Talk:Frederick Barbarossa

message: The Ancestry section has no references. Although  argues that other articles are the same way, that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Even a single reference, such as in Henry I of England#Ancestry, will do. Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry section 

message: "Historians have compared Frederick to Henry II of England. Both were considered the greatest and most charismatic leaders of their age. Each possessed a rare combination of qualities that made them appear superhuman to their contemporaries: longevity, boundless ambition, extraordinary organizing skill, and greatness on the battlefield. Both were handsome and proficient in courtly skills, without appearing effeminate or affected. Both came to the throne in the prime of manhood. Each had an element of learning, without being considered impractical intellectuals but rather more inclined to practicality. Each found himself in the possession of new legal institutions that were put to creative use in governing. Both Henry and Frederick were viewed to be sufficiently and formally devout to the teachings of the Church, without being moved to the extremes of spirituality seen in the great saints of the 12th century. In making final decisions, each relied solely upon his own judgment,[109] and both were interested in gathering as much power as they could."
This seems like a very wierd comparison, it reads more like a 12th century propaganda piece than a text in an encyclopedia. I would remove this section alltogether as it adds no valuable information to the article or at least add some citation to substantiate the assumptions made here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:2C30:2E00:4808:15A2:2806:E983 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article is about Frederick, why have this irrelevant diatribe about Henry II, which is mostly uncited? It makes the assumption that that readers are familiar with Henry II, when most of them will not be. This article is already quite wordy; anything in it should be succinct and stick to the topic. Also, the uncited sentence "Each had an element of learning, without being considered impractical intellectuals but rather more inclined to practicality." seems to contradict what it says in the Early Life section - i.e. that Frederick couldn't read or write and did not know Latin; he wasn't learned at all. 86.56.16.17 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumptions 

message: Germany was born 1870 Catweasel (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Germany is the land of the Germans. That alone makes it over a thousand years old. The German Kingdom was (obviously) Germany. In a way, the holy roman empire (of German nations) was Germany. 178.24.244.128 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

text: By that time, the Kingdom of Germany was over a 1000-years-old. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I have now seen this idea that Germany in some sense did not exist before 1870 so many times on Wikipedia that I have to think people are be unwittingly misled by how the creation of the German Empire is described. Nobody says this about Italy and yet Italian and German unification were simultaneous processes. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You just blew my mind.  I was one of those who was misled. Perhaps you should find the origin of the confusion and make a case for its correction? Know Einstein (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I could not disagree more of any reference to Germany. Ironically Germany was born the very day the Holy Roman Empire died   That was 1870. You refer to Germany 709 years before its existence 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved.  Favonian (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor →  – Recently, our perfect consistency of naming Holy Roman Emperors from Otto I to Francis II was broken by a bold move of Otto I to Otto the Great, which I considered reverting but decided to let stand to see if anyone noticed and objected. I have thought about it and I think there are just two emperors who are better known by a nickname than a number: Otto I and Frederick I. There is a recent scholarly biography that is title Frederick Barbarossa: The Prince and the Myth. In ngrams, Frederick Barbarossa beats Frederick I (and that includes all Fredericks the First). In short, this is an exception to the rule. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

text: *I supported this. In many sources, he is also frequently referred to as just Barbarossa, and not Frederick (which I've done in the Cultural depictions of Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor article too). This is also partly because Frederick II, his grandson, is also a very notable individual, thus when they are mentioned together, one will be called Frederick (Stupor Mundi), and the other will be Barbarossa. If one counts Caroligian emperors as well as kings of the Romans, there are also the cases of Charles the Fat, Louis the German, Louis the Child, Frederick the Fair (already having the nickname in the title rather than the number). There are some problems with empresses and queens as well. For example, one hardly finds a modern English scholarly source that calls Otto the Great's empress "Adelaide of Italy". Modern English sources prefer to call her Empress Adelheid, and German sources call her Adelheid von Burgund. I sometimes had the idea to change the name of that article, but then Adelaide is her name in Italian and her history is associated so much with Italy, even though she was born a Burgundian princess.-Deamonpen (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 August 2022 

message: I got this from: https://www.history.co.uk/articles/facts-about-the-spear-that-killed-jesus
"Early German king, Henry the Fowler, also carried the lance, according to legend. Henry was a leading Saxon king, and it passed down through other Saxon royal hands before finding its way to the famous warrior king Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor in the second half of the 12th century.
Frederick conquered half of Italy and went on the Third Crusade. In Turkey, in 1190, while traveling to fight in the Holy Land, he is said to have dropped the lance in a creek and then drowned in the water minutes later." 
It sounds noteworthy.  I was hoping somebody(s) could give me the yea or nay. Know Einstein (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This legend is not told in Freed's biography and I can't find a source for it, so I'd say it should not be included for now. In any case, Cultural depictions of Frederick Barbarossa would be a better place for it. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm considering adding a bit on the Holy Lance / "Spear of Destiny"