Argue: was Frederick II good or bad?
Frederick II is arguably the most influential Holy Roman Emperor of the Middle Ages. Not only was he an effective ruler, establishing an effective bureaucratic government in his kingdom, but he was also an advocate of the arts and sciences. However, Frederick's rule did not go unopposed; he had long been fighting against the papacy. It appeared that Frederick's disagreements with the pope divided his countrymen into two opposing parties of admirers and critics. Here, we will attempt to determine whether Frederick II was either a wonderful leader or a blasphemous heretic.
Before we can come to a conclusion, we must first look at the facts surrounding this interesting character. What were the achievements of this man that earned him the respect of so many people? There are several reasons why historians would go so far as to call Frederick II stupor mundi or "astonishment of the world".
Frederick's skill in administration was one of the reasons which earned him so much praise. For a large portion of his time as a leader, Frederick was chiefly attentive toward the Kingdom of Sicily. Frederick implemented several legal reforms in the Sicilian laws, promulgating two great legislative acts: the Assizes of Capua and the Constitutions of Melfi, the latter remaining as the legal code of Sicily up until the early 19th century. It was also through Frederick's cunning diplomacy that he secured the Kingdom of Jerusalem without a single drop of blood shed.
Frederick was also a brilliant military tactician. He led a ravaging campaign in Lombardy during his war against the papacy, claiming numerous cities in the region. Frederick had very nearly laid siege to Rome multiple times, but was always forced to retreat by the papal army. At the height of its power, the Sicilian Kingdom had vastly expanded in size due to Frederick's superior strategies in the battlefield. During his reign, Frederick had also successfully quelled a rebellion stirred up by his son, Henry. Indeed, Frederick's military prowess was undeniable.
An avid patron of the arts and sciences, Frederick allowed them to flourish under his reign. He was himself a very learned individual who not only promoted the use of logic versus faith, but also enriched the cultural side of his kingdoms. The poetry that emanated from his court had such a profound influence on the Italian language and its intrinsic romanticism that great poets such as Dante and his contemporaries have praised the Sicilian school of poetry for its contributions, even several years later. Frederick would also go on to found the University of Naples, the first clearly secular school in Western Europe.
With all his contributions to the arts, sciences, military tactics, and legal matters, one might wonder what caused people, more specifically Christians and supporters of the papacy, to condemn a man of such knowledge? Perhaps it was because Frederick was not much of a Christian himself. We must now turn to see the darker side of Frederick's spiritual life.
Nearly all of the criticism concerning Frederick stems from his extremely controversial war against the papacy. This feud began when Frederick had continued his crusade at Jerusalem, despite being excommunicated by the Pope for his noncompliance with the Church's policies. After being excommunicated once more, Frederick declared war on the papacy, quickly defeating Pope Gregory IX. This war waged on even after the death of Frederick, with the papacy continuing to target Frederick's descendants until the house of Hohenstaufens was put to an end.
Frederick's freethinking attitude caused much disagreement between him and the Church. He supposedly denounced Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed as the three great frauds in history. Frederick had also attempted to build a completely secular government, an unheard of goal in the Middle Ages. Strangely enough, though he wasn't much of a Christian himself, Frederick harshly chastised any heretics in his lands, which brings into question whether these punishments are justifiable, considering the doubtful spirituality of the punisher.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of his erroneous behavior is Frederick's disposition to his own people. Although he was German by birth and crowned Holy Roman Emperor, he seemed thoroughly unconcerned about the state of his German empire, preferring instead to draw his attention to Sicily, where he was much involved in shaping the kingdom. His preoccupation with Sicily reached to an extent where he handed over his governing power to the nobles of Germany, leaving the empire confused and leaderless.
Now that we have laid the facts down for both sides, it is time for us to form our conclusion. In my opinion, I believe Frederick II, with all his achievements and contributions to the various fields we had talked about, to be an excellent leader and most definitely one of the most powerful and influential Holy Roman Emperors during the Middle Ages; he was surely worthy of his title, stupor mundi. Analyzing the defenders and critics of Frederick, we will notice a trend: historians seem to praise his achievements while passionate Christians and apologists would scorn him. In truth, despite his brilliance in administering an empire, he was spiritually a very poor example. The question is, however, should Frederick's inadequacies in his faith mar his leadership qualities? While ideally it would have been wonderful in Frederick was an overall wholesome Christian emperor who had strong ties with the Church and unwavering devotion to God, it is sadly not the case. We must remember, though, that as the Holy Roman Emperor, it is his duty to be an efficient and effective ruler, constantly improving his empire. It is not, I must emphasize, his primary responsibility to act as the spiritual guide of his people. That is a job specifically reserved for the leaders of the Church, testified in Acts 20:28, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood". The argument that because Frederick II is a poor Christian, he is not worthy of being represented as a remarkable leader, is an ad hominem; it is irrelevant to his bearing as a political leader and is a personal attack aimed at the person himself, not his qualifications.
In the end, this all boils down to the debate of separation of church and state, a struggle that has its origins in Pope Leo's crowning of Charlemagne. Since then, a battle for authority existed between the popes and emperors. Who held the highest authority in the land? Did the pope have the power to supersede the rulings of a king or emperor? The line where the authority of one party ends and the other begins has long been a hotly debated topic. Had Frederick, perhaps, lived in more modern times, his lack of faith and visions of independence from the Church would be more tolerated than it was in the highly religion-centered atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Whatever your stand in this debate is, the political, cultural, and scientific ambitions of Frederick II is a shining example of an effective ruler; one that all leaders must aim to emulate.
