Cultural depictions of Otto the Great

[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.

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.

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".

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.