Talk:Frederick the Great

"Inheritance" section map template

Greetings and felicitations. I don't know what I did that broke it, but I seem to have made a negative in the change "Frederick the Great#Inheritance" section map template. Does anyone have any idea what the problem is? — DocWatson42 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality and various Austrian accusations

I can name at least 2 kings as well as the accusations of brownshirts leading to the night of long knifes attributed to Wikipedia as false and likely a commonly used source to ignite violence like how the Romans used cannibalism to gain support against the tribes of Europe. We also see that in the example of Alexander the great a person's view through the history channel and his own homosexuality as the supporting belief history channel has also supported views off contributors like those of one with brittle one diseases being directly linked to Ivar the boneless for example.The Catholic Church can also be seen as a link to such broad accusations especially in the example of the Prussian and Austrian power struggle with the Habsburgs being removed as a military power shortly before the Prussians themselves commonly the church was used as a tool in such struggles as it saw itself subject to the rise in political powers and the lose of its own spiritual power with the rise of Protestantism and other philosophies like Nationalism. 209.171.85.93 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but everything in the article is supported by Reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that support a significant claim to the contrary, feel free to put it here for discussion. But even if "Austrian claims" were the source of discussion about the emperor's sexuality, those claims would still be encyclopædic and merit mention here. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't understand how a source from 200 years after Frederick's death can be trusted to assume he was homosexual. People are so blind that they used Frederick's nickname Luc to say that he was homosexual, just because Luc in reverse means Cul (ass in French) - So if a woman's name is Lana, does that mean she likes ANAL = LANA? No. If you're going to cite a source at least get something reliable and not a conspiracy theory using his nickname lol. 2804:7374:4000:237B:DD83:50C3:41C2:2E3B (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will make a brief remark:

The article never claims that Frederick was conclusively homosexual, it simply presents the extensively researched and academically accepted theory that he is very likely to be homosexual. Much of the sources that you mentioned from '200 years after Frederick's death' base their claims on contemporary knowledge. Blanning (2016) extensively discusses this, specifically on p. 193.

If you would prefer contemporary sources, I would point strongly to the Katte affair and his liasion with Peter Carl Kristoph von Keith, which his sister Wilhelmine, in her memoirs, directly addresses the affair as more intimate than she realised.

Furthermore, his relationship with Algarotti explicitly contained the exchange of homoerotic poetry, with one meaningfully translated as 'The Orgasm'. Which Algarotti requested Frederick to write as a challenge due to his perception that Northern Europeans lacked passion.

There are various other examples that lead to a conclusion that it was likely Frederick was homosexual. If you'd like to see more, I highly recommend the sexuality article dedicated to Frederick. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Several sources from Frederico's own time prove his homosexuality. I'm no great expert on Frederick's life, but I can name three myself: Voltaire, who lived under the same roof as Frederick for years (and was not Austrian); British ambassador Charles Hanbury-Williams (another non-Austrian); and letters from Frederick himself. In these letters we have confessions on Frederick's part that he was not attracted enough to women to marry one, and that he never consummated his marriage; and that he was sharing (not without some jealousy) his lovers with his younger brother Heinrich. In a final letter we have a confession to his nephew and successor, the bigoted and limited Frederick William II, that he has had gay sex (although he downplays this experience, which was expected considering who the letter was addressed to).

Even his court doctor, who comically tried to refute the homosexual image that Frederick already possessed at the time, is forced to acknowledge in his argument that Frederick was known for bringing his men to his room (or to his tents during military campaigns) to have sex with them; something that Voltaire also states in his unauthorized biography of the king.

The evidence that Frederick was gay is simply overwhelming, while that of his heterosexuality is, well, basically nil. Why then should we privilege the latter over the former?

The heterosexualist revisionists who come here to cry and protest these facts should try to learn something about Frederick before quixotically trying to impose themselves here. It's not even true that historians only began to recognize Frederick's homosexuality recently. The biography written by Margaret Goldsmith, which is almost 100 years old, already spoke openly about this facet of Frederick. And critics at the time didn't even refute her – they just complained that she dwelt "too much" on this subject.

Even if her book didn't exist, it would simply be impossible for current historians to come to the conclusion that Frederick was gay if there was simply no proof from the time he was alive.

I understand that it is too challenging for some of you to understand that it is not only people who share your sexual tastes who are able to demonstrate valor and wit on the battlefield; or that it may be difficult to appreciate historical figures unless they remind you of yourselves in a certain banal aspect of your lives; but that is not an excuse to come here and lie about the nature of the evidence of Frederick's homosexuality and try to remove facts that are based on reliable sources. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot another source on Frederick's homosexuality: his beloved sister Wilhelmine, who documented his "improper" relationship" with one of Frederick William I's pages. My sources assure me she was not an Austrian! Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to "Frederick II, King of Prussia"

Isn't the current title biased? Frederick was a menace to Europe: He started two massive wars, in 1740 by invading Silesia and in 1756 by attacking neutral Saxony. His armies laid waste to Saxony, pillaging everything of value, he debased the currency, in 1760 he deliberately targeted the churches and civilian buildings of Dresden instead of its fortifications despite this being against the conventions of the time (See Bellotto's painting of the destruction of the Kreuzkirche). He only won about half of his battles, for every Leuthen or Rossbach there was a Kolin or Hochkirch or Kunersdorf. He was awful to his family, visiting his wife only once every several years. He masquered as an enlightened monarch, even writing the "Anti-Machiavel" before preceding to backstab his ally France in 1742 and 1745 during the War of the Austrian Succession. He set the precedent for rampant militarism in Prussia, which would culminate in two world wars and the destruction of Europe. When Hitler was in his bunker in 1945 he kept a painting of Frederick and awaited for fortune to intervene just as it had for Frederick in 1762 with the death of Elizabeth of Russia. Perhaps Joseph II, a truly enlightened monarch should deserve such an epithet instead. Preußenistgross (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Against: Most historical figures on Wikipedia, who have been commonly granted the epithet of "The Great", retain it in the title of their articles for the sole reason of WP:COMMONAME. It is almost undoubtedly true that Frederick II, King of Prussia, is largely remembered in the historical record as Frederick the Great. This follows the same logic as the articles of Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, Constantine the Great etc. I think furthermore, and please do not take this as an attack, your reasons for changing this name are based more on a perception of Frederick the Great rather than his actual name. You cite various negative actions/consequences of Frederick the Great, which while may be true, have loaded presumptions within them. Yes, he wrote the Anti-Machiavelli and then proceeded to betray his previous allies during the War of Austrian Succession. However, he wrote the Anti-Machiavelli before he was raised to the throne. Thus, it could be argued that his views on chicanery had evolved with expierence in government, rather than him simply 'masquerading' as an enlightened despot. The Hitler example is frivolous, the intentions and symbolism of Hitler's portrait of Frederick are not caused by the actions of Frederick and are useless in actually portraying the character of Frederick. Battle records are shoddy for assessing 'greatness' as it leads to the argument of quantity over quality. Family example is understandable, but I do not think that it would override the general record of his government achievements.

Overall though, whats most important is that he is commonly known and recorded as "Frederick the Great". As such, the article should retain his common name. Chariotsacha (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Frederick's signature

Tveol1091, it seems you'd like to change the image of Frederick's signature. Is there a particularly reason that makes the new one better than the old? The .svg image you prefer comes from a commercial fine art print site without attribution, giving only a date, ostensibly 1st August 1744. The .png image that has been used comes from an attributed work, Gerhard Ritter's Frederick the Great. the image specifically dated to 1 August 1780, but it is also attributed to a specific document, a letter to d'Alembert. Like the unattributed signature, the one illustrated by Gerhardt can be inspected. It is a link is in the Wikimedia image description. Wtfiv (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:18th-century German LGBT people

An IP has been frequently attempting to remove this category from the article, on the basis that rumours are not cause for its inclusion. I would like to build consensus as to whether the category should be kept. As for my view:

Soft support: Generally I agree that rumours do not necessitate a category. However, in the interests of accessibility and the general accreditation of the kings sexuality falling under the LGBT spectrum. The article may be worth of inclusion in the category simply for the sake of easy filtering. As readers who use categories may simply be looking for historic examples of LGBT people among historical figures, and Frederick the Great is definitely in this spectrum. Although academic research has not conclusively established if he was homosexual, it has almost universally been accepted that he was not explicitly heterosexual. Regardless if he was homosexual, asexual, bisexual, all of these are "LGBT" and thus are worthy of the category. The only reason I only softly support this is that its not a conclusive fact, but to call it a 'rumour' seems to disregard the overwhelming evidence that Frederick the Great was not heterosexual, and thus falls under the LGBT spectrum and should fall into the category of 18th-century German LGBT people. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Unless Frederick's sexuality is definitely proven, the category shouldn't be included. His sexuality can be discussed in the article without adding categories. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:4DED:DD93:DC68:A26D (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What, short of a sex tape, could a "definitive proof" of someone's sexuality be? I'd say with the evidence we have in favor of his homosexuality is already too heavy, for his heterosexuality exceedingly light; as evidence we have Frederick's own confessions, the diary of his beloved sister Wilhelmine about Frederick's affair with their father's pages, evidence from Voltaire's private poems and even the biography he wrote on Frederick... How are these just rumors? What more do you people want? I support keeping Frederick in the appropriate gay and LGBT categories. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Zorono Ornitorrico, as you added the category in the first place. Wtfiv, Buidhe, as you both have contributed to this article extensively, Kunst-Theodor as you have contributed to the sexuality article extensively. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support no significant dispute in rs. There is a lot of evidence not just rumors (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: Most modern historians agree that Frederick was homosexual. Encyclopedias of homosexuality regularly list him as homosexual. It is a historical fact that Frederick’s father called the crown prince a "sodomite" and "effeminate". Famous contemporaries such as Voltaire and Giacomo Casanova, who personally knew the Prussian king and his sexual preferences, reported on his homosexual affairs with young men. According to Johann Georg Ritter von Zimmermann, not only the Prussian ecclesiastic counsellor, Anton Friedrich Büsching "but also Voltaire, la Beaumelle, the Duke de Choiseul, innumerable Frenchmen and Germans, almost all the friends and enemies of Frederick, almost all the princes and great men of Europe, even his servants, – even the confidants and friends of his latter years, were of opinion that he had loved, as it is pretended, Socrates loved Alcibiades." In a letter to his gay secretary and reader, Claude Étienne Darget, Frederick himself humorously and unequivocally stated that he preferred passive anal sex with men: "My hemorrhoids affectionately greet your cock." Kunst-Theodor (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support I tend not to worry about article categories. My focus is to make sure we properly reflect the sources. As buidhe mentioned, there is no significant dispute about Frederick's sexuality, so it'd be consistent with the article to include him in the LGBT category. Wtfiv (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the constant IP edits of this article throughout the past year or two regarding Frederick's sexuality has gone on long enough that we should request a low level of semi-protection on it. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: I think its definitely time for at least some level of semi-protection, as the article is in rather good integrity with sexuality and the IP edits are (with the exception of this one) never constructive regarding it. Chariotsacha (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: Because certain IPs only act as vandals (see [1]), I would be in favour of semi-protecting the article. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am historian and among modern German historians, it is quiet sure that Frederick II is homosexual (as sure as you can be). The denial of his homosexuality is even often criticized as an 19th century Prussian propaganda piece.

I was very confused, when somebody here said, it is just happens to be rumours. There are love letters, reports from a diverse group of other people and even documented acts by his father to suppress homosexual tendencies of his son. I don’t if English-speaking literature is quiet backwards in its state of research, because I never thought about the homosexuality of Frederick II being questionable. Zorono Ornitorrico (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Battlefield location missing on map

battle of soor 30 September 1745 second Silesian War. Frederick was in command. Trampled12 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Y added. Wtfiv (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wtfiv The battle is marked 4 June 1745 when it was fought on the 30 September 1745. Trampled12 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

oops! Corrected Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)