Friedrich III. from Saar Werden

Friedrich von Saar Werden (* around 1348 in Saar Werden ; † April 9, 1414 in Bonn ) was called Friedrich III. Archbishop of Cologne from 1370 to 1414 . With the support of his great-uncle, the Archbishop of Trier Kuno II. Von Falkenstein , Friedrich von Saar Werden was elected Archbishop of Cologne at the age of 20, which the Pope in Avignon confirmed two years later after some concerns. Friedrich found the archbishopric of his two Brandenburg predecessors, Adolf and Engelbert, completely plundered and, on the occasion of his election, had promised high payments to the curia himself . Nevertheless, with the help of his very rich great-uncle Kuno, he managed to discharge the archbishopric in a few years.

Reclining figure on the high grave of Friedrich III. from Saar Werden in Cologne Cathedral.

Friedrich von Saar Werden supported Emperor Charles IV and was therefore granted privileges that supported Friedrich's policy of rule. Right at the beginning of his term of office, he successfully suppressed inheritance conflicts in the rural aristocracy as well as striving for autonomy in the cities of the archbishopric and thus enforced his sovereign supremacy, which was no longer contested until the end of his reign. However , he was unable to use a conflict within the city of Cologne between the city ​​council and the lay judges over high jurisdiction to renew the position of power in the city that had been lost by his predecessors. The last military dispute with the participation of neighboring princes ended in 1377 with a compromise.

Friedrich was able to expand the territorial stock of the Archbishopric. Even before Friedrich took office, Kuno von Falkenstein acquired the county of Arnsberg as administrator of the archbishopric in 1368 . Friedrich was able to secure this acquisition as well as the profit of the state of Linn on the Lower Rhine in three feuds against the two count brothers Adolf and Engelbert von der Mark . His work as a territorial lord can hardly be overestimated, even though imperial or church political initiatives were pushed into the background.

When Friedrich III. von Saar Werden died in 1414, he left his nephew and successor Dietrich II von Moers a rich and well-ordered archbishopric and territory .

Live and act

Childhood and youth

Coat of arms of the county of Saar Werden

Friedrich's parents were Count Johann II von Saar Werden and his wife Klara von Finstingen . The Counts of Saar Werden had their seat in the town of the same name Sarrewerden on the upper Saar . While his brother Heinrich was chosen as his successor in the county, at the age of ten Friedrich was chosen for a career as ecclesiastical and secular church prince and was therefore placed in the care of his great-uncle, the Archbishop of Trier , Kuno II von Falkenstein . In 1366 he was appointed coadjutor of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert III by the Cologne Cathedral Chapter . von der Mark appointed and tried to find a favorable position for his great-nephew in Cologne . So Kuno obtained some lucrative Cologne benefices for Friedrich , namely the provost office in the monastery of St. Maria ad Gradus and a canonical . He did not have to hold these offices personally while he was still studying Canon Law at the University of Bologna .

Appointment as Archbishop of Cologne

Archbishop Engelbert III died on August 25, 1368. Kuno von Falkenstein initially continued to administer the archbishopric, because the cathedral chapter appointed him as momper or administrator for the time of the vacancy on August 28th . Kuno immediately tried to build up his great-nephew Friedrich as the new archbishop and also received a postulation from the cathedral chapter - even if not unanimous - that is, an appointment proposal, because the appointment of the archbishop was already the responsibility of the pope. Pope Urban V at the papal seat of Avignon rejected this request on November 7, 1368: Friedrich was too young - he had not yet reached the canonical age of 30 - was inexperienced in church matters and his person and his way of life in the Curia was still completely unknown. Also wanted to Emperor Charles IV. For the planned election of his son Wenceslas to the Roman king know occupied the spiritual electorates with agreeable candidates and pressed the Pope, in turn, on the imperial support for the recovery of the Papal States was dependent. In a letter of rejection, the Pope therefore transferred his great uncle Kuno from Trier to Cologne, Johann von Luxemburg-Ligny, the relatives and protégé of Emperor Karl, from Strasbourg to Trier and Friedrich von Saar Werden to Strasbourg.

Kuno von Falkenstein, however, refused these plans to put his great-nephew to terms with Strasbourg. According to the Pope's will, the diocese rotation was supposed to satisfy the demands of all parties involved, but Kuno refused the translation despite the pleading requests of the Curia and the Cologne Cathedral Chapter. But the Pope did not appoint Friedrich von Saar Werden as the new Archbishop of Cologne or any other candidate. Why the Cologne Erzstuhl was not occupied for the time being has not been conclusively proven, but there is much to be said for the thesis that the Pope simply wanted to keep the problems associated with the occupation between Kaiser and Kuno von Falkenstein in suspension. For the curia, this solution was the most elegant: Johann von Luxemburg-Ligny , who, according to other sources, was quite incompetent, was left in the not so politically exposed diocese of Strasbourg; by leaving this second electorate upon revocation, Kuno was tied more closely to the Pope and remained with the Archbishop of Cologne get a capable administrator. In addition, the curia was able to collect the intercalary fruits - the Cologne income during the Sedis vacancy - in the estimated amount of 20,000 gold guilders annually. Pope Urban V therefore appointed Kuno von Falkenstein on July 30, 1369 as Apostolic Vicar and on March 27, 1370 as Apostolic Administrator for two further years with the prospect of an extension.

In the summer of 1370, Kuno von Falkenstein arranged for a second and this time unanimous supplication of the cathedral chapter to the Pope about the appointment of Friedrich von Saar Werden. Friedrich immediately traveled to the papal court and won the pope for himself, so that he received his appointment on November 13th. Because he is named archbishop in seven documents from February 1371, Heinrich Volbert Sauerland suspects that in the meantime he received the ordination of deacons and presbyters as well as the consecration of bishops in Avignon. He then went back to the Rhine to be enthroned . On June 20, 1371, Friedrich confirmed all of Kuno's orders as legal, whereupon Kuno released all officials from their oaths and duties towards him on July 2, 1371. On November 13, 1371, Friedrich received the secular regalia through the king's ambassadors in Bautzen, and also in person, probably in May 1372, at the Reichstag in Mainz, when he was also granted the Duchy of Westphalia . After his return, he entered his episcopal city on June 21, 1372, after he had already confirmed all rights of the city of Cologne on April 30, 1372.

The main reason why the Pope still granted Friedrich von Saar Werden the archbishopric was the young archbishop's extensive financial obligations. The Archdiocese of Cologne was already the richest archdiocese in Germany at that time - the curia estimated the annual income at 30,000 gold guilders. During Kuno's administration, the curia was able to reserve 20,000 gold guilders for itself. Contrary to the custom of only paying an “appointment fee” of one third of the annual income, i.e. 10,000 gold florins, Friedrich undertook to pay a total of 120,000 gold florins in six annual installments. The Archbishopric was in the short time of the two predecessors of Friedrichs, Adolf von der Mark and Engelbert III. had been completely looted so that payments to the Curia seemed almost impossible. The curia therefore had the usual sanction mechanism confirmed - if payment was not made, excommunication was threatened first and then the interdict as a reinforced form.

Desolate state of the archbishopric when Friedrich took office

The Archdiocese of Cologne was heavily indebted at the beginning of Friedrich von Saarwerden's rule. It is reported that Friedrich was given a letter when he took office, in which the debt was valued at more than 474,000 guilders. Even if this high amount is not documented, the report shows a tendency. Firstly, there were no more cash available and, secondly, important sources of income had been alienated from the ore monastery.

After the death of Wilhelm von Gennep in 1362, there was a dispute over the archbishopric, because both the Liège bishop Engelbert von der Mark and his nephew, Elect Adolf von der Mark from Münster , and the cathedral canon Johann von Virneburg over again applied for the bishopric. While the first two candidates sought confirmation from the Pope in Avignon, Johann was able to win the majority of the cathedral chapter in a turbulent election - a minority argued for Florence von Wevelinghoven . He and other family members immediately occupied the cities of Andernach and Linz and took all the cash from the late archbishop. Adolf could only take over the archbishopric by granting Johann this robbery on October 23, 1363.

Adolf himself continued to go into debt before he “inherited” the archbishopric to his uncle Engelbert on April 15, 1364 the next year in order to be able to become Count of Kleve . For this translation, not only did additional funds flow from the archbishopric's treasury to Avignon, but the new Archbishop Engelbert also pledged all the Electoral Cologne areas and sources of income north of Neuss to his nephew - the offices of Kempen and Oedt as well as customs and office of Rheinberg . The Rhine toll of Rheinberg was the most profitable of the four Rhine tariffs of the Archbishop and made income of around 10,000 gold florins - after deduction of pension orders! - about 60% of the cash income of the Archdiocese! Engelbert also made his nephew of the same name Marshal of Westphalia and gave him the office of Waldenburg- Schnellenberg as a pledge , which actually promoted a competitor for rule in Westphalia.

In order to limit this sell-out of the archbishopric to Adolf von der Mark, the cathedral chapter had forced Archbishop Engelbert to coadjutor Kuno von Falkenstein, whereby Engelbert received the offices and castles of Brühl and Lechenich with all income - around 2,000 gold guilders annually - as the retirement home . Kuno took on Cologne debts, but demanded and received securities in return. In his appointment document, Kuno was awarded the castles and offices of Altenwied , Linz with the Rhine toll, Rolandseck , Ahrweiler , Andernach , Schönstein , Nürburg , Thurant Castle and Zeltingen at Christmas 1366 .

Thus Friedrich von Saar Werden found an archbishopric in the summer of 1372, half of which was owned by his great-uncle or Adolf von der Mark. In addition, most of the income was in the hands of the two of them. As if this situation weren't hopeless enough, the archbishop was heavily indebted to various creditors, but above all to the curia. A change in the situation on one's own therefore seemed almost impossible. All efforts of the young archbishop therefore initially concentrated on financial policy.

Financial policy

The beneficiaries of the turmoil of the years 1362–1372 to the detriment of the Archbishopric of Cologne were Adolf von der Mark, Kuno von Falkenstein and the Pope in Avignon. The first two also held extensive territories and lucrative Rhine tariffs in their hands as pledges. However, there was a difference between Count Adolf's pledges and that of Archbishop Kuno: While Adolf was a full beneficiary of the offices until they were paid out (so-called eternity statute), Kuno's income was offset against the debts due to the church's interest ban (so-called death statute). . So while Adolf's pledges reduced the territory and income of Kurköln in the long term, Kuno's pledged property would sooner or later fall back to the archbishopric. It was therefore the top priority for Friedrich to get Adolf's pledge back and only then to pay Kuno out. The debt with the curia was initially of no importance for Friedrich due to the payment modalities and its replacement was therefore taken up last.

The recovery of customs and office Rheinberg

Archbishop Friedrich entered into negotiations with Adolf von der Mark about the return of the office and Rhine toll from Rheinberg soon after he took office. He was helped by the fact that Adolf could not take over the Grafschaft Kleve unchallenged after the death of the last count from the House of Flamenses Johann von Kleve in 1368, despite the extensive preparations since his resignation as Elect of Cologne in 1366. Adolf had to recruit mercenaries and enforce his claim militarily, but was only the undisputed new count after he had accepted his competitor Dietrich von Horn with 37,000 gold shields . In addition, since 1371 he was involved in the beginning War of the Geldrian Succession , where he supported the pretender Mechthild and bought the town of Emmerich from her for 38,000 gold shields . Ultimately, his wife Margarethe von Berg's dowry of 20,000 gold shields was not received.

In the summer of 1372 the negotiations entered the final phase and on October 3, 1372 a transfer agreement was signed. Adolf von der Mark handed over customs and office Rheinberg at a high price, knowing full well how important Rheinberg was for Archbishop Friedrich in terms of finance, territorial and domestic politics. The transfer fee was set at 55,000 gold shields and annual further payments of 2,000 gold shields were agreed, with the handover at Christmas 1372 after payment or assumption of debts in the amount of 26,000 gold shields. On May 16, 1373, Adolf von der Mark acknowledged receipt of all the money, whereby Friedrich was once again the sole master of Rheinberg. The offices of Kempen and Oedt came back into the possession of the Archbishopric on March 21, 1369 under the administration of Kuno von Falkenstein.

Most of the expenses for the redemption were not paid in cash, but covered by taking over Adolf's debt - evidence of the tense financial situation that was now becoming even more difficult. How thin the financial ceiling of the archbishopric was between 1373 and 1376 is clear from the fact that the archbishop's rent master was still missing 10,000 florins and 16,000 marks in the annual accounts on May 31, 1374 , although the Cologne clergy gave the archbishop a subsidium caritativum of eight tithes at the beginning of the year 1374. From 1372 there is even a receipt for an advance payment of Frederick's pontificals; so he had to pawn his official insignia. Friedrich was indebted not only to his great-uncle, but also to some Lombards and Cologne Jews . In April 1374 he even borrowed 5,000 guilders in Lübeck , which were only paid back in 1381. Due to his financial situation, Friedrich was able to obtain at least an increase in his customs duties in Neuss and Bonn or Linz from the Kaiser.

Debt relief from Archbishop Kuno von Falkenstein

The wealthy Archbishop of Trier was a kind of family bank for Friedrich, where he could request interest-free loans, which were granted to him every time out of family solidarity. Nevertheless, the temporary loss of all offices south of Godesberg reduced Friedrich's ability to act as sovereign, which is why an early release was sought. First, however, Friedrich had to serve the other creditors with Kuno's money, which is why the debts with Kuno piled higher and higher. During the final accounting as administrator, Kuno had already assumed liabilities in the amount of 73,607.5 Florene. In addition, when he took office on July 1, 1371, Friedrich borrowed a further 52,000 guilders and paid Kuno half of the rich Bonn Rhine toll. Friedrich had to borrow a further 20,000 guilders on July 1, 1374 - mind you after the financial injection from the Cologne clergy! - and for this he also transferred the second half of the Bonn customs as well as the Rheinberg and Zons customs, whereby all of the Cologne Rhine customs were in the hands of Frederick's great uncle. However, this step was not considered out of sheer necessity, but in order to achieve an early redemption - Kuno could count on over 40,000 gold guilders from the Rhine tariffs annually.

However, Frederick was only able to fully excuse Kuno with the money from Emperor Charles IV for the election of his son Wenceslaus of Bohemia as Roman king in 1376. Although no receipt for the 30,000 guilders and 6,000 shock Prague groschen promised for the election of Wenceslas has been received, the chronicles state the receipt of 40 to 50,000 guilders. This sum corresponds to a receipt from Kunos von Falkenstein for 49,034 guilders cash dated June 28, 1376. The money probably got into Kuno's hands immediately after receipt in Rhens , so that in Cologne there is no invoice for it, only the receipt. The ore monastery was thus free of debt towards Kuno von Falkenstein. From then on, Frederick could devote himself to debt relief with the curia.

Debt discharge to the Curia

Friedrich had promised the curia the gigantic sum of 120,000 guilders for his appointment as archbishop. However, there was no payment; only a few hundred guilders of servitude fees were received in Avignon. At first he met with understanding from the curia in view of the desolate financial situation of the archbishopric. After more than three years, however, the papal chamber lost patience and put the sanction mechanism into effect: On September 5, 1375, Friedrich was excommunicated because he was in default of five installments. On October 24, 1375, a papal invitation to the city council of Cologne to make the process initiated against Friedrich known. Pope Gregory XI. released the city from all obligations towards Friedrich.

However, the excommunication had hardly any consequences in the ore monastery. The clergy had previously complained about the transfer of funds to Avignon and, especially after 1370, categorically refused to make payments at a synod. Therefore Friedrich could count on the support of the clergy. Nevertheless, he did not want to lose contact with the Curia. On June 1, 1376, he promised the papal nuncio 30,000 guilders from the emperor, which Frederick had promised in autumn 1374. Gregory XI. Finally, in February 1377, Friedrich offered a contract to waive further claims with immediate payment of 30,000 guilders and to lift the excommunication entirely.

But this time, too, Friedrich paid nothing. Rather, the situation changed in favor of Frederick with the emergence of the Western Schism . On February 27, 1379, Frederick confessed to Pope Urban VI with King Wenzel and the Rhenish elector . in Rome, who had quarreled with the antipope Clement VII in Avignon since September 1378 . Pope Urban VI. Thereupon released his follower Friedrich the debt of 120,000 guilders and 11,000 guilders Servitien and acquitted him from the church ban.

With the help of his great-uncle Kuno as an inexhaustible source of - interest-free - loans, Friedrich managed within half a decade to discharge his archbishopric and win back estranged goods. A major reason for this was the productivity of the Rhine tolls, which flushed enormous sums of cash into the pension master's coffers . After this debt relief, Friedrich was able to take precautionary measures that had not been taken up until now. He had the castles Kempen , Liedberg , Hülchrath , Linn , Zons and Zülpich built and the fortifications of Xanten expanded. In addition, he acquired works of art for himself and the Cologne Church. When he died, he is said to have left 300,000 guilders, which is probably an exaggeration. However, his wealth was known and admired by his contemporaries. In retrospect, Johann von Kleve called him in 1449: “superhabundans et in redditibus adeo locuplex existens” - a man who was “extremely wealthy and well-funded”.

Territorial policy

Friedrich von Saar Werden, on the one hand, endeavored to expand his territory internally, on the other hand, he took advantage of opportunities to enlarge the territory of the archbishopric. Both in the Rhineland and in Westphalia, the count brothers Adolf and Engelbert von der Mark were his main opponents, but this did not rule out occasional cooperation against third parties. Friedrich benefited from the fact that the Dukes of Jülich were claimed by inheritance disputes over the Duchy of Geldern in the 1370s and then turned against the Duchy of Brabant . In addition, the relationship to the other branch of the House of Jülich, the counts and since 1380 dukes of Berg, was not particularly close, so that despite individual areas of tension between Jülich and Kurköln, no overarching alliance was formed against the Archbishopric of Cologne.

Inner country expansion

The internal development of the state progressed under Friedrich von Saar Werden both in the local and central administration, whereby a distinction must be made between the church and administrative administration and the political leadership:

The church administration was fully developed as early as 1320. After an official was initially appointed as a clerk for spiritual affairs in the 13th century, an authority of 40 people, including more than 20 notaries, had developed by 1320, with its own organizational statute and statute for regulating routine business. This separation between the spiritual affairs of the archbishopric and the secular affairs of the archbishopric was reinforced by the introduction of the vicar general (see below).

The administration of the office came to an end under Archbishop Friedrich to the effect that the waiter was employed across the board in addition to the bailiff. He took up major innovations from his predecessor Walram von Jülich from the 1340s, namely the territorial fixation of the offices, the introduction of the rent master as the central tax officer and the establishment of the council as the political leadership body of the archbishopric. Thus, after the central administration, a separation between the fiscal and the military administration was introduced at the official level.

The central administration developed further under Friedrich. Like most of the other sovereigns, he still exercised a travel rule , but he set up a permanent office with an archive in Poppelsdorf . His stays were concentrated in the area of ​​Brühl, Bonn and Godesberg, so that in addition to his travel budget of around 60-100 people, another 40 people in the castles there belong to the archbishop's household. Three administrative secretaries accompanied him constantly and two were responsible for the archbishop's files in Poppelsdorf - the writing increased to a great extent, so that there are more regesta from his reign than from all his predecessors combined. However, this duplication could not last long and so the travel rule was given up in favor of a locally bound central administration, first in Brühl, then finally in the 16th century in Bonn. The volume of correspondence also increased tremendously. For example, Friedrich took over a fiefdom register from his predecessor Adolf and had a register of all fiefdoms organized by office, which was constantly updated. Initial notes from the office of the law firm have come down to us from Friedrich's time in office, as well as the creation of a register ("the collection and book-like compilation of copies of all or selected documents that were produced in the law firm"). The main focus during registration was clearly on the development of the properties and lands, which is reflected in the high number of receipts. The registration of documents was therefore more random than planned, and service instructions were generally not registered. It was only under Friedrich's successors that files were kept and records were created in line with modern administration. Nevertheless, there are more documents from Archbishop Friedrich's tenure than from all of his predecessors combined.

The political institutions of the Archbishopric were least developed under Friedrich von Saar Werden - which is definitely a success of the Archbishop. Because dynastic crises, lost wars or mismanagement of the sovereigns were regularly the reason for the development of a rural constitution. Knights, clergy and cities came together to protect the territory and took over the debts of their masters in return for an assurance of privileges. In all larger territories of the north-west area - with the exception of Kurköln - it was therefore until 1350 that the estates had merged to form state constitutions. Since Friedrich von Saar Werden managed to master the debt crisis of his archbishopric, he was not dependent on the help of the estates. Because his "government program" essentially corresponded to the capitulations of the cathedral chapter when Kunos von Falkenstein was appointed, there were no conflicts with this body - unlike his successors, Friedrich did not have to swear election surrenders. Rather, by including ministerials and members of the cathedral chapter in his council, he was able to commit both estates to governance. There is therefore no mention of any conflicts between Archbishop Friedrich and the cathedral chapter - it was more a partner in the government than the rural opposition. This was only to change under the ruinous policy of Frederick's successors, which in 1462 led to the Land Association, which was the constitution of the electoral state until the end of the Ancien Régime .

Friedrich von Saar Werden was much more flexible in his politics because he was able to act financially more independently than his territorial neighbors, which contributed significantly to his successful territorial politics.

Territorial gains in the upper and lower pen

Even at the beginning of his rule, Friedrich was able to benefit from inheritance disputes in smaller dominions in the south and north of the archbishopric and make direct conquests and bring the formerly free dominions under Cologne feudal rule.

In 1372 Friedrich interfered in the affairs of the county of Neuenahr . The background to this was the unsuccessful succession of the Lords of Saffenberg after the old Count's house had died out in 1360. Johann von Saffenberg had married Katharina von Neuenahr, the only daughter of the deceased Count, and now faced the competing claims of the Lords of Isenburg and Roesberg, Katharina's distant relative. The county of Neuenahr was half of the fiefdom of the Archbishop of Cologne and half of the Duke of Jülich. Both Friedrich and Duke Wilhelm had confirmed Johann von Saffenberg as the new count, but he could not hold out in the erupting feud and lost the castles of Neuenahr and Merzenich and two thirds of the county by mid-1372. Archbishop Friedrich now intervened in the feud to support Johann von Saffenberg. Between May and September 1372 Neuenahr and Merzenich were conquered. Friedrich destroyed the latter castle and temporarily incorporated the Rösberg rule into the archbishopric. Johann von Saffenberg bought his claim to the County of Neuenahr at a high price: the Archbishop not only retained the positions he had conquered in Merzenich, he also forced the new Count to declare his ancestral seat an Offenhaus and cede the castle hill of Neuenahr to the Archbishop. Both directly and indirectly, the archbishop was the clear winner of the Neuenahrer feud. The Duke of Jülich, as the other feudal lord, was completely bound as regent for his underage son in the War of the Geldr Succession against Mechthild von Kleve from 1371 onwards and had to leave the field to Archbishop Friedrich. The Roesberg lordship was not restored until 1393, but this time as a fiefdom of Kurköln.

After Wilhelm von Jülich prevailed in Geldern in 1377, he demanded compensation from Archbishop Friedrich for his unilateral approach in Neuenahr. Linked to this was the unsatisfied solution of the question of rule in Zülpich between Kurköln and Jülich . On May 28, 1379, Friedrich reached a compromise in which the villages of Merzenich and Girbelsrath were awarded to Jülich for four years together with 6,000 gold shields, for which Friedrich was allowed to manage Zülpich alone - a result that was favorable for the archbishopric. Friedrich therefore tried to maintain this agreement in the long term, on the one hand through only slightly modified contracts in 1388 and 1393, on the other hand by renewing the city fortifications and building a fortified castle. Although Friedrich had to share almost all rights in the city with the Duke of Jülich-Geldern on July 3, 1397, this provision was only valid for the lifetime of the contractual partners, and so Friedrich's bailiff appointed his Jülich after the early death of Wilhelm von Jülich-Geldern in 1402 Colleagues at the door. Although the archbishop succeeded in wresting the Jülich duke of the bailiwick over Zülpich, an extension of the jurisdiction of lay judges to the surrounding villages could not be enforced. In 1409 both sides consolidated the previous position that Merzenich and Girbelsrath should remain near Jülich, Zülpich and four upstream villages near Cologne, for which the Archbishop paid 7,000 guilders. It has remained with this stock.

Even in the north of his archbishopric, Friedrich von Saar Werden was able to make small profits by bringing the free rule of Helpenstein under his feudal rule. In autumn 1373 Friedrich began a feud with Gumprecht von Alpen, which was announced in 1371. After the last lords of Helpenstein (who owned Helpenstein, Grimlinghausen and Hoisten near Neuss) had died out, Gumprecht wanted to forcibly occupy the rule. Half of the estate was owned by the Lords of Blankenheim, who had pledged their share to Gumprecht. In addition to owning one half, Gumprecht wanted to enforce ownership of the other half by capturing Johann von Lennep - the next candidate for rule through his wife - and by rebuilding an already abandoned castle in Helpenstein. The archbishop quickly conquered the entire rule and destroyed the castle. In an atonement treaty, Gumprecht von Alpen ceded all rights to the archbishop in 1378, who handed over his half to the Blankenheimer but kept the other half. In 1387 they agreed with Johann von Lennep that he should receive half of the rule as a fief. Thus Helpenstein and Grimlinghausen went half over into the archbishopric. Archbishop Friedrich thereby also conceded the rights of the Counts of Mark to Helpenstein, mentioned in 1369, who owned half of Helpenstein at the beginning of the 14th century and had appointed officials there.

Suppression of the autonomy of the city of Neuss

In the confusion surrounding the occupation of the ore chair of Cologne in 1362/63, the cities of the ore monastery had allied themselves and rose up against paternalism. Friedrich von Saar Werden now wanted to eliminate the long-term consequences of urban unification. He chose the city of Neuss to set an example, because in this city the striving for autonomy away from sovereign tutelage was particularly pronounced. In the cities of Brühl and Bonn with the Godesburg, however, the resistance against the sovereign was low, because the archbishop not only preferred to stay there, but also promoted his places of residence (Burgbau Brühl). And the cities of Linz and Andernach in the south were pledged to Kuno von Falkenstein at the beginning of the 1970s, who - sometimes by force - ensured order there in his own way. Neuss, on the other hand, was the largest city in the state and the only one in Niederstift.

The archbishop carefully planned the actions against Neuss and carried them out at different times. First of all, the Rhine toll was transferred from Neuss to Zons in August 1372, which meant that the citizens of Neuss were not exempted from customs duties and passed on to the citizens of Zons - given the importance of Neuss as a trading center, a significant financial loss for many citizens in favor of the archbishop. The reason for this was the gradual shift of the Rhine away from Neuss to the east - today the Rhine passes about 5 km east of the city center. However, Neuss was still connected to the Rhine via the Erft and so the skippers had to go up to Neuss to pay customs. The people of Neuss began to force the skippers to unload their goods so that they could be offered for sale in Neuss. This stacking right was only available to Cologne on the Lower Rhine.

With the stroke of a pen, the archbishop moved customs to the Zons, a little further south, so that navigation on the Rhine would not be further impeded. He elevated the village of Zons to a town on December 20, 1373. To protect the new customs post in Zons, he had Friedestrom Castle built. In May 1373 Friedrich wrote a pamphlet in which he complained about the insubordination of the city, the hindrance of navigation on the Rhine and the archbishop's justice and finally put the damage caused to him at more than 100,000 guilders - the city of course rejected all accusations. A court of arbitration was called on, made up of members of the cathedral chapter and Kuno von Falkenstein. However, the result was not satisfactory for both sides. Both parties did not come to an agreement until 1377, whereby the Archbishop of Cologne was in principle right and the city of Neuss had to pay a certain amount of compensation, but in return was granted duty-free again for customs in Zons. After 1377 there was no longer any tension between the archbishop and the city of Neuss, because the patricians in Neuss needed the support of the archbishop against an increasingly rebellious population.

Judges' war and settlement with the city of Cologne

From 1374 to 1377, the lay judges' war shook the power structure within the city of Cologne. Archbishop Friedrich von Saar Werden had provoked this dispute, whereby the driving forces were to be found within the city. The starting point was the dispute over the competencies of the Cologne aldermen. These were responsible for the high jurisdiction of the city and the only remnant of sovereign power in Cologne, because the lay judges were selected from the Cologne patriciate by the archbishop alone . In the war of lay judges, the archbishop raised a claim to lay judgeship, which reserved for him all glory and power, the high level of jurisdiction, all commands and prohibitions, as well as customs and coin. The emperor certified him these privileges. In addition, he put Cologne under the imperial ban and lifted all privileges for the city, probably to be sure of Friedrich's vote in the upcoming election of his son Wenzel. In return, Cologne ensured that the defaulting debtor Friedrich was excommunicated in Avignon and that the city was released from allegiance. Armed conflicts devastated the surrounding area, especially the city of Deutz . In the end, both sides came to the conclusion that if the dispute of principle continued, the economic disadvantages for both sides would be greater. An atonement agreement confirmed the status quo ante , in which Cologne also regained all privileges. Friedrich came to the realization that his influence within the city was minimal - the city clergy had sided with the citizens during the dispute and had not followed Friedrich's request to leave the city.

An expansion of the Deutz exclave on the right bank of the Rhine in the Bergisches Duchy was destroyed on March 29, 1393 when the citizens of Cologne conquered the Deutz monastery. However, this called the Duke von Berg on the scene as bailiff and the Cologne residents dragged the fortifications of the Electorate of Cologne around the abbey and did not vacate their positions until 1396, which restored the state of 1377. On the other hand, the people of Cologne cooperated very well with Archbishop Friedrich when it came to eliminating new tariffs on the Rhine - for example in 1380 against a Bergisch customs in Düsseldorf - and the currency unit on the Rhine - both concluded a cartel in 1386 with the other Rhenish electors and the Duke of Jülich Stabilization of the Rhenish guilder.

Overall, the relationship between the archbishop and his cathedral city was characterized by pragmatism since 1377. Wilhelm Janssen said : “Because it was the enforcement or at least recognition of his army that mattered to the Archbishop in his relationship with Cologne, he accepted a decisive event for the constitution of the city like the overthrow of the family rule in 1396 without any noticeable reaction. In return for an "admiration" of 8,000 guilders, he recognized the inner-city reorganization without objection. "

Disputes with the count brothers Adolf and Engelbert von der Mark

The main adversary of Archbishop Friedrich von Saar Werden was Count Engelbert III. von der Mark , head of the family after the death of Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne in 1368. With Engelbert's support, his brother Adolf became Count of Kleve in the same year, receiving all areas on the right bank of the Rhine ( Wesel and Duisburg ) for his support . A third brother, Dietrich von der Mark, was resigned to the city of Dinslaken . In order to enrich himself on the Rhine trade, Engelbert took over a Rhine toll in Ruhrort from Count Friedrich von Moers, which Friedrich von Saar werden tried unsuccessfully in 1373.

The main reason for the dispute between Archbishop Friedrich and Count Engelbert was in Westphalia. Because when Kuno von Falkenstein was administrator, he was able to acquire the county of Arnsberg from the last Count Gottfried IV of Arnsberg , whereby Engelbert von der Mark was passed over as the closest relative. Friedrich had himself enfeoffed with the county in 1371 to secure the acquisition of Charles IV . He also actively exercised his rights as Duke of Westphalia . In 1372, for example, he was the first to take the oath on the land peace enacted by the emperor, together with the bishops of Münster, Paderborn and Osnabrück as well as Count Engelbert . In addition, Friedrich, as Duke of Westphalia, claimed escort protection and as archbishop spiritual jurisdiction in the county of Mark, which Engelbert wanted to evade. These natural contradictions were exacerbated by the fact that when Archbishop Engelbert switched to Kuno von Falkenstein and Friedrich von Saar in 1366/68, Engelbert's offices in Westphalia were withdrawn.

Disputes with Engelbert von der Mark in Westphalia

In 1366 Engelbert had laid Arnsberg in ruins in a feud and eliminated Count Gottfried as an independent force in Westphalia. Engelbert was able to do this undisturbed insofar as his uncle, as Archbishop of Cologne, not only allowed him to go free, but also handed over the Waldenburg - Schnellenberg office to the south-west of Arnsberg to Attendorn and raised him to Marshal of Westphalia, which Count Engelbert made archbishopric Deputy in the Duchy of Westphalia and lord of other offices east of Arnsberg. In the peace treaty of July 22, 1367, Gottfried IV had to cede the land and castle of Fredeburg in the south of Arnsberg to Count Engelbert. Engelbert had prepared the acquisition by buying older feudal rights to Fredeburg and was now able to enforce them with the military and legal means of the Marshal of Westphalia.

Engelbert von der Mark had thus achieved his territorial political goals in the southern Sauerland, but an unexpected situation arose which made the acquisition of the entire county of Arnsberg possible. The closest relatives of the childless Count Gottfried von Arnsberg were the Counts of Oldenburg through an aunt of Gottfried . Gottfried IV had his subjects pay homage to the Count of Oldenburg in 1364 in order to ensure the smooth transition of his county to Oldenburg after his foreseeable death. However, the designated heir Christian von Oldenburg fell in 1368 together with his father Moritz in the fight against the Frisians. The Count von der Mark was now the closest relative of Gottfried's wife Anna von Kleve and thus the probable heir of the County of Arnsberg.

In order not to make this success possible for his arch enemy, Gottfried IV. Sold his county to the archbishops of Cologne. Kuno von Falkenstein managed this sale quietly and secretly on the anniversary of Archbishop Engelbert's death. On November 19 of the same year Count Johann von Kleve died and Count Engelbert went into the field on the Lower Rhine to put his brother in the possession of the county, while meanwhile, hardly noticed, the administrator of Cologne overturned the power structure in Westphalia. The handover of the County of Arnsberg was planned well in advance, but surprisingly on June 18 and 22, 1369, combined with the withdrawal of the marshal's office on June 24, 1369, which Kuno had given to Count Gottfried IV of all people. The administrator mockingly noted in the certificate of appointment of the former Count von Arnsberg that he had withdrawn the office of Marshal from Engelbert von der Mark, because “vnse lieue vrund Engelbert Greue van der Marke is laden with a lot of wars and vrleugen, and he darvmb nyt shield them as well may as he dede and as is dem Gestichte and his poor luden were noyt ”.

The office of Waldenburg-Schnellenberg was subsequently withdrawn from Engelbert von der Mark. Before July 2, 1371, the administrator Kuno von Falkenstein handed over the office to the bishop of Paderborn, who could not or did not want to assert himself against Engelbert, which is why Friedrich passed this task on July 9, 1373 into the hands of his bailiff of Recklinghausen, Heidenreich von Oer , put. Before the end of 1373 the office was again firmly in Cologne hands and the new bailiff was charged with reversing transfers of goods that had taken place during the eight years of Brandenburg rule.

Engelbert then tried to usurp archeological property and rights in the county of Mark. So he tried to get the Bochum court, which was shared between himself and Archbishop Friedrich, completely into his hands, as well as the Schwelm and Hagen estates in Cologne , which he was able to lease indirectly in 1375. He was also hired as warlord of the Cologne people in the lay judges' war for no less than 5,000 guilders in order to go into the field against Friedrich.

Before January 4, 1380, Engelbert von der Mark officially opened a feud with Archbishop Friedrich, in which he was supported by his brothers and brother-in-law Johann von Nassau . Johann officially asserted inheritance claims on the county of Arnsberg, in fact he wanted to oust the archbishop from the city of Siegen , which Johann and Friedrich von Saar Werden ruled together to date. On February 14, 1381, the atonement contract was signed, which left the city of Siegen and Engelbert von der Mark Bochum, Hagen and Schwelm to Johann von Nassau. On the other hand, Friedrich was able to assert his ducal escort rights in Westphalia and reject Engelbert's financial claims from his activity as Marshal of Westphalia. The feud broke out again the following year, with the saturated Count of Nassau not intervening in favor of the Märker this time. An atonement did not take place until November 7, 1384. It essentially confirmed the status quo ante. A certain relaxation arose in the following years, especially with Engelbert von der Mark, because in 1388/89 Friedrich moved together with the Count von der Mark against the city of Dortmund , which was repeated in the electoral capitulations of the Roman emperors and kings, most recently by Wenzel, the archbishop had been awarded by Cologne, but was able to maintain its independence as an imperial city. However, the Dortmund feud did not lead to the conquest of the city; she was able to buy her way out the next year.

The acquisition of Linn and the dispute with Count Adolf on the Lower Rhine

Archbishop Friedrich came into possession of the Land of Linn , which was previously the undisputed territory of the Counts of Kleve , at the latest in 1388 . This led to a major feud between Adolf von der Mark and Friedrich von Saar Werden in 1391 and 1392.

The Land of Linn was a special case within the County of Kleve, as it was spatially separated from the northern regions and was the widow's residence of the Countesses of Kleve from time immemorial. Mechthild von Kleve came into possession of the rulership in 1368 after the death of her husband. Even when she remarried and raised a claim to the Duchy of Geldern against her younger sister ( War of Succession in Geldern 1371–79 ), she remained mistress of Linn Castle . However, because of the warfare in Geldern, she owed her bailiff in Linn, Heinrich von Strüneke, and pledged the land to him on March 6, 1378 for 6,000 guilders and for a further 54,000 guilders on February 21, 1380.

In her financial predicament, she pledged Linn again to Friedrich von Saar Werden for 45,000 guilders on April 18, 1378. In older research, this is seen as the starting point for a planned acquisition of the land by Friedrich von Saar Werden, which, however, is an overinterpretation of the sources ; Friedrich never paid out the money. On January 9, 1385, Friedrich von Saar Werden Linn bought from Heinrich von Strüneke for 20,000 gold shields and an annuity of a further 2,000 gold shields. This time too, Friedrich von Saar Werden initially paid no money.

However, Friedrich created the legal basis for a transfer of ownership. Mechthild was in the possession of Linn and had passed it on to Heinrich von Strüneke, but the owner was undisputedly the Count von Kleve, which Friedrich himself had acknowledged. But Adolf von der Mark had not yet asked Friedrich von Saar Werden for an enfeoffment with the County of Kleve (most of the towns and areas of Kleve were fiefdoms from the Electorate of Cologne). In 1372, Frederick had the privilege of being able to withdraw fiefdoms without male heirs from Emperor Charles IV . Johann von Kleve had died without an heir, which is why Friedrich could claim that the county of Kurköln had fallen back. In addition, he had Johann's sister and wife Gottfried IV von Arnsberg give him the right to claim the county of Kleve in 1377. Therefore, on March 8, 1385, Friedrich enfeoffed the failed pretender of 1368, Otto von Arkel, with the county of Kleve except with "castro, opido et terra Lynnensi, which the archbishop fell back and with which the archbishop does not want to enfeoff him." Otto formally notarized this renunciation of Linn in his loan deed on May 7, 1385 for himself and his family. De jure , Friedrich von Saar Werden had made himself lord of the Land and Linn Castle in this way.

Three years later, before July 13, 1388, Friedrich von Saar Werden finally paid Heinrich von Strüneke the 4,000 guilders deposit and took possession of the state of Linn; further payments are no longer documented. Why the archbishop had waited three years for the transfer of ownership and just now alienated Adolf von der Mark when he was at war with his brother Engelbert against Dortmund cannot be conclusively determined from the sources. However, Linn's change of ownership from Klevian to Electoral Cologne gave the pretext for a third feud between Adolf and Engelbert von der Mark on the one hand and Friedrich von Saar Werden on the other hand in 1391 and 1392.

In the course of this feud, the citizens of Rees captured Count Adolf von Kleve in a spectacular action on February 5, 1391 when he crossed the boat in a boat with only one companion after a rendezvous with his lover, the Abbess of Marienbaum Rhine continued. However, they released him again when Engelbert von der Mark and his brother Dietrich besieged the city. From Wesel, riders made forays against Rees, Uerdingen , Linn and Recklinghausen between March and June 1391 . The town of Xanten was overrun three times by troops from the Brandenburg region in 1391, but without success. On July 21, Friedrich von Saar Werden captured Kalkar and expelled the townspeople. In return, a ten-day campaign by Count Engelbert von der Mark devastated the Niederstift Cologne. The expulsion of the Kalkar population probably set in motion peace talks, which were due to the death of Engelbert III. on December 22, 1391. On April 10, 1392, a contract of atonement came about between the Archbishop and Count Adolf and his sons.

On May 1, 1392, a peace treaty was finally concluded in which all members of the Mark family renounced the land of Linn. In return, the transfers in Westphalia to Engelbert from the Atonement Treaties 1382 and 1384 were confirmed. On the Lower Rhine, Friedrich had to leave the city and the office of Rees to the Count of Kleve. They must have fallen to Kleve before the end of the fighting, or at least the bailiff von Rees sealed it on Klever's side in the atonement of April 10th. In the peace treaty, Friedrich pledged the city and offset it with the Land of Linn. In contrast to a transfer of ownership, the city had to be neutral in future disputes when transferring ownership as a pledge. The rule over Xanten was divided. The Klever Counts had previously been bailiffs and the Archbishop of Cologne ruled the city, which had led to confusion of competencies and constant disputes. Here, too, a source of conflict was defused. Friedrich was able to underline his power as Duke of the Rhenish and Westphalia region once again when Adolf finally sought and received the enfeoffment with Kleve.

The compromise peace of 1392 lasted beyond the death of Adolf von der Mark in 1394 until the death of Friedrich von Saar Werden. Friedrich did not live to see the rise of Adolf's son of the same name to Duke. This ascent was not mapped out either, but was essentially ascribed to the victory of the Count Klever in 1397 in the Battle of Kleverhamm over his uncle Wilhelm von Berg . Friedrich did not take sides in this feud, but he kept Wilhelm von Berg's back free by contracts with him.

Imperial politics

Friedrich was entirely a territorial politician and held back in imperial affairs, especially since the Lower Rhine and Westphalia, as areas remote from the king, were hardly affected by imperial politics. Until 1376, the emperor generously granted Frederick, as his son's future voter, privileges that were more formal in nature and were of no territorial importance. With the Luxemburgers Charles IV and Wenzel, Friedrich leaned against the King of France, whose liege Friedrich became on July 11, 1378 for the payment of 3,000 gold francs a year.

Of the imperial privileges, the office of imperial vicar stands out in the west. Because Emperor Karl's brother Wenzel , Duke of Luxembourg and Brabant , was defeated in the Battle of Baesweiler in 1371 by Dukes Wilhelm von Jülich and Eduard von Geldern, he could no longer exercise this office, which is why the Emperor appointed it on May 30, 1372 Friedrich von Saar was awarded as the most powerful prince between the Schelde and the Weser after Brabant. Friedrich used the title in the following and is also occupied with official acts of a vicar. In the course of the election of Wenceslas as Roman king in July 1376, the vicariate was extended - among other things - by ten years, but Friedrich's activity as imperial vicar can only be proven until 1378.

As the coronator of the empire , Friedrich was able to put the imperial crown on Wenceslaus of Bohemia in Aachen on July 6, 1376 - the first time during the emperor's lifetime since the coronation of Heinrich , the son of Emperor Frederick II , on May 8, 1222. After the death of Charles IV . On September 14, 1379, after paying homage to King Wenzel, Frederick again received the regalia "on both sides of the Rhine, in the Duchy of Engern and Westphalia and in the Duchy of Lorraine as a fiefdom from King and Empire."

In matters relating to the empire, Friedrich coordinated with the other Rhenish electors and was therefore one of Ruprecht III's voters on August 20, 1400 . Palatine for anti-king, which he in the cathedral for the Roman king was crowned; the city of Aachen continued to support the Luxembourgers and had refused entry. When Ruprecht died in 1410, Friedrich and the other electors unanimously elected Sigismund as the new king.

At the beginning of his term in office, Friedrich sought privileges from the emperor in order to obtain legal rights for an active territorial policy. Charles IV also had an interest in building the Archbishop of Cologne into a powerful assistant in imperial politics after his brother's defeat at Baesweiler and in winning him over as his son's elector. With the dwindling of imperial power under King Wenzel, Friedrich von Saar Werden tried to separate imperial and territorial matters from 1400 at the latest.

Church politics

Friedrich paid far less attention to church politics than to territorial politics: "In relation to his political activities, his spiritual work took a back seat." He tried to maintain spiritual jurisdiction in the territories of his neighbors, of course not with a religious but with a sovereign and territorial intention.

Nevertheless, there are also church political measures to be recorded. As early as 1372 he called a synod of the Cologne clergy. He modernized the church administration by creating the vicar general in 1374. In 1399 he visited the clergy and monasteries of Cologne and issued new statutes. Friedrich managed to maintain an independent position in the schism by only allowing the publication of papal letters after a review of his office, which made direct communication with the clergy and the laity impossible for the pope.

Since he had spoken out in favor of the Pope in Rome with the other electors and King Wenceslaus (so-called Urban League), Pope Urban VI appointed him in May 1380. to legate for life. Around 1384/1385 Friedrich was even supposed to receive the cardinal dignity , but he refused it because of the associated obligations. Because of his good contacts with France, he did not want to position himself too clearly. Rather, he was one of the church princes who sought an end to the schism, and so he was one of the supporters of the Council of Pisa in 1409.

Family policy

On September 10, 1376, a marriage contract was signed between Friedrich von Saar Werden and Friedrich von Moers , in which the Archbishop gave his sister Walburga to the Count of Moers as his wife. Instead of the dowry of 4,000 guilders, the archbishop paid off debts of the Moers count in this amount in Rees and Rheinberg. The archbishop was given co-government in the county for three years. On August 14, 1379, Friedrich II. Von Moers acknowledged the receipt of all 4,000 guilders. This probably ended the joint rule over the state of Moers. Nevertheless, by marrying Friedrich secured the support of this important count, whose territory was pushed between the Electoral Cologne possessions of Rheinberg and Neuss. With the marriage, Friedrich intended to expand his influence in the north of the archbishopric. When in 1397 Friedrich's brother Count Heinrich III. died of Saar becoming childless, the archbishop was one of the heirs, but left the county to his brother-in-law or his son, his nephew Friedrich IV von Moers .

Friedrich's attempt to create an archbishopric association of family members is also part of family policy. In 1388, at the old age of 68, Kuno von Falkenstein “bequeathed” the Archdiocese of Trier to his and Friedrich's relatives Werner von Falkenstein and Königstein by appointing him as coadjutor and asking the Pope to release him from his duties. Werner also initially supported Friedrich - as in the feud with the brothers Adolf and Engelbert von der Mark 1391-1392. Together, the two archbishops of Friedrich's relatives - possibly even nephews - tried to make Gottfried von Leiningen Archbishop of Mainz in 1396 , for which they paid enormous bribes to the members of the cathedral chapter, of up to 110,000 guilders. Pope Boniface IX but appointed Adolf von Nassau archbishop, who in 1397 was able to assert himself against Gottfried. It is last mentioned in 1409 as a legacy of Frederick at the Council of Pisa . The relationship between Werner and Friedrich also broke up after 1400 when Werner tried to incorporate the Prüm Abbey into the Archbishopric Trier against Friedrich's will . Werner was also far more incompetent than his predecessor and was eventually declared mentally weak. The appointment of Gottfried von Leiningen as coadjutor for Werner was also unsuccessful, so that a family house power of the three most important spiritual principalities in the empire did not come about.

As his own successor, Friedrich built up his nephew Dietrich von Moers , the son from the marriage of Friedrich von Moers and Walpurga von Saar Werden. In 1409 Frederick sent him to the Council of Pisa as his deputy. When Friedrich's life came to an end, he handed over the treasures and permanent places of the archbishopric to his nephew in order to prevent the election of the elector of Paderborn, Wilhelm von Berg , younger son of Duke Wilhelm von Berg , as successor to the Cologne Erzstuhl. Dietrich was therefore able to quickly prevail despite the powerful opposition.

On November 13, 1409, Frederick had his own son Heinrich, whom he fathered with a Benedictine nun, dispensed from his birth defect by Pope Alexander V , who was proclaimed at the Council of Pisa - who is now considered an antipope - so that he can receive church ordinations as well Benefit, canonicals and dignities could receive.

Grave in Cologne Cathedral

death

Friedrich died in Bonn on April 9, 1414. After his body had been laid out for three days in Bonn, he was buried in a high grave in the Marienkapelle in Cologne Cathedral . Contemporaries mourned the death of this important archbishop who had presided over the Cologne Church for more than four decades. In an addendum to Levold von Northoff and in the city of Cologne's yearbooks about Friedrich: He was a “vir magnae constantiae” who kept his archbishopric “in goidem regiment”.

literature

Source editions

• Cronica van der hilligen stat van Coellen 1499 In: H. Cardanus (arrangement): The chronicles of the German cities from the 14th to the 16th century . 36 vol. Leipzig 1862-1931, here vol. 13, 1876, pp. 253-638 and vol. 14, 1877, pp. 641-918.
• Cronica presulum et archiepiscoporum colonienses ecclesie. Edited by Gottfried Eckertz. In: Fontes adhuc inediti Rerum Rhenanarum . Cologne 1864, pp. 1-64.
• Hermann Flebbe (transl.): Levold von Northof: The Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark. Cologne 1955.
• Kleve Mark documents: Regesting the holdings of Kleve Mark documents in the North Rhine-Westphalian main state archive. 3 vols. Arr. By Wolf-Rüdiger Schleidgen (vol. I: 1223–1368 and vol. II: 1368–1394) and Heike Preuss (vol. III: 1394–1416). Siegburg 1983, 1986 and 2003, cited as KMU.
• Theodor Joseph Lacomblet: Document book for the history of the Lower Rhine or the Archbishopric of Cöln, the principalities of Jülich and Berg, Geldern, Meurs, Cleve and Mark, and the imperial monasteries of Elten, Essen and Werden. 4 Vol. Düsseldorf 1840–1858 (2nd reprint of the Düsseldorf edition 1858) cited as Lac, here Vol. 3 (originally 1853): 1301–1400 and Vol. 4 (originally 1858): 1401–1609.
• Regest of the Archbishops of Cologne in the Middle Ages. 12 vols. Bonn et al. 1901–2001 (= publications of the Society for Rhenish History, vol. 21), cited as REK, here:

Vol. 7, Düsseldorf 1982: edited by Wilhelm Janssen: 1362-1370 (Adolf von der Mark, Engelbert von der Mark, Kuno von Falkenstein),

Vol. 8, Düsseldorf 1981: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: 1370-1380 (Friedrich von Saar Werden),

Vol. 9, Düsseldorf 1983: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: 1380-1390 (Friedrich von Saar Werden),

Vol. 10, Düsseldorf 1987: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: 1391–1400 (Friedrich von Saar Werden),

Vol. 11, Düsseldorf 1992: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: 1401–1410 (Friedrich von Saar Werden),

Vol. 12/1, Düsseldorf 1995: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: 1411–1414 (Friedrich von Saar Werden),

Vol. 12/2, Düsseldorf 2001: Ed. By Norbert Andernach: index of names and subjects for volumes 8–12.1. (1378-1414).

• Heinrich Volbert Sauerland (edit.): Documents and regesta on the history of the Rhineland from the Vatican archive. 7 vols. Bonn 1902–1913 (vols. VI and VII edited by H. Timme), here:

Vol. 5, 1910: 1362-1378,

Vol. 6, 1912: 1379-1399,

Vol. 7, 1913: 1400-1415.

Representations

• Max Barkhausen: How Linn became Cologne. A contribution to the territorial history of the Lower Rhine in the 13th and 14th centuries. In: Ders .: From territorial and economic history. Selected essays . Krefeld 1963, pp. 34-55.
• Max Barkhausen: The Counts of Moers as a type of small territorial lords of the late Middle Ages. In: Ders .: From territorial and economic history. Selected essays . Krefeld 1963, pp. 56-107.
• Karlotto Bogumil: The city of Cologne, Archbishop Friedrich von Saar Werden and the papal curia during the first years of the great occidental schism (1375-1387) . In: Hugo Stehkämper (ed.): Cologne, the Reich and Europe. Treatises on extensive interrelationships of the city of Cologne in politics, law and economy in the Middle Ages . Cologne 1971 (= messages from the city archive of Cologne, vol. 60), pp. 279–303.
• Georg Droege : Constitution and economy in Kurköln under Dietrich von Moers (1414–1463) . Bonn 1957 (= Rheinisches Archiv vol. 50) (also Diss. University of Bonn 1955).
• Georg Droege: The Duchy of Cologne. In: Wolf-Dieter Mohrmann (Hrsg.): Heinrich the lion. Göttingen 1980, pp. 275-304.
• Georg Droege: The ducal power in Westphalia. In: Peter Berghaus and Siegfried Kessemeier (eds.): Cologne - Westphalia 1180–1980. State history between the Rhine and Weser . Münster 1980, pp. 220-225.
• Leonhard Ennen :  Friedrich III. (Archbishop of Cologne) . In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 7, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1877, pp. 538-543.
• Jens Friedhoff : Lechenich Castle in the context of the late medieval residence development in the Archbishopric of Cologne. In: Annals of the Historical Association for the Lower Rhine . Vol. 204, 2001, pp. 125-155.
• Robert Haaß :  Friedrich III., Count of Saar Werden. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 5, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1961, ISBN 3-428-00186-9 , p. 511 f. ( Digitized version ).
• Aenne Hansmann: History of the city and office of Zons. With a contribution by Artur Elicker, Jakob Justenhoven and Herbert Milz. Düsseldorf 1973.
• Hans-Walter Herrmann : History of the County of Saar Werden up to 1527. 2 volumes, Saarbrücken 1957–1962, also dissertation, Saarbrücken 1959.
• Wilhelm Janssen : On the administration of the Archbishopric of Cologne under Archbishop Walram von Jülich (1332-1349) . In: Hans Blum (Hrsg.): From Cologne and Rhenish history. Celebration by Arnold Güttsche. (= Publications by the Kölner Geschichtsverein 29) Cologne 1969, pp. 1-40.
• Wilhelm Janssen: Charles IV. And the lands on the Lower Rhine and Lower Untermaas. In: Blätter für Deutsche Landesgeschichte. Vol. 114, 1978, pp. 203-241.
• Wilhelm Janssen: The Archbishopric of Cologne in Westphalia. In: Peter Berghaus and Siegfried Kessemeier (eds.): Cologne - Westphalia 1180–1980. State history between the Rhine and Weser. Münster 1980, pp. 136-142.
• Wilhelm Janssen: The mensa episcopalis of the Cologne archbishops in the late Middle Ages. In: Hans Patze (ed.): The manorial rule in the late Middle Ages. 2 Vol. Sigmaringen 1983 (= Administration and Research Vol. 27), Vol. I, pp. 313–341.
• Wilhelm Janssen: The office of the Archbishops of Cologne in the late Middle Ages. In: Gabriel Silagi (Hrsg.): Sovereign law firms in the late Middle Ages. Lectures on VI. International Congress for Diplomacy. Munich 1983. Part-Vol. I. Munich 1984 (= Munich contributions to Medieval Studies and Renaissance Research, Vol. 35), pp. 147–169.
• Wilhelm Janssen: The bishop, imperial prince and sovereign (14th and 15th centuries). In: Peter Berglar and Odilo Engels (eds.): The bishop in his time. Bishop type and ideal as reflected in the Cologne Church. Festival ceremony for Joseph Cardinal Höffner, Archbishop of Cologne. Cologne 1986, ISBN 978-3-7616-0862-3 , pp. 185-244.
• Wilhelm Janssen: Participation rights and claims of the Cologne cathedral chapter in the government of the archbishopric during the later Middle Ages. In: Bonner Geschichtsblätter . Vol. 42, 1992, pp. 71-92.
• Wilhelm Janssen: Episcopus et dux, animarum pastor et dominus temporalis. Comments on the problems of the clerical principality using the example of Cologne. In: Wilhelm Janssen, Wolfgang Herborn and Marlene Nikolay-Panter (ed.): Historical regional studies of the Rhineland. Regional findings and cross-spatial perspectives. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna 1994, pp. 216–235.
• Wilhelm Janssen: History of the Archdiocese of Cologne. 5 vol. Cologne 1987-2003, here vol. 2, part vol. 1 (1995): The Archdiocese of Cologne in the late Middle Ages 1191–1515.
• Wilhelm Janssen: The Lower Rhine Territories in the Late Middle Ages. Political history and constitutional development 1300–1500. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter , Vol. 64, 2000, pp. 45–167.
• Wilhelm Janssen: Observations on the structure and financing of the Electoral Cologne court in the late 14th and 15th centuries. In: Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter , Vol. 69, 2005, pp. 104–132.
• Willi Nikolay: The formation of the corporate constitution in Geldern and Brabant during the 13th and 14th centuries. A contribution to the consolidation of medieval territories in the northwest of the Old German Empire. Bonn 1985 (= Rheinisches Archiv 118).
• Josef Niesen : Bonn Personal Lexicon. Bouvier, Bonn 2007, ISBN 978-3-416-03159-2 .
• Friedrich Pfeiffer: Rhenish transit tariffs in the Middle Ages. Berlin 1997 (also Diss. Trier 1996).
• Friedrich Pfeiffer: transit tariffs 1000–1500. Cologne 2000 (= Historical Atlas of the Rhineland, Supplement VII / 10).
• Sabine Picot: Electoral Cologne territorial policy on the Rhine under Archbishop Friedrich von Saar Werden 1370–1414. Bonn 1977 (= Rheinisches Archiv vol. 99) (also Diss. Uni. Bonn 1975).
• Monika Storm: The metropolitan violence of the Cologne archbishops in the Middle Ages up to Dietrich von Moers. Siegburg 1995 (= Studies on Cologne Church History, Vol. 29).
• Erich Wisplinghoff: History of the city of Neuss from its medieval beginnings to the year 1794. Neuss 1975.
• Christoph Waldecker : Friedrich von Saar Werden (1348–1414). In: Lebensbilder from the Neuss district 4. Dormagen 1999. pp. 32–43.
• Christoph Waldecker:  Friedrich III. from Saar Werden. In: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). Volume 23, Bautz, Nordhausen 2004, ISBN 3-88309-155-3 , Sp. 433-438.

Remarks

1. ↑ The article is based almost exclusively on the standard work on Friedrich III, which is still valid today. von Saar Werden, namely Sabine Picot's dissertation from 1974/75. Picot's research is to collect all available information about Friedrich and to publish it in her dissertation. Where there were deviations from this or additions made, this is indicated by a reference to secondary literature. The sources she used were published a few years later by Norbert Andernach, which is why the footnotes do not refer to the pages in Picot's work, but directly to the sources.
2. ↑ Picot, pp. 33f.
3. ↑ See REK VII, No. 819, p. 211.
4. ↑ See REK VII, No. 822, p. 214 f.
5. ↑ "sit minor annis et in administracionibus ac negotiis ecclesiasticis incumbentibus minus expertus et vita conversatio et mores sui prefato domino nostro et nobis penitus sunt ignoti", Sauerland V, no. 626, p. 241 f.
6. ↑ See Sauerland V, No. 627-32 and 636 (7-11, November 22, 1368), pp. 242-47 and 249f.
7. ↑ Cf. Sauerland V, No. 638 (December 14, 1368), p. 250f.
8. ↑ Picot, p. 40.
9. ↑ See Sauerland V, S. CXLVIII f. with reference to. No. 682
10. ↑ See REK VII, No. 913-915, p. 249 f.
11. ↑ See Sauerland V, No. 674 (abridged), p. 266. = REK VII, No. 1003, p. 271.
12. ↑ Picot, pp. 42f.
13. ↑ See Sauerland V, No. 680 (abridged), p. 268f. = REK VIII, No. 2, p. 3.
14. ↑ See Sauerland V, No. 760–765 and 769, p. 296 ff. And p. 300.
15. ↑ See Sauerland V, S. CXLVII.
16. ↑ See Sauerland V, no. 834, p. 324 = REK VII, no. 79, p. 28 f.
17. ↑ See Sauerland V, no. 837, p. 325 and REK VIII, no. 130, p. 40.
18. ↑ ^{a b} Picot, p. 48.
19. ↑ See Sauerland V, S. CXLIXff.
20. ↑ See Jacob von Soest in REK XII, No. 1087, p. 358 f.
21. ↑ "non solum prudenter et oportune sed etiam importune" as the ads Engelberts were called in Avignon in a papal letter, see. SAUERLAND V, No. 179 (July 1, 1363), p. 60f. = REK VII, No. 23, p. 7.
22. ↑ Cf. REK VII, No. 1, p. 1 with reference to Cronica presulum, here p. 45f. and Cronica van der hilligen stat van Coellen, p. 692.
23. ↑ See REK VII, No. 36 (October 1, 1363), p. 10, cf. LAC. III, No. 645, pp. 545f. and cf. REK VII, No. 46, p. 13. The document is silent about the content of the provisions; Sauerland already suspected that unclean financial severance payments made the agreement possible. See Sauerland V, p. CXXXIV.
24. ↑ See REK VII, No. 106, p. 31 f. and cf. Revers p. No. 110, p. 33.
25. ↑ See Sauerland V, No. 252, p. 97 f. = REK VIII, No. 118, p. 36. Compared to the long vacancy before, high financial commitments in the agreement in February must have accelerated the decision of the curia. Perhaps, however, it was also the prospect of the fees for three translations and a bishop's collection that graced Avignon: Engelbert's reshuffle was followed by the transfer of Johann van Arkel from Utrecht to Liège , cf. REK VII, No. 120 (April 15, 1364), p. 37 and SAUERLAND V, No. 255 (April 22, 1364, abridged), p. 99 f. = REK VII, No. 122, p. 37. Utrecht was occupied by Johann von Virneburg, cf. REK VII, No. 123 (April 24, 1364), p. 37. Finally, the mediator Florence von Wevelinghoven was able to look forward to being raised to the vacant bishopric of Münster, cf. Sauerland V, No. 258 (April 24, 1364), p. 100 f.
26. ↑ Cf. Droege: The financial bases, p. 149 f. and note 13. Since these figures are based on the valuation of the year 1460, direct regular taxes were not yet common in the late 14th century, the proportion of customs duties in the 14th century will have to be estimated even higher, cf. also Janssen: mensa episcopalis, p. 328f.
27. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 671 (abridged), p. 569 f. = cf. Sauerland V (abridged), No. 550, p. 205 f. = REK VII, No. 544, pp. 145-149.
28. ↑ Cf. REK VII, No. 544, pp. 145–49, here p. 146.
29. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 706, p. 604 f. = KMU II, No. 26, p. 16 f. The extent to which the two installments of June 24, 1372 and 1373 were paid cannot be determined.
30. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 716, p. 611 f. = KMU II, No. 37, p. 23 f. and Revers No. 38, p. 24. Whether the full amount has actually been paid out can be doubted because the pledge sums had a fictitious value that did not correspond to the actual value of the pledge.
31. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 691 (September 23, 1369), p. 593 f. = KMU II, No. 9, p. 7 ff.
32. ↑ See REK VIII, no. 733, p. 180 ff., Here p. 181 = KMU II, no. 46, p. 30–33, here p. 31.
33. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 737 (abridged), p. 633 = REK VIII, No. 846, p. 209.
34. ↑ See appointment of Johann von Holzbüttgen with the two offices by the administrator Kuno REK VII, No. 886 and 887, p. 237 f. and receipt of Adolf von der Mark for the pledge amount of 9,000 gold shields REK VII, No. 899 (June 8, 1369), p. 246.
35. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1107 (December 9, 1374), p. 296.
36. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 957 (February 3, 1374), p. 248.
37. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 791, p. 197.
38. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 977 and 979, pp. 253f. The Jews of Cologne were supposed to repay 2,000 guilders, cf. REK VIII, No. 978 and 980, s. 254 f., The rest of the archbishop took over, whereby the repayment was delayed considerably. Because in 1380 an advance amount of 1,000 guilders was still paid and the remaining amount was not acknowledged until 1381, cf. REK VIII, No. 2373, p. 643 and REK IX, No. 241, p. 61.
39. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 749, p. 187.
40. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1010, p. 264.
41. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1012 (July 1, 1374), p. 264 f. For payment receipts REK VIII, No. 465 (January 20, 1372), 642 (July 7, 1372), 737 (October 4, 1372), 812 (January 1373), 844 (May 9, 1373), pp. 116, 158 , 183, 202 and 209.
42. ↑ Cf. REK VIII, No. 1089 (November 14, 1374), p. 289 and reverse from the same day No. 1090, p. 290. For the assumption that the two customs duties of Zons and Rheinberg only after the account of 1 July 1374, the argument speaks that they would otherwise have been listed in the accounts. In the case of Pfeiffer: Transitzölle , p. 13f. It is by no means improbable to achieve the 14,329 guilders in revenue specified in the regest within four months, as listed in the income level of the customs duties for Bonn, Rheinberg and Zons. With the Lübeck loan, this is the only loan that promptly confirms the release of Rheinberg.
43. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1079 (November 11, 1374), p. 285 f.
44. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1436 (June 10, 1376), p. 403 f., Note 1.
45. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1456, pp. 409f. and Janssen: Structure and Financing, p. 121.
46. ↑ See the reverse of the document of June 28, 1376 in REK VIII, No. 1458 (June 30, 1376), p. 410.
47. ↑ See VR VI, No. 30, p. 22 f. See REK VIII, No. 2285, p. 624 f. and cf. Sauerland V, S. CLI-CLIX.
48. ↑ See Picot, p. 219.
49. ↑ See REK XII, No. 1087, p. 358 f., Note 2.
50. ↑ cf. Janssen: “Chancellery”, 152f.
51. ↑ See Janssen: Verwaltung des Erzstiftes Köln, p. 12f.
52. ↑ Janssen: Chancellery, 158.
53. ↑ See Janssen: Kanzlei, pp. 162, 165.
54. ↑ Cf. Nikolai: Formation of the Estates Constitution.
55. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 575, pp. 141f.
56. ↑ See REK IX, No. 269-72 (January 22, 1382), 277 and 278 (January 26, 1382), pp. 66-71.
57. ↑ See Picot, pp. 194-201.
58. ↑ See Picot, p. 199.
59. ↑ See Picot, pp. 186f.
60. ↑ See Picot, pp. 137-147.
61. ↑ See Picot, pp. 176-186.
62. ↑ See Vahrenhold-Huland, Uta: Foundations and emergence of the territory of the county of Mark. Dortmund 1968 (= monographs of the historical association for Dortmund and the Grafschaft Mark), p. 123f. with reference to Lac. III, nos. 112, 163 and 694.
63. ↑ See Wilhelm Janssen: A rural union of cities in Cologne from the years 1362/63. In: Werner Besch ua (Hrsg.): The city in European history: Festschrift for Edith Ennen . Röhrscheid, Bonn 1972, pp. 391-403.
64. ↑ See Picot, pp. 313-27, especially pp. 325ff.
65. ↑ In April 2010 a bronze monument was erected to him in Zons due to the granting of city rights in 1373 ( Westdeutsche Zeitung: A monument for the founder of Zons ).
66. ↑ Cf. Wisplinghoff: Stadt Neuss, pp. 82–89 and cf. REK VIII, No. 907 and 1625.
67. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 768, pp. 667ff. and cf. REK VIII, No. 1211, pp. 337f.
68. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1254, p. 341f.
69. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1260, pp. 357f.
70. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1596, p. 449.
71. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1625, pp. 458ff.
72. ↑ See REK X, No. 418, 439, 453, 459 and 474.
73. ↑ See Axel Kolodziej : Duke Wilhelm I von Berg (1380-1408) . (= Sources and research on the history of the mountains, art and literature, vol. 29) Neustadt ad A. 2005, p. 90.
74. ^ Janssen: The Archdiocese of Cologne, p. 250.
75. ↑ Monika Storm: The Duchy of Westphalia, Vest Recklinghausen and the Rhenish Archbishopric of Cologne: Kurköln in its parts. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Westphalia: The Electorate of Cologne Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia up to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009.
76. ↑ Cf. Max Janssen: The ducal power of the archbishops of Cologne in Westphalia from the year 1180 to the end of the 14th century. Munich 1895 (= historical treatises vol. 7), p. 126 and cf. Joseph Korte: The Westphalian Marshal's Office. Münster 1909 (= Munster contributions to historical research, vol. 33), p. 21.
77. ↑ Cf. REK VII, No. 727, p. 187. Contrary to the verdict in the document, Count Engelbert kept the castle.
78. ↑ Cf. Albert K. Hömberg: The Counts of Arnsberg. In: Ders .: Between the Rhine and the Weser. Essays and lectures on the history of Westphalia. Münster 1967, pp. 47–61, here p. 59.
79. ↑ See Wilfried Ehbrecht: Die Grafschaft Arnsberg . In: Peter Berghaus and Siegfried Kessemeier (eds.): Cologne - Westphalia 1180–1980. State history between the Rhine and Weser . Münster 1980, pp. 174–179, here p. 177.
80. ↑ See Wilfried Ehbrecht: Die Grafschaft Arnsberg. In: Peter Berghaus and Siegfried Kessemeier (eds.): Cologne - Westphalia 1180–1980. State history between the Rhine and Weser. Münster 1980, pp. 174–179, here: Stammtafel p. 178.
81. ↑ See REK VII, No. 821 (25 August 1368), p. 212 ff.
82. ↑ See REK VII, No. 900-905, p. 246 f.
83. ↑ See Johann Suibert Seibertz: Document book for the state and legal history of the Duchy of Westphalia. 3. Vol. Arnsberg 1839-1854, here Vol. II (1843): 1300-1400, No. 800 and 801, p. 548 ff. REK VII, No. 908 and 909, p. 247 f.
84. ↑ See Seibertz, Johann Suibert: Document book for the regional and legal history of the Duchy of Westphalia. 3. Vol. Arnsberg 1839–1854, here Vol. II (1843): 1300–1400, No. 801, p. 549 ff., Here p. 549.
85. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 449, p. 113.
86. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 874, p. 217 ff., Here p. 219.
87. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 939 (1373), p. 243 f.
88. ↑ See Picot, p. 113f.
89. ↑ See Picot, p. 116.
90. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1515 and 1516 (September 5, 1376), p. 427ff.
91. ↑ The feud is mentioned in an amendment to the contract between Friedrich von Saar Werden and Wilhelm von Jülich, Duke of Geldern and Count of Zutphen (cf. REK VIII, No. 2227, p. 609).
92. ↑ See LAC. III, No. 810, p. 713 f.
93. ↑ See LAC. III, No. 843, p. 739.
94. ↑ LAC. III, No. 811, p. 714 = REK VIII, No. 1891, p. 518.
95. ↑ See LAC. III, No. 888, p. 782 f. = REK IX, No. 934, p. 233.
96. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 640 (July 6, 1372), p. 157.
97. ↑ Cf. REK IX, No. 738 (February 28, 1384), p. 181. The fact that Otto still made formal claims to Kleve can be seen from the formula “Adolf von der Mark, who calls himself Count von Kleve. “The Archbishop did not repeat this formula, cf. Revers REK IX, No. 747 (March 6, 1384), p. 185.
98. ↑ See LAC. III, No. 892, p. 785 f. = REK IX, No. 976, p. 243 f.
99. ↑ See REK IX, No. 1736 (1388), p. 462 i. V. m. REK IX, No. 1630-1632, p. 435 ff.
100. ↑ See KMU II, No. 257 (before November 11, 1391), p. 154 f.
101. ↑ See REK X, No. 13, p. 3 f.
102. ↑ See REK X, No. 65 (June), p. 22.
103. ↑ See REK X, No. 149 (1391), p. 47.
104. ↑ See REK X, No. 77, p. 27.
105. ↑ See REK X, No. 82 (August 31, 1391), p. 28 ff.
106. ↑ See LAC. III, No. 965, p. 847 f. = REK X, No. 175, p. 55 f. = KMU II, No. 262, pp. 160 ff. With provisions for the release of prisoners.
107. ↑ See REK X, No. 205, p. 66 f. In addition to Adolf von Kleve, his sons Adolf and Dietrich as well as Adolf's brother Dietrich von der Mark, Herr von Dinslaken, made this waiver. The waiver should also be made by Adolf's underage children when they reach the age of majority, cf. REK X, No. 206, p. 68.
108. ↑ See REK X, No. 179 and 182, pp. 60 f.
109. ↑ Cf. REK X, No. 228 (May 2, 1392) note 1 and 279 (August 7, 1392), 81 f. and p. 107.
110. ↑ Cf. Peter Moraw : From an open constitution to a designed compression. The Empire in the Late Middle Ages, 1250 to 1490 . Berlin 1985.
111. ↑ Cf. Picot, p. 77: If one compares these privileges acquired by Friedrich with those which his Rhenish co-electoral princes received during this time, one notices a conspicuous accumulation of privileges for Kurköln ... The privilege policy of the emperor as well as the appointment of the Cologne resident Archbishops as imperial vicar give the impression that the Cologne resident was particularly favored and courted here. This favor was certainly given in view of the planned election of Wenceslas; it was aimed at the future king elector.
112. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 1936 and 1937 (July 11, 1378), p. 530.
113. ↑ See Lac. III, nos. 728 and 782.
114. ↑ Cf. PICOT: Friedrich von Saar Werden, p. 83, note 46.
115. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 2152, pp. 594f.
116. ↑ Cf. Picot: pp. 76f, 80f and 91.
117. ↑ Janssen: Friedrich III. from Saar Werden. In: Erwin Gatz (Ed.): The Dioceses of the Holy Roman Empire from 1198 to 1448. Berlin 2001, p. 283ff, here p. 284.
118. ↑ See Neidiger, B .: Friedrich III. v. Saar Werden, Ebf. and Kfs. v. Cologne. In: Lexicon of the Middle Ages. 10 vols. Stuttgart, Munich and Zurich 1977–1999, here vol. IV, col. 963–964, here col. 964.
119. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 2053 (February 27, 1379), p. 566f.
120. ↑ See Janssen: Das Erzbistum Köln, p. 253.
121. ↑ SAARWERDEN, Friedrich von. In: Salvador Miranda : The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. ( Florida International University website ), accessed July 1, 2011.
122. ↑ See Lac. III, No. 787, pp. 690f. = REK VIII, No. 1522, p. 430f. and Picot: “In what way Archbishop Friedrich made use of this right, which one can say that it almost brought him co-administration powers in Moers, cannot be determined ... The marriage of 1376 created the basis for a close relationship von Kurköln and Moers… Count Friedrich von Moers often appeared as an arbitrator and mediator on the part of Kurköln, for example in the case of tensions between Kurköln in 1393 with Jülich-Geldern and the city of Cologne, with the Mark 1398 or 1392 with Kleve. "
123. ↑ See REK VIII, No. 2138, pp. 590f.
124. ↑ Cf. Friedhelm Jürgensmeier: Jofrid (Gottfried) von Leiningen (around 1365? - 1410 at the earliest). In: Erwin Gatz (Ed.): The Dioceses of the Holy Roman Empire from 1198 to 1448. Berlin 2001, p. 413.
125. ↑ See Wolfgang Seibrach: Werner von Falkenstein and Königstein (around 1361-1418). In: Erwin Gatz (Ed.): The Dioceses of the Holy Roman Empire from 1198 to 1448. Berlin 2001, p. 806f, here p. 806.
126. ↑ Herrmann, Vol. 1, p. 302, No. 793.
127. ↑ Levold von Northof and Kölner Jahrbücher, quoted from Janssen: Das Erzbistum Köln, p. 73.

predecessor	Office	successor
Engelbert III. from the mark	Elector Archbishop of Cologne 1370–1414	Dietrich II of Moers

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on June 2, 2011 in this version .