More generally, you (and, in fairness, quite a lot of historians) are way too focussed on the Robertian/Carolingian conflict.
Let's agree we disagree.What I'm saying is that your methodology is not historically acceptable. You're cherry-picking the bits of Richer you like in order to force it into the straight-jacket of an all-consuming feud between Robertians and Carolingians.
I can conceive your point on the Aquitanian connection is relevant if we reject the Robertian feud as actual, but my point on the Anjou is based on an opposite assumption and I think it can fit the source without contradicting them.
As for my method, I do not take what is convenient and discard the remainder, 'cherry-picking' as you say, but I tend to take it under a global, multi-disciplinary approach, to palliate the problems and lacuna inherent to a work on ancient sources.
Where you view the sources under the assumption that the Robertian feud isn't a factor (assuming there's no renewed feud), I view them under the assumption it is, so we each draw different conclusions. Can we agree on that?
As I see the things, it's three king over 70 years either fighting in Lotharingia, Normandy or Robertians, all north of the Loire, while the most marking event concerning Aquitaine is Louis V's marriage at the end of this period. As for Otto's late interventions, I mostly see they are related to Hugh the Great's rebellion so I'm bent on considering this as a whole intervention with several campaigns.
That's not like she had much alternatives to free her husband and restore him on the throne; for me, it tells more her attachment to Louis IV than to her brother.Also, whatever one can say about the circumstances of Louis' marriage, it's Gerberga who goes and asks Otto for help in the first place and every indication is that brother and sister were very close after about 940 or so. Plus, as I said, Louis' personal relations with Otto seem to be surprisingly warm; even given the fighting over Lotharingia, they spend more time even before 946 being friendly than not. Assuming that Louis 'detested' Otto, quite simply, has no evidence to support it.
'detested' is quite a strong word: I mean only 'despise' which is not as strong. It's not like he would cry his dissatisfaction of Otto openly, he may well have been waiting and kept his mouth shut, it wouldn't have made a great difference and it's not surprising, it's just pragmatism.Plus, as I said, Louis' personal relations with Otto seem to be surprisingly warm; even given the fighting over Lotharingia, they spend more time even before 946 being friendly than not. Assuming that Louis 'detested' Otto, quite simply, has no evidence to support it.