I got to the fourth page of the intro, where it says:
Although sometimes described as brave, chivalrous and friendly, the man [Conrad] was universally vilified as a vacillating, poorly educated "weak" character and accused of leaving the German realm in a weakened state upon his death in 1152.
Hoo boy, this is where it gets personal. Strap in for a rant.
Conrad was brave and chivalrous,
yes, but "friendly" is a bit of a stretch. "Friendly to those who had his trust" is a better way to put it. He was a reserved man, naturally skeptical, so he'd hold you at arm's length and placate you with amiable words until he got a better judge of your character. This might be where the "friendly" description comes from, Conrad was a skilled diplomat when it suited him. The jokes and smiles could disappear on an instant however, if he detected any trace of underhandedness or deceit,* then his anger was swift and terrible.
*Therefore I find the accusations that Manuel betrayed the German crusaders to be rather far-fetched.
Once you cracked through the standoffish exterior, which few seldom did, then you'd earn his undying loyalty. Thus, my father and he were unseparable, despite their many differences. Perhaps the story of the Siege of Weinsberg, which for the record is real, illustrates their personalities the best. Excerpt from
Wikipedia:
The year of our Lord 1140. The king [Conrad] besieged the city of the duke Welf [VI] of Bavaria, which was called Weinsberg, and accepted its surrender, having granted with royal magnanimity permission to the wives and other women found there that they might take with them whatever they could carry on their shoulders. Taking thought both for their loyalty for their husbands and the safety of the others, they disregarded their household goods and came down carrying the men on their shoulders. When Duke Friedrich said that such things should not happen, the king, showing favour to the women's cunning, said that it would not be fitting to change his royal word. - Kölner Königschronik
Neither of them had been expecting that, and when my father the Duke Friedrich told me the story afterwards he made sure to emphasise how "irrational" and "crazy" Conrad was (with the fondness of a long-suffering brother). But Conrad did as Conrad pleased, and what others saw as insanity, Conrad considered ingenious. Thus having let some men escape, even those who couldn't find someone to carry them, he seized the wealth of the town while bolstering his reputation as an honourable king.
He also had a morbid sense of humour. Upon his deathbed and after surprising us with his last minute change of succession, he grumbled at our goldfish impressions. "Stop watching me die! Get out there and do something useful," he implored us (i.e. the Bishop and I). For him, the humiliation of lying in bed, too weak to move a muscle, was as agonising as the malaria fever itself, but neither could tame his spirit or dampen his humour. Although he was too proud to say it, I could see in his eyes that he was grateful I ignored his pointed jest and stayed by his side until the end.
Conrad was many things, but a "vacillating, poorly educated and 'weak' character" was not one. In contrast, he was probably one of the most strong-willed people I knew, second to perhaps only my cousin Henry. Once Conrad set his eye on something, for it was impossible to force him to do something he didn't want to, he would pursue it to the end. In the same way, he wasn't "vacillating" and undecisive, but rather, spontaneous. When he took the cross at Bernard of Clairvaux's preaching, it seemed very spontaneous to me, and my father rolled his eyes in derision (perhaps his thoughts were "there he goes again, crazy Conrad and his crazy ideas"). When we confronted him about it later, surprise surprise, he'd been planning it for weeks and even had pros and cons lined up for every objection my father had.
The same process must have occurred through Conrad's mind when he decided to appoint me his designated heir the day he died, for various reasons outside the scope of this post. "Crazy Conrad" he was not, as much as my father liked to insist, but hasty and ill-timed he was on occasion. It would've been wiser to announce the succession change to more than just the bishop and I (his intended successor), but that's Uncle Conrad for you. His ideas were brilliant but not always well thought out.
When I was young, he seemed terrifying and aggressive. I blamed him for stealing my father's throne, and loathed him for his shrewd eye and calculating impassiveness. When he deprived (someone) of (some county) I had the nerve to join the uprising against Conrad, believing him to have unjustly taken it away. I need to look up the details of this incident because it's rather fuzzy, but I found out much later that it was a very embarrassing misunderstanding on my part. After several more incidents like that, my father gave me a talking to (I was grounded) and clued me into the family schemes.
It took a while for me to digest this new relevation, that Uncle Conrad had
not "stolen the throne", "unjustly" done many things, and that all my resistance against him was poorly informed (to which I asked them, why didn't you tell me earlier?). Oops. I'm lucky Conrad saw my acts of rebellion as merely the rash deeds of an inexperienced young prince, and not outright treason, but he must have thought me very dodgy. He forgave me, but it wasn't until partway through the Second Crusade that I earned his respect.
I miss him a lot.
I've gotten off track, that was a bit long-winded, but I care for the man a lot and felt the need to provide my own point of view. So yeah, as I read through the itinery (skipping the analysis chapters), I'll provide a running commentary on my memories and perspective here.
