Soest feud

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soest feud was a feud between 1444 and 1449. The city of Soest asserted its freedom against Archbishop Dietrich of Cologne (1414–1463), who tried to restore his rule. The city of Soest countered this policy on June 5, 1444 by adopting a new sovereign, Johann I , the Duke of Kleve-Mark, who granted the city its old rights and more. As a result, Emperor Friedrich III. the imperial ban on the city. The victory of the city after the Archbishop of Cologne gave up, meant that Soest had more freedom than an imperial city until the Prussian annexation . At the same time, by leaving the Duchy of Westphalia, it lost its previous economic hinterland and thus lost its economic strength in the long term.

prehistory

Coat of arms of the Counts of Moers
Johann I of Kleve

The city of Soest was an important trading and industrial city that held a leading position in the Hanseatic League and had been pursuing a self-confident territorial policy since the 13th century. She succeeded in bringing the surrounding area with ten parishes, the Soester Börde , under her rule. In relation to the Archbishop of Cologne as sovereign, the city acted largely independently; however, she refrained from striving for legal independence as an imperial-free city . It would have lost the protection of the sovereign and the status as a center of power. With the purchase of the County of Arnsberg in 1368, however, the balance shifted in favor of the Archbishops of Cologne. This enabled Soest to set limits. The city approached the neighboring Duchy of Kleve-Mark . An alliance for the protection of Soest citizens on Brandenburg territory was concluded in 1398. But indirectly it was directed against Archbishop Friedrich III. from Saar Werden .

His successor, Archbishop Dietrich von Moers , endeavored to expand his secular rule. He pursued an episcopal domestic power policy by providing bishopric seats for brothers and other relatives. With the creation of this “West German family empire”, the competition between the houses of Moers , Hoya and Kleve-Mark intensified . The conflict between Kleve-Mark and Moers became part of the feud. The line of conflict in church politics was also important. While the archbishop was on the side of the council , the Duke of Cleves and his ally, the Duke of Burgundy, supported the papal side.

In addition, the archbishop tried to advance the territorialization of the Duchy of Westphalia . He pursued a thoroughly benevolent policy towards the city of Soest. He supported them in 1433 in introducing a new council order. In 1434 he moved the official court from Arnsberg to Soest. He also granted the city revenue from a new excise and the right to strengthen the fortifications. These efforts to bind the city to the sovereign politics, however, had little success.

The conflict escalated

A tax claim in 1435/37, regarded as unjust, provoked resistance from the knighthood and cities of the Marshal's Office of Westphalia and the county of Arnsberg under the decisive leadership of the city of Soest. They formed a hereditary association . In the course of the settlement of the tax dispute, Soest also had its own urban interests. This applied, for example, to the expansion of the rights of use in the Arnsberg Forest . This point of contention persisted even after the archbishop relented in the matter of the Hereditary Land Association. Both the sovereign and the city intended to expand their sphere of influence. This was one cause of the conflict. Since the city of Soest was at the head of the resistance against the archbishop, the latter wanted to isolate the city so that it would lose its leading role in the opposition. Dietrich von Moers also endeavored to curtail urban rights in the Börde, which the city could not accept. Thereupon the archbishop moved with his troops in front of the city in 1441. A compromise was reached and an arbitration tribunal was asked to settle the disputes. The archbishop's demands on a scroll five meters long were so extensive that giving in would have meant the end of the city's relatively independent position.

In 1441 the city renewed the older friendship treaty with Duke Adolf II of Kleve, initially for four years. In the same year, the municipal institutions and the entire municipality formed a union to protect urban freedoms. Should the archbishop stick to his course, the city wanted to look for a new sovereign. The community signaled to the Duke of Kleve that they would accept him as their new patron if he assured the city of help. The rupture could initially be avoided through the mediation of the Cologne cathedral chapters .

This did not change the fundamentally opposing positions. The archbishop insisted on his demands and even called the royal court . The city followed the summons to Graz , but denied the court competence in the matter. The Soest Duke Bernhard von Sachsen-Lauenburg also refused to be an arbitrator. In 1444, the duke largely agreed with the archbishop. Emperor Friedrich III. confirmed this judgment shortly afterwards. As a result, the city concluded a league with the Young Duke Johann von Kleve in the “factum ducale primum” . In it she promised him homage and oath of loyalty if the archbishop did not give in by a certain point in time. Negotiations were fruitless. The city informed the duke of the failure of the negotiations, whereupon he announced the feud to the archbishop on June 16, 1444. Johann von Kleve rode into Soest on June 22nd and took possession of the city. In a second contract "pactum ducale secundum" from June 23, 1444, Johann von Kleve was confirmed as the new sovereign after he had recognized the privileges of the city. The city announced the feud to the Archbishop of Cologne on June 25th:

"Bet, biscop Dietrich van Moeres, dat wy the vesten Junker Johan van Cleve lever lifted all Juwe, unde worth Juwe hereby affgesaget."

- Beginning of the feud letter from the city of Soest to the Archbishop of Cologne, Dietrich II. Von Moers

It was about safeguarding urban freedoms and municipal room for maneuver. This also included territorial claims, for example with regard to the use of the Arnsberg Forest. Conversely, the duke was granted territorial gains in the Duchy of Westphalia.

War alliances

Both sides received support from many princes and cities. For example, the city of Dortmund was on the Cologne side - a decision that had been made after a violent internal political conflict in the imperial city. There was an alliance agreement with Soest and other large cities in Westphalia, which was only renewed in 1443; but for Dortmund as an imperial city, the importance of the imperial eight weighed much more heavily. In addition, the Archbishop of Cologne was appointed patron of Dortmund by the Kaiser, which ultimately led to the decision for his party. But Münster and Paderborn, as well as most of the Hanseatic cities, took Soest's side. This support from other cities was directly relevant to the feud because of the delivery of food. An economic boycott also weakened the other side. The Archbishop of Cologne was able to use the anti-Burgundian attitude of some princes to forge alliances. He allied himself for example with Elector Friedrich II of Saxony and his brother Wilhelm III. of Thuringia . The brother of Archbishop Heinrich II. Von Moers as Bishop of Munster and Duke Wilhelm of Braunschweig also supported the Cologne side. There was also an alliance with Charles VII of France . However, this did not have any notable impact on the course. On this basis, the people of Cologne managed to raise an army of 15,000 men. The cooperation with the Thuringians was intensified again in 1447; in the corresponding treaty the allies assumed a victory. The conflict thus gained dimensions beyond the original cause.

course

Soest depiction of Braun and Hogenberg from the 16./17. century

The conflict that broke out led to a five-year feud between the archbishop on the one hand and the Duke of Kleve and the city of Soest on the other. Initially, the locations were not so much in the Duchy of Westphalia as in the Hellweg zone and on the Lower Rhine. Not until 1446/47 did the disputes shift to the city of Soest and the cities of the Duchy of Westphalia.

Secondary theater of war Fredeburg and Bilstein

A kind of secondary theater of war was the dispute over the possession of the state of Fredeburg and the rule of Bilstein . These areas fell in connection with the sale of the County of Arnsberg in 1368 to the County of Mark . The archbishops of Cologne made further claims. The local Klevisch-Brandenburg officials, the brothers Hunold and Goddert III. von Hanxleden , announced the feud to the archbishop. The archbishop was able to assert himself. He granted the glory of Fredeburg recognition of its rights; for this she submitted to the bishop. In 1445, the Archbishop agreed with the occupation of Bilstein Castle and the associated community that the area should fall to the Archbishopric if the Duke of Kleve did not release the castle in due time.

This example also shows how difficult it was for both sides to finance the warfare. This was often only possible by pledging properties. In addition to the actual fighting, both sides tried diplomatic measures to improve their legal or moral position. The Archbishop Dietrich von Moers made severe strains with Emperor Friedrich III. started a procedure in order to occupy the city of Soest with the imperial ban. Philip the Good of Burgundy , who became the real leader of the Klevian party, appealed successfully to the Curia in Rome. He was able to use the bad relationships between the archbishop and Pope Eugene IV . The Soesters defended their approach in a letter of justification that was circulated throughout the empire.

Guerrilla warfare

The fight itself was mainly fought in the summer months. The mutual attacks were linked to robbery, looting, arson , extortion and other forms of violence against people and property. There were attacks on both sides almost daily. Women, clerics or traders were often mistreated. Settlements, monasteries and churches were destroyed. In addition to the feud, both sides accused each other of molesting women. On the Cologne side, the main sponsors of the actions were various paid functionaries such as the Marshal of Westphalia Johann von Spiegel or the Arnsberg bailiff Johann von Schädigen. Their actions against Soest's interests before the war were also part of the cause of the conflict, as they had already declared the feud to the city in 1441.

At the beginning of the war there was already a strong Klevian occupation in the city of Soest. The city of Lippstadt also fought on the side of Soest . This city attacked Erwitte , Geseke and Salzkotten . Initially more of a guerrilla war with mutual attacks, the conflict became increasingly bitter since the winter of 1445. Together with the Munster and Dortmund troops attacked Sassendorf and Lohne from Cologne . The Soesters established themselves in Meiningsen . The Lippstadt occupied Erwitte.

From the spring of 1445 mercenary troops were recruited in Saxony and Thuringia. These should first support the Archbishop of Cologne in Westphalia and then enforce the Saxon claims on Luxembourg against the Burgundians . The armaments on the Cologne side meant that Soest allied itself with Münster (which thus stood on the side of the opponents of its own bishop) as well as with Hamm , Unna and Lippstadt. Only Lippstadt participated militarily. But the Bishop of Munster was severely limited in his scope to support the Archbishop.

A night attack by the Cologne people on Klevian Duisburg in March 1445 was noticed by the city's guards in time. When the attackers tried to climb the walls, they were successfully repulsed and eventually had to give up. Märkische troops damaged the stone tower during fighting on the territory of Dortmund .

Overall, the war year of 1446 passed with minor skirmishes. During the raids in 1446, many Dortmunders were taken prisoner in the Brandenburg region. In the event of a Cologne defeat at Soest, numerous Cologne residents, including Drost Johann von Schädingen, were captured and had to be ransomed. This defeat was celebrated by the opposing side with songs of mockery. Belecke , Rüthen and Kallenhardt, among others , were affected by the war in the Duchy of Westphalia . At the end of 1446, the Soestern set fire to Neheim . Attempts at mediation by the Duke of Burgundy and the Elector Palatinate did not bring any result.

Escalation of the war

Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy

The situation seemed to be turning in the Archbishop's favor when a 12,000-strong mercenary army from Saxony and Thuringia arrived on the battlefield in 1447. The war was now growing into a cruel campaign of devastation. The archbishop's mercenary army , including an important force of the feared Hussite warriors banned by the Catholic Church but appointed by the archbishop , took numerous cities . The troops crossed the Weser near Holzminden and marched arson and plundering through the county of Lippe, which was on the Klever side, towards Lippstadt . Muenster , Herford , Paderborn and other cities were induced, for fear of the troops, to give up their support for the Soest side, at least for the time being. The mercenaries almost completely destroyed the city of Blomberg and finally besieged Lippstadt in the summer of the same year. There were strong opposing troops in the city and the city had enough artillery so that the siege was unsuccessful. Because of disagreements about the payment of wages and food, there were conflicts between the mercenaries and the archbishop and the decision was made to look for the decision in Soest.

The troops then moved to Soest. Johann von Kleve himself led the city's defense. The city was shot at, besieged and stormed several times. Also because the wages and grocery deliveries did not materialize, the decision was made to storm the city. This attempt failed and the mercenaries withdrew to the east.

The situation had thus developed to the detriment of the Archbishop. Both sides began to show readiness for peace. An armistice was reached, which was renewed several times in the winter of 1447/48. Initial negotiations to end the conflict were unsuccessful in 1448.

consequences

Territorial changes due to the Soest feud. In orange: Kleve-Mark wins Soest and the Soester Börde; in gray: Kleve-Mark loses its rights in Fredeburg and Bilstein

Around April 1449, the fighting was finally stopped. Through the mediation of Duke Philip of Burgundy and the papal legates Nikolaus von Kues and Juan Carvajal , a peace treaty was concluded in Maastricht without the direct involvement of Soest. Soest remained in the Duchy of Kleve-Mark . Also Xanten came in Cleves possession. The archbishop, for his part, was able to keep Bilstein and Fredeburg. The unity of the Westphalian cities in the Duchy of Westphalia had disintegrated. The new borders became denominational borders during the Reformation and can still be seen in the Soest Börde today .

The official court for the Duchy of Westphalia, which was previously located in Soest, was awarded as compensation to the city of Werl , which suffered greatly from the consequences of the feud with the neighboring city because of its loyalty to the sovereign.

As a result of the feud, the former seat of the Counts of Arnsberg was able to take on a larger role in the administration of the Duchy of Westphalia, as Soest, as the largest city in the Westphalian territory of the Cologne bishops, was no longer available for these functions. As early as 1446, Vest Recklinghausen had been pledged by the Archbishop of Cologne to the Lords of Gemen to finance the war - a situation that lasted through the Counts of Holstein-Schaumburg-Gemen until 1576.

The departure of Soest from the Duchy of Westphalia meant that the small towns in the Sauerland mountainous region lost not only their intensive cultural, but also their economic contact with Soest. With this, the country largely lost its previous supra-regional economic relations with the Hanseatic League, for example. The country also lost its most important market for commercial products. Other cities did not succeed in taking on Soest's role as an economic center. As a result, the economy was concentrated, perhaps apart from mining products, on the domestic market. The loss of Soest appears to be a factor in the economic backwardness of the region compared to Siegerland or Grafschaft Mark.

After the feud, Soest himself held a special constitutional position in the domain of the Dukes of Kleve-Mark. The city was largely independent and the rule of the dukes was barely noticeable. Soest was able to maintain this position until the time of Friedrich II . But the separation from the former economic hinterland also had negative consequences for the city. As long as the Hanseatic League still played a role, it was able to retain a certain priority. But with the decline of the Hanseatic League, Soest gradually sank into a country town, whose influence was largely limited to the Börde.

The poet of the victory songs, called "Vrischemai" in contemporary sources, gave the title for the historicist epic Dietwald Vrischemai about the time of the Soest feud of Wilhelm Wilms (1907). Recently, re-enactment events on the feud have been held regularly in Soest.

swell

  • Joseph Hansen (Ed.): The Chronicles of the German Cities from the 14th to the 16th Century, Vol. 21: Soest. Leipzig, 1889 [repr. Stuttgart 1969]. In it: War diary of the Soester feud (pp. 1–171), Werler Reimchronik der Soester Feud (pp. 277–336), Lippstädter Reimchronik der Soester Feud (pp. 173–275).
  • Franz Winter: Sources chronicle of the Soest feud (=  publications of the Soest City Archives, Vol. 20, ZDB -ID 2142953-4 ). Soest City Archives, Soest 1997.
  • Bartholomäus van der Lake : History of the Soester feud ("Historia der Twist Veede und Uneinicheit tuschen the noblest in Got Vader, noble wolgeboren Fursten und Heren, Heren Dyderyck [Dietrich von Moers] Ertzbyschop tho Collen, the idyllic Roman Rykesurkentz, Italy Ertzeler Administrator of the Stichtes Paderborne, Hertoge tho Engern and Westvalen, Grave tho Möerße on one and the ersam and the city of Soyst on the other Syden. Begins clarlich van Byschop Dyderyck. ") Soest [no year] ( access to the digitized material ).
  • JAA Moeller: The Soestian feud or war history of Archbishop Diederich zu Koeln with the city of Soest: Translated from an original old Low German war diary and accompanied with notes and additions . Lippstadt 1804 ( digitized version ).

literature

  • Tobias Daniels: The Soest feud in diplomatic work and the historiographical works of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) . In: Soester Zeitschrift 124 (2012), pp. 35–53.
  • Wolf-Herbert Deus: The Soester feud. Festschrift of the city of Soest on the 500th anniversary of the end of the Soest feud on April 27, 1949 (=  Soest scientific contributions, vol. 2, ISSN  0171-3752 ). Ritter (on commission), Soest 1949.
  • Heinz-Dieter Heimann : The Soester feud. History of a won urban freedom. Westfälische Verlags-Buchhandlung Mocker & Jahn, Soest 2003, ISBN 3-87902-216-X .
  • Heinz-Dieter Heimann, Uwe Tresp (ed.): Thuringian and Bohemian mercenaries in the Soester feud. Sources on the sovereign military system in the 15th century from Thuringian and Saxon archives (=  sources and studies on the history and culture of Brandenburg-Prussia and the Old Reich ). Verlag für Berlin-Brandenburg, Potsdam 2002, ISBN 3-935035-35-7 .
  • Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449) . In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009, ISBN 978-3-402-12827-5 , p 321-342.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Hartmut Boockmann, Heinrich Dormeier: Councils, Church and Imperial Reform 1410–1495. Stuttgart 2005, p. 97.
  2. ^ Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, p. 327.
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g Wolfgang Bockhorst: June 1444 - The beginning of the Soest feud ( online version )
  4. ^ Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, pp. 320–322.
  5. ↑ a b Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, p. 322.
  6. ^ Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, pp. 336–338.
  7. ↑ a b Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, p. 334.
  8. ↑ a b Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, p. 338.
  9. ↑ Christoph Terharn: The Herford feuds in the late Middle Ages: A contribution to feud law. Page 71
  10. ↑ a b Heinz-Dieter Heimann: The Soester feud (1444-1449). In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1. Münster 2009, pp. 339–340.
  11. ↑ Hartmut Boockmann, Heinrich Dormeier: Councils, Church and Imperial Reform 1410–1495. Stuttgart 2005, p. 98.
  12. ↑ Jens Foken: Solidified Middle Ages. Cities and freedoms of the Duchy of Westphalia in the early modern period. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, vol. 1. Münster 2009, p. 383.
  13. ↑ Wilhelm Wilms : Dietwald Vrischemai. Velhagen & Klasing, Bielefeld u. a. 1907. Reference to: Hubertus Schwartz : The street names of the city of Soest (=  Soest scientific contributions. Vol. 28). Westfälische Verlag-Buchhandlung Mocker & Jahn, Soest 1966.
  14. ↑ soesterfehde.de ( Memento from January 13, 2014 in the Internet Archive ), reichsaufgebot.de
  15. ↑ On the culture of remembrance: Heinz-Dieter Heimann: April 27, 1449 in the memory of the city of Soest - a chapter of the urban culture of remembrance between the Middle Ages and the present. In: Soester Zeitschrift 116/2004, pp. 8-27.
  16. ↑ This is another title of the war diary of the Soest feud, as Hansen printed it.