7) The Enigma of Ottonian Government, 936-83

Otto the Great had many military victories, like his success over the Magyars at the Battle of the Lech in 955. He was also successful in foreign affairs, for example turning the kingdom of Burgundy into a protectorate in 939 under his authority until the young Conrad came of age, he was active in Northern France, and he embarked into Italy, eventually being crowned the Holy Roman Emperor in 962.

• The Ottonians achieved their successes without enhancing the military or bureaucratic capacity of the 'state', unlike the Carolingians.
• The Ottonians didn't seem to produce many new laws and they neglected the role of literacy in government so there's little evidence of the few laws they did introduce. This, again, is very unlike the Carolingians.
• There was a very low level of bureaucratic government, and it's suggested that Otto was also illiterate.
• The numbers of written instruments (laws, charters, letters) are minimal for the Ottonian period. Only 43 charters, including forgeries, survive for Henry I's reign, and 466 survive for Otto I's reign which is an average of 12.5 per annum.

Count Gero held a high-up place in the government. But after his death in 965, Abbess Hathui saught Otto's support against Gero's kinsmen who were trying to recover the lands taken from them by Gero and given to the house. Otto I took the house under his protection, at some cost to himself. Gero's kin had to be compensated with land from the marches in Merseburg and Meissen. Otto didn't seem to get any material benefit from this deal except for the honour he received for respecting a great man who had served him loyally over many years.

It seems, like above, the initiation of laws started from below. Aristocrats would have problems with below and so would take these up with Otto who would then settle the problems and gain prestige in return.

The 'old constitutional history' wanted to see evidence of progress towards the modern state and military greatness. But, these historians struggled to reconcile the events of Otto's reign with their assumptions about what government ought to comprise. A much debated issue is the significance of the decision to not divide the kingdom on the death of Henry I. Did this represent a conscious move towards ‘primogeniture’ and a more cohesive kingdom?

Henry's position wasn't strong enough to divide the kingdom between his sons. The available duchies were already being ruled by various aristocrats which therefore meant they couldn't be given to his sons. So, he had to move away from partitive inheritance towards primogeniture where only the eldest son would inherit the entire kingdom.

936 was also the last year for a long time where there was more than 1 son available to inherit the kingdom, so this system seemed to continue.

The crucial development in this period is the emergence of a cohesive aristocratic community embracing the leading families in Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria and Swabia (not yet Lotharingia and Frisia). This can be seen in the course and outcomes of the rebellions of 938-41 and 953-4. In 938, for example, Thankmar rebelled because Count Gero received the office of Margrave of Merseburg in favour of him. He was joined by other aggrieved aristocrats and they all joined forces with the prince who was rebelling (they could either join forces with him so that he'd win, or pledge their loyalty to the king if he addressed their grievances). But, Otto had support from within the same families as the rebelling aristocrats allowing him to win.

Henry (of Bavaria) was later persuaded, including by his mother the Queen, to lead a 2nd rebellion and plot to kill Otto I in 940/1. The plot was soon discovered, but most involved were forgiven including Henry and the Queen. There were still some executions though, but these involved men from both sides for going too far in the fighting.

Marriages were also used to bring ducal families in the south into the community. The deals were intended to accommodate the aspirations of the houses, and the desires of their followers for access and closeness to the king. Otto's sons were all married off in this way. The aristocracy also agreed the royal title should reside among members of the king's own family, and was not their's for the taking.

2 things made it relatively easy for Otto to manage the kingdom in this way. The first was the near continuous expansion of his rule throughout the reign, and the expansion of his influence southwards, into Burgundy and Italy. Otto and his son were seldom short of patronage resources, and that allowed them to be exceptionally generous to their followers. They could also afford to grant land on relatively generous terms. The status of these grants sat somewhere between fiefs and allods where the recipient wasn't expressly obliged to perform a specific form of military service in return. Otto's charters didn't require a specific task to be carried out in exchange, as would be expected. He seemed to be unusually liberal in gift-giving.

The second was the rate of attrition among his own family, especially his sons. This meant that the sources for rivalry and tension were greatly reduced in his later years. Towards the end of his life, there was only one sole heir, his son Otto II. All the others died.

These acts of fortune gave Otto I's reign stability.