Talk:Otto the Great

word 'slave'
The word 'slave' comes from Otto's campaign against the Slavs (I don't know which campaign). Perhaps worth mentioning? Here is a ref. Malick78 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article slaves connects the term only with "some early Medieval wars" (with 2 sources), but isn't more specific. Without solid book sources from notable historians we shouldn't be more specific either - after 1000+ years such etymological details remain often vague. Especially from the early Ottonian dynasty extant written records are (relatively) rare, a lot of information is based on only a few chronicles. GermanJoe (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, wiktionary lays it out clearly: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave

Read it. The word alone disproves the racist myth that "white people were never slaves".119.92.93.84 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

First King?
"Otto was "the first of the Germans to be called the emperor of Italy""

Wasn't that Dietrich

119.92.93.84 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Northern Slavic War - questionable content?
This section could really use some better sources, but aside from 1-2 passing mentions (not even full sentences) about these activities I was unable to locate any modern sources for this section. Currently the narrative is based on Zimmermann, 1877 (!), an author who often presents a highly idealized nationalist view on this period. I have been tempted to nuke this entire part for a while now, Otto's role in these events seems grossly exaggerated at best. Of course de-Wiki is no reliable source itself, but it's worth noting that the German-language article completely omits this part of Otto's alleged military activities. GermanJoe (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed this section now, as I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of these events in modern reliable sources. Of course I may have missed some, the content could be re-created from article history if better sources verify the narrative and Otto's role in it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

5th generation ancestry
Regarding this revert. The indications are speculative, but may as well be applied as seen in other equivalent articles if only their incertitude is evident, such as with a question mark. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this discussion. The EB source (from Liudolf's main article) only notes in passing that Liudolf was "probably" descended from a noble named Bruno and gives no further details about this lineage. The information about his mother is unsourced. The analogous Liudolf article on de-Wiki mentions several conflicting theories about this aspect (unfortunately without sources and further details). In short: Liudolf's ancestry cannot be safely ascertained.


 * A similar situation can be seen with the father of Henry, Margrave of the Franks: the main article notes atleast 2 conflicting hypotheses and does not treat one of them as preferred plausible theory. In such an unclear situation the article would have to note all possibilities or none. Picking one theory out of several possibilities obscures the complexity of the situation in both cases. Of course these theories with their background and sufficient context can be explained in the main article as prose, but a simple family tree is the wrong place to present them. Lastly, the current article covers 3 generations of Otto's ancestry - this should be more than sufficient for an encyclopedic article that should focus on an overview of general-knowledge facts, not on speculative genealogical details. GermanJoe (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would delete the third generation. The whole table is unreferenced, and out of the eight great-grandparents only the parents of Otto, Duke of Saxony are certainly known. Dietrich's mother is shown as an abbess who is not mentioned in the article about him. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The table is not unsourced - the sources are listed in note g (Neue Deutsche Biographie, and a genealogist with some expertise and publications in genealogical journals). I was just too lazy to ref a dozen nodes separately, but all current nodes are verifiable in these sources. The current situation seems OK after some checking, but adding any more speculative information would decrease the family tree's accuracy . GermanJoe (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is clearer now that the table is referenced - OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's a bit clearer. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this reversion I don't see any reference in the Talk Archive for this page (or here, for that matter) about three levels of ancestry being sufficient. If the main issue was that the information I added was unsourced, then I'll be happy to add citations (which, in fact, I was in the process of doing).--Masque (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion doesn't specify an exact number of generations, true. But it contains several arguments why the addition of speculative and/or ill-sourced genealogical information in general is detrimental to the article's accuracy (especially when such details may be controversial among experts or unclear). If you can provide reliable expert sources for additional or existing information, that would be greatly appreciated. But I believe 3 levels of ancestry provide a good amount of information, and anyone interested in more details can always click the linked sub-articles for earlier generations. A general-purpose encyclopedic article for everyday readers shouldn't have the same level of detail as a specialist genealogical publication. We need to draw a line somewhere in an encyclopedic format. GermanJoe (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added verifiable information about Otto's ancestry to the Ahnentafel. Cheers.--Masque (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the additional source. The addition of "Baba" shows a common problem with such ancestry trees though (as briefly mentioned in the discussion above). Its attribution is quite weak and has several flaws, as Baldwin points out in his analysis of this part of the ancestry and the available sources. I am not assessing right or wrong here (not my part as an editor), but encyclopedic articles should not present theories as facts, or treat hypotheses as generally accepted theories. Of course an encyclopedic overview cannot present all nuances, differing viewpoints and background discussions for such details, but we should try to distinguish facts from theories to some degree. As a compromise, I have added qualifiers to the problematic nodes to preserve the good-faith addition. GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * With regards to Hedwig, Cawley has clearly taken Baldwin's comments on the identity of her father into account. If you look at where he places her, she's a sister of Adalbert, which is exactly where Baldwin argues she should be. Unless you object, I would like the Ahnentafel to definitively give her father as Heinrich, Margrave of Franconia. With regards to Baba, although I suspect that Baldwin is misunderstanding the source, I don't have the knowledge of Latin or the experience with these sources to make a credible argument, and this wouldn't really be the place anyway. There is an optional parameter for the MLCC template that indicates that Cawley's analysis of the sources is questionable, so I'll add that to the Baba cite.--Masque (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor?
Otto is described in my 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica as Holy Roman Emperor, but not in more recent reliable source so far as I can discover. The article on the Holy Roman Empire in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages describes Sacrum Romanum Imperium as a designation of the German Empire which is used by 1254. In modern academic sources he is designated 'Emperor' without specifying further. I do not think we should be using a title which is not used by reliable sources, but there does not appear to be an obvious alternative. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Otto the Great would be one possibility, but that would not help with Otto II etc.) Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Holy Roman Emperor" itself is a problematic title in several ways. You are right about the title Sacrum Romanum Imperium appearing later, but even with that, it's about the Empire, not Emperor. In very old (English and other) books, they simply write "Emperor" or "Roman Emperor" (from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, "Emperor of Germany"). In German, they were simply "Kaiser" (in Latin sources, often literally "Caesar"), or "Römischer Kaiser" and in the modern time, often "Römisch-deutscher Kaiser" (mainly to distinguish them from "old" Roman Emperors/römischen Kaiser der Antike: a sign of this being just an "unofficial indicator", is the way scholars liberally use "Deutscher König und Römischer Kaiser" and "Römischer König und Deutscher Kaiser" - as long as people don't mistake them for "old" Roman Emperors, it's fine!). "Roman Emperor" corresponds (but not totally word-by-word) to the Latin title Romanorum Imperator. Medieval people tended to regard the Empire and Emperor as the true continuation of the old Rome. You can see the traces in other European languages. On his Italian Wiki page for example, Otto is imperatore dei Romani. So I simply consider "Holy Roman Emperor" as, even if not the most precise, the modern English way to translate the German/Latin title of the head of the Empire (because the modern view tends to consider Otto I, rather than Charlemagne or Henry the Fowler as the beginning) that existed from Otto I (in German sources, he does tend to be called Otto der Grosse rather than Otto I) to 1806. Otto and the Ottonian Emperors in general are still called as such in many modern (and respectable) works, such as Stollberg-Rilinger; Wilson; Pavlac-Lott, Althoff (translation of his German work); --Deamonpen (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Strategical" is not a word.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)