Gone Medieval - The Crusader Emperor: Frederick Barbarossa

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

How did Frederick Barbarossa reshape medieval Europe into the romantic legends that endure today?Dr. Eleanor Janega finds out with help from Professor Graham Loud. They explore Barbarossa's dramatic reign, his conflicts with the Lombard League and the Italian city-states, as well as his pivotal role in two Crusades.Hear about the extraordinary lengths Barbarossa went to secure safe passage for his army, his clash with the Byzantine Empire, and his fateful end during the Third Crusade.MOREHoly Roman Empirehttps://open.spotify.com/episode/4eqNlsXu44G54sFUS68C13Teutonic Knightshttps://open.spotify.com/episode/0gUpGPLW74wnhDm7MI5h6VGone Medieval is presented by Dr. Eleanor Janega. It was edited by Amy Haddow, the producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/6FFT7MK Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Eleanorianica and welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We uncover the greatest mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and the latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the Normans, from kings to popes, to the Crusades.

We delve into the rebellions, plots, and murders that tell us who we really were. And how we got here. It is said that in a cave under the Kiffhouser Mountains in Thuringia, there sits a king. From his face grows a massive red beard, so long it has grown through the table at which he sits. He is surrounded by an army of sleeping nights. while he himself waits with half-opened eyes. Whether contemplating or sleeping, it's impossible to say. From time to time, he lifts his hand and sends out a boy from the cave and into the light.

The boy must report whether or not ravens are still circling the mountain. Thus far, the boy has always reported that the ravens remain, meaning that there's no need for this great king, Frederick Barbarossa to ride out with his army and restore the German lands to the greatness they experienced under his rule as Holy Roman Emperor

and King of the Germans. It's a great story. In fact, it's so good that versions of it applied to the Emperor Frederick II in Sicily, St. Ventius-Loss in the Czech Republic, and of course, King Arthur here in England. But why Barbarossa? What is it about this emperor in particular that has inspired such romantic legends and made him into one of the few medieval household names?

To sort fact from fiction and legacy from legend, today I'm joined by Professor Graham Loud, author of the new biography, Frederick Barbarossa. Graham, welcome to Gone Medieval. Thank you from fighting me. I am delighted to speak to you because I always love an opportunity to talk about the Holy Roman Empire. and Holy Roman emperors. And I think today we're talking about one of the real household names of the Middle Ages, who is the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. But that, I suppose, leads me to a fairly large question right at the beginning,

which is exactly who he is Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. And why is he one of these particularly large and well-known names? Well, Frederick Barbarossa was King of Germany from 11. 52 to 1190, and he was crowned emperor in 1155. So he had a very long reign, and it is historically a very significant reign, particularly with regard to the German emperor's relationship with Italy. And he became, in retrospect, perhaps, well, I say more significant than he was. He was, his reign was significant, but not perhaps in the sense that later since,

thought it was. But of course, it was fairly soon after his death, the German kingdom started to fragment, and Germany eventually fragmented down to a very large number of principalities and city-states and so on, and only reunited in the 19th century under Bismarck. And particularly to German Patriots of the 19th century. Barbarossa was significant as almost the last great medieval emperor, the last man who really ruled over Germany and not just reigned. So he became a fairly potent myth figure, and that's shown by some of the public monuments of the 19th century, like the decorations of the rebuilt imperial palace at Gursla,

the Kieffauser monument, which is a monument to the Emperor William the first, but underneath the greater equestrian statue of William I, there's a statue of Barbarossa, the foot of the monument. And of course, it was signified in 1941 when the invasion of Russia was codenamed Operation Barbarossa, named after the great emperor. And by all accounts, that name was the personal choice of Adolf Hitler, which of course is to our minds. This is a slightly unfortunate part of his legacy. But he was seen as the great German patriot of the Middle Ages, you know, the great hero figure, rightly or wrongly.

I think this is an incredibly important point because the 19th century is so incredibly responsible for a lot of the medieval myth-making that we sort of live with now. And I think there is rather a lot of attempting to go to the past and find individuals such as this to justify coalescing ideas of nationalism. So, you know, the argument for a united and cohesive German state really rests on finding figures like Barbarossa who can be said to be ruling a continuous area such as this, when in the Middle Ages, as you say, oftentimes things are much more fragmented than we think of them now. Well, the interesting thing is that today in the sort of, you know, 2020s, we can come to terms much more easily with local devolution,

federal states, whereas in the 19th century, the emphasis was so much on the nation state, although one might argue that medieval Germany barely was a nation, and indeed for quite a long time, up to certainly the 12th century, there was no real concept of what, be German was. It was much more important that you were a Saxon or a Bavarian or a Swabian. Arguably, that was the case in Barbarossa's day, although they did use the term, you know, the kingdom of the Germans. But I suspect to most Germans, it was still more important to be a Bavarian or a Saxon, rather than, inverted commas, a German. So I suppose I have a fairly basic question for you simply about naming conventions. We have

this nickname, Barbarossa. Where does that come from? Does this man actually have a red beard? And is it that notable? Yes, he did. It's the name given him by the Italians. Contemporary descriptions, although we've obviously got to be a bit careful with them because they often draw on models. But we have a couple of contemporary descriptions of him.

And certainly he was blondish, you know, blondie red. I love these things from the Middle Ages that survive, where you have particular physical descriptions that come down to us. because we often lack these. It's interesting that we, for example, people will talk about how beautiful Eleanor of Aquitaine is, but we have no idea what she looked like. So I'm really thankful when things like Barbarossa takes off as a name because then it gives us some little hint about him. I mean, we obviously don't know exactly what he looked like, but we do have a quite good physical description,

particularly by an Italian chronicler who did know him. He was blonde, tending to red, apparently have very good teeth. He's quite eloquent, though he speaks German, but he's eloquent in German, unlike his half-brother who was notoriously taciturn. We can't believe everything about the description. I mean, we're told that he was always sort of good-tempered and very slow to get angry, which some other sources suggest it's not quite true. He obviously had quite a quick temper. but when he was on his best behaviour, no doubt, he gave this rather affable air off. So, you know, we know a bit more about him than we do about some people,

but with rulers, there's always the issue that there is a rather formal, this is the way a ruler ought to look in these descriptions. This brings me to my next question, which is, what are the sources that we're using to reconstruct ideas about his reign or his personality? Well, we have a number of contemporary chronicles, I mean, the major difficulty with Barbarossa is that a lot of people rely on so-called deeds of Frederick Barbarossa by Bishop Writersh Friesing and his continuator, but that only covers the first nine years of the reign. But we have a number of other chronicles. The ones I've particularly used and I'm familiar with are the Saxon chronicle by a man called Arnold of Lubeck

and an anonymous description of Barbarossa's crusade written right at the end of his life. And I'm familiar with those two because I translated both of them into English, published them. And I suppose this is as good an entry as any into a fair description of what the Holy Roman Empire really looks like in the 12th century.

You know, this is a really important time in terms of coalescing imperial power. So what lands are kind of under the nominal control? Well, it hasn't quite collapsed yet. The first thing I'll remember is the term Holy Roman Empire is essentially anachronistic. It was only really used from the 13th century onwards. Barbarossa certainly calls himself Emperor of the Romans. But essentially, what you've got is an empire which comprises Germany and northern Italy.

But you must remember that Germany was considerably bigger at this period than the modern day republic. It takes in Switzerland, takes in modern day Belgium and the Netherlands, part of Eastern France in the sort of Jura, Alsace region, Austria, and parts of Croatia, Istria. So it's pretty big. And the emperor also would claim to be king of Italy, though the kingdom of Italy in the 12th century really meant only northern and central Italy. Because we have also the new kingdom of Sicily in the South. So he's undoubtedly the major territorial ruler within Europe, and he still does

rule over this area. Remember, there's relatively little administrative infrastructure. He mainly rules where he goes himself, and given the size of his empire, or parts of it he spent a lot of time in and parts of it he hardly ever visited. And Barbara Ossa, unlike his immediate predecessors, spent a lot of time in Italy. And for the first two-thirds of his reign, he's to considerably extend an absentee ruler in Germany. This is a very important point. You know, this kind of peripatetic imperial ruling

can oftentimes give us an idea of where real issues are because you couldn't perhaps leave the German lands if you feel as though you have a strong enough grip on them. Whereas, I suppose, it kind of makes sense to be, within the Italian lands if things are a bit more fracturous. But, you know, if you've got parts of Istria, for example, that you are worried about, you might need to make it down there. There are all sorts of tensions that can exist within this large, a contiguous state to rule.

So is there a lot of troubles that he inherits in particular? Or is there tension that happens as a result of his own disease? desire to control this much land rather directly? Well, he controls some areas more directly than others. I don't think he ever went to history. For example, Barbarossa was undoubtedly focused on Italy, but that was precisely because his immediate predecessors have not been. I mean, the emperors from sort of half a century before Barbarossa

had only been to Italy four times, total. and three of those had been largely going down to Rome from the imperial coronation. They've hardly ever been in Lombolet which is the most populous and most advanced bit of Italy, the most of they just pass through

and if you're going to your imperial coronation Rome, the last thing you want to do is get fouled up by disputes with cities along the way. So to some extent, I think in Italy there's a case of either use it or lose it If he's going to reassert imperial control in Italy, he couldn't leave it too long.

And his immediate predecessor, his uncle, Conrad I III, had never actually got to Italy. He'd never been crowned emperor. So there'd been a long hiatus. And during that period, the Italian cities of the North largely ruled themselves. So they developed institutions of government, town councils, magistracies. They were used to getting by without the emperor fundamentally, right? And Italy was the most advanced area economically in Western Europe at this time. So if the emperor can reinsert direct control, he can enjoy an income and, you know, a cash income from that, which would be hugely helpful.

As a lot of Barbaros' income from his other German states was still in kind and not cash, right? So it's worth being in control of northern Italy. And I think he feels, well, if I don't reassert my control now, we really will lose it forever. So that explains perhaps wise in Italy. But the corollary of that is, he needed to keep good relations with the German princess. What he couldn't afford was to have a dispute

with one of the major princes, or almost bad if you have two princes in dispute with each other. and a sort of local civil war going on in one part of Germany, because that would both prevent people sending reinforcements to Italy to help the emperor and would demand his presence to stop it. And when he was in Germany, he spent a lot of time damping down dispute among the princess, and particularly with regard to the most powerful among the princess, Henry of the Lahn, Duke of Saxony, Bavaria, who seems to,

have had a remarkable knack of annoying his neighbours. And on at least two occasions, Barbara Osser calms down a potential civil war in North Germany, very much. So this won't interfere with his next campaign in Italy. He's got a really great reputation as this rather canny statesman. And I think it's just as well for all of us that he got to the throne in the end. but I suppose here is a good time to talk about how it is that he got there in the first place, because he's from the Stauphin dynasty, and he's got this real pedigree. Can you tell us a little bit about his family lineage and how it is that he managed to get into a position where he could become one of the most important men in Europe?

Well, of course, it's the issue about how do you create a pedigree, because actually the Stouffer were relatively newly arrived. I mean, the first figure who's significant is Barbarossa's grandfather. We know very little about him, though he was a Swabian nobleman, but who married the daughter of the Emperor Henry IV and was made Duke of Swabia. But in a sense, Barbaross's, you know, the Schauffman family's role as one of the great families of Germany. It only goes back two generations. But that's enough. Yes, and then his uncle Conrad III was the king of the Germans.

And in many ways, he's Barbara Roses predecessor, right? Conrad had two sons, one of them pre-deceased his father, having already been nominated as King of Germany, you know, the successor. The other son was very young. Conrad may well have intended to nominate him as King and successor just before his death. But he died before he could do that. and Barbara also moved very fast to secure his own election as a ruler. Though it looks as though the quid pro quo, which he promised that he would look after Conrad's son,

and he made him to Cuswabia, he ensured that he got a share of the family lands. And so up to a point he played fair. And obviously, from the point of view of Germany, having a new king who was 29, as opposed to one who was about eight, had certain advantages. But it does look like a coup d'etat,

albeit a peaceful one. And it's interesting that having been elected king, Barbarossa moved like lightning from Frankfurt where the election took place to Archen, which is the traditional site of coronation, and was crowned less than a week later. And yet when he gets to Italy, and is dealing with the Italian towns,

he's often clunkingly careless and insensitive. What do you think accounts for that? Is it just a greater understanding of German life, you know, being someone who's this important? Is it just a misunderstanding of how Italian politics works? With a statesman at this level? I think it's a problem of dealing with a different sort of social structure. He clearly gets on well enough

with Italian aristocrats. Now, these town councils were hardly democratic. I mean, we're talking about cities which are run by the richest burgers, wealthy merchants, some nobles, but he clearly found it more difficult dealing with people who weren't on his sort of social level and social radar.

I suspect in modern terms he's probably a considerable snob. But he's also, you know, he has a feeling that the emperor has rights in Italy, which had belonged to his predecessors, and I think he felt that the Italian cities were trying to take over his prerogatives in a way they'd no right to do. So there's a great deal of resistance within Italy to these campaigns, is there not? I mean, there's your classic papal disputes with the emperor, which I've always come to expect. But we also have, for example, the Lombard League who crops up against him. The development of the Lombard League was one of the really decisive moments of the reign.

Barbaros's major problem in the first 10 years or so of his reign is Milan. Milan was the largest of the North Italian cities, which is the most powerful, most populous, and Milan was particularly resistant. to any exercise of imperial rights within the city or within its territory. Now, in by 1162, it looked as though Barbara Osat 1. He'd besieged Milan, he'd force the city to surrender, and then he'd insisted the city was evacuated, the walls were destroyed, quite often the city was destroyed, its left deserted,

which, among other things, was an object lesson to other Italian citizens, cities, that it's not a good idea to oppose the emperor. At that point, though clearly the dispute with Alessander the third is causing problems, it's not really more than the contributory to his problems in Italy. But over the next few years, Barbarossa rather overplays his hand, and more to the point the official see appoints in Italy, seemed to have been pretty active in feathering their own nests, abusing their powers, and putting people's backs up.

So when he next came to Italy, in 1166, 7, there's quite a lot of resistance. And as he marched south towards Rome, the Lombard cities combined together in a formal alliance called the Lombard League. And that Lombard League worked. City said that we'll put aside

our disputes, one with another, the Milanese promised they wouldn't attack their neighbours. Even some of the cities which had hitherto supported Barbarossa joined the Lombard League, more or less willingly, some more than others. His control over Italy had more or less vanished within the space of about six months. And when he next came to Italy in 1174, he was faced with an alliance against him, which had had time to solidify, and also his army in 1174 was considerably small

than five or six, seven years earlier. And it looks as though the strain of continuous campaigns in Italy was beginning to tell in Germany. It's interesting, because as you say, the Lombard League was this alliance of northern Italian cities formed purely to resist Emperor Frederick Barbaros' control, right? So Barbarossa made some terrible mistakes, as emperors are wont to do. He destroyed Milan to intimidate others, which also didn't work.

In fact, this super harsh rule and the corrupt officials angered a lot of people to the extent that when he returns to Italy, the cities are all united to oppose him and even his former rivals, which is, that's a real feat, you know. And then there's this deadly epidemic that weakens Barbarossa's army, and that sparks a major rebellion. And the league's unity led to Barbarossa's defeat and escape. So, you know, it wasn't that the German princes were necessarily opposed to campaigns in Italy, but by this point, they had lost so many family members or lost men and had spent a lot of their resources on this. So they really were finding it difficult to stay on board with Barbarossa. They don't have the sunk cost fallacy working.

So what happened next? Ultimately, he was defeated at a pitch battle, the only one of all these campaigns at a place called Leniano in 1176. And it was after the defeat Leniano that he clearly decided to cut his losses. and the only issue was on what terms the peace was made. And this eventually took place at this great conference at Venice, 177, where he concluded long truce with the Lombard League and concluded an even longer truce with King William II of Sicily. So this is an incredibly simplistic question, given how many moving parts there are at this. You know, we have bishops to consider.

we have Lombardy as opposed to Tuscany, we have the kingdom of Sicily. But what do you characterize Barbarossa's interventions on the Italian peninsula as successful? You know, overall, is this a story where we have another emperor in over his head? Or is this, did we see any inroads at all, I suppose? On balance, no, he wasn't successful. He may have come quite, seem to have come quite close to it at times, but the 1177 conference is an omission of defeat. He wasn't totally unsuccessful in the sense that in the last years of his reign, he was still very much in control of Tuscany and Umbria and the Amelia Romagna. I mean, effectively, he conceded itself for government, but at the same time the Lombos cities agreed to pay him an annual subsidy in Rwry and Amidra.

return for the royal rights they were exercising. So he doesn't lose out completely. So, yeah, there is a piece, but you'd have to say on balance, the Italian policy didn't work or not to the extent that he wanted it to work, and that in the end it all went pretty well wrong. And his attempts to impose his own Pope didn't work. And his relations with the Pope's and the 1180s are tense. Never outrightly hostile, but they're pretty tense, and there's a lot of issues of dispute. I would qualify that as tense, certainly. I think that's fair enough way. It's sort of Cold War, but it's probably Cold War, 1962 vintage, perhaps. You know, there could be an explosion.

This, I think, is an interesting point, though, because this is a man who is in a really interesting position politically. and as all emperors are with the papacy, because this is also a man of some particularly sensitive, religious, sensitive, because, I mean, quite famously, he's involved in not one but two crusades as well. Could he tell us a little bit about his involvement in the second crusade before any of this kicks off? Well, this was Barbarossa, was still quite a young man.

He had just succeeded his father as Duke of Swabia. His father died a few months before the Crusade set off. And he was effectively second in command of the German contingent, remembering that the King of Germany was his uncle. And he plays quite a significant role insofar as we can see, though I must remember the sources for the German involvement, Second Crusade, are pretty limited. it. Otter Freising took part in the crusade as well, but in his history, there's almost nothing about it. He simply says, you know, it didn't work, so I won't talk about it. But it did mean that when Barbarossa went on crusade right at the end of his reign, he did know what he was getting himself into, and given the second crusade had been pretty unsuccessful, and some of that at least

was due to the problems with the leadership. He had a pretty good idea of what not to do. One of the problems Second Crusade had, it had a huge number of non-combatants trailing along in the army's wake. Now, medieval armies tended to do, but there's a lot of comment by contemporaries about the Second Crusade about the non-combatants and what a drag they were on the army

and how they tend to get massacred. When Barbarossa was setting out on the Third Crusade, he takes a long time organizing it. He makes some quite serious regulations. He tries to discourage people who don't have the financial resources or the weaponry to go on a crusade. He sends some people home. He tries to avoid this great train of useless mail that's accompanying the army. And he also conducts a very intelligent diplomatic campaign to try and ensure that he can march through along this long route through the Balkans, through the Byzantine Empire, through Asia Minor, down to Syria, without too much trouble. And the aim of all this is to ensure free passage for his army and the provision of markets where they can buy food.

When he actually went on crusade in 1189, the contemporary comment is clear that his army is well disciplined. He keeps it in hand. I think that this is such an incredibly important point, and it's so interesting because it is just intensely clever. Because all of the issues that other crusades end up having in terms of provisioning or simply panicking people on their way through. I mean, the first crusade is an absolute shambles in terms of what they're doing to the kingdom of Hungary, or the absolute shock that Byzantine empire has when you have all these people show up on their doorstep. I mean, I just think that Barbarossa is such a clever leader for attempting to make these particular inroads before he ever sets off. And we very rarely see planning on this level when it comes to crusade. well it helped that there was a degree of diplomatic contact in him

I mean the interesting is he even sends an embassy to Saladin admittedly the embassy says get out of Jerusalem hand back the true cross but I think the point is that he and Saladin had actually been in diplomatic contact earlier so what effectively is doing is sending a formal declaration of war about saying you know you had your chance not to have a war it's your choice to have one. But it wasn't that the crusade was trouble-free,

and his major problem is really with the Byzantine emperor. And when Barbarossa's army turns up, the Byzantine emperor sends a legation saying, well, you didn't tell me you were coming, although Barbarossa said with some justice, well, I've sent you to two embassies, so how could you not know I'm coming? But clearly there was a worry about a large,

and this was a very large army, going through Byzantine territory. And of course, there is the problem of the two emperors, because both the Byzantine emperor and the German emperor claim that they are the one and only Roman emperor. And the Byzantine emperor did not get diplomacy off to a good start by sending a letter addressed to the king of the Germans. And naturally, he got one back addressed to the king of the Greeks. I love it. I love it. Yeah. Once Barbarossa's army got into Byzantine territory, there started to be a tax on it. Some of them may be the standard stuff for the local inhabitants, not liking all these foreigners coming through their territory. But the suspicion among the leadership of the Crusade was that it was all being orchestrated by the Emperor Isaac. And then Barbarossa needed ships to take his army across the Bosphorus. And obviously the best source of those ships was the Byzantine Navy,

which Isaac wasn't willing to do, although he might have been more sensible as saying, of course I'll help you, and getting them out of his territory as fast as he could. I do get the impression of the Emperor's that wasn't very bright. That may be just my prejudice. I mean, in the end, he does get the ships, but only after he's devastated Thrace,

and there's been a long delay. And then, anyway, they got across the Bosphorus, they moved from Pesantyne into turn. Turkish territory, and then the army starts getting attacked again. So by the time they've got through to the later stages of southeast Asia Minor, there's been a lot of fighting, and the army is very short of food. But it's still an army in being, and whatever attacks the Turks made on it, they didn't stop it.

It got to the Christian kingdom of Armenia, it's in friendly territory. it's central there, but then Barbarossa drowns crossing a river. It's so undignified. You have this great story, as a very romantic kind of heading out to the Middle East and then, you know, drowns in a river. It's anti-climactic, I suppose. Occupational problem of campaigning. But depending on which account you read, either he was crossing the river and was swept off his horse. Remember, Barbarossa was in his late 60s by then.

He's not, you know, he's by contemporary standards, quite an old man. The other account, which I rather like, is he got across the river, he had lunch, but it was a really hot day, so went for swim and drowned. We don't know which is true, but you pay so money, he takes a choice. But even then, there was still an army in being. His second son, also Frederick, took over as commander of the army. I mean, I think Frederick had been doing a lot of the tactical commanders. anyway. He seems to have led most of the attacks on the Turks, for example. And the army got to Antioch, Christian territory, still an army being. What really did for Barbaros's army was the

epidemic which broke out at Antioch. And I mean, it's, again, one of these things where it's the in occupational hazard of any real military campaign and certainly the ones that head to the Middle East. You know, you've got particular challenges that you're going to have with huge numbers of people passing through large amounts of territory. And you just do pick up germs here and there, don't you? Well, yes. And particularly, ones to do with inadequate sanitation, for example. And imagine how much more difficult all of this is in the 12th century. It's just, it boggles my mind that anyone did anything other than die of dysentery, really. Sometimes in the Middle Ages, it's... Well, yeah, it is a problem. It's always a problem for

for its German campaigns in Italy and indeed for anyone in the Middle East, where they're not used to the heat, you can pick up exotic diseases, but I think most of the time the problem is inadequate sanitation, possibly poison

water supplies, food that's gone off, so gastropro problems. Well, it's a rather ignominious end. Yes, it's the unromantic bit of the Middle Ages. It is rather, you know, and we lose all sorts to this, you know, or any number of princes and kings.

You know, this is the thing that takes them down, is poor sanitation on a military crusade. But regardless, you know, we have this kind of, it's a bit of a deflation, isn't it, Barbarossa's end? But that's not what we tend to talk about. Well, you know, it's not why he is this big romantic name that people come back to over and over again. But huge question here.

Do you think that his policies, you know, his desire to go on crusade, his desire to really control more directly the northern Italian city states, are these long-term issues for the Holy Roman Empire once he's no longer in the picture? Or would this happen anyway? Not so much the crusade, because in a sense the crusade is seen as an entirely admirable enterprise. It's unfortunate the emperor died and the circumstances. that he did, but in some respect, dying on a holy enterprise was no bad end. And he had taken very careful steps to ensure his son's succession after his death. His son's already crowned

King of Germany. His son has married in Milan, he schmoosed the Milanese. Whatever problems have been with the papacy had been solved by a crusade. The Polks want the crusade to succeed. So that in the short term, the crusade isn't a problem. In the long term, I think Barbarossa's reign was catastrophic for the effective power of the Roman emberate, both in Italy, but also in Germany, because the German rulers never really developed an administrative infrastructure. They were in control of those areas where they had a lot of land themselves, a lot of

you know, regalian rights which they exercise, control of towns, and so on, which in Barbaros' case meant largely Swabia and Franconia. But other German princes were developing their own local authority in the same way that the Stouffer were.

Stouffer were doing on a bigger scale than anybody else, and in more areas, but the Velfs, the Babenberger, the Zerringen, the other German princely families, were doing the same thing. And to some extent, Barbarossa must encourage us,

providing they don't cause trouble, providing they contribute contingents to his Italian campaigns, he's quite happy to rub a stamp what's going on in localities. But what this ultimately meant was that imperial authority within Germany rested on three things. The emperor's own lands, and the fact that he was so wealthy, control of the German church, which is why relations of the papacy is a really big issue,

and the prestige of the imperial office. But arguably, Barbaros reigns the tipping point where princely authority develops, with the emperor most of the time just benevolently rubber-stamping this, and often making concessions to individual princes, saying to Henry the lion, Yes, you can control the appointment to the sax of bishoprics. I think that this is such an important point because there is an actual mythology surrounding Barbaros. You know, he's one of these figures much like King Arthur here in England or in the Czech lands. We have St. Ventra St. Ventra's lost doing the same thing.

He's asleep in a mountain, isn't he? You know, this mythology that here is going to be some kind of great national savior. You know, he crops up in the Brothers Grimm play about him. You know, he's this sort of saintly individual that is going to have some kind of a peasing role for Germans and Germanness. How do you get to that? Well, you have a great dose of 19th century romanticism. In, yes, the brothers Grimm, Perth Friedrich Rukert, for example. He has a poem called Alta Barbarossa, old Barbarossa, which apparently when them up, Fatherland is in danger.

Barbarossa will await from his sleep and come and rescue it. I mean, everybody recognizes this as a legend, but somehow or another, it's sort of a legend which sticks. And this whole idea is you sleeping under the Kifoyza Mountain. It's always a mountain. When I went down into the Barbarossa Hohler, he seemed to have popped out for a while because he wasn't there. Yeah. I'm still waiting, you know, I can't wait to meet them all someday in the dark as are. It's far more to do with 19th century German romantic nationalism.

he's seen as the great heroic figure for the medieval empire who always fought his corner fought for the empire the great patriot now whether Barbara Osso would have seen himself as a patriot I very much doubt but it's seen through the terms

of late 19th century Germany in the age of Bismarck it's essentially anachronistic but it does tell you quite a lot about intellectual life in the age of Bismarck Absolutely. I mean, we see this across Europe, don't we? You know, the 19th century is that time for this romanticization, this attempting to find some ideal ruler that is going to typify your theoretical nation. I mean, the Germans aren't alone in this one. The Italians do it, the Czechs do it, the French are doing it. Everyone is rather on that at the time. The 19th century in particular had some wonderfully anachronistic views of the Middle Ages. I think it's none other.

than Bishop Stubbs, you described Edwin I was a buccaneering old Gladstone. I love that. Oh. Which I can't think of a worse misjudgment, but then, Edwin I first, to my view, was an extremely nasty piece of work. I couldn't agree more. I suppose, just to attempt to wrap up a fairly huge subject, how would you think we should understand Barbarossa's legacy? You know, we have these romanticized ideas.

We have his misuse and abuse by the actual Nazis at one point in time. But how are we as medievalists to encounter this legacy, do you think? Well, I do think Barbara Osray was a very, very important one. But I think it was important less because of his short-term games. But more by the way that in the long, run, it sowed the seeds for the state of Europe in the late Middle Ages and indeed up to the 19th century, the fragmentation of power in both Italy and Germany. You know, it said by the time of the Reformation, Germany has about 300 different political

authorities. Well, Barbara Rossus Rhein didn't create that by itself, but it certainly gave a pretty hefty step along the way to create in that state of confusion, although the German practice of partable inheritance didn't help either. So I see it as a very, very important stage in setting the political scene for late medieval and early modern Europe. I couldn't agree more. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a barbarosa apologist, just because I'd like the Holy Roman Empire. so I think that you should be meddling in Italy personally. I'm incorrigible in that respect.

But Graham, this has been an absolute delight. It's given me rather a lot to think about, although I don't think I'm going to stop defending this at any time soon. But thank you ever so much for coming on to speak to us today about it. My pleasure. Thanks to Graham Loud and to you for listening to Gone Medieval from History Hit. If you want to know more about the Holy Roman Empire and imperial intrigue, and frankly, who could blame you,

There's lots in our back catalog, including my deep dive explaining the Holy Roman Empire or my conversation about the investor's controversy. Do go back and find them. Remember, you can enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries, including my recent film Medieval Apocalypse, and ad-free podcasts by signing up at historyhit.com forward slash subscription. You can follow Gone Medieval on Spotify, where you can leave us comments and suggestions, or wherever you get your podcasts, and tell all your friends and family that you've gone medieval. Until next time.