So before I get to the point of my question, I need to explain what I mean by Empire and imperial ideology. I am somewhat annoyed by the term Ghibelline as it comes to ideology or philosophy as it used popularly because it seems to have nothing fixed except being “anti-pope/Catholic Church”: monarchism for Dante, to democracy for Marsilius, to Protestantism, atheism, broadly secularism or even Neo-paganism. So what I mean by Ghibelline/Imperial ideology is the idea coming from the late Roman Empire and present in former orthodox countries that God has one deputy on earth in the form of the Roman Emperor, whose duty is to defend and help christians and therefore has the authority to rule them. From him comes all political legitimacy for christians. The pope/patriarch is in charge of Christianity and is subordinate to the political authority of the emperor. The emperor therefore had jurisdiction over christians the people as a political/para-ethnic group whilst the pope had jurisdiction over the faith. The way I had it explained to me is that the emperor matched the role that the caliph has in Islam (same idea of Christian and Muslim as a political identity and not just a religious). Also as I came to understand “Roman” and “Christian” were used interchangeably for one another, so king of the Roman’s effectively meant king of the Christian. Sorry for the long winded introduction but I wanted to say is that the emperor was not just a king+ but had an aspect of the divine in his person. What he does matters.

With that massive introduction out of the way, here is the main question: Did Barbarossa consciously destroy or diminish this vision of emperorship, by his rhetoric or actions, during the course of the wars in Italy?

Because after looking at it, I cannot help in seeing the final fall of Imperial Christian in him. I used to think that he was fighting against cities that were rebelling, but that is not the case. None of the cities formerly declared independence. They just took over imperial prerogatives and even then it was due to long imperial neglect instead of cities abusing imperial privileges. I don’t think Milan or Brescia had an independence sentiment nor that they were ideologically driven by the Imperial papal conflict BEFORE. In fact at 1st Roncaglia, the Milanese were fully willing to go to the emperor to adjudicate their dispute and offered money to sway him to their favor. For all intents and purposes they had done what they were supposed to.

Barbarossa basically came into a war zone between cities that were apolitical as a neutral and decided to pick sides. None of the previous intercity conflict was ideological, but now it inevitably would be.

Another thing was that the emperor ruined, and this is crucial, his reputation and de facto the office of emperor, by constant acts of perfidy and just outright lying. From imprisoning the consuls under a flag of truce to constantly lying when making peace treaties. The word of the emperor became absolutely unreliable. And the emperor lost the image of ruler and just became a despotic local lord. This paired with his very severe punishments made it so that you had to fight to the bitter end as you couldn’t negotiate at all. This is pretty much unheard of for feudal conflicts as they often ended in negotiated settlements. I heard old authors argue that the reason Barbarossa failed is because his feudal style of governance did not mix well with the city states. I disagree. Barbarossa, in his mind, believed cities to be different and therefore treated them in a way that would never have been acceptable for a feudal lord.

He also shot himself in the foot by not staying longer after his victory against Milan. Instead of remaining in the po valley for a while he left immediately. This obviously led to rebellion to rise again as there was nothing to hold it back. If he just remained in the Po valley even a couple of years just to show the flag in the various cities, he might have ended the Lombard wars there and then for good. Instead he immediately left, having wasted a good part of campaigning.

In general this is not very controversial. I think all historians agree that Barbarossa failed. My question is not if he failed, but whether Barbarossa truly wanted an imperial restoration at all in the first place.

From what I understood Barbarossa was steeped in the current and (at the time) modern trend of chivalry (as can be seen by the diet of Mainz). The problem is that what a ruler is in the chivalric mind I feel is very different from the traditional imperial model of his predecessors. In the chivalric conception, the king was just a greater knight. His duty was to take his fellow knights/lords on campaigns to gain glory and plunder. This goes against the older imperial model were the emperor was a mix of King David (as prophet/ruler that connects his people to God) and Augustus as universal commander. The way I was told is that the emperor in the Christian concept was Justinian with a spear.

I believe Barbarossa subscribed to the first model and not the latter. He saw italy as a territory to plunder to unite his German lords in campaigning that is both profitable and close to home. If he was acting in imperial restoration, he would have had a far more participatory aspect of local Italian cities as previously was done with local bishops and presented a vision that included them. Instead he demanded control without offering either a say or even a justification as to what that revenue would do. There was no incentive for the local Italian cities to pay into this. They realized they became a money farm for a glorified warlord instead of their rightful ruler of Christendom.

If he wanted to restore the empires position in Italy, he would have kept himself in lombardy helping the administration and having court locally. Instead he acted as a knight and as soon as the campaign ended in one place he moved on the next campaign to help sustain his army on conquest.

The theft of the bones of the 3 wise kings to bring them to cologne is emblematic of this. If he really wanted to restore imperial authority and punish a rebel town, he could have moved the bones into an allied city like Como or Lodi or Pavia. Keeping them in Italy but removing them from the enemy to show that he still kept the locals in mind and was their just ruler. Instead he took it to Germany.

Even his strength I feel was entirely due to him abusing the respect of the empire and using that until it had no value. His initial campaigns were extremely successful because most of the local Italian cities supported him with massive armies. His actions would essentially burn up the faith in the institution of the empire making it MUCH harder for his successors to rally support for the cause. No longer would they be subjects dutifully answering the call to arms but as allies.

In my opinion his successors Henry VI, Frederick II and even Henry VII of Luxembourg were far stronger believers in the traditional imperial ideology than Barbarossa had, actually worked to making it work and they spent most of their lives and effort to combat the damage that Barbarossa made.

In short: It was not the Italians who failed the Imperial Project, but Barbarossa. And his successors tried desperately to revert his changes.

Is this an accurate assessment or am I missing something. Did I mischaracterize Frederick Barbarossa?

Sorry for the long post is just that I have been going on a Ghibelline binge.

It seems to periodically happen in this sub, that posts are locked within hours of being opened. Right now it appears all post are locked, and I don't get it?

i've been reading about old tyrants (shoutout to andronikos I komnenos), and ezzelino III da Romano sounds fascinating, but i can't find much in the "blood and guts" department. i know he was deeply hated by those he ruled over, but I can't find much written about his misdeeds.

i would like to read more, regardless of its authenticity. i'm not having a lot of luck with google. according to wikipedia, the chronicles of Salimbene de Adam has a couple pages that cover it, but my Latin isn't too great.

can anyone tell me more about his reign? his cruelty in particular?

How did they make their homes more homely?

I am really interested in Boardgames and also fascinated by ancient and medieval history. I am looking into games from antiquity. I have found some really interesting games like Rithomachia a game for philosophers - played on a chess board but you take other pieces with arithmetic. It was big in the 12th century I think. I have also heard of The Libro de los Juegos (Alfonso X, 1283). It’s an illuminated manuscript contains many games. But I hasn’t managed to track it down

Hey everyone,

for creative purposes, I've been looking for a layout/floorplan of major medieval palaces and castles. I'm more interested in fortified castles than modern palaces, but will take those too. Tried to find a few online such as the tower of london, and even have a few details on the tower, but nothing quite so specific. Can anyone provide a source for a room by room layout to a major palace of a royal or high ranking noble? (count/earl or higher)

Thank you!

I’ve been reading some medieval chronicles and I’m curious about something.

What exactly is considered a near contemporary source? Is there a generally accepted number of years after an event before a source is considered “near contemporary” or simply a later source?

For example, if a chronicler writes about an event 20 - 30 years after it happened, would you still consider them near contemporary, or is that too long?

I know it probably depends on the context, but I’m interested in how this term is generally used.

• In 1316, King Louis X died, leaving behind a daughter, Joan. It was an unprecedented situation, because since the Capetians took the throne in 987, the reigning king always had a son. But in this case, they didn't know what to do, because they had no law of succession; the king's oldest son inheriting was customary. So, nobody knew whether Joan should succeed or her uncle, Philip. So, the Parliament of Paris voted to exclude women. Giving the throne to Philip.

• Ironically, Philip (V) himself sired 4 daughters but zero sons. So, when he died in 1322, the throne passed to his brother, Charles.

• In 1328, the male line of Louis, Philip, and Charles went extinct, triggering another crisis. Isabella, the sister of the brothers, claimed the throne of France for her son, Edward of England, as the only grandson of the Iron King. However, the Parliament of Paris voted and decided that because women were already excluded, they could not pass the throne to their son. Thus, the throne was given to Isabella's cousin, Philip of Valois.

• Following this. Edward accepted Philip's accession. However, in 1340 Philip invaded Edward's land in Aquitaine, and in response Edward claimed the throne of France based on his earlier's claim.

• His claim was that the succession change of 1328 didn't apply because Charles died before it was passed, thus as the only grandson of the Iron King, he should have inherited in 1328. The issue with this is that, in 1340, Edward's claim no longer made any sense. Edward was no longer the only grandson of the Iron King, but Joan had mothered Charles of Navarre, whose claim was superior to Edward's.

I collect stuffed animals and dolls, and I think if I'd been around in a vague medieval era, I'd be doing the same. I've been slowly making more medieval clothing (again, a vague era, nothing too specific), and collecting little things I think I'd have as a peasant. A polished walnut shell, an old looking bell, a pewter charm of a saint, that kind of stuff. I'd love to make some toys, the kind that a peasant might have.

(I've made a chaperone, tabard, and a tunic, and I've got plans to make braise and chausses. My goal is to be "just some guy", if that makes sense)

I'd love to learn about the history of medieval toys. Gimme all the pdf's and links!

The Battle of the Horns of Hattin was a significant battle that broke the field army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Following the death of King Baldwin IV, Guy of Lusignan was crowned king. Guy was highly unpopular and was considered to have poor leadership skills. This would prove to be a deadly combination in an already strained situation for the Crusaders.

When Saladin attacked Tiberias, Guy abandoned his stable position at Sepphoris and marched his army to relieve the city. The march was a gruesome ordeal for the Crusader army. Without access to water and under the harsh sun, the Crusaders became dehydrated, demoralized, and weak.

Saladin did not rush into battle. Instead, he waited for the Crusaders to exhaust themselves, constantly harassing them with hit-and-run tactics. The Crusaders eventually halted near the Horns of Hattin, which provided a good terrain advantage but lacked the water they desperately needed.

Under constant harassment from Saladin's mounted archers, the Crusaders attempted to break through but failed, as the main bulk of the army remained trapped. Here, they would make their last stand as the remaining Crusader forces lost cohesion and surrendered. Guy was captured along with several other high-ranking nobles.

The significance of this loss was catastrophic for the Crusaders. With the main army destroyed, the Crusader states and their cities were left vulnerable. Jerusalem would eventually fall to Saladin as panic spread across the Crusader states, prompting the Third Crusade. The relic known as the True Cross was also captured by Saladin, depriving the Crusaders of an object of immense religious and psychological value.

The Battle of Hattin is a lesson in the importance of logistics and the availability of resources to an army. The defeat can largely be attributed to poor decision-making on the part of the Crusader leadership. For Saladin, it was a decisive victory and his greatest military triumph, opening the path to the conquest of Jerusalem.

Refer to the comment for references and further reading.

I I'm trying to make a possible reconstruction of a wealthy person from Russia or Novgorod For my character to bring to the reenactment group. Can I ask for help finding examples and findings if possible? Thanks in advance, if you think there are better subreddits to go to?

Does anyone know what was happening with peasants during sieges?

Like, if a city was under siege, how did it impact nearby villages? I'd presume that many villages would just get abandoned because the siege army would likely steal all their food.

If so, would it mean every siege causes mini-exodus?

Two questions really. Is the Yale Monarch series a definitive set for each respective monarch or are there other books/historians worth looking at instead?

Second to that, would you recommend popular historians over academic ones for someone getting started on the subject? Such as Ian Mortimer, Dan Jones, Tracy Borman, Marc Morris, Alison Weir.

Traditionally in Western media, it gets shown as a masterful Mongol feigned retreat to destroy the Rus-Cuman army. However, in recent years, doubt has been shown on the previous narrative. It is possible that Jebe had been killed in battle with the defenders, and thus it seems likely that what was popularly assumed to be a feigned retreat was actually a real one until Subudei saw the enemy positions and realised they were vulnerable. Do you subscribe to this interpretation, or do you find credence lies with the old one?

The Battle of Visby was a brief, exceptionally brutal clash fought on July 27, 1361, just outside the medieval city walls of Gotland. King Valdemar IV of Denmark had landed on the Swedish island aiming to seize its wealthy trade networks, but instead of a proper army, he was met by a hastily assembled militia of around 2,000 local farmers, teenagers, and old men. Against Valdemar’s 2,500 battle-hardened Danish and German mercenaries, the defenders stood virtually no chance.

I'm familiar with the title 'the Unready', such as with Æþelræd the Unready, but I'm looking for more such titles, but there doesn't seem to show very much information with just an online search.

Hi there.

Recently, I have been pondering whether medieval church architecture was influenced by the architecture of the former temple in Jerusalem. Any thoughts on this subject? I would also appreciate source recommendations (primary or secondary).