Talk:Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor

Unsorted text

This article needs a separate, detailed section of family information. Otto had two wives and at least nine children. --Michael K. Smith 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some dicrepancy in the dates in this passage: "In 938, Eberhard, the new duke of Bavaria, refused to pay Otto homage. When Otto deposed him in favor of his uncle Berthold, Eberhard of Franconia revolted, together with several of the Saxon nobility, who tried to depose Otto in favor of his elder half-brother Thankmar (son of Henry's first wife Hatheburg). While Otto was able to defeat and kill Thankmar in 936,..."165.127.8.254 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)TonyH

Wrong Picture

The "Bambergian knight" is not a statue of Otto the Great, maybe it doesn´t depict a historical person at all. Perhaps it is Kaiser Henry II who was a generous maecen of Bamberg, but since the statue was created in the 13th century it neither can´t claim similarity with the person Henry who died 200 years earlier. -- User:Alfred E. Neander

Absolutely. Srnec 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now its a picture of a dog for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.3.94 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

the map

I am Deutche-illiterate, so I cannot understand the legend on the inserted map without a translation. Can anyone help? It would make my European History thesis a bit less complicated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC) The picture of the tomb of Otto I is mistaken. I visited the Magdeburg Cathedral and took a photo of the tomb. File:0036.jpg. The picture of the grave, in the article, probably belongs to other person. --201.21.53.249 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Milton Cavalheiro Mendes, June 8, 2011.

Arguably the first Holy Roman Emperor???

That sentence in the intro is totally useless and needless... How is he arguably the first Holy Roman Emperor, when, without argument, it is accepted that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Empire, I think the comment needs to be deleted or revised...

It is not 'without argument' accepted that Charlemagne is the first 'Holy Roman Emperor' - the Frankish empire was a very different institution to the Empire Otto ruled over. Michael Sanders 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanders is absolutely right about this. The Holy Roman Empire grew out of the East Frankonian Empire which in turn was one of three realms into which Charlemagne's empire had been divided within two generations after his death.Cosal (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt, Charlemagne was "Roman Emperor", too, just as Otto. Charlemagne wasn't "king of Germany" or make it "king of the Eastern Franks". The Empire grown out of East Francia wasn't called "Holy Roman Empire" until the 12th century and none of the Emperors called themselves "holy roman emperor". I'm not sure if that'S a title that is actually used in English. In German it is not. You could say Otto was the first Roman-German emperor. That's what it's mostly called in modern German literature.--MacX85 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Monarch category

Is Otto I a Roman Catholic monarch or not? I am tired of seeing the category coming and going every day. I honestly do not know, so please give your honest opinion and reference it to see if we can put this item to rest.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The term `roman catholic´ or even `catholic´ connected to early-medieval issues is always a difficult one. The eastern-church (orthodoxy) used that `katholika´ to describe its religion at first. roman-catholic is more a confessional term for theologists and not a descriptional expression for monarchial claims.--139.30.128.38 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original question (from 2008, just saying): Otto I was a follower of a religion, which developed over time and is today best known as "Roman Catholic". For a summary, encyclopedic article the term's usage is fine. To add more historical nuance would just blow up the article with secondary information and confuse the average reader. Also this change of terminology is already covered in the religious sub-articles for interested readers. GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

German relations

"Otto I was related to every other king of Germany." In which case, so was every other king of Germany! It's unclear what this is meant to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.218.162 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Article scope - family and children

Moving some content here for safekeeping:

• Although never Emperor, Otto's father Henry I the Fowler is considered the founder of the Ottonian dynasty. The Ottonians would rule Germany (later the Holy Roman Empire) for over a century from 919 until 1024. Henry's actions in consolidating power in Germany allowed Otto to expand his authority into southern and central Europe. Otto's youngest son, Otto II, would succeed his father as Emperor. After a ten year reign, Otto II was succeeded by his son Otto III, Otto's grandson. Though reigning for nineteen years, much of this time was under various regents. When Otto III died suddenly, he was succeeded by Henry II, Otto I's great-nephew. Henry II reigned for twenty-two years. Following his death, the Ottonian dynasty came to an end. Dominion over the Empire went to the Salian dynasty, which did have family ties to the Ottonians by marriage.

==> Most, if not all of this information is better suited for Ottonian dynasty itself or already covered in the remaining article (Henry's influence on Otto's policy is covered in detail in several sections). To limit article length, content needs to be directly related to Otto I himself and as notable as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

With the vast improvements throughout the last year based on the German translation and the content being quite stable at the moment, i have submitted the article for a round of GOCE checking and polishing. Some sections may need a little more trimming and some more sources, but i believe the article is already in good shape. GermanJoe (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Copy edit completed as of 20 January 2013. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bohemia

To avoid further edit-warring, some explanation, why i reverted the latest edits as problematic.

• The former East Francia is generally not considered an Empire, most historians put the Holy Roman Empire's foundation with Otto's coronation in Rome 962. So Bohemia could not have been a part or an associated territory of an "Empire" between 919 and 962, in this interval there was no factual Western Empire.
• "Germany" is not used as a formal country name, but as a general short form for the Germanic inhabitated area and duchies (we could use East Francia, but that is also not entirely correct). After the decline of the Carolingian Empire, structures and regional powers changed several times, so it's really difficult to use one completely accurate term. A specific German national identity developed only after the Empire's foundation in 962.
• The article is about Otto I, so information about Bohemia needs to be summarized - details should be in the Bohemian historic articles, when they are not directly related to the German-Bohemian relations of this period.
• The exact nature of dependancy between Bohemia and Germany are difficult to describe in one sentence, any improvements are welcome.

Please discuss, before adding those changes again. GermanJoe (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

==>Hello, thanks to start this topic, much better than still reverting our edits.

• You are right that we can call it Holy Roman Empire only after Otto's coronation, i think Kingdom will be more accurate. Why do you think we can call it Germany? It was called "Kingdom of the East Franks" or "East Francia" and emerged from Carolingian Empire. I suggest this: ..tribute to "Kingdom" or to "Otto", or to "East Francia".. What do you think?
  
• As for other sentences, this arent details only for Bohemian history, they are directly related to Otto I, so please stop deleting them.

Best regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional information. I have no problem with "East Francia" or "German kingdom" (used already later). I believe "Germany" can be used aswell in reference to the general territory, while keeping in mind it's not a formal country name - other articles about Henry the Fowler and Conrad I use this term aswell. Up to you - i am certainly not claiming, it is perfectly accurate. Regarding your other 2 additions:

• "This personal meeting finally ended by reconciliation of both rulers. Despite being undefeated, he ..." - is a matter of focus. The article doesn't include this kind of information for other countries either (see France or Burgundy). Boleslaus being undefeated is kind of implied, the article already says, that no side could gain a decisive advantage. See WP:SUMMARY, some details should be omitted (or moved to a sub-article), if they are not necessary to understand the general topic. It's impossible length-wise to add every detail.
• "On the Ota's side later Boleslaus' army defeated Hungarians in the Battle of Lechfeld, and also repel their invasion in Moravia." - the first fact is already mentioned in the "Battle of Lechfeld" section, so shouldn't be duplicated. If the battles in Moravia were part of the common German-Bohemian defense, a brief info could be added in the Lechfeld section. But a more detailed description would better fit into the "Hungarian Invasions"-article itself.

I hope, that made my reasons to revert a bit clearer and looking forward to find a good consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine that you have no problem with East Francia its more formal name. The thing is that i am not sure that Bohemia was part of this Kingdom, it later became Bohemian Kingdom and was part of the Empire (that some time ruled even Czech kings). As i know, Boleslav apparently dont gave up feudal tribute to Otto, do you have any references that its not so? He only confirmed peace threaty of his brother Wenceslaus I, so it was specially associated with this Kingdom. And thats why i want to more explain about their later alliance ("This personal meeting finally ended by..", "On the Ota's side later..") Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we both look for reliable sources to offer a bit more background on this aspect - the article needs more sources anyway. I am not even sure, it's possible to put an exact label to the Bohemian-German relation in that time of change and crisis - the German influence varied over time depending on the varying strength of both sides. We can still add some details, when a reliable source with clear information on this point is found. GermanJoe (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Invasion and Conversion of Denmark

As written on the page of Harald Bluetooth, the story of his conversion is in dispute between accounts given by Widukind of Corvey and Adam of Bremen, with historians leaning towards Widukind. Yet this article only mentions the account of Adam (Under the section "Northern Slavic Wars"). Would it be permissible to rewrite this to mention the dispute?

Nukleon (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)