Ruling system of the Mark Brandenburg

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The system of government of Brandenburg Late Medieval and Early Modern walked through the eras of Lehnstaates the corporate state to state government .

The political disputes of the political actors revolved around the achievement of a political monopoly. The conflicts were part of the overall problem of creating a representative constitution and the distribution of power. These conflicts had a decisive influence on the process of state formation in Brandenburg. The disputes culminated in the beginning of the representative meetings of the assembly of estates. In the time of the corporate state , the Brandenburg system of government was a "presidential monarchy" in a corporate state . Even with a representative involvement of state actors, new problem areas arose in which cooperation and power struggles alternated between state rulers and state assemblies. Religious divisions between rulers and classes and shifts in economic power played an important role in conflict.

Fiefdoms

The medieval legal and governmental relationship in the Mark Brandenburg was determined by the feudal system . The Askanischer Marquis from the beginning have full sovereignty over all East Elbe and westelbischen allodial availed (personal owner) possessions ( market law , customs law , right of coinage ). Through the legislation of Emperor Friedrich II , many royal rights were transferred to the princes of the empire.

In the late 12th and 13th centuries, the rights to the Brandenburg villages were almost exclusively in the hands of the margravial family. This differed from the situation in other areas of the empire. The increasing need for money of the margraves then led to the sale of rights and income to knighthood, religious institutions (church princes, monasteries, etc.) and later also to rich citizens. As a result, a typical feudal state developed from the march in the 14th century, in which a large number of rulers had pushed themselves between the margraves and the hoof farmers. Many villages came under the rule of several lords at the same time, who exercised their rights over the Schulzen and received the income from the taxes. In the course of this development, the Brandenburg manors were created and enlarged. In addition, the Brandenburg aristocrats were able to regain the right to own castles after the Ascanian line died out in 1320.

The advancing development of the cities and the increasing influence of the knighthood on rural conditions increased their autonomy from the margrave. As a result of the rising taxes for warlike enterprises and the princely court keeping, the margraves became indebted, the repayment of which only took place through special services of the subjects. This was done through a taxation right, the Bede , which in certain cases of need had to be paid to the sovereign. As a result of the more frequently used right of appeal, cities and vassals worked together against the feudal lords to replace the sovereign arbitrariness with mutually binding agreements and to ensure that the relevant economic groups in the country had an influence on the state government. The margraves felt compelled to surround themselves with leading personalities of the vassals as councils, on whose approval their decisions were dependent. In this way, the estates were formed within the state , which appear as permanent partners of the sovereign in the Margraviate of Brandenburg, first with the settlement of the conditions and signifying the transition from the feudal state to the corporate state. However, the march was not a unified territory in which the cities and knighthood could have merged into two large unified factions. The Mark split up into the territories Havelland, Zauche, Teltow, Barnim, Uckermark, Lebus, Stargard, Prignitz, Neumark (the land behind the Oder) and also the land to the left of the Elbe. This resulted in the number of districts or bailiwicks grouped around individual cities. Regulations of the tax relationships are therefore carried out separately by region in individual contracts between margraves and landscapes . In 1280, for example, 52 nobles from different regions of the Mark met in Berlin for what was probably the first meeting of a class, which aimed to conclude a contract between sovereigns and knights as equal partners. This Berlin meeting, however, initially remained an individual phenomenon and a central administration in the current sense was not yet given.

In the whole of Central Europe, the basis of territorial rule changed from the 13th century. The mutual dependencies between the lords and vassals based on feudal law had been reified by the new legal and economic realities associated with the urban system. Instead of feudal feudal men , legally trained councilors now directed the business of the princes. They worked in the margravial office , the center of the growing correspondence. Dominion rights , including those over territories, were viewed as commodities and accordingly pledged or sold. The process has been referred to as the " monetization of the rights of rule ".

Estates constitution

The comparative theoretical model of the Belgian historian Wim Blockmans , which is more widely received in the specialist literature, classifies the early modern class system (in Europe) according to socio-economic criteria. He distinguished three main types. The first type of corporate state was that of a purely agricultural state. These consisted only of large landowners, regardless of whether they were of noble or clerical origin. Only these big landowners were represented in the meetings, the rest of the country not. The second type is a hybrid in which smaller towns were also represented in a predominantly rural society. The agricultural society there generated surpluses. With type two there is a much more complicated network of relationships between sovereigns, the city and the nobility, and in the late Middle Ages there were much more frequent professional meetings than with the first type. In both type one and type two, financial aid for the sovereign is less important than the defense of the privileges and rights of the most important groups in society. Type three characterizes a strongly urbanized society in which the stands maintain contacts with foreign countries through their own trade relations and have a strong influence on foreign policy.

The Mark Brandenburg had a loose chain of cities. This was much wider meshed and the cities were significantly smaller than the highly urbanized Holland at the time, but again more closely meshed than the areas and countries further east, such as Poland. Consequently, the Märkische Estates constitution represented the second economic type, which corresponded to a middle position in the international structure. According to this, the estates were primarily aimed at securing their position of power vis-à-vis the sovereigns, had no relevant external relations and no large financial resources. The class constitutional life was brisk and meetings were frequent.

The typology according to Blockmans is based on the social and economic starting points that co-determined the design of the Estates constitution and does not mean the actual typology of an Estates constitution. Other criteria are to be used for this. These are:

  • The position of the Brandenburg corporate state in the Brandenburg system of government was initially based on the relationship between the estates and the position of the sovereign,
  • the question of the right to convene the meeting of the estates,
  • the composition of the assembly of estates,
  • the choice of their MPs and theirs
  • Procedure for deliberation and decision-making.

Although since Johann Georg's Kur- und Neumark came to power again, the two regions remained separate. This was caused by the two different constitutions that developed through a different history. It was not until the 1610s, when national defense issues affecting the entire Mark came to the fore, that the states of both parts of the country met in joint committee days.

The estates initially formed four, later three independent curiae (modern: parliamentary groups ), which were represented in the state parliament and represented the entire land-owning class in the country. The sovereign called the state parliament and dissolved it. Seen in this way, the state parliament was an undemocratic legislative body .

The following groups existed:

  1. Aristocracy: In 1280 the Brandenburg knighthood appeared for the first time as corporately organized groups vis-à-vis their sovereigns, at that time still without the cities.
  2. Spiritual corporations: The prelates' eligibility for parliament depended exclusively on their feudal relationship with the sovereign, established by their land ownership. The Diet of 1540 led to the reduction of the prelate status in the Mark, whose goods were confiscated with the consent of the cities and the nobility. After the secularization during the Reformation, the prelate curia was reduced to only a few representatives. These were the pins Brandenburg and Havelberg , the monastery Holy Sepulcher , the Johanniterkomture to Lietzen and Advertise .
  3. Land-owning cities: The third and least powerful class were the immediate cities, of which there were 42 in the Kurmark. The cities were represented at the meetings by one or more members of their city council. The big cities exercised a certain degree of supervision over the smaller cities. Since 1565 the cities were divided into the two groups of the Altmark-Prignitz cities and he Mittelmark-Ruppin-Uckermark cities.

A general parliament, convened by the sovereign, did not take place until 1345, because of the coinage. From then on, general parliaments met more often to negotiate and decide on land issues. Even commoners, if they owned a manor, took part in the sessions of the state parliament. These were electoral officials who had received fiefs from the elector. The work in the state service did not exclude participation in the state assemblies, so there were many people who held dual positions. From an organizational point of view, the lack of preparation of the state parliaments by the elector was problematic. An agenda sent in advance in writing was missing until 1600 in the letter sent only five weeks before the date, so that the authorized representatives could not receive sufficient instructions from their commissioning corporation, so that the negotiations always take place through constant feedback from the delegated participants with their representative corporations Pulled length.

There were different conference groups. The general land and committee days in which everyone held the land class rights came together were rare. The conference intervals reached up to 40 years (e.g. 1572-1602-1643). In contrast to other German territories, the Brandenburg estates did not have the right to self-assembly. The conference venue was the Berlin City Palace. The appearance was part of the feudal obligation. The negotiations were secret and were separated according to the curia, which also formed their own regional advisory committees. There was no record of the conversation. Speaking rights and voting rights were hierarchically graded. Majority resolutions were possible in the absence of unanimity. Most of the negotiations were conducted in writing. While the knighthood was usually ready at an early stage, this took longer for the cities. These had to make a higher financial contribution than the nobility, so that the cities mostly urged the nobility to make higher proportionate payments. The electoral councils tried to mediate between the two groups.

As in other territories, codetermination for the writing of taxes had become the most important right of the estates in the Margraviate of Brandenburg, which imposed considerable restrictions on the sovereign's position of power in the Kurmark. Because the tax approval was connected with the estate administration of debts, which the elector had to grant to the elector in 1549/1550 due to his precarious financial situation with the "credit work". The stands were also given the organizational competence to collect and manage taxes. The elector was forbidden to enter into alliances without first obtaining the consent of the estates. In the Neumark, however, the financial administration remained with the sovereign without restrictions.

In addition to the general state parliaments for the Margraviate of Brandenburg, state days were also convened in the individual parts of the state, at which matters that were important but not affecting the entire state were dealt with. The first third of the 16th century was the heyday of the Brandenburg estates in terms of the frequency and abundance of powers of the state parliaments. Almost every year the estates were convened for joint state assemblies or for gentlemen, city or committee days separated according to groups. The peasantry did not belong to the estates, nor were they represented in the state parliaments.

The estates represented the entire country, while the sovereign represented only the highest central authority. The estates viewed the sovereigns only as primus inter pares and as a connection point to the outside as well as an intermediary point to the inside. For structural reasons, the stands were more interested in a small-scale political approach based on a status quo. This meant that they wanted first and foremost to maintain their own position of power over the sovereigns. They tend not to have a full national political program . Since they were only the regional landowners or owners of the land who had networked nationwide, their ways of thinking and behavior were only so broad. The Brandenburg estates, aristocrats and citizens alike, who think provincially and poorly networked in Europe, did not bring their own inputs into state politics. Due to the limited personal potential of the stands, the diversity of structures and decentralization in Brandenburg did not result in a positive development, but rather a standstill.

The rulership of estates functioned in a similar way to that of today's publicly listed stock corporation . Accordingly, there was something comparable to the state parliaments like today's shareholders' meeting . This decides on the corporate balance sheet, capital distributions and profit sharing and the future corporate course, while the CEO of the stock corporation is responsible for the actual corporate management, but does not own the company except for his personal share packages, but only manages it as the incumbent . The shareholders of the corporation are the actual owners of the company. The largest shareholders have a greater influence than the smaller ones and can strongly influence, restrict and destroy the CEO's policy approaches while at the same time promoting his own position of power. The specifically Brandenburg personnel composition of the estates with a dominance of less influential Brandenburg noble families did not lead to the same positive developments as in the Netherlands . There was a strong economic bourgeoisie that was able to assert itself better against the nobility and central rulers and single-handedly transformed the country into Europe's engine of progress. In Brandenburg the estates were more like the destructive Polish nobility of the aristocratic republic . The aristocracy had basically been a declining social class since the early modern period, with little economic competencies or interests. Without an initial bourgeois development, only the sovereign remained, who was able to advance and develop the country, since the landowning nobility had no design competence, but pursued a pure clientele policy, which in its logic did not work for society as a whole. The bourgeoisie, in turn, represented a functioning approach to society as a whole, which was supported, especially in the Netherlands, by Calvinist principles, according to which one's own individual performance is responsible for the happiness of the individual. The Hohenzollern went over to Calvinism and tried to promote this mentality in their country. This was partly successful, but the majority of the population remained inactive, unfree and phlegmatic , especially in rural areas .

In relation to the estates and the sovereigns, the members of the councils of the estates are all landowners of the land and thus their owners. There are large landowners and smaller owners. The margrave as sovereign is also landlord ( domain property ) in his person but also represents the equivalent chairman of the board of the stock corporation through his office.

Sovereignty

The early modern territorial state developed in Central Europe between 1300 and 1700 , this process has also been referred to as " nationalization " and marks a consolidation of sovereignty with the margraves as their bearers, in the space by means of symbolic, regular, bureaucratic and also visible-structural Institution building . As a result, from the 15th and 16th centuries, this brought about the progressive regulation of social actions in public space through a legal system characterized by the “state thought” , whereby the sovereignty changed into a reified state. However, this process was not aimed at one goal and was also not continuous. Despite some similarities with other German territories, the expression of the Brandenburg state rule was an individual development process. Mainly it was about the enforcement of the princely rule against the local authorities.

The thought and legal forms of sovereign politics in the 15th and 16th centuries resembled those of the estates in many respects. For a long time, they controlled important policy areas at the state level, such as tax policy and, through the allocation of funds, also national defense. In the Thirty Years' War this led to the fact that the estates boycotted the sovereign's rearmament policy because of their own short-sighted interests. The mark remained unprotected with the result that foreign armies could destroy it. The small-scale, demarcated provincial structural constitution and the regional way of thinking of the estates hindered the sovereign in the implementation of a nationwide and uniform policy. In contrast, due to the empire-wide involvement in political processes or the dynastic connections to the sovereign rulers throughout Europe, the sovereign had completely different, higher-quality political approaches, which in the first place ensured that there was something like a political agenda and a political discourse in the market to which the stalls only reacted. The small parts and the diversity of the stand structures were in turn a structural obstacle to the establishment of innovations and large-scale investments or lighthouse projects . The estates were therefore more structurally conservative, hostile to innovation and less effective than sovereign politics, which had to involve significantly fewer veto players and did not have to take into account all interests equally, but could form top thematic fields or focus projects and allocate the available funds more freely than the equalization-oriented estates policy. For example, new institutions such as a standing army , factories or cultural institutions could only emerge if other policy fields were temporarily less funded and the funds thus collected were diverted to the development of the new institutions. A grassroots approach to such political decisions could hardly be achieved, since the losers of such decisions would have blocked approval. An absolute sovereign policy was able to overcome the resistance. The subsequent sovereigns therefore used the inadequate policy-making of the estates as an opportunity to completely break the power of the estates at the state level. To this end, the sovereigns tried to reduce the cohesion of the estates by relying on the landed gentry and pursuing a policy that was not very city-friendly. Since there was no class solidarity, they succeeded in this since 1470. As a result, general state affairs were pushed forward by the princes and the princely councils to the exclusion of the class cooperation. This was evident, for example, in the enactment of city and state ordinances since the 16th century, which were the work of princely councils, promulgated by the sovereign and were drawn up without the participation of the estates. Until the state parliament recession of 1656, sovereign politics were dependent on the approvals of the states in the state parliaments and could not carry out their own state-related policy without the states. After 1656 the sovereigns simply did not convene the state parliament. Instead, they established their own structures and rules and passed over the hierarchy wherever it was possible.

The Leviathan , written by Thomas Hobbes in 1651, shaped the thinking and acting of European princes in a contemporary manner . According to this, the princes should be powerful potentates who should have the state monopoly on the use of force. The prince should use the powerful position purposefully in order to bring society out of its "miserable" state of nature and to develop it. The idealized image reflects the emerging absolutism. This culminated in the creation of a modern administration and the creation of a legally uniform area within the territory. This gave rise to a comprehensive, formulated princely rule that regulated the distribution of power between the sovereign and the estates in such a way that the estates had only a few policy fields left to shape. The local organizational units lived on even in the era of absolutism and demonstrated a lasting longevity, which was only superimposed at the beginning of the 19th century. There was a wide gap between the claim to power and the reality of the administration, so that in the time of Brandenburg absolutism from 1640 to the Prussian reforms, the degree of statehood was rather lower. Regions and villages were able to successfully maintain their local rights and customs.

Imperial relations, margraves and electors

With the conquest and development of the later Margraviate of Brandenburg, the margraves were the dominant force in the country. They succeeded in preventing competing rulers such as the Brandenburg bishops and free nobles from developing themselves. The costly expansion efforts of the Ascanian margraves led to the sale of sovereign rights from the end of the 13th century. This meant a limitation of the possibilities of access to the issued areas and since the margrave-free time in 1319 a lasting loss of direct rights of rule. In the 14th century, the margrave basically had no access to the most important cities and areas of the march. So he did not exercise nationwide rule over the Mark.

The Margraves of Brandenburg belonged to the seven-member college of electors of the Holy Roman Empire since the Golden Bull of 1356 . In addition to his status as an imperial estate of the Holy Roman Empire, which made it possible for each of the approximately 300 territories of the empire to participate in the Reichstag , the elector also had the electoral function of the emperor of the empire from among her circle. The Brandenburg electors belonged to the distinguished elite of the imperial princes, even if they were among the weakest of the seven electoral states in terms of their political influence and power-political possibilities until the 17th century. The vote made it possible for the Brandenburg margraves to exchange their approval for political concessions from the emperor. The Kurmark represented the Kurlande and was indivisible and territorially determined as the ruling object of the holding territorial prince to legitimize access to the electoral dignity.

The Elector provided and sent a Brandenburg Reichstag embassy for the Reichstag in Regensburg, which has been in session since 1663 . The Margraviate of Brandenburg was a member of the Upper Saxon Empire , which had been operating since 1550 , together with its southern neighbor, the Electorate of Saxony and its northern neighbor, the Duchy of Pomerania . District meetings were held at various intervals , at which the Elector's envoys represented Brandenburg. Initially a loyal junior partner of Saxony, the expanded Brandenburg has since the 17th century often represented opposing positions to the leading and privileged district member of Saxony and adopted a negative attitude towards the district structure, in which it was a subordinate power to Saxony.

In the empire in the 16th century, Brandenburg tried to mediate between the positions during the disputes over the Reformation and the struggle between the royal power and the imperial central power. Envoys from the elector were involved in several attempts to find a compromise between the Protestant and Catholic camps. Since Brandenburg only had limited economic and financial potential in the 16th century, its influence on other larger imperial estates remained limited on the imperial political level. It therefore very often represented the Electoral Saxon position on foreign and imperial policy issues in the Electoral College, where Brandenburg was in sixth place behind Saxony in the voting.

Territorial state administration

The great expansion of the march required a regionalization of the rulership structures by creating a territorially structured sub-level to secure the rule of the margrave. The transition from the medieval state of persons to the institutionalized state of area took place in Brandenburg differently to other areas of the empire. The power conflict between sovereign, immediate cities and landed gentry also had an impact on the formation of territorial structures. The territorial administration was a mixture of different actors with various overlaps. On the one hand, there were self-administered cooperative structures, corporations and stately structures that existed side by side.

Bailiwicks

In the 14th century, the margravial rights in the area were exercised through the bailiff's constitution. 30 bailiwick districts are said to have been formed. The bailiff collected the margrave's taxes and monitored the peace in the country . Furthermore, the bailiff pronounced law on all matters that did not have to be decided by the margrave and that could not be dealt with by village or town mayors. The Vogt supervised the village and town mayors. He was appointed by the margrave and resembled an early district office in its function. The bailiff's constitution increasingly disintegrated with the loss of power of the margraves. Exemptions from cities, clerical and secular manors destroyed the margravial court system and deprived the bailiffs of their duties.

Landscapes

The Wittelsbachers reacted with the ongoing erosion of sovereignty, which had taken place with the extinction of the Ascanians and resulted in numerous transfers of sovereign rights to cities and nobility, with the creation of a new territorial structure. This acted as an intermediary between bailiffs and margraves and developed in the middle of the 14th century. During the time of the Wittelsbacher , the land riding arenas ( equitaturæ ) emerged. In autumn 1373 the description of the territory of the Mark Brandenburg was made for Charles IV , Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1355-1378) . There was:

" Marchia Brandemburgensis est distincta in quator dominia sive provincias, quarum provinciarum una vocatur Nova Marchia Brandemburgensis, altera Antiqua Marchia Brandemburgensis, tercia Prignicz, quarta Ukara et quinta Marchia trans Oderam. "

Accordingly, the Mark Brandenburg consisted of the following five dominions or provinces :

  1. Neumark Brandenburg,
  2. Altmark Brandenburg,
  3. Prignitz,
  4. Upland and
  5. Mark over or .

For each province cities , castles , monasteries and monasteries as well as the castle-seated nobility were given. The imperial direct positions of the rule Ruppin , the Hochstifte Brandenburg , Havelberg and Lebus were tacitly passed over, partly explained with their inclusion as Brandenburg provinces .

At the top of the areas to provincial governors were as bailiffs referred. These new officials stood between bailiffs and margraves. In addition to securing the public peace, it was for the sheriffs, the overall supervision of the sovereign castles to lead and the emergency squad to lead the Marquis. He was also responsible for the jurisdiction in his district. The governors were given far-reaching financial competencies, which were withdrawn from them at the end of the 15th century. There was a local central function only in Tangermünde for the Altmark and Boitzenburg for the Uckermark. Otherwise, the sovereign's most important castle in a district was the administrative center of the district. For the Mittelmark this was Liebenwalde . The governors almost always came from the most important castle-seated noble families of the Mark. In the Altmark, representatives of the von Schulenburg and von Bartensleben families held the office of governor. Representatives of the von Bredow family took over this function in the Mittelmark. In the Prignitz, the von Rohr and the Geese zu Putlitz dominated this function. In Neumark it was mainly von Wedel who ruled and from 1438 it was von Arnim in Uckermark . So they brought their own power base and resources into the office of their own accord. The legitimacy of the margrave also stabilized through the involvement of the important noble families. However, the officials did not always represent the interests of the margrave, for example, in matters that were directed against their own peers.

Only a little later, the land book of Emperor Charles IV of 1375 distinguished three main parts: the Mark over Elbe or Altmark ( Marchia transalbeana alio nomine antiqua Marchia ), the Middle Mark ( Marchia media ) and the Mark over Oder ( Marchia transoderana ). The Mittelmark consisted of nine territories with the Land Lebus, Barnim, Zauche, Teltow, Havelland, Glien (the little Land of Löwenberg not mentioned), Prignitz, Uckerland and Ruppin. These, the Altmark and the Mark over Oder, were mostly further subdivided (districts, districts). The late medieval script sources used the terms for the different administrative levels quite arbitrarily, the same words often denoted different structures.

Circles

The estates formed their own spatial units. The circles as an association of people of all classes in a supra-local area were initially only electoral districts for election to the committees of the state assemblies in the Mark Brandenburg. The assemblies of the district estates that met for these elections in the individual districts only slowly developed from electoral associations to estates corporations. The meetings of the district were known as district meetings. Already during the Thirty Years' War, the county councils had taken on numerous administrative tasks such as building roads and bridges and monitored the use of the state taxes approved by the county councils. The districts came into collision with the structures established by the sovereign. In this conflictual environment of contradicting structures and responsibilities, an institutional mediator was needed between the cooperative and the sovereign structures. This role fell to the newly created office of district administrator .

In order to strengthen their own position, the sovereigns tried to organize the administration of their own lands and revenues through the creation of administrative organizations, the administrative districts, which were directly dependent on them. A bailiff presided over these districts. The bailiff exclusively represented sovereign interests. As a result, the importance of the districts of the estates decreased. Counties and administrative districts coincided. From then on, the elector appointed a district commissioner and the district estates elected a district director. As a result, both offices were combined by one person. The estates and sovereigns also appointed the person responsible for the districts. In 1701 the official title District Administrator was introduced for this dual position.

The in land book of 1375 broad proper name means Mark narrowed later on the central region, Joan Blaeu : El Universal Atlas y Cosmographico de los orbes y terrestre , Amsterdam 1659th

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Mark Brandenburg consisted of the parts of Kurmark and Neumark. Each part of the country was divided into circles . The Kurmark was also partially divided into landscapes that summarized several districts.

Rural communities, domain offices and aristocratic manors

While in the south-west of the empire the territorialization of rural areas on the lowest territorial administrative level had already made great progress in the 14th and 15th centuries through the establishment of an administrative constitution, the same did not take place in the Margraviate of Brandenburg. Instead, on the lowest local level, cooperatively managed structures from several villages were formed, led by “home citizens” who carried out their own local tasks in their own affairs, such as land, water and road regulations. In addition to the state, several settlements were formed including spatial units, so-called rural communities . The rural communities formed a basic form of local self-government .

Since the Landtag recession of 1653, the manorial landowners were the determining actors at the lowest territorial administrative level, as they had received a quasi-dominant position on their estates and the things on them and the people living there in exchange for extensive tax permits from the sovereign. The influence of the sovereigns came to an end at the border of the manors. Administrative offices were only formed on the domain estates, where the sovereign also acted as the owner of the manor. In 1770 the Kurmärkische War and Domain Chamber in Berlin, responsible for the administration of the domain offices, supervised 62 domain offices with 228 outbuildings. The Kurmärkische domains comprised 240,000 acres (960 km²) of usable area and 1,057,000 acres (4,228 km²) of forest. As a rule, an office comprised several villages, farms and field marks. It also included commercial facilities such as breweries, distilleries, mills, brickworks and glassworks. The officials were in charge of the domain office. They represented the sovereigns in their area and carried out extensive police and legal tasks in the first instance.

Local self-government

State administration and city supervision tried between 1680 and 1740 to incorporate the city organs into government practice. The judiciary, police and treasury were reorganized. Military governors and commanders took over security competencies that were previously part of the city's self-government. In addition, the cities increasingly had to pay for the construction of military facilities. The state intervened in urban economic conditions with ordinances against monopolies (small guilds). The consumption tax (excise) introduced in 1667 led to an economic separation between rural and urban areas. With this tax, the tax commissioners who supervised them succeeded in limiting the council's autonomy. Nevertheless, the cities were left with a high degree of autonomous scope for action.

Court and sovereign administration

Just as in current political relations , the stability of a state in early modern Europe depended on the power of integration emanating from the ruler and the court institutions and the involvement of other important political actors in the country. Wherever relevant opposition forces of the ruler, usually the estates consisting of the landowning nobility and the oligarchical ruling councils of the cities, were not adequately contained and controlled by central state institutions in a system of rule, persistent political crises followed with the danger that these would arise armed conflicts expanded. This happened, for example, in England and Scotland with the "Civil War" from 1642 to 1649 , which was due to insufficient binding force of the Stuart kings in England and the most important pattern for the early modern conflict between "Court" and "Countrie" in Europe became. The Brandenburg margraves were faced with the challenge of balancing the weights of the estates in the other parts of the country in addition to the margraviate of Brandenburg. For this purpose, the Hohenzollern state, as a conglomerate of composed monarchies, had to develop an additional political meta-level that institutionally encompassed and represented the entire territory and also implemented the defined claim to power locally. In doing so, the Brandenburg rulers of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries had to take regional self-confidence into account, take into account the structural dissatisfaction of the peripheral nobility and ensure that they could not endanger their own rule.

Residence, governor, chancellor

Berlin City Palace in 1690 by the Long Bridge seen

In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, the territorial structure was a union state made up of feudal men who were related to each other through a relationship of loyalty and allegiance. This form of rule represented the preliminary stage of a state based on institutions according to today's understanding. The degree of central rule penetration into space was low.

From the late Middle Ages onwards, central Europe became increasingly bureaucratized , with the aim of expanding the central princely power to the entire territorial complex, to contain and penetrate autonomously acting actors such as individual municipalities or aristocrats in the institutional apparatus. Administration became an essential means of establishing princely rule. This consisted of specialized groups of people who supported the margrave in the decision-making, execution and implementation of his political actions. The multitude of margravial duties and legal competences and the large area of ​​the march required the creation of a regional administration and a specialized central administration. From then on, regional administration was carried out through the governors, material administration through the creation of court authorities and offices such as a court chancellery , the secretarial office of a monarch or separate offices for the administration of regalia or accounting. Such facilities are still to be seen in a personal relationship to the person of the margrave, similar to an assistant's position and as such are not yet part of public authorities. Seen in this way, the formation of a court around the margrave in the 14th century was only the beginning of the process of establishing supra-personal rulership features. The actual institutionalization of the administration did not begin until the 15th century.

Important late medieval state offices were:

  • The electoral chancellery formed the written rule of the margraves. The elector's deeds and edicts were issued there. The operation of such a facility required special skills from the people working in the law firm. Above all clergy or holders of clerical benefices brought these necessary skills with them and provided the office staff. Since there was initially no permanent residence, it was to be found where the elector was. Under the Wittelsbach family, the most likely location was the Spandau law firm.
  • the Brandenburg council consisted of a narrower and a wider circle. The inner council accompanied the margrave constantly and assisted him in decisions. It was not an official institution, but a loose association of people. The large council included representatives of the Brandenburg clergy, members of important noble families and officials at court and in the territorial administration. These met primarily on important matters affecting the whole of the Markets. By including various important actors in the decision-making process, the margraves achieved consensual rule.
  • The basic features of the Brandenburg court developed identically to the other German royal courts. First, the classic four-division of offices in developed steward , chamberlain , butler and Marshal . From the 14th century the court master joined them. The court represented more representative than administrative tasks and had a private and personal character. Other offices were created gradually, such as the chamberlain , the chef .

But the sovereign's claim to administrative penetration were limited due to the natural spatial penetration. The initially numerically small number of office holders in the immediate vicinity of the Elector and Brandenburg Margrave expanded gradually in the 16th and 17th centuries, both in terms of personnel, institutionally and thematically, by taking on new, previously unregulated areas of responsibility and policy in the official state apparatus.

The Cöllner Residenzschloss or "Berlin City Palace" served as the court of the Hohenzollern Electors from 1451 and was therefore the main and winter residence of the entire Hohenzollern State, as well as the Mark Brandenburg. Since then, government activity has mainly been carried out from there. However, the margraves and electors continued their travel rule, and the personal presence of the prince on site remained the basis for maintaining the sovereignty over the country and its people. To this end, all rulers undertook regular inspection and pleasure trips to their other secondary princes' seats, such as hunting lodges or state fortresses, from which they ruled . For the purpose of expanding rule, the electors had been setting up bases of princely sovereignty in the form of palaces, especially in the immediate vicinity of Berlin. The residence triangle of Potsdam- Köpenick - Oranienburg established by the Great Elector established the coordinate system with which the future electors and kings promoted the planned expansion of the Berlin residential landscape as the center of the Mark Brandenburg and the entire territory of the Hohenzollern family.

The personal presence of the Elector, especially in the more distant regions of the Mark, such as the Altmark, the Prignitz and the Neumark, was significantly less common than in the vicinity of Berlin. The recognition of the rule once established remained a local episode. As soon as the elector had broken up his court camp, the Brandenburg sub-landscapes, which were far apart in terms of area and were difficult to get to by traffic, reverted to a life of their own determined by the local noble families.

With Johann Cicero there was a gradual transition of the separation of rule and administration. Exemplary in which the electoral archive remained permanently in the Berlin Palace and became permanent. From then on, all administrative institutions, courts and colleges were concentrated in the main residence, so in 1470 the electoral chamber court and the court court were also concentrated in the vicinity of the castle. Further administrative organs located there were the chancellery, the feudal chancellery , the council chamber , the rentier or the consistory . From then on, the Cölln Residence had a constitutional stabilizing power, as local and regional nobility were tied to the Princely House and were sporadically or permanently present in the Berlin Residence. Meetings of the state parliament also took place in the castle in the 16th century. In addition, the main residence had other visible structural signs of princely power such as princely dwellings, a collegiate church , representative areas such as halls for gatherings and celebrations, but also communes for supplying the court, gardens, menageries , court and tournament grounds , baths.

Since a separation of powers or a written constitution was only introduced in the 19th century, political entanglements and power limitations of the sovereign through the estates took place in the late Middle Ages and thereafter . In Brandenburg this power balance system came under more pressure than in other imperial territories from the central princely rule and was almost completely overturned in the 18th century in favor of the royal rule.

In the early modern Brandenburg state, the elector's edicts were the laws. There was increasing criticism of this unrestricted power position of the rulers. The Enlightenment , the emergence of public opinion , supported by literary salons , the strong increase in periodical publications and a growing educated bourgeoisie from 1750 ushered in the modification of enlightened absolutism , of which the most important representative in Brandenburg was the publishing Frederick II, who even before his Accession to the throne in his Anti-Machiavell (1740) outlines for himself the political program of the rational ruler who is directed against despotic prince arbitrariness, in which he sees himself as the first servant of his state and who is oriented towards the common good and not towards the self-interest of his dynasty.

The highest office of the electoral court with its center in Berlin-Cölln was that of the Lord Chamberlain . In the area of ​​government and administration, the “ Real Secret Councils ” were at the forefront. Then the Chancellors followed. In between, however, the office of governor was increasingly pushed in in the 17th century , which when the elector was absent, for example when traveling or on military expeditions, was assigned his powers to the Mark Brandenburg in the narrower sense. Below the governor, who represented the elector himself, the chancellery formed the next highest level in the government. The office was later designated as Chief President of the Privy Council . (Selection)

Central government authorities

The Hohenzoller princes saw themselves not only as Brandenburg margraves, but also as territorial lords of other lands. They tried to merge these hardly coherent conglomerates into a single state and created new authorities for this purpose, whose headquarters were in Berlin. In order to concentrate the decision-making processes at the highest level, the Secret Council of the Mark Brandenburg was founded in December as a nine-person central advisory body for the Elector. It replaced the chamber government that had ruled until then . The Council was chaired by the Chancellor, who briefed the other Privy Councilors. In 1651 the council received an administrative sub-structure comprising 19 departments or departments. In contrast to the later mobile secret council, to which the Brandenburg elector and Prussian king belonged, the secret council met around 1700 even without the elector on Tuesdays and Saturdays in the "council room" in the Cölln Residenzschloss near the authorities, so that the flow of information was guaranteed. The meetings were recorded and sent to the elector. The members of the mobile secret council accompanied the elector on his travels.

One of the first state authorities in Brandenburg-Prussia was the General War Commissariat set up by the Great Elector in 1660 as the central instance for the administration of the new taxes ( excise , direct property tax and contributions on the land). Provincial commissariats in the individual parts of the country were assigned to the new authority . In addition to collecting taxes, the authority was also responsible for financing and equipping the army. In 1674, with the General War Treasury, a financial authority assigned to the General War Commissariat was set up, which administered all income, foreign subsidies and local taxes. The establishment of the authority represented a further step in the centralization of the princely power. Both the estates and the cities were increasingly deprived of tax sovereignty and transferred to central authorities directly subordinate to the elector.

The Secret Court Chamber was founded in 1689 to manage the non-taxable income. The authority founded by Dodo von Knyphausen , which was responsible for the electoral domain administration, and to which in 1696 a central treasury, which was assigned to Hofrentei , meant an increasing loss of importance for the Secret Council, which had existed since 1604. The superior courts were subordinate to the administration of the Privy Council. In 1697, after the overthrow of Chief President Eberhard von Danckelmann, the " Real Secret War Council " was founded by Elector Friedrich III. This council also met twice a week, usually on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Since 1697, the fortunes of the entire Hohenzollern State have been directed here and no longer in the Privy Council. In addition to the Elector / King, the committee consisted of four to five people. The Secret Council lost its effectiveness, but was retained as the central organ of the entire Thenzollern State.

In 1713 the General Finance Directorate was founded, which, alongside the General War Commissioner (since 1660), became the highest Prussian financial authority and dissolved the Secret Court Chamber , which had existed since 1689 . Together with the chambers of the provinces, it was responsible for managing the domains. The General-Ober-Finanz-Kriegs- und Domainen -direktorium was founded as a transnational authority in 1723 by amalgamating the General Finance Directorate , founded in 1713, and the General War Commissioner, which had existed since 1660, and comprised important powers of internal and financial administration. This further restricted the powers of the Privy Council. Only church and school administration remained for the privy councilor.

State finances

In the 16th century the financial needs of the territories in the empire rose sharply. The prince settled residences built and started an on representation aligned royal household to run. Other fields of activity such as the expansion of the administration and a standing army were added. The tax revenue in Brandenburg was insufficient for this, so that the Brandenburg electors of the 16th century found themselves in a chronic debt spiral. The elector's greatest lenders were the landed gentry .

In order to get the debt under control without endangering the state-building process, the electors looked for new sources of income. Up until then, the granting of special rights for the collection of customs duties ( regalia ), the minting of coins and the income from the income from the landed property ( domains ) were the largest items of income. These funds were already inadequate in the Middle Ages, so that the estates agreed to grant extraordinary subsidies (Beden), and later permanent taxes. In Brandenburg direct taxes had to be paid on property and property. Indirect taxes on domestic trade and consumption prevailed from the late Middle Ages. In 1472 the Bierziese was first granted temporarily, then from 1513 permanently on every barrel of beer sold in the city. In the 17th century the excise was introduced in Brandenburg but also elsewhere. After the last state parliament had granted taxes for only six years in 1653, the elector did not call full state parliaments and took the reorganization of the unproductive tax system into his own hands , supported by the townspeople . With the provincial law of 1667, the tax reform took on more extensive dimensions. The introduction of indirect taxation was seldom without resistance and the last elements of taxation were only established with the subsequent excise regulations from 1680 to 1684. In the countryside, direct taxes (contributions) continued to be levied. From then on, an excise wall surrounded the cities and the movement of goods was recorded at fixed entry and exit points. The estates thus no longer had effective tax approval powers and were separated from political decision-making. The following kings continued to develop the tax system. As the population increased and the economy recovered, government revenues continued to rise, so that debt could be reduced and even a national treasury was created.

Legal system

Cover sheet of the chamber court order of the Mark Brandenburg from 1540
Since 1735, the Court of Appeal, together with the Court of Appeal and the Ravensburger Tribunal, was located in the Kollegienhaus on Lindenstrasse , Friedrichswerder , (currently the Jewish Museum )

With the Golden Bull of 1356, the electors were given the right to maintain their own supreme court instances for their subjects . In the Mark Brandenburg, the Chamber Court was created in this function from the second half of the 15th century , which was first mentioned in 1468. The court was closely connected to the electoral court. In 1475, Margrave " Eisenzahn " appointed Hermann Molre from Gardelegen as "Procurator fisci" ( public prosecutor ) for his entire rule. The court was composed of representatives of the prince and the estates, in which the later division into gentlemen's and scholars' banks became apparent. It was supposed to last until 1748. In the first half of the 16th century, the Kammergericht became the supreme court of the electorate. The Roman law was received in Brandenburg and the basis of the common law. The efforts to establish a court order for the Chamber Court culminated in the “Reformation Churfürstlicher Gnaden zu Brandenburg Cammergerichts zu Cöln an der Sprew”, published in 1540.

The court order established the court of appeal as a permanent meeting facility in the Cölln Castle. In addition, all negotiations were now basically to be conducted in writing, complaints to be submitted as written pleadings and judgments to be made in writing. The parties to the litigation no longer had to travel from the province to the residential city in order to bring about a decision. The petition ( supplication ) to the sovereign was established as a legal remedy . In the late 16th and almost the entire 17th century, the development of the chamber court stagnated. The slowness of the litigation was notorious. In addition, there was an inheritance division in the Mark which limited the jurisdiction of the court territorially. Margrave Johann von Brandenburg-Küstrin created a separate higher court in Neumark, which received the exemption from imperial jurisdiction . A separate court order was issued on September 26, 1553 with the consent of the Neumark estates. The Küstriner court persisted after the death of Margrave Johann in 1571 and later became part of the Neumark government .

Grand Chancellor Samuel von Cocceji , President of the Supreme Court between 1722 and 1738 , tried to reorganize the judiciary and the Supreme Court as part of his comprehensive reform. He was primarily concerned with the centralization of the Brandenburg Higher Courts under his direction, the internal reorganization of the court and the acceleration of court work. The previously independent war, court and criminal court merged with the Kammergericht. In 1748 the division into a gentlemen's and scholars' bank was abolished and the chamber court became the first instance for consistorial processes . This gave it back responsibilities that it had already had until 1573.

In the legal area, several courts stood side by side in the 18th century. In Berlin there was the lordly court court , the French court, the military court, courts of the new towns, aristocratic and ecclesiastical court districts, castle feuds and free houses as special judicial districts. The responsibilities were unclear, which means that processes were delayed.

literature

  • Helmuth Croon: The Kurmärkische estates from 1571-1616, publications of the historical commission for the province of Brandenburg and the capital Berlin volume 9, commission publishing house by Gesllius, Berlin 1938
  • Georg Fuchs: The District Administrator: Career Paths, Position, Management and Understanding of Office, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012
  • Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th century: Margrave rule between spatial distance and political crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 167
  2. ↑ Johannes Schultze: Die Mark Brandenburg, Duncker & Humblot, 1989, p. 207
  3. ↑ Peter Knüvener, Dirk Schumann : The Mark Brandenburg under the early Hohenzollern, contributions to history, art and architecture in the 15th century, writings of the Landesgeschichtliche Vereinigung für die Mark Brandenburg - Volume 5, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2015, p 17
  4. ↑ Peter Baumgart, Jurgen Schmadeke, Jürgen Schmädeke: Ständetum and state-building in Brandenburg-Preussen: results of an international conference, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1983, p 22ff
  5. ↑ Kersten Krüger: Forming the early modern age: selected essays, history: research and science, Volume 14, LIT Verlag, Münster 2005, p. 182
  6. ↑ Helmuth Croon: The Kurmärkische Landstands from 1571-1616, publications of the historical commission for the province of Brandenburg and the capital Berlin volume 9, commission publisher von Gesllius, Berlin 1938, p. 1
  7. ↑ Philipp Walter: Universität und Landtag (1500–1700): Academic Landstandschaft in the field of tension between Reformation teaching, sovereign instrumentalization and class solidarity, Böhlau Verlag, Vienna-Cologne-Weimar 2018, pp. 479–481.
  8. ↑ Helmuth Croon: The Kurmärkische Landstands from 1571-1616, publications of the historical commission for the province of Brandenburg and the capital Berlin volume 9, commission publisher von Gesllius, Berlin 1938, p. 2
  9. ↑ Helmuth Croon: The Kurmärkische Landstands from 1571-1616, publications of the historical commission for the province of Brandenburg and the capital Berlin volume 9, commission publisher von Gesllius, Berlin 1938, p. 2f
  10. ↑ Helmuth Croon: The Kurmärkische Landstands from 1571-1616, publications of the historical commission for the province of Brandenburg and the capital Berlin volume 9, commission publisher von Gesllius, Berlin 1938, p. 5-6
  11. ↑ Christopher Clark: Prussia - Aufstieg und Niedergang 1600–1947, Pantheon Verlag, 2006, p. 34
  12. ^ Herbert Helbig: Society and Economy of the Mark Brandenburg in the Middle Ages, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1973, p. 62
  13. ^ Herbert Helbig: Society and Economy of the Mark Brandenburg in the Middle Ages, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1973, p. 61
  14. ↑ Peter-Michael Hahn: Princely territorial sovereignty and local aristocratic power: The lordly penetration of the rural area between Elbe and Aller (1300–1700), publications of the Historical Commission of Berlin, Volume 72, Walter de Gruyter (Verlag) , Berlin - New York 1989 , P. 1f.
  15. ^ Herbert Helbig: Society and Economy of the Mark Brandenburg in the Middle Ages, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1973, p. 65f
  16. ↑ Peter-Michael Hahn: Princely territorial sovereignty and local aristocratic power: The lordly penetration of the rural area between Elbe and Aller (1300–1700), publications of the Historical Commission of Berlin, Volume 72, Walter de Gruyter (Verlag), Berlin - New York 1989 , P. 3.
  17. ↑ Peter-Michael Hahn: Princely territorial sovereignty and local aristocratic power: The lordly penetration of the rural area between Elbe and Aller (1300–1700), publications of the Historical Commission of Berlin, Volume 72, Walter de Gruyter (Verlag), Berlin - New York 1989 , P. 7.
  18. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 108f.
  19. ↑ Christopher Clark: Prussia - Aufstieg und Niedergang 1600–1947, Pantheon Verlag, 2006, pp. 24–26
  20. ↑ Christopher Clark: Prussia - Aufstieg und Niedergang 1600–1947, Pantheon Verlag, 2006, p. 29
  21. ↑ (Eds.) Frank Göse, Winfried Müller, Kurt Winkler, Anne-Katrin Ziesak: Prussia and Saxony - Scenes of a Neighborhood, Sandstein Verlag, 2014, p. 46f
  22. ^ A b Georg Fuchs: The District Administrator: Career Paths, Position, Management and Understanding of Office, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012, p. 50
  23. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 115
  24. ↑ Johannes Schultze (ed.): The land book of the Mark Brandenburg from 1375 . Commission publisher von Gsellius, Berlin 1940, description of the Mark Brandenburg 1373, pp. 1–5.
  25. ^ Lieselott Enders : The Altmark. History of a Kurmark landscape in the early modern period (late 15th to early 19th century) . Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-8305-1504-3 , I. Becoming the regions in the Middle Ages. 1. From the Duchy of Saxony to the Mark Brandenburg, pp. 31–41, Landreiter: pp. 38–39.
  26. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, pp. 108–111
  27. ↑ a b Johannes Schultze: The Mark Brandenburg. 2nd volume . 4th edition, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-428-13480-9 , II. The mark under the Luxembourg house. 1. Kaiser Karl IV. (1373–1378), pp. 161–175, territorial goal, Wenzel the sovereign, regent Charles IV., Description of the country from 1373: pp. 161–164; Land book of the Mark Brandenburg: pp. 164, 169–170.
  28. ^ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margravial Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, pp. 116-122
  29. ↑ Johannes Schultze: The land book of the Mark Brandenburg from 1375 . Commission publisher von Gsellius, Berlin 1940, for an introduction. Contents and documents of the land book, pp. XIII – XIX.
  30. ↑ a b Johannes Schultze (ed.): The land book of the Mark Brandenburg from 1375 . Commission publisher von Gsellius, Berlin 1940, [Topographical Description of the Mark], pp. 62–66.
  31. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, pp. 108–111
  32. ↑ Georg Fuchs: The district administrator: career paths, position, management and understanding of office, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012, p. 49
  33. ^ Georg Fuchs: The district administrator: career paths, position, management and understanding of office, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2012, p. 51f
  34. ^ Felix Escher : Brandenburg history . Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-05-002508-5 , The Electorate of Brandenburg in the Age of Confessionalism. Economic change and sovereign-class division of power, pp. 235–253, homage to Joachim I and beyond: pp. 236–238.
  35. ^ Bratring: Statistical-topographical description of the entire Mark Brandenburg. 1804, Volume 1, p. 5.
  36. ^ Bratring: Statistical-topographical description of the entire Mark Brandenburg. 1805, Volume 2, p. 414.
  37. ^ Bratring: Statistical-topographical description of the entire Mark Brandenburg. 1805, Volume 2, p. 431.
  38. ^ Bratring: Statistical-topographical description of the entire Mark Brandenburg. 1809, volume 3, p. 5.
  39. ↑ Peter-Michael Hahn: Princely territorial sovereignty and local aristocratic power: The lordly penetration of the rural area between Elbe and Aller (1300–1700), publications of the Historical Commission of Berlin, Volume 72, Walter de Gruyter (Verlag), Berlin - New York 1989 , P. 21f.
  40. ↑ Peter-Michael Hahn: Princely territorial sovereignty and local aristocratic power: The lordly penetration of the rural area between Elbe and Aller (1300–1700), publications of the Historical Commission of Berlin, Volume 72, Walter de Gruyter (Verlag), Berlin - New York 1989 , P. 24.
  41. ↑ Frank Göse: Friedrich der Grosse and the Mark Brandenburg: Rule Practice in the Province, Studies on Brandenburg and Comparative State History, Volume 7, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 20012 p. 163
  42. ↑ Frank Göse: Friedrich der Grosse and the Mark Brandenburg: Rule Practice in the Province, Studies on Brandenburg and Comparative State History, Volume 7, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 20012 p. 164
  43. ^ A b Gerd Heinrich: Kulturatlas Brandenburg - Historische Maps - An overview of the history of the Mark, hendrik Bäßler Verlag, 4th edition, Berlin 2015, p. 23
  44. ^ Frank Göse: Frederick the Great and the Mark Brandenburg: Rule Practice in the Province, Studies on Brandenburg and Comparative State History, Volume 7, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 20012 p. 7
  45. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 111
  46. ^ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margravial Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, pp. 135-140
  47. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: margrave rule between spatial distance and political crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 141f
  48. ↑ Jan Winkelmann: The Mark Brandenburg of the 14th Century: Margrave Rule Between Spatial Distance and Political Crisis, Lukas Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin 2011, p. 144
  49. ↑ Achim Beyer: The Kurbrandenburg residences in the long 16th century, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2014, p. 24, p. 33
  50. ↑ Achim Beyer: The Brandenburg Residences in the Long 16th Century, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2014, p. 32
  51. ^ Ines Elsner: Friedrich III./I. von Brandenburg-Prussia (1688–1713) and the Berlin Residence Landscape: Studies on an Early Modern Court on Travel - A Residence Handbook, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2012, pp. 53, 58
  52. ↑ Achim Beyer: The Kurbrandenburg residential landscape in the long 16th century, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2014, p. 24, p. 109
  53. ^ Ines Elsner: Friedrich III./I. von Brandenburg-Prussia (1688–1713) and the Berlin Residence Landscape: Studies on an Early Modern Court on Travel - A Residence Handbook, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2012, pp. 80f
  54. ↑ Peter Bahl: The Court of the Great Elector: Studies on the higher officials in Brandenburg-Prussia, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne Weimar Vienna 2001, pp. 92–95
  55. ^ Ines Elsner: Friedrich III./I. von Brandenburg-Prussia (1688–1713) and the Berlin Residence Landscape: Studies on an Early Modern Court on Travel - A Residence Handbook, Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin 2012, p. 30
  56. ↑ Christopher Clark: Prussia - Aufstieg und Niedergang 1600-1947, Pantheon Verlag, 2006, p. 35
  57. ↑ (Eds.) Frank Göse, Winfried Müller, Kurt Winkler, Anne-Katrin Ziesak: Prussia and Saxony - Scenes of a Neighborhood, Sandstein Verlag, 2014, p. 70
  58. ↑ Leibetseder, Mathis: Superior Court, published on February 2, 2019. in: Historical Lexicon of Brandenburg, URL: http://www.brandenburgikon.de/