Talk:Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor

Isabella, third wife

While this certainly isn't Isabella's own article, there should probably be more information about her, because she helps to define that area of Frederick's life. Just a few quick facts (which you can actually view at her article):

--Isabella was kept under lock and key.

--Isabella's own brother had to beg Frederick to see Isabella.

--She had four children through Frederick (this is mentioned, but I think all of his children need a little more information in this article).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.13.245 (talk • contribs) 13:44 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Spoken languages

@Jacques Grolet:, regarding this edit... I generally agree, especially after checking the reference which says This Frederick (...) was acquainted with the Latin tongue, and with our vernacular, with German and French, Greek and Arabic.

However, that the source is Giovanni Villani, writing in the early 14th century. "French", linked to French language, might be a bit anachronistic. Maybe Old French is more appropriate? Thinking of that, "German" probably has the same problem (Middle High German maybe?). I suppose Latin and Greek refer to the classical languages, and from a cursory look at Arabic#Standardization I assume Arabic was already fixed in a form resembling today’s (but I might well be wrong). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I think it would make sense to put "French" as the displayed language, and "old French" as the link?

Because otherwise we would have to update every Wikipedia page with the specific time period language name, it would be a little difficult and over specific I think, especially because there is no precise difference between those languages Jacques Grolet (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of times excommunicated?

This article states that Frederick was excommunicated three times, but I've read some sources (such as Dan Jones) that say it was four (this is also the number in Ernst Kantorowicz's bio). Going by the article, it would appear to be four (1227, 1228, 1234 and 1245), but since the pope had already excommunicated him in 1227 and didn't lift it until 1230, do we count 1228 as a second excommunication? Or does the deposition in 1245 not count as one?

I'm going to change it to four and cite Jones. If anyone wishes to challenge that, feel free. FatPie123 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nougat

Obviously we need more scholarly treatment, but the internet has dozens of pages repeating the claim/local legend/whathaveyou that Frederick's Arab chefs and northern campaigns were responsible for introducing or reintroducing nougat (torrone) to Cremona, sometimes with the further claim that his dining habits connected the food with Christmas. It'd be nice to either have that debunked or mentioned and correctly cited here as another influence of the guy on modern Italian culture. — LlywelynII 12:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Glaring NPOV/tone issues

Surely there is a better way of phrasing this: Frederick was one of the most brilliant and powerful figures of the Middle Ages and ruled a vast area, beginning with Sicily and stretching through Italy all the way north to Germany.
And almost this entire graf is written like a hagiography, not a historical/encyclopedic account: For his many-sided activities, dynamic personality and talents Frederick II has been called the greatest of all the German emperors, perhaps even of all medieval rulers. In the Kingdom of Sicily and much of Italy, Frederick built upon the work of his Norman predecessors and forged an early absolutist state bound together by an efficient secular bureaucracy. He was known by the appellation Stupor mundi ('Wonder of the World'), enjoying a reputation as a Renaissance man avant la lettre and polymath even today: a visionary statesman, an inspired naturalist, scholar, mathematician, architect, poet and composer. Frederick also reportedly spoke six languages: Latin, Sicilian, Middle High German, Old French, Greek, and Arabic. As an avid patron of science and the arts, he played a major role in promoting literature through the Sicilian School of poetry. His magnificent Sicilian imperial-royal court in Palermo, beginning around 1220, was the cultural and intellectual hub of the early 13th century and saw the first use of a literary form of an Italo-Romance language, Sicilian.
Much of these more flattering grafs are predicated upon one book from 1973, such as this one: Frederick’s childhood was turbulent as he passed through the hands of a collection of self-serving, scheming regents while the Sicilian nobility grabbed much of the royal demesne and wealth. Some chroniclers report that the young king was so destitute that he had to seek shelter among the citizens of Palermo. Frederick had no stable intimate relationships apart from, perhaps, the few of his personal household. However, the young king quickly grew to be a formidable and fiercely individualistic personality. He seems to have been highly precocious and insatiably inquisitive, impatient of restraint, with coarse manners, and already convinced of his own sense of royalty. Even in his younger years, Frederick was an avid reader and passionately interested in nature and the study of the universe. Some reports have him freely wandering the streets of cosmopolitan Palermo, talking and arguing with all manner of people, and always devouring knowledge.
I can go on, but here is one more egregiously hagiographic paragraph: Frederick II's multifaceted personality remains securely attached to his legacy. Even from a young age, he showed precocity and knowledge beyond his years, deeply conscious of his imperial lineage and defiant of any constraint on his free will. He seemed to be insatiably curious about everything: science, naturalism, mathematics, architecture, and poetry, and welcomed many of the most learned figures of his time to his court. He was a conversationalist with an "inexhaustible streak", equal to Voltaire or Oscar Wilde, and a keen polymath, comparable to Leonardo da Vinci, who "wanted to know everything". He enjoyed lively intellectual debates, and though he could be amiable, even enchanting, he was often passionate and intense. The emperor was a highly energetic and proactive ruler, ceaselessly traveling around Italy and the Regno, with a zeal for governing perhaps unmatched in the whole of the Middle Ages. His "speciality" was being a despot and a "dirigiste technocrat" who aimed to command every aspect of his Italian realms. Frederick's statecraft, though inventive or perhaps even ingenious, indicates an intolerantly absolutist disposition. If the emperor allowed himself personal heterodoxy, he nevertheless enforced strict orthodoxy elsewhere as the preeminent monarch of Christendom, who saw himself as the supreme source of peace, order, and justice—for whom the interests of the state superseded everything.

Anyone else agree? If so, do we have the go-ahead to start copyediting this for proper historical tone and not unabashed worship? Zorblin (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Stupor26:, you seem to be an avid maintainer of this page and enthusiast in the subject of this historical figure, what are your thoughts on this? Zorblin (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel I’ve been reasonable, and have simply maintained what is widely held sense of Frederick II. I hope you’ll find that no claim made has not been properly buttressed in credible sourcing or sensible analysis. Above commenter may call it hagiography but they are claiming it of several historians at once, in that case. Again, considering the general historiographical sense, it’s merited and—as I mentioned and have taken pains to compile—it is well-armored by evidential sourcing and grounding in credible judgements. Stupor26 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not a subject-matter expert or anything even approaching it, so I make no claims about the factual content. From an outside view, it seemed to praise him to an excessive degree. Zorblin (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zorblin can you provide WP:RS that any of this is not a correct presentation of usual attitudes to Frederick? We're allowed to say that a clever person was clever and should say that a person perceived to be important is perceived to be important. Rewriting to claim otherwise might be WP:FRINGE or even WP:OR. I'm not convinced that "hagiographic" is a fair characterisation of a paragraph accusing him of an "absolutist disposition" either. Furius (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on the point here. The aim of so much of this paragraph and the personality section (at least from my view, and I’ve tried to emulated with copious detail and evidence from much better historians than I) is to de-hagiographize Frederick a good deal. It’s clear he was a personality of superlative intelligence, manifold ability and intellectual application, but he was also a ruthless, brutal and, in some key ways, politically intolerant despot. The latter is a direct bow-shot at hagiography, and what many don’t realize is that even the most famous of the emperor’s ‘hagiographers’ Erich Kantorowicz remained lucid about this paradox. More broadly, I’d say the purpose of this wiki entry is to paint as vividly a portrait as possible that’s worthy of one of history’s most brilliant yet most controversial and multishaded rulers. Stupor26 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, nevermind. Probably kneejerk reaction to the tone, not the factual content. I still maintain something feels slightly non-encyclopedic to me about the description. It's not saying he was perceived to be clever, it's saying he was clever, which we cannot truly know because these are historical accounts with their own biases. This is a sample of the tone I would prefer to see personally, but I am not sure if it is more encyclopedic, given I am rusty at Wikipedia editing after copyediting news articles for 2 years or so with barely any edits made on Wikipedia in that timespan.

−

Frederick was one of the most brilliant and powerful figures of the [[Middle Ages]] and ruled a vast area, beginning with Sicily and stretching through Italy all the way north to Germany.

+

Frederick was considered to be one of the most brilliant and powerful figures of the [[Middle Ages]] and ruled a vast area, beginning with Sicily and stretching through Italy all the way north to Germany.

Very small tweak, but IMO it makes the claims made feel more credible and significant. Do you agree? Zorblin (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I take your point about encyclopedic-speak. I feel that it does this as is, however, I’d also be on board with your suggestion albeit with a slight counter-tweak of my own. Eyeing your suggestion, I think “was” changed for “is” would be a quite suitable statement, since it points directly to the broad high opinion which sustains across the wide range of historiographical reputation and popular sense. Even the more skeptical reappraisals of Abulafia or Stürner are not really total reversals of this larger reception but harder-nosed groundings of the emperor as a shrewd conservative and an opportunistic arch-pragmatist rather than the unfailingly audacious universalist ‘ur-statesman’ of what emerged in the European Renaissance and early modernity. I think the overarching thrust of this entire wiki entry, and therefore the opening section in question, is to show there is nuanced and many-sided evidence for both camps—the complexities of which is, I think, in itself why Frederick II maintains such interest and singularity among European rulers in general. Stupor26 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Stupor26: The language is clearly over the top. Srnec (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The language is in no way “over the top”. Nothing here is ungrounded or without proper armoring in reasonably broadly held receptions or more in-depth considered judgments by several major historians in the specific field or notable biographers of Frederick II. I hope where I’ve contributed, this is shown clearly (in fact, I’ve made quite sure of it). If the user is disputing the judgements or points made by these historians, the sources used, or, more importantly, the contextualizations made in this vein, the user should state why all this should cast aside to satisfy a (with respect) bogus claim of so-called over-the-top language. If it’s ‘over-the-top’ purple prose—and it’s difficult to see how contextualization by tying together well-sourced judgments and anchored facts is such, it is a charge that is being made in several directions at once, and demands much more labor on its own part. In the laboring, if what emerges is little more than a series of dates sans any real engagement with historical context and the judgements of informed historians on specific aspects of the topic, the entry will invariable be the poorer for it, and the reason why clear. Stupor26 (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Stupor26: historians are good secondary sources for us to use, but they often have a quite different mission or aim to Wikipedia. For a historian it is (arguably at least) often seen as a good thing to take very strong positions, or to argue a certain side, and paint with vivid colours. While we do use such sources for information, we do NOT use their style, because WP has different aims in this respect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

With respect, that is a valid point, and it would have purchase, I think, if it was a question of simply one historian making judgments and contextualizations that divorce drastically from the more common held consensus. This isn’t the case here. Over and again, sources and historical judgements are used and intermeshed to color context within a boarder view. This is clear in the historiographical section, not just in this entry, but in the related entry on cultural depictions which stretches across several areas. Stupor26 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Stupor26: You are edit warring. There is a clear consensus against the wording you favour. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Think it all you will. I’ll stick with the cast of historians used, thanks. The “wording I favour” roots itself in this and, since I’ve done the lion share of organizing, compilation and sourcing across this entry, I think my good faith stands strong. Cheers. Stupor26 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)