Friedrich I. (HRR)
Friedrich I , called Barbarossa (Italian for "red beard") (* around 1122 ; † June 10, 1190 in the Saleph River near Seleucia , Lesser Armenia ), from the noble family of the Staufers, was from 1147 to 1152 as Friedrich 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 balancing of interests between several princes. Probably the most important role was played by his cousin Heinrich the Lion , who, as a result of the agreements, was able to establish a royal position in northern Germany. However, his long-standing sponsorship by the king disregarded the balance of high aristocratic family associations and ultimately let Heinrich become a disruptive factor for the other imperial princes .
Barbarossa's rule was also marked by the double conflict with the Lombardy League of Cities and the Papacy. In a society in which honor (honor) the social rank certain, led defamation and the resulting pressure for revenge for decades of conflict. Barbarossa tried to act as a mediator in the disputes between the northern Italian cities. However, he failed, was accused of partiality and was unable to exercise the traditional rulers of maintaining peace and justice. The refusal of some cities to face the imperial court had to be atoned for in view of the concept of the “honor of the empire” ( honor imperii ). After Tortona and Milan had been destroyed, Barbarossa intended to fundamentally reorganize the royal rule in the Regnum Italicum . Old sovereign rights of the empire were claimed again or redefined and set down in writing. All jurisdiction and authority should emanate from the kingdom. However, the appointment of imperial administrators and the extensive financial use of the regalia assigned to the emperor met with resistance from the cities. They had long since exercised rules and jurisdiction 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 in the battle of Legnano in 1176 was the decades-long schism ended in the Peace of Venice and the conflict with the municipalities in the Peace of Constance in 1183. Henry the Lion had refused to assist the emperor in the fight against the Lombard cities in 1176; at the endeavors of the princes he was overthrown and had to go into exile.
Even before his royal rule, Barbarossa had from 1147 to 1149 on the crusade of his royal uncle Conrad III. took part. In his last years he prepared another crusade after the defeat of the king of Jerusalem, Guido von Lusignan , against Saladin in 1187 . The emperor set out on May 11, 1189, but drowned thirteen months later shortly before his destination.
The nickname "Barbarossa" ("red beard") only became part of the name in the 13th century. As part of the German national movement of the 19th century, Friedrich Barbarossa developed into a national myth. With the legend of the emperor sleeping in Kyffhäuser and waiting for better times, the hope for national unity was connected.
Origin and rise of the Hohenstaufen
Friedrich came from the noble family of the Hohenstaufen . However, this name is a term used by historians in the 15th century. The ancestors on the paternal side were insignificant and have not been passed down. The origin and origin of the family are still unclear today. Through consistent use of monastery bailiffs, clever use of ministeriality and close cooperation with the clergy and people of the dioceses of Würzburg , Worms and Speyer, the family succeeded in expanding their position of power before the accession of kingship. Numerous marriages were also beneficial for the growth of Hohenstaufen power. All that is known about Barbarossa's great-grandfather Friedrich von Büren is that he married a woman named Hildegard . It was recently suspected that the Schlettstadt property did not belong to Hildegard but to Friedrich himself and that the Staufers were thus an Alsatian family. It was not until 1100 that Duke Friedrich I attacked the East Swabian Rems Valley.
Much more important for the Hohenstaufen family was their prestigious maternal relationship with the Salians . The grandmother of Friedrich Barbarossa was Agnes , a daughter of the Salian ruler Heinrich IV. Barbarossa saw himself as a descendant of the first Salier emperor Konrad II , to whom he referred several times as his ancestor in documents. The rise of the Hohenstaufen took place in the conflicts between Henry IV and the princes from Saxony and Swabia. As a reaction to the elevation of the Swabian Duke Rudolf von Rheinfelden to the rival king of Henry IV, Frederick I received the Duchy of Swabia from the king in 1079 and was married to his daughter Agnes. As a son-in-law, Friedrich was an important support for the Salian emperor against the spiritual and secular advocates of the Gregorian reform . In 1105 his fifteen-year-old son Friedrich II , the father of Barbarossa, got the duchy. After the emperor was overthrown by his son Heinrich V , the two brothers Konrad and Friedrich II took over the representation in the northern part of the empire in 1116 . Konrad became Duke of Eastern Franconia. Barbarossa's father Friedrich II was so successful in the defense of Salian interests and the further expansion of his Hohenstaufen domestic power that, according to Otto von Freising , it was said that he always pulled a castle behind him by the tail of his horse.
Barbarossa was born around 1122 as the son of Frederick II and the Welfin Judith . His place of birth was perhaps Haguenau . He learned to ride, hunt and handle weapons. Barbarossa could neither read nor write and was also unable to speak Latin. The candidacy of his father Frederick II to succeed the Salian ruler Heinrich V, who died childless, was unsuccessful in 1125 because he did not accept the libera electio (free election) of the princes. Instead, the Saxon Duke Lothar III was elected. After Lothar's death, on March 7, 1138, Konrad in Koblenz was elected king by a small group of princes headed by Archbishop Albero von Trier . Friedrich Barbarossa took part in the court days of his royal uncle Konrad in 1141 in Strasbourg, 1142 in Konstanz, 1143 in Ulm, 1144 in Würzburg and 1145 in Worms . In the following years he stayed regularly at the royal court. Around 1147 he married Adela , the daughter of the northern Bavarian Margrave Diepold III. from Vohburg . A few weeks before his father's death, Barbarossa was referred to as "the younger duke" in a royal document on Christmas 1146. From 1147 to 1149 he took part in the crusade of his royal uncle Konrad. The enterprise failed, the king fell ill with malaria. At the turn of the year 1151/52 Konrad made preparations for the election of his son Friedrich von Rothenburg as king , but died on February 15, 1152.
King's Choice (1152)
Just two weeks after Konrad's death, on March 4, 1152 in Frankfurt am Main , the princes elected his nephew, Duke Friedrich III. von Swabia, the son of the throne candidate from 1125, as the new king. Otto von Freising paints the picture of a unanimous king's uprising and inevitable succession of Friedrich. Friedrich was elected because he belongs to the two warring families of the Heinrici de Gueibelinga (Heinriche von Waiblingen) and the Guelfi de Aldorfio (Welfen von Altdorf); he had thus become the "cornerstone" (angularis lapis) of reconciliation. In fact, there must have been intensive negotiations, concessions and agreements between Frederick and the greats before the election . As Duke of Swabia, Barbarossa had to make his promotion to king acceptable to his peers. He probably won the support of Henry the Lion by agreeing to return the Duchy of Bavaria to him. On Konrad's last court day, Barbarossa managed to secure the support of Bamberg's Bishop Eberhard II . Eberhard hoped that Bamberg's canonical position against Mainz claims to be preserved. Welf VI. promised himself that the future king, his nephew, would secure his ducal position. It was strengthened by the 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, Konrad's underage king's son Friedrich was passed over in the royal election - the first case of this type in royal elections. Against this background, Otto von Freising expressly noted in his report on the Frankfurt election of 1152 that the election of the king was a particular advantage of the Roman-German Empire.
Friedrich was crowned on March 9, 1152 by Archbishop Arnold of Cologne in the Aachen cathedral church of Charlemagne . During the ceremony, a ministerial , whom Barbarossa had withdrawn from his favor due to serious offenses , threw himself in public at the feet of the newly anointed king. The Ministeriale wanted to achieve the resumption of the ruler's grace . However, he was rejected by Friedrich on the grounds that he had excluded him from his grace not out of hatred, but for reasons 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. Barbarossa's reaction is seen by modern research as an expression of change in the assessment of the question of which virtues were expected of a ruler. In the Ottonian-Salic times, gentleness and mercy, with their demonstrative forms of expression such as tears and the kiss of peace, were values by which royal action was measured, now the rigor iustitiae (strictness of justice) had become the yardstick for assessing the ruler. Forgiveness and restitution were no longer granted under Barbarossa to the extent customary up to that point. After the Frankfurt king election, Barbarossa was on his traditional king ride through the kingdom of Heinrich the Lion, Albrecht the Bear , Welf VI. and Bishop Anselm von Havelberg accompanied.
Personnel changes and continuities
With the reign of Barbarossa, a shift in the power structure began, especially among the secular princes at court: the two Guelphs Heinrich the Lion and Welf VI. As a former opponent of the old King Konrad, they became reliable confidante of the new king and of all the princes most regularly visited the royal court. Welf VI. was first referred to in June 1152 as "Duke of Spoletto and Margrave of Tuscany and Prince of Sardinia". In addition to the Guelphs, the Wittelsbachers also appeared at the royal court as former opponents of the old King Konrad. Otto von Wittelsbach became a reliable pillar of Barbarossa's rule. Instead, the Counts of Sulzbach and the Babenbergers , on whom Konrad had relied, lost their influence. Archbishop Arnold II of Cologne, Bishop Anselm von Havelberg and Abbot Wibald von Stablo and Corvey had already been close confidants of Konrad among the clergymen and retained this position under Barbarossa. At the Merseburger Hoftag 1152, Wichmann , the previous bishop of Naumburg, was elevated to the position of the new archbishop of Magdeburg . With the survey, Barbarossa met the needs of the group of people around the Meissen margrave Konrad von Wettin . This had already been a reliable partisan of King Conrad and was able to maintain his position under Barbarossa. By enforcing the elevation of Konrad's nephew Wichmann to Archbishop of Magdeburg, he succeeded in creating a counterweight to Heinrich the Lion in Saxony. Barbarossa secured the favor of the group of princes, who were skeptical of the royal sponsorship of Henry the Lion, 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 because of allegedly too close relatives. In reality, however, the childless marriage or Adela's no longer appropriate origin and her relationship to groups of people who were influential under King Konrad, but have now been pushed back, may have been decisive. Barbarossa's negotiations with the Byzantine emperor Manuel I about a marriage with a member of the Byzantine imperial family remained unsuccessful.
Promotion and collaboration with Heinrich the Lion
Heinrich the Lion received the largest donation. After the king's election, a close collaboration with the duke began. On May 8 or 9, 1152, Barbarossa enfeoffed him with the Reichsvogtei Goslar , which secured high and continuous income because of its silver mining on the Rammelsberg . On May 18, 1152 a court day took place in Merseburg . There the king and the princes decided the Danish throne disputes between Sven Grathe and his adversary Knut in favor of the former. In Merseburg, a dispute over the Plötzkau and Winzenburg counties between Heinrich the Lion and Albrecht the Bear had to be resolved. Albrecht probably invoked the right to inheritance of relatives; Heinrich took the view that after the death of an heirless count, his goods and rights pass to the duke. The aim of the lion's argument was probably to position the ducal power as a constitutional factor between king and count. In this way, as in the late Carolingian period, the Saxon ducat would have become a viceroyalty. The conflict was settled on October 13, 1152 at the court conference in Würzburg . Heinrich the Lion received the inheritance of the murdered Count Hermann II von Winzenburg , Albrecht the Plötzkau counties. Barbarossa also granted the lion the royal right of investiture in 1154 for the dioceses of Oldenburg , Mecklenburg and Ratzeburg as well as for all other bishoprics that the lion would build. Heinrich's demand for the return of the Bavarian duchy remained open for the time being. The duke compensated for the funding with his intensive commitment to the king in Italy. His abundance of power created by Barbarossa, however, disrupted the high aristocratic balance below the kingship and caused resentment among the princes.
Preparing for the imperial coronation and simmering conflict with Milan
In March 1153 a court day took place 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 through Milan . The conflict between Milan and Lodi was the result of political and demographic change 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 prevailed against the episcopal city lord. The investiture controversy in the 11th century led to the collapse of imperial rule in Italy and to the armed struggle between the communes. In the northern Italian urban landscape, the municipalities demarcated their area of influence from the next most powerful municipality. The larger municipalities began to build up a territory and brought weaker municipalities into their dependence. This led to armed conflicts with neighboring cities. In the first inner-Lombard war, Milan had made Lodi largely dependent in 1111 and Como after a ten-year war in 1127 . After the complaint of the Lodeser merchants, Barbarossa sent a messenger to Milan with the order to reverse the relocation of the market. According to the Lodeser notary Otto Morena , the letter of the messenger Barbarossa was read “publicly and in general assembly” by the Milanese consuls in front of the citizens of their city. Then the letter was crumpled up and the seal image of the enthroned king thrown on the ground and demonstratively trampled. The destruction of the seal was a serious insult and rejection of Barbarossa's claim to power, since the presence of the image of the ruler made his presence clear even during his absence. Barbarossa's envoy, Safe, had to leave town at night without the usual homage. The relationship between Milan and Barbarossa was already strained by an insult before the first Italian move.
Two papal legates were also present in Constance. This brought the situation in southern Italy into focus. During the papal schism of 1130, Roger II had himself crowned king, and he was able to maintain this dignity even after the end of the schism. From an imperial point of view, the Normans were usurpers (invasor imperii) , since southern Italy was part of the empire. The future emperor and the pope agreed that the rule of the Normans in southern Italy must be abolished. Barbarossa promised the papal legates that he would not conclude a peace or an armistice with either the Roman citizens or King Roger II without the consent of the Pope. Rather, he wanted to force the Romans back under the rule of the Pope and the Roman Church (subiugare) . As protection Vogt of the church to the honor (honor) of the papacy and the regalia defend of St. Peter in all dangers. Pope Eugene III. promised next to the imperial coronation the excommunication of everyone "who would violate the rights and honor of the empire". The Pope and the future emperor promised each other not to make any concessions to the Byzantine Empire in Italy. About these agreements Eugen III. on March 23, 1153 a document, the so-called Constance Treaty .
First Italian train (1154–1155): Coronation procession and conflict with Milan and Tortona
In the late autumn of 1154, Barbarossa reached Italy. On a farm day at Roncaglia near Piacenza , envoys from Lodi and Como appeared and complained about Milan. The Milan consuls who were also present wanted to bring him a golden bowl full of coins. In the acceptance and refusal of gifts, the relationship of mutual political relations became clear. Accepting the gifts from Milan would have meant that the ruler had a positive relationship with the city that gave it. Barbarossa refused the gifts as long as Milan did not obey his commands and respect law and peace. Nevertheless, Barbarossa of Milan was assured in a contract (fedus) the large sum of 4000 silver marks. Barbarossa then wanted to move to Monza to be crowned king of the Italian regnums (empire). The preference for small Monza as the coronation site was seen as a provocation by the Milanese side. On the way to the Italian royal coronation, Barbarossa was misdirected by two Milanese consuls for three days in bad weather through desolate land between Landriano and Rosate . This resulted in considerable supply problems in Barbarossa's army. Barbarossa was put under pressure by his greats not to put up with such humiliation and to ensure the supply of food by looting in the Milan area. These looting made clear the readiness for conflict. Milan now tried to restore the lost grace through a symbolic act of satisfaction by having the house of the consul who had misdirected the army destroyed. But the reputation of Barbarossa was not restored because the demolition of the house as a satisfaction did not take place in a demonstrative act in front of the offended ruler and his army in public and the hurt Barbarossa could not influence the satisfactio (satisfaction).
Barbarossa refused the promised 4000 silver marks 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 be accepted. The rejection of the money made it clear that Milan had lost its imperial grace. The rejection of the money was interpreted by the city as an unmistakable sign of a lack of readiness for peace. Milan feared that Barbarossa could act as a partisan judge. In addition, his position of power, which had grown over the years and had not been objected to by Barbarossa's predecessors, was threatened. On the other hand, the denial of summons to the royal court affected the central ruling task of safeguarding 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 also violated the honor of the great. As a result, Barbarossa was able to set certain expectations of the actions of these greats and count on them being largely fulfilled. However, this in turn obliged him to provide consideration for help received and demonstrated loyalty. This made the open conflict inevitable. But with 1,800 knights, Barbarossa did not have a powerful army for an offensive against mighty Milan.
Barbarossa's conflict with Milan had an impact on other communal city rivalries. Tortona was allied with Milan against Pavia . At the end of 1154, the royal friendly Pavia wanted to clarify a conflict with Tortona before the royal court. Tortona, however, refused the proceedings despite being summoned several times on the grounds that Barbarossa was a friend (amicus) of the Pavese and therefore partisan (suspectus) . With the charge disobedience, however, the task of maintaining peace and justice was again affected. Barbarossa therefore besieged Tortona from February to April 1155. Captured Tortonese were publicly executed to deter Barbarossa and the drinking water was poisoned with corpses and sulfur. The increasingly critical supply forced the city to seek peace. In the peace conditions negotiated with Friedrich, the humiliating submission "for the king and the holy kingdom's glory and honor" (whether regis et sacri imperii gloriam et honorem) was necessary. The city then surrendered in the form of the deditio (ritual of submission) in April 1155. The citizens submitted to Barbarossa's feet in front of everyone present. The public transfer of the city to the royal power and the recognition of the rule were a prerequisite for making satisfaction for the defamation suffered. The emperor then promised that the city would not be damaged.
Contrary to the promise, Tortona was destroyed the next day by the king-friendly Pavia. So Pavia took the opportunity to eliminate an old rival in asserting her claim to royal rule. The events surrounding the destruction of Tortona reveal a structural problem of imperial rule in Italy. The contemporaries suspected a ruse by Barbarossa. But the king was forced to take the interests of his allies into consideration in order to continue to receive their support. As an ally of a city, Barbarossa was always partisan in the intercommunal rivalries, which were hostile or allied with one another “in the manner of a checkerboard pattern”. Any intervention was viewed as one-sided partisanship. Barbarossa was dependent on the loyalty and material resources of his allies to enforce his claim to rule in Italian regnum . His room for maneuver and his decisions were severely limited by consideration for his urban allies. Preserving peace and justice as a central task of government was hardly possible any more thanks to the consistent favoritism of his allies.
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 should lead the Pope's horse when greeting. There was a scandal because it was unclear how and in what way the marshal service should be performed. The details about the course of the meeting could not be clarified between the ambassadors in advance. The scandal thus appears to be a misunderstanding, caused by insufficient planning. It was corrected the next day by repeating the encounter in a precisely agreed manner.
Shortly before the imperial coronation by Pope Hadrian IV , an embassy from the Romans appeared at Barbarossa. The communal movement had renewed the old Roman Senate and wanted to completely redefine the rights of the emperor and pope. With reference to ancient traditions, the Friedrich Commune offered the imperial crown from the hands of the Roman people for a payment of 5,000 pounds of silver. A break with the centuries-old tradition established by Charlemagne for a monetary payment had to be rejected by Barbarossa. This made further unrest with the Romans foreseeable. On June 18, 1155, Barbarossa was crowned emperor by Hadrian IV in St. Peter. The attacks by the Romans on the Engelsbrücke and in northern Trastevere on the same day were repelled. Henry the Lion particularly stood out here. However, the summer heat and supply problems soon forced them to retreat. The campaign against the Normans was broken off due to princely objections that had not been achieved. As a result, Barbarossa could not keep his promises from the Constance Treaty. He had neither succeeded in winning Rome back for the Pope, nor had he waged a campaign against the Normans.
In this situation further conflicts with Milan and now also with the papacy were foreseeable. Already on his 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. The way to Christmas party went to Worms via Regensburg. Under the Hohenstaufen, Worms developed into one of the most important centers of power. Barbarossa celebrated the high church festivals of Christmas and Pentecost several times there.
Heightened conflict with the papacy
The termination of the Italian expedition led to a change in the political situation in Italy. As a result of the non-compliance with the Constance Treaty, the Roman Curia sought the protection of its rights independently of the empire. At the instigation of the Chancellor Roland Bandinelli, who later became Pope Alexander III. , the Pope made peace with the Normans . In June 1156 the Treaty of Benevento was signed 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 endangered. From Barbarossa's point of view, the Pope was the one who had not complied with the Treaty of Constance, in which joint action against the Normans had been agreed. With that he had broken his promise to uphold the honor of the empire (honor imperii) .
In October 1157 an embassy from the Pope appeared with Cardinal Bernhard von S. Clemente and Roland Bandinelli at the court assembly in Besançon with the intention of dispelling the emperor's concerns about the Treaty of Benevento. Relations with the Roman Curia deteriorated further, however, when the papal ambassadors presented Barbarossa with a letter in which Hadrian IV protested against the capture of the Swedish Archbishop Eskil von Lund and in which the emperor did nothing for his liberation, even at the express request of the Pope. The accusation that the emperor was neglecting the noblest ruler's duty by safeguarding the law aroused great indignation in the great assembly of princes. But the Pope declared himself ready to grant the Emperor maiora beneficia despite the imperial coronation . Before the Princely Assembly, Friedrich's Chancellor Rainald von Dassel translated the term beneficia as "even larger fiefs". This gave the impression that the Pope saw the emperor as a feudal man and himself as a liege lord. This reassessment of the relationship between spiritual and secular power provoked fierce opposition from emperors, princes and also bishops, because in the opinion of the princes the future emperor was determined by their choice. The sacred legitimation of the emperor has been linked more closely to the princes than before since Barbarossa. It was no longer the Pope, but the princely vote that was decisive. The legates had to leave the court without a solemn farewell and without presents. Barbarossa complained in a letter that the “honor of the empire” had been violated by such an outrageous innovation. He announced across the empire that he had "received kingship and empire through the choice of princes from God alone". Insulting the ruler resulted in a loss of favor and a break in communication. In the shameful treatment of his ambassadors, the Pope saw the honor Dei (honor of God) violated. The confrontation was settled through the mediation of Heinrich the Lion and Bishop Eberhard of Bamberg . In June 1158 two cardinals discussed the written declaration in Augsburg: The Pope did not mean beneficium in the sense of fiefdom (feudum) , but in the sense of benevolence (bonum factum) . The letter of apology was sufficient as a satisfactio to restore the honor imperii injured in Besançon , but other problems between the emperor and the pope, such as the Benevento treaty or the use of Peter's regalia, remained unsolved.
Years in the northern part of the empire (1155–1158)
In the years north of the Alps, the conflict between Heinrich the Lion and Heinrich Jasomirgott over the Duchy of Bavaria was resolved, Barbarossa's marriage to Beatrix of Burgundy and the campaign against the Poles succeeded. As a result, the balance of power in the empire was consolidated to such an extent in the long term that planning for a second train to Italy could begin.
Award of the Bavarian Duchy to Heinrich the Lion (1156)
The dispute over the Bavarian duchy between Heinrich the Lion and Heinrich Jasomirgott was a legacy of Barbarossa's predecessor Konrad III, who had denied the father of Heinrich the Lion the Bavarian duchy and later awarded it to the Babenberger. Barbarossa was closely related to both parties to the dispute. Through his grandmother, Agnes from Sali, he was the nephew of the Babenberg brothers and through his mother, the Welfin Judith, a cousin of Heinrich the Lion. The negotiations between Barbarossa and Heinrich Jasomirgott dragged on until 1156. On both sides, Barbarossa had to be considerate of rank, status and honor. In his measures to solve the problem, Barbarossa alternated between a public trial before the royal court with the judgment by the princes (iudicium) and an amicable settlement between the parties (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 imminent march of 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 given to Heinrich the Lion. An investiture in the Bavarian duchy did not take place. The royal chancellery continued to run him only as the "Duke of Saxony" (dux Saxonie) . With this approach, Barbarossa wanted to keep negotiating with Heinrich II Jasomirgott and prevent violent acts during his absence in Italy. In the Privilegium minus of 1156, the margraviate of Austria was converted into a duchy (ducatus Austrie) and given to Heinrich Jasomirgott, so that “the honor and fame of our beloved uncle (honor et gloria dilectissimi patrui nostri) do not appear to be diminished in any way." With this compromise, Barbarossa succeeded in preserving the rank and honor of the two rival greats in public.
Marriage to Beatrix of Burgundy (1156)
In June 1156 Barbarossa celebrated his wedding in Würzburg with Beatrix , the very young heiress of the Count of Burgundy. The 28-year marriage resulted in eight sons and three daughters (including the next Roman-German Emperor Heinrich VI , the Swabian Duke Friedrich V , the later Count Palatine Otto of Burgundy, Konrad von Rothenburg and the later Roman-German King Philip from Swabia ). The educated and class-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 , embassies from Como, Lodi, Bergamo and Pavia also complained about the oppression 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 kingdom's honor. This enabled Barbarossa to secure the support of the princes, who had sworn the obligation to protect the imperial honor in their oath of loyalty. Before the Italian move , Otto von Wittelsbach and Rainald von Dassel were sent to Italy. They should claim the fodrum , a charge to supply the army, and the regalia .
Campaign against Poland (1157)
Under the rule of Conrad III. Bolesław had expelled his brother Wladyslaw II from Poland as Duke of Poland. Wladyslaw II was married to Agnes from Babenberg . Her mother was Agnes , the sister of Emperor Heinrich V and grandmother of Barbarossa. Bolesław now refused to pay the emperor the usual annual tribute. Barbarossa was particularly concerned that the expulsion of his relatives had damaged the image of the empire. According to the usual warfare, Barbarossa devastated 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 in the neck are handed down as an attribute of submission north of the Alps. Bolesław had to swear that “his exiled brother was not driven out to the shame of the Roman Empire”. He swore the oath of allegiance, paid the emperor considerable sums and promised to take part in the next Italian campaign with 300 cavalrymen.
Second Italian campaign (1158–1162): Papal schism and destruction of Milan
First submission of Milan (1158)
The army was divided into four army columns in order to avoid supply problems when traveling across the Alps. At the beginning of August 1158 the army appeared at the gates of Milan. In front of the gates, smaller skirmishes developed during the siege due to the defeat of the Milanese or the endeavors of honorable princes for a glorious act of war. Otherwise, the warfare was rather characterized by the devastation and siege of the Milan area. The enemy's livelihoods were to be damaged, thereby making a continuation of the war impossible. A major field battle was avoided due to the incalculable risk. As a result, Milan was increasingly in need of supplies. Barbarossa could not allow himself a long-term starvation of the city due to logistical problems and the dissatisfaction of many princes with illnesses and oppressive heat. Peace negotiations were therefore in the interests of both parties, but Barbarossa was in a better negotiating position. Submission of Milan was inevitable for the emperor because of the continued defamation that 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 the emperor and empire could only be restored through symbolic submission in the greatest possible public. As a symbolic punishment for their disobedience, twelve consuls were to appear barefoot in front of the emperor seated on the throne, carrying swords over their bowed necks. Milan tried in vain to evade the humiliating submission with large sums of money, in that the ritual of submission was at least carried out with shoes on. A monetary payment from Milan as a sign of recognition of the rule and for the own confession of sin was not sufficient for Barbarossa in 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 emperor's feet. In the peace treaty, Milan had to undertake not to hinder Como and Lodi in their reconstruction in order to “honor the empire” and to establish a palace in Milan “in honor of the emperor” (ad honorem domini imperatoris) . The usurped income from royal rights ( regalia ), including coins, customs and port duties, had to return to Milan. However, the city was allowed to maintain the previous city alliances. The submission of Milan was combined with a festive coronation in Monza, with which Barbarossa honored the relatively small town on January 26, 1159 as the "head of Lombardy and seat of the kingdom" (caput Lombardie et sedes regni) .
Roncaglia Decisions (1158)
After the victory over Milan, Frederick wanted to make the power political and financial resources in the Lombard urban landscape usable through a comprehensive reorganization of the imperial rights of rule. Since the three Ottonians , the rulers had only brief stays south of the Alps. This fact made it easier for the communes to gain royal rights that were not claimed by the absent rulers. He tried to reassert the imperial rights, which were alienated from Barbarossa's point of view. However, his claims, which had become controversial, required enormous legal legitimacy in order to be able to enforce them in the actual political conditions in Northern Italy. A farm day took place in Roncaglia from November 11th to 26th, 1158 . The Roncal laws were supposed to systematically capture the royal claims. The four Bolognese legal scholars Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, Jacobus and Hugo de Porta Ravennate made their expert knowledge available to the court. By appropriating Roman law, the emperor became the sole source of legitimation for ruling claims. This was in contradiction to the legal conception of the municipalities, which was based on the undisturbed exercise of their local legal habits (consuetudines) .
All jurisdiction should proceed from the emperor and only from him. The lex omnis iurisdictio granted the emperor all secular rights of rule and jurisdiction. The choice of communal consuls was henceforth dependent on the consent of the emperor. The lex tributum awarded the emperor the poll tax and a general property tax. The medieval rulers have not yet made any claim to such income. The lex palatia also formulated the imperial right to build palaces in all places regardless of the independence of the cities. From the emperor's point of view, the Roncal laws were only the demand for old rights. However, they threatened the hitherto undisputed customary acquisition of regalia and jurisdiction for the municipalities. However, the laws were not Barbarossa's program of rule, but were negotiated individually. In the following weeks and months, Barbarossa's ambassadors were to be on the road to demand oaths to implement the Roncaglia resolutions, to collect taxes or to take over city regiments.
Outbreak of the papal schism (1159)
During the second campaign to Italy, there were unresolved differences with the Pope about the military duty of Italian bishops and the powers of the emperor in Rome. It was also unclear whether the Mathildian estates should belong to the patrimony or the empire and whether the emperor was also allowed to collect the fodrum from the cities . The relationship with the Normans had also remained unresolved since the first Italian move. The imperial side under Cardinal Octavian proposed an arbitration tribunal with equal representation from the imperial and papal sides. The pro-Sicilian side under the papal chancellor Roland, on the other hand, invoked the non-judicability of the pope. In this tense situation, Hadrian IV died on September 1, 1159. The contradictions within the College of Cardinals led to a double election. Barbarossa only wanted to accept the Pope, who wanted to preserve the "honor of the empire" in dealing with the emperor. Cardinal Octavian (as Pope Victor IV ) was ready for this too. Cardinal Roland (as Pope Alexander III ) had insulted the emperor several times through his leading role in the conclusion of the Treaty of Benevento and his appearance in Besançon and never made any satisfaction in a personal encounter. Barbarossa could therefore not recognize him as a suitable Pope.
Barbarossa called on January 13, 1160 a church meeting in Pavia. Alexander invoked the non-Judicability of the papacy and stayed away from the assembly. He defined the Pope as the head of Christianity who was not subject to earthly judgment. The synod ended with the excommunication of Alexander and his followers. Thereupon Alexander excommunicated the emperor and Viktor IV. The decision for Viktor, however, only bound the imperial clergy and the countries of Bohemia, Poland and Denmark, which were in feudal ties with the empire. No one from the English, French, Iberian and Hungarian clergy was present and the imperial decision failed to have the hoped-for effect. John of Salisbury , the secretary of the Archbishop of Canterbury , had rejected Barbarossa's claim to decide on the Pope's question at the Council of Pavia in a traditional letter and asked who had appointed the "Germans to be judges of the nations". The English King Henry II and the French King Louis VII , on the other hand, sided with Alexander. In mid-June 1161, Barbarossa tried to confirm the legitimacy of Victor IV with another synod in Lodi.
Second Submission of Milan (1162)
The Roncaglia resolutions quickly generated resistance from the local authorities. Contrary to the promises of the peace treaty with Barbarossa, Milan had to dissolve its alliances with other cities and the Milan contado , the area claimed by the city, was massively reduced in size. By sending an imperial embassy to Milan, Barbarossa expected that the election of consuls would be carried out under the direction of his legates. Milan insisted on the previous legal custom and wanted to freely choose the consuls at its own discretion and then send the elected to take an oath of loyalty to the emperor. The Milanese saw freedom of choice threatened. Barbarossa's ambassadors were then pelted with stones by the people of Milan. The consuls tried to appease and promised a lot of money as satisfaction. But the ambassadors fled secretly during the night without accepting the offer of reconciliation, since insulting the ambassadors had also insulted the emperor himself and thus affected his relationship with Milan. In view of the insult of his ambassadors, Barbarossa complained before the assembled princes that Milan's arrogance and arrogance had inflicted another offense on the empire and the princes. According to the "rules of the game of medieval conflict management", the party that broke a peace treaty had to reckon with particular severity.
In February 1159 a compensation attempt at the court in Marengo was unsuccessful. For Milan, the peace treaty took precedence over the Roncal laws. According to Barbarossa, however, imperial law broke all rules to the contrary. The Milanese saw this as a breach of word and left the courtyard. A conflict was inevitable. In the summer of 1159, the Milan contado was first devastated in order to damage the supply situation. In July 1159, the city of Crema , allied with Milan, was attacked. Barbarossa used terror as a weapon of war. Prisoners were hanged in front of the residents. This unleashed a spiral of violence in the siege war. The prisoners in sight of the enemy were demonstratively executed on both sides. At the turn of the year Marchese, the war technician of the cream masks, went over to Barbarossa. He was honored with rich gifts for changing sides. Thanks to his expert knowledge, 1160 Crema could be subjected to in January. In a humiliating way, the conquered cream masks were not allowed to use their gates, but had to leave the city through a narrow wall breach. Barbarossa helped them to pull out through the narrow gap, gave them life and was able to 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 direction of Rainald von Dassel, the new military voyage was summoned. In the spring of 1161 the battle with Milan could be continued. With the support of his allies, the city was damaged by the devastation of its cultivated land and senior prisoners were systematically mutilated. The princes used the battles against Milan to gain personal fame. 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 mediation of the defeated Milan. Rainald von Dassel in particular, who had been personally insulted in his honor by the Milan stone throwing, wanted to preserve the honor of the emperor and see his personal one restored as brilliantly as possible. He therefore insisted on the complete submission of Milan as possible. In doing so, he torpedoed the mediation activities of peace-ready princes 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 ) dragged on for almost a week and symbolically illustrated the glorification of imperial power in several acts. At the beginning of March, Milan had to humbly submit four times in Lodi and thus in the city that had triggered the conflict through its complaints in 1153. The Milan consuls, 300 knights and part of the infantry had to submit to Barbarossa. As punishment for their disobedience and as a token of their deserved execution, the knights wore swords on their necks and the common soldiers wore ropes around their necks. At the center of the surrender ceremony, the Milanese war technician Guintelmo had to hand over the keys to the city. His special role in the ritual of submission illustrates the importance of these specialists during warfare. At the height of the staging, the top of the mast of the Milan flag car ( Carroccio ) had to be tilted to the ground in front of Barbarossa as a sign of self-humiliation. As the most important symbol of rule of the commune and with the image of the city's saint Ambrosius on the top of the mast, the special significance of the flag carriage in the ritual of submission 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 on the decisive initiative 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 the deditio thus lost its credibility and functionality for Milan for the amicable settlement of future conflicts. The epochal event led to the fact that the imperial documents were dated 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 enforce direct imperial administration in northern Italy on the principle of representation. Imperial legates were used as deputies in Italy. They held court, accepted the allegiance of the population and levied taxes. Due to this large number of acts of rule, imperial rule became noticeable to the municipalities to a previously unknown extent. Due to the general instructions of the emperor "after the increase of the honor of the empire" and the still missing central administration, his officials exercised the imperial deputy function on their own initiative and according to the presumed will of the emperor. The imperial officials also used the development of sources of money for Barbarossa to increase their own influence and reputation. The cities also perceived this as a personal enrichment.
Under the impression of the victory over Milan was for Barbarossa in the papal schism Alexander III. still not acceptable as a legitimate Pope. Rather, the emperor trusted his military might and Victor IV's base in Rome. Alexander fled to France at the end of 1161. The French King Louis VII was at the 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 von Ludwig and Viktor von Barbarossa should appear at the meeting. Barbarossa, however, did not even invite the followers of Alexander to the episcopate. Alexander continued to invoke the non-judicability of the Pope and stayed away from the meeting. A second encounter within three weeks failed due to the difficult supply situation for the more than 3000 people on the imperial side. In this precarious situation, Barbarossa had a synod held only with the episcopate loyal to the emperor and without the French king. He announced that provincial kings (provinciarum reges) presumed to appoint a bishop to the detriment of the Roman Empire in Rome, and thus wanted to exercise sovereign rights in a foreign city that did not belong to them. According to the argument of Barbarossa's Chancellor Rainald, the emperor, as the patron of the Roman Church, has the right to have the papal question decided only by the clergy of the empire. The participation of the French king is therefore not necessary. Rainald is said to have even referred to Ludwig VII as a “little queen” (regulus) . This line of argument met with great rejection at the other European courts. Heinrich II. And Ludwig VII. Made peace at the end of September 1162 and paid Alexander the honor due to a pope.
Third Italian train (1163–1164)
The third Italian train was supposed to bring access to Sicily with the support of the sea cities of Genoa and Pisa . Barbarossa was confronted with the resentment of the cities about the new and increased taxes and the despotism of his administrators. Out of consideration for the honor of his most important advisors, he was unable to intervene in the responsibilities of his legates . In addition, his claim to power could not be enforced without the support of his legates. Revoking the measures taken would have undermined their authority and poorly rewarded the loyalty of his key advisors. These ties, however, were extremely important to the basis of his rule. Since the emperor did not allow lawsuits against his officials, Verona , Padua and Vicenza joined forces at the beginning of 1164 to form the societas Veronensium ( Veronese League ). Ferrara , Mantua and Treviso succeeded in wresting numerous concessions from the emperor for their promise not to join the union by freely choosing their consuls, maintaining their previous legal habits and renouncing regular interest. Barbarossa lacked support against the city league in June 1164, so that he did not engage in a fight and withdrew to the north in September 1164.
Fight against Alexander III. in the empire (1165–1166)
Viktor died in Lucca on April 20, 1164 . The possibility of ending the schism was made possible by the rapid uprising of Paschal III. destroyed by Rainald, who acted in the supposed sense of the emperor. The election took place outside Rome, which should reinforce reservations about the legitimacy of Paschal. At the end of 1164 Alexander was therefore able to return to Rome; the city was to become a military goal for the emperor. But even in the empire, the archbishops of Magdeburg, Mainz and Trier, as well as almost the entire church province of Salzburg, tended towards Alexander. The hope of a return to church unity was widespread in the empire. For Barbarossa it was decisive to bind the imperial episcopate closely to himself on the papal question. At Pentecost 1165 a court day was convened in Würzburg . In the Würzburg oaths in 1165, Barbarossa committed himself, only Paschalis and his successors, but never Alexander III. and to recognize his successor. Any possibility of political understanding was thus excluded. For Barbarossa, Paschal's enforcement was henceforth closely linked to his own fate. Forty other princes also made an oath. Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg and a few others only took the oath with reservations. Archbishops Hillin von Trier and Konrad von Salzburg did not appear. In the summer of 1165 Konrad was isolated from Barbarossa in his own church province, when the latter committed the Salzburg suffragans from Freising, Passau, Regensburg and Brixen as well as Konrad's brother, Duke Heinrich Jasomirgott of Austria, to the Würzburg oaths. After several summons, Konrad appeared in Nuremberg on February 14, 1166. He was accused by Barbarossa that he neither the regalia of the emperor nor the spiritualities of Paschal III. and took possession of the archbishopric by robbery. Konrad replied that he had asked three times about the regalia, but that they had been refused because he did not want to recognize Paschalis, who was not the legitimate Pope. Konrad then lost the emperor's grace . After failed attempts at mediation, the properties of the Salzburg Church were lent to laypeople and the diocese was devastated.
Barbarossa was involved in the canonization of Charlemagne and the elevation of his bones in Aachen in 1165 . His involvement can be explained by the “customary veneration of saints and relics” and the concern for one's own salvation and less with a concept of sacral elevation of the empire or the Staufer empire 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 prominence of their church as a place of coronation. A holy predecessor as emperor brought Barbarossa a gain in legitimacy that is difficult to estimate.
In 1166, at Barbarossa's instigation, the Tübingen feud was settled through a ritual of submission on a farm day in Ulm . Count Palatine Hugo von Tübingen had to submit several times. It was the first time that Barbarossa had a nobleman tied up in public. Apparently the injured honor of Hugo's feudal opponent Welf VII was supposed to be restored through a special demonstration of hardness and intransigence .
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 move necessary. Barbarossa went there again in November 1166, also to end the schism . Alexander III should be defeated and Pope Paschal III. to be enthroned in Rome. Since the princely support for military successes waned , mercenaries called mercenaries were hired from the Lower Rhine regions of the Brabant Zones. The imperial legates should also make full use of the resources for the Italian train. In Milan, the collection of taxes and duties was systematized by a new tax list. Regardless of the complaints of the Lombard greats in Lodi, the strict imperial administration was maintained. As a result of the material burdens and the disregard of previous legal customs, the Lombard city union was formed in March 1167 with Cremona, Bergamo, Brescia, Mantua and Ferrara . The previously warring communes quickly came together through the imperial arbitrary rule. Milan was accepted into the federal government through numerous concessions. Thanks to the protection of the city federation, the Milanese were able to return to their devastated city in April.
Barbarossa meanwhile moved further south. Ancona , which refused all taxes, was subdued by Barbarossa. The archbishops of Cologne and Mainz, Rainald and Christian , defeated 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. At the instigation of some Norman nobles in his army, however, a short foray was made to the northern border of Sicily. It remained the only expedition of the much-planned and repeatedly postponed train against the Norman king.
Exposing himself to the great summer heat, Barbarossa reached Rome on July 20, 1167. It was possible to conquer St. Peter and Paschal III. to deploy in Rome on July 30th. Alexander, who was initially trapped in the city of Rome by imperial troops, was able to flee to Benevento . A few days later a dysentery epidemic broke out in the imperial army, promoted by the August heat. With the death of numerous heir sons, it had profound dynastic consequences for the lay nobility. The epidemic succumbed to the bishops Konrad von Augsburg , Alexander von Lüttich , Daniel von Prag , Eberhard von Regensburg , Gottfried von Speyer and Hermann von Verden , the Archbishop of Cologne Rainald von Dassel, the dukes Friedrich von Rothenburg and Welf VII. , Theobald von Böhmen , Berthold von Pfullendorf , several consuls from the allied municipalities, including the Lodeser chronicler Acerbus Morena and 2000 Ritter. 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 retreat hastily to Pavia. Fearing for his life, Barbarossa fled Susa over the only free alpine pass in the middle of the night disguised as a groom .
Years in the Empire (1168–1174)
The next six years were the longest time Barbarossa had spent north of the Alps since he was elected king. His whereabouts are sometimes unknown for months. Due to the many deaths as a result of the epidemic, Barbarossa systematically acquired the goods of the heirs of high aristocrats. The result was an almost closed kingdom north of Lake Constance , in the Alpine foothills and in eastern Swabia. In 1168/69, Barbarossa settled a dispute between Henry the Lion and his Saxon opponents by leaving the overpowering position of Henry the Lion unchanged and thus simply ignoring the lawsuits that had triggered the conflict. In 1169 Barbarossa's four-year-old son Heinrich VI. elected his successor in Bamberg and crowned two months later in Aachen. Barbarossa suggested to Alexander that he should be tolerated; however, he did not want to personally recognize him as Pope. His son Heinrich should submit to his authority if Alexander would crown him emperor for it. Barbarossa himself did not want to be forced to "recognize a different Pope than Peter himself and the Popes in heaven". The negotiations therefore failed. On June 8, 1170, Barbarossa declared in Fulda that he would never recognize Roland as Pope (Alexander III).
Fifth Italian move (1174–1176): Legnano defeat
In the spring of 1168 the consuls named their settlement "in honor of the Pope" and to the shame of the emperor Alexandria ( Alessandria ). The settlement was recognized by the Lombard League as a civitas and made a diocese by Pope Alexander . This was a provocation to Barbarossa insofar as the establishment of cities was part of the imperial privilege. In imperial documents, the city was disparagingly referred to as a “city of straw”. In 1174 Barbarossa set out on his fifth march to Italy. Years later, Barbarossa justified the Italian move with the fact that the city was founded "against our and the empire's honor" (contra honorem nostrum et imperii) and he moved to Italy with the intention of avenging the insult. The siege dragged on for several months due to adverse weather. In April 1175, the advancing Lombard League brought the four flag wagons of the municipalities of Piacenza, Milan, Verona and Brescia into position within sight of the emperor. A battle was avoided because of the incalculable risk. In peace talks, no agreement could be reached on the future status of Alessandria. Nevertheless, on April 17th, the Peace of Montebello was signed. The Alessandria dispute was postponed to the future. The two leaders of the covenant had to humbly submit to Barbarossa and hand him the swords that they had carried over their necks. By submitting, symbolic satisfaction was made for the defamation inflicted on him and the honor imperii was restored. In return, Barbarossa gave them the kiss of peace as a sign of regaining his grace. However, this also meant a symbolic recognition of the federal government. A few weeks later, however, Barbarossa was no longer willing to submit to arbitration proceedings with an open outcome in the matter of Alessandria (negocium Alexandrie) .
In November 1175 Barbarossa asked for support in the fight against the Lombard cities. The following events cannot be reconstructed consistently from the sources. Only the dissent between Heinrich the Lion and Friedrich Barbarossa is certain. All sources were written years or even decades later and were influenced by the knowledge that the lion was deprived of power. All the Saxon princes are said to have followed the request, only Heinrich the Lion refused and is said to have been asked by Barbarossa for an interview in Chiavenna north of Lake Como . At the beginning of 1176 both apparently met in the Imperial Castle of Chiavenna. The emperor may even fall on his knees before the duke to underline the urgency of his request. Heinrich refused the request, however, thereby breaking with the social convention of accepting a request that was manifested by the fall of a higher rank before the lower ranked one. The Duke probably made the position of an army contingent dependent on the handover of the city of Goslar with its rich silver mines. However, Barbarossa refused. Barbarossa is also the last king from whom such a humiliating request has come down to us.
The Battle of Legnano arose from a chance encounter on May 29, 1176 between a division of Lombard knights and the imperial vanguard. It developed an uncontrolled dynamic of its own. The onslaught of the imperial army ended abruptly at the Milan flag carriage , the conquest of which was an important goal in the battle because of its symbolic significance for the freedom and honor of the city. Barbarossa escaped with difficulty and reached Pavia in early June. He is said to have been believed dead there.
Treaty of Venice (1177)
The outbreak of malaria in the summer of 1176 at Barbarossa and with it the excommunicated emperor's fear for his soul were decisive for the start of negotiations with Alexander III. Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, appointed by the emperor as mediator, played a major role in the so-called preliminary contract of Anagni for the peace conditions in November 1176. The contract stipulated that Barbarossa Alexander should show the "owed honor" (debita reverentia) through bridle and ironing service, footfall and foot kiss, which he was entitled to as the rightful Pope. Since mid-May 1177 peace was negotiated in Venice . Even before the personal encounter with the emperor, Alexander broke Barbarossa from the spell. The imperial loss of face due to the public recognition of the Pope was to be compensated for by the public submission of the Lombard League to imperial rule. However, only a six-year armistice could be concluded with the communes and a fifteen-year armistice with the Norman king. The careful balancing of the elevation and degradation of imperial dignity and power would almost have failed if the archbishops of Magdeburg and Mainz had not threatened Alexander III. to be recognized as the rightful Pope. With the threat of the mediator going over to the conflict party, Barbarossa would have been isolated as a peace-breaker in the empire. Barbarossa thereupon, according to Archbishop Romuald of Salerno , "abandoned the lion-like ferocity, accepted the gentleness of a sheep" and accepted her proposal. On July 24th 1177 Barbarossa submitted to Pope Alexander III. and rendered him the required honorary services and thus recognition as a legally elected Pope. Other questions, such as the extensive possession of the Mathildic estates in central Italy, were postponed until later. Barbarossa was again accepted by Alexander as "son of the Church". The conflict with the Pope was thus resolved. Barbarossa moved north and was crowned King of Burgundy in Arles in July 1178 . He wanted to demonstrate the newly won authority of the empire and the imperial rule over Burgundy.
Fall of Henry the Lion (1180/81)
While older research saw the emperor as the driving force behind the fall of the lion, more recent research saw the princes as initiators. On July 6, 1174, Henry the Lion was mentioned for the last time in the list of witnesses in Barbarossa's documents; in 1181 he was overthrown. As early as the Peace of Venice it was determined that Bishop Ulrich von Halberstadt, who was expelled on Heinrich's initiative in 1160 , should get his office back. In the autumn of 1177 Ulrich von Halberstadt in Saxony began the fight against Heinrich the Lion for the Halberstadt church fiefdom. 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 in Speyer, Barbarossa first accepted the complaints of the Saxon opponents of the lion. On a court day in Worms, the duke was supposed to answer for his aggressive behavior towards the Saxon nobility. However, Heinrich did not appear in Worms between January 6 and 13, 1179. To appear in court would have meant that he would have recognized the lawsuit against him as justified. The disobedience to the summons and the demonstrative disregard of the emperor, prince and court met Barbarossa's claim to power and was a violation of the honor of the empire (honor Imperii) . Heinrich's behavior could not go unpunished. Thereupon a "declaratory judgment" was issued at the Worms Hoftag in January 1179, according to which he would be threatened with the eighth if repeated . Heinrich did not appear on a court day on June 24, 1179 in Magdeburg.
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 majesty criminal and his imperial fiefs were withdrawn. In the Gelnhauser document issued for Archbishop Philipp of Cologne , the allegations that led to the conviction are listed: the suppression of freedom (libertas) of the churches of God and the nobles, the disregard of the three times summons before the court court under feudal law and the multiple contempt the Imperial Majesty (pro multiplici contemptu nobis exhibito) . In the narrative of the charter, the unanimity, advice and consent of the whole of the princes and the court are emphasized. Barbarossa was thereby deprived of the traditional privilege of showing mercy in the event of submission. The princes wanted to prevent possible retaliatory measures by a later restituted by Barbarossa and still overpowering double duke. As a beneficiary of this conflict, Archbishop Philipp of Cologne received “for the entire future” on April 13, 1180, western Saxony as the newly created Duchy of Westphalia-Engern . The eastern part of the Duchy of Saxony fell to Count Bernhard von Anhalt , who became Duke of Saxony. At the end of September 1180 a decision was made on the Duchy of Bavaria at a court day in Altenburg . Styria was elevated to a duchy and given to the previous margrave Ottokar von Steier , Count Berthold IV von Andechs received the duchy of Meranien . The previous Bavarian Count Palatine Otto von Wittelsbach was enfeoffed with the reduced Duchy of Bavaria, and the Wittelsbach rulers ruled Bavaria from then on until 1918. With the division of Saxony and Bavaria, the history of the great Carolingian regna of the East Franconian Empire finally came to an end; in their place came princely domains, some of which developed into sovereigns. However, the reorganization also limited royal power and favored regional aristocratic dynasties in both Bavaria and Saxony. The lack of consensus with the Saxon nobility let Heinrich's rule collapse quickly. In November 1181 Heinrich submitted to the emperor at the court in Erfurt . The only thing left to the lion was his allodial goods around Braunschweig and Lüneburg. He had to go into exile for three years.
Peace of Constance (1183)
Before the end of the six-year armistice in Venice, 1,182 negotiations began. The recognition of Alessandria as a city (status civitatis) and the recognition of legal customs in the individual cities, which contradicted the Roncal laws, were not clarified. In June 1183 the Treaty of Constance was signed. Alessandria was formally re-established under the name Caesarea ("the imperial one") and transformed from a symbol of resistance into a symbol of rule. Friedrich awarded the government the regalia in return for a one-off or annual payment and recognized the city's self-government. In return, the cities undertook to pay the fodrum , a special tax in Imperial Italy on every Italian train. Barbarossa recognized the legal customs of the municipalities and the Lombard League. The consuls were chosen by the residents. The emperor was able to confirm the free choice of consuls every five years. This failed Barbarossa's attempt to prevent a special development of the constitution in imperial Italy. The municipalities were now independent legal entities and their constitutions were legitimized.
Chivalrous and 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 the rule through festivals, art and literature. The term “court” can be understood as “presence with the ruler”. The regulation of access to the ruler was one of the most important functions of the court. The great competed with one another for prestige and rank with the ruler. However, only certain great people were heard by the ruler and considered in their opinion. 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 office that was responsible for issuing the documents. Around 1200 documents have been preserved from Friedrich's reign. In the Staufer law firm Barbarossas, knightly virtues such as bravery in battle ( virtus and fortitudo ), loyalty in service and the pursuit of earthly fame (gloria) and worldly honor (honor) were propagated. These changes in the representation of rulers probably took place as a reaction to the crisis of kingship in the 11th century and before the emergence of knightly courtly culture in the 12th century. In 1157 the name “Holy Empire” was first found in the office. However, it did not become an official language in Barbarossa's time. The term sacrum imperium only appeared in less than 32 of over 1200 issued documents.
The Barbarossa court drew experts in learned law, siege technicians, and representatives of the newly emerging courtly poetry. By being close to power and serving the ruler, they hoped to gain reputation. However, the appeal of the court declined considerably in Barbarossa's late period. The presence of the secular imperial princes at court decreased significantly. Since the 1180s, the farm has primarily been a Hohenstaufen “family and friends meeting place”. Only Archbishop Konrad of Salzburg , Bishop Otto II of Bamberg and Bishop Hermann II of Münster had an above-average presence at the royal court . They came from the families of the Wittelsbach , Andechser and Katzenelnbogen family close to the Hohenstaufen . In contrast to Barbarossa's early days, the princes' service for the emperor and empire declined. The involvement of the princes in the Italian conflicts increasingly declined 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 accept high costs for this, while other princes concentrated on expanding their territories remotely. Correspondingly, with the turn of the imperial Italian policy since 1177, the proportion of ministerials in the emperor's environment increased. The ministerials took on tasks in diplomacy, warfare and imperial property administration.
Mainz Court Festival (1184)
At the Mainz court festival at Pentecost in 1184, Barbarossa's sons Heinrich and Friedrich received the sword . You have thus been declared of legal age and of age. Six archbishops, nineteen bishops, two abbots of the imperial monasteries, nine dukes, four margraves, three palatine counts, the Thuringian landgrave, many counts and ministerials appeared at the court festival. The viewers from the High Middle Ages estimated the number of visitors to be tens of thousands and thus gave an impression of the enormous crowds from the various countries that gathered at the mouth of the Main. The spending of large sums at the court festival by emperors and princes was not a useless waste, but was aimed at the acquisition of fame and honor as well as courtly self-image and representation. The presence of so many imperial princes also increased competition among themselves for their claimed public rank. On the first day of Pentecost there was a conflict of rank between Archbishop Philipp of Cologne and Abbot Konrad von Fulda over the left seat next to the emperor. The seating arrangement was of great importance for the visualization of the hierarchy in the empire. Barbarossa then asked Philip to give in, out of consideration for the peaceful course of the festival. Philip had to publicly renounce the position of the second most worthy prince after the Archbishop of Mainz on the right. As a result, the imperial relationship with Archbishop Philipp of Cologne deteriorated. The former double duke Heinrich the Lion was also present at the Mainz court festival. However, his pardon failed because of the lack of consent from the princes.
Sixth Italian train (1184)
Barbarossa undertook the sixth campaign to Italy for the first time without an army and made a tour of the once hostile cities of the Lombard League. In September 1184 he demonstratively visited the previous main opponent Milan. In Piacenza he first took part in a meeting of the city union in January 1185. On the way to Piacenza, the emperor threw himself cross- bearing and almost naked on the floor at Lodi cream masks to complain about the oppression of Cremona . However, they were driven out by the Cremonese. In public, Barbarossa was deprived of his most important rule of law with the jurisdiction. 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. with Constance of Sicily in the monastery of S. Ambrogio on January 27, 1186. Constanze was a daughter of the first Norman king Roger II and the aunt of the reigning king Wilhelm II. Nothing is known about the history of the marriage alliance. The marriage alliance created the possibility of a unification of the empire with the Norman empire (unio regni ad imperium) . For the Norman king, his aunt's marriage brought considerable gain in prestige. The marriage, however, again burdened the relationship between the emperor and papacy, since Pope Urban III. Feared of consequences for the papal suzerainty over the Norman kingdom. The differences between the emperor and the pope were intensified by the schism that broke out in the spring of 1183 on the Trier archiepiscopal chair when Urban III. in May 1186, with Rudolf von Wied, deposed the imperial candidate and consecrated his opponent Folmar .
Crusade and Death (1190)
In the last decade of his reign, Barbarossa's area of activity was concentrated on Rhine and Eastern Franconia, Swabia, Alsace and the Bavarian Nordgau. After the defeat of the king of Jerusalem by Saladin on July 4, 1187 in the battle of Hattin 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. In the occupation of the Trier diocese with Johann I , the Pope invested Friedrich's previous chancellor and dropped Folmar von Karden , whom he favored . On March 27, 1188, Barbarossa had the crusade conjured up on a court day in Mainz. According to the ideas of the time, participating in the crusade could obtain complete forgiveness of all sins and gain glory in the struggle for the faith. Peace in the empire was a necessary prerequisite 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 in Goslar that Heinrich would have to go into exile again for three years. On May 11, 1189, Barbarossa von Regensburg was the only European ruler to embark on a second crusade. With around 15,000 participants, his army was the largest ever to embark on a crusade. The army reached Byzantine territory via Bavaria, Vienna and the Kingdom of Hungary. Byzantium saw a threat in the crusader army, the inhabitants of Adrianople fled the city, the crusaders sacked Thrace. Emperor Isaak II granted Friedrich the title "Emperor of ancient Rome" in order to achieve a rapprochement. After tough, initially unsuccessful negotiations, he offered 70 barges 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 crossed over to Asia. Already behind Philadelphia there was the first fighting with Turkmens. Kılıç Arslan II , the Sultan of Konya , started negotiations and promised a peaceful passage. But he had divided his empire 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 Konyas). At the end of May the army reached the Christian kingdom of Lesser Armenia and finally the river Saleph (Göksu near Silifke ) in what is now southeastern Turkey. Barbarossa drowned there on June 10, 1190.
Barbarossa's entrails were buried in Tarsus . The meat was separated from the bones by cooking according to the “ Mos teutonicus ” method and buried in Antioch at the beginning of July . His bones possibly found their resting place in the Cathedral of Tire , which today only exists as an archaeological excavation site. Barbarossa is the only ruler of the Middle Ages whose grave is still unknown today. After the return of the crusaders, all kinds of news about Barbarossa's death emerged. Even contemporaries did not know whether the emperor wanted to cross the river by swimming or on horseback, whether he swam alone or in company, whether he just wanted to take a refreshing bath or get to the other bank, whether he died in the water or only on the bank . In the Saxon World Chronicle from 1225 it is reported that he wanted to take a bath to cool off after lunch and drowned in the process; If this were the case, a heart attack would also be a possible cause of death.
The transfer of rule to Henry VI. went smoothly. Heinrich had already been elected king when he was three years old. For the first time since 1056, a generally accepted successor was available.
Posterity's image of Barbarossa
Judgment in the Middle Ages
In the historiographical tradition, a change in the models and norms took place. In addition to traditional Christian notions of norms ( clementia , misericordia , humilitas ), the knightly ideal of rulers, which developed in the 12th century, came to the fore in the Hohenstaufen-friendly historiography. In the battles of Barbarossa with the Italian cities, the heroic bravery and the superior fighting power of the ruler as a knightly hero are demonstrated. The opposing Italian cities are judged as haughty (superbia) and portrayed as a counterpart to the ruler Barbarossa fighting on divine mandate. The cities seem to rise up against the divine order as opponents of the emperor and Barbarossa is the "executor" of divine vengeance. On the other hand, Barbarossa is accused of disloyalty, corruption and partiality in the Italian city historiography. For the Italian rhetor Boncompagno da Signa , Barbarossa's inglorious death was God's deserved punishment for the wars against the Italian cities. The cruelty of the wars also led to the fact that the term furor teutonicus (Teutonic rage), which originated in ancient Rome, reappeared in history after almost complete oblivion.
The chronicle of Bishop Otto von Freising is considered to be the climax of medieval world chronicle. The Bishop of Freising was not one of the king's closest confidants until his death. Otto hoped for royal support for the Freising Church through his history work on "the deeds of Friedrich" (Gesta Frederici). With Barbarossa's reign Otto saw the dawn of a new era. 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 clashes with the Italian cities, the conflict between emperor and pope shaped the image of Barbarossa in historiography. The papal schism was largely ignored in the panegyric heroic poem Ligurinus, written in the 1180s. Its author Gunter was evidently closely related to the imperial family and designed his work for the Hohenstaufen ruling court. Likewise, the poet of Carmen de gestis Frederici I imperatoris in Lombardia described the relationship between emperor and pope as harmonious and hid the schism.
The growing distance between Barbarossa and the Archbishop of Cologne becomes clear in the Cologne royal chronicle . It describes the upswing of the empire under Barbarossa up to 1174 and praises the imperial authority. In the mid-1180s, the chronicle was continued by a different author with a different concept. It was now about the history of the bishopric and rulership of Cologne.
Barbarossa's second crusade, the Third Crusade according to the usual count, appeared in a contemporary perspective as ominous and unworthy. However, his inglorious death was soon reinterpreted: as an imperial crusader in the fight against the pagans at the head.
In the memory Friedrich II was initially more important than his grandfather Friedrich I Barbarossa. The emperor would come back at the end of time and renew the empire and the church. At the end of the Middle Ages this idea was gradually transferred from the humanists to Frederick I Barbarossa, because Frederick II spent most of the time in Italy with 28 of 39 years of reign and could therefore not be a suitable representative of Germany. In the people's book of Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa in 1519, Barbarossa conquered Jerusalem, contrary to historical facts, and did not die in Saleph, but was only lost and returned after a while.
Barbarossa developed in the 19th century after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the wars of liberation against Napoleon in 1813/14 and Germany's " small states " to become the reference point for national power and unity. This role fell to Barbarossa not least due to the fact that this emperor had no burial place in the empire. Barbarossa became the sleeping but returning emperor in the Kyffhäuser and thus the hoped-for symbolic figure of the national longings of the Germans. The Kyffhauser saga was made accessible to a larger audience through the collection of legends by the Brothers Grimm Friedrich Rotbart in Kyffhäuser from 1816 and the poem Barbarossa by Friedrich Rückert from 1817. Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld painted Barbarossa's death in 1832 as a result of a swimming accident; his work is reminiscent of Raphael's picture of the Entombment of Christ . Thus Barbarossa's death could be compared to the death of a national savior. In the 19th century, Barbarossa's footfall in front of Henry the Lion became a frequently recurring motif in history painting. The scene inspired Hermann Wislicenus , Wilhelm Trautschold and Philipp von Foltz in history painting . The failure of the medieval central power and the controversy over the imperial Italian policy as part of small-German or large-German debates on the national question could be clearly illustrated by the fall of the emperor in Chiavenna .
With the establishment of the German Empire in 1871 with a Hohenzollern empire at its head, the medieval empire was rebuilt according to what was imagined at the time. With Kaiser Wilhelm I. “Barbablanca” (white beard) Friedrich Barbarossa (red beard) was finally risen again. With the establishment of the empire, the Hohenzollerkaiser completed what the Staufer Barbarossa began in the 12th century. In 1875, the Munich professor Johann Nepomuk Sepp wanted to “put the German nation into holy enthusiasm” with the successful “repatriation of the remains of old Barbarossa”. For this project he won Otto von Bismarck . Sepp and with him Hans Prutz , the author of Barbarossa's first scientific biography, traveled by ship to the Orient at the expense of the Reich Chancellery, but the “sea voyage to Tire” was unsuccessful. With the inauguration of the Kyffhäuser monument in 1896, the worship of Barbarossa as a national myth reached a climax. The myth of Barbarossa survived the political cuts in 1918 and 1933 unscathed. Under National Socialism , Barbarossa had to serve for the aggressive Ostpolitik. Adolf Hitler called the war of aggression against Russia in June 1941 " Operation Barbarossa ". The national myth of Barbarossa only ended in 1945. In the period that followed, his person was regionalized and depoliticized.
In Italy, the political and national development was similar to that in Germany. Barbarossa's conflicts with the Italian municipalities were embedded in national histories. In the era of the Risorgimento , the struggle for national unification was in the foreground in Italy. The city appeared to be an important prerequisite for the modern world and, above all, for democracy. The struggles between Barbarossa and the northern Italian communes were transfigured as a conflict between democracy and monarchy. The nationally motivated freedom struggle of city citizens against a tyrannical foreign ruler was considered a forerunner in the struggle to get rid of the German imperial rule of the Habsburgs . The defeat of Barbarossa at Legnano became a symbol of national self-determination against foreign rule in the Italian historical consciousness. In Milan, Barbarossa is still a symbol of oppressive foreign rule. In addition to images of the Staufer enemy, there is also a very positive culture of memory of Barbarossa in Lombardy. In imperial-friendly municipalities such as Como, Lodi and Pavia, the Staufer is considered a promoter of their own urban development. The Hohenstaufen rule gave them the opportunity to secure communal autonomy in relation to the mighty Milan. In response to the 850th anniversary year of its foundation, which was celebrated in 2008, a Barbarossa equestrian monument was inaugurated in Lodi at the end of 2009.
Historical images and research perspectives
The historians of the 19th century asked about the reasons for the delayed emergence of the German nation-state. In the Middle Ages they looked for the reasons for this happening and especially 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 is also longed for today. The judgment of individual rulers was based on modernization tendencies, the aim of which was the modern state and its constitution with a strong monarchical central power. The princes with their egotistical particular interests and the power-obsessed papacy with its striving for primacy over secular rulers were regarded by national liberal historians as the "grave diggers" of imperial power. The historical judgment was decisively determined by the question of whether individual kings knew how to maintain 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 “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 historical picture, Barbarossa's political task consisted primarily of strengthening the central monarchical power. In the historical masterclass story, the medieval ruler became a "coolly calculating cabinet politician" who proceeded in the Reich as if he had known and wanted it to be the future German nation-state. His decades-long fight against Pope Alexander III. was considered to be evidence of his efforts to maintain a strong monarchical power over the papal supremacy. The overthrow of Duke Henry the Lion, long pursued by Barbarossa, and the smashing of his two duchies were explained by a dualism between emperor and prince. Heinrich's fall was both a climax and a turning point in the Staufer-Welf conflict. The Italian moves were justified by the development of financial means for the kingship in the economically more developed and wealthier southern part of the empire. The contrary opinion interpreted the Italian moves as the cause of the fragmentation of Germany and saw the longstanding conflicts with the Pope and the northern Italian cities as a hindrance to national unification in the north. In the subsequent Sybel-Ficker dispute the advantages and disadvantages of the Italian policy for the German nation were argued and the medieval emperors were judged according to whether their behavior would have promoted or inhibited 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 opposed each other.
It was only after 1945 that Barbarossa's view of history changed. The Medieval Studies came to more realistic ideas about the political and social reality and in the following decades to new insights about the workings of medieval law and kingship, the personal bonds that symbolic communication and consensual domination . In 1977 the Stuttgart Staufer exhibition Barbarossa moved into occidental references. His empire from Swabian roots was celebrated as the fulfillment of court culture across Europe. Since the 1980s, Gerd Althoff no longer interpreted the symbolic behaviors as just anecdotal adornment in the sources, but as important statements about the functioning of medieval royal rule.
On the 800th year 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 Ferdinand Opll's biography, which was first published in 1990 and has been published several times to this day , Barbarossa is understood neither as a statesman nor as a reactionary. Werner Hechberger was able to prove in 1996 that the Staufer-Welf contrast, which for a long time was regarded as the fundamental political constellation for the 12th century, was not a contemporary political coordinate, but a modern research construct. This gave rise to new perspectives on the extent of Guelph support when Barbarossa came to power and the relationship between Barbarossa and Henry the Lion. The fall of the lion is no longer classified as a single-minded plan pursued by Barbarossa. In Heinrich's fall, more recent research emphasizes the participation of the princes in royal rule, which was part of the “naturally practiced consensual decision-making structure”. When the lion fell, Barbarossa is no longer characterized as the “lion's hunter”, but rather as the “driven prince”. The term “consensual rule” also basically characterizes Barbarossa's kingship. The search for consensus and close cooperation with the great is a central feature of his rulership for research, which is why he was also referred to as the “prince king”.
In recent research, “honor” and “loyalty” in an epoch-specific sense play an important role as motifs for Barbarossa's rule and politics. Knut Görich does not understand honor as a moral value, but as "the purely outwardly shown honor of a publicly shown recognition of the rank and rule of the emperor." "Action-guiding concept". With the defense, maintenance and demonstration of the honor imperii, he tried to justify the political attitudes and actions of the emperor. The cause of political conflicts are no longer big political ideas and concepts, but opposing claims to status and honor in a society with a higher ranking. In 2011 Görich provided a synthesis of the current state of research with a comprehensive biography. According to this, "Barbarossa's actions were determined by the habitus of the medieval warrior nobility, in which honor, violence and the need for glorious memory were very close to one another". In the conflicts with the Pope and the Italian cities, he was exposed to “expectations and compulsions for action” that seem strange to us today.
- MGH , Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae, Vol. X / 1-5, Friderici I. Diplomata. Edited by Heinrich Appelt , Hanover 1975–1990.
- Otto von Freising and Rahewin, Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica (= Selected Sources on German History of the Middle Ages, Freiherr vom Stein Memorial Edition . ) Vol. 17. Translated by Adolf Schmidt, edited by Franz-Josef Schmale . Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1965.
- The historical work of Otto Morena and his followers on the deeds of Frederick I in Lombardy (= MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova Series. Vol. 7). Edited by Ferdinand Güterbrock. Berlin 1930, ND 1964.
- Knut Görich : The Hohenstaufen. Ruler and empire. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-53593-3 .
- Werner Hechberger , Florian Schuller (eds.): Staufer & Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Pustet, Regensburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-7917-2168-2 . ( Review )
- Hagen Keller : Between regional boundaries and a universal horizon. Germany in the empire of the Salians and Staufers 1024 to 1250 (= Propylaea history of Germany. Vol. 2). Propylaeen-Verlag, Berlin 1986, ISBN 3-549-05812-8 .
- Stefan Weinfurter (Ed.): Stauferreich im Wandel. Notions of order and politics in the time of Friedrich Barbarossa (= Middle Ages research. Vol. 9). Thorbecke, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-7995-4260-4 ( online )
- Joachim Ehlers : Friedrich I. In: Bernd Schneidmüller , Stefan Weinfurter (Hrsg.): The German rulers of the Middle Ages, historical portraits from Heinrich I to Maximilian I. Beck, Munich 2003, ISBN 3-406-50958-4 , p. 232-257 ( online ).
- John B. Freed: Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth. Yale University Press, New Haven et al. 2016, ISBN 978-0-300-12276-3 .
- Knut Görich : Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-59823-4 . ( Francia-Recensio 2012/3 , review H-Soz-Kult , review at Sehepunkte ) (authoritative work)
- Johannes Laudage : Friedrich Barbarossa. A biography. Pustet, Regensburg 2009. ISBN 978-3-7917-2167-5 . (Edited from the Laudage estate by Lars Hageneier and Matthias Schrör and therefore partly incomplete for the 1170s.) ( Review )
- Ferdinand Opll : Friedrich Barbarossa. 4th edition fully bibliographically updated. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2009, ISBN 978-3-534-22880-5 . (1st edition 1990)
- Holger Berwinkel: Devastating and besieging. Friedrich Barbarossa's war against Milan (1158–1162) (= library of the German Historical Institute in Rome. Volume 114). Niemeyer, Tübingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-484-82114-9 . ( Review )
- Evamaria Engel , Bernhard Töpfer (Ed.): Kaiser Friedrich Barbarossa. State expansion - aspects of its politics - effect (= research on medieval history. Volume 36). Böhlau, Weimar 1994, ISBN 3-7400-0923-3 .
- Wolfgang Georgi: Friedrich Barbarossa and the foreign powers. Studies on foreign policy 1159–1180 (= European university publications . Volume 442). Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1990, ISBN 3-631-42513-9 .
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossa. Communication, conflict and political action in the 12th century (= symbolic communication in the premodern ). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2001, ISBN 3-534-15168-2 (also: Tübingen, University, habilitation paper, 2000). ( Review by H-Soz-u-Kult )
- Camilla G. Kaul: Friedrich Barbarossa in the Kyffhäuser. Pictures of a national myth in the 19th century (= ATLAS. Bonn Contributions to Art History. Volume 4). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2007, 2 volumes, ISBN 978-3-412-16906-0 . ( Review )
- Johannes Laudage: Alexander III. and Friedrich Barbarossa. Research on the imperial and papal history of the Middle Ages (= research on the imperial and papal history of the Middle Ages. Volume 16). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 1997, ISBN 3-412-15495-4 .
- Heinz Krieg: Representation of rulers in the Staufer period. Friedrich Barbarossa in the mirror of his documents and the Hohenstaufen historiography (= Constance working group for medieval history. Volume 50). Thorbecke, Ostfildern 2003, ISBN 3-7995-6760-7 ( online ).
- Alheydis Plassmann : The structure of the court under Friedrich I. Barbarossa according to the German witnesses of his documents (= Monumenta Germaniae historica. Volume 20). Hahn, Hannover 1998, ISBN 3-7752-5420-X .
- Christian Uebach: The counselors Friedrich Barbarossas (1152–1167). Tectum-Verlag, Marburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-8288-9580-5 (also: Düsseldorf, University, dissertation, 2007). ( Review )
- Literature by and about Friedrich I. in the catalog of the German National Library
- Works by and about Friedrich I in the German Digital Library
- Heiner Wember : July 29th, 1167 - Emperor Barbarossa conquers St. Peter's Church in Rome WDR ZeitZeichen from July 29th, 2017. (Podcast)
- Alfried Wieczorek, Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter (eds.): Die Staufer and Italy. Three regions of innovation in medieval Europe. Vol. 1 Essays, Darmstadt 2010, p. 72.
- Gerhard Lubich: Territory, monastery and diocese politics in a society in transition. On the political components of the establishment of rule by the Hohenstaufen before 1138. In: Hubertus Seibert, Jürgen Dendorfer (Ed.): Counts, dukes, kings. The rise of the Hohenstaufen and the empire 1079–1152. Ostfildern 2005, pp. 179–212.
- Tobias Weller : On the way to the "Staufer House". On the descent, relationship and connubium of the early Hohenstaufen. In: Hubertus Seibert, Jürgen Dendorfer (Ed.): Counts, dukes, kings. The rise of the Hohenstaufen and the empire 1079–1152. Ostfildern 2005, pp. 41–63.
- Daniel Ziemann: The Staufer - An Alsatian noble family? In: Hubertus Seibert, Jürgen Dendorfer (Ed.): Counts, dukes, kings. The rise of the Hohenstaufen and the empire 1079–1152. Ostfildern 2005, pp. 99-133. Rejecting: Eduard Hlawitschka: The Staufer: not a Swabian, but an Alsatian noble family? In: Journal for Württemberg State History , Vol. 66 (2007), pp. 63–79.
- Hubertus Seibert: The early Staufer - research and open questions. In: Hubertus Seibert, Jürgen Dendorfer (Ed.): Counts, dukes, kings. The rise of the Hohenstaufen and the empire 1079–1152. Ostfildern 2005, pp. 1–39, here: p. 4.
- Otto von Freising, Gesta Frederici, I 12.
- John B. Freed: Frederick Barbarossa. The Prince and the Myth. New Haven et al. 2016, pp. 10, 15.
- Knut Görich: Legacy and legacy - Friedrich Barbarossa, a German national myth. In: Andrea Schindler, Andrea Stieldorf (Hrsg.): WeltkulturerbeN. Forms, functions and objects of cultural memory in and about the Middle Ages. Bamberg 2015. pp. 9–33, here: p. 27 ( online )
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 59.
- Bernd Schneidmüller: The Welfs. Reign and memory (819–1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 188.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, pp. 97–99.
- Hansmartin Schwarzmaier : Dominus totius comitisse Mathildis. The Guelphs and Italy in the 12th century. In: Karl Schnith , Roland Pauler (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Eduard Hlawitschka on his 65th birthday. Kallmünz 1993, pp. 283-305, here: pp. 302-303.
- Knut Görich: Attempt to save contingency. Or: About difficulties in writing a biography of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 43 (2009), pp. 179–197, here: p. 192.
- Otto von Freising, Gesta Frederici, II 1.
- Otto von Freising, Gesta Frederici, II 3.
- Gerd Althoff: The power of rituals. Symbolism and rule in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, p. 154; Gerd Althoff: Royal rule and conflict resolution in the 10th century and 11th century. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 23, 1989, pp. 265–290, here: p. 288; Gerd Althoff: The privilege of the deditio. Forms of amicable ending of conflict in medieval aristocratic society. In: Otto Gerhard Oexle, Werner Paravicini (Ed.): Nobilitas. Function and representation of the nobility in ancient Europe. Göttingen 1997, pp. 27-52.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 126.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, pp. 118–120.
- Martina Hartmann: Empress Beatrix of Burgundy. In: Amalie Fößel (Ed.): The Empresses of the Middle Ages. Regensburg 2011, pp. 197–212, here: p. 199.
- On the Würzburger Hoftag cf. Rainer Leng : When the emperor held court in Würzburg: The Würzburg court day of Friedrich Barbarossas from 1152. In: Würzburg today. Vol. 73 (2002), pp. 52-55.
- Otto Morena and his followers: Libellus de rebus a Frederico imperatore gestis. In: Italian sources about the deeds of Frederick I, edited and translated by Franz-Josef Schmale (Selected Sources on German History of the Middle Ages, Freiherr vom Stein Memorial Edition 17a) Darmstadt 1986, pp. 34–239, here: p. 42.
- Knut Görich: Inevitable Conflicts? Friedrich Barbarossa, Friedrich II. And the Lombardy League of Cities. In: Oliver Auge, Felix Biermann, Matthias Müller, Dirk Schultze (eds.): Ready for conflict. Strategies and media for generating and resolving conflicts in the European Middle Ages. Ostfildern 2008, pp. 195–213, here: p. 202.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 232. Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 352.
- Knut Görich: Attempt to save contingency. Or: About difficulties in writing a biography of Friedrich Barbarossa . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Vol. 43 (2009), pp. 179–197, here: p. 187. See: Gerd Althoff: Das Privileg der deditio. Forms of amicable ending of conflict in medieval aristocratic society. In: Otto Gerhard Oexle, Werner Paravicini (Ed.): Nobilitas. Function and representation of the nobility in ancient Europe. Göttingen 1997, pp. 27-52; again in: Gerd Althoff: Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud. Darmstadt 1997, pp. 99-125.
- Knut Görich: Money and Honor. Friedrich Barbarossa in Lombardy. In: Gerd Althoff (Ed.): Forms of public communication in the Middle Ages. Stuttgart 2001, pp. 177-200, here: p. 186.
- Knut Görich: Money and Honor. Friedrich Barbarossa in Lombardy. In: Gerd Althoff (Ed.): Forms of public communication in the Middle Ages. Stuttgart 2001, pp. 177-200, here: p. 181.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 35.
- Holger Berwinkel: Desolate and besiege. Friedrich Barbarossa's war against Milan (1158–1162). Tübingen 2007, p. 59.
- Otto Morena and his followers: Libellus de rebus a Frederico imperatore gestis. In: Italian sources about the deeds of Frederick I, edited and translated by Franz-Josef Schmale (Selected sources on the German history of the Middle Ages, Freiherr vom Stein Memorial Edition 17a) Darmstadt 1986, p. 34–239, here: p. 52– 54.
- detail: Knut Görich: Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 194. The source was first made available to German researchers in the edition by Hofmeister in 1922: De ruina civitatis Terdonae , ed. by Adolf Hofmeister: A new source on the history of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Neues Archiv , Vol. 43 (1922), pp. 87–157, cap. 9, p. 155.
- Hagen Keller: Between regional boundaries and universal horizons: Germany in the empire of Salier and Staufer 1024 to 1250. Berlin 1986, p. 399.
- Knut Görich: Conflict and Compromise: Friedrich Barbarossa in Italy. In: Werner Hechberger and Florian Schuller (eds.): Staufer and Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Regensburg 2009, pp. 79–97, here: p. 84.
- Roman Deutinger: Sutri 1155 Misunderstandings about a misunderstanding. In: German Archives for Research into the Middle Ages , Vol. 60 (2004), pp. 97-133, here: p. 109 ( online ).
- Roman Deutinger: Sutri 1155 Misunderstandings about a misunderstanding. In: German Archive for Research into the Middle Ages , Vol. 60 (2004), pp. 97-133, here: p. 130 ( online ).
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. Ruler and empire. Munich 2006, p. 46.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 269.
- Monika Suchan: Princely opposition to royalty in the 11th and 12th centuries as a designer of medieval statehood. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 37 (2003) pp. 141–165, here: p. 161.
- Rahewin, Gesta Frederici, III 13.
- Rahewin, Gesta Frederici, III 12.
- Rahewin, Gesta Frederici, III 25-26.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 117.
- Knut Görich: "... so that our uncle's honor is not diminished ..." Procedure and settlement in the dispute over the Duchy of Bavaria 1152–1156. In: Peter Schmid, Heinrich Wanderwitz (ed.): The birth of Austria. 850 years of privilege minus. Regensburg 2007, pp. 23–35, here: p. 26.
- Joachim Ehlers: Heinrich the lion. Biography. Munich 2008, p. 87.
- DF. I. 151; Knut Görich: "... so that our uncle's honor is not diminished ..." Procedure and settlement in the dispute over the Duchy of Bavaria 1152-1156 . In: Peter Schmid, Heinrich Wanderwitz (ed.): The birth of Austria. 850 years of privilege minus. Regensburg 2007, pp. 23–35, here: p. 24.
- Cf. Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: Eine Biographie. Munich 2011, pp. 259f.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 264.
- Claudia Garnier : The culture of the request. Rule and communication in the medieval empire. Darmstadt 2008, p. 182.
- DF. I. 181
- Knut Görich: Money and Honor. Friedrich Barbarossa in Lombardy. In: Gerd Althoff (Ed.): Forms of public communication in the Middle Ages. Stuttgart 2001, pp. 177-200, here: p. 192 ( online ); Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossa. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, pp. 350-359.
- DF. I. 253.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 306.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 391.
- Johannes Laudage: Alexander III. and Friedrich Barbarossa. Cologne 1997, pp. 119-121.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 312.
- Rahewin, Gesta Frederici, IV 25.
- See the examples in Gerd Althoff: Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud. Darmstadt 1997.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 330.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 337.
- Holger Berwinkel: Desolate and besiege. Friedrich Barbarossa's war against Milan (1158–1162). Tübingen 2007, pp. 249-258.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 344.
- Knut Görich: Mistrust from experience: Milan and Friedrich II. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 39 (2005), pp. 411-429, here: p. 424.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 252, note 421.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 352.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 352.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 397.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 399.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 400.
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. Ruler and empire. Munich 2006, p. 53.
- For this illustration cf. Volkhard Huth: disregarded images of Barbarossa. About two rulers from Freiburg and Paris. In: Knut Görich, Romedio Schmitz-Esser (ed.): Barbarossabilder. Contexts of origin, horizons of expectation, contexts of use. Regensburg 2014, pp. 188–205.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 359.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 356.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, pp. 73f.
- Knut Görich: Rule with Saint Karl? - The Hohenstaufen, Charlemagne and Aachen. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 82, 2018, pp. 23–36, here: pp. 25 f.
- Knut Görich: Charlemagne - a 'political' saint in the 12th century? In: Ludger Körntgen, Dominik Waßenhoven (Hrsg.): Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages. Germany and England in Comparison - Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages. Germany and England by Comparison. Berlin et al. 2013, pp. 117–155; Knut Görich: Rule with St. Karl? - The Hohenstaufen, Charlemagne and Aachen. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 82, 2018, pp. 23–36; Gerald Schwedler : Imperial tradition and innovation. Barbarossa's reference to other emperors. In: Stefan Burkhardt; Thomas Metz; Bernd Schneidmüller; Stefan Weinfurter (ed.): Staufer Empire in the 12th century. Concepts - Networks - Political Practice. Regensburg 2010, pp. 231–251, here: pp. 238–242.
- Gerd Althoff: The power of rituals. Symbolism and rule in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, pp. 151–153.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 367.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 357.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 367.
- John of Salisbury, ep. 289. Quoted from: Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: Eine Biographie. Munich 2011, p. 423.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 426.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 488.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 372.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 377f.
- In terms of the historicity of the meeting, Joachim Ehlers: Heinrich der Löwe. Biography. Munich 2008, p. 224; Claudia Garnier: The culture of request. Rule and communication in the medieval empire. Darmstadt 2008, p. 188ff. and Stefan Weinfurter: The Empire in the Middle Ages. Brief German history from 500 to 1500. Munich 2008, p. 125 recorded, but the opposing voices have recently increased. See for example: Johannes Fried: The veil of memory. Principles of a historical memory. Munich 2004, pp. 252-255.
- Claudia Garnier: The culture of the request. Rule and communication in the medieval empire. Darmstadt 2008, p. 201.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 383.
- With the sources Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 274, note 574.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 551. For this figure cf. Jürgen Dendorfer: Barbarossa as a crusader in the Schäftlarner Codex. In: Knut Görich, Romedio Schmitz-Esser (ed.): Barbarossabilder. Contexts of origin, horizons of expectation, contexts of use. Regensburg 2014, pp. 160–174.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 290.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 439.
- Johannes Fried: Friedrich Barbarossa's coronation in Arles (1178). In: Historisches Jahrbuch , Vol. 103, 1983, pp. 347–371. For the limited possibilities of royal rule in Burgundy see Verena Türck: Regulated space and recognized rule. Friedrich I. Barbarossa and the Kingdom of Burgundy. Ostfildern 2013.
- Knut Görich: Hunter of the lion or the driven of the princes? Friedrich Barbarossa and the disempowerment of Henry the Lion. In: Werner Hechberger, Florian Schuller (eds.): Staufer & Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Regensburg 2009, pp. 99–117.
- Joachim Ehlers: Heinrich the lion in the documents of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 36 (2002), pp. 355–377, here: p. 372.
- Knut Görich: Hunter of the lion or the driven of the princes? Friedrich Barbarossa and the disempowerment of Henry the Lion. In: Werner Hechberger, Florian Schuller (eds.): Staufer & Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Regensburg 2009, pp. 99–117, here: p. 109.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, pp. 475–477.
- DFI 795 ( online ).
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 478.
- Steffen Patzold: Consensus and Competition. Thoughts on a current research concept in Medieval Studies. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 41 (2007), pp. 75-103, here: p. 99.
- Knut Görich: Attempt to save contingency. Or: About difficulties in writing a biography of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 43 (2009), pp. 179–197, here: p. 195.
- Bernd Schneidmüller: The Welfs. Reign and memory (819–1252). Stuttgart 2000, p. 229.
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. Ruler and empire. Munich 2006, p. 60.
- Gert Melville: To Welfen and Höfe. Highlights at the end of a conference. In: Bernd Schneidmüller (Ed.), The Welfen and their Braunschweiger Hof in the high Middle Ages, Wiesbaden 1995, pp. 541–557, here: p. 546.
- Steffen Patzold: Consensus and Competition. Thoughts on a current research concept in Medieval Studies. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 41 (2007), pp. 75-103, here: p. 102.
- Irmgard Fees : Friedrich Barbarossa in his seals. In: Knut Görich, Romedio Schmitz-Esser (ed.): Barbarossabilder. Creation contexts, expectations and contexts of use. Regensburg 2014, pp. 60–75, here: p. 60; Irmgard Fees: The seals and bulls of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa. In: Archiv für Diplomatik , Vol. 61 (2015) pp. 95–132, here: p. 95.
- Heinz Krieg: In the field of tension between Christian and aristocratic norms. On the assessment of Friedrich Barbarossa in the historiography of the Hohenstaufen era. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 41 (2007), pp. 447-466, here: p. 449.
- MGH D FI. 163: … sacro imperio et divae rei publicae consulere debemus .
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 635.
- Jochen Johrendt: Friedrich Barbarossa and Alexander III. The Universal Powers in the Perspective of the 19th Century. In: Knut Görich, Martin Wihoda (eds.): Friedrich Barbarossa in the national histories of Germany and East Central Europe (19th - 20th centuries). Cologne et al. 2017, pp. 173–203, here: p. 174; Jörg Schwarz: titles of rulers and emperors in the empire and papacy in the 12th and 13th centuries. Cologne et al. 2003, pp. 86-96, especially pp. 94-96.
- Knut Görich: Questions on the political context of the Roncal laws of 1158. In: Gerhard Dilcher, Diego Quaglioni (ed.): Gli inizi del diritto pubblico; l'età di Federico Barbarossa: legislazione e scienza del diritto. The beginnings of public law. Legislation in the age of Friedrich Barbarossa and learned law. Bologna 2007, pp. 305-325, here: pp. 322f.
- Theo Kölzer: The court of Friedrich Barbarossas and the imperial princes In: Stefan Weinfurter (Hrsg.): Stauferreich im Wandel. Stuttgart 2002, pp. 220-236, here: p. 232.
- Steffen Patzold: Consensus and Competition. Thoughts on a current research concept in Medieval Studies. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 41 (2007), pp. 75-103, here: p. 101.
- Jan Ulrich Keupp: Service and merit. The Ministerials Friedrich Barbarossas and Heinrich VI. Stuttgart 2002, p. 471ff.
- Jan Ulrich Keupp: Service and merit. The Ministerials Friedrich Barbarossas and Heinrich VI. Stuttgart 2002, p. 469.
- Jan Keupp: The first chicken farm in Mainz - on the economy and logistics of the farm festivals. In: Alfried Wieczorek, Bernd Schneidmüller and Stefan Weinfurter (eds.): Die Staufer and Italy. Three regions of innovation in medieval Europe. Essays, Darmstadt / Mannheim 2010, pp. 276–282, here: p. 281.
- On the seating arrangement as a ranking: Hans-Werner Goetz: The 'right' seat. The symbolism of rank and rule in the High Middle Ages reflected in the seating arrangement. In: Gertrud Blaschitz, Helmut Hundsbichler, Gerhard Jaritz and Elisabeth Vavra (eds.): Symbols of everyday life - everyday life of symbols. Festschrift Harry Kühnel. Graz 1992, pp. 11-47, especially pp. 29-32.
- Theo Kölzer: The court of Friedrich Barbarossas and the imperial princes In: Stefan Weinfurter (Hrsg.): Stauferreich im Wandel. Stuttgart 2002, pp. 220-236, here: p. 222.
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. Ruler and empire. Munich 2006, p. 66.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 552.
- Excavation of the Latin Cathedral of Tire
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa - from redeemed emperor to emperor as a national redeemer figure. In: Johannes Fried, Olaf B. Rader (ed.): The world of the Middle Ages. Places of remembrance from a millennium. Munich 2011, pp. 195–208, here: p. 195.
- Leila Bargmann: The death of Frederick I as reflected in the sources. In: Concilium Medii Aevi , Vol. 13, 2010, pp. 223-249. ( Online )
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 590.
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. Ruler and empire. Munich 2006, p. 68.
- Heinz Krieg: The Staufer in historiographical sources. In: Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter and Alfried Wieczorek (Eds.): Metamorphoses of the Staufer Empire - regions of innovation in medieval Europe. Stuttgart 2010, pp. 53-66, here: pp. 54f.
- BonSigna 8.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: A biography. Munich 2011, p. 628.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa - from the redeemed emperor to the emperor as a national redeemer figure In: Johannes Fried, Olaf B. Rader (ed.): Die Welt des Mittelalters. Places of remembrance from a millennium. Munich 2011, pp. 195–208, here: p. 201.
- See Knut Görich: Erbe und Erblast - Friedrich Barbarossa, a German national myth. In: Andrea Schindler, Andrea Stieldorf (Hrsg.): WeltkulturerbeN. Forms, functions and objects of cultural memory in and about the Middle Ages. Bamberg 2015. pp. 9–33 ( online )
- Quoted from: Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: Eine Biographie. Munich 2011, p. 649.
- Johann Nepomuk Sepp: Sea trip to Tire to excavate the cathedral with Barbarossa's grave. Leipzig 1879.
- Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa - from the redeemed emperor to the emperor as a national redeemer figure In: Johannes Fried, Olaf B. Rader (ed.): Die Welt des Mittelalters. Places of remembrance from a millennium. Munich 2011, pp. 195-208, here: pp. 206f.
- Knut Görich: Conflict and Compromise: Friedrich Barbarossa in Italy. In: Werner Hechberger, Florian Schuller (eds.) Staufer and Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Regensburg 2009, pp. 79–97, here: p. 79.
- Kai-Michael Sprenger: Tyrant, benefactor, saint: Northern Italian memories of Emperor Friedrich I. Barbarossa. In: Alfried Wieczorek, Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter (eds.): The Staufers and Italy. Vol. 1, Darmstadt 2010, pp. 39-45; Romedio Schmitz-Esser (ed.): Italian images of Barbarossa since the 19th century. In: Knut Görich and Romedio Schmitz-Esser (eds.) BarbarossaBilder. Contexts of origin, horizons of expectation, contexts of use. Regensburg 2014, p. 337–347 with illustration on p. 336. Illustration also by Knut Görich: Friedrich Barbarossa: Eine Biographie. Munich 2011, p. 663.
- Umberto Eco: Baudolino. Novel. Munich 2003. See Arnold Esch: The image of the Staufer in the memory of Italy. In: From Palermo to Kyffhäuser. Staufer places of remembrance and Staufer myth. Göppingen 2012, pp. 10–25, here: pp. 14f.
- Critical review of the film: Tommaso di Carpegna Falconieri: Barbarossa e la Lega Nord: a proposito di un film, delle storie e della Storia. In: Quaderni storici , Vol. 132 (2009), pp. 859-878.
- Gerd Althoff: The Middle Ages picture of the Germans before and after 1945. A sketch . In: Paul-Joachim Heinig (Ed.): Empire, regions and Europe in the Middle Ages and modern times. Festschrift for Peter Moraw. Berlin 2000, pp. 731-749. Gerd Althoff: The Germans and their medieval empire. In: Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter (Eds.): Holy - Roman - German. Dresden 2006, pp. 119-132.
- Wilhelm von Giesebrecht: History of the German Imperial Era. 5.1 Leipzig 1880, SV
- The quote from Hannah Vollrath: Political conceptions of order and political action in comparison. Philip II of France and Frederick Barbarossa in conflict with their most powerful princes. In: Joseph Canning, Otto Gerhard Oexle (Ed.): Political Thought and the Realities of Power in the Middle Ages. Political Thought and the Reality of Power in the Middle Ages. Göttingen 1998, pp. 33–51, here: p. 46.
- Knut Görich: Attempt to save contingency. Or: About difficulties in writing a biography of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 43 (2009), pp. 179–197, here: p. 181.
- Knut Görich: Attempt to save contingency. Or: About difficulties in writing a biography of Friedrich Barbarossa. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 43 (2009), pp. 179–197, here: p. 180.
- Gerd Althoff was pioneering: On the importance of symbolic communication for understanding the Middle Ages. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 31 (1997), pp. 370-389.
- Alfred Haverkamp (Ed.): Friedrich Barbarossa. Scope of action and modes of action of the Hohenstaufen emperor. Sigmaringen 1992.
- Ferdinand Opll: Friedrich Barbarossa. 4th edition, bibliographically fully updated, Darmstadt 2009 (1st edition 1990)
- Werner Hechberger: Staufer and Welfen 1125-1190. On the use of theories in history. Cologne 1996.
- Bernd Schneidmüller: Consensual rule. An essay on forms and concepts of political order in the Middle Ages. In: Paul-Joachim Heinig, Sigrid Jahns, Hans-Joachim Schrnidt, Rainer Christoph Schwinges, Sabine Wefers (eds.): Empire, regions and Europe in the Middle Ages and modern times. Festschrift for Peter Moraw. Berlin 2000, pp. 53–87, here: p. 75.
- Knut Görich: Hunter of the lion or the driven of the princes? Friedrich Barbarossa and the disempowerment of Henry the Lion. In: Werner Hechberger, Florian Schuller (eds.): Staufer & Welfen. Two rival dynasties in the High Middle Ages. Regensburg 2009, pp. 99–117, here: p. 111.
- Horst Fuhrmann: German history in the high Middle Ages. 4th edition, Göttingen 2003, p. 154.
- Petra Schulte : Friedrich Barbarossa, the Italian communes and the political concept of loyalty. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Vol. 38 (2004), pp. 153–172; Heinz Krieg: Representation of rulers in the Staufer period. Friedrich Barbarossa in the mirror of his documents and the Hohenstaufen historiography. Ostfildern 2003 ( online ); Knut Görich: The “honor of the empire” (honor imperii). Reflections on a research problem. In: Johannes Laudage, Yvonne Leiverkus (ed.): Rittertum und Höfische Kultur der Stauferzeit, Cologne et al. 2006, pp. 36–74; Knut Görich: Fides and fidelitas in the context of the Hohenstaufen rule practice (12th century). In: Das Mittelalter 20 (2015), pp. 294–310.
- Knut Görich: The Staufer. In: Matthias Puhle, Claus-Peter Hasse (ed.): Catalog for the exhibition “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 962–1806”. From Otto the Great to the end of the Middle Ages. Essays. Dresden 2006, pp. 187–197, here: p. 188.
- Knut Görich: The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001, p. 376.
- Quotes from Joachim Käppner: Reiches Glory Knut Görich tells the life of the Staufer Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa without any myths. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung of October 11, 2011, p. V2 / 25.
Duke of Swabia
from 1155, Emperor
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES||Friedrich Barbarossa|
|BRIEF DESCRIPTION||Holy Roman Emperor|
|DATE OF BIRTH||around 1122|
|PLACE OF BIRTH||uncertain: near Altdorf (today Weingarten (Württemberg) )|
|DATE OF DEATH||June 10, 1190|
|Place of death||River Saleph at Seleucia , Lesser Armenia|