Isenberg confusion

The Isenberger Wirren was a feud between 1232 and 1243 between Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg and Adolf I. Graf von der Mark with their respective allies. Dietrich tried to force the return of the Isenberg possessions, which Count Adolf had obtained after the execution of his cousin Friedrich Count von Isenberg in November 1226 for the murder of the Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I Archbishop of Cologne, Count von Berg . Both sides achieved military successes that ultimately resulted in a stalemate. The dispute was therefore settled by negotiation. In 1243, the warring parties reached a settlement that secured Dietrich rule over the small county of Limburg and divided the Isenberg estates about half between the opponents. This led to a consolidation of the Brandenburg territorial possession and to a permanent connection between the Hammer area and the County of Altena . The Isenberg turmoil was therefore an important step in the development of the later County of Mark .

prehistory

The victory over Heinrich the Lion , Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, in 1180, who had ruled with equal power over his then tribal duchy of Saxony , led to the division of Westphalia , as set out in the Gelnhausen document . The Archbishop of Cologne was elevated to Duke of Westphalia . He came into direct competition with the Westphalian counts, who in turn tried to fill the power vacuum that had developed and to establish their own territorial states.

In particular, Engelbert I Archbishop of Cologne (1216–1225) created powerful enemies among the Westphalian counts through his aggressive territorial policy. This dispute escalated when Engelbert, on the orders of the Pope, tried to withdraw the bailiff's rights over the Essen monastery , which made up a substantial part of Friedrich's fortune , from his relative Friedrich von Isenberg . For this reason Friedrich was involved in a far-reaching conspiracy by the Westphalian nobility, which had decided to take aggressive action against Engelbert. There is some dispute in the literature about whether the conspiracy planned the assassination of Engelbert or just his capture. There are also indications of a variant, according to which the people behind the crime secretly had the archbishop's murder in mind, but left Friedrich in the belief that it was simply a matter of arrest in order to use him as a scapegoat. The encounter between the conspirators and Engelbert ended with the death of the archbishop in 1225. Friedrich was presented as the (alleged) ringleader. In 1226, a good year later, a ruse by Count Gerhard IV. Count von Geldern led to the capture of Count Friedrich von Isenberg. Transferred to Cologne, he was braided on the bike as a punishment for the archbishop's murder and thus executed. Few of the remaining conspirators were punished, most of them got away with it.

Friedrich's cousin, Adolf I. Graf von der Mark , who, like his father and the father of the murdered Archbishop, had married into the Geldern house, demonstratively sided with Cologne's Archbishop Heinrich von Molenark , who had been commissioned to to punish the murder of Engelbert. Count Adolf besieged Friedrich's castle Nienbrügge and destroyed it. In gratitude for his support, the archbishop enfeoffed him with the Isenberg estates, which Adolf subsequently acquired. As a result, Adolf I reunited the Altenaic areas, which were divided between the Altenaisch-Mark and Altean-Isenberg lines of the House of Berg in the second Altenaic division of inheritance from 1175, back into one hand. (For more information on the background to the crime, see the articles on Engelbert I of Cologne , Friedrich von Isenberg , Adolf I of the Mark and Nienbrügge ).

Friedrich's son Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg , who was still a minor at the time, had to accept the loss of the Isenberg possessions. However, when he was about seventeen years old and thus of legal age, he decided to demand the surrender of the paternal inheritance of Count Adolf von der Mark.

Dietrich first brought his claims to Count Adolf around 1230. Since the latter had assured himself of the support of the Cologne church, he rejected the Isenberger's demands . Thereupon Dietrich decided to take military action against Count Adolf and his allies with the help of his allies. Count Adolf took up the fight and defended the possessions he had acquired in 1226.

The opponents

Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg-Limburg

Count Adolf's cousin Friedrich von Isenberg had been married to Sophia von Limburg († 1226), a daughter of Duke Walram IV of Limburg an der Maas , since 1214 . She was the sister of Heinrich von Limburg, the son-in-law of Count Adolf III. von Berg was, and granddaughter of Heinrich III. Duke of Limburg, Count of Arlon .

The marriage produced five or six children:

• Dietrich , (* around 1215; † 1301), married to Adelheid von Sayn († 1297).
• Friedrich, not mentioned by name in 1228 and 1233, mentioned by name in 1243.
• Agnes, mentioned 1243–1282, about 1243 married to Burkhard III. von Broich (1241-1274).
• Elisabeth, mentioned 1243–1275, married around 1234 to Dietrich II, Count von Mörs (1226–1260).
• Sophia, mentioned 1243–1292, married about 1237 to Heinrich II. Von Volmarstein (* around 1180; Count von Volmarstein 1217–1258).
• A daughter who is not known by name is assumed to be the second wife of Count Johann I von Sponheim and Sayn .

It was Dietrich, as the eldest son of his father, who tried to regain the paternal inheritance. He grew up at the court of his uncle, Heinrich IV. Duke of Limburg , who had held the title of Count von Berg since 1226 .

More and more, Dietrich became convinced that the judgment passed on his father was not fair. If his father was not innocent, Dietrich thought he was a victim of the intrigues of his enemies. To these he counted above all Gerhard IV. Count von Geldern , who had captured Friedrich by a ruse and transferred to Cologne , where he had been braided on the bike, and Friedrich's cousin, Adolf I. Graf von der Mark , who immediately after Friedrich's death had confiscated the Isenberg estates. As his main opponent, however, Dietrich regarded the Archbishop of Cologne Heinrich von Molenark , the "murderer" of Count Friedrich. Dietrich swore revenge and fought him with all available means.

Dietrich secured the support of his uncle, the Duke of Limburg. In this context, it seems remarkable that Duke Heinrich initially accepted the Isenberg inheritance from Adolf I von der Mark and not immediately after the death of Friedrich and his wife Sophia, the Duke's sister, the Isenberg inheritance for Frederick's surviving children or claimed for himself. The question arises whether he feared the power of the Cologne Church or whether he deliberately hesitated in order to be able to take more successful action against his opponents at a later date. The Duke may have adopted Adolf von der Mark's wait-and-see attitude in order to beat him with his own weapons. It would certainly have been unwise on his part to attempt in the first few years to help the son of Friedrich von Isenberg, who had been banned from the Reich, to his rights.

Dietrich could not only count on his uncle, but also on other allies. These included his brother Friedrich, his uncle Wilhelm von Isenberg and "other gentlemen living on the other side of the Lippe", as Levold von Northof reports. According to Stirnberg and Hulshoff / Aders, it was probably the same nobles who had participated in the conspiracy against Engelbert I of Cologne: Otto I. Graf von Tecklenburg (1209–1263), the Counts of Schwalenberg, the Lords of Steinfurt and von der Lippe and Gerhard Edler von Wildenberg. Vahrenhold-Huland doubts this; in their opinion, after 1225 the Duke of Limburg could only fall back on the Bishop of Osnabrück and the Counts of Kleve from the old allies . In any case, the researchers agree that the temporarily deposed, but re-elected Bishop Engelbert von Osnabrück , the brother of Dietrich's father, was one of Dietrich's supporters.

In fact, it was expected that the children of Friedrich von Isenberg would reclaim their father's fief and their allodies. In 1228 Hermann, Abbot of the Corvey Monastery , gave his chapter two loads of wine, which Count Friedrich von Isenberg had owned as a fief, against payment of 15 marks. At the same time, the abbot declared his readiness to repay the mentioned sum to the chapter should the sons of Frederick legally claim the fief again.

Dietrich's uncle Adolf von Holte (1220–1261) had distanced himself from his family after Engelbert's death and this time again took a neutral position.

In 1243, about twenty years after the violent death of Archbishop Engelbert, there were again extensive family ties in Limburg on the Rhine and in Westphalia. The Duke of Limburg and Engelbert Bishop of Osnabrück apparently pursued the goal of forcing Adolf von der Mark to surrender the Isenberg estates to Dietrich. A sister of Dietrich was married to Buchard von Moers, a second to Heinrich von Volmestein, and Dietrich himself to Alheidis von Sayn. The marriage and alliance policy of Dietrich von Isenberg-Limburg was therefore just as extensive as that of his late father.

However, these family ties should not be understood as a political alliance or even a conspiracy, as was the coalition of 1225. At that time there was no longer any automatism that family relationships were to be equated with a political alliance. In 1243 there was also no common front line against Cologne. Real pillars of Isenberg politics at that time were only the Duke of Limburg, the Count of Berg and the Bishop of Osnabrück.

In view of the loosening Cologne-Mark ties from 1240 onwards, Dietrich's position cannot be called weak. By 1243 he succeeded in repeated campaigns against Count Adolf to regain part of his father's inheritance, the area between the Lenne and the Ruhr.

Adolf I. von der Mark

Even Adolf I. Graf von der Mark allies had. The most important of them was the Archbishop of Cologne, Heinrich von Molenark , who received support from the Pope for various reasons. On the one hand, a canonical trial was pending against him in Rome at this time, which the Pope wanted to carry out as quickly as possible and without unnecessary delays. On the other hand, in the course of 1233 the Cologne Church came under massive pressure, which the Pope could not accept in this form.

A document from the Vatican archives shows that Pope Gregory IX. wrote dated June 17, 1233 to the bishop of Osnabrück, the Cologne cathedral provost and the provost of St. Gereon. He informed them that the sons of the "extremely despicable" Count Friedrich von Isenberg, the murderer of Archbishop Engelbert, "as imitators of his godlessness", with their father's brother, Wilhelm von Isenberg, the Cologne Church and the Archbishop in the most violent way harassed. The Pope ordered the recipients of the letter to bring the evildoers and their followers to rest by means of ecclesiastical punishments. The canonical process initiated against the archbishop should not suffer any delays. The Pope sent another letter of the same date to the “Fideles” (faithful) and vassals of the Cologne Church. He ordered them to stand by the Cologne church and the archbishop against the sons of Friedrich Graf von Isenberg and Wilhelm, the count's brother.

The Pope also opened a trial in Rome against the Isenbergers and their allies, in which he accused them of persecuting and insulting the Archbishop of Cologne for revenge.

In 1238 Konrad von Hochstaden became the new Archbishop of Cologne, who in turn let Adolf I von der Mark help.

In addition to the archbishop, Count Adolf could also rely on his ally, the Count of Ravensberg. It can be assumed that Count Adolf was also supported by the Counts of Geldern, not only because it was Count Gerhard von Geldern who extradited Friedrich von Isenberg, which is why Geldern was part of the opposing faction for the Isenbergers, but also because both Count Adolf and his father Friedrich von Berg-Altena married into this house. And the murdered Archbishop Engelbert was the son of a moneylender.

Furthermore, Count Adolf relied on his vassals, especially the "von Altena" and the "von Bönen". Here Levold von Northof emphasizes the knight Lubert von Bönen by name. This was Count Adolf's Drost, as his predecessor, Knight Ludolf von Bönen, died shortly after 1230.

Disputed positions

Dietrich von Isenberg's efforts served the purpose of getting the Altenaisch-Isenberg possessions back in the form in which the Isenberg branch of the Berg family ( Arnold von Altena / Friedrich von Isenberg ) acquired them through the second Altenaische inheritance from 1175 and after . This involved real estate, especially in the areas of the County of Altena , and feudal rights , but also the bailiwick rights over the Werden monastery and the Essen monastery .

War preparations

Limburg-Isenberg side

Construction of the Hohenlimburg

For the Isenbergisch-Limburg fraction, the heavily fortified Cologne Raffenburg must have been a constant and not to be underestimated threat. It secured the Lenne crossing of the "Königsstrasse" near Elsey , which led from Hagen to Iserlohn and from there to the Hönnetal and opened up the most important iron ore mines and smelting sites in this area.

Therefore, Duke Heinrich probably moved into the Lenne area with Limburg troops around 1230, i.e. still in the run-up to the war, in order to fortify the position of his nephew Dietrich. At the place where the city of Hohenlimburg is today, he had the Hohenlimburg built, named after his own castle Limburg an der Vesdre, and gathered an army at this point. The Hohenlimburg, built on a tongue of the Schleipenberg, was only one kilometer as the crow flies from the Raffenburg. The exact time of the start of construction on Limburg can no longer be determined today, so there is some talk of the start of construction in 1232.

According to Levold von Northof, the Duke of Limburg had taken as many knights with him to battle in the new castle as there were planks with which the castle was strengthened. As a result, it was originally a wooden earth fortification that was later made in stone. As archaeological finds show, another small, but heavily fortified castle was built at the same time about 400 meters above today's Hohenlimburg Castle on the Schleipenberg, which probably served to protect the Limburg's flanks during construction. Her name has not been passed down. Their remains are called today "The Seven Trenches on Schleipenberg". A complicated wall-ditch system, the walls presumably designed as a wood-earth fortification, enclosed a relatively small, oval core structure with stone wall and stone tower.

The Limburg was completed in 1242 at the latest. According to the document of July 17th, in which "the noble (not yet Count) Dietrich von Isenberg" with the consent of his father's brothers, Engelbert Bishop of Osnabrück, Philipp Propst von Soest, Bruno Propst von Osnabrück, Gottfried Propst von St. Martin in Münster, Wilhelm von Isenberg and Adolf von Holte, who again confessed to his family, his uncle Duke Heinrich von Limburg, in his capacity as Count von Berg, Limburg, as an allod belonging to him assigns to fiefdom. Dietrich von Isenberg therefore transferred Limburg Castle to his uncle, Heinrich Duke of Limburg, Count von Berg, and received it back from him as an inheritance in both male and female lines; the same regulation was made for two courtyards at Elsey and the courtyards at Hufele / Hövel and Wanemale / Wambel. In this way, a feudal relationship arose between Limburgers and Isenbergers, which was to determine the relationship between Isenberg / Grafschaft Limburg an der Lenne and the Duchy of Limburg / Grafschaft Berg for centuries . In short, through this step Dietrich von Isenberg made himself dependent on the counts of the mountain. On August 24, 1244, the Limburg castles swore allegiance to them. In the same year Dietrich had to undertake never to dispose of his castle without the consent of the Counts of Berg.

The constant tutelage of Dietrich by his uncle (or after 1247 by his cousin Adolf IV. Graf von Berg and his successor) was to continue until Dietrich's life. From 1271 the Hohenlimburg even became a so-called “Offenburg” (also open house) for Count von Berg, who received the right of open entry and exit.

Dietrich may have regretted that he had to fief his small county Limburg, measuring only 118 square kilometers, from which he derived his title of count after 1243, from his uncle, Heinrich IV. Duke of Limburg, in his capacity as Count von Berg . There were, however, good reasons for the castle and county of Limburg to be dependent on the Bergische feudal. On the one hand, the Counts of Berg had both a base directed against Cologne in the Cologne Duchy of Westphalia and one against the up-and-coming Märker within their county of Altena . On the other hand, Duke Heinrich may have seen this feudal bond as the only guarantee of survival of his nephew's isolated little county. Although Count Dietrich had been granted the return of all his father's fiefs, including the Cologne fiefs, in the unification treaty with Count Adolf, it was a long time coming.

The new Limburg an der Lenne Castle formed the starting point for the Limburg-Isenberg attacks against the Mark in 1232.

Expansion of the Oestrich Castle

Around the same time as the Limburg was built, Dietrich von Isenberg moved into Oestricher Castle , an old allodial property of his father and grandfather. There he had the old Carolingian west ring of the fortress expanded into a functional stone castle with a keep.

Archaeological finds indicate that in the course of the following years Dietrich had the other fortifications of the entire 18-hectare complex restored to a defensive condition. First the central wall was restored, then the east ring (possibly 1244/50). The great north wall is said to have been completed around 1247/50. Stirnberg doubts this dating. For him there is no question that Dietrich intended to make the Oestrich Castle his local headquarters and to expand it. The completion of such an extensive fortification would only make sense if at the same time the intention was to create a “civitas”, a castle town, within the ramparts, as there was on the Raffenburg. This project was finally abandoned because the contract between Count Dietrich and Adolf from 1243 resulted in a ban on fortifications.

The contract states literally: “Likewise, Dietrich may not build a new fortress or repair an old one; Count Adolf is still allowed to fix anything except Kamen and Hamm; Dietrich is still allowed to fortify the city in front of Limburg Castle over the Lenne. "

The existence of the former "cometia osteric", the "Grafschaft Oestrich", is only documented by a tax register that Count Dietrich von Isenberg had written down around 1250 and which was added at the end of the large bailiwick role. It also names the goods belonging to the county and their owners, along with the amount of their taxes. These entries are partly illegible. The majority of the goods were located around the castle hill, for example in Oestrich, Stengelinchusen / Stenglingsen, Lasbek, Gindena / Genna, Gruden, Steney, Letmathe and Helmekinchusen, possibly also the settlement of Helmke near Letmathe, which fell victim to the Honsel quarries. Other farms, however, were demonstrably outside of this dwarf county; for example in Nortlon, near Iserlohn, in Rene / Rheinen, in Coten, presumably near Haus Kotten in Menden-Bösperde, and in Vrylinchusen / Frielinghausen near Ennepetal. The half-legible "... endorpe" mentioned above could be Höfe zu Tiefendorf or Bahrendorf near Iserlohn. Altendorf near Dellwig could also be considered.

The location of the courtyards draped around the castle hill shows that the “Grafschaft Oestrich” could have been an area of ​​only a few square kilometers.

Stirnberg speculates that the cometia osteric could be a lost former Frankish royal court, which was later allodified or alienated from the empire and converted into a different legal form. In the vicinity of the county of Oestrich is the Reichshof Westhofen , which was probably about the same area as Oestrich. The center of the Reichshof was the Saxon-Franconian Sigiburg , just as the Saxon-Franconian Oestrich Castle was the center of the ocmetia osteric. In addition, Osteric can be translated as "Ostreich" and is also located southeast of the Reichshof Westhofen. The Sigiburg / Hohensyburg and the Oestricher Castle were connected by the "Syburger Weg", which came from Hohensyburg and met the Königsstraße near Elsey. His name was partially transferred (near Iserlohn) to the Königsstraße. Legends and haunted stories are also associated with this street. These parallels allow Stirnberg to assume that "Eastern Reich" was possibly the "Eastern Reichshof" at that time and thus determined the name of the "Western Reichshof".

Märkische side

Count Adolf von der Mark minted his own coins to finance the war.

Up until the time of Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa , trade and traffic provided the necessary means of payment in the area of ​​the old tribal duchy of Saxony . The only owners of the mints were the emperor, the duke and a number of clergymen. In the case of Westphalia, these were the archbishops of Cologne and the bishops of Munster, Osnabrück and Paderborn. After the overthrow of Duke Heinrich the Lion in 1180, the smaller dynasts in Westphalia also developed slowly increasing coinage activity. The question whether the coinage was based on imperial privileges or through usurpation is questionable, but no longer to be decided due to the lack of documentary tradition. Count Adolf either undermined the imperial coin shelf or received the right to mint coins, possibly through the mediation of the Archbishop of Cologne.

Even the father of Count Adolf, Friedrich von Berg-Altena , and the grandfather of Dietrich von Isenberg, Arnold von Altena , had minted the first Altenaic coins in their Limburg mint, but not very many. Adolf von der Mark, on the other hand, developed a more extensive minting activity, but apparently only after 1226, as evidenced by the coins he received, when he emerged stronger from the collapse of the Isenberg line. To this end, he set up mints in Hamm , Iserlohn and Breckerfeld .

In the course of the 12th century, instead of the previous coins, the Carolingian pound, the Cologne mark prevailed. Under the influence of Cologne, a separate denar type developed, which was strongly influenced in the first decades of the 13th century by pennies (sterling) penetrating from England, pronounced according to the Carolingian coinage. In Westphalia, the English sterlings became known through the English aid money to the anti-king Otto IV of Braunschweig at the turn of the 12th century and above all through the increasingly stronger trade relations with England since that time. Because of their good salary and weight, which corresponded to the rough and fine weight of the Cologne pfennigs, they were very popular with merchants as unofficial currency coins. Therefore, in Westphalia in the 1220s and 1230s, the English royal pennies were coined all over Westphalia. These are the sterlings of the English kings Heinrich II. (1154–1189) and Heinrich III. (1216–1272), which show a crowned head on the obverse, mostly a hand with a scepter and the inscription HENRICVS REX on the right, a twin crosshair on the reverse and an indication of the mint master and the mint.

Only sterling coins from Count Adolf have survived, which is not surprising, since his reign falls entirely in the time of the Westphalian sterling period. For example, a coin has survived from the Hamm mint, the type of which is a faithful imitation of the sterlings of Henry II of England. Its reverse, however, is one of the few examples of German language on coins from the Staufer era due to the name of the mint "In den Ham". The piece was created between 1226 and 1235 parallel to the Munster Rosicrucian sterlings, Bishop Ludolf von Holte.

The issue of the so-called younger Dortmund sterling with the emperor's portrait and title on the obverse and the sterling cross on the reverse seems to be related to the move of Emperor Friedrich II to Germany in 1235. This type of sterling had an impact on the Westphalian mints, and also directly on Hamm.

From 1230/33 Count Adolf had English pennies or sterling coins minted in Hamm and Iserlohn and put into circulation, which helped him to finance the war costs.

Course of war

As Levold von Northof reports, for several years there were almost uninterrupted feuds between the Count of the Mark and that of Limburg. Unfortunately, the chronicler of the Counts von der Mark does not give dates, which makes it difficult to categorize the battles for Hamm , Bönen , Gaßmert and Sonnborn . After all, the "Chronicon Veteris" gives the year 1232 for the battle near Wiedenbrück , which means that the events up to the Battle of Schwerte must have taken place in this year. Hermann Esser dates all traditional encounters between the Isenbergers and the Märkern up to and including the Battle of Sonnborn to the year 1232. Accordingly, the chronicler of the Counts of the Mark apparently limited himself to a few war events, most of which also date from the beginning of the war. What happened in the following years can only be speculated for a long time. Only the peace treaty of 1243 is precisely documented again.

In 1232 the Archbishop of Cologne is said to have complained to the Pope that he was being molested by the relatives of Count Friedrich von Isenberg. These made the area of ​​Geinegge, Dasbeck, Hölter and Heessen unsafe, Geinegge Castle and Ermelinghof were visited several times.

In this early phase of the war, Adolfs von der Mark was almost entirely without allies. The count owes it primarily to the bravery of his ministerials that he was able to withstand the apparently superior attacks during this time; he was certain of the devotion of a few large and well-trained knight families. In addition, the former Isenberg possessions, the Isenburg and Nienbrügge , had been razed, while the nearby Brandenburg possessions with strong fortifications controlled and protected the former Isenberg territories. Burg Mark , the Stadtburg Hamm and the city of Hamm had taken the place of Nienbrügge; instead of the Isenburg, Blankenstein controlled the Hattingen area , while Kamen and Unna were armed against attacks from the Lenne area.

Adolf von der Mark had used the years since 1225 intensively to expand his sovereignty. He was able to fall back on such a large number of possessions and rights that the fighting, especially in the eastern Hellweg area, took place in an almost closed territory in the Brandenburg region. Dietrich, on the other hand, first had to try, with the help of strong allies, to create favorable conditions for future sovereignty.

First invasion of the march

In 1232 Duke Heinrich set his army of knights on the march and moved north into Count Adolf's domain. According to Levold, Heinrich's troops devastated the country “with robbery and fire”.

Battle for Bönen

When Heinrich's troops were encamped on the Seseke stream in Edinghausen and Flierich (today's Unna district ), some of his people penetrated the village of Bönen . Their goal was likely to loot and burn the village down. However, the Count von der Mark's troops were in Bönen. They surprised the allies of Count Dietrich, killed some of them and took the others prisoner.

Isenbergisch-Limburg two-front attack

The Limburg-Isenberg strategy envisaged involving Count Adolf in a two-front battle. The Limburg troops advanced into the march from the south, while the troops of Dietrich's allies, who were based on the north side of the Lippe, invaded Marche territory from the north and made an advance on the area of ​​Cologne. Count Adolf was unable to liberate the occupied area on the Lenne and was instead put on the defensive on several fronts. He set up the "von Altena" against the Limburgers and held the "von Bönen" at Mark Castle and in Hamm , led by Adolfs Drosten Lubert von Bönen, along with the rest of his troops in readiness to receive Heinrich's troops.

Isenberg arson and advance on Hamm

Dietrich's allies in the north of the Lippe united and moved south towards Hamm, infecting and plundering the villages, houses and mansions north of the Lippe near the capital of Brandenburg. These included Heessen , Heidfeld, Dasbeck and other localities in today's Beckum district .

Adolf Graf von der Mark held a council of war with the knights of Bönen and the other castle men at Burg Mark and agreed with them to pursue the enemies, even though they were vastly outnumbered. The Brandenburg troops turned against the enemies in the north, who devastated the area around Hamm. Heinrich Herzog von Limburg wanted to rush to the aid of the northern allies, but got stuck at the crossing over the Ruhr because Lubert von Bönen, vassal and Drost of Count von der Mark, blocked his passage with his troops. Thereupon the allies of Count Dietrich withdrew in a northerly direction.

They split their army in two. One turned in the direction of Wiedenbrück , the other in the direction of (Dren-) Steinfurt and Osnabrück . Count Adolf carried out an attack on this second troop, whereupon the latter fled. Adolf von der Mark only succeeded in capturing Bock von Iburg, a vassal of the Tecklenburg counts.

Battle of Wiedenbrück

The troops who had withdrawn to Wiedenbrück heard rumors that their allies had got into battle with the Count von der Mark. They therefore turned back and wanted to help the allegedly attacked. In the vicinity of Wiedenbrück they were surprised by the army from the Mark, which had followed them. There was a battle between the two groups, which ended with a victory for the Märker. The Isenberg troops were completely wiped out, but it is said that only a few people died. Rather, Count Adolf had "almost all" taken away as prisoners, namely a large number of prisoners. These were taken to Burg Mark or Hamm, where the Märker held them until large ransom payments were received for them, which the Count used to further finance the dispute.

This remarkable initial success put the Märker in a strategically better position.

Battle for swords

Levold von Northof reports the following about the course of the Battle of Schwerte: A few days later Duke Heinrich and his troops managed to cross the Ruhr and plunder and pillage across the country. The "von Altena" then moved their forces to the Lürwald , a forest area on the northern edge of the Sauerland, in the section south of the Ruhr near Schwerte , where they awaited the return of the Limburg troops. At the same time they sent scouts after them to determine the Limburg troop strength, speed and direction of march. Of these scouts, the hunter Heinrich Knop is mentioned by name. He is said to have later become a porter, i.e. goalkeeper / castle man at the gate, at Altena Castle . Heinrich found that the Limburg troops outnumbered the Altenai troops by far. An open field battle would actually have been out of the question. Heinrich wanted to return to the Altenaischen troops with this news, but first met a single knight named Arnold, who had gone alone in order to receive reports on the situation at the front before the others. Knight Arnold wanted to prevent the Altena from retreating and therefore deceive them about the true strength of the enemy; instead of numerical superiority, Heinrich should report that one could face the enemy without hesitation, since the Altenaer would be more numerous. However, Heinrich refused to report this. So Ritter Arnold returned with him and reported the imminent arrival of the enemy in Heinrich's place. The knights Hermann and Dietrich wanted to question Master Heinrich himself, but the latter replied that he had told their brother Arnold everything he knew and was silent about his findings regarding the enemy troop strength. The two knights found this suspicious, they confronted Arnold and accused him of carelessness. But at that moment the first Limburgers penetrated the village of Schwerte and set it on fire. According to Levold von Northof, Arnold then shouted: “Look there, Brother Dietrich! They're already burning our village. Truly they should not have done that with impunity. Now we mustn't hesitate any longer. ”The Altenaers then formed up for battle. They chose the Ruhrfurt near Villigst , a village south of Schwerte, as the venue for the fight . The unarmed servants were also used. They were grouped under a flag and were to follow the knights to the site of the battle with wild war cries, which they did. In the middle of the river a wild tumult broke out, which the Altenaer won. After the battle was over, they captured 60 wealthy Limburg knights and knights who were later released for a ransom.

Stirnberg points out that the Limburg advance to Levold (Latin original) was based on the "villam de swerte". At that time it belonged to Arnold, Hermann and Dietrich von Altena, the sons of Giselher de Swerte, mentioned in a document in 1200, who, as one can see from documents from 1225 and 1230, finally called himself "de Altena". Giselher also had sons named Everhard and Giselher II. Giselher reappeared as Giselher de Swerte after 1262. After Dietrich von Steinen, the von / zu Altena family named themselves Ludenschede after their castle fief in Altena. Their coat of arms corresponds to that of the gentlemen von Bönen, von Northof and von Neuhoff and shows a vertically open handcuff.

"Villiam de swerte" used to be translated as village or "unpaved settlement" to mean Schwerte. Stirnberg thinks it is unlikely that all of Schwerte went up in flames in the attack. The large, probably already fortified Xanten court, the "curtis principalis swerte", belonged to Schwerte at that time, under the bailiwick of the Counts of Kleve , with the court and current parish church of St. Victor, the courts of Werden abbey and the former Isenberg, now Brandenburg “curtis swerte”, as Villicationsoberhof of the Hofverband Schwerte, together with surrounding farms. Stirnberg works out that the term "villam" has a double meaning. It can be translated both with “village” and with “country estate” - in other words, a larger building complex. If all of Schwerte had been destroyed, says Stirnberg, Levold von Northof would have used the term "villam sverte". With “villam de sverte” - villam to sverte, however, only part of the settlement could be meant. Levold only referred to the Schwerte estate. As a result, the Limburgers burned down the Brandenburg curtis assets belonging to them or administered by them, along with possible surrounding farmsteads. The village of Schwert, however, was spared as it was not owned by the von Altena family.

Stirnberg's theory is plausible; Schwerte was an old Isenbergian property. The Schwerte farm was designated as a widow's estate for his wife Mathilde by Count Arnold von Altena in 1200 . Count Dietrich's intention was to recapture this place with the help of his uncle Duke Heinrich and to unite it with his area on the Lenne. Burning down the village would therefore not have made sense.

The old sword local legend of "Head in the Ruhr near Villigst", which inspired Josef Spiegel to write a poem in the Low German language, reminds of the Battle of Schwerte.

Battle of Gaßmert

Levold also reports of a battle at / on the mountain Gaßmert (Gassmert) near Herscheid ( Altena district ), "on a mountain near Herscheid called Garsenbracht". Here the Märker competed against Gerhard, nobleman of Wildenburg (urk. 1241–1272), vassal of the Counts of Berg, and several nobles allied with him. These had previously invaded the County of Altena from the east with their troops. The battle ended with a victory for the Märker. After that a second castle is said to have been stormed, whereby the Herscheider apparently helped the Count von der Mark. This is probably where their rights to the Lennemark , an important forest stretch on the Lenne, come from, which a Count von der Mark zu Lehn gave them.

The time of the battle at Gaßmert cannot be precisely placed; possibly it was not part of the Isenberg turmoil at all. Esselen dates the fight to the time after the peace treaty of 1243 and mentions that the Herscheider Count Adolf helped to storm two castles. This could be the reason why they ascribed themselves the rights over the Lennemark, an important forest stretch on the Lenne, which they were given by a Count von der Mark. It is plausible that Esselen places the battle of Gaßmert at a point in time after the actual Isenberg turmoil, after all Levold speaks of the fact that “another battle was fought under this count”; however, Dietrich's allies had largely withdrawn from the conflict by this time. It is possible that the Markischn-Wildenberg argument had nothing to do with the Isenberg-Mark.

Battle of Wuppertal-Sonnborn

After the Isenberg attacks, the Märker counterattacked and invaded the county of Berg. They also ravaged villages with fire and sword. Duke Heinrich von Limburg fought back and sent the Märker to battle at what is now Wuppertal - Sonnborn . It ended in a devastating defeat for the mark. The survivors fled wildly to the County of Altena and were persecuted by the Limburgers. The place where the Isenbergs won the day is still called the Totenberg because numerous skeletal parts from the battle were excavated there.

Levold von Northof hides the defeat of the Märker near Sonnborn.

With this victory, the Limburg army managed to establish itself permanently on the lower Lenne, the Go Elsey and the Oestricher castle and the surrounding county ("cometia osteric").

Further course

How the fight went on is only fragmentary. The years between 1233 and 1243 were marked by incessant feuds between Count Adolf I and the Isenberg-Limburgers. However, these remained without decisive success for one side or the other.

In 1238 Konrad von Hochstaden became the new Archbishop of Cologne and took the place of his predecessor Heinrich von Molenark on the side of the Count of Brandenburg. Conrad Adolf I enfeoffed the Isenberg estates this year.

Little by little, the Isenberger's allies withdrew. Heinrich Duke of Limburg made peace with Archbishop Konrad von Hochstaden around 1240. Before that, the young Adolf von Limburg , Count von Berg and son of Duke Heinrichs, married the sister of the Archbishop, Margaretha von Hochstaden. This established a new, friendly relationship between the duke and the archbishop. Even the allies north of the Lippe left Count Dietrich in the lurch. It can only be assumed that this is related to the defeats suffered against the Märker.

Based on his two castles, the Oestricher Burg and the Limburg, Dietrich von Isenberg was able to assert himself with Limburgisch-Bergischer help in the Go Elsey and the cometia osteric, but no longer. Count Adolf had to accept some territorial losses. The city of Lünen and the Go Hattingen with their main festival, Blankenstein Castle , were lost to the Isenberger.

But then it remained with this division of territory. The fight ended in a stalemate between the two opponents, in which neither could achieve a decisive success. Therefore they met at the negotiating table in 1243 and tried to settle the fighting.

The comparison

Contract negotiations

Because of the deadlocked war situation, everyone involved sought a negotiated solution, including the Isenberg clergy, Dietrich's uncles. Negotiations began in the spring of 1243. On the Isenberg side, Engelbert, Bishop of Osnabrück, who was appointed to his office in 1239, and Duke Heinrich, Count von Berg, became the negotiators. On May 1, 1243, a settlement was made between Dietrich von Isenberg, his brother Friedrich, his sisters Agnes, Sophia and Elisabeth on the one hand, and Count Adolf I von der Mark and his relatives on the other, which Bishop Engelbert certified. The original of this document is lost. A certified copy from around 1487 can be found in the Fürstlich Bentheimisch-Tecklenburgischen archive in Rheda.

Content of the comparison

The most important contractual provisions were as follows:

1. Count Dietrich resigns to Count Adolf: the two courts of Brenne and Schwerte , the bailiwick and the court of the village of Unna , plus jurisdiction over all courts on that bank of the Ruhr on which Hattingen lies, and all rights, Count Friedrich von Isenberg in the plains between the river that flows through Genegge and the peasantry Heissen . When the opportunity arises, Graf Dietrich is to receive full compensation for the assignment of the last-named right.
2. The free county, the court and the Bochum court with the patronage of the church in Bochum, along with the court of Halver and Kierspe, are divided for the sake of friendship.
3. The Burgmannen von Mark , the noble free Walter von Dolbert, the knights Dietrich von Herre, Richard the Bock, Heinrich von Didinchoven, Johannes von Dynker, Richard von Bönen, Adolf von Bönen, Hyeronimus von Rinckerode, Johan von Hövel, Lupert von Bönen, Peter von Wickede and Harlev von Hessen; the Burgmannen von Altena: the knights Wilhard, Thegenhard von Lethmate, Arnold, Dietrich and Adolf; the Burgmannen von Blankenstein: the knights Wilhelm von Eichenscheid, Heinrich von Vitinghof, Godfried von Dorneburg, Conrad von Recklinghausen, Dietrich von Vitinghof and Gerhard von Leithen will in future be their fiefdoms, which were previously held by Count Friedrich von Isenberg, from Count Adolf von received the mark. This does not apply to Arnold von Didinchoven, who will receive his fief from Dietrich von Isenberg, as he did from his father, Count Friedrich. However, Arnold will hold the Villicatio of the Herbrede court from the Abbess as a fief without being hindered by Dietrich.
4. All castle men at the new Limburg Castle , the knights Albert von Hörde, Herbord von Dortmund, Dietrich von Berchum, his brother Gerhard, Rutger von Aplerbeck, Heinrich von Aplerbeck and Albert von Lethmate will receive their fiefs from Dietrich, which they used to be from the Count Adolf stopped.
5. Knight Adolf von Altena will keep the property over the houses Dale, Ischebecke and Gerkendahl and receive a fief from Count Adolf von der Mark. Heinrich von Vitinghof will also hold the Laer family as a fief from Count Adolf.
6. All goods that Count Friedrich owned carefree and given to Count Adolf in pledge or fief, Count Adolf will release from the pledge or fief within one year and return them to Dietrich without any worries. However, with regard to the goods which were already fiefs when Count Friedrich owned them, and with which Count Adolf enfeoffed feudal and servant men, Dietrich will recognize the enfeoffment as soon as he has received them back.
7. The exchange or donation of servants, as well as the exchange of goods that were carried out by Count Adolf, remain in force. Dietrich will keep other men and servants of Count Friedrich. The sons and daughters of Ritter Engelbert von Altena stay with Count Adolf.
8. Harlev called Ricebere and his heirs will hold the Hof Heessen, (Kspl. Herringen) from Dietrich von Isenberg against owed payment.
9. Neither the Graf von der Mark nor Dietrich will give men, service men, castle men or others protection for the benefit of the other or hold on to the disadvantage of the other. Neither of the two is allowed to accept the other's servants or members of the commanders in his cities.
10. Dietrich is allowed to build a fortress at a distance of one mile from Blankenstein, but outside the Brandenburg area, wherever he wants; also at Lünen an der Lippe; Beyond that, Dietrich von Isenberg is not allowed to build a new fortress or restore an old one. The same applies to Count Adolf, with the exception of the villages of Camen and Hamm; Dietrich is not allowed to fortify the city, which is located at the foot of Limburg Castle on the Lenne.

The partition contract of 1243 between Dietrich von Limburg and Adolf von der Mark, which to a certain extent represented the third Alena inheritance after 1161 and 1175/80, put an end to Dietrich's struggles and demands, which had been reviving again and again. The principles of division, on which both contracting parties agreed, show in almost every turn the deliberate aim of the two counterparties to round off and secure their territories. In contrast to the division of 1175, the complete separation of competencies and the dissolution of the mixed situation was sought. The Burgmanns of Mark, Blankenstein and Altena received their fiefs from Count Adolf in the future, while the Burgmanns of Hohenlimburg were enfeoffed by Dietrich. The enfeoffment of the Isenberg feudal man Arnold von Dinghofen is particularly emphasized, but only confirms this rule. In addition, Count Adolf was obliged to return all former Isenberg Allodes within one year, even if they had since been pledged or lent.

The most significant consequence of this agreement was that after the signing of this agreement, a new sovereignty could emerge, which was actually only a remnant of the much larger area of ​​Friedrich von Isenberg, namely the county of Limburg . It represented a closed area about 118 square kilometers (50,000 hectares) between the Ruhr and Lenne.

The treaty shows the effort to avoid foreign enclaves in one's own territory. In this way, Count Adolf was able to win some of the rights and goods that were formerly Isenberg, but had been in strategically or politically important areas of the emerging Brandenburg territory for fifteen years. These include the two courtyards Brene (Brene bei Altena) and Schwerte, the bailiwick of the church and the court of the "villa" Unna, all jurisdiction on the side of the Ruhr, where Hattingen (the Brandenburg castle Blankenstein) is, and all rights between Heessen and the Geinegge stream . A replacement for these assignments is promised to Dietrich for a later date. Furthermore, the Count von der Mark is confirmed to have a second "bridgehead" on the Lippe in the form of Lünen and Blankenstein. Dietrich is forbidden to build a Limburg fortification in this area closer than a mile from both places. Count Adolf was only allowed to fortify Hamm and Kamen, while Dietrich had to refrain from expanding and strengthening his Limburg fortress and fortifying the town at the foot of the castle. The giving away and exchange of servants that Count Adolf has already carried out remain in force.

All these provisions make clear the Brandenburg endeavor to concentrate rights and possessions. In the other regulations, however, it becomes apparent that Count Adolf was not able to implement this policy in all points. Probably the clearest sign of this is that the Krumme Grafschaft initially went to Dietrich and so the h old-style possessions remained separated from the Go Unna. Dietrich's County Limburg was nestled between the Cologne County of Volmarstein in the west and the Cologne Office of Menden, as an enclave, in the northern part of the Brandenburg County of Altena. Together with the Reichshof Westhofen bordering on the Ruhr, the Xanten immunity Schwerte, which was under the bailiwick of the Counts of Kleve, and the Cologne courts of Hegeninchusen / Hengsen and Herreke / Opherdicke since 1176, in the fiefdom of the noble lords of Grafschaft and the subsequent rule Ardey, it formed a disruptive corridor that prevented the county of Altena from uniting with Go Unna in Brandenburg for an indefinite period of time.

The free county of Bochum, the court and the court as well as the patronage of the same church, but also the court of Halver and Kierspe remained in the undivided ownership of both houses. Also, all those ministerials and feudal people who heard Adolf I von der Mark and Friedrich von Isenberg together should also be enfeoffed by both houses in the future.

The velvet ownership in Bochum, Halver and Kierspe, for which the partition agreement gives the less informative formula “because of friendship” as a reason, was the result of a violent dispute over these jurisdictions. Count Adolf had to give in to the demands of his young nephew in the areas of old Isenbergian rights and possessions - in the area of ​​Kierspe and Halver, Isenbergian bailiwick rights over the Rhade farm were attested for the Deutz monastery as early as 1207 . However, he would have welcomed the velvet possession as the alternative, a complete abandonment of his claims and rights. Limburg sovereignty in this area was preserved into the 14th century. It was not until the beginning of the 15th century that they became property of the Brandenburg region. However, it remains unclear whether there is a connection between the bailiff's rights over the Deutzer Hof and the court rights of the treaty of 1243 to Halver and Kierspe, and if so, which one.

The rights and goods named in the treaty of 1243 do not include all sovereign areas and allodes of the two lines. There are a large number of exchange and transfer deeds from Limburg, which name Isenberg possessions and rights that the count could freely dispose of. These are probably the Isenberg allodes and free counties, which Count Adolf von der Mark did not seize in 1225 because of their minor importance or their unfavorable location; As a result, Dietrich was able to inherit it from his father immediately. These include the Münster free counties of Friedrich von Isenberg. Adolf von der Mark had waived their acquisition because the Bishop of Munster had taken the Goge jurisdiction in this area, which represented the basis of his territorial rule for his possessions in the Archdiocese of Cologne, so that Count Adolf had no chance of establishing himself in this area to rise to the rulership. His own free counties north of the Lippe had therefore also become unimportant for Count Adolf.

The high court districts in the Lenneraum and on the upper reaches of the Emscher probably initially remained Isenbergisch-Limburg. Although Dietrich was able to build a new center of territorial rule with the Hohenlimburg Fortress in the Lenneraum, for which the Mark and Limburg fought between 1288 and 1306, but in 1282 he had to give the Krumme Grafschaft on the Emscher to Count Engelbert I von der Sell Mark . The third center of Isenbergisch-Limburg property and rights is the area on the lower Ruhr and around Mülheim. In scattered documents, Isenberg goods within the county of Mark are also occasionally mentioned.

From the former fiefs of Friedrich von Isenberg, Dietrich was certainly able to regain the Cologne fiefs (with the exception of Essen) and the bailiwick via the Werdener Höfe in the Münsterland (exclusively Eichholz). As early as 1227 or 1228, the Abbot of Corvey had left open the possibility of a new tenancy of Frederick's heirs, so despite the increasing wealth of sources for the 13th century, the remaining fiefs of Dietrich cannot be determined. However, it can be assumed that Dietrich, for example, did not regain the enfeoffment with the bailiwick over the possessions of the monasteries Kaufungen and Pantaleon in the county of Mark.

Various points of the treaty of 1243 were never realized. Bochum, Kierspe and Halver, which were to be divided “for the sake of friendship”, actually remained entirely in the possession of the Counts von der Mark. 1248 - at the same time the Archbishop of Cologne, Konrad von Hochstaden, enfeoffed the Count of the Mark with the Essen Bailiwick, see aftermath - the Count of the Mark acquired the Isenbergian shares around Bochum, Halver and Kierspe for himself, as well as the Isenbergian possessions and Rights in and around Schwerte and Unna. Lütgendortmund (Dortmund) and Mülheim an der Ruhr (outside of what would later become the County of Mark) had already been transferred to Count Adolf through an exchange.

aftermath

For Dietrich von Isenberg, the free float outside the sovereign territory was of great importance. From 1240 and 1242 Dietrich had the Neue Isenburg built on a steep height on the right bank of the Ruhr between Heisingen and Bredeney near Essen, near the Werden monastery . In the same year he had received back the Bailiwicks of Rellinghausen and the Oberhöfe Ehrenzell, Brockhof and Beeck from the Abbess of Essen. In the end, many goods and possessions were transferred back to him through the peace treaty of May 1st, 1243.

Dietrich's intention was to develop the two cores - Limburg an der Lenne and Neu-Isenberg - into a unified area in order to catch up with the possessions of the great sovereigns. However, given the dispersed location of his possessions, it proved impossible to form a closed territory. Dietrich's hereditary estates were all located in an area bounded by Warendorf , Ahlen and Soest in the east, Valbert , Kierspe , Halver and Neviges in the south, Duisburg , Rheinberg and Wesel in the west and Bocholt and Stadtlohn in the north.

The contract is characterized by mutual give and take and makes a balanced impression. In the past, the view was taken that Dietrich von Isenberg only got a small part of his father's inheritance back, this is probably not the case in this form. If the rule of the Isenberg-Limburgers was later limited to the only 118 square kilometers small county and Vest Limburg, it is because they were not able to keep their property permanently. The fact that Count Adolf had expanded his position of power at the expense of his opponent only became apparent later in history. In 1243 it still seemed as if the contract had led to an approximate equal distribution of Count Friedrich's property between Count Dietrich von Isenberg and Count Adolf von der Mark.

Archbishop Konrad von Hochstaden, who was not involved in the contract negotiations, felt that he was being left out. Not wrongly; For the Märker, the consequent overriding of Cologne's interests represented a first step in emancipation from the Cologne Church, which after the Battle of Worringen in 1288 finally led to a complete separation of the Mark from the Cologne feudal relationships. The development of velvet ownership in the Cologne Free County of Bochum prompted Konrad to intervene in the process.

Count Dietrich's most important endeavor was to create a new home for himself and his family. He did not see Limburg as such. But according to the settlement agreement, he was not allowed to rebuild the destroyed Isenburg or to expand Oestrich Castle. From 1243/44 he pushed the construction of the Neu-Isenburg an der Ruhr near Essen. At the same time, he openly underlined his demand for the return of the Essen bailiwick rights. The new Isenburg thus posed a direct threat to the Essen monastery . Dietrich's funds were insufficient to complete the Neu-Isenburg, so his uncle Engelbert von Isenberg, the Bishop of Osnabrück, made considerable sums of money available from church property. This called Archbishop Konrad von Hochstaden on the scene, who, in view of the political situation, refused to hand over the Cologne fiefs to Count Dietrich. At the same time, the archbishop turned to the Pope in 1244. He hoped that this bishop Engelbert von Osnabrück would be held accountable in a papal court for his illegal behavior. It is no longer possible to document whether this actually happened.

Finally, Archbishop Konrad resumed the politics of his predecessor Engelbert in the Hellweg area and tried to get hold of the two most important strategic and trade policy hubs in Essen and Bochum. The two Counts of Isenberg-Limburg and von der Mark were his natural opponents. Konrad cleverly exploited the tense situation between the two warring Altea houses. In 1244 he besieged and occupied the Neue Isenburg on the north bank of the Ruhr, forced Dietrich von Limburg to hand it over and gave it to the Count of Sayn as a fief. It can be speculated that by taking this step, Konrad wanted to prevent the newly crowned Count Dietrich von Limburg, who was married to Alheidis von Sayn, from completely switching over to the opposing side and allying himself with the Märkern against Cologne.

Subsequently, Konrad enfeoffed Limburger with the Cologne fiefdom of his father, but in return demanded that Isenberg Castle and the renunciation of the Bailiwick of Essen be granted. On February 22nd, 1248 Konrad von Hochstaden, Archbishop of Cologne, and Bishop Engelbert von Osnabrück announced that the noble Dietrich von Limburg an der Lenne had renounced the Vogtei over Essen and his rights to Isenberg Castle near Essen. For his waiver of the bailiwick Dietrich was financially at least partially compensated. But Dietrich's plans to make Neu-Isenburg his new headquarters had finally failed. He was forced to accept Limburg an der Lenne as his ancestral castle. In the course of 1248 Konrad enfeoffed Count von der Mark with the Essen bailiwick.

It was only Konrad's successor, Archbishop Engelbert, who succeeded in transferring what was actually intended for the Limburgs in the Free County of Bochum into possession of Cologne, making Cologne and Mark the common masters of the Free County of Bochum. The ownership structure in this room was complex and confusing. That is why there were repeated battles for jurisdiction in this room. Contracts between the two partners alternately speak of an entire Free County of Bochum as a single fiefdom and a redeemable pledge and thus testify to the interplay in the balance of power. The dispute was only resolved in 1392 when the Cologne pledge to the Count of the Mark was never redeemed. Isenberg possessions or legal claims in the Free County of Bochum, however, have not been recorded since 1272.

It is not completely clear whether Adolf's sons Otto von Altena as Count von Altena and Engelbert I von der Mark as Count von der Mark jointly administered the paternal inheritance from 1249 or whether they too subjected it to a real division. The better reasons speak in favor of joint administration. On the one hand, because there is no evidence of a division of the Mark in terms of ownership, on the other hand, because the latent threat to the Mark from Isenberg-Limburg would have made a renewed division of the Altenaic properties appear inappropriate, even threatening. Presumably the two brothers ruled together as counts and named themselves only after their different castle seats.

literature

• Heinz Finger : The Isenberg feud and the political merging of the northern Rhineland with Westphalia in the Staufer period. In: Annals of the Historical Association for the Lower Rhine , 197, 1994, pp. 27–62.
• AL Hulshoff, G. Aders, Dietrich Graf von Isenberg-Limburg. Approx. 1215-1229. In: The history of the counts and lords of Limburg and Limburg-Styrum and their possessions. 1200-1550. Part II Volume 1 History / Regesta. Assen and Münster, 1963.
• Levold by Northof . The Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark. In the 1955 edition with comments by Hermann Flebbe.
• Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came. From the prehistory of the Counts of Altena-Mark and Isenberg and the creation of the Counties of Mark and Limburg. Part VIII: Dietrich von Isenberg versus Adolf von der Mark or: The Isenberger Wirren. In: Active Seniors, Issue 62, pp. 12-19 ( PDF ).
• Reinhold Stirnberg: Before the Märker came. From the prehistory of the Counts of Altena-Mark and Isenberg and the creation of the Counties of Mark and Limburg. Part IX: Mark and Limburg on the way to Worringen. In: Active Seniors, Edition 63, pp. 12-18 ( PDF ).
• Uta Varenhold-Huland, The Altena-Isenberg inheritance divisions in the 12th and 13th centuries . In: The Counts of Limburg Stirum , Part I Volume 1, p. 60ff.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Winfried Dotzauer: History of the Nahe-Hunsrück area from the beginnings to the French Revolution (p. 169), Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2001 online version
2. ↑ Menno von Limburg Stirum: Some thoughts on the manslaughter or the murder of Engelbert von Berg, the Archbishop , 1964, p. 7.
3. ↑ Vatican Archives. Rodenberg's print according to register volume 17, f. 41v, No. 145: List of pending processes.
4. ↑ Document in the StaA Münster, Grafschaft Mark document no.2, printed: WUB VII, no.
5. ^ Document in the Fürstlich Bentheim-Tecklenburgischen Archive in Rheda, Urk. Limburg, No. 3, printed: WUB VII, No. 571.
6. ↑ Certificate in the Fürstl. Benth.-Tecklenb. Archive to Rheda, Urk.Limburg, No. 4, printed: WUB VII, No. 574.
7. ↑ See this: W. Bleicher: The lost history of the Letmather castle hill . In: Hohenlimburger Heimatblätter , No. 2/99, pp. 41–52.
8. ↑ According to WUB VII, No. 546.
9. ^ Front mountain.
   Dr. K. Kennepohl-Lingen, Die Hammer Münzen , in: 700 Jahre Stadt Hamm (Westf.), Festschrift to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the city, Werl 1973.
10. ^ H. Esser: Hohenlimburg and Elsey , Dortmund 1907.
11. ↑ Willi E. Schroeder, Ein Heimatbuch. Two districts introduce themselves. Bockum and Hövel , 1980.
12. ↑ It can only have been about today's Börstinger Berg. From there, the Brandenburg cohort had a clear view of Schwerte.
13. ↑ In the Talaue, on the Werth, “between the Ruhr” before Villigst.
14. ↑ According to Levold v. Northof, Ed. Flebbe, pp. 79-82. The de Altena / Swerte brothers appear individually or in groups in a document between 1251 and 1280 in the following documents: WUB VII, No. 382, ​​691, 765, 882, 931, 1201, 1258, 1273, 1431, 1483, 1725 and Reg. S 1328.
15. ↑ According to Westfälische Siegel, Plate 213, No. 1 and 2. in the StA Dortmund, as well as Diedrich von Steinen, Westphalian history, XII. Stück, p. 699 and panel XXII, M10, printed in AS, no. 37/1996.
16. ↑ Identified as a battle site by P. Hörich, Westdeutsche Kreiswerke, Bd. 1, Kr. Altena, p. 63. On these battles between Mark and Berg cf. Werber, p. 25.
17. ^ Wildenburg in the Altenkirchen district in the Rhineland.
18. ^ Moritz Friedrich Esselen, overview of the history of the county of Mark. For the celebration of the union of the county of Mark with the Brandenburg-Prussian state. , Hamm 1859, reprint from 2010.
19. ↑ Moritz Friedrich Esselen, overview of the history of the county of Mark (1859) , Hamm 1859.
20. ↑ Printed: WUB VII, No. 546.
21. ↑ These "de Altena" are probably of a different sex, which also named themselves after their castle fief at Altena. According to research by Georg von Sobbes, Engelbert von Altena is the grandfather of Sobbo de Altena (mentioned in a document from 1293–1322), the eponymous ancestor of the later city lords of the city of Sobbe. All coats of arms of the gender group de Altena / Sobbe / Lappe / Hegenscheid etc. show three serrated leaves in the position 2: 1. See also: R. Stirnberg, Vom Werden der Stadt Schwerte III , AS No. 38/1997 and Georg v. Sobbe, Das Rittergeschlecht Sobbe zu Villigst , part I and II, in: Hohenlimburger Heimatblätter, issue 3/1987 and 2/1989.
22. ↑ About 10 km.
23. ^ Otto Bierhoff: The development of the county Limburg from the county Osteric . In: Heimatblätter Hohenlimburg 1955, Issue 10, pp. 145–154.
24. ↑ Bredeney appears in the map of the Archdiocese of Cologne by Johan Gigas, from 1620, as Brenen; printed in AS No. 37/1997, p. 15. W. Bleicher identifies the curtis Brene with the Brende farm in Hagen-Halden. See Hohenlimb. Heimatblätter, in the year 57/1996, pp. 209–213.
25. ↑ WUB VII, 57.
26. ^ ^{A b} Harm Klueting, History of Westphalia. The land between the Rhine and Weser from the 8th to the 20th century. , Paderborn 1998, pp. 62, 63.