That's how most Germans get to know him. If they do at all that is... the legend used to be really commonly known in the 19th and early 20th century but since then has gotten a bit out of favor.
The funny thing is, that originally the legend started with one of his descendants, Friedrich (Frederick) II. Who was the last emperor of the Hohenstauffen line, also called "stupor mundi." Over the years the focus of the legend changed to the more well-known emperor, and now barely anyone knows that it was another Frederick initially. I have to say, I always thought that Friedrich II. was indeed the more interesting if less successful emperor and superficially he and his ancestor had similar events in their life, excommunication, anti-popes, having to unite a divided country or two...
This emperor is little special to my country for one reason. So during the siege of Milan in 1158 one of few armies that helped him during that was lead by Prince Vladislav II. of Bohemia. Aparently his army fought very well during the siege and some chronicles are even saying that they managed to killed the leader of Milan. We even have a legend that Milan surrendered because they sawed Bohemian soldiers eating children made from ginger bread because the thought they were real children and did not want to meet the same fate. After the battle our Prince Vladislav II. got two things from Friedrich Barbarossa: a Silver Lion with one tail on red background as a heraldry and symbol of Principality of Bohemia and Vladislav II. was crowned by Friedrich as a King of Bohemia Vladislav I., this title was just for his name and was not hereditary. Anyway, great video again... this actualy helped me fill some blank spaces that I got in this time of Medieval History.
I love when Gabby is part of the podcast - you sound like you're having so much fun together. Brings a smile to my face, like a Turk watching a fat elderly German man drown in a river. Too dark? Maybe too dark.
@@Potent_Techmology Going back in history, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone without racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc. Judging them with 21st century morals is pointless.
@@Cailus3542 The only 2 nations in Europe that didn't exile Jews before 1900 was The Netherlands and Poland. In WWII, no nation had more foreign SS than NL. Poland was genocided. There's better cultures than others.
An obscure history podcast? On my day off? And all my chores are done? And my cat wants to cuddle? This is nap bait. 100%. I'll see you on the other side
24:30 the short answer as to why italy was so fractured in the middle ages is that in the 1060s-80s Mathilda de Canossa got the majoritty of lands north of Rome by inheritance, she was massively pro pope against the HRE and was so devout she had no kids. The HRE feared she would give the lands to the pope. As a resolution to the conflict and to avoid actual all out war the HRE agreed to grant more autonomy to the italians as long as the pope lands didnt grow. With her death all the cities, baronies or counts became independent.
You should look into the life of his grandson Friedrich (Frederick) II. the "stupor mundi." In many ways, his life was more interesting than that of his grandfather, and he originally was the one supposed to sleep under the mountain.
Well, from a Western point of view you could switch "Roman" for "Christian". So, everybody was "Roman" in that sense and the Roman empire was all of Christendom. That's how you could have emperors that were not Roman in any ethnic sense because the Roman empire was never ethnically defined anyway. The Byzantines had a whole other view of course but I don't think they ever went around outright saying that the Germans had no business calling themselves Roman emperors. They just avoided using the exact title whenever possible.
Charles V also got pretty close, if not for the Reformation. Also during the 30 Years War, the Habsburgs also got pretty close before the Swedish and French interventions. But yes, Barbarossa was maybe the guy who got closest.
Disagree. He didn't positively change anything structurally. He was a charismatic ruler who knew to broker peace between the great lords of the empire but the elective nature of the kingship was firmly in place and he's set some precedence of giving bigger players what they want instead of successfully demanding total obedience. If you discount Charlemagne, the closest to a unified HRE was probably Otto I.
While definitely the wealthiest and most powerful of the pre interregnum emperors it’s also true that the centralization in Germany completely collapsed during his reign. He completely neglected the empire north of the alps and when his son Henry tried to hold onto what little centralized power remained and resist the encroachment of the princes his father sided against him. His strife with the pope during his lifetime is also directly responsible for the deaths of his sons and the eradication of the Staufen dynasty and the resulting total collapse of central power that happened in the interregnum. While definetely one of the most powerful I would certainly not call him the “best” emperors
@@braedenconti36 This is untrue across the board. Frederick II did NOT “neglect” his German territories. No state, until quite recent times, could command obedience, especially in outlying lands, by force, without consent: ‘Institutional minimalism ... could be as effective as more purposeful or more creative statecraft’ (Fernandez-Armesto, Before Columbus, 41.) In Germany, Frederick II was a ‘strong’ king without the organs of institutionalized central government; his aim was to rule in concert with his princes in the traditional organological mode of imperial politics (See Tilman Struve, Die Entwicklung der organologischen Staatsauffassung im Mittelalter, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 16.) Since the later reign of Frederick Barbarossa, Hohenstaufen policy in Germany was to increase its own ‘hausmacht, in order to enforce a workable stasis of cooperation among the German princes. After the years of instability following the death of Henry VI, this meant that Frederick II could only feasibly rule in Germany as a kind of primus inter pares. Frederick II himself recognized the utility of this policy as a means to ensure his status and power in Germany. In this vein, a study by Andreas Christoph Schlunk reveals that by 1240 the crown was almost as rich in fiscal resources, towns, castles, enfeoffed retinues, monasteries, ecclesiastical advocacies, manors, tolls, and all other rights, revenues, and jurisdictions as it had ever been at any time since Frederick Barbarossa began a forceful new programme of enriching the crown in the 1160s (Schlunk, Königsmacht und Krongut. Die Machtgrundlage des deutschen Königtums im 13. Jahrhundert - und eine neue historische Methode). Therefore, even Frederick II’s long absence from Germany after 1220 to 1235, and afterwards from 1236, did not denude royal power nor did it imperial royal officials to enforce his prerogatives (Benjamin Arnold, Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) and the political particularism of the German princes, p. 246).
Just a preface@@CommonSwindler seems far more knowledgeable and read on this topic, so to anyone else reading this I woukd trust his stance over mine, in addition he seems to speak and read german meaning he has had access to a wider variety of research and perspectives than I have. While less academic this is my somewhat (I'd like to say more than the average) informed opinion from the articles, podcasts, and books I've read on the matter. I agree with most of your points, and I will concede that "neglect" is too strong of a word to use in this context, however I disagree with the overall thesis. While yes, as I said in my original comment, he was indeed one of if not the wealthiest and most powerful pre-interegnum emperors, I dont think that makes him the "greatest Holy Roman Emperor". I think the strongest points against him are in his dealings with the pope (and by extension the princes) and his son King Henry (VII.). While I dont speak german and that has significantly hindered my research in this area, the way I see it Frederick II needed the full support of the german princes due to his opposition with the pope and constant threat of excommunication. So while yes he continued the Staufen policy in regard of collaboration with the princes he had to give even more concessions to appease them than prior staufen emperors had to while this maintained his own position it came at the cost of the authority of the crown itself and all others who would wear it. This is most apparent in his dealings with Henry (VII.) Henry, arguably even more so than Frederick continued the staufen policy with the princes, empowering them to maintain peace in the domain, however the key difference between the two is that Frederick had the hausmacht to enforce his will, Henry had to rely on the more Salian style of creating authority from little. Frederick had to appease the princes to counteract the authority of the pope while henry had to play the princes against each other to build his own authority so the two styles contradicted each other. Frederick punished Henry for acting against the duke of bavaria and wurtemburg, getting the pope to agree to excommunicating Henry if he ever acted against the princes. While it maintained Fredericks authority it gave the princes far more authority in the empire most importantly OVER the king of the romans. While this was fine during Fredericks life, I see it as setting the precedent for the weakness of the Interegnum Kings. I think Frederick was probably the most powerful of the Emperors as an Emperor perhaps however he weakened the station itself as it was entirely built around himself at the expense of Henry, and the crown. These are my opinions from the information I have, I'll look more into the sources you've listed. Also since you seem more read on the subject do you know where I could find a copy of Henry (VII.)'s letter to the bishop of Hildesheim?
I work remote from sardinia all summer and winter. Hit me up if yall want a guide! Barbarossa had a pirate camp on the island of Asinara, which is a place you could probably get 4 videos out of. Priate camp for barbarossa Palace of the king of Italy Pow camp for WWI vets from austria-hungary Maximum security prison that held red brigade members who kidnapped a US General Today its a national park with wild albino donkeys
Loved this episode. This is kinda lazy but do you think you could talk about ancient persia eventually. It has such a rich and amazing history that is often vilified due to the greco focus on ancient history. Anyways, I love the podcast and keep up the great work as always.
Not exactly, there were a pair of Turkish brothers in the 1500s that raided around the Mediterranean and were also given the nickname of Barbarossa by the Italians
14:10 "Before this he wasn't Holy Roman Emperor. He was "king of the Germans"" Well, yes. But They used to style themselves "king of the Romans" for about a century at this point, indicating that they're actually in charge of the whole thing already. The imperial coronation by the pope was important in a more symbolic way. When you're emperor you can't get disposed so easily. Which is probably why they stopped that act some 300 years after Barbarossa and just went on calling themselves emperor upon their royal German coronation.
The reason for Irene losing the title as "Emperor" wasn't just because she was a woman. Specifically, it was because she conspired against her own son, blinded him, and then he died making her the murder of her own child, a terrible sin. This was unacceptable to the western church who also saw an opportunity to align themselves with new a rising hegemon, the Carolingian Empire.
@@historyofeverythingpodcast I m referring to you saying that you might visit Hungary and if you do then you might think to visit Romania the former Habsburg part that is now Romania
"he grew up and united almost 1600 German states and micro-states" Sorry, but how can you say that? Up until his reign the big stem duchies still existed. If anything what he did was starting the process of fragmantation by splitting up Saxony and Bavaria in smaller territories.
Germany did exist, nationality is an identity if there were people saying "im German" then there is a German nationality. Not to mention the German kingdom existed.
A bit of chit chat is fun sometimes but i'm 15 minutes in and still have no idea what this episode is about because of all the side quests they are taking
