Autocratic HRE?

I resurrect this topic on an annual basis, and it tends not to get a lot of attention, but here we go. Let's see if it works this time!

Basically, my POD is the survival of the Emperor Otto III, a formidable man who'd been King (and then Emperor) since he was three years old. Otto's mother was Rhomanian, and he had been brought up in a Greek-speaking, highly literary environment- he also had some real autocratic tendencies, as can be seen by his treatment of the Papacy. He died in 1002, though, in his early twenties.

So, what if Otto survived thirty years longer? An immediate POD from this is that he does indeed marry Zoe the Macedonian, niece of Basil II, which will even further influence Rhomanian influence over the Reich, but let's not discuss the ERE here. My main questions are how does a the survival of an autocratic Emperor, with a full claim on the throne of a restored Western Empire, impact upon things in Germany and Italy? Let's say, furthermore, that Zoe provides Otto with several children, and he is succeeded by a healthy adult son.

Discuss! :)
 
For starters it gives a good chance for the HRE to establish hereditary monarchy by virtue of there being a strong dynasty in place.

Otto seems to have been interested in Italy at the time of his death - does that mean that the HRE is based on Italian foundations? Could be.
 
Otto seems to have been interested in Italy at the time of his death - does that mean that the HRE is based on Italian foundations? Could be.

I think it may do- though I suspect German agitation will force Otto to look north before about 1010 to deal with unrest there at a primarily Italian, or, worse, "Greek" Emperor.

Anyone else got some thoughts? Or is this well and truly flogging a dead horse?
 
I hope not on it being a dead horse.

I don't know enough on Otto to guess he'd be perceived - he could be like Frederick II was OTL, in the sense of being some practically-foreign guy who happens to be emperor but whose real interests are elsewhere.

It would be interesting to see him as a cross between John I and Constantine VII, to pick Rhomanian emperors. Charismatic and militarily brilliant as well as a scholar.
 
I resurrect this topic on an annual basis, and it tends not to get a lot of attention, but here we go. Let's see if it works this time!
Basically, my POD is the survival of the Emperor Otto III, a formidable man who'd been King (and then Emperor) since he was three years old. Otto's mother was Rhomanian, and he had been brought up in a Greek-speaking, highly literary environment- he also had some real autocratic tendencies, as can be seen by his treatment of the Papacy. He died in 1002, though, in his early twenties.
So, what if Otto survived thirty years longer? An immediate POD from this is that he does indeed marry Zoe the Macedonian, niece of Basil II, which will even further influence Rhomanian influence over the Reich, but let's not discuss the ERE here. My main questions are how does a the survival of an autocratic Emperor, with a full claim on the throne of a restored Western Empire, impact upon things in Germany and Italy? Let's say, furthermore, that Zoe provides Otto with several children, and he is succeeded by a healthy adult son.
Discuss! :)

Not knowing much about Kaiser Otto, I have to ask this; how did he go toes-up? If it was accidental (this includes in battle) or a preventable disease, you timeline works and maybe we can explore it. If he had a congenital problem, I don't quite know how to sidestep that, other than a good solid handwave....

Regards,
John Braungart ;)
 
Not knowing much about Kaiser Otto, I have to ask this; how did he go toes-up? If it was accidental (this includes in battle) or a preventable disease, you timeline works and maybe we can explore it. If he had a congenital problem, I don't quite know how to sidestep that, other than a good solid handwave....

Regards,
John Braungart ;)

Norwich refers to "a sudden fever", which is vague but doesn't sound particularly unpreventable.
 
I think the best guess is malaria - he was in Ravenna just before he died, which apparently was some sort of pestilential swamp at the time. I only know this because I've finally got around to reading Millennium by Tom Holland, which okay isn't an academic work but it's a decent read and it's kind of reminding me of stuff I learned years ago and have since forgotten, which is always nice.

Anyway, when I read the chapter the other day about the Ottonians, ending as it does with Otto III's untimely demise, I immediately thought the same thing as the OP, so very glad to come across this! :)

Agreed that some sort of German revolt is probably likely, considering how Otto had been neglecting the old homestead while he was gallivanting around Italy playing Caesar - but then again, he was in the middle of a major Italian uprising at the time that he died (and digging about online, it seems this was a bit more of a serious business than Holland maybe lets on in his book). Assuming he manages to put both of those down, though - well, it is a good POD imho. Could go anywhere. I see from the dreaded Wiki that Zoe, Otto's potential wife, ended up becoming ruling Empress (well, co-Empress with her sister) in Constantinople. That's interesting, isn't it? Would Otto's son and heir maybe try to enforce some sort of claim on the Byzantine throne too? I can imagine the German nobility being thrilled (not!) with that, but probably not as strongly as the Greek nobility... :D

I wonder...the Capetians had just taken over in France, right? Well, "taken over" might be a bit generous at this point, but they were officially in charge of the place at least. Would a continued, self-confident and autocratic Ottonian Empire harbour ambitions about reuniting all of Charlemagne's old dominions under direct Imperial rule?
 
Charles (Picked out of air for Otto's son) might try to claim the Byzantine throne, but there's a problem.

Well, several, but the main problem is that the Byzantine throne isn't hereditary.

It sometimes went to the son of the previous emperor, but there was no "I'm closest in blood to him so I get it" system.

Charles and his descendents are more likely to want to bring France under control, assuming Italy and Germany are obedient.
 
Charles and his descendents are more likely to want to bring France under control, assuming Italy and Germany are obedient.

I bet this will work just as well as it did for England.

Actually, how did the Byzantines view their succession system? I know Western Europe and Islam had people pontificating on the nature of government at the time, but Byzantium is something of a blank slate for me.

I was a bit concerned that this thread was called "autocratic," but I am trying to think of what the Emperor's base of support was during this period. Hrmm.
 
I bet this will work just as well as it did for England.

Actually, how did the Byzantines view their succession system? I know Western Europe and Islam had people pontificating on the nature of government at the time, but Byzantium is something of a blank slate for me.

I was a bit concerned that this thread was called "autocratic," but I am trying to think of what the Emperor's base of support was during this period. Hrmm.

It might work better, or not. I'm not speculating at this point one way or another - the Ottonians actually having Germany and Italy under their control gives them a huge base, but that's a huge task.

As for the Byzantine succession system: He who has the support of the army and the mob of Constantinople (but mostly the army) has the crown is a fairly accurate description.

There are several examples of lasting dynasties (the Heraclians, Isaurians, Macedonians to just name the ones to date as of the Ottonians), and in each of those it tended to be to the oldest son (though not always - John II picked his youngest son as his heir, for instance, after his first two died). But ultimately its held by the strongest.

Not sure what the theory was, but that's consistently how it was practiced.
 
I bet this will work just as well as it did for England.

Actually, how did the Byzantines view their succession system? I know Western Europe and Islam had people pontificating on the nature of government at the time, but Byzantium is something of a blank slate for me.

I was a bit concerned that this thread was called "autocratic," but I am trying to think of what the Emperor's base of support was during this period. Hrmm.

The Byzantines probably had a number of theories I can't recall, but the only principle that mattered was seizing power and preventing others from taking it from you.
 
Yes, I can see any Ottonian attempt to make themselves Emperor both in the East and the West being pretty ill-fated, but someone with Otto III's aspirations (or his son and heir if he holds the same aspirations) could still try, if the opportunity seemed to present itself. After all, he's the genuine Roman Emperor - the Pope said so! - and used to getting his own way. In OTL, Zoe's husband Romanos Argyros ended up becoming emperor (seems he was her father, Constantine VIII's, chosen successor), so if Otto III's maybe even still alive when Constantine dies ITTL...

Of course, the Byzantine court and/or the mob will probably just ignore any Ottonian assertions of authority and crown Romanos or somebody else more suitable (maybe Zoe's sister Theodora could be a centre of rebellions and conspiracies as she was at points in OTL), and I'm not sure Otto could even do anything about it - mounting a military expedition against Constantinople would be a pretty staggeringly tall order I'd imagine even for him.

I'm not entirely certain he'd have any greater luck taking direct control of France. I don't think the French magnates had much time for royal authority (even if they did have enough respect for the idea of a king to not just ignore him completely), but by this point I think they at least thought of "West Francia" and "East Francia" as distinct entities, so they'd probably not have any greater respect for a Saxon Emperor demanding their allegiance either. I think it'd require clever diplomacy and playing the various counts and so forth off against each other and the Capetian king rather than pure brute force.
 
Top