While Liudprand and Widukind's accounts of Henry's coronation are described differently, their motifs and ideology are identical. Scholars researching this topic concentrated on Widukind's text and followed it diligently. Other sources were twisted to fit a pattern formed by Widukind’s own preconceptions about the event which took place in 919.

I will demonstrate that neither Widukind nor Liudprand were critical of Otto's coronation or of its ritual. By examining both of these accounts I will show how, despite their being markedly different in how they describe the event, both authors portray Otto as an ultimate ruler, a son who built on his father's earlier achievements and was ready to rise to a greater glory. He is not a reformer, but instead a continuer of the earlier achievements of Henry's reign.