Fridrih II - Povijest

Fridrih II - Povijest



We are searching data for your request:

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

Fridrik je bio pruski kralj, ali je posjedovao niz neobičnih vještina za monarha. Bio je duboko uključen u studije, posebno u francusku književnost, muziku i filozofiju (Volter je dobro poznavao Frederika i dopisivao se s njim). Talentovani flautista, Frederick je takođe komponovao. On je, međutim, također smatran sposobnim vojnim talentom (pruska vojska je uključivala preko 200.000 vojnika za vrijeme Fridriha) i bio je fiskalno razborit, sposoban izvesti mnoge vojne kampanje/ratove bez zaduženja. Tijekom desetljeća svoje vladavine, Fridrih je stekao dodatne teritorije koje su služile za udvostručavanje područja Pruske. Iako Frederikovi spisi ukazuju na visoko kultiviranu i prosvijetljenu figuru, on nije bio naročito liberalan prema svom narodu, iako nije nepravedan; Rečeno je da je Pruskom upravljano kao veliki vojni logor s malo lične slobode (iako relativno slobodna štampa).

Car Frankenstein: Istina iza Fridriha II. Sicilije i sadistički naučni eksperimenti#8217

Jedan od najkontroverznijih vladara svog vremena, Frederick je bio poznat po svojim velikim ambicijama u političkoj i kulturnoj areni. Upleten u doživotni sukob s papinstvom, koje se našlo između carevih zemalja u sjevernoj Italiji i njegovog kraljevstva Sicilije na jugu, dva puta je ekskomuniciran zbog ambicija i zanemarivanja papinskog mišljenja. Osim titula cara Svetog rimskog carstva i kralja Sicilije, bio je i kralj Njemačke i Jeruzalema, koji je zadnju titulu stekao nakon što je položio svog tasta kako bi osigurao ovaj dugoročni cilj. Frederick je bio poznat po velikoj znatiželji u znanosti, a dužine do kojih je išao u potrazi za znanjem i empirijskim razumijevanjem fascinirale su i odbijale njegove savremenike.

Oženjen najmanje tri puta, Frederick je rodio osmoro zakonite djece i tokom svog života imao mnogo ljubavnica i vanbračne djece. To, međutim, nije bilo dovoljno da se osigura nastavak njegove loze, a nakon njegove iznenadne i neočekivane smrti 1250., njegova se obitelj nije dugo zadržala.

Fridrih II iz Hohenstaufena, čovjek kojeg su njegovi savremenici nazivali "stupor mundi" - što u prijevodu znači "začuđenje svijeta" - bio je izvanredan čovjek. Uprkos tome što se ljudi ne stide dati mišljenje o kontroverznom vladaru, Frederick na mnogo načina ostaje sjenovita polufigura u povijesti, obavijena glasinama, glasinama, misterijom i mitom. Mnogo je toga ostalo nepoznato i neobjašnjeno o ovom kompliciranom vladaru.

Jedno od mračnijih pitanja povezanih s Fridrihom su priče koje je o caru ispričao monah Salimbene. Frederikov savremenik, Salimbene di Adam, ili Parma, kako su ga ponekad zvali, bio je talijanski franjevački monah. Pridružio se redu 1238. godine protiv volje svog oca i za života je napravio nekoliko djela, najpoznatijih kao Cronica ili Chronicle. Još jedno njegovo poznato djelo, a najrelevantnije za saznanje više o Fredericku, bilo je Dvanaest nesreća cara Fridrika II. Svrha ovog rada bila je ukazati na greške i nemoralnu prirodu Fridrika, uključujući njegov nedostatak kršćanske pobožnosti i nezainteresiranost za podršku Rimskoj crkvi. Djelo se sastoji od niza raznolikih i opisnih primjera s namjerom da u potpunosti ilustriraju Frederikovu zloću: među najstrašnijim postupcima koje redovnik pripisuje Fridriku bilo je to što je bio kriv za izvođenje niza groznih eksperimenata na svojim bližnjima tokom svoje vladavine.

rederick II na drugoj stranici rukopisa “Manfred ” (Biblioteca Vaticana, Pal. lat 1071)

Prema Salimbeneu, Frederick je dobro koristio zatvorenike pod svojom kontrolom. Jednom prilikom caru je nesrećni zarobljenik zapečaćen u drvenoj bačvi ili buretu, oduzimajući mu hranu i vodu sve dok nesretni čovjek na kraju, i bez sumnje mučno, nije umro. Cijeli proces se pomno promatrao, posebno kad se čovjek približio smrti, a u cijevi je napravljena rupa u svrhu koja je ubrzo postala očigledna. Smisao eksperimenta bio je provjeriti može li se ljudska duša vidjeti u trenutku smrti ili ne dok je napuštala tijelo za zagrobni život za koji je rečeno da će uslijediti.

U još strašnijem eksperimentu koji je ispričao Salimbene, Frederick je naredio da se dvojici zatvorenika da večera, pri čemu se svaki čovjek hrani istom hranom kao i drugi. Nakon što su jeli, jedan od muškaraca je potom poslan u lov, dok je drugom rečeno da ode u krevet i prespava obrok koji je upravo pojeo. Dvojica muškaraca nisu bili upoznati, Frederick je namjeravao istražiti različite učinke koje vježba i san mogu imati na proces probave. To je postignuto na najbrutalniji način: nekoliko sati nakon toga, Frederick je i ljude ubio i izvadio crijeva u svrhu usporedbe stanja sadržaja njihovih želuca, kako bi se vidio što ima veći učinak.

Možda su najuzbudljiviji od svih eksperimenata koje je Salimbene radosno povezao bili testovi koje je Frederick navodno proveo na dojenčadi. Podrijetlo ljudskog jezika bilo je nešto što je cara jako fasciniralo, pa se upustio u eksperiment koji će, nadao se, dokazati izvorni jezik čovječanstva. U želji da utvrdi koji je jezik bio dat Adamu i Evi u rajskom vrtu, Frederick je dao grupu beba na čuvanje medicinskim sestrama koje su dobile stroga uputstva kako da ih odgajaju. Medicinskim sestrama je naređeno da ne stupaju u interakciju s djecom osim ako je to neophodno, a dojenčad se može hraniti i kupati, ali ne više, i ni u kom slučaju se s njima ne smije razgovarati niti gukati.

Tragično za one koji su bili uključeni, Frederick nikada nije dobio odgovor na pitanje koje je postavio, a izvorni jezik čovječanstva ostao mu je skriven. Djeca, izgladnjela od bilo kakvog oblika naklonosti, topline i osnovne interakcije, umrla su, jednostavno, od nedostatka ljubavi. Nije jasno koliko je novorođenčadi korišteno u eksperimentu, niti koliko je puta izvedeno, a kamoli ko su roditelji te djece, ali ostaje činjenica da je eksperiment bio upitne prirode i da nije bio naučno izvediv.

Ako je i zrnce istine ležalo u Salimbenovim izvještajima, slika cara stvorena je zastrašujuća. Ali koji dokaz postoji za monahove senzacionalne tvrdnje? Jedna stvar koja je jasna kod Fredericka od samog početka je da je imao snažan, a ponekad i neodoljiv, interes za sve biološke stvari. Ideje i pristupi pripisani njegovim eksperimentima mogu se svakodnevno vidjeti u njegovom stavu i interesima. Na primjer, njegova velika briga za životinje i prirodu izražena je kroz njegove manje kontroverzne, lične projekte.

Fridrik je osnovao nekoliko rezervata životinja na lokacijama širom svog rasprostranjenog kraljevstva, najimpresivniji primjer "prirodnog" staništa za razne vodene ptice koje se održavalo na carev trošak. Frederick je također posjedovao mnoge životinje i volio ih je voditi na svoja putovanja, mnoge od njih ili nepoznate ili rijetke u područjima koja je posjećivao.

Moljac na rubu iz knjige sicilijanskih stihova iz vremena vladavine Fridriha II,#8217, ljubaznošću Britanske biblioteke

Posjetom Raveni u zimu 1231. godine car je stigao u pratnji izbora životinja, uključujući pantere, lavove, leoparde i deve. Ovo nikako nije bilo jednokratno i 1245. godine Frederick je svojim prisustvom ulepšao Santa Zeno u Veroni, gdje su monasi morali pronaći mjesta za 24 deve, pet leoparda i slona. Nekoliko godina prije toga, Salimbene je svjedočio svojoj menažeriji dok je car prolazio kroz Parmu.

Frederiku pažnju nisu privukle samo životinje. U različito vrijeme na njegovim putovanjima pratio ga je niz znatiželjnih saputnika, uključujući čarobnjake i akrobate, eunuhe i robinje, grupu onoga što bi se moglo znatiželjnim Frederikovim umom. Ugledni izvori, uključujući i Frederikove vlastite spise, zabilježili su da je izvodio eksperimente, iako manje sumnjive prirode od onih koje je zabilježio Salimbene.

Jedan takav eksperiment uključivao je utvrđivanje dugovječnosti ribe, bakarni prsten je stavljen unutar škrga i pušten natrag u jezero gdje je pronađen. Prema legendi, sama riba je otkrivena 1497. godine: bakreni prsten je još uvijek bio na mjestu, identificirano grčkim natpisom na kojem je pisalo: „Ja sam ta riba koju je car Fridrik II svojom rukom petog dana stavio u ovo jezero 1230. ” Nije upitno da li je to bilo čisto apokrifno ili ne, da se sam eksperiment odigrao.

Frederick je također bio jako zainteresiran za sokolstvo i objavio je knjigu na tu temu. Ističući se kao jedan od prvih te vrste, tekst također daje više dokaza o Frederikovoj radoznaloj prirodi, ocrtavajući različite eksperimente koje je proveo kako bi zadovoljio svoju znatiželju o prirodi i navikama dotičnih sokola.
Činilo bi se, na prvi pogled, da bi eksperimentalna priroda po kojoj je Frederick bio poznat mogla biti argument za postojanje istine u Salimbenovim izvještajima. Monah je, međutim, imao dobar razlog da bude pristran prema caru, a moguće je da su Salimbenovi lični stavovi barem donekle obojili njegov prikaz Fridrika. U doba u kojem se vjersko vjerovanje uzimalo zdravo za gotovo i smatralo sastavnim dijelom vladara, Frederick je bio samozvani skeptik kada su u pitanju vjerska pitanja, što je ljude oko njega duboko šokiralo.

Uprkos tome što je bio papin štićenik nakon što je kao dijete ostao siročad, čini se da nije njegovao vjersku prirodu - naprotiv, smatrao se dobrim kršćaninom - te je u raznim trenucima bio optuživan za bogohuljenje i držanje heretičkih ideja. Nadalje, ekskomuniciran je u dva navrata pokazujući očito zanemarivanje Rimske crkve, a ne obazirući se na sankcije koje su mu nametnute, rečeno je da je Frederick nazvao Mojsija, Muhameda, pa čak i Isusa, prevarantima.

Salimbene, Božiji čovjek i pristalica papstva, vidio je u ovim daljnjim dokazima da je Frederick opasan čovjek. Uprkos ugledu njegovog reda kao vodećeg u naučnim pitanjima, Salimbene nije dijelio tu osobinu i bio je sasvim suprotan, toliko da je rekao da je Frederikove eksperimente i ideje odbacio kao praznovjerne besmislice.

Cara Fridrika II ekskomunicirao je papa Inoćentije IV. Kardinal mu oduzima krunu, a car ispušta žezlo. Pergament iz 14. stoljeća ljubaznošću Bodleian Libraries, Univerziteta u Oxfordu

Iako je mogao biti šarmantan, razvratna, lukava, pohlepna careva strana sve je češće bila na prvom mjestu, čovjek je bio brz i polako zaboravljao. Salimbene govori o nekom uživanju u tome kako je Fridrih naredio notaru da mu odsiječe palac samo zato što ne piše njegovo ime na način na koji je car to želio. Stravičan probavni probav Salimbene svodi na ništa drugo nego na praznu radoznalost, naslikavši sliku čovjeka koja bi nanijela takvu štetu samo dokazivanjem ili opovrgavanjem hira.

Monah nije bio jedini koji je Frederika posmatrao u manje nego laskavom svetlu. Papa Grgur IX ga je nazvao prethodnikom samog Antikrista, a Dante ga je također nazvao pripadnikom šeste regije pakla, koja je dodijeljena hereticima. Bilo je mnogo drugih koji su dijelili to mišljenje, a stvari koje bi se danas smatrale tolerancijom - na primjer Frederikov kosmopolitski dvor i njegova naizgled tolerancija prema drugim religijama - smatrane su daljnjim dokazima njegove demonske prirode. Većina njegovih suvremenika nije dijelila Frederikovu žeđ za empirijskim znanjem i eksperimentiranjem, zbog čega se isticao, pa su ga čak i u područjima koja bismo danas smatrali prosvijetljenima ponekad promatrali sa sumnjom.

Još jedan argument protiv pouzdanosti Salimbeneovog izvještaja je da je monah imao malo kontakta s Frederikom. Osim što je car ugledao cara tokom njegove posjete Parmi, monah nije imao nikakvih stvarnih veza sa Fridrikovim dvorom niti je imao veze s njima. Stoga je moguće da je Salimbene, već predisponiran da ne voli cara, samo ponavljao tračeve i glasine koje je čuo drugdje, a ne imao informacije iz prve ruke.

Danas razmišljamo o njegovim eksperimentima bez predrasuda, ali u vrijeme dok je pisao, Salimbene je kritizirao i pisao kao da je očekivao da će njegovi suvremenici podijeliti njegova gledišta. Bio je posvećen svom zadatku da Frederika ubaci u ulogu Antihrista, da li je Salimbene stoga tražio dokaze kojima bi dokazao svoju tvrdnju, naslanjajući se na nepotkrijepljene glasine koje je zatim ponovio? Također se sugeriralo da je Salimbene jednostavno uzimao i modificirao primjere iz drevnih tekstova i primjenjivao ih na Frederika u pokušaju da dodatno potkrijepi vlastite argumente i omalovaži carevo ime, u čemu je izgleda bio vrlo uspješan.

Uprkos Salimbeneovom neprijateljstvu prema Fredericku, postoje dodatni argumenti za njegovu povezanost eksperimenata. Tvrdilo se da je žestoka priroda eksperimenata za koje je rekao da ih je izveo Frederick upravo tačka koja tvrdi da su bili istiniti, bili su toliko strašni i neobični da je stoga bilo malo vjerojatno da su detalji izmišljeni . Barem u slučaju jezičkog eksperimenta, Frederick nije bio jedini vladar koji je imao interese u tom području, a bilo je i drugih koji su eksperimentirali s jezikom u pokušaju da pronađu njegov izvorni izvor kroz povijest.

Za egipatskog faraona, Psamtika I, rečeno je da je izveo sličan eksperiment u kojem je došao do zaključka da je frigijska rasa došla ispred sebe zbog lažnog tumačenja dječjeg brbljanja kao frigijske riječi za kruh. Činjenica da je uspio pronaći pretpostavljeni odgovor na svoje pitanje ukazuje na to da je, ako je uopće izveo eksperiment koji mu se pripisuje, malo vjerojatno da je djecu lišio u istoj mjeri kao i Frederick.

Muškarac ima zašivenu glavu u Miscellanea Medica XVIII, početak 14. veka. Ljubaznošću biblioteke Wellcome

Drugi vladar u istoj potrazi bio je Jakov IV Škotski. Prema izvještajima, dvoje djece je izolirano na otoku i odgajala ih je žena koja je bila nijema kako bi vidjela koji će jezik, ako ga ima, razviti. Izgleda da je ishod više dokazivao da je jezik više urođen nego naučen jer se tvrdilo da su djeca počela govoriti na hebrejskom. Međutim, postojao je veliki skepticizam u pogledu ovih tvrdnji, čak i u to vrijeme, a bilo je i onih koji su smatrali da je eksperiment bio lažan od početka do kraja. Fenomen koji je izbacio iz kolosijeka Frederikov vlastiti eksperiment - iscrpljivanje djece zbog nedostatka ljubavi i pažnje - danas je dobro poznat.

Studije provedene devedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća o djeci u rumunskim sirotištima dokazale su ono za što se sve više sumnjalo: da su djeca lišena ljubavi i topline u svojim ranim godinama ostala takvo zanemarivanje fizički i emocionalno, stanje koje se pogoršavalo što su duže bili izloženi gužvi, neljubavni uslovi. Obrnuto, postalo je očito da pružanje ljubavi i brige djetetu može biti ogromna transformativna sila, a važnost naklonosti prema djetetu pokazala se jednom zauvijek. Za Frederikovo vrijeme, međutim, veza između nedostatka pažnje i smrti djece u eksperimentu bila je jako ispred svog vremena, prva pobuda takvog vjerovanja nije se razvila drugdje do 18. stoljeća. Ova činjenica sama po sebi sugerira da je eksperiment, ili barem njegovu varijaciju, možda proveo car u svojoj potrazi za znanjem, tumačenje rezultata koje ga postavlja nekoliko stoljeća ispred svog vremena.

Je li, dakle, car bio čudovište koje je tako često slikao? Čak ni Salimbene, s otvorenom kritikom cara, nije mogao poreći da je Frederick imao dobre strane, priznajući da je bio poznat kao šarmantan i inteligentan, dobro odgojen i vrijedan. Godine 1224. Frederick je osnovao Napuljski univerzitet (danas poznat kao Universita Federico II u čast svog osnivača) i bio je poznat kao pokrovitelj umjetnosti i kulture u svojim zemljama i šire. Frederikovo umijeće i razvoj ideja u vezi s lovom i sokolarstvom već su zabilježeni, a zaslužan je i za promicanje dobre higijenske prakse u vojsci, tijekom medicinskih postupaka poput davanja krvi, a kada su u pitanju prehrana i kupanje.

Iako su ljudi oko njega sa podozrenjem gledali na njegova vjerska uvjerenja ili njihov nedostatak, to je značilo da je pokazao izrazitu toleranciju tamo gdje drugi nisu. Na primjer, on nije samo odbio masakrirati muslimane kada mu se pružila prilika, već ih je uzeo u svoje snage svoje oružane snage, pa čak i svog ličnog tjelohranitelja. Car Svetog Rima se isto tako poslužio sicilijanskim Židovima, od kojih su mnogi bili protjerani s drugih mjesta, pri prevođenju arapskih i grčkih tekstova, postavljajući Siciliju u ulogu promicatelja i čuvara istočnih spisa i njihovog prenošenja u zapadnu Europu.

Nakon njegove smrti, postojala je nada nižih redova da će se Frederick vratiti, a postoje i intrigantne sličnosti između legendi o Fredericku i legendi sada slavnijeg kralja Arthura. Priče iz 13. stoljeća smjestile su Etnu kao počivalište legende, a za Fridriha se prvobitno govorilo da je čekao ispod te iste planine, čekajući pravo vrijeme za povratak na svijet. Kontroverzna ličnost u životu i smrti Frederik je ostao do danas, s kipom cara koji je bio predmet spora na trgu u Jesiju gdje je rođen. Čudovište i tiranin ili prosvijetljeni i moderni, istina o Fridrikovim eksperimentima nikada se neće saznati, pravi car koji stoji iza legende ostao je, za sada, nedostupan.

Za nevjerovatnije priče o srednjovjekovnim monarhima, pretplatite se na History of Royals i isporučite svaki broj direktno na vaš pokretni most.


Smrt cara Fridriha II

Najdarovitiji, najslikovitiji i izvanredan od srednjovjekovnih careva Svetog Rima umro je 13. decembra 1250. godine.

Fridrik II je bio bolestan nekoliko mjeseci prije smrti. Početkom decembra 1250. žestoki napad dizenterije ograničio ga je na njegovu lovačku kuću Castel Fiorentino na jugu Italije, koja je bila dio njegovog kraljevstva Sicilije. Svoj testament dao je 7. decembra, precizirajući da bi, ako se ne oporavi, trebao biti sahranjen u katedrali u Palermu, i brzo potonuvši, umro 13., nekoliko dana prije svog pedeset šestog rođendana. Do Sicilije ga je ispratio njegov saracenski telohranitelj i sahranio ga u sarkofagu od crvenog porfira na četiri izrezbarena lava. Tijelo je bilo umotano u platno od crvene svile prekriveno nedokučivim arabeskim uzorcima i s križarskim križem na lijevom ramenu. Grobnica se i danas može vidjeti u katedrali u Palermu.

Kad je vijest stigla u Rim, papa Inocent IV je bio oduševljen. 'Neka se nebo veseli i zemlja se raduje', proglasio je u poruci sicilijanskim biskupima i narodu. Jedan od njegovih kapelana, Nikola iz Karbija, otišao je dalje. Bog je, napisao je, vidjevši očajničku opasnost u kojoj je stajala olujna "kora Petra", otrgao "tiranina i sina Sotone", koji je "užasno umro, svrgnut i ekskomuniciran, mučno bolujući od dizenterije, škrgućući zubima" , pjeneći se na usta i vrišteći ... '.

Koliko god bilo podlo izraženo, olakšanje pape i njegove zabave nakon Fridrikove smrti bilo je razumljivo, jer se činilo da je car konačno bio na ivici trijumfa u svojoj dugoj borbi s papstvom. Rođen u Italiji 1194. godine, nasljednik teritorija Hohenstaufena u Njemačkoj i unuk cara Fridriha Barbarose, bio je i nasljednik Normanskog kraljevstva Sicilije. Njegov otac je umro mlad kad je Frederick imao dvije godine, bio je okrunjen za kralja Sicilije u dobi od tri godine, a majka mu je umrla prije nego je imao četiri godine. Sa četrnaest godina postao je punoljetan i preuzeo kontrolu nad Sicilijom. Pobijedio je svog suparnika za njemačko kraljevstvo, a 1220. godine, u dobi od dvadeset pet godina, papa Honorije III okrunio ga je za cara u Svetom Petru u Rimu. To ga je učinilo, barem u teoriji, vremenitom glavom Hristovog naroda na zemlji i gospodarom sjeverne Italije. Činjenica da je bio i vladar južne Italije i Sicilije, na pragu Rima, stavila ga je na sudar s papama.

Frederick je zadivio svoje savremenike jer je više ličio na istočnjačkog despota nego na evropskog kralja. Njegov briljantan dvor u Palermu spojio je normanske, arapske i jevrejske elemente u kulturu punu toplog juga. Bio je duhovit, zabavan i okrutan na nekoliko različitih jezika. Držao je harem, čuvan od crnih evnuha. Imao je djevojke koje plešu, arapskog kuhara i zvjerinjak slonova, lavova i deva. Osnovao je gradove i industrije i efikasno kodificirao zakone. Čovjek sa ozbiljnim intelektualnim sposobnostima, prijateljski se družio sa jevrejskim i muslimanskim mudracima. Podsticao je naučnost, poeziju i matematiku i originalno razmišljanje u svim oblastima. Bio je izvrstan konjanik i mačevalac, išao je na kurseve s leopardima i panterima i napisao prvi klasični srednjovjekovni udžbenik o sokolarstvu.

Frederikova otvorenost prema idejama učinila ga je duboko sumnjičavim. Trebalo je da opiše Mojsija, Krista i Muhameda kao trio zavaravanih šarlatana. Njegovi zahtjevi da se Crkva odrekne svog bogatstva i vrati se apostolskom siromaštvu i jednostavnosti nisu pristajali papstvu i njegovim pristalicama, koji su ga označili kao Antikrista. Preko svoje druge žene, Yolande od Brienne, preuzeo je kraljevstvo Jeruzalem, a 1228. godine vodio je šesti križarski rat u Svetu zemlju. Preferirajući diplomatiju i silu svoje ličnosti ratobornim metodama ranijih križara, uspješno je pregovarao sa egipatskim sultanom o predaji Jeruzalema, Betlehema i Nazareta. 1229. godine krunisao se za kralja Jerusalima u crkvi Groba groba. Papa, koji ga je godinu dana prije izopćio, nije bio zadovoljan.

Povjesničari su vidjeli Frederika kao renesansnog princa rođenog prije svog vremena, ili čak kao prvog zaista modernog čovjeka. Pisci su ga u novije vrijeme radije posmatrali u kontekstu njegovih dana. Nema sumnje, međutim, da je zapanjio svoje savremenike koji su ga zvali stupor mundi, "Čudo svijeta". Toliki je bio njegov utjecaj da mnogi ljudi nisu mogli vjerovati da je zaista umro. Pojavile su se priče da je otišao u dubinu Etne ili planine u Njemačkoj, gdje je nudio svoje vrijeme da se vrati, reformira Crkvu i ponovo uspostavi dobar red pax Romana od davnina. U stvarnosti je njegova politika praktično umrla s njim. Njegova tvrdnja kao Cezara Augusta, Imperator Romanorum, do prevlasti nad svim prinčevima Evrope bilo je kobno zastarjelo.


Moje knjige

Dolazi 31. maja:

Branitelji Normanske krune: Uspon i pad grofova Warenne od Surreya priča fascinantnu priču o dinastiji Warenne, o uspjesima i neuspjesima jedne od najmoćnijih porodica u Engleskoj, od njenog porijekla u Normandiji, preko osvajanja, Magna Carte, ratova i brakova koji su doveli do njenog konačnog propasti u vladavini Edvarda III.

Branitelji Normanske krune: Uspon i pad Warenne Earls of Surreybit će objavljen u Velikoj Britaniji 31. maja, a u SAD -u 6. avgusta. I sada je dostupna za predbilježbu u Pen & amp Sword Books, Amazon u Velikoj Britaniji i SAD-u i u Depozitaru knjiga.

Takođe Sharon Bennett Connolly:

Dame iz Magna Carte: Žene od utjecaja u Engleskoj u trinaestom stoljeću bavi se odnosima različitih plemićkih porodica u 13. stoljeću, te kako su na njih utjecali Baronovi ratovi, Magna Carta i njezine posljedice, veze koje su nastale i one koje su prekinute. Sada je dostupan od Pen & amp Sword, Amazon i od Book Depository širom svijeta.

Heroine srednjovjekovnog svijeta priča priče o nekim od najznačajnijih žena iz srednjovjekovne istorije, od Eleanor Akvitanije do Julijana od Norwicha. Dostupno sada od Amberley Publishing -a i Amazon -a i Book Depository -a.

Svila i mač: žene osvajanja Normana prati bogatstvo žena koje su imale značajnu ulogu u značajnim događajima 1066. Sada dostupno na Amazonu, Amberley Publishing, Book Depository.

Možete prvi pročitati nove članke klikom na dugme „Prati“, lajkujući našu Facebook stranicu ili mi se pridruživši na Twitteru i Instagram.


Fridrik II (‘Stupor Mundi ’)

Da ne bude zabune, sjetimo se da su postojala dva Fridriha II, Frederick 'Veliki', monarh iz osamnaestog stoljeća, a naša tema u ovom članku, Frederick 'Stupor Mundi' titula koju su mu dali njegovi dvorjani, što znači 'čudo svijeta' '.

Rođen je 1194. godine, kao sin Henrija VI, kralja 'Njemačke' (Njemačka je bila podijeljena na kraljevstva, kneževine, vojvodstva, nadvojvode i palatinate) i majka čije je porijeklo Sicilijanka. Njegov djed bio je Fridrih I, poznat kao 'Barbarossa'.

Fridrik je sa četiri godine bio siroče i ostao je pod starateljstvom pape Inoćentija III. Priča se da je dobio nadimak Stupor Mundi zbog širine njegove moći i njegovih administrativnih, vojnih i intelektualnih sposobnosti. Međutim, imao je mnogo neprijatelja, radije su ga nazvali "Zmaj" ili "Zvijer".

Godine 1215. okrunjen je za kralja u Aachenu, na potpuno mramornom prijestolju Karla Velikog.

Godine 1220. tadašnji papa Honorije III ga je učinio carem, na što je Fridrih pristao, iako ga Njemačka nije zanimala. Rođen je u Anconi, a Italija mu je držala svu pažnju. Odrastao je u južnoj Italiji i mislio je da je Sicilija najsofisticiranija monarhija u Evropi.

Njegova vladavina se stoga sastojala u dugotrajnoj borbi za vlast sa papinstvom. Usprkos uspješnom križarskom pohodu u Jeruzalem (1229) i osiguranju tog grada, zajedno s Nazaretom i Betlehemom za kršćanstvo, papa Grgur IX dvaput ga je ekskomunicirao. Bio je nepopularan u Italiji s Lombardskom ligom, a Nijemcima se nije sviđala činjenica da je provodio mnogo vremena i carskih resursa u Njemačkoj s prinčevima u nastojanju da dobije njihovu podršku, dok se koncentrirao na izgradnju baze moći Sicilija. To je dovelo do uspjeha u obliku Melfijskog ustava 1231.

Borio se protiv Lombardske lige u Cortenuevi 1237. godine, pobijedio i nastavio ponižavati Grgura IX prije smrti ovog pape 1241. Međutim, nije uspio uvjeriti nasljednika Inocenta IV koji je (iz egzila u Lyonu) naredio Nijemcima da se pobune. Sinod se tamo održao 1445. godine. Fridrikova moć i položaj raspušteni su pred pobunom, unutrašnjim razdorima i odličnom propagandom koju je organiziralo papstvo. Bio je i vojno poražen (u bitci za Vitoriju 1248), umro je 1250. ostavljajući nemoguću situaciju za svoje nasljednike. Jedan dobar rezultat bio je to što su mnogi naučnici, umjetnici i drugi intelektualci napustili Njemačku kako bi živjeli u Italiji, postavši prethodnici konačne renesanse (q.v.).

Fridrih II leži sa svojim ocem i djedom u katedrali u Palermu.


Biografija Fredericka Williama II iz Pruske

Supružnik/ex-: Frederica Louisa iz Hessen-Darmstadta (m. 1769), Julie von Voss (m. 1787), Elisabeth Christine od Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel-Princeza Pruska (m. 1765-div. 1769), Sophie von Dönhoff (m. 1790 - septembar 1792)

otac: pruski princ Augustus William

majka: Vojvotkinja Luise od Brunswick-Wolfenbütela

djeca: Alexander Mark Frederick William II iz Pruske, Christiane Sophie Friederike von Lutzenburg, Frederick WIlliam III, Friederike Christine Amalie Wilhelmine Prinzessin von Preußen, Friedrich Wilhelm - grof Brandenburg, Gustav Adolf Ingenheim, Julie von Brandenburg, Marianne von Mark Pruska, princ Louis Charles Charles, pruski princ Wilhelm, pruska princeza Augusta, princeza Frederica Charlotte od Pruske, mrtvorođeni sin von Hohenzollern, Ulrike Sophie von Berckholzen, neimenovana kći von Hohenzollern, Wilhelmine od Pruske - kraljica Nizozemske


Kakav je bio utjecaj cara Fridrika II na talijansku renesansu?

Fridrik II, (26. decembra 1194. - 13. decembra 1250.) Car Svetog Rimskog carstva i kralj Sicilije bio je jedan od najistaknutijih monarha u srednjem vijeku, pa čak i u čitavoj historiji Evrope. Bio je vladar cijele Njemačke i cijele južne Italije. Bio je jedan od najmoćnijih ljudi u srednjem vijeku i pokušao je promijeniti politički sistem srednjovjekovne Evrope. Imao je mnogo ambicioznih političkih planova, ali svi su propali. Na mnogo načina, Fridrih II se može smatrati izuzetnim neuspjehom, ali je imao odlučujući utjecaj na razvoj renesanse.

Fridrih II se može smatrati prvim 'renesansnim princom.' 'Bio je izvanredan lik i zbog mnogih postignuća bio je općenito poznat kao' Stupor Mundi 'ili' Čudo svijeta '. [1] Veliki postavlja se pitanje kakav je utjecaj Fridrih II imao na talijansku renesansu i što je postigao svojim kulturnim pokroviteljstvom? Na kraju, njegov sekularni i racionalni pogled pomogao je u oblikovanju renesanse.

Pozadina

Godine 1196. Henry VI Hohenstaufen osigurao je izbor svog novorođenog sina za cara Svetog Rima. Međutim, njemački plemići su se pobunili i Fridrik je odgojen na Siciliji. Majka mu je osigurala krunu Sicilije, veliko kraljevstvo koje je uključivalo Siciliju i cijelu južnu Italiju. Fridrik je bio kralj po imenu i tek kada je stekao muškost, zaista je vladao svojim kraljevstvom. Nakon poraza svog rivala u Francuskoj, Fridrih je okrunjen za cara Svetog Rima. [2] Međutim, boravio je na Siciliji i pokazao se kao lukav i sposoban vladar. Uspio je smiriti otok i bio je tolerantan vladar. Bio je jako zainteresiran za druge kulture i jednako se odnosio prema kršćanskim, židovskim i muslimanskim stanovnicima svog kraljevstva. Ubrzo se njegov odnos s Papom pogoršao jer je prekršio obećanje da će južnu Italiju odvojiti od svog kraljevstva na Siciliji.

Fridrik je vladao Njemačkom preko namjesnika i vladao je svim svojim mnogobrojnim zemljama iz Palerma na Siciliji [3]. On je stvorio modernu državu u svom kraljevstvu i prevezao pobunjene muslimanske stanovnike na kopno. Očekivalo se da će kao najmoćniji monarh u kršćanskom svijetu krenuti u križarski rat i pokušati povratiti Svetu zemlju za kršćane. Kad nije mogao krenuti u križarski rat, Papa ga je ekskomunicirao. U to vrijeme započeo je sukob sa sjevernoitalijanskim gradskim državama, koji je trajao do njegove smrti. Još uvijek ekskomuniciran, car je krenuo u križarski rat i započeo pregovore sa Fatimidskim sultanom, a on je osigurao diplomatski udar. He was able to gain Jerusalem and Bethlehem through diplomacy and he later crowned himself King of Jerusalem. [4]

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

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

Frederick II’ Court at Palermo

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

Frederick II and Reason

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

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

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

Frederick II and the Muslim World

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

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

Frederick II and Literature and Language

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

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

Zaključak

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


The Crusade of Frederick II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Fridrih II

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

Citirajte ovaj članak
Odaberite stil u nastavku i kopirajte tekst za svoju bibliografiju.

Stilovi citiranja

Encyclopedia.com vam daje mogućnost citiranja referentnih unosa i članaka prema uobičajenim stilovima Udruženja modernih jezika (MLA), Čikaškog priručnika za stil i Američkog psihološkog udruženja (APA).

U okviru alata „Citiraj ovaj članak“ odaberite stil da vidite kako izgledaju sve dostupne informacije kada se formatiraju prema tom stilu. Zatim kopirajte i zalijepite tekst u svoju bibliografiju ili popis citiranih djela.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in the June 2007 issue of Military History. Za pretplatu kliknite ovdje.


Pogledajte video: Fridrih II, pruski kralj: Masonerija je..