Anglo historiography of Holy Roman Emperors[edit]

While building the historiography parts of these articles, I realize one thing: it is likely for different reasons, but some particular forms of Anglo depictions (from British historians, in particular) of these figures often lean towards the unappealing side - biographies, popular histories etc (While modern overview articles from Britannica/Oxford/Cambridge sites and their offshoots tend to be written by "international" experts and thus keep a neutral tone that is closer to the actual state of research concerning these historical personalities). For example: John Freed's biography (the only one in English language) of Frederick I happens to be markedly more negative about the emperor (portraying him usually as a passive, powerless agent influenced by others) than Opll, Görich, Laudage, or Cardini. The only relatively new (quasi-) biography of Maximilian (by Benecke, 1982) also happens to correspond to the more negative strands of research on the emperor, especially concerning his character (reading the book, it looks like the author conceived the content before Wiesflecker's most notable contribution was published) - albeit, negative but "colourful" (maybe even a good villainous figure for a movie in some respects...). Frederick II is a huge mixed bag (my view on him, also), as also shown by the works of Stürner or Houben or Rader (I have not digged deep into Italian research yet, but it seems he is popular) but David Abulafia's work on him definitely casts a less appealing light (conservative, normal' medieval ruler whose patronage/court was "a pale shadow of that of his Norman ancestors") - others might describe him as a tyrant, but a tyrant with character.

I am not saying that these historians are unscientific or their views have no chance to correspond to the realities. It just happens that the rare biography of the particular character leans that way... Geoffrey Parker's Emperor (Charles V) is an exception (the author happens to have a positive view of Maximilian too).

As for popular histories and even many (apparently scientific) works that cover a large, general matter/period, the mode is different: one often sees clichés repeated (some blatant old propaganda pieces - hundreds years old at that). Even books like The Habsburgs: To Rule the World by an author who apparently has qualifications (but seems to target the casual readers here) – I mean, one can criticize this or that Habsburg ruler, but at least deal with some notable strands of scholarly discussions on them (whether one agrees or disagrees or has another totally different view is another matter), or mention social developments that constitute or affect their power foundation (the author prefers to discuss in length symbols and arts involving the rulers more, but he is not an art historian either). Deamonpen (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find Freed's biography to be quite so negative in the end as I anticipated, although it certainly is an attempt to counter the "myth" of Barbarossa. For a praiseful account of Frederick II in English, see Van Cleve. I prefer it to Abulafia. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not negative to the point of blackening, however, it is certainly more negative and portrays Frederick as a much less interesting or notable historical figure than all the German-Austrian and Italian works I mention, and the two reviewers I note in this Wiki article realize it. One thing that makes me concerned is the tendency of some of these critical, "mythbuster" historians (not only concerning Holy Roman Emperors), sometimes in their zeal to justify their stand, represents foreign authors' work:

[...] honor, understood not as some internalized moral imperative but as a nobleman’s concern for his reputation and social standing, was the driving force behind Frederick’s actions. The emperor was not a medieval precursor of Bismarck with a plan for creating a German state but a man who responded immediately and often violently to any slight, real or imagined, to his dignity. Görich pointed out that as long as scholars focused on Frederick’s alleged political program and use of power, there was little incentive to write the emperor’s biography. I have tried to integrate Görich’s insight into the centrality of honor in Frederick’s thinking in a bibliography that situates him in a world of familial politics and the exercise of brute power.

This is how Knut Görich's view is described by Freed. I myself have a different impression of Görich's representation of Frederick - that internalized values (perhaps not "moral" in the modern sense we use), concern for his rights, duties and social standing, calculation and the need to balance honour with other political realities were all relevant to Frederick. One can say that he "harmonized" the concept and practice of honor imperii with his political purposes (and was not just a man who lashed out at real or perceived slights - anyway men like that appear in many societies and eras, not just aristocrats who lived during the medieval period) . Also, KG's Frederick (and his advisors) might not have been the calculating mastermind that Laudage portrays, but they did have plans and ideas (often reacting to practical matters and situations at hand) - that is why KG's biography has quite a relevant section named Herrschaftsexperimente.

So when this happens (my perception of one author's works is different from another author's perception of those works), I tend to consult the author's reviewers even more (lest my own biases get in the way)

Here are some of the reviews of KG's books:

Loud, as already mentioned in the article:

Loud, Graham A. "Knut Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa. Eine Biographie, München (C. H. Beck) 2011" (PDF). Francia-Recensio 2012/3 Mittelalter – Moyen Âge (500–1500).

German, from hsozkult

Plassmann, Alheydis (2011). "Friedrich Barbarossa". C.H. Beck Verlag.
Görich, Knut (2001). "Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas". Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
Schlüter, Bastian (2017). "Friedrich Barbarossa in den Nationalgeschichten Deutschlands und Ostmitteleuropas (19.–20 JH.)". Böhlau Verlag. Retrieved 24 February 2022.

For example, Loud's account of Frederick - Henry the Lion case as mentioned in KG's biography (one of the case studies KG tends to visti in his works)

Henry the Lion meanwhile was restored to the duchy of Bavaria, which his father had formerly held, in 1156. But, as Görich shows, while Barbarossa had probably intended to do this from the start of his reign, the eventual compromise was the product of lengthy negotiation, and the grant of ducal status to the Babenberger duchy of Austria and the fiction embodied in the Privilegium Minus that Henry Jasomirgott’s surrender of Bavaria was an act of free will, was all designed to save the latter’s reputation and status – another example of the importance of honor. Indeed, one of the skills that Frederick I seemed to possess was an ability to satisfy and to recompense those who were not necessarily within his inner circle, and to impose an element of checks and balances among the princes. Hence Görich suggests that the appointment of Bishop Wichmann of Naumburg as archbishop of Magdeburg in 1152 (an appointment that was to lead to problems with the papacy) was a sop to the Wettins, to whom the new archbishop was related, and compensation for the favour generally shown to their rival in north Germany, Henry the Lion. Nevertheless, Wichmann proved to be a loyal supporter of the emperor, and one of his key allies in north Germany throughout his long episcopate.

Or Plassmann's account on the same case - period of rule:

As for the last decade of Frederick’s reign, the fall of Henry the Lion and its aftermath, Freed tends to support the opinion that has been put forward by Odilo Engels that the fall of Henry the Lion cannot be interpreted as a sign of a still strong central rule of the emperor, but is to be explained by the princes’ ambitions. Recently Knut Gorich argued that Frederick was universally accepted ¨as king and emperor and managed to push for the succession he wanted. Freed does not take note of Gorich’s conclusion. In the light of the whole reign it¨ is striking that although the relative peace and quiet in Germany at that time might be explained by Frederick’s frequent absences in Italy, Frederick was more present in the 1180s than in the decades before that and still his rule was not challenged. The fact that Frederick was thought to be ‘one of them’ by most of the princes might be considered as one of the most important contributing factors to the unusual level of acceptance of the emperor within Germany. Frederick outlived excommunication, pestilence, a crushing defeat against the Italian opposition and the defiance of one of the mightiest princes of the realm and ended up as the unquestioned leader of the German host on the third crusade.

I will try to integrate Van Cleve's work on Frederick II when creating the Cultural depictions article on him. I think cases like that (1972, in this case) are consistent with the older "trend": works focused on the individuals once tended to shed a brighter light than the short overview presented by Britannica/.etc (albeit, in the case of Frederick I, older Britannica still shed quite a lustrous light). In our days, Abulafia's work gets more attention than Van Cleve's though. That said, recently comprehensive synthesis works on the Empire written in the English language (Wilson, Whaley, Brady Jr. or Stollberg-Rilinger) are blossoming, even in comparison with the German scene, and to the advantage of people like Maximilian I (whose political activities seem suitable to be framed into this type of publication) Deamonpen (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]