Talk:Frederick the Great

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)

Not to mention our own article on the subject :).

Sexuality of Frederick the Great Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2024 (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)

Infobox Picture

Looking at the current infobox picture, I can't help but get the feeling it is not an image most people commonly associate with Frederick the Great. For this reason, I wanted to get editors' thoughts on which picture would be most appropriate for the article. The choices are as follows:

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

Emiya1980 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotsacha, Wtfiv, Kunst-Theodor, Rjensen, Taksen, Bryanrutherford0, Favonian, and UpdateNerd:Emiya1980 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III and Buidhe:Emiya1980 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m partial to C, being a striking portrait of a uniquely tempered man, instead of focused on regalia (or unfortunately associated with Hitler's patronage). Edit: I also support A per Chariotsacha's reasoning. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A

I will preface this discussion by stating that this has been debated upon numerous times before, it has almost become a little tradition to discuss it when time allows!

The reasoning behind using A was that, of all the portraits presented, it is the most close to life portrait that is known of Frederick the Great. Furthermore, A was painted during the most active years of his life and resembles him the most honestly in terms of genuine physical appearance. While it is unknown if its true that its the only painting he sat down for, it has been subject to enough scrutiny to determine that it is remarkably accurate.

The Anton Graff portrait (B) is a close second, however it was painted in his twilight years, and was almost certainly idealized to some degree. As expectedly, the client of a portraitist would not want to immortalize his own physical faults, and was also painted from memory. (see) Camphausen (C) suffers as a candidate as it was painted a century after death and is remarkably romanticized. (D) I do not have enough information to condone or condemn.

That said, with all due respect I think the initial concern here is moot for two key reasons. The first is that, while it may not be the most common image of Frederick the Great used, it is not the only likeness used in this article. Both the Camphausen and the Graff portraits are present in the article, and I believe that would clear any confusion about who the article was referring to.

Secondly, most common in my opinion should not take precedence over accuracy (within reason), as (A) is not an obscure portrait and is relatively the most true to life, it should remain as the primary image. Chariotsacha (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of B.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this topic has been discussed worked to get this a featured article. The current picture was chosen by consensus because it is thought Frederick sat for it and reflects how he looks at the end of the Seven Years War. reflecting his active career, as opposed to idealized portraits, some of which were done long after Frederick was dead (and Frederick did not sit for Graff. See Portraits of Frederick the Great for some interesting insights on the origin of these portraits. Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chewings72, Beyond My Ken, Space Veteran, Surtsicna, and Alexandervonweimann: What are your thoughts on the issue?Emiya1980 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong views on this, but on balance, taking into account the information provided by others, I vote for B. Chewings72 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• If I was choosing simply on the basis of the image's inherent qualities, I'd pick "C" as the most striking, but if the information presented here is accurate -- that Frederick probably sat for it and that it is considered to be closest to his aspect in real life -- I think I'll have to go with A. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rfc for Frederick the Great's infobox picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following should serve as the infobox picture for Frederick the Great?

• 
  A
• 
  A2 (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

Emiya1980 (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Векочел, Willthacheerleader18, MedRobo, GoldRingChip, Blaylockjam10, and Tim riley:Emiya1980 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexandervonweimann, Saddhiyama, Obenritter, Miacek, Volunteer Marek, Sca, HerkusMonte, Sluzzelin, and Peleio Aquiles:Emiya1980 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• B According to the artist's Wikipedia article, this portrait was accounted a strong likeness of the king. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A Please see my previous comments Chariotsacha (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Chariotsacha Aside from the fact that Frederick the Great personally sat down for the painting, what evidence do you have which corroborates that A is a more faithful representation of Frederick's actual appearance than any of the other options listed?Emiya1980 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Status quo Another image RFC on a historical biography? Why? There's no recent images to discuss. This article is stable. This is completely unnecessary. Nemov (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Status quo per Nemov. I would actually prefer the cropped version of this image which was the one present when it was promoted to featured. This is not because I personally prefer it, that is not the point; the thorough discussion at FAC establishes a strong consensus for a version of an article and there needs to be strong reasons for this to be changed. I do not see arguments here which come close to that threshold. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, Gog. The original image was changed in this diff here, and was done without getting consensus. I've returned the original cropped version that was approved when Frederick became a featured article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely think that either the cropped or the full body is good! That said, the full body was discussed prior, albeit with less consensus than the current discussion. The issue that I have with the crop is that its quality is considerably lower than the full body. That said, I could probably manage to make a better quality crop and upload it if the crop is much preferred. Chariotsacha (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotsacha: Agree that a better cropped version could be made. The issue I see is just a slight excess of negative space. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Despite what some editors may prefer, 5:3 is NOT a decisive consensus. This is especially so after an Rfc has been open for a only a few days. Until further consensus is established, the original image should remain as the infobox picture.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC didn't need to be opened in the first place. This was a stable FA until a few days ago when you pushed this topic. That discussion should have been allowed to continue before you created this needless RFC. I have restored Wtfiv's edit. Nemov (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Absent a compelling reason to change it, I think leaving it alone is fine. I do not see in either the discussion above, or the one here, any such compelling reason, so A, essentially by default. That said, I agree that since this is not an exceptionally clear case at this point, the RfC should not be getting closed right now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Rjensen , Kunst-Theodor, Favonian, Вuidhe, Bryanrutherford0, Taksen Which image do you feel should serve as the infobox picture for Frederick the Great? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria, Buidhe, Chewings72, and Beyond My Ken: See above.Emiya1980 (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  @A D Monroe III, UpdateNerd, Surtsicna, and Contaldo80:Emiya1980 (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Status Quo per Nemov. Regulov (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• A2 - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I like the cropped image best. "C" comes in seconds if later it comes down to splitting hairs. I don't imagine it will though. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• A2. Is preserves the status-quo portrait while focusing on the detail. It was originally a 4.6-foot-tall portrait, reduced to a few inches in the infobox. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer the death mask or the depiction by William Hogarth, because only here is Frederick shown with his aquiline nose. See [2] and [3]. The portraits presented for selection above are all idealized and do not show Frederick's true features. The Prussian king himself often said that his portraits did not resemble him, and his contemporaries, including Emperor Joseph II, were of the opinion that not a single painting depicted his face truthfully. See also Portraits of Frederick the Great and [4]. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Change – To Anton Graff's 1781 portrait (B), presumably painted from life, and easily the most widely known and recognizable depiction of Frederick the Great. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• StatusnQuo The article is stable, and there's no need to change the infobox image. Векочел (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• :* Change – To Anton Graff's 1781 (B) portrait, as this is the one I have most frequently encountered in German language sources. --Obenritter (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• (participating because I was pinged). I have no strong preferences, except that, as often, I'm against a cropped version. This (A) is how the artist portrayed den alten Fritz. A person is not just a face. People have bodies and environments in which they exist as well. So I guess I don't want A2, but don't care otherwise. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• A or A2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• B. Agreed with 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆. Cossde (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• B or E. Emiya1980 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• A or to a lesser extent A2. The initial discussions about portraits as we moved toward making this a featured article can be found here. here in the archive A look at the comments suggest that before this article became featured, it was a carousel of changes: Camphausen, Graff, and Ziesenis. At the time, I was good with any choice as I was focused on getting the prose to featured article standard. As Kunst-Theodor points out, all the pictures are idealizations, Still, here's my comments.

Frederick portrait by Johann Christian Franke c. 1761

Graff. The Portraits of Frederick the Great point out that Frederick didn't sit for it. Graff only observed him at a distance. It also points out that he probably used an earlier Franke portrait. (see image). and It presents an image of Frederick in his later years. (He was 69 when the painting is done). To me, image reflects a sense of Frederick as a military man, as Graf's depiction of the black jacket with red collar became one of the models for one kind of Prussian officer's uniform. (To me, This image of Blücher in full military regalia seems inspired by the Graff portrait.)

Ziesenis. The "Portraits" article points out this this was supposedly painted from life. But it not clear whether Frederick sat for it. It too is idealized, but the representation should be reasonable, as it was done for Frederick's sister Duchess Philippine Charlotte of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. What I like about this portrait is that it represents Frederick during one of the most active times of his life. It was painted when he was around 51, in the year he successfully closed the Seven Years War with the Treaty of Hubertusburg. The full-portrait of Ziesenis's shows Frederick as a military leader, but still presents him as an enlightenment monarch in the style of the earlier Pesne portraits.

Camphausen. It's really a piece from another century, reflecting the historical image of Prussia in the 19th century. Camphausen painted this study for an equestrian painting just after participating in the Second Schleswig War when a post-Napoleonic Prussia was a rising European power. It's a product of a different historical context. To me, it'd be like putting a twentieth century image of Abraham Lincoln as the main image on the Lincoln page, but some people feel the image captures the essence of Frederick. Wtfiv (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• E, purely for aesthetics. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting choice, Peleio Aquiles. This image wasn't part of the article's image merry-go-round, and to my knowledge hasn't been presented as an option for the infobox until this RfC. But it has its strengths, which I'd like to share my comments on:

  Pesne. The strength of Pesne's work is that his knowledge of Frederick was first hand: He was the official Brandenburg court painter for Frederick I and William Frederick I, and Frederick . He painted Frederick as crown prince multiple times. It's not clear how often Frederick sat for him after become king, the German Wikipedia article only mentions he was given commissions to decorate palaces in the Rococco style.

  If the dating of the image to 1745 is correct, Frederick was in his prime. he about 33 and in the midst of the Second Silesian war, which he successfully concluded at the end of that year. It shows off Frederick's 18th century albeit-spare military regalia, and in my opinion, the appropriate hat doesn't look too bad either. Pesne's portraits shaped the image of Frederick. Interestingly, Graff also learned to paint Frederick by copying Pesne. When Graff worked for two years as an assistant for Ansbach's court painter, he spent nearly all his time copying Pesne's paintings of Frederick to meet market demand. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

However, in a special chapter of her study on portraits of Frederick that specifically addresses the "problem of similarity" in portraiture, Andrea M. Kluxen emphasizes that Baroque representational portraits of Frederick (such as those by Pesne) are pictures "without any absolute claim to resemblance." "One can assume that there is no true-to-life image of Frederick." See Kluxen, Bild eines Königs: Friedrich der Große in der Graphik (Limburg: C. A. Starke Verlag, 1986), pp. 33-34. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Status Quo – No convincing reason for change. Aza24 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• A or A2 The others are unflattering. I am partial to the argument that one is considered the best likeness to him. I came here from WP:FRS [5]. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Death mask of Frederick the Great, 1786

The only representation that bears the greatest resemblance to Frederick's actual appearance is his death mask. It should be noted that Frederick himself was of the opinion that he was extremely ugly, which is why he did not want to be portrayed the way he looked. All of the portraits shown above and discussed here are idealized and do not show Frederick's true appearance. Here is art historian Helmut Börsch-Supan: "The king's indifference to his portrait ... and the difficulty of capturing his physical appearance in a picture …, have meant that there is no truly valid portrait of him. The insatiable need of contemporaries and posterity to have his portrait before their eyes was thus given free rein to deform it in any direction." See Börsch-Supan, "Friedrich der Große im zeitgenössischen Bildnis," in Oswald Hauser (ed.), Friedrich der Grosse in seiner Zeit (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1987), p. 269. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Kunst-Theodor I'm telling you right now, no one is going to vote in favor of the death mask (not least because it only shows Frederick as he appeared in his final decrepit years). Vote for one of the choices provided.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not be voting for any of the images above. My comments are simply to point out that it doesn't really matter which image is chosen, because none of them show Frederick's true facial features. Everyone should be aware of that. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 All due respect, do not disregard other editors inputs simply because they are unpopular, Kunst-Theodor is certainly free to provide input on the death mask, and it's a valuable insight. The images presented in the RFC are not absolute either. Nonetheless, I agree with Wtfiv and yourself that its almost certainly not suitable as the main article image, due to it both being from his twilight years and also being a relatively eccentric style choice. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Kunst-Theodor, I'm sure you saw in Krymanski 2022, which one of the key articles of Portraits of Frederick the Great that Franz Dudde's circa 1900 more contemporary rendering tries to catch the nose (here's an image from alamy). It can't be a valid contender for the image pageant, but it illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of someone trying to base the image of the death mask. It's a fascinating take, but does open up the point of Emiya1980, as well as XECR'S Comments on the death mask in the "Portraits" article's talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If it’s true that the English artist William Hogarth depicted Frederick's facial features in 1745 in a manner similar to that shown in the death mask (see [6]), then Frederick's face has not changed all that much over time. To my mind, it is quite important that none of the portraits available for selection show the aquiline nose of the death mask. It should further be noted that Frederick’s aquiline nose is also to be seen in a milder form in Johann Georg Wille’s 1757 portrait of Frederick. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Though he makes a good case, Krymanski's argument that Hogarth's flute player in Marriage A-la-Mode is Frederick is not conclusive. Wtfiv (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone may have their own personal opinion on this point. However, reviewers seem to agree with this author. See, for instance, this English review, the second review by Frederick biographer Giles MacDonogh on this page, and this German review. That's why I thought it made sense to point out the arguments here. Basically, it doesn’t matter which of the available paintings is chosen, because none of them shows Frederick's true facial features. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your main point about idealizations and the idea that Frederick thought none of the portraits represented him. But I'm not sure the articles clearly support Krymanski, though they too consider him seriously. I couldn't access Melvyn New's review, so I couldn't judge that. But MacDonogh also points out that Krymanski makes some major assumptions, as he never observed Frederick. The assumption is that yet another artist, Schmidt, shared his drawings with Hogarth in Paris. If that's correct, that's problematic second-hand work much like Graff learning Frederick by copying Pesne. MacDonogh's penultimate paragraph provides an argument why it is less likely that Hogarth's image represents Frederick (Though it could be countered that Hogarth was a satirist.) Relevant to your point, MacDonogh points out that the image of Frederick (it was Graff's) that Hitler brought with him in his final days in the Führerbunker was an inadequate portrait.

Perhaps the irony is this: regardless of whether it was a representation of Frederick, in some respects–including the nose–, it's a better representation than the official portraits. Wtfiv (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In his review, Melvyn New clearly writes that Krysmanski’s monograph “makes the well-reasoned argument that the flautist in the fourth plate of Marriage A-la-Mode is none other than Frederick the Great”, adding that “in a fine analysis of the levée scene, Mr. Krysmanski convinces us that ‘Frederick the Great appears as a flautist behind a singing Italian castrato and in front of a painting of … a homoerotic scene,’ namely Jupiter abducting Ganymede.”

It should further be noted that in its penultimate paragraph MacDonogh’s review is wrong when saying “that Frederick was pretty popular in Britain at the time: Prussia was fighting British battles and bringing home resounding victories; the 'Protestant' king, was trouncing the Catholic powers of Austria and France.” On the contrary, in the years in question, from 1742 to 1745, during the First and Second Silesian Wars, Frederick was in league with France against Austria and Great Britain. Frederick was therefore rather unpopular in England at that time. Thus it would make sense if Hogarth denigrated him in his picture. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.