Otto I, also called Otto the Great, is seen by many as one of the greatest medieval rulers.[1] His name is usually associated with the foundation[2] (or consolidation of the Holy Roman Empire, depending on the sources, although the modern vỉew generally considers Otto, rather than his father Henry the Fowler or Charlemagne, as the founder), the victory in the Battle of Lechfeld gained him, according to historian Jim Bradburn, a reputation as the great champion of Christendom,[3] and the Ottonian Renaissance. Although historians in different eras have never denied his reputation as a successful ruler, the image of the nationalist political strongman which was usually perceived during the nineteenth century has been questioned by more recent sources. Modern historians explore the emperor's capability as a consensus builder, as well as the participation of princes in contemporary politics and the important roles played by female actors (notably his wives Eadgyth and Adelaide of Italy) and his advisors in his endeavors. Mentioned also is that Otto did have a strong character. In many cases, Otto chose his own way, which also led to rebellions. He often emerged victorious in the end.
Kurt Reindel comments on the legacy of Otto as the following:[5]
Otto I’s achievement rests mainly on his consolidation of the Reich. He deliberately made use of the bishops to strengthen his rule and thus created that “Ottonian church system of the Reich” that was to provide a stable and long-lasting framework for Germany. By his victorious campaigns, he gave Germany peace and security from foreign attack, and the preeminent position that he won as ruler gave him a sort of hegemony in Europe. His Italian policy and the acquisition of the imperial crown constituted a link with the old Carolingian tradition and was to prove a great responsibility for the German people in the future. All areas under Otto’s rule prospered, and the resultant flowering of culture has been called the Ottonian renaissance.
In the nineteenth century, Otto the Great was often considered a leader who brought the Germans the first place among European people. In his and R. Köpke's 1876 Kaiser Otto der Grosse, Ernst Dümmler, "the author of the most detailed description of Otto's government to date",[6] described a "youthful upswing, a national trend went through the hearts of the people under Emperor Otto [...]"[7] Writing in 1926, Robert Holtzmann continued this sentiment, praising Otto as the ruler who "showed the way and goal of Medieval German history, and not only initiated the German imperial period, but truly dominated it for centuries to come."[8][9]
In the recent decades, scholars had revised certain important concepts about medieval politics, not only concerning Germany but also Western and Central Europe in general. Beginning with Gerd Althoff and Hagen Keller's 1985 work on Henry the Fowler and Otto I, royal or imperial rulership has been seen as a phenomenon that happened both above and in the conflicts between magnates. The princes were partners in policy formulating processes and the monarch's position could only develop gradually. This was by no means a continuous process with clear patterns.[10][11][12][13] In this form of rulership, called "consensual rulership" by Bernd Schneidmüller (konsensuale Herrschaft), consultations and assemblies were important for building consensus, although absolute consensus was not needed and consensus could also be enforced by might, but the monarches could not always coerce and likely had no desire to rule absolutely without consent.[14][15] The consensus through which the monarch cooperated with the princes would become disturbed in the Salian period.[16] This does not mean that Otto was not a strong-willed ruler or just a mediator. By contrast, as Laudage writes, even as a young ruler, Otto "consciously accomplished a break in continuity and set himself apart from his father by more strongly emphasizing his decision-making power and authority".[a] Partly inheriting conflicts with the nobles from his father's reign, partly creating such conflicts himself by vigorously defending his rights to allocate offices and intervening in the nobility's power structure, in the end, he emerged victorious from those conflicts (the most serious came from his own family).[18][17][19]
Christian Hillen compares Johannes Laudage's Otto der Große (912-973). Eine Biographie (2001) with Gerd Althoff's Otto III. and notes that both reserve special focus for the role of "staged and symbolic actions, gestures and other non-verbal forms of communication"; both note that the rulers' politics were more improvised than planned (this also reflects on the nature of medieval politics in general): "It was not through long-term plans that dominance was achieved, but a long chain of instantaneous decisions."[b]
Althoff writes the following on Otto I:[21]
Purposefulness, resoluteness and success characterize Otto's reign. Dealing with the conflicting interests of royalty, nobility and church, he defended the royal decision-making prerogatives against aristocratic interests, particularly during the early stages of his reign. However, he also showed flexibility, as shown by the recognition of dynastic succession, which enabled continuity in the ruling entities (Herrschaftsbildung) of the nobility. He supported the imperial churches and their leading representatives in many ways, but also tied them intensively to imperial service. He is regarded as the founder of the Ottonian-Salian "imperial church system", which, however, should not be misunderstood to mean that the church was used as a compliant instrument for the monarchy and against the nobility. For this ruler of the tenth century, consensus-building was an indispensable prerequisite for governance. To do this, he had to integrate different groups and interests, reward outcomes and merits appropriately, and honor his loyal followers. Power politics and asserting one's own interests, on the other hand, were in essence not what was expected of a ruler at that time. From this perspective, many of the difficulties that Otto faced can be explained, like the temporary successes of his various opponents as well as the positive evaluations they received from many contemporaries. However, his contemporaries and posterity have always acknowledged that he went his own way unwaveringly and ultimately successfully. The nickname 'the Great' was already given to him by his contemporaries.
Becher opines that describing Otto as the great leader who found the German Empire or a pioneer of (Western) Europe against "the East" would be misleading, because Otto and his contemporaries did not think in such terms (Becher also considers the epithet "the Great" as usually applied to notable leaders a problematic term on its own.).[22] In Becher's opinion, there were five areas Otto achieved lasting contributions to the Empire he ruled: "his work in combatting the rebellions directed against himself, his policy towards the West Frankish Empire, his victory over the Hungarians on the Lechfeld, the mission to the areas up to the Oder and the imperial coronation". Becher emphasizes that, he did not complete these achievements alone: "Otto [...] certainly always coordinated his actions with a group of advisers headed by his wives Eadgyth and Adelheid and he continuously depended on the support of as many influential people as possible."[23] Wozniak opines that Becher's work is a suitable introduction to Otto, that is not overloaded with too many details, but notes that the influence of female characters are not shown enough.[24]
While he claimed the ideal of the universal empire that Charlemagne once represented, traditional and modern historians have noted the practical aspect of his intervention in Italy, which on some level was a reaction to the Pope's interference with ecclesiastic princes in Germany, and his program of tying the Church firmly to his government.[25][26] The intervention in Italy tied the fates of Germany and Italy. Later, German rulers, notably his grandson Otto III (who was considered more idealistic and less practical than his grandfather), would be criticized by nineteenth century historians for weakening Germany's own nationality in favour of the universal ideal and their role as protectors of Italy.[27]
Brian Downing opines that societies in Western Europe remained decentralized throughout the Middle Ages and Otto was no more successful than Charlemagne in ensuring aristocratic fealty in the long term. Although the Ottonians and their Salic and Hohenstaufen successors built their systems of local officials, the vassals in response created their own ministeriales. But Otto made a good arrangement by incorporating the resources of the church system, that provided administrative skills and wealth. This arrangement worked until the Church's ambition to develop its own corporate structure clashed with the secular rulers. However, the decentralized nature of societies would foster democracy in the long run.[28][29]
Otto's military ability has been discussed quite frequently. Writing in 1982, Karl Leyser noted that there were dispute, but on the level of combining the military and the political in exploiting his victories. it was indisputable that his vision did not fall short of a Clausewitz.[30] Recent works generally see his generalship in a positive light. Franke notes that the hallmark of his generalship was his ability to conduct multiple campaigns on multiple fronts in one year, although his rule began with minor defeat against the Bohemians, and his Italian campaigns were not as successful as campaigns in the north. Up until Lechfeld, he faced repeated trouble in ensuring cooperation from the aristocrats with his chosen commanders.[31][32] Kohler notes that he had an ability to turn weakness into strength, was cool and calm and knew how to inspire his troops in the face of difficulty, was merciful when dealing with internal rebels but totally ruthless to foreign opponents. The year of 955 was the foremost example. Facing enemies on two fronts, he was able to destroy the Hungarians before return to deal with the Slavs.[33]
David Bachrach notes that Henry I (the Fowler) and Otto the Great achieved the remarkable feat of waging war across the whole of Europe, from the Oder to the Seine and from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic and Mediterranean, recreating Charlemagne's empire and establishing themselves as hegemons of Western Europe. on the back of a well-built administration system inherited from the Carolingians and ultimately the Ancient Romans (and expanded by the Ottonian themselves), which was able to mobilize resources for very large armies (as shown by archaeological excavations) and successful conduct of operations. In combination with extensive diplomatic activities, this allowed the Ottonian rulers to succeed.[34]
See also: Ottonian Renaissance, Ottonian art, and Ottonian architecture |
Unlike his heirs, Otto only learned to read at age thirty.[37] It was under his reign that Ottonian architecture was first developed. Blending Mediterranean, Byzantine and Christian influence with Germanic elements, it was an innovative style reflecting the high regards the Ottonian architects had for mathematical sciences.[38][39] There was no centre of cultural or literary patronage yet, but learning was encouraged and scholars and artists were summoned by the court from Italy or Constantinople.[40][41]
According to Ullmann, "The Saxon dynasty, established by Henry I in 919, during the reign of his son, Otto the Great (936–973), had rapidly become the leading European power, territorially, militarily, economically, and also to some extent culturally."[42]
((cite book))
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)The year of 2023 will be the 1050th commemoration of the emperor's death. The Kulturhistorisches Museum Magdeburg and Cathedral Museum Ottonianum Magdeburg are planning various events, including exhibitions, educational programs and expert talks honouring Otto's last journey to his homeland, now in Saxony-Anhalt.[110]