r/HolyRomanEmperors • u/Vegetable_Pizza587 Charles V • 26d ago
Ranking every Holy Roman Emperor day 15:Otto III
3
u/EFtheunknown 26d ago
Good - Despite inheriting the throne at a young age and all the hijinks that happened in his youth, Otto III grew into a capable ruler, and also energetic, and a highly intelligent ruler who had good relations with Poland and Hungary. He had a role in spreading Christianity to Eastern Europe such as in the Christianization of Hungary. Historians in the past have misjudged him as a misguided ruler who had overambitious plans and who focus more on Italy and Rome in particular than with Germany. In recent decades, historians have taken a better look at his reign and see in Otto, someone who understood the political theater and who had plans for his empire. His great tragedy was the fact that he died so young (at just 21 years old) and thus his true potential was never realized. Gerd Althoff made a biography on Otto III, it’s a good read and I highly recommend it if you want to know more about this fascinating ruler
2
u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II 26d ago
Can't be as worst as Lambert who died at 17 and is holding the record as the youngest holy roman emperor to die since 1806.
1
1
1
1
u/ImperialxWarlord 26d ago
Very good, despite his short reign he was very ambitious and had some solid accomplishments. He helped bring Poland and Hungary into the Catholic world, defeated a Slavic uprising, put down some Italian revolts, his mentor/pope Sylvester II imported Arabic numerals and the abacus into Europe, got entangled to Princess Zoe of the ERE, and he made some good attempts to centralize the empire. Not bad for a child emperor who died young.
1
u/Objective-Golf-7616 Frederick II 26d ago
Solid ‘good’. He was Frederick II, if Frederick died before he was able to project his ‘Romanity’.
1
u/Odd-Disaster3 22d ago edited 22d ago
Decent.
Otto III was ambitious to restore Rome in it's original antique form. Not a Emperor but a real Imperator romanorum, with his claims to a Saxon-Greek/Roman heritage. He abandonned his strongholds of Saxony which made the centre of power shift from Germany to Italy, were the Ottonians had not so much power, even if his predecessors replace some of the Italian lords by Germans. He received a very complete education from clergymen in and out of the Empire, and foremost tried to reform the Reichkirchesystem in adulthood.
But where Otto III ambitionned he lacked support and touch with reality. His father and grandfather's great saxon army was gone after the disastrous campaign of Otto II, he evicted Adelheid, who was a good advisor to him. He made Poland's church independant from the german bishops, weakening the Magdeburgian influence and his own power in the region.
He was then forced to retreat from Rome, with Sylvester II he put in power and his previous mentor (as Gerbert d'Aurillac) when the local aristocrats revolted against his power and died of disease at 23.
Also if it wasn't for Mathilda, Theophanu and Adelheid, his uncle Henry would have just took the crown away from him.
1
u/Fun_Piglet3595 Frederick Barbarossa 26d ago
Good. Without a doubt. Unfortunately, he died at a very young age. I think if he had been given just 8-10 more years, he would have been great.
1
0
5
u/Cultural_Act_8513 Louis II 26d ago
I would say Good. He successfully asserted imperial authority over the Church and established friendly relations with Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary. He also supported missionary work in Poland and crowned Stephen I as the first Christian king of Hungary.