Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor

gigatos | February 18, 2022

Post Views: 15

Summary

Frederick I, called Barbarossa († June 10, 1190 in the Saleph River near Seleucia, Lesser Armenia), of the noble family of the Hohenstaufen, was Duke of Swabia from 1147 to 1152 as Frederick III. Duke of Swabia, Roman-German king from 1152 to 1190, and emperor of the Roman-German Empire from 1155 to 1190.

Barbarossa”s election was the result of a reconciliation of interests between several princes. Probably the most important role was played by his cousin Henry the Lion, who as a result of the arrangements was able to establish a royal-like position in northern Germany. However, his longstanding promotion by the king disregarded the balance of highly aristocratic family groups and ultimately made Henry a disruptive factor for the other imperial princes.

Barbarossa”s reign was also marked by the double conflict with the Lombard League of Cities and the papacy. In a society in which honor determined social rank, violations of honor and the resulting compulsion for revenge led to decades of conflict. In the disputes between the upper Italian cities, Barbarossa tried to play a mediating role. However, he failed, attracted accusations of partisanship, and was unable to exercise the traditional ruler”s duties of peacekeeping and law enforcement. The refusal of some cities to surrender to the imperial court had to be atoned for, given the concept of the “honor of the empire” (honor imperii). After Tortona and Milan were destroyed, Barbarossa intended to fundamentally reorganize the kingship in the Regnum Italicum. Old sovereign rights of the empire were reclaimed or redefined and fixed in writing. All judicial sovereignty and official authority was to emanate from the empire. However, the appointment of imperial administrators and the extensive financial use of the regalia granted to the emperor met with resistance from the cities. They had long since exercised their regal and jurisdictional rights under customary law.

Unlike in Salian times, the conflict with the pope and the excommunication of the emperor did not lead to the emergence of a major opposition movement in the northern part of the empire. Only after the defeat of the imperial army at the Battle of Legnano in 1176 was the decades-long schism ended in the Peace of Venice and the conflict with the communes in the Peace of Constance in 1183. Henry the Lion had refused to assist the emperor in the battle against the Lombard cities in 1176; at the instigation of the princes, he was overthrown and forced into exile.

Even before his kingship, Barbarossa had participated in the crusade of his royal uncle Conrad III from 1147 to 1149. In his last years, he prepared another crusade after the defeat of the King of Jerusalem, Guido of Lusignan, by Saladin in 1187. On May 11, 1189, the emperor set out, but he drowned thirteen months later shortly before reaching his destination.

The epithet “Barbarossa” (“Red Beard”) did not become a permanent part of the name until the 13th century. In the context of the German national movement of the 19th century, Frederick Barbarossa developed into a national myth. The legend of the emperor sleeping in Kyffhäuser and waiting for better times was associated with the hope of national unity.

Also read, biographies – Diego Velázquez

Origin and rise of the Staufer

Frederick came from the noble family of the Staufers. However, this name is a conceptualization of the historians from the 15th century. The paternal ancestors were insignificant and were not handed down. The lineage and origin of the family are still unclear. The family succeeded in expanding its ruling position before the accession of kingship through consistent use of monastic bailiwicks, clever use of ministeriality and close cooperation with the clergy and people of the bishoprics of Würzburg, Worms and Speyer. Numerous marriages were also beneficial for the growth of Hohenstaufen power. About Barbarossa”s great-grandfather Friedrich von Büren it is only known that he married a woman named Hildegard. Recently it was assumed that the Schlettstadt property had not belonged to Hildegard, but to Frederick himself and that the Staufers had thus been an Alsatian family. Only around 1100, with Duke Frederick I, the expansion into the eastern Swabian Remstal took place.

Far more important for the Hohenstaufen was their prestigious maternal kinship with the Salians. Frederick Barbarossa”s grandmother was Agnes, a daughter of the Salian ruler Henry IV. Barbarossa saw himself as a descendant of the first Salian emperor Conrad II, to whom he referred several times in documents as his ancestor. The rise of the Staufers took place during Henry IV”s conflicts with the princes of Saxony and Swabia. As a reaction to the elevation of the Swabian duke Rudolf of Rheinfelden to the counter-king of Henry IV, Frederick I received the duchy of Swabia from the king in 1079 and was married to the king”s daughter Agnes. As son-in-law, Frederick was an important support for the Salian emperor against the ecclesiastical and secular representatives of the Gregorian reform. In 1105, his fifteen-year-old son Frederick II, Barbarossa”s father, received the duchy. After the emperor was overthrown by his son Henry V, the two brothers Conrad and Frederick II took over the deputyship in the northern part of the empire in 1116. Conrad became Duke of East Franconia. Barbarossa”s father Frederick II was so successful in defending Salian interests and further expanding his Hohenstaufen household power that, according to Otto von Freising, it was said that he always dragged a castle behind him on the tail of his horse.

Barbarossa was born around 1122, the son of Frederick II and the Guelph Judith. His birthplace may have been Hagenau. He learned to ride, hunt and handle weapons. Barbarossa could neither read nor write and was also ignorant of Latin. The candidacy of his father Frederick II as successor to the Salian ruler Henry V, who died childless, was unsuccessful in 1125 because he did not accept the libera electio (free election) of the princes. The Saxon duke Lothar III was elected instead. After Lothar”s death, Conrad was elected king in Coblenz on March 7, 1138 by a small group of princes led by Archbishop Albero of Trier. Frederick Barbarossa attended court days of his royal uncle Conrad in 1141 in Strasbourg, 1142 in Constance, 1143 in Ulm, 1144 in Würzburg and 1145 in Worms. In the following years, too, he regularly stayed at the royal court. Around 1147 he married Adela, the daughter of the North Bavarian Margrave Diepold III of Vohburg. A few weeks before his father”s death, Barbarossa was named “the younger duke” in a royal document at Christmas 1146. From 1147 to 1149 he took part in the crusade of his royal uncle Conrad. The enterprise failed, the king fell ill with malaria. At the turn of the year 1151

Also read, biographies – Neville Chamberlain

King election (1152)

Just two weeks after Conrad”s death, the princes elected his nephew Duke Frederick III of Swabia, the son of the candidate for the throne in 1125, as the new king in Frankfurt am Main on March 4, 1152. Otto von Freising paints a picture of a unanimous royal elevation and inevitable succession of Frederick. Frederick had been elected because he was the “cornerstone” (angularis lapis) of reconciliation between the two hostile families of the Heinrici de Gueibelinga. In fact, however, there may have been intense negotiations, concessions and agreements between Frederick and the Greats before the election. As Duke of Swabia, Barbarossa had to make his elevation to king acceptable to his peers. He probably won the support of Henry the Lion by promising to return the duchy of Bavaria to him. At Conrad”s last court day, Barbarossa succeeded in securing the support of Bamberg”s bishop Eberhard II. In this way, Eberhard hoped to preserve Bamberg”s ecclesiastical position vis-à-vis Mainz”s claims. Welf VI promised himself the security of his ducal position from the future king, his nephew. It was consolidated by his appointment as Duke of Spoleto, Margrave of Tuscany and Prince of Sardinia (dux Spoletanus et marchio Tusciae et princeps Sardiniae) in the same year. As a result of the election, Conrad”s minor son Frederick was passed over for king – the first case of this kind in royal elections. Against this background, Otto von Freising explicitly noted in his report on the Frankfurt royal election of 1152 that the election of the king was a special privilege of the Roman-German Empire.

Frederick was crowned on March 9, 1152 by Archbishop Arnold of Cologne in Charlemagne”s Cathedral Church in Aachen. During the ceremony, a ministerial, from whom Barbarossa had withdrawn favor due to serious misdemeanors, publicly threw himself at the feet of the newly anointed king. The ministerial wanted to achieve the reinstatement of the ruler”s favor. However, he was rejected by Frederick on the grounds that he had excluded him from his favor not out of hatred but on grounds of justice (non ex odio, sed iustitie intuitu illum a gratia sua exclusum fuisse). The decision surprised most of those present and received their respect. The reaction of Barbarossa is considered by modern research as an expression of the change in the assessment of what virtues were expected from a ruler. Whereas in the Ottonian-Salian period, clemency and mercy, with their demonstrative expressions such as tears and the kiss of peace, were values by which royal action was measured, now rigor iustitiae (severity of justice) had become the yardstick for evaluating the ruler. Pardon and reinstatement were no longer granted under Barbarossa to the extent that had been customary until then. After the election of the king at Frankfurt, Barbarossa was accompanied on his traditional royal tour of the empire by Henry the Lion, Albrecht the Bear, Welf VI and Bishop Anselm of Havelberg.

Also read, biographies – Thomas Carlyle

Personnel changes and continuities

With Barbarossa”s reign, a shift in the power structure began, especially among the secular princes at court: The two Guelphs Henry the Lion and Welf VI, as former opponents of the old king Conrad, became reliable confidants of the new king and, of all the princes, visited the royal court most regularly. Welf VI was first referred to as “Duke of Spoletto and Margrave of Tuscia and Prince of Sardinia” in June 1152. In addition to the Guelphs, the Wittelsbach dynasty, as former opponents of the old King Conrad, now appeared at the royal court. Otto of Wittelsbach became a reliable support of Barbarossa”s kingship. In return, the Counts of Sulzbach and the Babenbergs, on whom Conrad had relied, lost influence. Among the ecclesiastical princes, Archbishop Arnold II of Cologne, Bishop Anselm of Havelberg and Abbot Wibald of Stablo and Corvey had already been close confidants of Conrad and retained this position under Barbarossa. At the Merseburg Court Day in 1152, Wichmann, the previous bishop of Naumburg, was elevated to the new archbishop of Magdeburg. With this elevation, Barbarossa met the needs of the group of people around the Meissen margrave Konrad von Wettin. The latter had already been a reliable partisan of King Konrad and was able to maintain his position under Barbarossa. By pushing through the elevation of Conrad”s nephew Wichmann to Archbishop of Magdeburg, he succeeded in creating a counterweight to Henry the Lion in Saxony. In return, Barbarossa secured the favor of the group of princes who were skeptical of Henry the Lion”s royal patronage and was thus able to commit the future archbishop of Magdeburg to his person. Barbarossa had his marriage to Adela von Vohburg dissolved in Constance in 1153 on the grounds of allegedly too close a relationship. In reality, however, the decisive factors were probably the childless marriage or Adela”s origins, which were no longer in keeping with her rank, as well as her relationship to circles of people who had been influential under King Conrad but were now being pushed back. Barbarossa”s negotiations with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I about a marriage with a member of the Byzantine imperial house, however, remained without result.

Also read, biographies – Alexander Pushkin

Promotion and cooperation with Henry the Lion

Henry the Lion received the largest grants. After the election of the king, a close cooperation with the duke began. On May 8 or 9, 1152, Barbarossa enfeoffed him with the imperial bailiwick of Goslar, which secured high and continuous revenues because of its silver mining at Rammelsberg. On May 18, 1152, a court day was held in Merseburg. There the king and the princes decided the Danish throne dispute between Sven Grathe and his opponent Knut in favor of the former. In addition, a dispute over the counties of Plötzkau and Winzenburg between Henry the Lion and Albrecht the Bear had to be settled in Merseburg. Albrecht probably invoked kinsman”s inheritance; Heinrich held the view that after the death of an heirless count, his goods and rights passed to the duke. The aim of the Lion”s argument was probably to position the ducal power as a constitutional variable between the king and the counts. In this way, the Saxon dukedom would have become a viceroyalty, as in the late Carolingian period. The conflict was settled on October 13, 1152, at the Court Day in Würzburg. Henry the Lion received the inheritance of the murdered Count Hermann II of Winzenburg, Albrecht the counties of Plötzkau. In 1154, Barbarossa also granted Henry the Lion the royal right of investiture for the bishoprics of Oldenburg, Mecklenburg and Ratzeburg, as well as for all other bishoprics that the Lion would establish. Henry”s demand for the return of the Bavarian duchy, however, remained open for the time being. The duke compensated for the promotion by his intensive efforts on behalf of the king in Italy. However, his abundance of power created by Barbarossa disturbed the high aristocratic balance below the kingship and caused resentment among the princes.

Also read, biographies – Roy Lichtenstein

Preparation for the imperial coronation and smoldering conflict with Milan

In March 1153, a court day was held in Constance. There Barbarossa was confronted with the problems between the Italian cities. Merchants from Lodi complained against the attacks on their freedom and the obstruction of trade by Milan. The conflict between Milan and Lodi was a result of political and demographic changes in Italy, which led to the emergence of the Commune in the late 11th century. Under the leadership of elected consuls, the self-government of the citizens asserted itself against the episcopal city ruler. The Investiture Controversy in the 11th century led to the collapse of imperial rule in Italy and armed struggle between the communes. In the upper Italian urban landscape, the communes demarcated their sphere of influence from the next most powerful commune. The larger communes began to build up a territory and brought weaker communes into their dependence. This led to warlike conflicts with neighboring cities. In the first intra-Lombard war, Milan had brought Lodi into extensive dependence in 1111 and, after a ten-year war, Como in 1127. After the complaint of the Lodes merchants, Barbarossa sent a messenger to Milan with the order to reverse the transfer of the market. According to the Lodes notary Otto Morena, the letter of Barbarossa”s messenger was read “publicly and in general assembly” by the Milanese consuls before the citizens of their city. Afterwards, the letter was crumpled and the seal image of the enthroned king was thrown on the ground and demonstratively trampled. The destruction of the seal was a grave insult and rejection of Barbarossa”s claim to rule, since the image presence of the ruler made his presence clear even during his absence. Barbarossa”s envoy Sicher had to leave the city during the night without the usual tribute. The relationship between Milan and Barbarossa was thus already strained by an insult before the first campaign in Italy.

Two papal legates were also present in Constance. This brought the conditions in southern Italy into focus. During the papal schism of 1130, Roger II had had himself crowned king, and he was able to maintain this dignity even after the end of the schism. From the imperial point of view, the Normans were usurpers (invasor imperii), since southern Italy was counted as part of the Empire. The future emperor and the pope agreed that the rule of the Normans in southern Italy had to be eliminated. Barbarossa promised the papal legates that he would not conclude a peace or truce with either the Roman citizenry or King Roger II without the pope”s consent. Rather, he would force the Romans back under the rule of the Pope and the Roman Church (subiugare). As the church”s patron bailiff, he was to defend the honor (honor) of the papacy and the regalia of St. Peter in all dangers. Pope Eugene III promised, in addition to the imperial coronation, the excommunication of anyone “who would violate the law and the honor of the Empire.” The pope and the future emperor promised each other not to make any concessions to the Byzantine Empire in Italy. On March 23, 1153, Eugene III issued a document on these agreements, the so-called Treaty of Constance.

Also read, biographies – Benito Mussolini

First Italian campaign (1154-1155): coronation campaign and conflict with Milan and Tortona

Barbarossa reached Italy in the late autumn of 1154. Envoys from Lodi and Como appeared at a court day at Roncaglia, near Piacenza, and complained about Milan. The Milanese consuls, who were also present, wanted to present him with a golden bowl full of coins. In the acceptance and rejection of gifts, the relationship of mutual political relations became clear. An acceptance of Milan”s gifts would have meant that the ruler had a positive relationship with the giving city. However, Barbarossa refused the gifts as long as Milan did not submit to his orders through obedience and respected law and peace. Nevertheless, Barbarossa was assured by Milan in a treaty (fedus) the large sum of 4000 marks of silver. Barbarossa then wanted to move to Monza to be crowned king of the Italian regnum (empire). The preference of the small Monza as a place of coronation was perceived as a provocation by the Milanese side. On the way to the Italian coronation Barbarossa was misguided by two Milanese consuls for three days in bad weather through barren land between Landriano and Rosate. This caused considerable supply problems in Barbarossa”s army. Barbarossa was pressured by his greats not to put up with such humiliation and to ensure food supplies by plundering the Milanese countryside. These plunders made clear the readiness for conflict. Milan now tried to restore the lost favor by making a symbolic satisfaction by having the house of the consul who had misled the army destroyed. However, Barbarossa”s reputation was not restored by this, since the destruction of the house as an act of satisfaction did not take place in a demonstrative act in front of the offended ruler and his army in public and Barbarossa, whose honor had been injured, could not influence the satisfactio (satisfaction).

Barbarossa refused the promised 4000 marks of silver and demanded that Milan submit to his court regarding the conflicts with Como and Lodi. He expected a public demonstration of obedience and submission to his rule. Only when the Milanese were ready to submit to his court would their gifts also be accepted. The rejection of the money made clear to Milan the loss of imperial patronage. The rejection of the money was interpreted by the city as an unmistakable sign of unwillingness to make peace. Milan feared that Barbarossa might act as a biased judge. Moreover, its position of power, which had grown over the years and had not been challenged by Barbarossa”s predecessors, was threatened. On the other hand, the refusal to summon him to appear before the royal court affected the ruler”s central task of preserving justice and peace. Before the princes of the empire, Barbarossa complained that Milan had violated the honor imperii, the honor of the empire. A violation of the imperial honor at the same time violated the honor of the great. This allowed Barbarossa to attach certain expectations to the actions of these great ones and to count on extensive fulfillment. However, this in turn obliged him to reciprocate for help received and loyalty shown. Thus open conflict was inevitable. But with 1800 knights, Barbarossa did not have a powerful army for an offensive against mighty Milan.

Barbarossa”s conflict with Milan had repercussions on other municipal city rivalries. Tortona was allied with Milan against Pavia. At the end of 1154, king-friendly Pavia wanted to have a conflict with Tortona settled before the royal court. Tortona, however, despite being summoned several times, refused the proceedings on the grounds that Barbarossa was a friend (amicus) of the Pavese and therefore biased (suspectus). With the disobedience of the summons, however, the sovereign task of keeping the peace and the law was again affected. Accordingly, from February to April 1155, Barbarossa besieged Tortona. Captured Tortonese were publicly executed as a deterrent to Barbarossa, and the drinking water was poisoned with corpses and sulfur. The increasingly critical supply forced the city to ask for peace. The peace terms negotiated with Frederick required humiliating submission “for the glory and honor of the king and the holy empire” (ob regis et sacri imperii gloriam et honorem). The city then surrendered in the form of deditio (submission ritual) in April 1155, with the citizens submitting at Barbarossa”s feet in front of everyone present. The public surrender of the city to royal authority and the recognition of the dominion were prerequisites for making satisfaction for the honor violation suffered. The emperor then promised that the city would not suffer any damage.

Contrary to the promise, however, Tortona was destroyed the next day by pro-royal Pavia. Pavia, in asserting its royal claim to power, thus took the opportunity to eliminate an old rival. The events of Tortona”s destruction reveal a structural problem of imperial rule in Italy. Contemporaries suspected a ruse by Barbarossa. But the king was forced to consider the interests of his allies in order to continue to receive their support. As an ally of a city, however, Barbarossa was always partisan in the inter-communal rivalries, which were enemies or allies “in the manner of a checkerboard.” Any intervention was seen as unilateral partisanship. Barbarossa depended on the loyalty and material resources of his allies to assert his claim to rule the Italian regnum. His room for maneuver and his decisions were severely limited by consideration for his urban allies. Maintaining peace and justice as the central task of rulership was hardly possible due to the consistent favoritism of his allies.

Also read, civilizations – Minoan civilization

Imperial coronation (1155)

On June 8, 1155, Barbarossa and the Pope met in person for the first time. According to the marshal and strator service, the king was to lead the pope”s horse during the greeting. This resulted in an éclat, as it was unclear how and in what manner the marshal service was to be performed. The details about the course of the meeting could probably not be clarified between the envoys in advance. The éclat thus appears to be a misunderstanding caused by inadequate planning. It was remedied the next day by repeating the encounter in a precisely agreed form.

Shortly before the coronation of the emperor by Pope Hadrian IV, an envoy from the Romans appeared before Barbarossa. The communal movement had renewed the old Roman Senate and wanted to completely redefine the rights of emperor and pope. Invoking ancient traditions, the commune offered Frederick the imperial crown from the hands of the Roman people in exchange for a payment of 5000 pounds of silver. A break with the centuries-old tradition established by Charlemagne for a monetary payment had to be rejected by Barbarossa. Thus, further unrest with the Romans was foreseeable. On June 18, 1155, Barbarossa was crowned emperor in St. Peter”s by Hadrian IV. The attacks of the Romans at the Bridge of Angels and in the northern Trastevere on the same day could be repelled. Henry the Lion did particularly well in this. However, summer heat and supply problems soon forced a retreat. The campaign against the Normans was abandoned without result due to princely opposition. As a result, Barbarossa was also unable to keep his promises from the Treaty of Constance. He had neither succeeded in regaining Rome for the pope nor had he led a campaign against the Normans.

In this situation, further conflicts with Milan and now also with the papacy were foreseeable. Already on the return to the northern part of the empire, Barbarossa imposed the ban on Milan in Verona, because of the refusal to submit to the imperial court. Via Regensburg he went to Worms for the Christmas celebration. Under the Staufers, Worms developed into one of the most important centers of power. Several times Barbarossa celebrated the high church festivals of Christmas and Pentecost there.

Intensified conflict with the papacy

The abortion of the Italian campaign led to a change in the political situation in Italy. As a result of the non-compliance with the Treaty of Constance, the Roman Curia sought the protection of its rights independently of the imperium. At the instigation of the chancellor Roland Bandinelli, later Pope Alexander III, the pope made peace with the Normans. In June 1156, the Treaty of Benevento was concluded between Pope Hadrian IV and William I of Sicily. The peace treaty of Benevento without the emperor caused great displeasure among Barbarossa, since the legal claim of the empire (ius imperii ad regnum) to southern Italy was thereby endangered. From Barbarossa”s point of view, the pope was the one who had failed to honor the Treaty of Constance, in which joint action against the Normans had been agreed. He had thus broken his promise to uphold the honor of the empire (honor imperii).

In October 1157, with Cardinal Bernard of S. Clemente and Roland Bandinelli, an envoy of the Pope appeared at the Court Day in Besançon with the intention of removing the Emperor”s misgivings about the Treaty of Benevento. However, relations with the Roman Curia deteriorated further when the papal envoys presented Barbarossa with a letter in which Hadrian IV protested the capture of the Swedish archbishop Eskil of Lund and that the emperor had done nothing to free him even at the pope”s express request. The accusation that the emperor was neglecting the noblest duty of a ruler in upholding the law caused strong indignation in the great assembly of princes. However, the pope agreed to grant maiora beneficia to the emperor despite the imperial coronation. Frederick”s chancellor Rainald von Dassel translated the term beneficia before the assembly of princes as “even greater fiefs.” This gave the impression that the pope saw the emperor as a liege and himself as a liege lord. This reassessment of the relationship between spiritual and temporal power provoked fierce opposition from the emperor, princes and even bishops, because in the opinion of the princes the future emperor was determined by their election. Since Barbarossa, the sacral legitimacy of the emperor was more closely linked to the princes than before. It was no longer the pope but the princely vote that was decisive. Without a solemn farewell or gifts, the legates had to leave the court. Barbarossa complained in a letter that the “honor of the empire” was hurt by such an unheard-of innovation. He let it be known throughout the empire that he had “received kingship and emperorship from God alone through the election of princes.” The insult to the sovereign resulted in the loss of homage and the severance of communication. In the ignominious treatment of his envoys, the pope saw the honor Dei (honor of God) violated. Through the mediation of Henry the Lion and Bishop Eberhard of Bamberg, the confrontation was settled. In June 1158, two cardinals in Augsburg discussed the written explanation: the pope had not meant beneficium in the sense of fief (feudum), but in the sense of benefaction (bonum factum). The letter of apology was sufficient as a satisfactio (satisfaction) to restore the honor imperii violated at Besançon, but other problems remained unresolved between the emperor and the pope, such as the Treaty of Benevento or the use of the Petrine regalia.

Years in the northern part of the empire (1155-1158)

The years north of the Alps saw the resolution of the conflict between Henry the Lion and Henry Jasomirgott over the Duchy of Bavaria, Barbarossa”s marriage to Beatrix of Burgundy and the campaign against the Poles. As a result, the balance of power in the empire was consolidated in the longer term to such an extent that planning could begin for a second campaign in Italy.

The dispute over the Bavarian duchy between Henry the Lion and Henry Jasomirgott was a legacy of Barbarossa”s predecessor Conrad III, who had denied the Bavarian duchy to Henry the Lion”s father and later awarded it to the Babenberger. Barbarossa was closely related to both parties to the dispute. Through his grandmother, the Salian Agnes, he was a nephew of the Babenberg brothers, and through his mother, the Guelph Judith, a cousin of Henry the Lion. The negotiations between Barbarossa and Heinrich Jasomirgott dragged on until 1156. According to both sides, Barbarossa had to make allowances for rank, status and honor. In his measures to solve the problem, Barbarossa alternated between public proceedings before the royal court with judgment by the princes (iudicium) and an amicable settlement between the parties involved (consilium) in a small circle. Barbarossa summoned the Babenberger to negotiations several times: in October 1152 to Würzburg, in June 1153 to Worms, in December 1153 to Speyer. However, in view of the upcoming campaign in Italy for the imperial coronation, Barbarossa changed his behavior. In June 1154, Heinrich Jasomirgott was deprived of the duchy of Bavaria by an iudicium of the princes and awarded it to Heinrich the Lion. However, an investiture into the Bavarian duchy did not take place. The royal chancellery continued to refer to him only as “Duke of Saxony” (dux Saxonie). By this procedure Barbarossa wanted to preserve the way of negotiations with Henry II Jasomirgott and to prevent violent actions during his absence in Italy. In the Privilegium minus of 1156, the margraviate of Austria was transformed into a duchy (ducatus Austrie) and granted to Heinrich Jasomirgott so that “the honor and glory of our exceedingly beloved uncle (honor et gloria dilectissimi patrui nostri) would not appear diminished in any way.” Through this compromise, Barbarossa succeeded in preserving the rank and prestige (honor) of the two rival greats in the public eye.

In June 1156, Barbarossa celebrated his marriage in Würzburg to Beatrix, the very young heiress daughter of the Count of Burgundy. The 28-year marriage produced eight sons and three daughters (including the next Roman-German Emperor Henry VI, the Swabian Duke Frederick V, the later Count Palatine Otto of Burgundy, Conrad of Rothenburg and the later Roman-German King Philip of Swabia). Educated and status-conscious, Beatrix seems to have promoted court culture and opened it to French influences. She died in 1184 and was buried in Speyer.

In Würzburg, at the same time, legations from Como, Lodi, Bergamo and Pavia complained about the oppressions of Milan. Barbarossa, for his part, complained to the princes at the court days of Fulda and Worms in 1157 about the violation of the honor of the empire. Barbarossa was thus able to secure the support of the princes, for they had sworn to protect imperial honor in their oath of allegiance. Before the Italian campaign, Otto von Wittelsbach and Rainald von Dassel were sent to Italy. They were to claim the fodrum, a levy to supply the army, and the regalia.

During the reign of Conrad III, Bolesław had expelled his brother Wladyslaw II of Poland as Duke of Poland. Wladyslaw II was married to the Babenberg Agnes. Her mother was Agnes, the sister of Emperor Henry V and grandmother of Barbarossa. Bolesław now refused to pay the emperor the usual annual tribute. Barbarossa was mainly concerned that the expulsion of his relatives had damaged the reputation of the empire. In accordance with customary warfare, Barbarossa ravaged the dioceses of Breslau and Posen in the summer of 1157. At the mediation of Vladislav of Bohemia and other princes, Bolesław submitted barefoot. For the first time bare swords on the neck are handed down as an attribute of submission north of the Alps. Bolesław had to swear that “his exiled brother had not been expelled to the disgrace of the Roman Empire”. He took the oath of allegiance, paid the emperor considerable sums and promised to participate in the next Italian campaign with 300 armored horsemen.

Second Italian campaign (1158-1162): papal schism and destruction of Milan

The army was divided into four columns in order to avoid supply difficulties when crossing the Alps. At the beginning of August 1158 the army appeared at the gates of Milan. In front of the gates, during the siege, smaller battles developed due to the failure of the Milanese or the ambition of honorable princes for a glorious act of war. The warfare was otherwise characterized by the devastation and siege of the Milanese hinterland. The enemy”s livelihood was to be damaged, thus making it impossible for him to continue the war. A larger field battle was avoided because of the incalculable risk. As a result, Milan became increasingly short of supplies. Barbarossa could not afford a long-term starvation of the city due to logistical problems as well as the dissatisfaction of many princes over diseases and oppressive heat. Peace negotiations were therefore in both sides” interests, but Barbarossa found himself in a better negotiating position. Subjugation of Milan was inevitable for the emperor due to the continued honor violations Milan had inflicted on him.

The humiliation of the subjugated and the superiority of the emperor had to be made clear in public. The injured honor of emperor and empire could only be restored by a symbolic submission in the greatest possible publicity. As a symbolic punishment for their disobedience, twelve consuls were to appear barefoot before the emperor seated on the throne, carrying swords across their bent necks. Milan tried in vain to evade the humiliating submission with large sums of money, wanting to perform the submission ritual at least with shoes on their feet. However, a monetary payment by Milan as a sign of recognition of its rule and for its own confession of sin was not sufficient for Barbarossa in case of violation of the imperial honor. After all, the consuls did not have to throw themselves to the ground with their bodies stretched out at the feet of the emperor. In the peace treaty, Milan had to undertake not to hinder Como and Lodi in their reconstruction for the “honor of the Empire” and to build a palace in Milan “for the honor of the Lord Emperor” (ad honorem domini imperatoris). The usurped revenues from royal rights (regalia), including mint, customs or port duty, had to be returned to Milan. However, the city was allowed to maintain the previous city alliances. The subjugation of Milan was combined with a festive coronation in Monza, with which Barbarossa honored the relatively small city on January 26, 1159 as “head of Lombardy and seat of the kingdom” (caput Lombardie et sedes regni).

After the victory over Milan, Frederick wanted to make use of the power-political and financial resources in the Lombard city landscape through a comprehensive reorganization of the imperial sovereign rights. Since the three Ottonians, the rulers had only had brief sojourns south of the Alps. This fact made it easier for the municipalities to usurp the royal rights that were not claimed by the absent rulers. Barbarossa tried to restore the imperial rights that had been alienated from him. However, his disputed claims required an enormous amount of legal legitimation in order to be enforced in the actual political conditions in Upper Italy. From November 11 to 26, 1158, a court day was held in Roncaglia. The Roncal laws were to systematically record the royal claims. The four Bolognese jurists Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, Jacobus and Hugo de Porta Ravennate put their expert knowledge at the disposal of the court. By appropriating Roman law, the emperor became the sole source of legitimacy for sovereign claims. This was in contradiction to the communes” conception of law, which was based on the undisturbed exercise of their local legal customs (consuetudines).

All jurisdiction was to emanate from the emperor and him alone. The lex omnis iurisdictio granted all secular sovereign and judicial rights to the emperor. The election of municipal consuls was henceforth dependent on the emperor”s approval. The lex tributum granted the emperor the poll tax and a general land tax. Until then, medieval rulers had not been entitled to such revenues. The lex palatia also formulated the imperial right to build palaces in all places, without regard to the achieved independence of the cities. From the emperor”s point of view, the Roncal laws were only the claiming of old rights. However, they threatened for the municipalities the hitherto undisputed customary acquisition of regalia and jurisdiction. The laws were not, however, a program of rule by Barbarossa; they were negotiated individually. In the weeks and months that followed, Barbarossa”s envoys were to travel to demand oaths, levy taxes or take over city regiments in implementation of the Roncaglia resolutions.

During the second Italian campaign, unresolved differences arose with the pope over the duty of Italian bishops to follow the army and the emperor”s powers in Rome. It was also unclear whether the Matildic estates should belong to the patrimony or to the empire and whether the emperor was also allowed to collect the fodrum from the cities. The relationship with the Normans had also remained unsettled since the first campaign in Italy. The imperial side under Cardinal Octavian proposed a court of arbitration with equal representation from the imperial and papal sides. The prosicilian side under the papal chancellor Roland, on the other hand, invoked the non-judgement of the pope. In this tense situation Hadrian IV died on September 1, 1159. The antagonisms within the College of Cardinals led to a double election. Barbarossa wanted to accept only the pope who wanted to preserve the “honor of the empire” in his dealings with the emperor. Cardinal Octavian (as Pope Victor IV) was also willing to do so. Cardinal Roland (as Pope Alexander III) had offended the emperor several times by his leading role in the conclusion of the Treaty of Benevento and his appearance at Besançon, and had never made satisfaction for this in a personal encounter. He could therefore not be recognized by Barbarossa as a suitable pope.

Barbarossa convened a church assembly in Pavia on January 13, 1160. Alexander invoked the non-judgemental nature of the papacy and stayed away from the assembly. He defined the pope as the head of Christendom not subject to any earthly judgment. The synod ended with the excommunication of Alexander and his followers. As a result, Alexander excommunicated the emperor and Victor IV. However, the decision in favor of Victor bound only the imperial clergy and the countries of Bohemia, Poland and Denmark, which were in feudal bond with the Empire. None of the English, French, Iberian and Hungarian clergy were present, and the imperial decision failed to have the desired effect. John of Salisbury, secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, had indignantly rejected Barbarossa”s claim to decide the papal question at the Council of Pavia in 1160 in a letter that has come down to us, asking who had appointed the “Germans as judges over the nations.” The English King Henry II and the French King Louis VII, on the other hand, took Alexander”s side. In mid-June 1161, Barbarossa therefore attempted to reaffirm the legitimacy of Victor IV with another synod in Lodi.

The Roncaglia decisions quickly generated resistance among the municipalities. Milan had to dissolve its alliances with other cities, contrary to the promises of the peace treaty with Barbarossa, and the Milanese contado, the surrounding territory claimed by the city, was massively reduced. By sending an imperial legation to Milan, Barbarossa expected that the election of consuls would be conducted under the direction of his legates. Milan insisted on the previous legal custom and wanted to elect the consuls freely at its own discretion and then send those elected to take the oath of allegiance to the emperor. The Milanese saw the freedom of election threatened. Barbarossa”s envoys were then pelted with stones by the Milanese people. The consuls tried to appease and promised a lot of money as satisfaction. But the envoys fled secretly in the night without taking up the offer of reconciliation, since by insulting the envoys, the emperor himself had also been insulted and thus his relationship with Milan had been affected. Barbarossa, in view of the insult to his envoys, complained before the assembled princes that Milan”s arrogance and insolence had caused a new insult to the empire and the princes. According to the “rules of the game of medieval conflict,” the party that broke a peace agreement had to expect particular severity.

In February 1159, an attempt at conciliation at the court in Marengo was fruitless. For Milan, the peace treaty took precedence over the Roncal laws. In Barbarossa”s view, however, imperial law broke all rules to the contrary. The Milanese recognized this as a breach of word and left the court. A conflict was thus inevitable. In the summer of 1159, the Milanese contado was first devastated in order to damage the supply situation. In July 1159, the city of Crema, which was allied with Milan, was attacked. Barbarossa resorted to terror as a means of combat. Prisoners were hanged in front of the inhabitants. This unleashed a spiral of violence in the siege war. From both sides, prisoners were demonstratively executed in full view of the enemy. Around the turn of the year Marchese, the war technician of the Cremasks, defected to Barbarossa. For his change of sides he was honored with rich gifts. Through his expert knowledge Crema could be subdued in January 1160. In humiliating fashion, the conquered Cremasks were not allowed to use their gates, but had to leave the city through a narrow breach in the walls. Barbarossa helped them to move out through the narrow breach, gave them life and could thus present himself as a merciful ruler.

The emperor still had relatively few forces for his fight against Milan. In Erfurt on July 25, 1160, under the leadership of Rainald of Dassel, the renewed army was summoned. In the spring of 1161, the struggle with Milan could be continued. With the support of its allies, the city was damaged by the devastation of its cultivated lands and rank prisoners were systematically mutilated. The princes used the battles against Milan for personal glory. The dramatic supply situation forced Milan to capitulate in March 1162. Among the princes, who rivaled for favor with the emperor, there was a dispute over the leading role in the mediations over the defeated Milan. Rainald von Dassel in particular, whose honor had been personally insulted by the Milanese stone-throwing, wanted to preserve the emperor”s honor and see his personal one restored as gloriously as possible. He therefore insisted on the most complete subjugation of Milan possible. In doing so, he torpedoed the mediation efforts of princes willing to make peace in order to prevent his princely rivals from gaining prestige with the emperor. With his idea of unconditional submission, Rainald was finally able to prevail with the emperor.

The submission (deditio) lasted almost a week and symbolically illustrated the glorification of imperial power in several acts. Milan had to submit humbly four times at the beginning of March in Lodi and thus in the very city that had triggered the conflict in 1153 by its complaints. The Milanese consuls, 300 knights and part of the foot soldiers had to submit to Barbarossa. As punishment for their disobedience and as a sign of their deserved execution, the knights wore swords on their necks and the common soldiers ropes around their necks. In the center of the surrender ceremony, the Milanese war technician Guintelmo had to hand over the keys of the city. His special role in the submission ritual illustrates the importance of these specialists during the warfare. At the climax of the staging, the Milanese flag chariot (carroccio) had to bend the top of the mast to the ground in front of Barbarossa as a sign of self-abasement. As the most important sign of rule of the commune and with the image of the city saint Ambrose on the top of the mast, the special importance of the flag chariot in the submission ritual is explained. After the unconditional and humiliating submission, Milan was kept in the dark about its own future for weeks. Finally, on March 26, Barbarossa had the city destroyed at the decisive instigation of the cities of Cremona, Pavia, Lodi, Como and their other opponents. The Milanese had to leave their city beforehand and were resettled in villages. Access to their city was denied to the Milanese from 1162. They had to build new settlements outside the city. The ritual of deditio thus lost its credibility and functionality for Milan for the amicable settlement of future conflicts. The epochal event led to the dating of imperial charters to August 1162 “after the destruction of Milan” (post destructionem Mediolani). Milan”s allies Brescia, Piacenza and Bologna submitted within a few weeks.

Barbarossa used his position of power to impose a direct imperial administration in northern Italy on the principle of deputization. Imperial legates were appointed as deputies in Italy. They held court, took oaths of allegiance from the population and levied taxes. Through this multitude of acts of rulership, imperial rule became tangible to the communities to a previously unknown extent. Due to the emperor”s general instructions to act “according to the increase of the honor of the empire” and the still missing central administration, his officials exercised the imperial representative function on their own initiative and according to the presumed will of the emperor. However, the imperial officials also used the development of sources of money for Barbarossa to increase their own influence and prestige. At the same time, this was perceived by the cities as personal enrichment.

Under the impression of the victory over Milan, Barbarossa continued to find Alexander III unacceptable as the rightful pope in the papal schism. The emperor relied instead on his military might and on the city-Roman base of Victor IV. Alexander had fled to France at the end of 1161. The French king Louis VII was at that time in conflict with the English king and threatened to get a new opponent in the Staufer. Both rulers wanted to decide the papal question in August 1162 at a meeting in the Burgundian village of Saint-Jean-de-Losne. Alexander of Louis and Viktor of Barbarossa were to appear at the meeting. Barbarossa, however, did not even invite Alexander”s supporters in the episcopate. Alexander continued to invoke the non-judgment of the pope and stayed away from the meeting. A second meeting within three weeks failed because of the difficult supply situation for the more than 3000 people on the imperial side. In this precarious situation, Barbarossa ordered a synod to be held with only the episcopate loyal to the emperor and without the French king. He announced that provincial kings (provinciarum reges) presumed to install a bishop in Rome to the detriment of the Roman Empire, thus exercising sovereign rights in a foreign city that did not belong to them. According to the argumentation of Barbarossa”s chancellor Rainald, the emperor, as the patron of the Roman Church, had the right to have the papal question decided only by clerics of the empire. The participation of the French king was therefore not necessary. Rainald is even said to have called Louis VII a “little king” (regulus). This argumentation met with great disapproval at the other European courts. Henry II and Louis VII made peace at the end of September 1162 and paid Alexander the honor due to a pope.

Also read, biographies – Francisco Franco

Third Italy campaign (1163-1164)

The third Italian campaign, with the support of the maritime cities of Genoa and Pisa, was intended to gain access to Sicily. Barbarossa was confronted with the displeasure of the cities over the new and increased taxes and the despotism of his administrators. He could not intervene in the competences of his legates out of respect for the honor of his most important advisors. Moreover, without the support of his legates, his claim to rule could not be enforced. To override the measures implemented would have undermined their authority and poorly repaid the loyalty bonds of his most important advisors. These ties, however, were exceedingly significant to the basis of his exercise of rule. Since the emperor did not permit actions against his officials, Verona, Padua, Vicenza as well as Venice joined together in early 1164 to form the societas Veronensium (Veronese Confederation). Ferrara, Mantua and Treviso managed to extract numerous concessions from the emperor in return for their promise not to join the confederation, including the free election of their consuls, the retention of their previous legal customs and the renunciation of royalty. Barbarossa lacked support against the League of Cities in June 1164, so he did not engage in a fight and withdrew northward in September 1164.

Fight against Alexander III in the Empire (1165-1166)

On April 20, 1164, Victor had died in Lucca. The possibility of ending the schism was destroyed by the rapid elevation of Paschalis III by Rainald, who acted in the presumed sense of the emperor. The election took place outside Rome, which was to strengthen reservations about Paschalis” legitimacy. At the end of 1164, therefore, Alexander was able to return to Rome; the city was thus to become a military target for the emperor. But also in the Empire, the archbishops of Magdeburg, Mainz, and Trier, as well as almost the entire ecclesiastical province of Salzburg, leaned toward Alexander. The hope of a return to church unity was widespread in the empire. For Barbarossa, it was crucial to bind the imperial episcopate closely to him in the papal question. At Whitsun 1165, a court conference was convened in Würzburg. In the Würzburg oaths of 1165, Barbarossa undertook to recognize only Paschalis and his successors, but never Alexander III and his successors. This ruled out any possibility of political agreement. From then on, Barbarossa”s assertion of Paschalis was closely linked to his own fate. Forty other princes also committed themselves by oath. Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg and some others took the oath only conditionally. Archbishops Hillin of Trier and Konrad of Salzburg did not appear. In the summer of 1165, Konrad was isolated in his own ecclesiastical province by Barbarossa, who summoned the Salzburg suffragans of Freising, Passau, Regensburg, and Brixen, as well as Konrad”s brother Duke Heinrich Jasomirgott of Austria, to take the Würzburg oaths. After being summoned several times, Konrad appeared in Nuremberg on February 14, 1166. He was accused by Barbarossa of having received neither the regalia from the emperor nor the spirituals from Paschalis III and of having taken possession of the archbishopric by robbery. Conrad replied that he had asked for the regalia three times and had been refused them because he did not want to recognize Paschalis, who was not the legitimate pope. Conrad then lost the Emperor”s patronage. After failed attempts at mediation, the possessions of the Salzburg church were loaned to laymen and the bishopric was devastated.

Barbarossa was involved in the canonization of Charlemagne in 1165 and the elevation of his bones in Aachen. His participation can be explained by the “customary veneration of saints and relics” and the concern for his own salvation and less with a concept of sacrally exalting the empire or the Hohenstaufen emperorship independently of the papacy. According to Knut Görich, the initiative for this canonization came from the Aachen collegiate clergy, who wanted to consolidate and increase the prestige and primacy of their church as a coronation site. A saintly predecessor as emperor brought Barbarossa a gain in legitimacy that was difficult to assess.

In 1166, at the instigation of Barbarossa, the Tübingen feud was settled by a submission ritual at a court day in Ulm. Count Palatine Hugo of Tübingen had to submit several times. This was the first time Barbarossa had a nobleman publicly bound. Apparently, the injured honor of Hugo”s feud opponent Welf VII was to be restored by a special demonstration of hardness and intransigence.

Also read, biographies – Alessandro Valignano

Fourth Italian campaign (1166-1168): victory at Tusculum and epidemic catastrophe

The inglorious withdrawal in 1164 and the lack of support in Italy made a fourth Italian campaign necessary. Barbarossa set out there again in November 1166, also to end the schism. Alexander III was to be defeated and Pope Paschalis III enthroned in Rome. Since the princely support for the army declined, mercenaries called Brabanzones were hired from the Lower Rhine areas. The imperial legates were also to exhaust thoroughly the resources for the Italian campaign. In Milan, the collection of taxes and duties was systematized through a new tax list. Notwithstanding the complaints of the Lombard greats at Lodi, the strict imperial administration was maintained. As a result of the material burdens and the disregard for previous legal customs, the Lombard League of Cities was formed in March 1167 with Cremona, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua and Ferrara. The municipalities, which had previously been at enmity with each other, quickly came together as a result of the imperial arbitrary rule. Milan succeeded in becoming a member of the confederation by making numerous concessions. Thanks to the protection of the League of Cities, the Milanese were able to return to their devastated city in April.

Barbarossa, meanwhile, moved further south. Ancona, which refused all levies, was subjugated by Barbarossa. The Archbishops of Cologne and Mainz, Rainald and Christian, had crushed the Romans in the Battle of Tusculum at the end of May 1167. The news of the victory over the Romans reached Barbarossa at the end of the siege of Ancona. However, at the instigation of some Norman nobles in his army, another short foray was made to the northern border of Sicily. It remained the only expedition of the much-planned and repeatedly postponed campaign against the Norman king.

Exposed to the strain of the great summer heat, Barbarossa reached Rome on July 20, 1167. He succeeded in capturing St. Peter”s and installing Paschalis III in Rome on July 30. Alexander, who was initially trapped in the city of Rome by imperial troops, was able to flee to Benevento. A few days later, an epidemic of dormancy, promoted by the August heat, broke out in the imperial army. With the death of numerous hereditary sons, it had profound dynastic consequences for the lay nobility. The bishops Konrad of Augsburg, Alexander of Liège, Daniel of Prague, Eberhard of Regensburg, Gottfried of Speyer and Hermann of Verden, the Archbishop of Cologne Rainald of Dassel, the dukes Frederick of Rothenburg and Welf VII, Theobald of Bohemia, Berthold of Pfullendorf, several consuls from the allied communes, including the Lodes chronicler Acerbus Morena, as well as 2000 knights succumbed to the plague. The failure of Barbarossa”s Italian policy became apparent. On December 1, 1167, the Lombard League merged with the Veronese League. The imperial administration collapsed except for the allies Novara, Vercelli and Pavia. The actions of the Lombard League forced Barbarossa to hastily retreat to Pavia. Fearing for his life, Barbarossa fled Susa in the middle of the night disguised as a horse servant over the only free Alpine pass.

Also read, biographies – Henri Cartier-Bresson

Years in the Empire (1168-1174)

The next six years were the longest time Barbarossa spent north of the Alps since his election as king. His whereabouts were sometimes unknown for months. Due to the many deaths as a result of the plague, Barbarossa systematically acquired the estates of heirless high nobles. The result was an almost closed kingdom north of Lake Constance, in the foothills of the Alps and in eastern Swabia. 1168

Also read, important-events – Great Chinese Famine

Fifth Italian Campaign (1174-1176): Defeat of Legnano

In the spring of 1168 the consuls had named their settlement Alexandria (Alessandria) “in honor of the Pope” and to the shame of the Emperor. The settlement was recognized as a civitas by the Lombard League and elevated to a bishopric by Pope Alexander. This was insofar a provocation to Barbarossa, since founding cities belonged to the imperial prerogative. In imperial documents, the city was derogatorily dubbed a “straw city”. In 1174 Barbarossa set out on his fifth campaign in Italy. Years later, Barbarossa justified the Italian campaign by saying that the city was founded “against our and the empire”s honor” (contra honorem nostrum et imperii) and that he moved to Italy with the intention of avenging the insult. The siege dragged on for several months due to adverse weather. The approaching Lombard League brought the four flag chariots of the municipalities of Piacenza, Milan, Verona and Brescia within sight of the Emperor in April 1175. However, a battle was avoided because of the incalculable risk. Peace talks failed to reach agreement on the future status of Alessandria. Nevertheless, the Peace of Montebello was concluded on April 17. The Alessandria issue was postponed to the future. The two commanders of the Confederation had to humbly submit to Barbarossa and hand over to him the swords they wore above their necks. By submitting, symbolic satisfaction was made for the injury done to his honor and the honor imperii was restored. In return, Barbarossa gave them the kiss of peace as a sign of the restoration of his favor. However, this also meant a symbolic recognition of the covenant. A few weeks later, however, Barbarossa was no longer willing to submit to arbitration with an open outcome in the matter of Alessandria (negocium Alexandrie).

In November 1175 Barbarossa demanded support in the fight against the Lombard cities. The following events cannot be reconstructed without contradiction from the sources. Only the dissent between Henry the Lion and Frederick Barbarossa is certain. All sources were written years or even decades later and were influenced by the knowledge of the disempowerment of the Lion. All Saxon princes are said to have followed the request, only Henry the Lion refused and is said to have been asked by Barbarossa to a parley in Chiavenna north of Lake Como. At the beginning of 1176, both apparently met in the imperial castle of Chiavenna. Possibly the emperor even fell on his knees before the duke to emphasize the urgency of his request. Henry, however, refused the request, thus breaking with the social convention of accepting a request manifested by footfall of a superior before the inferior. The duke probably made the provision of an army contingent dependent on the surrender of the city of Goslar with its rich silver mines. This, however, Barbarossa refused. Barbarossa is also the last king from whom such a humiliating request has been handed down.

The Battle of Legnano arose from a chance encounter on May 29, 1176 between a detachment of Lombard knights and the imperial vanguard. It developed an uncontrolled momentum. The onslaught of the imperial army ended abruptly at the Milanese flag chariot, whose capture was an important objective in the battle because of its symbolic importance for the city”s freedom and honor. Barbarossa escaped with difficulty and reached Pavia in early June. There, he is said to have already been presumed dead.

Peace Treaty of Venice (1177)

The outbreak of malaria in Barbarossa”s body in the summer of 1176 and the excommunicated emperor”s fear for his salvation were decisive for the opening of negotiations with Alexander III. Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, who had been appointed by the emperor as mediator, played a major role in the so-called preliminary treaty of Anagni for the peace terms in November 1176. The treaty stipulated that Barbarossa was to pay Alexander the “tribute owed” (debita reverentia) in the form of bridle and bail services, foot falls and foot kisses to which he was entitled as the rightful pope. Since the middle of May 1177 the peace was negotiated in Venice. Even before the personal meeting with the emperor, Alexander released Barbarossa from the ban. The imperial loss of face due to the public recognition of the Pope was to be compensated by a public submission of the Lombard League under imperial rule. However, only a truce limited to six years could be concluded with the communes and a truce limited to fifteen years with the Norman king. The careful balancing of elevation and degradation of imperial dignity and power almost failed as a result, had not the archbishops of Magdeburg and Mainz threatened to recognize Alexander III as the rightful pope. However, with the threat of the mediators becoming parties to the conflict, Barbarossa would have been isolated as a peacebreaker in the empire. Barbarossa then, according to Archbishop Romuald of Salerno, “put aside the lion-like ferocity, assumed the meekness of a sheep” and accepted their proposal. On July 24, 1177, Barbarossa submitted to Pope Alexander III, rendering him the required honorary services and thus recognition as the duly elected pope. Other issues, such as the extensive possession of the Matildic estates in central Italy, were postponed until later. Barbarossa was again accepted by Alexander as a “son of the church.” The conflict with the pope was thus settled. Barbarossa moved north and had himself crowned King of Burgundy in Arles in July 1178. In doing so, he wanted to demonstratively show off the newly won authority of the emperorship and the imperial rule over Burgundy.

Also read, biographies – Ptolemy III Euergetes

Fall of Henry the Lion (1180

While older research saw the emperor as the driving force behind the overthrow of the lion, more recent research tends to see the princes as the initiators. On July 6, 1174, Henry the Lion is mentioned for the last time in the series of witnesses to Barbarossa”s deeds, and in 1181 he was overthrown. Already in the Peace of Venice it was stipulated that Bishop Ulrich of Halberstadt, who had been expelled on Henry”s initiative in 1160, should regain his office. In the fall of 1177, Ulrich of Halberstadt began fighting Henry the Lion in Saxony for the Halberstadt church fiefs. He received support in 1178 from Philip of Cologne, who had returned from Italy. The archbishop invaded the Westphalian part of the duchy. In November 1178, at the court day in Speyer, Barbarossa accepted for the first time the complaints of the Saxon opponents of the lion. At a court day in Worms, the duke was to answer for his aggressive behavior towards the Saxon nobility. However, Henry did not appear in Worms between January 6 and 13, 1179. To have appeared in court would have meant that he would have acknowledged the charge against him as justified. The disobedience of the summons and the demonstrative disregard of emperor, princes and court struck at Barbarossa”s claim to rule and was a violation of the honor of the empire (honor Imperii). Henry”s behavior could not go unpunished. As a result, a “declaratory judgment” was issued at the Worms Court Day in January 1179, according to which he would be threatened with eight years in the event of a repetition. Heinrich also failed to appear at a court meeting in Magdeburg on June 24, 1179.

The Duchy of Saxony was divided up at the Court Day in Gelnhausen at the end of March 1180. Henry the Lion was condemned as a crime against his majesty and his imperial fiefs were confiscated. The Gelnhausen document, issued for Archbishop Philip of Cologne, lists the charges that led to the condemnation: suppression of the freedom (libertas) of the churches of God and of the nobles, disregard of the summons to appear before the court court issued three times according to feudal law, and multiple contempt of imperial majesty (pro multiplici contemptu nobis exhibito). The narratio of the document emphasizes the unanimity, the advice and the consent of the totality of the princes and the court. Barbarossa was thereby deprived of the traditional prerogative to show mercy in the event of a submission. In this way, the princes wanted to prevent possible retaliation by a double duke who was later restituted by Barbarossa and continued to be overpowering. As a beneficiary of this conflict, “for the entire future” Archbishop Philip of Cologne received western Saxony as a newly created duchy of Westphalia-Engern on April 13, 1180. The eastern part of the Duchy of Saxony fell to Count Bernhard of Anhalt, who became Duke of Saxony. At the end of September 1180, the Duchy of Bavaria was also decided at a court conference in Altenburg. Styria was elevated to a duchy and granted to the previous Margrave Ottokar of Styria, while Count Berthold IV of Andechs received the dukedom of Merania. The reduced duchy of Bavaria was enfeoffed to the former Bavarian Palatine Count Otto von Wittelsbach, and the Wittelsbach family ruled Bavaria from then until 1918. With the division of Saxony and Bavaria, the history of the great Carolingian regna of the East Frankish Empire finally came to an end; they were replaced by princely domains, some of which developed into sovereignties. However, the reorganization also limited royal power and favored regional noble dynasties in both Bavaria and Saxony. The lack of consensus with the Saxon nobility caused Henry”s rule to quickly collapse. In November 1181, Henry submitted to the emperor at the Court Day of Erfurt. The lion was left only with his allodial estates around Brunswick and Lüneburg. He had to go into exile for three years.

Peace of Constance (1183)

Before the expiration of the truce concluded in Venice for six years, negotiations were opened in 1182. Unresolved were the recognition of Alessandria as a city (status civitatis) and the recognition of the legal customs in each city, which contradicted the Roncal laws. In June 1183 the Treaty of Constance was concluded. Alessandria was formally refounded under the name of Caesarea (“the Imperial”), thus transforming it from a symbol of resistance into a symbol of domination. Frederick awarded the regalia to the confederation in exchange for a one-time or annual monetary payment and recognized municipal self-government. In return, the cities undertook to pay the fodrum, a special tax in imperial Italy on every visit to Italy. The legal customs of the communes and the Lombard League were recognized by Barbarossa. The consuls were appointed by the inhabitants. In return, the emperor could confirm the free election of consuls every five years. Barbarossa”s attempt to prevent a special development of the constitution in imperial Italy thus failed. The municipalities were now independent legal entities and their constitutions were legitimized.

Chivalric-courtly society of the 12th century

Since the 12th century, the court developed into a central institution of royal and princely power. The most important tasks were the visualization of rulership through festivals, art and literature. The term “court” can be understood as “presence with the ruler”. One of the most important functions of the court was to regulate access to the ruler. The great competed with each other for prestige and rank with the ruler. However, only certain greats were heard by the ruler and their views were heeded. The presence at the royal court gave the princes the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their own rank.

The most important part of the court was the chancery, which was responsible for issuing documents. Around 1200 charters have survived from Frederick”s reign. In Barbarossa”s Hohenstaufen chancery, chivalric virtues such as bravery in battle (virtus and fortitudo), loyalty in service and the pursuit of earthly glory (gloria) and worldly honor (honor) were increasingly propagated. These changes in the portrayal of rulers probably occurred in response to the crisis of kingship in the 11th century and before the emergence of chivalric courtly culture in the 12th century. In 1157, the term “holy empire” is found in the chancery for the first time. However, it did not become an official usage in Barbarossa”s time. The term sacrum imperium only appeared in fewer than 32 of over 1200 documents issued.

Barbarossa”s court attracted experts in learned law, siege engineers or representatives of the newly emerging courtly poetry. Through their proximity to power and service to the ruler, they hoped to gain in reputation. However, the court”s appeal waned considerably in Barbarossa”s later years. The presence of the secular imperial princes at the court declined significantly. From the 1180s onward, the court became primarily a Hohenstaufen “family and friends” meeting place”. Only Archbishop Konrad of Salzburg, Bishop Otto II of Bamberg and Bishop Hermann II of Münster still had an above-average presence at the royal court. They came from the families of the Wittelsbach, Andechs and Katzenelnburgs, which were close to the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Unlike in the early days of Barbarossa, the service of the princes to the emperor and the empire declined. The princes” involvement in the Italian conflicts increasingly diminished due to the overuse of human and material resources. Two strategies become visible: some princes tried to seek their advantages in the vicinity of the king through services rendered and had to incur high costs for this, while other princes concentrated on the expansion of their territories far from the king. Correspondingly, with the turn of the imperial Italian policy since 1177, the share of ministerials in the emperor”s environment increased. The ministerials took on tasks in diplomacy, warfare and imperial property administration.

At the Mainz court festival at Whitsun in 1184, Barbarossa”s sons Henry and Frederick received their initiation into the sword. They were thus declared of age and of legal age. Six archbishops, nineteen bishops, two abbots of imperial monasteries, nine dukes, four margraves, three counts palatine, the Thuringian landgrave, many counts and ministerials appeared at the court festival. The high medieval observers estimated the number of visitors at several tens of thousands, giving an impression of the immense crowds from the various countries that gathered at the mouth of the Main. The spending of large sums of money at the court festival by emperors and princes was not a useless waste, but was aimed at acquiring fame and honor as well as courtly self-expression and representation. The presence of so many imperial princes, however, also increased competition among themselves for their claimed rank in the public eye. On the first day of Pentecost, a conflict of rank arose between Archbishop Philipp of Cologne and Abbot Konrad of Fulda over the left seat next to the emperor. The seating order was of great importance for the visualization of the hierarchy in the empire. Barbarossa then asked Philipp to give way in consideration of the peaceful course of the festival. Philip thus had to publicly renounce the position of the second most dignified prince of the empire after the archbishop of Mainz, who was seated on the right. As a result, the imperial relationship with Archbishop Philip of Cologne deteriorated. The former double duke Henry the Lion was also present at the Mainz court celebration. However, his request for pardon failed due to the lack of consent from the princes.

Also read, history – War of the Austrian Succession

Sixth Italy campaign (1184)

Barbarossa undertook his sixth campaign in Italy for the first time without an army and made a circuit through the once hostile cities of the Lombard League. In September 1184, he demonstratively visited Milan, which had been his main opponent until then. In Piacenza, in January 1185, he took part for the first time in a meeting of the League of Cities. On the way to Piacenza, near Lodi, Cremasks, wearing crosses and almost naked, threw themselves on the ground to the emperor to complain about Cremonese oppressions. However, they were driven away by the Cremonese. In all publicity, Barbarossa was deprived of his most important duty of rule with the administration of justice. With the help of Milan, Cremona was subdued in June 1186 and lost its sovereignty over Crema. The new importance of Milan for the emperor was also evident in the marriage of Barbarossa”s son Henry VI to Constance of Sicily in the monastery of S. Ambrogio on January 27, 1186. Constance was a daughter of the first Norman king Roger II and the aunt of the reigning king William II. Nothing has survived about the antecedents to the marriage alliance. The marriage alliance created the possibility of a union of the empire with the Norman kingdom (unio regni ad imperium). For the Norman king, the marriage of his aunt brought a considerable gain in prestige. However, the marriage again strained the relationship between the emperor and the papacy, as Pope Urban III feared consequences for the papal feudal sovereignty over the Norman kingdom. The antagonism between the emperor and the pope was exacerbated by the schism that broke out in the spring of 1183 in the archiepiscopal see of Trier, when Urban III deposed the imperial candidate, Rudolf of Wied, in May 1186 and consecrated his opponent, Folmar.

Also read, biographies – Robert Rauschenberg

Crusade and death (1190)

In the last decade of his reign, Barbarossa”s sphere of influence was concentrated on the Rhine and eastern Franconia, Swabia, Alsace and the Bavarian Nordgau. After the defeat of the King of Jerusalem by Saladin at the Battle of Hattin on July 4, 1187, and the capture of Jerusalem on October 2, 1187, Pope Gregory VIII called for a crusade on October 29, 1187. The emperor and the pope pledged to work together in harmony. Thus, in filling the Trier bishopric, the pope invested John I, Frederick”s previous chancellor, and dropped Folmar of Karden, whom he favored. On March 27, 1188, Barbarossa had the Crusade summoned at a court conference in Mainz. According to the conception of that time, by participating in the crusade one could obtain complete forgiveness of all sins and gain glory in the fight for the faith. Peace in the empire was a necessary condition for the crusade. In the conflict between Henry the Lion, who had returned from England, and his successor in the Saxon duchy, it was decided at a court day in Goslar that Henry must once again go into exile for three years. On May 11, 1189, Barbarossa set out from Regensburg as the only European ruler on a second crusade. With about 15,000 participants, his army was the largest ever to set out on a crusade. The army reached Byzantine territory via Bavaria, Vienna and the Kingdom of Hungary. Byzantium saw the crusader army as a threat, the inhabitants of Adrianople fled the city, and the crusaders sacked Thrace. Emperor Isaac II conceded Frederick the title of “Emperor of Ancient Rome” in an attempt to bring about a rapprochement. After tough negotiations, which failed at first, he offered 70 cargo ships and 150 ships for the passage of the army to Asia Minor, plus 15 galleys. After further confrontations, the army set out in early March after a 14-week stay, and three weeks later it crossed into Asia. Already behind Philadelphia, the first battles with Turkmen took place. Kılıç Arslan II, the Sultan of Konya, opened negotiations and promised a peaceful passage. However, he had divided his kingdom among eleven sons, of whom his eldest son Kutheddin did not follow him and fought the Crusaders. After his army sacked Konya, Frederick was victorious in the Battle of Iconium (Iconium is the Latin name of Konya). In late May, the army reached the Christian kingdom of Lesser Armenia and finally the Saleph River (Göksu near Silifke) in what is now southeastern Turkey. There Barbarossa drowned on June 10, 1190.

Barbarossa”s entrails were buried at Tarsos. The flesh was removed from the bones by boiling in accordance with the procedure of “Mos teutonicus” and buried in Antioch in early July. His bones possibly found their resting place in the Cathedral of Tyre, which today exists only as an archaeological excavation site. Barbarossa is the only ruler of the Middle Ages whose burial place remains unknown to this day. After the return of the crusaders the most different news about Barbarossa”s death arose. Even the contemporaries did not know whether the emperor wanted to cross the river swimming or on horseback, whether he swam alone or in company, whether he only wanted to take a refreshing bath or reach the other bank, whether he died in the water at all or only on the bank. In the Sächsische Weltchronik (Saxon World Chronicle), which was compiled from 1225 onwards, it is reported that he wanted to take a bath after lunch to cool down and drowned in the process; if this were true, a heart attack would also be a possible cause of death.

The transition of the reign to Henry VI went smoothly. Henry had already been elected king as a three-year-old child. For the first time since 1056, a generally accepted successor was thus available.

Also read, biographies – Mahmud of Ghazni

Assessment in the Middle Ages

In the historiographical tradition, there was a change in the guiding principles and norms. In addition to traditional Christian norms (clementia, misericordia, humilitas), the chivalric ideal of rulership that emerged in the 12th century became more prominent in historiography that was friendly to the Hohenstaufen dynasty. In Barbarossa”s battles with the Italian cities, the heroic bravery and superior fighting strength of the ruler are demonstrated as a chivalrous hero. The opposing Italian cities are judged as haughty (superbia) and portrayed as opposing Barbarossa, the ruler fighting on a divine mission. The cities seem to rise up as opponents of the emperor against the divine order and Barbarossa is the “executor” of divine vengeance. On the opposite side, Barbarossa is accused of disloyalty, venality, and partiality in Italian urban historiography. For the Italian rhetor Boncompagno da Signa, Barbarossa”s inglorious death was God”s deserved punishment for the wars against the Italian cities. However, the cruelty of the wars also caused the term furor teutonicus (Teutonic rage), which originated in ancient Rome, to reappear in historiography for the first time after being almost completely forgotten.

The chronicle of Bishop Otto of Freising is considered the highlight of medieval world chronicles. The bishop of Freising was not one of the king”s closest confidants until his death. Otto hoped to gain royal support for the Freising church through his historical work on “the deeds of Frederick” (Gesta Frederici). With Barbarossa”s reign, Otto saw a new era dawning. After Otto”s death in 1158, his Freising chaplain, notary and private secretary Rahewin continued the work and completed it before the end of July 1160.

In addition to the disputes with the Italian cities, the conflict between the emperor and the pope shaped Barbarossa”s image in historiography. The papal schism was largely omitted from the panegyric heroic poem Ligurinus, written in the 1180s. Its author, Gunter, apparently had close ties to the imperial family and conceived his work for the Hohenstaufen court. Likewise, the poet of the Carmen de gestis Frederici I imperatoris in Lombardia portrayed the relationship between emperor and pope as harmonious and concealed the schism.

Barbarossa”s growing distance from the archbishop of Cologne becomes clear in the Cologne Royal Chronicle. In it, the upswing of the empire under Barbarossa is described until 1174 and the imperial authority is praised. In the mid 1180s, the chronicle was continued by another author under a different conception. The focus was now on the history of the bishopric of Cologne and its rulers.

Barbarossa”s second crusade, the Third Crusade according to the usual count, appeared in contemporary view as calamitous and unworthy. However, his inglorious death soon underwent a reinterpretation: as an imperial crusader in the fight against the pagans at the head.

Also read, biographies – Chaïm Soutine

Reception

In the memory, Frederick II was initially more significant than his grandfather Frederick I Barbarossa. The emperor would return at the end of time and renew the empire and the church. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, this idea was gradually transferred by the humanists to Frederick I Barbarossa, because Frederick II spent most of his time in Italy, 28 out of 39 years of reign, and therefore could not be a suitable representative of Germany. In the popular book of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in 1519, contrary to historical facts, Barbarossa conquered Jerusalem and did not die in the Saleph, but was only lost and returned after some time.

Barbarossa developed in the 19th century after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the wars of liberation against Napoleon in 1813

With the founding of the German Empire in 1871 with a Hohenzollern emperorship at its head, the medieval empire was re-established according to the ideas of the time. With Emperor Wilhelm I “Barbablanca” (Whitebeard), Frederick Barbarossa (Redbeard) had finally been resurrected. With the founding of the empire, the Hohenzollern emperor completed what the Staufer Barbarossa had begun in the 12th century. In 1875, the Munich professor Johann Nepomuk Sepp wanted to “set the German nation in holy enthusiasm” with the successful “repatriation of the remains of the old Barbarossa”. For this project he won Otto von Bismarck. Sepp and with him Hans Prutz, the author of the first scientific biography of Barbarossa, traveled by ship to the Orient at the expense of the Reich Chancellery, but the “sea voyage to Tyre” remained unsuccessful. With the dedication of the Kyffhäuser Monument in 1896, Barbarossa”s veneration as a national myth reached a high point. The myth of Barbarossa survived the political upheavals of 1918 and 1933 unscathed. Under National Socialism, Barbarossa had to be used for the aggressive Ostpolitik. Adolf Hitler called the war of aggression against Russia in June 1941 “Unternehmen Barbarossa”. It was not until 1945 that the national myth of Barbarossa came to an end. In the following period, a regionalization and depoliticization of his person began. Since then, Sinzig, Kaiserslautern, Gelnhausen, Altenburg and Bad Frankenhausen have called themselves Barbarossa towns or there is a tourist region called Stauferland.

In Italy, political and national developments were similar to those in Germany. Barbarossa”s conflicts with the Italian communes were embedded in national historical images. In the Risorgimento era, Italy also focused on the struggle for national unification. The city appeared as an important precondition of the modern world and, above all, of democracy. The struggles between Barbarossa and the upper Italian municipalities were transfigured as a conflict between democracy and monarchy. The nationally motivated struggle for freedom by urban citizens against a tyrannical foreign ruler was seen as a precursor in the struggle to rid themselves of German imperial rule by the Habsburgs. Barbarossa”s defeat at Legnano became a symbol of national self-determination against foreign rule in Italian historical consciousness. In Milan, Barbarossa is still regarded as a symbol of oppressive foreign rule. In addition to Hohenstaufen images of the enemy, however, there is also a very positive culture of remembrance of Barbarossa in Lombardy. In emperor-friendly municipalities such as Como, Lodi and Pavia, the Hohenstaufen is regarded as a promoter of their own urban development. The Hohenstaufen claim to power gave them the opportunity to secure municipal autonomy vis-à-vis powerful Milan. In response to the 850th anniversary year of their founding, celebrated in 2008, a Barbarossa equestrian monument was inaugurated in Lodi at the end of 2009.

A modern reception is the 2000 historical novel Baudolino by Umberto Eco and the 2009 film Barbarossa directed by Renzo Martinelli.

Also read, biographies – Vincent van Gogh

Historical images and research perspectives

The historians of the 19th century asked about the reasons for the delayed emergence of the German nation-state. They looked to the Middle Ages for the reasons for this happening and, in particular, for the causes of the weakness of the kingship. The nationally minded historians described the history of the medieval German Empire from the point of view of power. The medieval kings and emperors were seen as early representatives of a strong monarchical power that was also desired for the present. The judgment of individual rulers was oriented toward modernization tendencies, the goal of which was the modern state and its constitution with a strong monarchical central power. The princes with their selfish particular interests and the power-obsessed papacy with its striving for supremacy over the secular rulers were considered by the national liberal historians to be the “gravediggers” of imperial power. The historical judgment was decisively determined by the question of whether individual kings were able to preserve and increase the power base vis-à-vis the two powers or whether they contributed to the decline of the central power.

From this perspective, Barbarossa played a decisive role. In his 5th volume of the “Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit” (History of the German Imperial Era), published in 1880, Wilhelm von Giesebrecht emphasized the importance of the Staufer “for our national development”. According to this view of history, Barbarossa”s political task had consisted primarily in strengthening the central monarchical power. In the historical master narrative, the medieval ruler became a “coolly calculating cabinet politician” who proceeded in the empire as if he had known and wanted that it would one day be the later German nation-state. His decades-long struggle against Pope Alexander III was seen as proof of his efforts to preserve a strong monarchical power in the face of the papal claim to supremacy. Barbarossa”s long pursuit of the overthrow of Duke Henry the Lion and the destruction of his two duchies was explained by a dualism between emperor and prince. Henry”s fall was also seen as the culmination and turning point in the Hohenstaufen-Welfish conflict. The Italian campaigns were justified by the development of financial resources for the kingship in the economically more developed and prosperous southern part of the empire. The opposing view interpreted the Italian campaigns as the cause of Germany”s fragmentation and saw the years of conflict with the pope and the upper Italian cities as hindering national unification in the north. In the ensuing Sybel-Ficker dispute, the advantages and disadvantages of Italian policy for the German nation were argued over, and the medieval emperors were judged according to whether their behavior would have promoted or hindered the national development of later times. The background was the then current controversy about the design of a German nation state, in which small-German and large-German proposed solutions were opposed to each other.

It was not until after 1945 that the historical view of Barbarossa changed. Medieval studies came to more realistic ideas about political and social reality and, in the following decades, to new insights into the functioning of medieval statehood and kingship, personal ties, symbolic communication, and consensual rule. In 1977, the Stuttgart Staufer exhibition placed Barbarossa in occidental contexts. His emperorship from Swabian roots was celebrated as the fulfillment of courtly culture on a European scale. Since the 1980s, Gerd Althoff has interpreted the symbolic behaviors not merely as anecdotal embellishments in the sources, but as important statements about the workings of medieval kingship.

On the occasion of the 800th anniversary of his death in 1990, the Constance Working Group for Medieval History dedicated a double conference to him. The focus was on the emperor”s “scope for action and modes of action”. In the biography by Ferdinand Opll, which was first published in 1990 and has been reprinted several times to this day, Barbarossa is understood neither as a statesman nor as a reactionary. In 1996, Werner Hechberger was able to demonstrate that the Hohenstaufen-Welfish antagonism, long considered the fundamental political constellation for the 12th century, was not a contemporary political coordinate but a modern research construct. As a result, new perspectives developed on the extent of Guelph support at Barbarossa”s accession to power and the relationship between Barbarossa and Henry the Lion. The overthrow of the Lion is no longer classified as a plan single-mindedly pursued by Barbarossa. Recent research rather emphasizes the participation of the princes in Henry”s overthrow, which was “part of the consensual decision-making structure that was practiced as a matter of course”. Barbarossa is no longer characterized as the “hunter of the lion” in the fall of the lion, but rather as the “driven of the princes.” However, the concept of “consensual rule” also fundamentally characterizes Barbarossa”s kingship. The search for consensus and the close cooperation with the great ones is for the research a central characteristic of his exercise of rule, which is why he was also called “prince-king”.

In recent research, “honor” and “loyalty” in an epoch-specific sense gain a major role as motifs for Barbarossa”s ruling practice and politics. Knut Görich understands honor in this context not as a moral value, but as “the purely outwardly shown honor of a publicly displayed recognition of the emperor”s rank and rule.” He saw the “unconditional preservation” of the “honor imperii” (honor of the empire) as an essential “action-guiding conception.” With the defense, preservation and demonstration of the honor imperii he tried to justify the political attitudes and courses of action of the emperor. The cause of political conflict was no longer considered to be grand political ideas and conceptions, but rather conflicting claims to status and honor in a rank-ordered society. In 2011, Görich provided a synthesis of the current state of research with a comprehensive biography. According to it, “Barbarossa”s actions were determined by the habitus of the medieval warrior nobility, in which honor, violence, and the need for vaunting memory lay very close together.” Thus, in the conflicts with the pope and the Italian cities, he was “exposed to expectations and constraints of action that seem strange to us today”.

General representations

Biographies

Representations

Sources