It just makes no historical sense for any version of Adelheid to support Henry the Quarrelsome against her son, even if we assume she hated every vibre of Theophanu's being and was seething in resentment. Her son is her future. At this point he doesn't yet have a son of his own, and like I said, if she backs Henry, then her dynasty is ended, there will be no heritage of her her blood left to the world, and this mattered to a medieval ruler. (By contrast, a scenario where she does nothing in the regency struggle and/or tries to get the regency exclusively for herself against Theophanu would have been possible, if you also assume she trusts in the Quarrelsome not killing little Otto.)
Now I do have a suspicion for the reason for this plot twist, which reminded me a bit of a similarly bewildering (in terms of history) plot invention in the movie Le Roi Danse, which is about Louis XIV and Lully and is deliciously homoerotic, but not only wipes out brother Philippe from existence but lets Anne of Austria, Louis' mother, conspire with an evil cousin of his against her son and back said cousin for the throne. Now firstly, of course in historical reality if Louis had died young Philippe the Gay would have become King, not some cousin, and that's why he doesn't exist in this film (which laudably does not want to vilify a homosexual character). Secondly, Anne wasn't just close to her oldest son, she fought for him in the uprising of the nobility that dominated Louis XIV's childhood. Again, he was her future and justification of life. Backing some Bourbon cousin because Louis is into ballet and doesn't listen to her politically anymore would not only have been majorly ooc for the real Anne but would have made no political sense whatsoever.
In both cases, I think the reason why the authors go for the Mean Mom option is this: buying sympathy for the son. With Louis, it's that all powerful rulers are really hard to sympathize with, and the film starts when Louis isn't a child anymore, so the one time in his life where you can present him as being in danger and threatened is already over. But as with curent day stories about rich men, there's always the mean unloving parent option. Usually it's the father, but even a movie taking plenty of liberties can't keep Louis XIII around, otherwouse one of our main characters wouldn't be Louis XIV, he'd be the Dauphin. So poor Anne has to be it.
Meanwhile, with Otto II., the problem for Tarr possibly was that she wanted readers to like him, to be a worthy spouse. Now Otto II. wasn't a bad guy, but he wasn't, as the podcast points out, as lucky as his father, which meant he didn't have any grand battles or political achievements to feature in the story. And "sided with wife against Mom" alone evne if you write Adelheid as relentlessly mean still doesn't cut it. But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
They don't have many actual scenes together, it's true. I think that's another reasonw hy Theophanu had to be the daughter of Romanos II and Theophano instead of John Tsimitzikes' niece, so that she could have shared her childhood with Aspasia and the reader can buy their closeness with the backstory in mind. Evidently if the two had only just met when Theophanu gets married, Theophanu is the niece of Aspasia's enemy and they still have no more scenes post marriage, their closeness would not work at all.
But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
That makes a lot of sense as to why the book did that even though it doesn't make historical sense. Poor Otto II, even in the book Theophanu's all "well, he isn't his dad, is he?" Lol.
I've finished, finally! I liked it with of course all the caveats above -- I feel like she did a better job investing me in the characters in some of her other books. I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
One thing I thought was kind of, idk, unknowingly (at least to the characters in the book) tragic is that so much is made of how the Ottos understand the idea of empire, and the Henrys don't, but of course Otto III never makes it to establishing that empire. Though I suppose that's why the book ends with Aspasia getting the training of little Henry. (I did really like that deal with Henry as a novelistic solution, even if it wasn't historical.)
I liked it for the same reason. Before the scene where Henry the Quarrelsome makes that deal with Aspasia for Henry our Bamberg Champion, I was wondering whether Judith Tarr just counted on 99% of her potential English speaking readers not knowing that Otto III will die as a very young man and without a child of his own, but no. Also, it makes the Quarrelsome a more interesting antagonist and more in line with his historical counterpart who after all did stop rebelling at this point and did urge little Henry to not follow into the Henrician footsteps and be faithful to his cousin instead. (Which future Henry II was.)
I don't know how far you are with the podcast, but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.) So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
I can't think of a known historical Christian/Muslim romance/marriage where one of the two parties did not convert. Now, Judith Tarr made Aspasia atypically relaxed about her religion (especially for a Byzantine princess - seriously, argueing theology was every Byzantine's favourite past time, and not just the imperial famamilies, or, to whote Gregory of Nyssa:
"The whole city [of Constantinople] is full of [arguments about Theology], the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
She may have thought that them actually staying together for good was too much. Also, let's not forget: Otto III? REALLY intense about being in a Christian Emperor. Super intense. If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.)
Yes! I have gotten there! (I'm at the end of the Ottonian season, listening to the Q&A right now.) Kunigunde is excellent, and I love that he explicitly didn't blame her (seems very rare for this era??)
So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
Oh, I love that idea!
If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
:D This is great.
If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Ohhhhh. Wow. Yeah, I... can see why she had to have him go.
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
Go you, for finishing the Ottonian season. If and when you and Mildred make it to Germany, and I get to show you Bamberg, we can do to the magnificent tomb of Henry and Kunigunde in our cathedral.
Details:
I'm of course very pleased Dirk the podcaster raved about how beautiful Bamberg is. (And it really made a stunning difference that Bamberg the city got the legacy of both Henry and Kunigunde, due to their childlessness. Mind you, we also lucked out that there was minimal war destruction in WWII, as opposed to Nuremberg which is just 60 km away and got 95% of its buildings bombed into smithereens so they had to be rebuild.)
Here's a baroque statue of Kunigunde, strategically placed on one of the main bridges:
Something you can't take a picture of is one of the most beautiful medieval manuscripts, the Apocalypse created for Henry II at Reichenau which the Bamberg Library owns; it has some of the best known Ottonian illuminations. In so many ways, the city still is the legacy of Henry and Kunigunde to the world.
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
What I was thinking!
Kunigunde was also one of my favorite parts of the podcast, and if I ever make it to Bamberg, you will have to show me the sites in person! In the meantime, I shall enjoy your pictures.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Now I do have a suspicion for the reason for this plot twist, which reminded me a bit of a similarly bewildering (in terms of history) plot invention in the movie Le Roi Danse, which is about Louis XIV and Lully and is deliciously homoerotic, but not only wipes out brother Philippe from existence but lets Anne of Austria, Louis' mother, conspire with an evil cousin of his against her son and back said cousin for the throne. Now firstly, of course in historical reality if Louis had died young Philippe the Gay would have become King, not some cousin, and that's why he doesn't exist in this film (which laudably does not want to vilify a homosexual character). Secondly, Anne wasn't just close to her oldest son, she fought for him in the uprising of the nobility that dominated Louis XIV's childhood. Again, he was her future and justification of life. Backing some Bourbon cousin because Louis is into ballet and doesn't listen to her politically anymore would not only have been majorly ooc for the real Anne but would have made no political sense whatsoever.
In both cases, I think the reason why the authors go for the Mean Mom option is this: buying sympathy for the son. With Louis, it's that all powerful rulers are really hard to sympathize with, and the film starts when Louis isn't a child anymore, so the one time in his life where you can present him as being in danger and threatened is already over. But as with curent day stories about rich men, there's always the mean unloving parent option. Usually it's the father, but even a movie taking plenty of liberties can't keep Louis XIII around, otherwouse one of our main characters wouldn't be Louis XIV, he'd be the Dauphin. So poor Anne has to be it.
Meanwhile, with Otto II., the problem for Tarr possibly was that she wanted readers to like him, to be a worthy spouse. Now Otto II. wasn't a bad guy, but he wasn't, as the podcast points out, as lucky as his father, which meant he didn't have any grand battles or political achievements to feature in the story. And "sided with wife against Mom" alone evne if you write Adelheid as relentlessly mean still doesn't cut it. But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
They don't have many actual scenes together, it's true. I think that's another reasonw hy Theophanu had to be the daughter of Romanos II and Theophano instead of John Tsimitzikes' niece, so that she could have shared her childhood with Aspasia and the reader can buy their closeness with the backstory in mind. Evidently if the two had only just met when Theophanu gets married, Theophanu is the niece of Aspasia's enemy and they still have no more scenes post marriage, their closeness would not work at all.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
That makes a lot of sense as to why the book did that even though it doesn't make historical sense. Poor Otto II, even in the book Theophanu's all "well, he isn't his dad, is he?" Lol.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
One thing I thought was kind of, idk, unknowingly (at least to the characters in the book) tragic is that so much is made of how the Ottos understand the idea of empire, and the Henrys don't, but of course Otto III never makes it to establishing that empire. Though I suppose that's why the book ends with Aspasia getting the training of little Henry. (I did really like that deal with Henry as a novelistic solution, even if it wasn't historical.)
Re: Eagle's Daughter
I don't know how far you are with the podcast, but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.) So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
I can't think of a known historical Christian/Muslim romance/marriage where one of the two parties did not convert. Now, Judith Tarr made Aspasia atypically relaxed about her religion (especially for a Byzantine princess - seriously, argueing theology was every Byzantine's favourite past time, and not just the imperial famamilies, or, to whote Gregory of Nyssa:
"The whole city [of Constantinople] is full of [arguments about Theology], the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
She may have thought that them actually staying together for good was too much. Also, let's not forget: Otto III? REALLY intense about being in a Christian Emperor. Super intense. If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Yes! I have gotten there! (I'm at the end of the Ottonian season, listening to the Q&A right now.) Kunigunde is excellent, and I love that he explicitly didn't blame her (seems very rare for this era??)
So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
Oh, I love that idea!
If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
:D This is great.
If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Ohhhhh. Wow. Yeah, I... can see why she had to have him go.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
Go you, for finishing the Ottonian season. If and when you and Mildred make it to Germany, and I get to show you Bamberg, we can do to the magnificent tomb of Henry and Kunigunde in our cathedral.
Details:
I'm of course very pleased Dirk the podcaster raved about how beautiful Bamberg is. (And it really made a stunning difference that Bamberg the city got the legacy of both Henry and Kunigunde, due to their childlessness. Mind you, we also lucked out that there was minimal war destruction in WWII, as opposed to Nuremberg which is just 60 km away and got 95% of its buildings bombed into smithereens so they had to be rebuild.)
Here's a baroque statue of Kunigunde, strategically placed on one of the main bridges:
Something you can't take a picture of is one of the most beautiful medieval manuscripts, the Apocalypse created for Henry II at Reichenau which the Bamberg Library owns; it has some of the best known Ottonian illuminations. In so many ways, the city still is the legacy of Henry and Kunigunde to the world.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
What I was thinking!
Kunigunde was also one of my favorite parts of the podcast, and if I ever make it to Bamberg, you will have to show me the sites in person! In the meantime, I shall enjoy your pictures.