaders definitely did restore the walls and made other renovations during the fifteen years that they held the city. Indeed, there are surviving architectural features in Jerusalem today that date from this period, such as the famous Last Supper room, I believe.
Vercingetorix 39 The numbering system for the Crusades is definitely kind of arbitrary. The Victorians came up with it (I think), but the numbered ones definitely constitute the largest campaigns to the East over those three centuries. The pope had issued a bull for Frederick's Crusade years earlier, but then forbade him from going right before he actually went. That didn't stop those who had taken the cross with him earlier from accompanying him anyway. His army was made up mostly of his own feudal levies for the most part. The events of the Sixth Crusade marred the pope's reputation. Here Frederick had just achieved what the papacy had been trying to achieve since 1187, and now the Pope put an interdict on Jerusalem! Nevertheless, a lot of Christians were happy to ignore the Pope's ban and went to pray at Jerusalem anyway. Meanwhile the Pope was calling for Crusades in Italy because of his own personal political interests there. It was definitely scandalous to the peoples of Europe, and created a lot of cynicism about the Pope's use of the traditional Crusade indulgence. Really glad you enjoyed the video! Most of the info was taken from God's War by Christopher Tyerman, and David Abulafia's Frederick II, which is the best bio on Frederick in existence as far as I can tell.
Vercingetorix 39 Now on the agreement itself, it is my understanding that different versions of it have come down to us through the chroniclers. The Muslims report it one way and the Christians report it another way. Various Muslim factions report it differently depending on their loyalties. Some Muslim authors portrayed it as a horrible disaster, others as a shrewd screw-job on the Christians. Saladin's biographer, Baha ad-Din wrote during this period, and he views it as a fulfillment of Saladin's fears that the Crusaders were growing stronger and would retake Jerusalem one day. Frederick's people portray it as a brilliant victory for Christ, the Pope's people portrayed it as totally unacceptable and damn near Satanic! If an actual legitimate copy of what was signed between Frederick and al-Kamil exists, I have not seen it, but I would love to. If you do happen to run across something like that, please let me know I would be very interested of course!
Vercingetorix 39 One of the things I love about Frederick II is how deeply he understood the Muslims, and how brilliantly he played them against each other. Basically he was exploiting the internal tensions among Saladin's descendants to the full extent. Egypt feared Damascus and Damascus feared Egypt, and Frederick basically threatened them each with joining the other. He recaptured Jerusalem without spilling a drop of blood - as the Art of War says, the paramount achievement. If Frederick hadn't been hampered by all the small-minded local barons jockeying for their tiny piece of influence, or the Pope's pretensions to princely power, I feel that he more than anyone else at the time was most fitted to hold the Holy Land. The incorporation of Syria and Palestine into the Holy Roman Empire would have been the best thing at this time. But hey, who really knows for sure?
@rahotep101 Well the "papacy" doesn't do anything, it's certain popes that act in history. I do tend to agree that Gregory IX's policy wasn't helpful. Honorius III, however, tended to be very supportive of Fred. I don't doubt that Frederick made a lot of good connections with the Muslims. He was a brilliant politician. Doesn't mean he was sympathetic to Islam.
Fredrick spent a couple years in Rome at the court of pope innocent somthing or other. He was then sent to Sicily, still a child, and was tutored by the future pope honorous
@rahotep101 But yeah, I think that the Crusades movement in the Holy Land would've fared far better with a pope like Urban II who emphasized the papacy's spiritual sovereignty and shunned worldly glam.
@MISTERWONKA7 The Renaissance was totally romanticized. For example, art. Fra Angelico's art is more reflective of the Middle Ages than the Reneissance. Take his painting of the Last Judgement compared to Michelangelo's. Both are fantastic paintings but in Michelangelo's every person in the paintings is nude whereas in Fra Angelico's only the damned are nude and they are not the focus. In Fra Angelico's, God is the center but in Michelangelo's man has become the center.
I suggest you watch the videos about islam made by crash course and khan academy, and you will discover that the far right is discriminating muslims in order to create a scapegoat. Damm demagogues
