Few figures of the Middle Ages are as famous as Frederick II of Swabia, emperor and king of Sicily. Around this sovereign who lived between 1194 and 1250 legends and myths arose and dozens of biographies were written about him which from time to time privileged one aspect or another of his multifaceted personality. Frederick II was thus presented as an example of modernity in the dark ages of the Middle Ages, as "stupor mundi", i.e. "wonder of the world" or as a typical medieval ruler, devoid of any modern traits.
Paolo Grillo, professor of medieval history at the State University of Milan, in his very recent study dedicated to the Swabian emperor, Federico II (Mondadori, 2023, pp. 348, also e-book), leads us on the trail of a character who, despite the fame, he proves that he still has a lot to reveal.
It does so by focusing attention on one of the least investigated aspects of the sovereign's action: the interminable war to re-establish his primacy over the rebel communes of northern Italy, led by Milan, supported by the pope and firmly determined to defend that autonomy wrested in 1183 from another emperor, Federico Barbarossa, grandfather of Federico II. A ferocious war, which lasted fifteen years, from 1236 to 1250, which saw more or less ephemeral victories, sudden about-faces and searing defeats, absorbed almost all of Federico's energies, drained a large part of the wealth of the kingdom of Sicily and same enemy. In short, Frederick II's project to reconstitute a universal empire on the model of the Roman Empire was not only in vain, but it entailed a very high price of blood, destruction and hatred for the whole of Italy.
Can we then still speak for the Swabian emperor of "stupor mundi"? We ask Paolo Grillo directly:
«Federico II was undoubtedly a figure of great importance: he introduced important reforms in the government of the South and invested resources in culture, as evidenced by the foundation of the University of Naples. On these foundations, however, over the centuries a real mythology has been built, which has attributed merits to Federico and a 'modernity' that he did not have. To give just one example: the Saracen colony of Lucera, often celebrated as a fruit of Frederick's religious tolerance, was the fruit of a real deportation of the Arabs from their lands in Sicily so that they would be forced to fight in the royal armies in exchange for their safeguard. The same attribute of 'stupor mundi', as historians have long highlighted, does not necessarily have a positive connotation in the language of the time and should be translated in a neutral way, such as 'one who has impressed the world'.
How important was the war in the political affair of Frederick II?
«Although he has a reputation as a peaceful ruler, above all for having concluded the crusade of 1228-29 with a negotiation - but the initiative came from the sultan Al-Kamil, not from Federico, who instead had gone overseas to fight -, Federico II was a warlike and, if need be, ruthless prince. He cruelly repressed all the revolts that broke out in his kingdom and, above all, he engaged in a very long war, which lasted over 15 years, against Milan and the other central-northern municipalities allied with the pope, who did not intend to submit to him".
Why is there so little talk about his endless wars?
«There are many reasons, not least the lack of confidence of Italian medievalists with the history of war. But precisely the wars contradict the current (and imprecise) idea of a Frederick II as a peaceful and 'enlightened' sovereign, also because he led them ruthlessly, carrying out cruel reprisals. Furthermore, the war against the communes ended for him with a bitter series of failures».
Merciless and useless wars, then?
«The final results of the war against the municipalities were disastrous. The kingdom of Sicily was not directly involved, but had to finance the very high war expenses with taxes and experienced impoverishment and inflation. In the centre-north, in addition to the damage caused by the fighting, there was an exacerbation of political conflicts within the municipal cities: the followers of the Empire considered their adversaries traitors, guilty of lese-majeste, but they were in turn considered heretics from the pope's supporters. Thus was born that rift between Guelphs and Ghibellines which greatly influenced Italian history in the following century».
But in the end who really was Frederick II?
«Federico II built a powerful propaganda machine, whose heart was his chancellery, led by Pier della Vigna, through which he produced a real exaltation of his figure, sometimes presenting him as a man sent by God to save humanity. The texts produced by the papal curia instead described him as the evil Antichrist, inspired by the devil to bring about death and destruction. The 'real' Federico was probably situated between these two extremes, and is still partially hidden today by the rhetoric used for and against him: a very important character who, however, needs to be researched without falling into the deceptions of the myth».
