WI: Otto I dies early, no HRE

What if Otto I, King of Germany and then Holy Roman Emperor, had died as a child? Say, by drowning in a river or whatever.
I'd assume that, without him, East Francia does not expand into Italy and does not revive the Holy Roman Empire. Without italian distractions, the german kings can focus on consolidating their central authority in Germany, possibly leading to an alternate Germany that ends up effectively unifying a few centuries before OTL.
 
I'd assume that, without him, East Francia does not expand into Italy and does not revive the Holy Roman Empire.

I don't think this is a good assumption. Otto's father, Henry, was IIRC contemplating an Italian conquest before his death, and before the Ottonians the East Francian king Arnulf of Carinthia tried the same thing (and might have succeeded had he not apparently suffered a stroke near the end of his campaign). Interest in Italy wasn't a one-time thing that occurred to Otto and would have died with him. Italy, and the imperial title, were too valuable and important to the German kings to simply forgo, and with a 10th century POD I think the Germans are likely to get it eventually, one way or another, unless a stable and strong power arises in Italy to permanently foreclose upon that possibility.

Also, while it's easy in hindsight to say that Italian ventures proved an unwelcome distraction for the emperors, holding the imperial title actually helped the early emperors consolidate their authority in Germany quite a bit. Failing to take Italy is not an unqualified good thing from the perspective of state-building in Germany.
 
Actually, it might be hard to butterfly the appearance of HRE giving the then geopolitical situation.

Dukes of Saxe, that benefited from a strong military power, were made kings of Germany, were really driven to do so : having definitely taken over Lotharingia, defeated the Slavic raiders and while Henri died to soon to do that, he planned to intervene in Italy, as Otto did did after him.
Lumping together these territories and to assert their overlordship was leading for them to capt the egitimacy than imperial kingship (tied up with Italian kingship) could give them, critically as Ottonians used clerical (especially episcolap) support at their benefit.

For exemple, I don't think nominating Bruno as Duke of Lotharingia would have been entierly possible for instance, or rather be really safe, and more generally Otto's policy to use ecclesiastical power to bound secular principalities as in Franconia and Lotharingia.
Not intervening in Italy would have harmed Ottonian ambitions as he would have the capacity to help the pope but choosing not to do so (, the "divine right" depended heavily from supporting the Church); and wouldn't have gaven German nobility a derivative for their ambitions (that Otto went onto promising Liudolf Italy as his personal battlefield clearly points that).

From this point, the reconstitution of an imperial feature at the benefit of German kings may be only a matter of time. There's possibilities to avoid this, as discussed there, but it's a bit circumvoluted.

As a PoD, I'd rather propose a more stable and strong Italy, for instance, but it wasn't that obvious giving an increasingly weak royal power over great nobles and feudal fragmentations.

Hugues d'Arles admittedly managed to fought off the worst of the italian feudal anarchy but it took his power himself from an invasion not too dissimilar to Otto's.
Now, if Lothar of Arles survives and that Ottonians support Bosonids, you may end with a Bosonid Italy which may be slightly stabler but Ottonians would have few reasons to support Bosonids all the time.

In fact, Ottonids could see fit to favour one or the other pretender or regional powers (Bosonids, Old Welfs, Ivreans), in order to prevent a relativly powerful rival on their southern borders to appear (admittedly, we could see a stronger Carolingian or Robertian Francia meddling itself in Provence as they tried to do IOTL): don't forget that Italian kingship is particularly tied to the imperial title. A strong Italian king would certainly be declared such and that would be a threat for Germany, not even considering most of important roads passed trough northern Italy.

While Ottonians could be spared to intervene as deeply they did IOTL (by lack of clear claims) they would still be likely forced to do so more or less regularly. They would indeed be the main dynasty of the Xth and maybe XIth centuries, and would have to intervene would it be only for their own sake.

As for what it could herald for Germany...

I do agree that we'd end with a de facto hereditary Ottonian succession, much like Robertian IOTL : meaning formal elections with a growingly reduced number of nobles, and coronation of the heir during his father's reign being a great legitimazing tool.
German main focus might be more driven against Western Slavs, not only Bohemia but Poland and Wendes (which could incidentally increase tensions with Danes). I could see Ottonians playing eastern principalities against each other in order to weary them (not unlike Capetians did with Angevins and Normans before 1066) : an absence of Polish presence in Pomerania, for exemple?

Now, not reviving the imperial crown would make Ottonians less influents (it's why I think that instead of an Ottonian Renaissance, we may end with smaller "national renaissance").
Their political meddling in Francia, for exemple, wouldn't benefit from the huge clerical support they recieved IOTL with WFrench Carolingians having a better time holding their dynastical claims.
In fact, I could see Ottonians not objectively supporting as much they did Robertians, either by active support or absence of intervention on behalf of one or the other side.

Links with Anglo-Saxon England are going to be even stronger than IOTL. Maybe it could evolve up to intervening in Danemark against Sven I? A bit far fetched, I concede.

Culturally, however, no Ottonian hegemony in Europe could mean a longer Post-Carolingian world, or an even more blurry feudal structures coming out if it, with a lesser territorial structuration.
You may end with smaller "renaissances", and more "proto-national", altough I've trouble to discern on what they would be distinct from each other except their immediate context. So maybe simply a more decentralized equivalent to Ottonian renaissance. But with a growing self-identification, maybe.

Lesser pontifical authority means likely nobiliar (royal and feudal at the same time) takeover of the clergy. Probably no Peace of God movement as we know it (with a more important local drive, again). Medieval society of the XIth century would probably looks more what it looked like in the Xth : more violent, less culturally-driven, etc.
Changes might be smoother and pluri-central.

East Francia does not expand into Italy and does not revive the Holy Roman Empire.
A minor detail, but Ottonians didn't claim to revive the Roman Empire (the name Holy Roman Empire itself is a later attribution), but rather restore the imperium over Christianity, which admittedly doubled with the late Carolingians and Otton III's ascendency, of a more "Roman" feel).
 
Top