Talk:Otto the Great/Archive 1

List in section Descendants (2001)
HJ, here is a lesson. What you have written here is a list, and not a very clear one:

In 929 Otto married Eadgyth (Edith). Their children were Liudolf of Swabia, duke of Swabia born 930 and Liutgard of Saxony.

In 951 Otto married Adelaide of Italy or Saint Adelheid. Among their children were Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg, born about 954,

Otto II of Saxony, emperor, born 955

William, Archbishop of Mainz, son of Otto I the Great and unnamed Slav mother.

please note:
 * "Saint Adelheid" can be saved for her own entry.
 * I've dissolved some space between Otto II and Matilda, and connected them with a conjunction. This is not supposed to be a list with each person on a separate line, but prose.
 * I've turned William into a sentence that is connected to the previous material. I also deleted the space between 'Mainz' and the following comma!!!! --MichaelTinkler

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. . 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)

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: ==> 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)
 * 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.

Bohemia
To avoid further edit-warring, some explanation, why i reverted the latest edits as problematic. Please discuss, before adding those changes again. GermanJoe (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

==>Hello, thanks to start this topic, much better than still reverting our edits. Best regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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

"Appearance and character" - WP:PRIMARY issue?
On first glance i was tempted to remove this well-intended addition as solely based on a discouraged, subjective, WP:PRIMARY source (Widukind of Corvey). On second thought maybe the section could be kept, if the article clearly mentions this fact, treats the description as simple quote and provides a reliable secondary source for the translation. What do other editors think? GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For articles on this period, we shouldn't be using Primary sources in this way; they typically require extensive interpretation. If reliable secondary sources (e.g. modern historians on Otto I, of which there are plenty) regard the description and assessment as reliable, then we should be citing thesee secondary sources. Without such a secondary source, I'd be strongly against keeping it as a simple quote: it misleads the casual reader into believing it is accurate (why else would it be prominently placed in an an encyclopaedia article?) when that may very well not be the case. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't consider casual readers - good point. While this is no formal RfC, i'll remove (Done) the problematic section soon (if nobody objects). GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Templates
Boldly transformed all references to citation format (other references will follow later). I am aware, some editors dislike templates for various reasons and sometimes they can cause minor issues. However for further improvements and hopefully growing reference lists templates are the better method (imo). By the way, if other editors have sources for lacking sections, i'd appreciate any additional citations. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a fyi for interested editors, I am currently focusing on German-language sources for reference improvements (as they apparently provide a more detailed narrative about Otto's life). If anyone has access to modern English sources of similar detail, please feel free to exchange some German refs. GermanJoe (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

August Emperor of the Romans
Wasn't the title 'Holy Roman Emperor' only applied retrospectively? The page on the Holy Roman Empire says: "The term sacrum ("holy," in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157, under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire") -- the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy; the form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward." 105.228.157.203 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (belated response) I have added a brief footnote to clarify this slightly confusing but common usage and also added a brief clarification to the section about his coronation. GermanJoe (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2014 (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)


 * While the current version was the most likely one (imo), I have removed that detail as too disputed. The Harold sub-article lists 3 different versions for the conversion. Explaining the background of every single possibility would be far too much detail for this article, and can be checked in the Harold article by interested readers. GermanJoe (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2014 (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)
 * I have reverted the latest IP (dynamic unfortunately) changes to the long-standing version (here and in all related rulers' articles), pending possible further discussion. The Great Schism was part of a process, which had already stated long before the schism actually happened. "Eastern" and "Western" Christianity were already clearly distinguished earlier, while still forming a theoretical unity. Please discuss sweeping changes beforehand. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate map
Inaccurate map as the first Polish Kings and later Dukes of Silesia all paid tribute to the HRE. 86.165.191.30 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Most likely not always in the early 11th century (before the first Polish kings obviously), considering the worsened relations between the two realms since Henry II became king (German–Polish War (1002–18)). The maps are certainly not ideal and simplify some political nuances, but they show a general geographical overview of the involved territories. It doesn't help map-making, that the situation in the border region changed several times in the late 10th and early 11th century (borders shifted, marches got re-organized, etc.). An experienced map-maker with a few months of spare time would be helpful of course :). GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)