This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Isn't the current title biased? Frederick was a menace to Europe: He started two massive wars, in 1740 by invading Silesia and in 1756 by attacking neutral Saxony. His armies laid waste to Saxony, pillaging everything of value, he debased the currency, in 1760 he deliberately targeted the churches and civilian buildings of Dresden instead of its fortifications despite this being against the conventions of the time (See Bellotto's painting of the destruction of the Kreuzkirche). He only won about half of his battles, for every Leuthen or Rossbach there was a Kolin or Hochkirch or Kunersdorf. He was awful to his family, visiting his wife only once every several years. He masquered as an enlightened monarch, even writing the "Anti-Machiavel" before preceding to backstab his ally France in 1742 and 1745 during the War of the Austrian Succession. He set the precedent for rampant militarism in Prussia, which would culminate in two world wars and the destruction of Europe. When Hitler was in his bunker in 1945 he kept a painting of Frederick and awaited for fortune to intervene just as it had for Frederick in 1762 with the death of Elizabeth of Russia. Perhaps Joseph II, a truly enlightened monarch should deserve such an epithet instead. Preußenistgross (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Against: Most historical figures on Wikipedia, who have been commonly granted the epithet of "The Great", retain it in the title of their articles for the sole reason of WP:COMMONAME. It is almost undoubtedly true that Frederick II, King of Prussia, is largely remembered in the historical record as Frederick the Great. This follows the same logic as the articles of Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, Constantine the Great etc. I think furthermore, and please do not take this as an attack, your reasons for changing this name are based more on a perception of Frederick the Great rather than his actual name. You cite various negative actions/consequences of Frederick the Great, which while may be true, have loaded presumptions within them. Yes, he wrote the Anti-Machiavelli and then proceeded to betray his previous allies during the War of Austrian Succession. However, he wrote the Anti-Machiavelli before he was raised to the throne. Thus, it could be argued that his views on chicanery had evolved with expierence in government, rather than him simply 'masquerading' as an enlightened despot. The Hitler example is frivolous, the intentions and symbolism of Hitler's portrait of Frederick are not caused by the actions of Frederick and are useless in actually portraying the character of Frederick. Battle records are shoddy for assessing 'greatness' as it leads to the argument of quantity over quality. Family example is understandable, but I do not think that it would override the general record of his government achievements.
Overall though, whats most important is that he is commonly known and recorded as "Frederick the Great". As such, the article should retain his common name. Chariotsacha (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
