Friedrich II - ajalugu

Friedrich II - ajalugu


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Frederick oli Preisi kuningas, kuid tal oli monarhi jaoks mitmeid ebatavalisi oskusi. Ta oli süvendatult seotud õpingutega, eriti prantsuse kirjanduse, muusika ja filosoofiaga (Voltaire oli Frederickiga hästi tuttav ja pidas temaga kirjavahetust). Andekas flöödimängija Frederick lõi ka. Teda peeti aga ka võimsaks sõjaliseks andeks (Preisimaa armeesse kuulus Fredericki ajal üle 200 000 sõduri) ja ta oli rahaliselt mõistlik ning suutis oma paljusid sõjalisi kampaaniaid/sõdu ilma võlgu kandmata läbi viia. Oma valitsemise aastakümnete jooksul omandas Frederick täiendavaid territooriume, mis kahekordistasid Preisi ala. Kuigi Fredericki kirjutised viitavad kõrgelt haritud ja valgustatud tegelasele, ei olnud ta oma rahva suhtes eriti liberaalne, kuigi mitte ülekohtune; Väidetavalt valitses Preisimaa suurt sõjaväelaagrit, millel oli vähe isikuvabadust (kuigi suhteliselt vaba ajakirjandus.)

Keiser Frankenstein: tõde Sitsiilia Frederick II taga ja sadistlikud teaduskatsed

Üks oma aja vastuolulisemaid valitsejaid, Frederick oli tuntud oma suurte ambitsioonide poolest poliitilisel ja kultuurilisel areenil. Segades eluaegses kokkupõrkes paavstkonnaga, mis sattus keisri maade vahele Põhja-Itaaliasse ja tema Sitsiilia kuningriiki lõunaosas, ekskommunikati ta kaks korda ambitsioonide ja paavsti arvamuse eiramise tõttu. Lisaks Püha Rooma keisri ja Sitsiilia kuninga tiitlitele oli ta ka Saksamaa ja Jeruusalemma kuningas, saades viimase tiitli pärast oma äia tagandamist selle pikaajalise eesmärgi tagamiseks. Frederick oli tuntud oma suure uudishimu pärast teaduses ning pikkused, millega ta teadmiste ja empiirilise mõistmise otsimisel läheks, võlusid ja eemaletõukasid tema kaasaegseid.

Vähemalt kolm korda abielus olnud Frederickil sündis kaheksa seaduslikku last ning tal oli kogu elu jooksul palju armukesi ja abieluväliseid lapsi. Sellest ei piisanud aga tema liini jätkamise kindlustamiseks ning tema ootamatu ja ootamatu surma järel 1250 ei jätkunud tema perekond kaua.

Frederick II Hohenstaufenist, mees, keda tema kaasaegsed nimetasid "stupor mundi" - mis tähendab "maailma hämmastust" - oli tähelepanuväärne mees. Vaatamata sellele, et inimesed ei häbene oma arvamust vastuolulise valitseja kohta, jääb Frederick paljuski ajaloo varjuliseks poolkujuks, kuulduste ja kuulujuttude, salapära ja müütidega. Selle keerulise valitseja kohta on palju tundmatut ja seletamatut.

Üks Frederickiga seotud varjulisematest asjadest on Salimbene -nimelise munga jutustused keisri kohta. Fredericki, Salimbene di Adam'i või Parma, nagu teda mõnikord kutsuti, kaasaegne oli Itaalia frantsiskaani munk. Ta astus ordusse 1238. aastal vastu oma isa tahet ja tootis kogu oma elu jooksul mitmeid teoseid, kõige kuulsamaid Cronica või Kroonika. Teine tema tuntud teos ja kõige olulisem Fredericki kohta lisateabe saamiseks oli Keiser Frederick II kaksteist õnnetust. Selle töö eesmärk oli rõhutada Fredericki vigu ja ebamoraalset olemust, sealhulgas kristliku vagaduse puudumist ja huvimatust Rooma kiriku toetamisel. Teos koosneb mitmest mitmekesisest ja kirjeldavast näitest, mille eesmärk on täielikult illustreerida Fredericki kurjust: kõige kohutavamate tegude hulgas, mida munk Frederickile omistab, oli see, et ta oli oma valitsemisajal süüdi ränkade eksperimentide tegemises oma kaasinimestega.

rederick II “Manfredi käsikirja ” teisel lehel (Biblioteca Vaticana, Pal. lat 1071)

Salimbene sõnul kasutas Frederick oma kontrolli all olevaid vange hästi. Ühel korral lasi keiser õnnetu vangi puidust kasti või tünni sisse sulgeda, jättes ta ilma toidust ja veest, kuni õnnetu mees lõpuks ja kahtlemata piinavalt suri. Kogu protsessi jälgiti tähelepanelikult, eriti kui mees lähenes surmale ja tünni tehti auk eesmärgil, mis peagi ilmnes. Katse mõte oli testida, kas surmahetkel oli näha inimese hinge või mitte, kui ta lahkus kehast järgnevasse ellu.

Veelgi õudsamas eksperimendis, mille seostas Salimbene, käskis Frederick anda kahele vangile õhtusöögi, igale mehele süüa sama toitu kui teisele. Pärast söömist saadeti üks meestest jahile, samal ajal kui teisel öeldi, et nad lähevad magama ja magavad maha söögi, mille ta just sisse võttis. Kahele mehele tundmatu Frederick kavatses uurida treeningu ja une erinevaid mõjusid seedimisprotsessile. See saavutati kõige jõhkramal viisil: mõni tund hiljem lasi Frederick mõlemad mehed tappa ja lahti saada, et võrrelda nende kõhu sisu, et näha, mis mõjub paremini.

Võib -olla kõige häirivam kõigist Salimbene rõõmsalt seotud katsetest olid testid, mida Frederick väidetavalt imikutega läbi viis. Inimkeele päritolu paelus keisrit väga ja ta alustas katset, mis loodetavasti tõestab inimkonna algkeelt. Soovides teada saada, mis keelt Aadamale ja Eevale Eedeni aias anti, andis Frederick rühma beebisid õdede hoolde, kellele anti karmid juhised nende kasvatamiseks. Õdedel kästi lastega mitte suhelda, välja arvatud juhul, kui see on hädavajalik, imikuid toita ja vannitada, kuid mitte rohkem, ning nendega ei tohi mingil juhul rääkida ega nendega suhelda.

Asjaosaliste jaoks traagiliselt ei saanud Frederick kunagi vastust oma esitatud küsimusele ja inimkonna algkeel jäi tema eest varjatuks. Lapsed, kes olid näljas igasugusest kiindumusest, soojusest ja elementaarsest suhtlemisest, surid lihtsalt armastuse puudumise tõttu. On ebaselge, kui palju imikuid katses kasutati või mitu korda see viidi läbi, rääkimata sellest, kes olid nende laste vanemad, kuid fakt on fakt, et katse oli oma olemuselt küsitav ja teaduslikult mitte elujõuline.

Kui Salimbene aruannetes peitub isegi tõetera, on keisrist loodud pilt jahmatav. Kuid mis tõestavad munga sensatsioonilisi väiteid? Üks asi on Fredericki jaoks algusest peale selge, et tal oli tugev ja kohati ülekaalukas huvi kõigi bioloogiliste küsimuste vastu. Tema katsetele omistatud ideid ja lähenemisviise võib tema suhtumises ja huvides näha igapäevaselt. Näiteks väljendati tema teravat muret loomade ja looduse pärast tema vähem vastuoluliste isiklike projektide kaudu.

Frederick rajas oma laialt levinud kuningriigi kohtadesse mitmeid loomareserve, mis on kõige muljetavaldavam näide mitmesuguste veelindude „looduslikust“ elupaigast, mida säilitati keisri kulul. Frederickile kuulus ka palju loomi ja talle meeldis neid reisile kaasa võtta, paljud neist olid tundmatud või külastatud piirkondades haruldased.

Koer Sitsiilia värsiraamatu ääres Frederick II ja#8217 valitsemisajal, Briti raamatukogu viisakalt

Külastades Ravennat 1211. aasta talvel, nägi keiser koos loomade valikuga, kuhu kuulusid pantrid, lõvid, leopardid ja kaamelid. See polnud kaugeltki ühekordne ja 1245. aastal ilustas Frederick oma kohalolekuga Santa Zenot Veronas, kus mungad pidid leidma ruumi 24 kaamelile, viiele leopardile ja elevandile. Mitu aastat enne seda oli Salimbene tunnistajaks oma loomingule, kui keiser Parmat läbis.

Fredericki tähelepanu ei köitnud mitte ainult loomad. Reisidel oli teda erinevatel aegadel saatnud hulk uudishimulikke kaaslasi, sealhulgas võlurid ja akrobaadid, eunuhhid ja orjatüdrukud, kes olid Fredericki uudishimuliku meele jaoks inimlikud uudishimud. Ka mainekad allikad, sealhulgas Fredericki enda kirjutised, salvestasid, et ta viis läbi katseid, ehkki vähem küsitava iseloomuga kui Salimbene salvestatud.

Üks selline katse hõlmas kalade pikaealisuse kindlakstegemist, vaskrõngas asetati lõpuste sisse ja lasti tagasi järve, kust see leiti. Legendi järgi avastati just see kala 1497. aastal: vaskrõngas oli endiselt paigas, selle tuvastas kreekakeelne kiri, mis ütles: „Mina olen see kala, mille keiser Friedrich II oma käega siia järve viiendal oktoobri päeval asetas 1230. ” Kas see oli puhtalt apokrüüfne või mitte, et eksperiment ise toimus, pole küsimuse all.

Frederick tundis samuti suurt huvi pistriku vastu ja avaldas sel teemal raamatu. Kuigi tekst on üks esimesi omalaadseid, annab see ka rohkem tõendeid Fredericki uudishimuliku olemuse kohta, kirjeldades erinevaid katseid, mida ta tegi, et rahuldada oma uudishimu kõnealuste pistrike olemuse ja harjumuste vastu.
Esmapilgul võib tunduda, et eksperimentaalne iseloom, mille poolest Frederick oli hästi tuntud, võib olla argument Salimbene'i raamatupidamises tõe olemasolu kohta. Mungal oli aga mõjuv põhjus keisri suhtes erapoolik olla ja võib juhtuda, et Salimbene isiklikud vaated värvisid vähemalt mõnevõrra tema kujutamist Frederickist. Ajastul, mil usulisi tõekspidamisi peeti iseenesestmõistetavaks ja peeti valitseja osa lahutamatuks osaks, oli Frederick religiooniküsimustes end skeptikuks tunnistanud, mis oli ümbritsevaid sügavalt šokeeriv.

Vaatamata sellele, et ta oli paavsti hoolealune pärast seda, kui ta lapsepõlves orvuks jäi, ei paista see olevat religioosset loomust kasvatanud - vastupidi, ta pidas ennast heaks kristlaseks - ning teda süüdistati erinevates kohtades jumalateotuses ja ketserlike ideede hoidmises. Veelgi enam, ta ekskommunikati kahel korral, ilmutades Rooma kiriku jõhkrat eiramist, ja ei pööranud tähelepanu talle kehtestatud sanktsioonidele, öeldi, et Frederick nimetas Moosest, Muhamedi ja isegi Jeesust pettuseks.

Jumala mees ja paavstluse toetaja Salimbene nägi nendes täiendavates tõendites, et Frederick oli ohtlik mees. Hoolimata sellest, et Salimbene oli tuntud teadusjuhtide eeskujul, ei jaganud ta seda omadust ja oli hoopis vastupidi, nii et ta otsustas Fredericki katsed ja ideed ebausklikuks jamaks jätta.

Paavst Innocentius IV ekskommunikeeris keiser Frederick II. Kardinal võtab ära tema krooni ja keiser langetab oma skeptri. 14. sajandi pärgament viisakalt Oxfordi ülikooli Bodleiani raamatukogude poolt

Kuigi ta võis olla võluv, oli keisri naeruväärne, kaval ja ahne pool enamasti esiplaanil, mees oli kiiresti karastav ja aeglane unustama. Salimbene seostub mõningase naudinguga, kuidas Frederick käskis notaril pöidla maha lõigata ainult selleks, et ta ei kirjutaks oma nime nii, nagu keiser soovis. Jube seedimiskatse paneb Salimbene tühja uudishimu alla, maalides mehe pildi, mis sellist kahju tekitaks, kui tõestama või kummutama kapriisi.

Munk polnud ainus, kes vaatas Fredericki vähem kui meelitavas valguses. Paavst Gregorius IX nimetas teda Antikristuse eelkäijaks ning Dante nimetas teda ka ketseritele määratud põrgupiirkonna kuuendasse piirkonda kuuluvaks. Seda arvamust jagasid paljud teisedki ning asju, mida tänapäeval võetaks sallivana - näiteks Fredericki kosmopoliitne kohus ja näiline sallivus teiste religioonide suhtes - peeti tema deemonliku olemuse täiendavaks tõendiks. Fredericki janu empiiriliste teadmiste ja katsetuste järele ei jaganud enamik tema kaasaegseid, mistõttu ta paistis silma ja isegi valdkondades, mida me tänapäeval valgustatuks peame, suhtuti temasse kohati kahtlustavalt.

Veel üks argument Salimbene konto usaldusväärsuse vastu on see, et mungal oli Frederickiga vähe kontakte. Peale selle, kui keiser Parma visiidi ajal silma jäi, polnud munkal tegelikke sidemeid ega sidemeid Fredericki õukonnaga. Seetõttu on võimalik, et Salimbene, kellel oli juba eelsoodumus keisrile mitte meeldida, kordas vaid kuulujutte ja kuulujutte, mida ta oli mujalt kuulnud, selle asemel, et omada esmakordset teavet.

Täna mõtiskleme tema katsetele eelarvamusteta, kuid kirjutamise ajal avaldas Salimbene kriitikat ja kirjutas nii, nagu ootaks oma kaasaegsetelt oma seisukohti. Kui Salimbene oli pühendunud Fredericki Antikristuse rolli, siis kas ta otsis tõendeid oma väite tõestamiseks ja hüppas põhjendamatute kuulujuttude peale, mida ta siis kordas? Samuti on oletatud, et Salimbene võttis ja muutis lihtsalt näiteid iidsetest tekstidest ning rakendas neid Frederickile, püüdes täiendavalt toetada tema enda argumente ja peita keisri nime, mis näib tal olevat väga edukas.

Hoolimata Salimbene vaenulikkusest Fredericki vastu, on ka muid argumente selle kohta, et tema suhe eksperimentidega on tõene. On väidetud, et Fredericki poolt läbi viidud katsete kõhutõmbav iseloom on just see, mis väidab, et need olid tõesed, sest need olid nii kohutavad ja ebatavalised, et seetõttu oli ebatõenäoline, et üksikasjad olid väljamõeldud . Vähemalt keeleeksperimendi puhul ei olnud Frederick ainus valitseja, kellel oli selles valdkonnas huvisid, ja oli ka teisi, kes katsetasid keelt, püüdes leida selle algallikat läbi ajaloo.

Väidetavalt viis Egiptuse vaarao Psamtik I läbi sarnase eksperimendi, milles ta jõudis järeldusele, et früügia tõug tuli temale omast ette imiku lobise kui friigi leivasõna vale tõlgenduse tõttu. Asjaolu, et ta suutis oma küsimusele oletatava vastuse leida, viitab sellele, et kui ta talle omistatud eksperimendi üldse teostab, on ebatõenäoline, et ta jättis lapsed ilma Frederickiga samal määral.

Mehel on pea õmmeldud Miscellanea Medica XVIII, 14. sajandi alguses. Wellcome'i raamatukogu viisakalt

Teine valitseja samal otsingul oli Šotimaa James IV. Aruannete kohaselt eraldati saarel kaks last ja neid kasvatas tumm naine, et näha, mis keelt nad üldse arendavad. Tulemus näis tõestavat, et keel oli pigem kaasasündinud kui õpitud, kuna väideti, et lapsed hakkasid heebrea keeles rääkima. Siiski oli nende väidete suhtes isegi sel ajal suur skeptilisus ja oli neid, kes arvasid, et katse oli algusest lõpuni võlts. Nähtus, mis viis Fredericki enda katse rööbastelt välja - laste aegumine kiindumuse ja tähelepanu puudumise tõttu - on tänapäeval hästi teada.

1990ndatel aastatel Rumeenia lastekodudes viibinud lastega tehtud uuringud tõestasid üha enam kahtlustatud olukorda: et lapsed, kes olid algusaastatel armastusest ja soojusest ilma jäetud, jäid sellise hooletussejätmise tõttu füüsiliselt ja emotsionaalselt kahjustatud, mis halvendas olukorda, kui nad olid ülerahvastatud, armastamata tingimused. Vastupidi selgus, et lapsele armastuse ja hoolitsuse pakkumine võib olla tohutult ümberkujundav jõud ning kiindumuse tähtsus lapse vastu sai igaveseks tõestatud. Fredericki ajal oli aga tähelepanu puudumise ja laste surma vaheline seos oma ajast ees, selle usu esimesed segadused arenesid mujale alles 18. sajandil. See fakt iseenesest viitab sellele, et katse või vähemalt selle variandi võis keiser teadmiste otsimisel läbi viia, tulemuse tõlgendamine seadis ta oma ajast mitu sajandit ette.

Kas keiser oli seetõttu koletis, keda ta nii sageli on maalinud? Isegi Salimbene ei suutnud oma keisri avaliku kriitikaga eitada, et Frederickil on oma head küljed, tunnistades, et ta oli teatavasti võluv ja intelligentne, heade kommetega ja töökas. Aastal 1224 asutas Frederick Napoli ülikooli (tänapäeval selle asutaja auks tuntud kui Universita Federico II) ning teda tunti kunsti ja kultuuri patroonina nii oma maal kui ka väljaspool. Fredericki osavust ja ideede väljaarendamist jahipidamise ja pistriku osas on juba täheldatud ning teda tuleb tunnustada ka heade hügieenitavade edendamise eest armees selliste meditsiiniliste protseduuride ajal nagu vere laskmine ning toitumine ja suplemine.

Kuigi ümbritsevad suhtusid tema usulistesse tõekspidamistesse või nende puudumisse kahtlusega, tähendas see, et ta näitas üles märgatavat sallivust seal, kus teised seda ei teinud. Näiteks keeldus ta mitte ainult moslemite tapmisest, kui talle see võimalus anti, vaid võttis nad hoopis oma vägede enda relvajõududesse ja isegi oma isiklikku ihukaitsesse. Samuti kasutas Püha Rooma keiser araabia ja kreeka tekstide tõlkimisel Sitsiilia juute, kellest paljud olid mujalt välja saadetud, seades Sitsiilia idapoolsete kirjade edendaja ja säilitaja ning nende Lääne -Euroopasse edastamise rolli.

Tema surma korral oli alamate astmete lootus, et Frederick naaseb, ning Fredericki ja nüüdseks kuulsama kuninga Arthuri legendide vahel on intrigeerivaid sarnasusi. 13. sajandi jutud leidsid Etna mäe legendi puhkepaigana ja Frederick oli algselt öelnud, et ta ootas just selle sama mäe all ja ootas õiget aega maailma naasmiseks. Elu ja surma vastuoluline tegelane Frederick jääb tänapäevani, kus keisri kuju oli vaidluse objektiks Jesi väljakul, kus ta sündis. Koletis ja türann või valgustatud ja kaasaegne, Fredericki katsete tõde ei saa kunagi teada, legendi tõeline keiser jääb praegu kättesaamatuks.

Keskaja monarhide uskumatumate lugude jaoks tellige kuninglike ajalugu ja saate kõik numbrid otse teie tõstukile.


Keiser Frederick II surm

Keskaegsetest Püha Rooma keisritest kõige andekamad, erksamad ja erakordsemad surid 13. detsembril 1250.

Frederick II oli mõned kuud enne surma haige. 1250. aasta detsembri alguses piirdus äge düsenteeriarünnak temaga Lõuna -Itaalias asuvas Castel Fiorentino jahimajas, mis oli osa tema Sitsiilia kuningriigist. Ta tegi oma testamendi 7. detsembril, täpsustades, et kui ta ei parane, tuleb ta matta Palermo katedraali ja kiiresti vajuda, suri 13. päeval, paar päeva enne viiekümne kuuendat sünnipäeva. Tema saratseeni ihukaitsja saatis ta Sitsiiliasse ja maeti nelja nikerdatud lõvi külge kinnitatud punase porfüüri sarkofaagisse. Keha oli mähitud punasest siidist lapiga, mis oli kaetud uurimatute araabiakujuliste kujunditega ja vasakul õlal ristisõdija ristiga. Hauda võib Palermo katedraalis näha ka tänapäeval.

Kui uudis Rooma jõudis, oli paavst Innocentius IV rõõmus. „Las taevas rõõmustab ja maa rõõmustab,” kuulutas ta Sitsiilia piiskoppide ja rahva sõnumis. Üks tema kaplanid, Nicholas Carbio, läks kaugemale. Ta kirjutas, et Jumal, nähes meeleheitlikku ohtu, milles tormiheidetud „Peetri koor” seisis, haaras ära „türanni ja Saatana poja”, kes suri kohutavalt, vallandati ja vallandati, kannatades piinavalt düsenteeria all, kiristades hambaid. , vahutab suus ja karjub ... '.

Ükskõik kui rumalalt väljendatud, oli paavsti ja tema partei kergendus Fredericki surma korral mõistetav, sest keiser näis olevat oma pika võitluse ajal paavstkonnaga lõpuks võidukäigu äärel. Sündinud Itaalias 1194. aastal, Saksamaal Hohenstaufeni alade pärija ja keiser Frederick Barbarossa lapselaps, oli ta ka Sitsiilia normannide kuningriigi pärija. Tema isa suri noorelt, kui Frederick oli kaheaastane, ta krooniti kolmeaastaselt Sitsiilia kuningaks ja ema suri enne nelja -aastaseks saamist. Neljateistkümneaastaselt sai ta täisealiseks ja võttis Sitsiilia kontrolli alla. Ta alistas oma rivaali Saksa kuningriigi eest ja 1220. aastal krooniti ta kahekümne viieaastasena Roomas Püha Peetruses keisriks paavst Honorius III poolt. See tegi temast vähemalt teoreetiliselt Kristuse rahva ajaliku pea maa peal ja Põhja -Itaalia ülemvõimu. Asjaolu, et ta oli ka Lõuna -Itaalia ja Sitsiilia valitseja Rooma lävel, viis ta paavstidega kokkupõrketeele.

Frederick hämmastas oma kaasaegseid, sest ta oli pigem idamaine despoot kui Euroopa kuningas. Tema hiilgav õukond Palermos ühendas normandi, araabia ja juudi elemendid sooja lõunaosaga kultuuri. Ta oli vaimukas, meelelahutuslik ja julm mitmes erinevas keeles. Ta pidas haaremit, mida valvasid mustad eunuhhid. Tal olid tantsutüdrukud, araabia kokk ning elevantide, lõvide ja kaamelite loomakasvatus. Ta asutas linnu ja tööstusi ning kodifitseeris tõhusalt seadusi. Olles tõsiste intellektuaalsete erinevustega mees, tegi ta sõbralikult koostööd juutide ja moslemite tarkadega. Ta julgustas stipendiumi, luulet ja matemaatikat ning originaalset mõtlemist kõigis valdkondades. Ta oli hea ratsanik ja vehkleja, käis leopardide ja panteritega kursustel ning kirjutas esimese klassikalise keskaegse pistrikuõpiku.

Fredericki avatus ideedele pani ta sügavalt kahtlustama. Väidetavalt oleks ta kirjeldanud Moosest, Kristust ja Muhammadit kui eksitavate šarlatanide trio. Tema nõudmised, et kirik loobuks oma rikkusest ning pöörduks tagasi apostelliku vaesuse ja lihtsuse juurde, ei sobinud hästi paavstkonnale ja selle toetajatele, kes tembeldasid teda Antikristuseks. Oma teise naise, Brienne’i Yolande kaudu nõudis ta Jeruusalemma kuningriiki ja juhtis 1228. aastal kuuenda ristisõja Pühale Maale. Eelistades diplomaatiat ja oma isiksuse jõudu varasemate ristisõdijate sõjakatele meetoditele, pidas ta edukalt läbirääkimisi Egiptuse sultaniga Jeruusalemma, Petlemma ja Naatsareti üleandmise üle. Aastal 1229 kroonis ta end Püha haua kirikus Jeruusalemma kuningaks. Paavst, kes oli teda eelmisel aastal ekskommunitseerinud, polnud rahul.

Ajaloolased nägid Frederickit enne tema aega sündinud renessansiajastu vürstina või isegi esimese tõeliselt kaasaegse inimesena. Kirjanikud on viimasel ajal eelistanud teda vaadata oma päeva kontekstis. Pole aga kahtlust, et ta hämmastas oma kaasaegseid, kes teda kutsusid stuupor mundi, "Maailma ime". Ta avaldas sellist mõju, et paljud inimesed ei suutnud uskuda, et ta tõesti suri. Tekkis lugusid, et ta oli läinud Etna sügavusse või Saksamaale mäele, kus tal oli aega naasta, kirikut reformida ja taastada heategevus. pax Romana vanast ajast. Tegelikult suri tema poliitika koos temaga praktiliselt. Tema väide Caesar Augustusena, Imperaator RomanorumKõigi Euroopa vürstide ülekaal oli saatuslikult aegunud.


Minu raamatud

Tuleval 31. mail:

Normani krooni kaitsjad: Surrey Warenne'i krahvide tõus ja langus jutustab põneva loo Warenne'i dünastiast, Inglismaa ühe võimsaima perekonna õnnestumistest ja ebaõnnestumistest, alates selle päritolust Normandias, vallutamise, Magna Carta, sõdade ja abielude tõttu, mis viisid lõpliku surmani valitsemisajal. Edward III kohta.

Normani krooni kaitsjad: Surrey Warenne'i krahvide tõus ja langusilmub Ühendkuningriigis 31. mail ja USA -s 6. augustil. Ja see on nüüd ette tellitav Pen & amp Sword Booksi, Ühendkuningriigi ja USA Amazoni ning raamatute depositooriumi kaudu.

Samuti Sharon Bennett Connolly:

Magna Carta daamid: mõjutavad naised kolmeteistkümnenda sajandi Inglismaal uurib erinevate aadliperekondade suhteid 13. sajandil ning seda, kuidas neid mõjutasid parunite sõjad, Magna Carta ja selle tagajärjed tekkinud ja katkenud sidemed. See on nüüd saadaval Pen & amp Sword, Amazon ja Book Depository kogu maailmas.

Keskaegse maailma kangelannad jutustab lugusid mõnest keskaja ajaloo tähelepanuväärsemast naisest alates Akvitaania Eleanorist kuni Julianni Norwichini. Nüüd saadaval Amberley Publishingist ja Amazonist ning raamatute depositooriumist.

Siid ja mõõk: Normanni vallutamise naised jälgib nende naiste varandust, kellel oli oluline roll 1066. aasta olulistel sündmustel. Saadaval nüüd Amazonist, Amberley Publishingist, Book Depositoryst.

Saate esimesena lugeda uusi artikleid, klõpsates nuppu „Jälgi“, meeldides meie Facebooki lehele või liitudes minuga Twitteris ja Instagram.


Frederick II (‘Stupor Mundi ’)

Segaduste vältimiseks meenub, et oli kaks Frederick II -d, Frederick 'Suur', kaheksateistkümnenda sajandi monarh, ja meie teema selles artiklis, Frederick 'Stupor Mundi', on tema õukondlaste poolt antud tiitel, mis tähendab 'maailma ime' '.

Ta sündis 1194. aastal, Saksamaa kuninga Henrik VI (Saksamaa jagunes kuningriikideks, vürstiriikideks, hertsogkondadeks, ertshertsogkondadeks ja palatinaatideks) pojaks ja ema, kelle taust oli Sitsiilia. Tema vanaisa oli Frederick I, tuntud kui Barbarossa.

Frederick oli nelja -aastaselt orv ja jäi paavst Innocentius III eestkoste alla. Öeldakse, et ta sai hüüdnime Stupor Mundi tema võimu laiuse ning haldus-, sõjaliste ja intellektuaalsete võimete tõttu. Tal oli aga palju vaenlasi, kes eelistasid teda nimetada draakoniks või metsaliseks.

Aastal 1215 krooniti kuningas Aachenis, Karl Suure marmorist troonil.

Aastal 1220 tegi tolleaegne paavst Honorius III temast keisri, millega Frederick nõustus, kuigi ta polnud Saksamaast tegelikult huvitatud. Ta oli sündinud Anconas ja kogu Itaalia köitis tema tähelepanu. Ta oli üles kasvanud Lõuna -Itaalias ja arvas, et Sitsiilia on Euroopa kõige keerukam monarhia.

Seetõttu koosnes tema valitsemisaeg pikast võitlusest võimu pärast paavstkonnaga. Hoolimata eduka ristisõja juhtimisest Jeruusalemma (1229) ja selle linna ning Naatsareti ja Petlemma ristiusu eest kindlustamisest, ekskommunitseeris ta kaks korda paavst Gregorius IX. Ta ei olnud Itaalias Lombardide liigaga populaarne ja sakslastele ei meeldinud asjaolu, et ta veetis palju aega ja keiserlikke ressursse Saksamaal koos vürstidega, et saada nende toetust, samal ajal kui ta keskendus võimubaasi ehitamisele. Sitsiilias. See tõi edu Melfi põhiseaduse näol 1231. aastal.

Ta võitles 1237. aastal Cortenuevas Lombardide liigaga, võitis ja alandas Gregorius IX enne selle paavsti surma aastal 1241. Siiski ei suutnud ta veenda järglast Innocentiust IV, kes käskis (Lyonis pagendusest) sakslasi mässama. sinod toimus seal 1445. Fredericki võim ja positsioon lagunesid paavstluse korraldatud mässu, sisemise lahkheli ja suurepärase propaganda ees. Ta sai ka sõjaliselt lüüa (Vittoria lahingus 1248), ta suri 1250, jättes pärijatele lahendamatu olukorra. Üks hea tulemus oli see, et paljud teadlased, kunstnikud ja muud intellektuaalid lahkusid Saksamaalt Itaaliasse, saades lõpuks renessansi eelkäijaks (q.v.).

Friedrich II lebab koos isa ja vanaisaga Palermo katedraalis.


Frederick William II Preisimaa elulugu

Abikaasa/endine: Frederica Louisa Hesse-Darmstadtis (m. 1769), Julie von Voss (s. 1787), Elisabeth Christine Brunswick-Wolfenbüttelist-Preisimaa kroonprintsess (s. 1765-jag. 1769), Sophie von Dönhoff (m. 1790 - september 1792)

isa: Preisimaa vürst Augustus William

ema: Brunswick-Wolfenbütteli hertsoginna Luise

lapsed: Aleksander Mark Frederick William II Preisimaalt, Christiane Sophie Friederike von Lutzenburg, Frederick WIlliam III, Friederike Christine Amalie Wilhelmine Prinzessin von Preußen, Friedrich Wilhelm - krahv Brandenburg, Gustav Adolf Ingenheim, Julie von Brandenburg, Marianne von Mark Preisimaa, Preisi prints Louis Charles, Preisi prints Wilhelm, Preisi printsess Augusta, Preisi printsess Frederica Charlotte, surnult sündinud poeg von Hohenzollern, Ulrike Sophie von Berckholzen, nimetu tütar von Hohenzollern, Preisi Wilhelmine - Hollandi kuninganna


Milline oli keiser Frederick II mõju Itaalia renessansile?

Frederick II, (26. detsember 1194 - 13. detsember 1250) Püha Rooma keiser ja Sitsiilia kuningas oli üks tähelepanuväärsemaid keskaja ja tõepoolest kogu Euroopa ajaloo monarhe. Ta oli kogu Saksamaa ja kogu Lõuna -Itaalia valitseja. Ta oli keskaja üks võimsamaid mehi ja püüdis muuta keskaegse Euroopa poliitilist süsteemi. Tal oli palju ambitsioonikaid poliitilisi plaane, kuid need kõik ebaõnnestusid. Paljuski võib Frederick II -d pidada tähelepanuväärseks ebaõnnestumiseks, kuid ta mõjutas otsustavalt renessansi arengut.

Frederick II -d võib vaadelda kui esimest renessanssvürsti. ”Ta oli tähelepanuväärne tegelane ja tänu paljudele saavutustele oli ta üldtuntud kui„ Stupor Mundi ”või„ Maailma ime ”. [1] Suur Küsimus on selles, millist mõju avaldas Frederick II Itaalia renessansile ja mida ta saavutas oma kultuurilise patronaaži kaudu? Lõppkokkuvõttes aitas tema ilmalik ja ratsionaalne väljavaade kujundada renessanssi.

Taust

Aastal 1196 kindlustas Henry VI Hohenstaufen oma väikelapse valimise Püha Rooma keisriks. Saksa aadlikud aga mässasid ja Frederick tõusis üles Sitsiilias. Tema ema kindlustas talle Sitsiilia krooni, suure kuningriigi, mis hõlmas Sitsiiliat ja kogu Lõuna -Itaaliat. Frederick oli nime poolest kuningas ja alles siis, kui ta saavutas mehelikkuse, valitses ta oma kuningriiki tõeliselt. Pärast rivaali lüüasaamist Prantsusmaal krooniti Frederick Püha Rooma keisriks. [2] Siiski elas ta Sitsiilias ning osutus arukaks ja võimsaks valitsejaks. Tal õnnestus saar rahustada ja ta oli salliv valitseja. Ta tundis suurt huvi teiste kultuuride vastu ning kohtles oma kuningriigi kristlasi, juute ja moslemeid võrdselt. Peagi halvenesid tema suhted paavstiga, kui ta murdis lubaduse eraldada Lõuna -Itaalia oma kuningriigist Sitsiilias.

Frederick valitses Saksamaad regendi kaudu ja ta juhtis kõiki oma paljusid maid Sitsiilias Palermost [3]. Ta lõi oma kuningriigis kaasaegse riigi ja toimetas mässulised moslemi elanikud mandrile. Eeldati, et ristiusu võimsaimate monarhidena läheb ta ristisõjale ja üritab kristlaste jaoks Püha Maad tagasi nõuda. Kui ta ei saanud ristisõjale minna, paavst ekskommunikeeris ta. Sel ajal alustas ta konflikti Põhja -Itaalia linnriikidega, mis pidi kestma kuni tema surmani. Ikkagi ekskommunitseeritud keiser läks ristisõjale ja alustas läbirääkimisi Fatimidi sultaniga ning ta kindlustas diplomaatilise riigipöörde. He was able to gain Jerusalem and Bethlehem through diplomacy and he later crowned himself King of Jerusalem. [4]

Soon he was involved in a brutal war with the League of Italian States (The Lombard League). Some cities sided with the Emperor and a vicious war raged through Italy until Frederick’s death. Frederick sought to make himself the undisputed master of Italy and also to subjugate the Pope to his will. At the same time, he fought a civil war in his German lands. [5] The wars drained Fredericks resources and he was forced to compromise. He agreed to make concessions to the German nobles which greatly reduced the power of the Emperor in Germany. Frederick’s son rose in revolt against this settlement by he was soon defeated. In 1236 Frederick, waged war against the Lombard cities, with some success and he was on the verge of victory the Pope intervened. Pope Gregory IX did not want an Italy dominated by Frederick. The Emperor responded by seizing most of the Papal States.

Gregory IX died and Frederick tried to negotiate with his successor, after he had suffered a series of defeat such as at the Siege of Parma. However, the war once more turned in Frederick’s favor and he was on the verge of total victory, when he died of dysentery in his beloved Sicily. Soon after his death his Empire fell apart. In Germany, the ‘Great Interregnum’ began when for several decades there was no Emperor and no Hohenstaufen was to sit on the Throne of the Holy Roman Emperor, again. Later a French noble supported by the Pope conquered the Kingdom of Sicily and executed Frederick’s son, Manfred. The Hohenstaufen Dynasty was at an end. [6] Frederick II was such a remarkable character that many people expected him to return from the dead and saw him in messianic terms. [7]

Frederick II’ Court at Palermo

Frederick was a tolerant ruler and he was fascinated by different cultures and the exotic. He liked to fill his court with learned men and artists. Now previously royal courts had patronized poets but not to the extent of Frederick II. The Emperor sponsored many artists and poets but also patronized scientists such as astronomers. Frederick also showed an interest in exotic animals and had his own zoo. The Emperor’s Court became a model for Renaissance Princes. Frederick believed in the power of culture and that a prince’s duty was to promote and protect the arts and men of learning. This involved commissioning works and supporting them financially. The example of Frederick II Court in Palermo and his example of patronage was to greatly as influence many leaders in Italy. Many rulers sought to emulate the Court of Fredrick in Italy and many followed his example and this meant that many artists and writers had generous patrons and this was to prove to be a crucial factor in the Renaissance. [8]

Frederick II and Reason

The Renaissance is often seen as an era where reason prevailed and as a departure from the superstitious Middle Ages. Frederick II was a rationalist and unlike his contemporaries he did not defer to tradition but sought to apply reason to every aspect of his state and his policies. [9] Frederick II used rational principles to create one of Europe’s first centralized states, since the Fall of the Roman Empire. He demonstrated to succeeding generations that reason could be used to build a state and to perfect it. This was to greatly influence Renaissance Rulers who treated the ‘state as a work of art’ and used reason rather than tradition to mould and administer their jurisdictions. [10]

Frederick’s rationality is best seen in his laws. He developed new and progressive law codes for both his kingdom of Sicily and his German realms. He based his new laws on reason and did not believe that tradition or custom had any role in legal reasoning and the legal code. For example, he outlawed trial by combat as a way of determining a law case. [11] He declared it to be irrational. Frederick also issued directives that can be seen as very rational and progressive. He ordered that physicians (doctors) be distinguished from apothecaries (chemists) and none could practice both occupations. Frederick encouraged scientific investigation at his court. He himself wrote a book on falconry and on the anatomy and behaviour of birds. He also encouraged the investigation of natural phenomenon at his court. Frederick made the investigation of nature popular among the learned. This was to inspire others to begin to investigate nature and the ‘re-discovery’ of nature is one of the preoccupations of the Renaissance. [12]

This new interest in nature was to lead to the growth in empirical investigations and did much to lay the foundations for modern science. However, not all Frederick’s experiments are commendable. He also ordered experiments to be carried out on human beings. One example, is the notorious in the language deprivation experiment where young infants were raised without human contact to see what language they would speak. However, none ever did speak and they all died. Frederick believed that education was extremely beneficial and this idea, quite novel, proved influential in the Renaissance. The Emperor found the University of Naples and it was to become one of the leading centres of learning in Europe. Many leading humanists who did so much to contribute to the Renaissance studied at Frederick’s foundation.

Frederick II and the Muslim World

Frederick II was widely accused of being a heretic or even of being the Anti-Christ mostly by supporters of his enemy the Pope. In truth Frederick was a devout Christian and although excommunicated he died in a monk’s habit. He certainly was an unorthodox Christian and was interested in other cultures. His Kingdom of Sicily was a multicultural one, where Greek, Italian, Jew, Norman, and Muslim lived as neighbors, because of its recent turbulent history. Frederick was extremely tolerant for his times and this was no doubt out of political necessity in his multicultural kingdom. [13]

However, he was also genuinely interested in Muslim and Jewish culture. As a result, his Court in Palermo was a cosmopolitan one and soon became the most cultured in Europe and the Middle East. Frederick acceptance of different cultures was to have a real impact on the development of the Renaissance. The Muslim World unlike Europe, was very much interested in ancient learning, especially that of the Greeks. Muslim scribes and scholars had done much to preserve the learning of the Classical World. Frederick II organized for many Greek manuscripts to be brought to his court in Palermo. He commissioned them to be translated by Jewish and Muslim translators and as a result, many new or improved versions of great works by Greek philosophers, mathematicians, scientists and others became better known. These works did much to promote an interest in the Classical World and indeed efforts to emulate the Roman and the Greek world, one of the chief characteristics of the Renaissance. [14]

Frederick II and Literature and Language

Perhaps Frederick’s greatest contribution to the development of the Renaissance was in literature and the Italian Language. Frederick could speak six languages and he loved poetry. He was himself a poet and appreciated the company of poets. At his court, a group of poets known as the Sicilian School flourished. This group of poets possibly influenced by Arabic and Provencal examples, created new styles and ways of expressing their themes. [15] The poets of the Sicilian Schools extolled a new kind of poetry based on their own personal experiences and above all, they helped to perfect the love lyric. Their themes were very different from traditional poetry and the Sicilian School was pivotal in the shift away from epic and marital poetry to lyric poetry.

The School was also very important in the development of the sonnet, a form that was to be used by many of the greatest poets of the Renaissance in Italy and indeed, elsewhere. They were they first to use an Italian dialect as a literary language and did not seek to write in Latin. This was to have a great influence on Renaissance literature and helped in the development of an Italian literary language. [16] The poets were to have a decisive influence on the development of the Italian literary language, the language that was used by Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio and others. Many of these writers freely acknowledged their debt to the Sicilian School. Dante acknowledged Frederick II’s role in the development of a literary language and Italian poetry even though he consigned the Emperor to hell in his great poem, the Inferno. [17]

Järeldus

Frederick II was a remarkable man and he dominated his era. He was a international figure and if he had succeeded in his plans he could have changed European history. His abiding achievement was possibly in the field of culture. He patronized artists and writers and this was emulated by later rulers. This was to be very important in the Renaissance. The Emperor also facilitated the translation and dissemination of many works from the Greeks and they too were influential Frederick II valued reason in politics, his administration and the law, he also encouraged empirical investigation and this was to have to inspire many of the later humanists. Finally, a literary patron he made a lasting impression on the development of the Renaissance. His patronage of the Sicilian School was to change the lay the foundations for Renaissance literature. The role of Frederick II should not be overstated but nonetheless, he helped to create an environment in Italy that helped to promote the Renaissance.


The Crusade of Frederick II

The failure of the Fifth Crusade placed a heavy responsibility on Frederick II, whose motives as a Crusader are difficult to assess. A controversial figure, he has been regarded by some as the archenemy of the popes and by others as the greatest of emperors. His intellectual interests included Islam, and his attitude might seem to be more akin to that of the Eastern barons than the typical Western Crusader. Through his marriage to John of Brienne’s daughter Isabella (Yolande), he established a claim first to the kingship and then, on Isabella’s death in 1228, to the regency of Jerusalem (Acre). As emperor, he could claim suzerainty over Cyprus because his father and predecessor, Henry VI, was paid homage by the Cypriot king and bestowed a crown on him.

After being allowed several postponements by the pope to settle affairs in the empire, Frederick finally agreed to terms that virtually placed his expedition under papal jurisdiction. Yet his entire Eastern policy was inextricably connected with his European concerns: Sicily, Italy and the papacy, and Germany. Cyprus-Jerusalem became, as a consequence, part of a greater imperial design.

Most of his Crusade fleet left Italy in the late summer of 1227, but Frederick was delayed by illness. During the delay he received envoys from al-Malik al-Kāmil of Egypt, who, threatened by the ambitions of his Ayyūbid brothers, was disposed to negotiate. Meanwhile, Pope Gregory IX, less patient than his predecessor, rejected Frederick’s plea that illness had hindered his departure and excommunicated the emperor. Thus, when Frederick departed in the summer of 1228 with the remainder of his forces, he was in the equivocal position of a Crusader under the ban of the church. He arrived in Cyprus on July 21.

In Cyprus, John of Ibelin, the leading member of the influential Ibelin family, had been named regent for the young Henry I. Along with most of the barons, he was willing to recognize the emperor’s rights as suzerain in Cyprus. But because news of Isabella’s death had arrived in Acre, the emperor could claim only a regency there for his infant son. John obeyed the emperor’s summons to meet him in Cyprus but, despite intimidation, refused to surrender his lordship of Beirut and insisted that his case be brought before the high court of barons. The matter was set aside, and Frederick left for Acre.

In Acre, Frederick met more opposition. News of his excommunication had arrived, and many refused to support him. Dependent, therefore, on the Teutonic Knights and his own small contingent of German Crusaders, he was forced to attempt what he could by diplomacy. Negotiations, accordingly, were reopened with al-Malik al-Kāmil.

The treaty of 1229 is unique in the history of the Crusades. By diplomacy alone and without major military confrontation, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and a corridor running to the sea were ceded to the kingdom of Jerusalem. Exception was made for the Temple area, the Dome of the Rock, and the Aqṣā Mosque, which the Muslims retained. Moreover, all current Muslim residents of the city would retain their homes and property. They would also have their own city officials to administer a separate justice system and safeguard their religious interests. The walls of Jerusalem, which had already been destroyed, were not rebuilt, and the peace was to last for 10 years.

Nevertheless, the benefits of the treaty of 1229 were more apparent than real. The areas ceded were not easily defensible, and Jerusalem soon fell into disorder. Furthermore, the treaty was denounced by the devout of both faiths. When the excommunicated Frederick entered Jerusalem, the patriarch placed the city under interdict. No priest was present, and Frederick placed a crown on his own head while one of the Teutonic Knights read the ceremony. Leaving agents in charge, he hastily returned to Europe and at San Germano made peace with the pope (July 23, 1230). Thereafter his legal position was secure, and the pope ordered the patriarch to lift the interdict.

Jerusalem and Cyprus, however, were now plagued by civil war because Frederick’s imperial concept of government was contrary to the well-established preeminence of the Jerusalem baronage. The barons of both Jerusalem and Cyprus, in alliance with the Genoese and a commune formed in Acre that elected John of Ibelin mayor, resisted the imperial deputies, who were supported by the Pisans, the Teutonic Knights, Bohemond of Antioch, and a few nobles. The clergy, the other military orders, and the Venetians stood aloof.

The barons were successful in Cyprus, and in 1233 Henry I was recognized as king. Even after John of Ibelin, the “Old Lord of Beirut,” died in 1236, resistance continued. In 1243 a parliament at Acre refused homage to Frederick’s son Conrad, unless he appeared in person, and named Alice, queen dowager of Cyprus, regent.

Thus it was that baronial rule triumphed over imperial administration in the Levant. But the victory of the barons brought to the kingdom not strength but continued division, which was made more serious by the appearance of new forces in the Muslim world. The Khwārezmian Turks, pushed south and west by the Mongols, had upset the power balance and gained the support of Egypt. After the 10 years’ peace had expired in 1239, the Muslims easily took back the defenseless Jerusalem. The Crusades of 1239 to 1241, under Thibaut IV of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall, brought about the return of the city as well as other lost territories through negotiation. However, in 1244 an alliance of Jerusalem and Damascus failed to prevent the capture and sack of Jerusalem by Khwārezmians with Egyptian aid. All the diplomatic gains of the preceding years were lost. Once again the Christians were confined to a thin strip of ports along the Mediterranean coast.


Friedrich II

Friedrich II (1194�) Holy Roman Emperor (1215�), king of Germany (1212�), Sicily (1198�) and Jerusalem (1229�) son of Emperor Henry VI. Frederick devoted himself to Italy and Sicily. He promised to make his son, Henry, King of Sicily but gave him Germany (1220) instead. Frederick's claims on Lombardy and postponement of a crusade angered Pope Honorius III, who excommunicated him and revived the Lombard League. Frederick finally embarked on a crusade in 1228, and was crowned King of Jerusalem. In Sicily, he set up a centralized royal administration. In Germany, he devolved authority to the princes Henry rebelled against his father, and in 1235 Frederick imprisoned him and gave the throne to Conrad IV. In 1245, Innocent IV deposed Frederick and civil war ensued in Germany and Italy.

Tsiteeri seda artiklit
Valige allpool stiil ja kopeerige oma bibliograafia tekst.

Tsiteerimisstiilid

Entsüklopeedia.com annab teile võimaluse viidata viitekirjetele ja artiklitele vastavalt kaasaegse keele assotsiatsiooni (MLA), Chicago stiilijuhendi ja Ameerika psühholoogilise assotsiatsiooni (APA) levinud stiilidele.

Valige tööriistast „Tsiteeri seda artiklit” stiil, et näha, kuidas kogu olemasolev teave selle stiili järgi vormindamisel välja näeb. Seejärel kopeerige ja kleepige tekst oma bibliograafiasse või viidatud teoste loendisse.


Frederick II: How the War-Hungry Prussian Monarch Came to be Revered

Frederick II’s first act on assuming the throne of Prussia in 1740 was to take his state to war—a consequence, he later explained, of possessing a well-trained army, a full treasury and a desire to establish a reputation. For the next quarter century, he confronted Europe in arms and emerged victorious, but at a price that left his kingdom shaken to its physical and moral core. As many as a quarter million Prussians died in uniform, to say nothing of civilian losses. Provinces were devastated, people scattered, the currency debased. The social contract of the Prussian state—service and loyalty in return for stability and protection—was broken.

Despite such costs, Frederick always makes the short list of history’s great captains. Yet that legacy is no less questionable: In a reign that stretched to 1786, Prussia’s military leader focused on drill and discipline, leaching the army of initiative and inspiration. He insisted that common soldiers should fear their own officers more than the enemy, yet monitored his generals so closely that none could be trusted to perform independently. Frederick carried grudges against entire regiments for decades.

In an age when physical courage was taken for granted in senior officers, Frederick twice left major battlefields—Mollwitz in 1741 and Lobositz in 1756—under dubious circumstances. Nor was his post-battle behavior such as to impress fighting men. After the defeat of Kolin in 1757, he spent hours aimlessly drawing circles in the dirt with a stick, then left his army, explaining that he needed rest. After losing at Kunersdorf in 1759, the king turned command over to a subordinate, grandiloquently declaring he would not survive the disaster. A more generous generation may speak of post-traumatic stress. Eighteenth-century armies had blunter words for such conduct. Nevertheless, the man who brought Prussia through three brutal wars, oversaw its reconstruction and secured its status as a great power was far more than the sum of his negatives.

As crown prince, Frederick had concluded that Prussia, which stretched from the Rhine River deep into the Kingdom of Poland, could not avoid being drawn into conflict virtually anywhere in Europe. But his country lacked the military, economic and diplomatic strength to support its geographic position. Expansion was a necessity, not just for Prussia’s welfare, but for its very survival.

Frederick rationalized his position by appealing to “reason of state,” a principle independent of moral guidelines applying to individuals. Tema Anti-Machiaviel, published anonymously in 1740—the year of his accession to the throne—argued that law and ethics in international relations should be based on neither the interests of the ruler nor those of his people. Instead, they should be fundamentally consistent, subject to rational calculation and governed by principles that could be learned and applied in the same way one maintains and repairs a clock. This trope remained central to his foreign policy throughout his reign.

Frederick’s concept of statecraft in turn convinced him that Prussia must fight only short, decisive wars—partly to conserve scarce resources, partly to convince the losers to make and keep the peace, and partly to deter potential challengers. This required development of a forward-loaded military, able to spring to war from a standstill with strong initial results.

While Frederick did not necessarily seek battle for its own sake, he held nothing back once the fighting started. His enemies responded by denying him the initiative whenever possible, fighting only under favorable conditions and limiting their tactical commitments.

Early on, Frederick would experience the randomness of combat. At the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, the day seemed thoroughly lost until the last-gasp advance of the Prussian infantry turned the tide. The 1745 Battle of Soor began when the Austrians surprised the Prussian camp and ended when Frederick improvised victory from the sheer fighting power of his men. The 1758 Battle of Hochkirch was an even more comprehensive surprise that Frederick dismissed as an outpost fight until taught better by round shot from his own captured guns. He responded to these reverses by striving to make Prussia’s military indomitable, thus minimizing what Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) would later call the “fog and friction” of war. Even in peacetime, Frederick’s army would account for as much as three-fourths of public expenditure.

In 18th-century Prussia, all citizens owed service to the state. The burden of direct military service fell entirely on such least-favored subjects as farm workers, peasants and unskilled urban workers. The conscription process systematically tapped Prussia’s domestic manpower. It succeeded less by direct compulsion than due to the willingness of families and communities to furnish a limited proportion of their sons each year, and the state allowed local entities latitude in deciding which individuals would serve.

Building on that good faith, Frederick integrated the state economy into its war-making function. He institutionalized annual field exercises involving as many men as might serve in a fair-sized battle—44,000 in 1753. While expensive, such maneuvers were not just for show. They served to test formations and tactics, to practice large-scale maneuvers, to achieve precise concert among regiments and to accustom senior officers to handling troops under stress. They were also public displays of raw power, designed to deter any state thinking of confronting “Old Fritz” and his faithful grenadiers.

The failure of that deterrence, and the resulting Seven Years’ War (1756- 1763) between Prussia and the coalition of Austria, Russia and France, tested Frederick’s system to its limits, producing some surprising results.

Compulsion might put men in uniform, but neither force nor conditioning can keep men in the ranks at the height of a battle, particularly during the era of the Seven Years’ War, when conflict resembled nothing so much as feeding two candles into a blowtorch and seeing which melted first.

A soldier’s relationship to the state differs essentially from all others because it involves a commitment to dying. Yet for most soldiers the “death clause” remains largely dormant. An individual can spend 30 honorable years in uniform and face only collateral risks such as training accidents. Even in war the commitment is not absolute. As casualty lists mount, however, soldiers are increasingly likely to scrutinize the moral fine print in their agreements with their respective states.

Jooksul Landsknecht era of the late 15th to late 16th century and the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), becoming a soldier meant being able to carry a sword, wear outrageous clothing and swagger in ways denied the peasant or artisan. In later years the introduction of uniforms and systematic enforcement of camp and garrison discipline removed much of the patina of liberty from a life that was likely to be nasty, brutish and short. In its place emerged a commitment-dependence cycle, whereby the state demonstrated concern for the soldiers’ well-being as a means of boosting the soldiers’ dependence on the state.

Frederick took the commitment-dependence cycle further than any of his counterparts. Prussia’s uniforms were among the best in Europe. Its medical care in peace and war was superior to that typically available to civilians. Its veterans had good opportunities for public employment or maintenance in one of the garrison companies that served as both local security force and de facto retirement home. As the Seven Years’ War dragged on, however, retaining a soldier’s fealty would require more than material appeals. It would take leadership, and not merely that of a battle captain but a Kriegsherr (warlord).

At the 1757 Battle of Kolin, in one of the final desperate attacks against the Austrian line, Frederick would shift from an institutionalized model of leadership to one far more personal, seeking for the first time to inspire his men directly. While his battle cry of “Rogues! Do you want to live forever?” was scarcely on a par with the rhetoric of a Julius Caesar, it did strike at least one responsive chord, when a musketeer reportedly replied, “Fritz, we’ve earned our 50 cents for today!”

While almost certainly apocryphal, the exchange is portentous. The army had suffered heavy and irreplaceable casualties at Lobositz, Kolin and in front of Prague. Russian troops invaded East Prussia that summer, while a mass of French troops reinforced with contingents from the Holy Roman Empire advanced against Frederick from the west. The king’s unprovoked attack on Saxony and subsequent plundering of that state had deprived him of whatever sympathy he might have garnered elsewhere in Germany. Prussia’s prospects were grim.

The victory at Rossbach on November 5, 1757, furthered Frederick’s transformation. The phrase allegedly uttered by a French officer to his Prussian captor, “Sir, you are an army—we are a traveling whorehouse,” reflected a baggage train that actually did include “valets, servants, cooks, hairdressers, courtesans, priests and actors…dressing gowns, hairnets, sunshades, nightgowns and parrots.” Propagandists seized on that fact to trumpet the purported Prussian virtues of simplicity and chastity, and Frederick became legend, unwittingly lending his name to taverns, streets and towns as far off as Pennsylvania.

As Frederick had learned, however, warfare can be random. The Prussian surrender at Breslau on November 25, 1757, marked the nadir of an ill-conducted local campaign that left Berlin vulnerable, and when the king arrived in Silesia on December 2, he was left with one option: fight…and win. His behavior over the coming days would lay the foundations for the myth of Old Fritz. Contemporary accounts describe a man overcoming sickness and exhaustion, moving from bivouac to bivouac, warming himself at the men’s fires, listening to stories and hearing complaints, and promising reward for loyal service. The king capped his performance on December 3, when he invited not only his generals but also the army’s regiment and battalion commanders to his headquarters.

Frederick appeared before his officers not as a commander radiating confidence and vitality, but as a tired, aging man in a threadbare and snuff-stained uniform. The army, he declared in a barely audible voice, would attack. Its only alternatives were victory or death. “We are fighting for our glory, for our honor and for our wives and children….Those who stand with me can rest assured I will look after their families if they are killed. Anyone wishing to retire can go now, but will have no further claim on my benevolence.” Lest anyone think he had gone soft, Frederick finished by vowing that any cavalry regiment failing in its duty would lose its horses and any infantry battalion that flinched faced confiscation of its colors, the ceremonial braid from its uniforms and even its swords.

The Parchwitz speech, named for the campsite, was a subtle blend of sincerity and artifice that lost nothing in the retelling. Years afterward men could remember everything they saw and heard—regardless of whether they were actually present. Two days later, on December 5, 1757, the Prussian army outmaneuvered, then smashed, the Austrians at Leuthen.

After Leuthen there were no more easy victories, no more brilliant maneuvers—just the close-quarters massacres at Zorndorf (1758) and Kunersdorf in Silesia (1759), at Hochkirch (1758) and finally at Torgau (1760). None suggested a warrior king who led by force of will and intelligence. Yet his army endured part of the winter of 1759–60 in tents pitched on the Silesian plateau. While short on rations and racked by dysentery and respiratory diseases, it neither exploded in mutiny nor dissolved in desertion. The following summer, many of the same men took part in a month’s worth of forced marches that saw many stragglers but few deserters.

These were no longer the seasoned soldiers who had filled Prussia’s ranks in 1756. By the spring of 1761, three-fifths of the army’s replacements still came from the regimental depots, but many were foreigners—prisoners of war pressured into taking new colors, brought in by recruiting parties that differed little from press gangs, the flotsam of five years’ hard war. About half of the prewar officer corps was gone, and some of their replacements were as young as 13. Yet this unpromising amalgam continued to stand its ground against steadily improving enemies. When Russia’s Empress Elizabeth died unexpectedly in 1763, Frederick was able to exit from the Seven Years War, his kingdom and reputation intact.

In the end, it was their king who kept the Prussian army on task in the war’s waning years. Frederick was in part a figurehead, a tangible focus for soldiers in the absence of such ideals as patriotism or religion. But the campfire tales and tavern legends did not rest entirely on a phantasm sustained by the gallows and the firing squad. Frederick demonstrated the kind of endurance he demanded of his men. On the march and in camp he was present and visible. His soldiers had seen Frederick rally the broken ranks at Hochkirch and knew a spent ball had struck him at Torgau. This was no Alexander, no white-plumed Henry of Navarre. Frederick was a workaday warrior who commanded respect by not demanding it.

Likewise, Prussian officers were neither courtiers nor uniformed bureaucrats, but men of war. Frederick’s indifference to dress and rank set the tone: Officers’ insignia were not introduced until after the war, and Frederick granted lieutenants the same direct access as that granted to generals. And the king’s unpredictable harshness contributed not a little to the cohesion of his officers.

Frederick’s demeanor also struck a chord among his soldiers. Warfare in the 18th century was largely a matter of endurance rather than performance. While battles seldom lasted longer than a day, their close-quarters nature tried a soldier’s capacity to stand firm. Campaigns, particularly in the barren expanses of East Prussia and central Europe, were exercises in survival. By willingly sharing the general lot of his soldiers, Frederick engendered admiration as well as loyalty.

What today’s soldiers might refer to as “chickenshit” was also remarkably absent from a Prussian camp. While expecting clockwork precision on parade, Frederick didn’t drive hard on field exercises. Pickets and sentries were kept to a minimum. Duties were functional and shared within each company. Discipline was relaxed while on the march. Frederick enjoyed riding along with his men and trading barbs with them in dialect. Only in camp would he impose his authority and in common parlance, it was as if God himself had descended to earth dressed in a common soldier’s blue coat.

Following the 1763 Treaty of Hubertusburg, Frederick’s image as general, statesman and Landesvater (father of his country) only flourished, despite his professed indifference to public opinion. In fact, this nonchalance paradoxically enhanced the king’s appeal. In turn, Prussia’s reputation attracted soldiers and administrators from throughout Germany. They wanted to be part of the best.

Postwar adulation of Frederick’s military genius was by no means universal among his officers, who remembered the fiascoes as well as the triumphs. But with the passage of time, the Seven Years’ War took on a meaning for them similar to that held by veterans of the American Civil War a century later. It was the defining event of their lives, not to be trivialized. Perhaps things had not been as bad as they recalled. While Frederick lived, his critics kept silent.

By the mid-1770s, the Prussian army looked on Frederick as a symbol of past glories and future hopes. A parallel could be drawn to Robert E. Lee’s status in the Army of Northern Virginia by the end of 1862. In each case independent thought gave way to a general feeling the “old man” knew what he was doing, even if the wisdom of a particular course might not be apparent. Dissent was tantamount to disloyalty.

Ironically, the monarch who initially sought a state and an army in which charismatic leadership was superfluous ultimately became the center of the first modern cult of personality. To a degree, “Old Fritz” was the creation of his soldiers and subjects, a Teflon monarch to whom no criticism stuck because he was a projection of their own needs, desires and myths. For good or ill, Frederick II of Prussia remains Frederick the Great.

For further reading, Dennis Showalter recommends: Frederick the Great, by Theodor Schieder, edited and translated by Sabrina Berkeley and H.M. Scott and Frederick the Great: King of Prussia, by David Fraser.

Originally published in the June 2007 issue of Military History. Tellimiseks klõpsake siin.


Vaata videot: Friedrich II - Der Große Flute Concertos. Christoph Huntgeburth Ensemble Sans Souci Berlin