Adolf I. von der Mark

Count Adolf I von der Mark (* before 1182 ; † June 28, 1249 ), also called Adolf I von Altena-Mark until 1226, was the son of Friedrich von Berg-Altena and Alveradis von Krieckenbeck (* around 1155; † after 1220, mentioned in a document between 1173 and 1220), daughter of Count Reiner von Krieckenbeck-Millendonk (* around 1110; † after 1164, mentioned in a document in 1164, son of Heinrich von Krieckenbeck).

Adolf belonged to the Counts of Berg and Altena and was the founder of a new noble family, the Counts of the Mark . From 1226 he united the goods of the Counts of Berg-Altena, who had been in the possession of various branches of this family since the Altenaische inheritance from 1180, in one hand and formed from them the county of Mark with its capital Hamm , which was founded by him . In addition, Adolf von der Mark was also Count of Krickenbeck (until 1243) and Vogt of the Cappenberg monastery and the Werden monastery .

Year of birth

The year of birth of Adolf I. von der Mark has not been passed down, but the dates of his parents' life and the examination of contemporary documents allow at least an approximate date.

In the Genealogy Middle Ages, the year 1199 is named as Adolf's year of birth, referring to various sources. At that time, Adolf I von der Mark must have been born, since his father Friedrich had built Mark Castle for his son in 1198 on the hill in the Mark near Hamm, which belongs to the Oberhof Mark . Presumably this information goes back to a confusion between Adolf's life and his term of office, as one often finds in secondary sources. The year 1199 (according to other sources 1198) is the year of death of Adolf's father Friedrich. Adolf succeeded his father that year and was referred to as comes de Altena , i.e. Count von Altena , for the first time .

Adolf was first mentioned in a document in 1194. For this reason, the year 1194 is regularly mentioned in secondary literature as the year of his birth.

Looking at the content of the document from 1194, it becomes clear that this information cannot correspond to the facts. The certificate was issued by Adolf von Altena , the uncle of Adolf I von der Mark, who was Archbishop of Cologne at the time. Adolf von Altena declares here that his brother, Count Friedrich von Berg-Altena  - the father of Adolf I von der Mark - bought a farm called Lohusen (Lohausen in the Rees district) from the monastery of Cappenberg , of which he is Vogt, for 160 marks. has sold. In addition, Friedrich transferred the bailiwick over the court to the monastery by way of donation. In gratitude for this, the monks accepted the Count's couple, Friedrich and his wife Alveradis, into their brotherhood. Archbishop Adolf von Altena confirms that the donation was initially made in the presence of Abbot Hermann, the convent and the ministerials who agreed with him. The archbishop also confirms that the donation was repeated at a later date under witnesses. These witnesses were Friedrich's brother Arnold von Altena , his wife Alveradis, but also his sons Friedrich and Adolf ( Adolf I. von der Mark ); the archbishop confirms the donation a third time.

It is immediately evident that a newly born son of Count Friedrich cannot appear as a witness to a legal transaction. Count Adolf I von der Mark must have been born at a much earlier point in time. If the law in force at the time was applied correctly - and there is no indication why this should not be the case here - Adolf must have reached the age of majority in 1194 , otherwise he should not have appeared as a witness at all. Because a minor could not be sworn under the then applicable law, but the swearing was considered part of the credibility of a witness. Consequently, a minor should not be called as a witness.

It is therefore questionable at what age Adolf I of the Mark came of age. In the Middle Ages, there was no clear regulation as to when young men became legally competent or were allowed to hold certain offices. In the Middle Ages, the age of consent was closely linked to the ability to carry weapons. This began regularly between the ages of twelve and fifteen. According to this, Adolf must have been at least twelve years old in 1194, so he would have been born in 1182 at the latest.

The fact that Adolf took over the affairs of government as Count von Altena as his successor after the death of his father Friedrich von Berg-Altena in 1198 or 1199 indicates such an early year of birth. If he had been underage at this point in time, he would have needed a guardian, since he would have come of age at the earliest twelve years of age, at least until 1206. However, the documents give no indication of such guardianship, rather Count Adolf steps in further Certificates as a witness and signed by my own hand. This also indicates that Count Adolf came of age at the latest in 1198/1199 and must therefore have been born in the 80s of the 12th century.

This assumption is also confirmed by two documents from the years 1202 and 1205. In the document from 1202, Adolf is referred to as "Adolfus puer comes de Marke" (analogously Junggraf von der Mark ). The Latin word puer has several meanings in the Middle Ages. In general, it means boy or youth, but in particular it indicates the time of the page or squire of a budding knight. Adolf, who was later able to win the Isenberg turmoil , certainly enjoyed military training; if it is referred to as puer in 1202 , this is a clear indication that at this point in time his scarcity was not over. In 1205 Adolf appears again as a witness, but here as Adolphus com. de Marka , without the addition puer . His scarcity must therefore have ended between 1202 and 1205. If you now note that the Knappenzeit regularly ended with the prospective knight at the age of 21 without the addition of special circumstances, this results in a possible year of birth Adolf between 1181 and 1184. Since Count Adolf must have been born in 1182 at the latest according to the above statements thus limit his year of birth to the time between 1181 and 1182. It should also be mentioned that Adolf's mother would have been relatively old for her first child at the age of 39 if the year 1194 was the correct year of birth.

Part of the literature consequently assumes that Count Adolf was born before 1194. Rudolf Schulze published in his book Die Landstands der Grafschaft Mark up to 1510: Mit Urkundl. Ax. the birth of Count Adolf even in the year 1164 without further explanation. However, this information does not coincide with the life and marriage dates of Adolf's parents. In addition, Schulze relies largely on Levold von Northof, so that overall it can be assumed that the numbers were reversed and Schulze also actually wanted to specify the year 1194.

Life

The conflict between the Altenaisch-Mark and Altenaisch-Isenberg lines of the Berg family

A document from the Archbishop of Cologne, Adolf von Altena , dated January 4th, 1200 , which Count Adolf and his brother Friedrich also signed, provides information that Adolf's father Friedrich von Berg-Altena had already died at that time. The exact date of death is unknown. Partly the year 1199 is accepted as the year of his death, partly already 1198, since Friedrich has not been mentioned in a document since then. At some point during this time, Adolf took on his father's inheritance as Count von Altena.

Adolf's father Friedrich, who came from the Berg family, had received this title as part of the Altenaische inheritance of 1175/1180. However, Friedrich was not the only Count of Altena. Just as titles and rights in the old county of Altena were divided among the brothers according to very different principles of division and thus between the Altena-Isenberg and Altena-Mark lines of the Berg family , Friedrich and his brother Arnold von Altena initially acquired their ancestral castle Altena as a community Fiefdom . Arnold von Altena soon withdrew from it. He did not sell his share to his brother, but to his liege lord, the Archbishop of Cologne, Philipp I von Heinsberg . After Philip's death, the part of the castle was returned to Arnold, until he sold it again to the Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Westphalia around 1200. At that time it was Adolf von Altena , a brother of Arnold and Friedrich.

Altena Castle lost its importance both for the Altenaisch- Mark line ( Friedrich von Berg-Altena and Adolf I von der Mark) and for the Altenaisch-Isenberg line ( Arnold von Altena and Friedrich von Isenberg ). Arnold and his family had withdrawn from Altena Castle and resided at their Nienbrügge Castle , to which a small town was also affiliated, the predecessor of today's city of Hamm . Friedrich and Adolf, on the other hand, had their Cologne feudal lord as inconvenient co-administrators at Altena Castle and therefore created alternatives to their Altena property.

In the inscription of his two equestrian seals , Count Adolf is referred to as comitis de Altena (Count of Altena), also in that of the second seal from 1220. In documents from the year 1202, however, he also appears as comes de Marca (Count of the Mark). The two titles were used alternately and irregularly by Count Adolf. A connection with the content of the respective certificate cannot be identified. Adolf's cousin Friedrich von Isenberg also called himself comes de Altena and comes de Isenberg alternately during the period in question . Friedrich's equestrian seal has not survived, there is only one badly damaged seal fragment from 1220. The few legible letters on the seal inscription allow the text to be resolved into "+ (F) RID (ERICUS COMES) DE A (LTENA)". Although Count Adolf used the title comes de Alt (h) ena (Count of Altena) until 1225, he more and more refrained from using this epithet and instead signed with de Marca (also: de Marka ) or von der Mark .

Adolf's nickname von der Mark is derived from the Mark Castle in today's Hamm , located on the river Geithe , which was named after the neighboring village of Mark, whose name in turn goes back to the surrounding Feldmark . Adolf's father Friedrich had the castle built in 1198 at the latest, but possibly at a much earlier date; Friedrich had already acquired the Oberhof Mark and the associated land on the castle hill around 1170 from the noblemen of Rüdenberg and the Archbishop of Cologne, Philip I of Heinsberg . For the decision to build Burg Mark, the limited use of Altena Castle may have played a role as well as the strategic location of the castle complex in the Mark, which rose in the immediate vicinity of the Isenberg family castle Nienbrügge and hindered the expansion of the competing Isenberg territory ( In 1217 Friedrich von Isenberg moved to the Isenburg near Hattingen ).

After the death of Friedrich von Berg-Altena, Mark Castle, which was probably built primarily for his benefit, became the ancestral seat of Count Adolf, to which he held sole and undivided rights. It was therefore logical that he also named himself after her.

In addition to the title of Count von Altena, Count Adolf also took over the bailiwick of the monasteries Werden and Cappenberg from his father .

Even in 1220, the Brandenburg and Isenberg lines of the family still held common legal positions. So this year the Counts Adolf von Altena (Adolf von der Mark) and Friedrich von Isenberg exchanged a hoof in Blutsneppe (Bergbossendorf near Haltern am See in the Recklinghausen district ), which they themselves had received as a fief from the Archbishop of Cologne and which they had jointly lent on, against a house in Lullisheim (Lüsumer Mark in the Recklinghausen district). This had previously belonged to the Cappenberg monastery and was now jointly loaned out by the two counts. No legal delimitations are recorded in the associated document, so that it can be assumed that both counts had to sell the property together because they each had the same rights to it jointly. Even for the year 1261, such common legal positions are documented; Count Engelbert I. von der Mark and Count Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg have a joint fief here. The goods from 1220/1261 are joint feudal and presumably also allodial property , which must date from the time before 1175, since in view of the tensions between the two branches of the family it can hardly be assumed that their respective representatives will continue after 1175 Have sought to acquire common property.

But there were also possessions with a similar ownership situation as in Altena Castle. In 1213, Count Adolf von der Mark had a plot of land planted with trees and bushes in Broke near Herzfeld, while his cousin Friedrich von Isenberg at the same time owned a tithe of the house adjoining this property. Eventually they both sold their property and their rights to the Marienfeld Monastery , to which the house already belonged.

Overall, however, the division was in fact so far completed around 1200 that a unification of the two areas was no longer possible, at least not before the year 1225, when Adolf I of the Mark murdered Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne through a conspiracy of nobility in his vicinity Cousin Friedrich von Isenberg took the opportunity to reunite the Altenai properties in one hand. The rights and possessions of the Isenberg family branch (Arnold von Altena and Friedrich von Isenberg) accumulated around Nienbrügge on the Lippe , in the area between Lenne and Ruhr and on the middle and lower Ruhr between Isenberg and Styrum with the Essen bailiwick . At that time, however, the area around Altena , Unna and Bochum were in Friedrich's and Adolf's hands , which later also became the core areas of the Brandenburg region.

German controversy for the throne

Like the entire Berg-Altena family, Adolf von der Mark was drawn into the German throne dispute. In spite of the poor sources, Reinhold Stirnberg tried to prove that the conflict between the Altenaisch-Isenberg and the Altenaisch-Mark lines was significantly influenced, if not caused or at least initiated, by the disputes between the Guelphs and the Hohenstaufen . Each family member had to choose one of the two sides. Due to the positioning in different camps, a rift went through the entire family at times, which could extend to open hostility. In addition, the family members influenced each other and in this way at least contributed to the change of position of their relatives; Arnold von Altena, the progenitor of the Isenberg family, is said to have played a decisive role in the fact that his brother, Archbishop Adolf I, finally switched to the Staufer side.

The parents' generation was already involved in the Staufer-Welf disputes. In the fight between Friedrich Barbarossa and Duke Heinrich the Lion , Friedrich von Berg-Altena, Count Adolf's father, seems to have sided with the then Archbishop of Cologne, Philip I von Heinsberg , who was on the imperial and therefore Staufer side. He appears in 1174 as commander in chief of the Cologne troops. Friedrich must have stayed in Italy in 1177 as well, this time as a follower of Friedrich Barbarossa. Possibly the enfeoffment of Friedrich with the castle hill in the Mark, on which the ancestral castle of the Märker was built, represents a reward for Friedrich's loyal service.

The victory over Henry the Lion in 1180 brought about significant changes, especially for the Westphalian counts. So far they had been under the rule of Duke Heinrich, who held a position equal to king in northern Germany. The victory over Henry the Lion created a power vacuum into which the counts now tried to penetrate. The endeavors were to establish themselves as territorial lords, just as Adolf I von der Mark and his successors should succeed with the county of Mark. The division of Heinrich's Duchy of Saxony , to which Westphalia also belonged, as recorded in the Gelnhausen document , led to the Archbishop of Cologne being elevated to Duke of Westphalia and thus, as a secular sovereign with secular interests in power, in competition with the other mighty powers of Westphalia.

With some probability this also had a decisive influence on the course of the Altenaische inheritance from 1175 onwards. The feudal lord of the two warring brothers Friedrich von Berg-Altena and Arnold von Altena, Archbishop Philipp I von Heinsberg, had a massive interest in strengthening the Bergisch-Altenaic house as a powerful counterpart to the Duchy of Westphalia, especially in his capacity as secular ruler prevent. The division of the inheritance prevented the development of a unified Altenaic rule, which is why it can be assumed that the archbishop was instrumental in promoting the meticulous division of the goods that were once in common ownership. Uta Vahrenhold-Huland also suspects that Count Friedrich von Berg-Altena in particular had an interest in independent rule. Since Count Arnold could not resist this in the long run, he used his more intensive relationships with the archbishop and supported his policy. The aim was to revoke the Altenaische inheritance after Friedrich's death or at least to keep the fiefs from his house. This hope, however, turned out to be false; Count Arnold soon withdrew from Altena Castle and, with Nienbrügge, laid another cornerstone for an independent rule. Obviously, both sides were keen to have neighboring properties that would control each other. Not only does the immediate neighborhood between Nienbrügge and Burg Mark catch the eye, the Isenberg fortress of Volmarstein was also very close to the Brandenburg fortification. Friedrich also tried to force independence from Arnold through the co-regency documented in the velvet fief . Before his death, Friedrich managed to achieve complete division. Since this was entirely in the archbishop's interests, he also found the support of their common brother, Archbishop Adolf, who was possibly the eponymous godfather of Adolf I von der Mark.

The policy of Cologne, which sought to gain a position of supremacy in Westphalia, stood in the area of ​​tension between the Staufer-Welf conflict; on the one hand through friendship and hostility to the Staufer, on the other hand through the efforts of the Westphalian greats to break away from the traditional feudal ties and thus to create the conditions for territorial rule. This gave rise to two hostile camps in Westphalia. Both were looking for influential supporters and went far beyond the borders of Westphalia. Kinship ties also secured the common political approach, as was shown around 1225 in the course of the alliance of Limburg, Isenberg and other partners against the Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne .

It is more difficult to answer the question of which Westphalian nobleman was on which side in which year. Using the coats of arms of the two Altenai counts, Stirnberg tries to reconstruct the affiliation to the Hohenstaufen or Guelph camp. In the period before 1200, the nobility first switched to using coats of arms; the various branches of the Bergisches Haus seem to have adopted their coats of arms around the same time. Arnold chose a multi-petalled rose; Friedrich on the other hand a "soaring, one-tailed lion". Therefore, Stirnberg sees Friedrich in the Guelph camp. The lion's coat of arms, like all other coats of arms, has its origin in the eponymous heraldic animal of Henry the Lion, which, however, has no coat of arms itself. However, Heinrich had the lion statue erected in front of his Dankwarderode Castle in Braunschweig in 1166 , “a sculpture of immense symbolic power. Like the eagle, the king of the skies, and symbol of the Holy Roman Empire, the superior empire, the lion, the king of the land animals, stood for the claim to power of the German sovereigns, as equal partners of the Roman emperor, as the German king, the primus inter pares, the first among equals. ”A claim that Heinrich the Lion has consistently upheld. Accordingly, he sees Count Arnold in the Hohenstaufen camp and tries to prove that the rose he has chosen occurs in Hohenstaufen contexts, for example the roses of denarius Barbarossa and on a miniature of the Hohenstaufen king Philip of Swabia , whose symbol, in Stirnberg's opinion, was the rose. Friedrich von Berg-Altena and his brother Arnold von Altena are said to have chosen their coats of arms according to their camp affiliation.

Thiele also comes to the conclusion that the family members were at least temporarily in different camps, but under the opposite sign. According to his research, Arnold von Altena was in the Guelph camp until 1198, then switched to the Staufer side and in 1204 persuaded his brother, Archbishop Adolf von Altena, to also switch to the Staufer side. In 1198, however, he sees Friedrich clearly on the side of the Staufers. Thiele does not say a word about the fact that he had previously been on the Guelph side. The fact that Friedrich was consistently on the Hohenstaufen side becomes plausible simply because he had already assisted the Archbishop of Cologne in the fight against Heinrich the Lion. Stirnberg's attempt to derive camp affiliation from the choice of coat of arms is thereby negated, regardless of the question of whether the various branches of the Bergisch family adopted their coat of arms up to or after 1198. However, Thiele Stirnberg also confirms the assumption that the parents' generation stood in different camps, at least for a time. It was not until 1198 that the two met again on the Hohenstaufen side. It may well be that the disputes between the branches of the family were motivated by the Staufer-Guelph conflict. The relationship between the two branches of the family was undoubtedly influenced by the dispute between the Guelphs and the Staufers, as it affected the interests of the Archbishop of Cologne.

Count Adolf von der Mark and his cousin Friedrich von Isenberg also found themselves on different sides in the German throne dispute; Friedrich can be assigned to the Guelph camp with some probability, namely at least from 1209 to 1212, possibly until 1214. In the decisive years of the German throne dispute, Adolf and Friedrich were on different sides, which further fueled the opposition between the Isenberg and the Brandenburg lines should. At the latest when the dispute in the battle of Bouvines was decided in favor of the Hohenstaufen Frederick II , Friedrich von Isenberg sided with the Hohenstaufen. However, this temporary rapprochement between the Isenberg and Brandenburg lines did not change the fact that both of them faced each other again as opponents after the murder of Cologne's Archbishop Engelbert.

It is questionable whether Adolf von der Mark was on the Staufer side from the start. There are different information on this. After Stirnberg, Count Adolf was on the side of the Staufer from the start. According to Thiele, Adolf wavered in the German succession dispute and only finally sided with the Staufer in 1212.

As early as August 2, 1215, Adolf von der Mark and his cousin Friedrich, who had sided with Frederick II after the Battle of Bouvines , joined Henry IV of Limburg , Wilhelm I of Holland, Count Adolf V. von Berg and his brother, the Cologne cathedral provost Engelbert von Berg, together as witnesses in a document of King Friedrich II. In this, Friedrich takes the Altenberg Abbey under his protection and gives it duty-free on the rivers Rhine and Main.

After King Frederick II's victory in the German controversy for the throne, Count Adolf's uncle, Adolf von Altena , who had triggered the controversy for the throne in 1198 , was no longer welcome at the seat of the Archbishop of Cologne, the Kathedra . King Friedrich preferred the Provost Engelbert von Berg from Cologne , a cousin of Archbishop Adolf, who was therefore largely related to Count Adolf von der Mark. Engelbert had long since risen to become the dominant figure in the Archdiocese of Cologne. Ultimately, Adolf von Altena was persuaded to resign from the office of Archbishop and thus clear the way for Engelbert. As agreed , Adolf von Altena resigned to office and dignity at the beginning of 1216; then Engelbert von Berg, then 31 years old, was elected Archbishop of Cologne. Engelbert appointed Adolf von Altena as auxiliary bishop until he later retired from office and dignity and spent his twilight years in St. Quirinus Abbey in Neuss, where he died in 1220. Engelbert von Berg was expected to have a strong hand that would bring the situation in the Archdiocese of Cologne and the Duchy of Westphalia back into order after the turmoil of the war had ended.

By 1225, Adolf von der Mark seems to have established himself as a loyal follower of the Staufer Emperor and the Archbishop of Cologne. A total of twenty-three documents attest to his work at the court of Engelbert I of Cologne .

The assassination of Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne by the noble conspiracy around Friedrich von Altena-Isenberg

In 1225, the Archbishop of Cologne Engelbert I of Cologne was killed in a noble conspiracy, with the significant participation of Count Friedrich von Isenberg (for the background to the conspiracy, see Friedrich von Isenberg and Nienbrügge (Hamm) ). The stay or possible involvement of Count Adolf von der Mark in the events of 1225 in Soest and Gevelsberg is still unclear.

Although the conspiracy was widespread and included many of the most powerful men in Westphalia, Count Adolf von der Mark does not appear to have been involved. He wouldn't have lacked motives, however. Adolf's territory seems to have been hindered by Engelbert's advance into the Sauerland and the Hellweg area far more than Frederick's sovereign areas in territorial development. The contemporary sources give no clear indication of why Count Adolf of all people was not or was not involved in the conspiracy. The different positioning of the two counts Adolf and Friedrich in the previous throne controversy does not seem to be sufficient as an explanation, since by 1225 both counts had established themselves in the vicinity of the Staufer emperor.

Family relationships and political interests may have played a role here. Adolf von der Mark was married to Irmgard von Geldern for the second time (after Uta Vahrenhold-Huland, Adolf von der Mark was only married once; Count Adolf's two wives are one person, Lutgardis-Irmgard von Geldern). This marriage had strengthened the old Bergisch-altenaische connection through a second kinship bond; Archbishop Engelbert was also the son of a moneylender. Adolf's wife Irmgard was the niece of the murdered archbishop. These family relationships may have induced Count Adolf to sympathize with the Cologne-Geldern alliance or at least to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. It is possible that Count Adolf only exercised restraint at the right moment in order to then purposefully and ruthlessly use the changed circumstances to his advantage. The count must have had the necessary self-confidence, as at this point he was already calling himself by Dei gratiam comes de Altena , Count of Altena by God's grace.

The smoldering conflict between the Westphalian aristocracy and Archbishop Engelbert had many causes, but it escalated with Engelbert's attempt to revoke Friedrich von Isenberg's bailiwick rights at Essen Abbey, which would have meant the loss of large parts of his fortune for Friedrich. The other Westphalian rulers had to fear that something similar would happen to them. It is possible that Count Adolf was not involved in the aristocratic conspiracy for this reason. On this point he pursued a more indulgent policy towards the Archbishops of Cologne than the nobles involved in the conspiracy. He had already been persuaded by his uncle, Archbishop Adolf I, to agree to a new regulation of the bailiff's rights over the Cappenberg monastery. In future, this should no longer be based on inheritance law, but on a free transfer by the pen to the count. A regulation that perhaps saved him rather than Friedrich von Isenberg, who was reported because of oppressions on the Essen monastery, from efforts by the emperor, the pope or the archbishop to take away his bailiff's rights.

Count Adolf initially concentrated on securing and consolidating his territory. In view of the strong Isenberg coalition and the still relatively poorly developed territorial rule in the Brandenburg region, the risk that Brandenburg policy would again become dependent on Isenberg would have been to join forces with the Isenberg relatives, especially when they took action against the archbishop. Adolf and Friedrich therefore pursued very different policies, which, however, did not lead to their loss of contact with the court of the archbishop and imperial administrator , to which they were both related.

It was only after the coalition around Friedrich von Isenberg had brought about the death of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I in 1225 that Count Adolf saw the time for active action, because now Isenberg's power seemed to be completely destroyed. Count Adolf used the resulting power vacuum to take possession of the Altenaischen counts south of the Lippe. He emphasized his attitude towards Cologne, demonstratively sided with Cologne and symbolically dropped the name of Altena , which Friedrich von Isenberg had also borne; For this reason, Adolf has only appeared as Count Adolf von der Mark since 1226 . As punishment for the murder, the people of Cologne and their allies dragged the fortifications belonging to Friedrich von Isenberg , including the Isenburg near Hattingen . Adolf von der Mark took on the task of destroying Nienbrügge , a bridgehead consisting of a castle and town, with the help of which Friedrich von Isenberg, in his function as Count von Hövel , had secured rule over his lands in the Lippe area , replacing Altena Castle as ancestral castle of the Isenberger until they moved to Isenburg in 1217. In return, Engelbert's successor, Heinrich I of Cologne , allowed him to take over a large part of the property of his cousin Friedrich von Isenberg. In this way, Count Adolf skillfully exploited his loyalty to Cologne to save most of the Altenaic possessions and rights that his grandfather Count Everhard von Altena had before the Altenaic inheritance for his house and to reunite them in his hands.

The basics of County Mark

Adolf von der Mark offered the inhabitants of the destroyed city of Nienbrügge a new home on a nearby parcel in the corner between Lippe and Ahse. With their help, Adolf von der Mark Aschermittwoch founded the town of Hamm in March 1226 in the corner between Lippe and Ahse , the Hamme, and granted it town charter . Furthermore, instead of the destroyed Isenburg in Go Hattingen , his Drosten and military leader Ludolf von Bönen laid the foundation stone for the new main festival of the Goes on May 1, 1226, Blankenstein Castle on the Ruhr, a few kilometers east of Hattingen. It was supposed to serve Count Adolf as another power center to control the Isenburg property.

This laid the foundation for his county, the county of Mark . While Count Adolf resided at Burg Mark , his ministerials , with whose help he ruled the county, were based in Hamm, which was to become the capital of the new county.

At the beginning, however, the possessions of Count Adolf were hardly delimitable enough to be considered an actual, territorially clearly delineated territory. With Hamm / Mark and Altena / Blankenstein, Count Adolf held two centers of power in his hand, even if they were spatially separated from each other. The rest of his possessions were scattered over half of Westphalia. Count Adolf's position of power as a vassal of the Cologne Church was based solely on his allodial and feudal property, which he secured through his castles.

The Comitaten Altena, Hövel and Bochum, which were subordinate to Count Adolf, were free counties , judicial and administrative districts. If they were located within the Archdiocese of Cologne, Adolf von der Mark was usually able to take over the jurisdiction there. This should later become the basis of his territorial rule. But he did not succeed in securing the jurisdiction of the possessions in the diocese of Münster . This included the large northern part of the County of Hövel and the numerous Altenaisch-Brandenburg free counties north of the Lippe that surround it. The prince-bishops of Münster had already exercised their influence here and took over the jurisdiction of the goalkeepers. Thus, the future territorial rule Grafschaft Mark , which Count Adolf I. von der Mark may have striven for, was limited from the outset to the Goe, which were within the Archdiocese of Cologne.

The establishment of a territory of Mark took place gradually and in several important intermediate steps, including the conclusion of peace with the Isenbergers on March 1, 1243, through which the Mark or Hamm and Altena merged into a single area, the purchase of the Krumme Grafschaft von Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg by Count Eberhard I. von der Mark , who created a connection between the County of Altena and the Mark Go Unna, and the acquisition of the full fortification rights through the Battle of Worringen in 1288. In the County of Mark went this way large parts of the former county of Altena and parts of Hövel and other lands that Adolf was able to acquire over time.

The territorial state “Grafschaft Mark”, which was independent of Cologne, was only realized under Count Adolf's grandson Eberhard I von der Mark through the victory over Cologne Archbishop Siegfried von Westerburg in the Battle of Worringen in 1288.

Count Adolf was less successful in relation to the former Isenberg bailiwicks. So the Märkern lost the bailiwick over the imperial abbey of Essen and the associated Rellinghausen monastery for an indefinite period of time. After all, it was income from a total of 22 Curiae (court holdings) with 1062 farms in 698 localities in Westphalia. He was also unable to win the bailiwick of the five Curiae of Werden Abbey with its 164 men in 110 locations. The abbess of the great curtis Herbede 1226/27, who belonged to the Kaufungen monastery, also did not award the bailiwick to Count Adolf, but to Arnold von Didinckhoven. It is also unclear who received the bailiffs over the Westphalian estates of the monasteries Siegburg, Fischbeck and Möllenbeck.

On the other hand, Count Adolf is attested as Vogt of the Curia Ekelo of the St. Pantaleon Abbey in Cologne (24 men in 16 villages). In the tradition of his predecessors, he seems to have turned out to be an oppressor of the Ekelo court . In a document from 1227, however, Archbishop Heinrich I of Cologne indicates that Adolf has agreed to forego further "unjust claims" in return for an annual payment of 2 marks.

Isenberg confusion

→ Main article : Isenberg confusion

Since the now seventeen-year-old son of Friedrich von Isenberg, Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg , also asserted his claims, there was a war of inheritance from 1232, seven years after Engelbert's murder of Cologne, which lasted until 1243 (so-called Isenberg turmoil ). In this context, Adolf von der Mark leaned at times to Archbishop Philipp I of Heinsberg from Cologne and his successor Konrad von Hochstaden and finally won Altena-Isenburg. Dietrich, on the other hand, had (only) fought for the small piece of land Hohen-Limburg and co-rulership in Bochum. In addition, Adolf von der Mark had to do without the lands north of the Lippe (such as the parishes of Bockum, Hövel and Heessen ). Some of these went to Dietrich von Isenberg; however, the Altena line lost its sovereignty in this area to the duchy of Münster . Excepted from this was the north field mark of the city of Hamm, a small strip on the right, that is, northern bank of the Lippe, to which the fields and pastures of Nienbrügge also belonged. This was awarded to Adolf von der Mark in the settlement. So it happens that the Mark expanded beyond the river at this point, although otherwise the Lippe River marked the border of the Mark to Münster with a few exceptions. This area is now called Hamm-Norden and was divided into the two newly created city districts in 1975 as part of the second phase of the municipal area reform in the course of the incorporation of Bockum-Hövels and Hesse into Hamm.

Adolf von der Mark now called “the courts of Bremen and Schwerte; Court, bailiwick and church of Unna; the court and court of Kaufbochum; the courts of the Ruhr and Hattingen; the Halver and Kierspe farms; the castle men of the castles Mark, Altena and Blankenstein with all their fiefs; the areas of Blankenstein and Lünen; finally the feudal lordship over the houses of Dahle, Lahr “his own. As a result, the previously separate areas in the north (Mark / Hamm) and in the south (Altena / Blankenstein) were henceforth connected. A solid territory began to develop for the county of Mark.

Time after the Isenberg turmoil

In 1243 Adolf was enfeoffed with half of Bochum by the Archbishop of Cologne ; the second half came to the mark through exchange and purchase in 1392. The Marienfeld Monastery waived its claims to Uentrop . Count Adolf acquired the freedoms of Holte (including Flierich) and Pentlink (with Hilbeck ) from the Count of Arnsberg .

In the following period, Adolf I. von der Mark and his successors won the Krumme Grafschaft near Dortmund (purchased by Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg in 1282 by Count Eberhard I. von der Mark ) and parts of Rüdenberg. Their territory should become one of the strongest in Westphalia and therefore came more and more into competition with the Archbishops of Cologne. For some areas, however, Adolf von der Mark was the archbishop's vassal. Only his successors broke away more and more from the ducal and archbishopric power of Cologne. In 1288 after the Battle of Worringen , they were able to usurp the ducal rights and break away from Cologne.

death

Adolf von der Mark died on June 28, 1249. He is buried in the collegiate church of the former Premonstratensian monastery in Cappenberg .

family

Adolf's mother Alveradis von Krickenbeck - Adolf I. von der Mark as Count von Krickenbeck

Adolf's father, Count Friedrich von Berg-Altena , was with Alveradis von Krickenbeckmarried, daughter of Count Reiner von Krieckenbeck-Millendonk. Since Reiner died around 1164 or shortly afterwards, Friedrich must have inherited the title of Count von Krickenbeck through Alveradis. Accordingly, in some sources he is referred to as Count von Altena and Krickenbeck . By inheritance, the Krickenbeck property ( bona de Crikenbeke ) passed to Count Adolf with Friedrich's death.

The county of Krickenbeck was in the Nettetal on the Lower Rhine near Venlo . According to the old Germanic division, the area belonged to the Mühlgau . After the Franks, the division of the country after the expulsion of the Romans in social terms districts retained it, however politically in counties one rushed, a material selected from the wealthy of the area by the king official headed stood the Count was called, formed Several counties emerged in Mühlengau. Krickenbeck was also raised to a county in this way. This was named after the Krickenbeck Castle located in it .

A distinction must be made between the Krickenbeck office and the Krickenbeck state. The parishes of Grefrath , Herongen , Hinsbeck , Leuth , Lobberich and Wankum belonged to the land of Krickenbeck ( alinges lande van Krykenbeke ) . The office of Venlo and Viersen were not part of the state of Krickenbeck, but of the office of Krickenbeck.

Count Adolf and his sons sold Krickenbeck on March 3, 1243 to Count Otto II von Geldern , who thus became sovereign of Krickenbeck. The complex bought by the Count von Geldern in 1243 is probably identical to the Land Krickenbeck , i.e. the Krickenbeck office without Venlo and Viersen. In the case of Krickenbeck, land does not refer to the narrow sovereignty of the Count (or Duke) of Geldern plus the domains linked by fiefdoms, but merely a complex of areas in which the sovereign ruled over the land and people. As Dohms has already pointed out, the rule of Geldern in this area was not based directly on landed property, but on the vassals of numerous knights and ministerial families. A document from June 1251 suggests that a castle must have existed at the time of the sale. The document shows that Count Otto and the Archbishop of Cologne exchanged his property in Deversdunch in the Grafrath parish for an area in Krickenbeck where a castle ( castrum ) had previously stood. Otto wanted to found a monastery on this site.

In his mid-13th century, written business book reports abbot of St. Trond William of Ryckel, Count Adolf had the provost forcibly to transfer half the tithes forced in Grefrath and Lobberich and these, together with the documents belonging to it there land and the associated rights to the Count of money sold, who consequently wrongly owns them. (“It must be noted that Count Adolf von Berg once held the secular rule (dominum temporale) there and, through various injustices that he inflicted on the Church of Alem, forced provost and canon of Alem to pay him half of his tithes and Grefrath But that count later sold the land (terra) that he owned there, including the rights that he had to that tithe, the Count of Geldern, and so the latter holds the tithe in a most unjust way . ")

The abbot is probably mistaken about the existence of the rights in question. In the purchase contract concluded on March 3, 1243 between Count Adolf and Count von Geldern, it is expressly stated that the Krickenbeck rule fell to Count Adolf under inheritance law through his mother. This should also apply to the Lobbericher and Grefrath tithe, which probably belonged to the former rule and property complex of the Krickenbecker. The claim to half a tithe in Lobberich and Grefrath should not be "arbitrary" but based on inheritance law.

In addition to Krickenbeck, Count Adolf also sold other properties on the left bank of the Rhine ( Allode and Lehen , allodia sive geoda ) to Count Otto. It is unclear what prompted Count Adolf to sell. In this context, the lineage of the Counts of Krickenbeck is interesting, as it shows that Count Adolf is related to Count Otto II. Von Geldern in two ways.

1. Gerhard I. Flamens (* by 985 at the latest; † after 1033), probably belonging to the family of Count Arnold von Valecijn / Valenciennes. Relative of the Lords of Antoing near Doornick / Tournai on the right bank of the Scheldt. Brother of Rutger, the progenitor of the Counts of Kleve (extinct in the male line in 1368). Equipped with Wassenberg in 1021 by Emperor Heinrich II . According to Boeren's assumption, Gerhard was married to a daughter of Count Palatine Hermann Pusillus of Nieder-Lothringen who was not known by name. JM van Witner considers a daughter of Count Gottfried von Verdun / Wirten and Mathilde von Billung, unknown by name, to be the possible wife.
   1. Gerhard II von Wassenberg (* around 1010, † 1082), Count Gerhardus Flamens , 1053 Count in the Betau (Betuwe) and in Teisterbant , 1057 Count in the Ruhrgau , 1067 Count in the Hattuariergau . Unknown wife JM van Winter assumes two people due to the unusually long life span. The first (Gerhard II a) would have been married to an unknown daughter of Count Theoderich / Dirk von Hamaland, a great-granddaughter of the founder of the Elten monastery . The wife of the second (Gerhard II b) might have been the daughter of Count Heinrich I von Löwen , brother of the progenitor of the Dukes of Brabant. According to this thesis, Bishop Wilhelm von Utrecht (1054-1076) would be a brother of Gerhard III. Flaming.
      1. Heinrich von Wassenberg (* around 1035; † December 4th before 1085), mentioned in 1082 when the Abbey of St. Hubert was donated. According to tradition, married to Adelheid von Geldern († 1083), daughter of Bailiff Wichard III. of money from the house of the Lords of Pont.
         1. Gerhard III. von Wassenberg (Gerhard I. von Geldern) (* around 1060; † before March 8 around 1129) (1085 Graf von Wassenberg , first mentioned in 1096 as Graf von Geldern . Landgrave 1096). Great, great, great grandfather of Otto II von Geldern . According to an alternative view, Gerhard is the son of Dietrich I. Flamens
         2. Heinrich Krieckenbeck (* after 1063; † 1138) (1096–1118: Count of Krickenbeck, formerly confused with Heinrich von Kessel, the progenitor of the Counts of Kessel)
            1. Reiner Graf von Krieckenbeck-Millendonk (* around 1110, † after 1164, mentioned in a document in 1164)
               1. Alveradis von Krickenbeck (* around 1155, † after 1220, mentioned in a document between 1173 and 1220), married to Friedrich von Berg-Altena
                  1. Count Adolf I von der Mark , married to Irmgard von Geldern , daughter of Otto I von Geldern , the grandfather of Otto II von Geldern .
      2. Gerhard (1082 count in Hamaland , 1085 count in Westfalengau ).
      3. Dietrich I. Flamens (* around 1035 - † October 19, 1082), progenitor of the Lords of Valkenburg and Heinsberg. 1058 Utrecht documentary witness, 1076 Graf in the Veluwe, 1078 Graf in Teisterbant, 1079 Vogt in the Bree district. Probably married to Hedwig von Mentaigu (Scherpenheuvel), daughter of Count Gonzelo von Mantaigu and Irmgard von Aspel, a cousin of King Henry III.
         1. Gerhard von Heinsberg
         2. Goswin I. von Heinsberg
         3. Alternatively: Gerhard III. von Wassenberg (see above) based on Thiele's research.

These family relationships could have played a role in Krickenbeck's sale. Adolf's wife Irmgard von Geldern was a daughter of Otto I von Geldern , the grandfather of the now incumbent Count Otto II von Geldern. In addition, Alveradis von Krickenbeck, the mother of Count Adolf, was a granddaughter of Heinrich Kriekenbeck, who in turn was the brother of Gerhard III. von Wassenberg , the first count of Geldern and great, great-great-grandfather of Otto II von Geldern. According to a view that is highly controversial today, both the Berg House, to which Count Adolf I von der Mark belongs, and the Wassenberg House are descended from Adolf II, Count in Keldachgau, so that there may be a third family relationship here.

However, other reasons for the sale are also conceivable on the Brandenburg side. Possibly this should help to alleviate the financial burdens of the Brandenburg count from the Isenberg turmoil ; Only two months later, peace was concluded in this conflict by negotiation. One can also assume some kind of support of Geldern in this fight of Count Adolf against the House of Isenberg-Limburg and his allies, for whom the sale of Krickenbeck in the course of the settlement of the feud represented a form of compensation. The fact that Adolf von der Mark and the Counts of Geldern pursued common interests is also apparent in other contexts. It was Gerhard IV. Count von Geldern , Vogt of the Church of Cologne, and father of Count Otto II., Who arrested Friedrich von Isenberg and brought him to Cologne, where he was put on his bike as punishment for the murder of Archbishop Engelbert. The Isenberger's death cleared the way for Count Adolf to take possession of the Isenberg estates.

Adolf's brother Friedrich

In the above-mentioned document from 1194 concerning the Cappenberg monastery , a second son of Friedrich von Berg-Altena named Friedrich is named, who would have been Adolf's brother. Since Friedrich, like Adolf, appeared in 1194 as a witness to a donation from his father to the Cappenberg monastery, he must have reached the age of majority that year. He was either an older brother of Gafen Adolf, who died before the death of their father, Friedrich von Berg-Altena (otherwise he would have become the first-born to be Count von Altena instead of Adolf) or a younger brother of Adolf who was not entitled to inheritance who was born as his twin brother or at the latest one year after him (a later date of birth is out of the question, since otherwise Friedrich would not have come of age in 1194). Contrary to the first assumption, Count Adolf, who was referred to as puer comes in 1202 (Count and Knappe), obviously enjoyed a knight training. This would be rather unusual for the second-born of a member of the Berg family; since the second-born was not intended for the line of succession, he usually received a scholarly education that qualified him for a church office.

Apart from the document from 1194, no other documents can be clearly assigned to Friedrich. This has to do with the fact that Friedrich should have sealed the seal as "Friedrich von Altena", a name under which, however, Friedrich von Isenberg in particular appears at the time in question . Although various attempts have been made to ascribe documents sealed with Friedrich von Altena to Friedrich, Adolf's brother, or at least this would be plausible (including documents from the years 1213, 1215, 1216 and 1222), none of these documents has conclusively proven that these actually come from Friedrich; Most of the documents have now been shown to have been sealed by Friedrich von Isenberg. After the year 1222 there are no more documents that could be assigned to Friedrich, so that - unless one assumes an early date of death anyway - his death can be assumed in this year or a little later.

Wives

It is not clear whether Count Adolf had two wives or just one. It is documented that Count Adolf was married to an Irmgard von Geldern . It is assumed that this is the sister of Count Gerhard IV of Geldern (Count of Geldern between 1207 and 1229) and thus the daughter of Count Otto I of Geldern-Zütphen (Count of Geldern between 1182 and 1207) acts. She died after 1230.

On the other hand, the documentary mention of a Lutgardis, wife of Count Adolf von der Mark, dated April 7, 1210, is more difficult to assign. On this date, Count Adolf transferred the Hof zu Langen to the Kappenberg monastery for the salvation of his deceased father Friedrich. This happened in the presence of his mother Alveradis and his wife Luthgardis. It is possible that Luthgardis is a first wife of Count Adolf, to whom Levold von Northof , the chronicler of the Counts of the Mark, gives no indication. This Lutgardis is partially identified with Lutgardis von Rieneck , daughter of Count Gerhard II von Looz . Their date of death is given partly as 1201, partly as 1210, which would fit the life dates of Count Adolf assumed here.

Stirnberg, however, identifies Lutgardis with Luitgardis II of Ardey , the daughter of Jonathas I of Ardey (1176-1221 documented evidence) and Luitgardis I of Rüdenberg-Ardey. This is said to be the mother of Eberhard and Engelbert, Irmgard, however, the mother of Otto and Gerhard. Through the inheritance of Luitgard II von Ardey, which made up about half of the Ardey velvet holdings (the other half belonged to Everhards II von Ardey, brother of Jonathas), Count Adolf I von der Mark and his son Engelbert followed to the death of Luitgard's father, Jonathas I von Ardey, in 1221 the area of ​​the parish Dellwig ad Ruhr with Altendorf, Langschede and Westardey, which belonged to the original parish of Menden and was later parish, fell. As Gogericht Langschede, the newly acquired area was now under the administration of the Brandenburg region. In the middle of the Ardeyer rulership , in Fröndenberg , at the foot of the Haßlei mountain, which may also have belonged to the Luitgard legacy, Count Adolf and his sons founded the Fröndenberg Cistercian monastery in 1210 , the later house monastery and the burial place of the Brandenburg counts. However, Stirnberg doubts his own theory by admitting that it is not Engelbert, whom he regards as the son of Luitgart, but rather young count Otto von Altena who appears as the main founder of the monastery.

The fact that Lutgardis is not mentioned in Levold von Northof and the incorrect dating of Count Adolf's year of birth to 1994 lead Uta Vahrenhold-Huland to believe that there is really only one person, Lutgardis-Irmgard von Funds. Jahn, who dates the wedding of Adolf to Irmgard von Geldern before April 7, 1210, the day for which Lutgardis is mentioned in a document, aims in the same direction.

children

Adolf von der Mark had eight children:

From first marriage: (here the research results of Thiele are followed)

• Irmgard, Abbess of Bersenbrück.

From second marriage:

• One daughter, married to Diether IV. Count von Katzenelnbogen († around 1249).
• Eberhard von Altena, co-regent of the Mark (around 1218; † May 1241). According to Levold von Northof, Eberhard was Graf Adolf's eldest son and was killed in a tournament near Neuss. According to Hermann Flebbe's comment from 1954, this is probably the tournament in May 1241, in which many knights and squires were killed.
• Otto Graf von Altena († August 14, 1262 or 1269), provost in Aachen and Maastricht, since 1249 Graf von Altena, either by way of the division of the estate or (more likely) through joint administration of the paternal inheritance with his brother Engelbert. After Eberhard's death, Otto, who was just 17 years old and presumably had not yet received any religious ordination, had himself transferred back from the clergy to the knighthood. Otto was included in the succession by his father and, like his half-brother Engelbert, was appointed co-regent. He later became Count of Altena and sealed the Altena coat of arms with a lion and chess bar.
• Gerhard von der Mark (* 1220; † 1272), Bishop of Münster (1261–1272).
• Engelbert I. von der Mark (* around 1225 - † November 16, 1277), successor to his father as Count von der Mark. Like his brother Otto, he was made co-regent by his father after Eberhard's death. He later sealed with the Brandenburg chess bar.
• Richarda (Richarde), abbess of Fröndenberg Monastery and later of Kentrop Monastery († 1270), who was married to Count Otto I von Dale († before 1257).
• Adelheid († 1233), married to Johann I. von Sponheim Graf von Sayn († 1266).

It is noticeable at this point that Adolf I. von der Mark had no son named Adolf, although the firstborn in the Berg house almost always bears this name, both before and after Adolf von der Mark's lifetime. This suggests the, albeit unprovable, assumption that Adolf I von der Mark had a son named Adolf, who, however, died after the birth of his second son (if he had died before his birth, one would have the second son again Called Adolf).

Seal and coat of arms

There are several seals from Count Adolf I. von der Mark. His coat of arms can be traced back to 1220 as part of his second equestrian seal. It is a combined coat of arms composed of two coats of arms. In it he leads the well-known Brandenburg chess bar . Above the chess bar, in the upper field of higher rank, there is a half, one-tailed, so-called "growing" lion.

In a comment on Levold von Northof's Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark, Flebbe speculates that Adolf von der Mark acquired the Mark Castle from the noble lords of Rüdenberg in 1198 and took over the Brandenburg coat of arms with the chess bar from them. This assumption contradicts the current state of research in many ways. The castle hill in the Mark came into the possession of the family much earlier, and that into the hands of Adolf's father Friedrich. A castle from the time of the Rüdenbergers can neither be proven on the site from documents nor from archaeological finds; it is more likely that the castle was built by Friedrich von Berg-Altena. Rabodo von Rüdenberg, the last male heir of the House of Rüdenberg, was also long dead in 1198. In addition, in the year he died around 1170, he could not have had a coat of arms at all; the use of such coats of arms did not appear until the end of the 12th century. For this reason, Stirnberg has a simpler explanation for the chess bar. He considers it to be an adaptation of the Bergisch coat of arms with the two double-pinned bars.

In turn, Stirnberg considers the growing lion to be a further development of the older and higher-ranking Altenaic coat of arms, which was probably already donated by Friedrich von Berg-Altena and which showed a whole rising lion. When Count Adolf I added the chess bar to the lion's coat of arms, the whole lion was "mutilated" into a growing lion.

It is possible that Count Adolf was later forced to change the lion coat of arms. At least since the beginning of the second decade of the thirteenth century remained after heerschild order the escutcheon reserved for secular princes as a recognition symbol with the lion rampant. These were the rulers who had received their fiefs exclusively from the German king. The Counts of Altena, who were enfeoffed by the Archbishop of Cologne, were not included. However, it remains unclear whether they belonged to the 4th estate (free lords) or the 5th estate (free vassals). Its coat of arms were two crossbars, similar to those that can be found in double-tinned form on the Counts of Berg.

In a document from 1213, the Archbishop of Cologne, Adolf von Altena, who was reinstated in his office in 1212, testifies that his nephew, Count Adolf, exempted the Klavewinkele estate belonging to the Aegidiikloster in Münster from all services and taxes. The document was sealed by the Archbishop, Count Adolf and his consanguineus Friedrich von Isenberg. Originally three seals were attached to the certificate, of which only the (first) equestrian seal of Count Adolf has survived. It shows the count in full armor, with an inlaid, raised lance. In deviation from the usual practice, the face of his shield is turned away from the viewer.

Count Adolf changed his name around the same time as Engelbert of Cologne was assassinated. From 1225/26 he completely renounced the title Graf von Altena and from then on only called himself Comes de Marcha  - Graf von der Mark. He had the name "ALTENA" dragged out of his old brass seal and replaced with "MARCHA". The old transliteration and the new name had a different font height. To compensate for this, the entire sealing stick was sanded off. As a result, the image relief lost its plasticity. The fine, net-like roughened background of the image field was destroyed. At the same time, the rider's pot helmet was reworked into a modern looking bucket helmet with a viewing slit. In contrast, the coat of arms with the growing lion and the chess bar was retained.

Many sources state that Count Adolf regarded the name and title of a Count of Altena as dishonored by Friedrich von Altena-Isenberg. Stirnberg considers this a legend, because Adolf's youngest son Otto (1249-1264) again bore the title of Count of Altena and sealed it with the old combined coat of arms, lion and chess, while the older brother Engelbert I von der Mark (1249 -1277) held the title of "Count of the Mark" and for the first time was only sealed with the Brandenburg chess. Stirnberg concludes from this that Count Adolf only wanted to grant the higher rank, i.e. before the title of Count von Altena, with the title of Count von der Mark he had assumed.

That is not really plausible, especially since Stirnberg also admits that he cannot give any reasons for such behavior. The fact that a systematic and decisive distancing from the murder and its perpetrators could and did bring Adolf von der Mark advantages over the new Archbishop of Cologne makes Adolf's behavior explainable, even if only as a symbolic act, regardless of whether the title Graf von Altena was actually viewed as dishonored or not. When Adolf's son Otto became Count von Altena , the political conditions were meanwhile completely different, especially since the Mark had already begun to break away from the patronage of the Archbishops of Cologne.

See also

• Nagelgraf

Individual evidence

1. ^ Genealogical tables (Kleve) .
2. ↑ ^{a b c} Genealogy Middle Ages
3. ↑ Representing many other sources: Georg Eggenstein; Andreas Haasis-Berner: The Homburg and the Mark Castle, district-free city of Hamm. Published by the Regional Association of Westphalia-Lippe as the font Early Castles in Westphalia 19 in 1979.
4. ↑ Dr. Julius Ficker: Engelbert the saint, Archbishop of Cologne and imperial administrator. Cologne 1853, p. 253 with reference to the first documentary mention as comes de Altena, Cod. Dipl. W. 2, 263.
5. ↑ Cf. for example: Levold von Northof, de Northof Levolous, Fritz Zschaeck: Die Chronik der Graf von der Mark. published by Weidmann, 1955.
6. ↑ Ernst Dossmann: In the footsteps of the Counts of the Mark. Iserlohn 1983, p. 44.
7. ^ About Adolf von der Mark
8. ↑ Fr. Roßhirt: History of the law in the Middle Ages. First part. Mainz 1846, p. 189.
9. ↑ Glossary introducing the Middle Ages. University of Bonn, archived from the original on June 10, 2007 ; accessed on March 8, 2014 (keyword: age of consent). 
10. ↑ JPJ Gewin: The Origin of the Counts of Limburg Stirum. Assen / Münster 1962, p. 118.
11. ^ German dictionary by Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm. 16 vols. (In 32 partial volumes). S. Hirzel, Leipzig 1854-1960.
12. ↑ Theodor Reyttenmiller: Our Old and Middle High German poet. A handbook and textbook. Stuttgart 1861, p. 86.
13. ↑ cf. about Ralf G. Jahn: The Genealogy of the Bailiffs, Counts and Dukes of Geldern. In: Johannes Stinner, Karl-Heinz Tekath (ed.): Gelre - Geldern - Gelderland. History and culture of the Duchy of Geldern. Geldern 2001, pp. 29–50 (Publications of the State Archives of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Series D, Volume 30), p. 33.
14. ↑ Rudolf Schulze: The estates of the county Mark up to the year 1510: With Urkundl. Ax. 1907, p. 188.
15. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came - Part V: Adolf, Arnold and Friedrich von Altena, under the sign of lion and rose. ( Memento from February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 448 kB) In: Active Seniors. No. 59, pp. 10-18.
16. ↑ WUB III, 151.
17. ↑ WUB VII, 1073.
18. ↑ WUB III, 80.
19. ↑ WUB III, 85.
20. ^ Wilhelm Vahrenhold: Marienfeld Abbey. Property and economic history of the Cistercian monastery Marienfeld in Westphalia (1185–1456) . Warendorf 1966, pp. 65, 86.
21. ↑ Genealogy Middle Ages to Arnold von Altena.
22. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Andreas Thiele: Narrative genealogical family tables for European history. Volume I, Part 2 of the German imperial, royal, ducal and count houses. II, RG Fischer Verlag 1994, plate 480.
23. ↑ Represented for example by Möller: Historisch-Genealogisch-Statistische Geschichte of the capital Hamm and the original development of the county of Mark, along with some corrections. Reprint of the edition Hamm 1803, Osnabrück 1875.
24. ^ Genealogy of the Middle Ages to Friedrich von Berg-Altena
25. ↑ ^{a b} Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came - Part VI: The Counts of Altena and the end of the German controversy for the throne. ( Memento from January 31, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 393 kB) In: Active Seniors. Zeitschrift für Schwerte, issue 60, pp. 17-18.
26. ↑ WUB III 124, 163, 165; WUB IV 69; WUB VII 121, 122, 137, 138, 164, 170, 173, 215, 231, 258; Lac UB II 57, 73; Lac UB IV 100; Kn. Reg. II 220; in documents of King Heinrich, whose guardian was Engelbert: WUB VII 216, 235, 249; LaC UB II 118; Osnabrücke University Library II 187.
27. ^ Wilhelm Ribhegge: The county of Mark and the history of the city of Hamm in the Middle Ages. Munster 2002.
28. ↑ WUB II 62, 151.
29. ^ Wolfschläger: Archbishop Adolf I of Cologne as prince and politician. Münster 1905, p. 19.
30. ↑ cf. Document dated May 1, 1243, printed: Westfälisches Urkundenbuch (WUB) VII, No. 546.
31. ^ After H. Flebbe, Levold von Northof: The Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark. In: K. Langosch (ed.): The historians of German prehistory. Münster / Cologne 1955, p. 77. Short title: Levold v. Northof, Edition Flebbe.
32. ↑ ^{a b c} Friedrich W. Schulte: The dispute over southwest folds in the late Middle Ages. Iserlohn 1997.
33. ↑ ^{a b c} Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came - Part VIII: Dietrich von Isenberg versus Adolf von der Mark or: The Isenberger Wirren. ( Memento of February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.1 MB) In: Active Seniors. No. 62, pp. 12-19.
34. ↑ After the great bailiwick of Friedrich von Isenberg. This lists the names of all the Curiae and the number of Mansi in the individual localities.
35. ^ Based on a document dated February 19, 1227, printed: WUB VII, No. 272.
36. ↑ According to a document dated November 18 or 28, 1226, printed: WUB VII, No. 279 and document dated February 1, 1227, printed: WUB VII, No. 291.
37. ^ Based on a copy (15th century) in the copy of the St. Pantaleon Monastery. Historical archive d. City of Cologne, Geistl. Dept., No. 203a, Bl. 302.
38. ↑ According to Levold v. Northof, Ed. Flebbe, pp. 79-82.
39. ↑ ^{a b} Moritz Friedrich Esselen, overview of the history of the county of Mark. For the celebration of the union of the county of Mark with the Brandenburg-Prussian state. , Hamm 1859, reprint from 2010.
40. ↑ Rudolf Schulze: The estates of the county Mark up to the year 1510: With Urkundl. Ax. 1907, p. 19.
41. ↑ ^{a b} Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came - Part IX: Mark and Limburg on the way to Worringen. ( Memento of February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 944 kB) In: Active Seniors. No. 63, pp. 12-18.
42. ↑ Dr. Julius Ficker: Engelbert the saint, Archbishop of Cologne and imperial administrator. Cologne 1853, p. 253.
43. ↑ The dominum temporale of the Count von der Mark in Grafrath and Lobberich is already expressly confirmed in the economic book of Abbot Wilhelm von St. Trond, see below. In a witness document from 1275 about the patronage relationship with Leuth, the Count of the Mark is unmistakably referred to as dominus de Crikenbeke (Herr von Krickenbeck), cf. Heinrichs, Leuth p. 374.
44. ↑ Evidenced by a document from the bailiff von Krickenbeck from 1369 and the invoice from the rent master Arnt van Loon from the years 1406/1407.
45. ↑ ^{a b} Andreas Thiele: Plate 1. Narrative genealogical family tables on European history. Volume II, Part 1 European Imperial, Royal and Princely Houses I Western Europe. RG Fischer Verlag 1993.
46. ↑ Krickenbeck Castle. Street community - Hombergen 41334 Nettetal - Hinsbeck, archived from the original on October 10, 2008 ; Retrieved on March 8, 2014 (On the history of Krickenbeck Castle). 
47. ↑ The Lobbericher story  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
48. ^ Wilhelm Janssen: The history of Geldern up to the tract of Venlo (1543). In: Johannes Stinner, Karl-Heinz Tekath (ed.): Gelre - Geldern - Gelderland. History and culture of the Duchy of Geldern. Geldern 2001, pp. 29–50 (Publications of the State Archives of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Series D, Volume 30), p. 17.
49. ^ Ralf G. Jahn: The Genealogy, the Vögte, Count and Dukes of Geldern . In: Johannes Stinner, Karl-Heinz Tekath (ed.): Gelre - Geldern - Gelderland. History and culture of the Duchy of Geldern. Geldern 2001, pp. 29–50 (Publications of the State Archives of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Series D, Volume 30), pp. 31 ff.
50. ↑ AL Hulshoff, G. Address: Dietrich Graf von Isenberg-Limburg. Approx. 1215-1229. In: The history of the counts and lords of Limburg and Limburg-Styrum and their possessions. 1200-1550. Part II Volume 1 History / Regesta. Assen and Münster, 1963.
51. ↑ Cf. also Levold von Northof: Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark.
52. ↑ JPJ Gewin: The Origin of the Counts of Limburg Stirum. Munster 1962.
53. ↑ This can already be found in Levold von Northof: The Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark.
54. ↑ ^{a b} Ralf G. Jahn: The genealogy of the bailiffs, counts and dukes of Geldern. In: Johannes Stinner, Karl-Heinz Tekath (ed.): Gelre - Geldern - Gelderland. History and culture of the Duchy of Geldern. Geldern 2001, pp. 29–50. (Publications of the State Archives of North Rhine-Westphalia, Series D, Volume 30), p. 33.
55. ↑ WUB VII, No. 72.
56. ^ ^{A b} Eduard Winkelmann: Yearbooks of German History, Philipp von Schwaben and Otto IV. Von Braunschweig. 1st book. Publisher von Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1873, pp. 51, 335
57. ^ Eduard Winkelmann: Kaiser Friedrich II. 1st volume, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1963, p. 477.
58. ↑ Hermann Flebbe, comment on Levold von Nordhof's Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark.
59. ^ Eike von Repgow: Sachsenspiegel. around 1240.
60. ↑ Original in St.A. Münster, Münster-Aegidii Monastery, No. 9. Printed: WUB III, No. 79.

• Richard Knipping: The regests of the archbishops of Cologne. Second volume 1105–1205, Bonn 1901.

1. ↑ Second volume 1105-1205, Bonn 1901, No. 1481.
2. ↑ Second volume 1105–1205, Bonn 1901, No. 1658.
3. ↑ Second volume, 1100–1205, Bonn 1901, no. 1572.
4. ↑ II (StADortmund).
5. ↑ Vol. 3, II, No. 611.
6. ↑ Vol. 3, Part 2, No. 1481.

• Uta Vahrenhold-Huland: The Altena-Isenberg divisions in the 12th and 13th centuries. In: Dr. W. Wedekind: The Counts of Limburg Stirum. Part 1, Volume 1, Münster 1976, ISBN 90-232-1354-8 .

1. ↑ p.
2. ↑ ^{a b} p. 63.
3. ↑ p. 66.
4. ↑ p. 60ff.
5. ↑ ^{a b c d} p. 68.
6. ↑ P. 68 ff.

 

predecessor	Office	successor
Friedrich	Count of Altena 1198 or 1199 until June 28, 1249	Otto
Friedrich	He documents Count von der Mark from 1202 with this title; from 1225 only until June 28, 1249	Engelbert I.
Friedrich	Count of Krickenbeck 1198 or 1199 until March 3, 1243	Otto II.