Talk:Otto the Great

message: The word 'slave' comes from Otto's campaign against the Slavs (I don't know which campaign). Perhaps worth mentioning? Here is a ref. Malick78 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article slaves connects the term only with "some early Medieval wars" (with 2 sources), but isn't more specific. Without solid book sources from notable historians we shouldn't be more specific either - after 1000+ years such etymological details remain often vague. Especially from the early Ottonian dynasty extant written records are (relatively) rare, a lot of information is based on only a few chronicles. GermanJoe (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, wiktionary lays it out clearly: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave
Read it. The word alone disproves the racist myth that "white people were never slaves".119.92.93.84 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  word 'slave' 

message: "Otto was "the first of the Germans to be called the emperor of Italy""
Wasn't that  Dietrich
119.92.93.84 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First King? 

message: This section could really use some better sources, but aside from 1-2 passing mentions (not even full sentences) about these activities I was unable to locate any modern sources for this section. Currently the narrative is based on Zimmermann, 1877 (!), an author who often presents a highly idealized nationalist view on this period. I have been tempted to nuke this entire part for a while now, Otto's role in these events seems grossly exaggerated at best. Of course de-Wiki is no reliable source itself, but it's worth noting that the German-language article completely omits this part of Otto's alleged military activities. GermanJoe (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed this section now, as I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of these events in modern reliable sources. Of course I may have missed some, the content could be re-created from article history if better sources verify the narrative and Otto's role in it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Slavic War - questionable content? 

message: Otto is described in my 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica as Holy Roman Emperor, but not in more recent reliable source so far as I can discover. The article on the Holy Roman Empire in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages describes Sacrum Romanum Imperium as a designation of the German Empire which is used by 1254. In modern academic sources he is designated 'Emperor' without specifying further. I do not think we should be using a title which is not used by reliable sources, but there does not appear to be an obvious alternative. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Otto the Great would be one possibility, but that would not help with Otto II etc.) Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Holy Roman Emperor" itself is a problematic title in several ways. You are right about the title Sacrum Romanum Imperium appearing later, but even with that, it's about the Empire, not Emperor. In very old (English and other) books, they simply write "Emperor" or "Roman Emperor" (from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, "Emperor of Germany"). In German, they were simply "Kaiser" (in Latin sources, often literally "Caesar"), or "Römischer Kaiser" and in the modern time, often "Römisch-deutscher Kaiser" (mainly to distinguish them from "old" Roman Emperors/römischen Kaiser der Antike: a sign of this being just an "unofficial indicator", is the way scholars liberally use "Deutscher König und Römischer Kaiser" and "Römischer König und  Deutscher Kaiser" - as long as people don't mistake them for "old" Roman Emperors, it's fine!). "Roman Emperor" corresponds (but not totally word-by-word) to the Latin title Romanorum Imperator. Medieval people tended to regard the Empire and Emperor as the true continuation of the old Rome. You can see the traces in other European languages. On his Italian Wiki page for example, Otto is imperatore dei Romani. So I simply consider "Holy Roman Emperor" as, even if not the most precise, the modern English way to translate the German/Latin title of the head of the Empire (because the modern view tends to consider Otto I, rather than Charlemagne or Henry the Fowler as the beginning) that existed from Otto I (in German sources, he does tend to be called Otto der Grosse rather than Otto I) to 1806. Otto and the Ottonian Emperors in general are still called as such in many modern (and respectable) works, such as Stollberg-Rilinger; Wilson; Pavlac-Lott, Althoff (translation of his German work); --Deamonpen (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Emperor? 

message: Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strategical" is not a word.