Friedrich von Isenberg

Ornamental stones from the Isenburg near Hattingen with the Isenburg rose , Friedrich von Isenberg's coat of arms

Friedrich von Isenberg , Count von Isenberg, also called Friedrich de Novus Ponte (* before 1193; †  November 14, 1226 in Cologne ), was the son of Arnold von Altena , the Count of Altena († after 1205) and Mechthild von Holland (other Sources also name Mathilde von Holland or Mathilde von Cleve as a wife). His ancestral seat was Isenberg Castle near Hattingen . He had his second uncle Engelbert I von Berg , the Archbishop of Cologne, attacked by followers on November 7, 1225 in a narrow road in what is now Gevelsberg . Because the archbishop was critically injured in the fight and died shortly afterwards, Friedrich von Isenberg was arrested and executed after a long flight.

Career

It is difficult to describe the life of Friedrich from the von Isenberg family , as the sources are very sketchy. Therefore, there are often contradicting representations in the literature. It starts with the fact that Friedrich von Isenberg's year of birth is unknown. Friedrich is believed to have been born between 1186 and 1193; the information on this varies.

Friedrich's father, Arnold von Altena , had a total of ten children, nine sons and one daughter. As was customary in the Middle Ages, Arnold's eldest son, Eberhard II von Altena (also called Everhard), was to succeed him. Arnold von Altena was, like his ancestors, Vogt of the Werden monastery , Vogt of the Essen monastery and other monasteries. He also held the title of Count von Berg-Altena and had held the rank of Count von Hövel since 1180 . In this role he had the castle and town of Nienbrügge , the predecessor settlement of today's city of Hamm , expanded in order to better manage and control the county of Hövel. Arnold's possessions also included Warendorf , Beckum , Ahlen / Westf., The Krumme Grafschaft near Dortmund (excluding the city of Dortmund) and the southern part of the county of Bochum. Friedrich's brother Eberhard was made co-ruler of all these goods during Arnold's lifetime.

There are different information in the literature about the exact time of death of Arnold von Altenas, which cover a period of about three years. According to Joseph Prinz , Friedrich's father died on May 3rd, 1206 or 1207. Josef Lappe from Lünen also dates Arnold's death to the year 1207. Genealogy Middle Ages names the year 1209 as the year of death, without giving any details about the exact time. According to Reinhold Stirnberg, Arnold died at the beginning of 1209. Ribhegge, on the other hand, reports that Arnold and his eldest son Eberhard took part in the Albigensian Crusade in 1209 and both died in the process. Since the crusader army only gathered in the middle of the year 1209, according to this version, the time of death could not have been until the second half of the year 1209.

In any case, it seems certain that Arnold von Altena died before his son Eberhard.

Friedrich von Isenberg was actually intended for a spiritual career. The only contemporary source for this is the Engelbert's vita of Caesarius von Heisterbach . This source gives neither the year nor the exact function of Friedrich von Isenberg. According to Stirnberg, Friedrich was canon of Cologne until 1209. Obviously in response to the father's death, he had to retire from the clergy to secure rule if necessary. He entered the knighthood and became co-regent of the brother. He was also awarded the rank of count.

Stirnberg expressly points out that the occurrence of the inheritance could already have been foreseen in 1209 and that Friedrich's retirement from his church office and entry into secular rule was due to the fact that his brother Eberhard, presumably not more than twenty years old, was not at that time Had children. There would be no other explanation for Friedrich's withdrawal from the church office. With only twenty years of age Eberhard would have had enough time under normal circumstances to found a family himself and to secure the line of succession to the throne. Had no one expected his death, he would have assumed sole reign after the death of his father without affecting Friedrich's further career. Since there is no evidence that Eberhard was seriously ill, this supports the assumption that he, like his father, fell on the Albigensian Crusade . The fighting in southern France, in which the experienced, older count had already died, was fought with unheard-of brutality on both sides, with no consideration for class privileges and high-ranking prisoners being killed very often; the danger for the younger son of the count could therefore hardly be overestimated. Friedrich's early appointment as Count should not only have served to secure the endangered succession, it was simply a reaction to the absence of Eberhard, who was on the crusade and therefore could not look after his lands - a task that Friedrich had took over in his place. However, there is no contemporary source confirming Arnold's participation in the Albigensian Crusade.

In fact, Friedrich's brother Eberhard died a short time later. Here, too, there are different details about the time of death. Stirnberg, Genealogy Middle Ages and Ribhegge all name the year 1209, Prince 22nd May 1210. From this point in time at the latest, Count Friedrich became sole ruler of the possessions of the Counts of Isenberg.

Friedrich's family was involved in the German throne dispute between the Guelph Otto IV and the Staufer and later Emperor Friedrich II over the imperial crown. There are also contradicting statements with regard to the positioning of family members in the two different camps.

It is undisputed that the father of Eberhard and Friedrich, Arnold von Altena, was in the camp of the Staufer King Philip.

The later Archbishop of Cologne, Engelbert I of Cologne , closely followed Archbishop Adolf I and with him went over to the Staufer side. In 1206 he was ordered by Pope Innocent III. banned and deposed. When Adolf I submitted to the Pope in 1208, Engelbert was also pardoned. He was now inclined to Otto IV. In 1212 he took part in the Albigensian Crusade and only finally sided with the Hohenstaufen after the Battle of Bouvines .

There is different information about his nephew Adolf I. von der Mark . After Stirnberg, Adolf von der Mark was on the side of the Staufer from the start. In other sources it is said that Adolf wavered in the German succession controversy and only finally fought on the side of the Staufer in 1212. By 1225, Adolf von der Mark seems to have established himself as a loyal follower of the Staufer Emperor and the Archbishop of Cologne. After the destruction of Nienbrügge, he received a large part of the property of his cousin Friedrich von Isenberg.

Friedrich von Isenberg was, at least initially, on the side of Otto IV the Guelph, at least until 1212. As a representative of the Berg-Altena family, he went with Otto IV on the military campaign to Italy. Later he moved to the camp of Friedrich II. Des Staufers. The literature disagrees as to exactly when and under what circumstances this happened.

According to Stirnberg, Friedrich von Isenberg was one of the Guelphs' followers until Otto's defeat in the Battle of Bouvines. When Otto was defeated by the Hohenstaufen King Friedrich II in the battle for the imperial crown , Count Friedrich von Altena moved to Stirnberg, like many nobles, the fronts. This view is also represented in the presentation of the history of the city of Hattingen. Stirnberg supports his assumption with the argument that Friedrich von Isenberg married Sophia von Limburg, the daughter of Walram III (Count of Luxembourg and from 1221 Duke of Limburg an der Maas) in 1214. For the Limburgers it is clearly proven that they supported Otto in the succession dispute. According to Stirnberg, the fronts in the conflict at that time were so hardened and the camps so hostile that it was almost unthinkable that someone would marry into a large aristocratic house if he himself was on the other side in the throne dispute. Under no circumstances could Friedrich have married the daughter of a family that supported the Guelphs had he not been in the Guelph camp himself.

According to Josef Lothmann and Eduard Winkelmann , Friedrich von Isenberg was to be found in the camp of Frederick II's supporters as early as 1213. This representation is also supported by the genealogy of the Middle Ages, where Friedrich's move to the Hohenstaufen camp is dated to 1212. It is questionable why Friedrich should have changed fronts at such an earlier point in time; the outcome of the succession to the throne was certainly not yet reliably predictable in 1212. However, this representation is supported by a document from the then Archbishop of Cologne, Adolf von Altena, in which Friedrich von Isenberg appeared as a witness together with his cousin Adolf von der Mark as early as 1213. Apparently Friedrich von Isenberg had himself integrated into the Altenaic family interests as early as 1213.

Engelbert I of Cologne , cousin of the father of Count Friedrich von Isenberg, quickly rose to become the most powerful man in Westphalia under Emperor Friedrich II. In later years he was imperial administrator in Germany.

Conflict with the Archbishop of Cologne

Count Friedrich had a conflict of interest with his second uncle, Count Engelbert von Berg , the Archbishop of Cologne .

causes

The conflict between Friedrich and Engelbert had its cause in the archbishop's striving for power. He wanted to expand the Cologne areas further and further in the north-east and thus attracted the opposition of Friedrich, who also wanted to enlarge his area. In the course of time, the Counts of Altena understood how to take control of many estates north of the Lippe (Lüdinghausen, Selm, Werne, Uentrop, Haaren, Herringen - later due to the change of the Lippe river bed) and south of the Lippe (Altena) bring. In order to extend their rule far into the Münsterland, they had to be able to cross the Lippe at any time. For this purpose they built castles as bridgeheads on the north bank of the Lippe. So far, the Counts of Altena had stood on the side of the Archbishops of Cologne, but changed the front when the Archbishop tried to establish a north-west German state that would also have included southern Westphalia.

Archbishop Engelbert also had a dispute with the Limburgers , in whose house Friedrich had married in 1214, a dispute that probably also originated in the different positions of the conflicting parties in the German throne dispute - the hostilities established there survived the decisive battle. In several feuds with Limburg and Kleve, Engelbert was able to prevent the family inheritance of the Counts von Berg, who had no male descendants, from falling to his niece Irmgard von Berg, who had married Heinrich von Limburg in 1217. When Count Adolf III. von Berg died in 1218, Engelbert quickly declared himself Count von Berg and moved to Berg Castle (today Burg Castle ). The opposition between Friedrich and Engelbert was thereby further fanned; after all, Heinrich von Limburg was the brother of Friedrich's wife Sophia.

In 1216 new elections were ordered on the orders of the Pope to fill the post of Archbishop of Cologne. Engelbert von Berg was elected archbishop against the will of Limburg. He destroyed a Limburg castle that was built without the necessary consent of the Archbishops of Cologne.

In 1217 the Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne enfeoffed his nephew Count Friedrich with the Isenberg Castle. Friedrich then moved away from Nienbrügge to Isenberg Castle near Hattingen and called himself Graf von Isenberg.

In other respects, Engelbert pulled the reins tighter than his predecessors. During the years of his rule he was informed by the abbess of the imperial monastery in Essen that Count Friedrich von Altena, who held the bailiwick of the monastery, had blackmailed the monastery-owned people who managed the estates. The archbishop initially did not respond to this request out of consideration for the family. Therefore, the abbess turned to the emperor and then to the pope on the matter. Since the Pope had received further complaints from other monasteries and monasteries about their bailiffs, he ordered on March 1, 1221 that Engelbert had to ensure that the church bailiffs of the Cologne church province are satisfied with the income they have received from ages. Another letter dated on the same day, in which Pope Engelbert and his suffrage (ministerial officials) allowed church bailiffs, which the bailiffs pledged to others to harm the churches, to pledge themselves.

On March 15, the Pope ordered Engelbert and his suffragans to forbid churches to re-assign bailiffs that became vacant or to take several bailiffs in order to avoid oppression by the bailiffs. From now on Engelbert was concerned with the matter. He noticed that even the prince-bishop of Paderborn took part in the exploitation of his subordinates. Since this seemed too strong for an open conflict, Engelbert incited the citizens of the diocese against the prince-bishop residing in Paderborn and demanded that they refuse to obey his opponent. Since the request was unsuccessful, the archbishop had storm castles built on the territory of Cologne, including on the properties of the feudal estates along the Hellweg to Paderborn, so that the goods intended for Paderborn would no longer be allowed into the prince-bishop's territory .

The prince-bishop of Paderborn could not withstand the pressure for long. In 1223 he gave up blackmailing his subjects. However, this did not apply to the smaller noblemen who continued the blackmail. The attempt at a peaceful agreement failed. Friedrich even refused a compensation payment from Engelbert's private fortune. The Pope asked for the matter to be clarified.

Landtag in Soest

Engelbert convened a state parliament in Soest in November 1225 to clarify this . All nobles of Westphalia and Engern accepted this invitation. The mood was heated, as Engelbert had almost the entire nobility against him through his practice of conquering land and restricting the power of others. During the joint discussion in this state parliament, the archbishop threatened the Worms Concordat of 1122 and 1213, which included that the secular counts and nobles could be disempowered by church ministers. This warning aroused great resentment among various counts and nobles. Friedrich tried in vain to reach a peaceful agreement with his uncle Engelbert von Berg regarding the bailiwick of the imperial abbey of Essen, which Friedrich, after complaints at the time, abused self-interested and to their detriment. The meeting in Soest had to be broken off without any results.

Count Friedrich von Isenberg, who, like the other nobles, feared for his independence, subsequently came together for a conspiratorial meeting with other nobles, on whom Engelbert put pressure on the matter mentioned. The nobles feared they would lose the income they had from occasional blackmail. In the event that they did not fail to exploit their subordinates, the archbishop threatened them to withdraw their inherited bailiwick rights. Much of Friedrich's possessions were based on such rights. Registered in the two Isenberg Vogteirollen there are 36 upper courts with 1,440 farm estates in 905 locations that belonged to his inherited bailiwick . His other private property only comprised 19 upper courts. In this case, Friedrich would be impoverished in one fell swoop, but it would have looked similar with the other victims. As a result, Friedrich took the lead in the resistance against the Archbishop of Cologne.

Assault on Archbishop Engelbert

After the negotiations with the archbishop in Soest were broken off without result, Friedrich made the decision in November 1225 to take his opponent prisoner on the journey home to Cologne and thus impose his will on him. He is said to have been instigated by the Duke of Limburg, the Count of Arnsberg and the Count of Tecklenburg. There are some indications that Friedrich wanted to take Engelbert hostage. Such a procedure was then one of the usual means of forcing an opponent to give in. A dead archbishop would only cause more trouble for him and his allies; Friedrich must have known that too.

In contrast, there is the only contemporary account of the events of Caesarius von Heisterbach and the notary of Friedrich von Isenberg.

The conspirators knew that the archbishop wanted to dedicate a church in Schwelm on November 9, 1225. Friedrich von Isenberg's men met on November 7th in the Gevelsberg Forest and looked for a ravine as a suitable raid point. When the bishop and his entourage passed this spot on the late afternoon of November 7th, they dared to attack. In the course of the ensuing tussle, the nobleman Gerwin von Rinkerode (according to other sources Giselher and Herenbert or Ricbert von und zu Schwerte) met the archbishop and killed him. Friedrich von Altena then fled and tried to go into hiding, but was later picked up.

consequences

The news of the murder of Archbishop Engelbert von Berg spread like wildfire. An uprising against the archbishopric by the towns and parishes , which the archbishop had built in a very short time along the Hellweg, was only a matter of time. Because the citizens of the cities and the parishes were not satisfied with the tough regime of the archbishop. An uprising raged across the country. The rebels welcomed Engelbert's murder, but at the same time were not loyal to the emperor, but instead sided with the pope. Various historians have speculated that Pope Honorius III. was satisfied with the murder of Archbishop Engelbert, since he was not a loyal to the Pope and stood on the emperor's side as the imperial administrator. However, there are some arguments against these assumptions. Engelbert's closeness to Friedrich II was glorified and overrated in the historiography of Romanticism. At the time of his assassination, the Pope and the Emperor were not in conflict, at least formally, but instead were preparing the crusade of Frederick II together . The contrasts only broke again after the death of the Pope under his successor, Gregory IX, who was elected in 1227 . with previously unknown sharpness. As a papal legate, Konrad von Urach stayed in Germany until 1226 , who cooperated closely with Engelbert and, after his murder, imposed the excommunication on Friedrich, called for his persecution, directed Engelbert's funeral in Cologne and referred to him as a martyr .

Engelbert's successor Heinrich von Molenark applied at the court conference in Nuremberg on December 1, 1225, to pronounce the eight over Friedrich II. Von Altena. The request was granted. It was decided that Isenberg Castle near Hattingen an der Ruhr and Nienbrügge Castle north of the Lippe and the accommodation of the brushwood south of the Lippe should be razed to the ground. The allodes should be fed. Friedrich was sentenced to death.

Friedrich's castles in Hattingen and Nienbrügge were besieged in the winter of 1225/26 under the new Archbishop of Cologne, Heinrich von Molenark , by Count Adolf I von der Mark , a nephew of Arnold, who had sided with the Cologne Archbishopric destroyed. Due to the destruction of Nienbrügge, the city of Hamm was finally founded.

In 1226 Friedrich traveled with his brothers Dietrich ( bishop in Munster ) and Engelbert ( bishop select in Osnabrück ), as well as the Isenberg “notary” to the curia in Rome . Dietrich and Engelbert wanted to reverse their suspension and be reinstated in their offices, but this did not happen. However, Frederick was apparently able to convince the Pope of his immediate innocence in the crime, since the ban on church imposed by Conrad was lifted in Rome. However , this did not change anything about Friedrich's freedom of birds and persecution in the empire.

On the way back he moved into Liège . There he was recognized by a noble named Baldwin of Gennep. This invited Friedrich to dinner and took him prisoner. He sold it to the Count of Geldern for 2,100 silver marks. Friedrich was brought to Cologne. The archbishop had offered a reward for the capture.

On November 14th, Friedrich was executed on the wheel at the Severinstor in Cologne . His arms and legs were smashed, then he was braided onto a wheel and displayed on a stone pillar. He died the following day and was left for the birds to eat. The tradition from the 16th century belongs to the realm of legend that his bones were buried in a chapel near Essen-Bredeney.

With the death of Friedrich, the county of Hövel , whose last heir was Friedrich, also became extinct .

His son Count Dietrich von Isenberg and his relatives fought for part of his father's property in the Isenberg turmoil . Dietrich founded the Count House Limburg and the County of Limburg near Hohenlimburg .

Manslaughter or murder?

According to recent research, Friedrich von Isenberg was one of the leading figures in an opposition by Westphalian and Rhenish nobles against Cologne Archbishop Engelbert von Berg , especially against his policy of warding off extortion from church institutions by these nobles in their function as their bailiffs.

In historical research and serious local research , there is disagreement as to whether it was murder or manslaughter (in the sense of the then legal definition of manslaughter as unintentional killing). According to the proponents of the homicide theory, Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne was to be arrested in order to enforce the political demands of the aristocratic opposition. This would correspond to the customs of a medieval feud policy.

For a feud, however, the previous notification of a feud (feud letter) is missing here. According to the law of the time - regardless of the question of murder or just manslaughter (both were subject to the death penalty at the time) - there was a breach of the peace , for which Count Friedrich von Isenberg could also be punished with death.

Marriage and offspring

Friedrich was married around 1214 to Sophie von Limburg († 1226), a daughter of Duke Walram IV of Limburg . She was the sister of Heinrich von Limburg, the son-in-law of Count Adolf III. von Berg was, and granddaughter of Heinrich III. from Limburg .

Your children were:

• Dietrich (* around 1212/1215; † 1301), married to Adelheid von Sayn († around 1297)
• Friedrich (* around 1213; † around 1243)
• Sophie (* around 1215; † 1291/1292) married to Heinrich III. of Volmestein († around 1250)
• Elisabeth (* around 1217; † around 1275) married Count Dietrich II of Moers around 1234
• Agnes (* around 1219; † 1282) married to Burkhard III. from Broich
• A daughter who is not known by name is assumed to be the second wife of Count Johann I von Sponheim and Sayn .

literature

• Heinrich Eversberg : Count Friedrich von Isenberg and the Isenburg 1193-1226 . Home u. History Association, Hattingen 1990.
• Harm Klueting : “There is no doubt that it is a split from Grafschaft Mark”. The county of Limburg from the 13th to the 19th century . In: Yearbook of the Association for Orts- und Heimatkunde in the Grafschaft Mark 93/94, 1995, ISSN  0937-1621 , pp. 63-126.
• Stephanie Marra : Counts of the Mark, Dukes of Kleve-Mark and Jülich-Kleve (Hof) . In: Werner Paravicini (Ed.): Courtyards and residences in the late medieval empire ( Residency research 15). Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 2003, ISBN 3-7995-4515-8 .
• Stephanie Marra : Counts of Isenberg-Limburg (main line Isenberg-Limburg, branch lines Broich and Styrum) . In: Werner Paravicini (ed.): Courtyards and residences in the late medieval empire. Counts and Lords ( Residency Research, Vol. 15.IV, Part. 1). Thorbecke, Ostfildern 2012, pp. 698–704.
• Gerhard E. Sollbach: The violent death of Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne on November 7th, 1225. A medieval criminal case . In: Yearbook of the Association for Orts- und Heimatkunde in the Grafschaft Mark 93/94, 1995, ISSN  0937-1621 , pp. 7-49.
• Wilhelm Ribhegge: The history of the Counts of the Mark and the history of the city of Hamm in the Middle Ages . Ardey-Verlag, Münster 2002, ISBN 3-87023-234-X .
• Ernst Dossmann : In the footsteps of the Counts of the Mark. Interesting facts about the development of the former Grafschaft Mark and the Märkischer Kreis. A home book ( publications of the Heimatbund Märkischer Kreis  5). 2nd Edition. Mönnig, Iserlohn 1984, ISBN 3-922885-14-4 .
• Georg Eggenstein: Until 1225 - Castle and city of Nienbrügge . In: Georg Eggenstein, Ellen Schwinzer (Hrsg.): Zeitspuren. The beginnings of the city of Hamm ( notes on city history  8; exhibition catalog, Gustav-Lübcke-Museum Hamm, November 18, 2001 - February 17, 2002). Kettler, Bönen 2001, ISBN 3-935019-40-8 , pp. 49-59.
• Willi E. Schroeder: A home book. Two districts introduce themselves. Bockum and Hövel. W. E. Schroeder, Hamm 1980.
• Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came . Essay series. In: Active Seniors, issues 55–63, online .
• Woldemar Harleß:  Friedrich v. Isenberg . In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 14, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1881, pp. 612-614.
• Erich Wisplinghoff:  Friedrich. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 5, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1961, ISBN 3-428-00186-9 , p. 510 ( digitized version ).
• Various authors in: knights, castles and intrigues. Revolt in 1225! The Middle Ages on the Rhine and Ruhr. Exhibition catalog, ed. from the LWL-Museum für Aräologie - Westfälisches Landesmuseum Herne, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2010. With contributions by Heinz Finger ( The violent death of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert and the prehistory. pp. 21–33), Ulrich Andermann ( The conspiracy against Engelbert I. of Cologne on November 7, 1225 and their consequences. Attempts to reconstruct and evaluate legal history. Pp. 35–46) and Wilhelm Janssen ( aristocracy and ducal power. Political structures and developments between the Ruhr and Lippe 1180–1300. Pp. 47– 58).

Web links

• Exhibition NRW 2000 : November 7, 1225 ( Memento from May 22, 2013 in the Internet Archive )

Individual evidence

1. ^ Henning Isenberg: The Friedrich song: Historical initiation novel - 1st book . tredition, 2014, ISBN 978-3-8495-8319-4 ( google.de [accessed on January 28, 2018]).
2. ^ Woldemar Harleß:  Friedrich II. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 14, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1881, pp. 612-614.
3. ↑ ^{a b c d} Arnold von Altena in Genealogy Middle Ages
4. ↑ Joseph Prince: The Counts of Limburg-Stirum - Servants of the Church - Warriors of God. In: Divorced from the Graven van Limburg Stirum, part 1 vol. 1. Assen (NL) / Münster 1976
5. ^ Josef Lappe: Hamm in the Middle Ages and in the modern age. In: 700 years of the city of Hamm. Hamm 1926, p. 54
6. ↑ ^{a b c} Reinhold Stirnberg: Essay Before the Markers Came , Part VI: The Counts of Altena and the End of the German Controversy for the Throne. In: Active Seniors, Zeitschrift für Schwerte, issue 60, p. 15 ( PDF ( Memento of the original from January 31, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ) 
7. ↑ ^{a b c} Wilhelm Ribhegge: The Counts of the Mark and the history of the city of Hamm in the Middle Ages , p. 50
8. ↑ See Jörg Oberste: The "crusade" against the Albigensians. Heresy and Power Politics in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, pp. 154f.
9. ↑ Joseph Prinz in: De Graven van Limburg Stirum, Part 1 Bd. 1
10. ↑ Engelbert von Köln in Genealogy Middle Ages
11. ↑ ^{a b c} Reinhold Stirnberg, essay Before the Markers Came , Part VI: The Counts of Altena and the End of the German Controversy for the Throne, in: Active Seniors, Zeitschrift für Schwerte, Issue 60, pp. 17-18 ( PDF ( Memento des Originals dated January 31, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note. ) 
12. ^ Adolf von der Mark in Genealogy Middle Ages .
13. ^ ^{A b} Friedrich von Isenberg at Genealogy Middle Ages
14. ^ History of the city of Hattingen
15. ^ Josef Lothmann: Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne (1216–1225), Count von Berg, Archbishop and Duke, Imperial Administrator. In: Publication of the Cologne History Association No. 38, Diss., Cologne 1993, p. 47
16. ^ Eduard Winkelmann: Philipp von Schwaben and Otto IV. Von Braunschweig , 2nd volume Kaiser Otto IV. Von Braunschweig 1208–1218, reprint Darmstadt 1963, p. 329
17. ^ The Regest of the Archbishops of Cologne (REK), Volume III. No. 120
18. ↑ Cf. Heinz Finger: The violent death of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert and the prehistory. In: Knights, Castles and Intrigues. Revolt in 1225! The Middle Ages on the Rhine and Ruhr. Exhibition catalog, ed. from the LWL Museum for Archeology - Westphalian State Museum Herne, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2010. p. 28.
19. ↑ Cf. Ulrich Andermann: The conspiracy against Engelbert I of Cologne on November 7, 1225 and its consequences. Attempt to reconstruct and evaluate legal history. In: Knights, Castles and Intrigues. Revolt in 1225! The Middle Ages on the Rhine and Ruhr. Exhibition catalog, ed. from the LWL Museum for Archeology - Westfälisches Landesmuseum Herne, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2010. P. 40f.
20. ↑ So based on Wolfgang Kleist ( The death of Archbishop Engelbert von Köln. A critical study. In: Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 75 (1917), pp. 182–249) recently confirmed again by Ulrich Andermann: The conspiracy against Engelbert I. of Cologne on November 7th, 1225 and its consequences. Attempt to reconstruct and evaluate legal history. In: Knights, Castles and Intrigues. Revolt in 1225! The Middle Ages on the Rhine and Ruhr. Exhibition catalog, ed. from the LWL Museum for Archeology - Westfälisches Landesmuseum Herne, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2010. S. 44 u. Note 56.
21. ↑ Winfried Dotzauer: History of the Nahe-Hunsrück area from the beginnings to the French Revolution. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2001, p. 169 ( online version )

predecessor	Office	successor
Arnold	Count of Altena or Count of Nienbrügge; Hövel; Isenberg 1180-1209	Lockpick