WI: Holy Roman Emperor Otto III became Byzantine Emperor

What if Otto III of the Holy Roman Empire lived longer, married Zoe Porphyrogenita, and was later nominated by Basil II to be Eastern Roman co-emperor?

Otto III seemed to be a capable Holy Roman Emperor, despite only reigning for 5 years. He also admired Greek and Roman culture.

With Basil II's support, could Otto unite the two empires permanently?
 

Deleted member 67076

Eh, not really.

There's too many problems in trying the marriage solution. For one, the empire would simply be too big and unwieldy to manage. Remember the German Emperors were often itinerant, having to routinely travel to smack down revolts and keep things in line. To add another dimension to this with Eastern Rome, which at this time period is the largest state in the Eastern Mediterranean, and thus he'd have to routinely travel back and forth, which would be logistically unfeasible.

Then there's the cultural issues. Why would the Eastern Romans accept this Barbarian to the purple? Furthermore, this goes against Basil's grand strategy of weakening landed elites- an emperor far away is one that isn't supervising the Dynatoi.
 
Eh, not really.

There's too many problems in trying the marriage solution. For one, the empire would simply be too big and unwieldy to manage. Remember the German Emperors were often itinerant, having to routinely travel to smack down revolts and keep things in line. To add another dimension to this with Eastern Rome, which at this time period is the largest state in the Eastern Mediterranean, and thus he'd have to routinely travel back and forth, which would be logistically unfeasible.

Then there's the cultural issues. Why would the Eastern Romans accept this Barbarian to the purple? Furthermore, this goes against Basil's grand strategy of weakening landed elites- an emperor far away is one that isn't supervising the Dynatoi.
Well that's why he'd be a co-emperor first. Basil II can take care of the Bulgars, Phokades, Skleroi, and Fatimids, while Otto III can subjugate the pagans and uppity German and Italian lords.

Otto might be considered a "barbarian" because of his origins but was educated in the classics and in three languages. If he didn't already know Greek, he would have learned it fluently by the time he becomes sole emperor.

If Basil II died earlier than 1025, Otto III would definitely be screwed. But with the dynatoi being marginalized and imperial throne strengthened, the Varangians and tagmata should be loyal enough to the Byzantine crown to keep Otto in power.

Basil II's predecessors, Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes illegitimately seized the throne--at least Otto would have been chosen by a legitimate emperor.
 

Deleted member 67076

None of these solve the problem of such a huge empire, which is the main obstacle to this enterprise working.

The HRE still lacks the administrative structure to hold itself together, much less adding on another chunk that's roughly as big as the US Northeast. If the Southern Italians were conquered, that's another set of problems as the nobles there need to be watched and checked constantly, which is so much harder thanks to the size of the state.
 
In a word no. Maybe a son of Otto and Zoe would be accepted as the new Byzantine Emperor, probably succeeding his grandfather Constantine VIII rather then Basil II, but that would be it. Otto was a barbarian in the eyes of the true Roman elite and would never be accepted as their Sovereign. Period. And "uppity German and Italian lords", really? You don't seem to realize just how the Holy Roman Empire was governed. It was a consensus monarchy in which the Emperor-King governed with the aid and consent of is great lords, not a bureaucratic or absolute monarchy like the Byzantine Empire. Like I said above, the best possible situation would be to have both Empires ruled by the same dynasty. Anything more is just unrealistic.
 
Someone's been playing CKII.

I can't see any HRE-ERE union being anything but an ephemeral, nominal sort of thing that wouldn't last more than a short period and would likely threaten too many entrenched nobles for it to last. Their interests are just too different, not to mention cultural and structural differences.
 
Plainly impossible, as others said, simply put even if Otto III had a promising reign, he was constantly dealing with revolts (in fact, he died while tried to crush one), the HRE was young, feudal and unstable, with few entrenched institutions, too many powerful vassals (the Stem duchies) and overextention. To worse the matters, take consideration that Byzantine succession wasn't strictly primogenital.

The dynastic solution (one of his sons with Zoe being sent to Constantinople to being groomed as Basileos) is the most likely outcome, but it isn't certain that the Roman elites will accept him, also his elder brother may die, earlier HREs didn't have the best luck in surviving his sons.
 
OK, let's say that the royal marriage happens and there is a personal union, but the empires remain separate. Otto III is given a title like Caesar, Patrikios, or Sebastokrator, but does not become co-emperor (Basileus). While there is some cooperation between the two empires, Otto and Basil focus mainly on keeping their own nobles in line. Otto's son(s) with Zoe are sent to Constantinople to be raised as Romans.

Basil II appoints one of Otto's sons, not Otto III himself, as co-emperor in the 1020s. After 25 years of good relations, trade, and occasional alliance between the two Roman Empires, this co-emperor becomes the most powerful of two Eastern emperors (after Constantine VIII inherits) and then the sole Eastern emperor a few years later.
 
Top