Talk:Frederick Barbarossa

The article states:

Eager to make amends with the Papacy, Frederick concluded a treaty with Rome in March 1153, by which he promised in return for his coronation to defend the papacy and make no peace with king Roger I of Sicily, or other enemies of the Church, without the consent of Eugenius.

However, Roger I of Sicily died (according to our article) in 1101, a full 21 years before Frederick was born. What gives? Lupo 08:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly - something is wrong here....

Fixed. It was Roger II of Sicily, the first King, but second with that name. Roger I was just Count of Sicily. GhePeU 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary?

Instead of the article immediately jumping into a long essay about him, shouldn't there be a small summary of all this stuff at the top of the page?

Ok then.

Someone should look into the Baradello castle in Como, Italy and the link between the name Barbarossa and Baradello. The Baradello castle was fabled to be one of Frederick Barbarossa's bases.

THEY MIXED UP THE FREDERICKS

That's why the dates make no sense. Frederick Barbarossa was first. Frederick II of Swabia was, well, second. He ruled from Sicily, fought the Lombard League, united the empire--for awhile at least--and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor until a falling out with the pope ended with Frederick II of Swabia's excommunication.

They've got the father and son and I think even the grandfather all mixed up here and throughout all the Hauhenstaufen references. Sources? Tons of 'em. Look almost anywhere else.

The article is fully correct, AFAIK. I didn't check every date, but the history of Frederick's life and the flux of events agreed with, for example, his biography written by R. Wahl. You're mixing up the Dinasty who ruled in Swabia and the Imperial succession.