Lordship of Landskron

 

Landskron presents one of the biggest challenges to my conventions for creating simplified country names (or even fully-specified country names). Landskron began as a unified burggraviate operating out of a single castle. In 1397, however, it was geographically partitioned with some some villages being assigned to the Tomburg family and others to the Eyneburg family.

 

Lordship of Landskron [Tomburg sector]

 

In 1469, the Tomburg sector was converted to a three-way shared-sovereignty condominium when the male Tomburg line died out. Each of the three participants was a member of the nobility without his own sovereign country—what I call “non-state participants”. My convention for simplified country names is to associate non-state participants with the country to which they were subject, but to add a ~ to clarify that the participants were subjects of the the country, not the country itself. Between 1560 (the year I begin the database) and 1621 (the year the Tomburg condomium was consolidated under a single ruler), I explicitly recognize the dominant ruler (Jülich~, with a 75% share), but recognize the secondary ruler (Guelders~, in this case) only by adding “et al.” to the simplified name. After that, the sole ruler over the Tomburg sector was a Jülich subject until 1775, when a subject of the Electorate of Cologne (which I render as Bonn~ to avoid confusion with the Imperial City of Cologne) took over.

 

• Simplified country name:
  • Landskron-Julich~ et al. (1560-1621)
  • Landskron-Julich~ (1621-1775)
  • Landskron-Bonn~ (1775-1794)
• Nation:
  • Jointly-Ruled Germany (1560-1621)
  • Minor-Dynastic Germany (1621-1794)
• Chronology
  • 1397: Condominium established between the Tomburg (2/3 share) and Eyneburg lines (1/3 share)
  • 1469: Tomburg sector split among Rheineck (1/2), Quadt (1/4), and Sombreffe (1/4)
  • 1537: Rheineck share transfered to Quadt, giving Quadt a 3/4 share of the Tomburg sector
  • 1560: beginning of database (1)
  • 1621: Sombreffe share transferred to the Lords of Quadt-Landskron, Jülich subjects, giving Quadt-Landskron sole jursdiction over the Tomburg sector
  • 1633: Tomburg sector transferred to the Lords of Brembt, also Jülich subjects
  • 1729: Tomburg sector transferred to the Lords of Nesselrode-Landskron, also Jülich subjects
  • 1775: Tomburg sector transferred to Cloedt, a subject of the Electorate of Cologne
  • 1794: Occupied by France/end of database

 

(1) Date selected to coincide with that of the Eyneburg sector

 

Lordship of Landskron [Eyneburg sector]

 

The Eyneburg sector passed to the Lord of Plettenberg in 1513. Upon the extinction of the Plettenberg line in 1545, the Eyneburg sector was converted into a shared-sovereignty condominium between the Lords of Harff (2/3) and Pyrmont (1/3, not to be confused with the County of Pyrmont on the Weser River). When Gudenau was spun off from Bassenheim in 1554, the Harff share was included in that country. Then, in 1560, the Pyrmont share was sold to the same party that controlled the largest share of the Tomburg sector. Thus, during the period covered by the database, the Eyneburg sector was always ruled as a condominium between Gudenau (2/3) and the ruler of the Tomburg sector (1/3). In 1659, the number of villages in the Eyneburg sector was significantly reduced, as explained below. Also, in 1735, the Bassenheim-Gudenau line became extinct and was replaced by Bassenheim-Bornheim. Then, in 1777, the Bornheim line became extinct and was replaced as dominant participant by a subject of the Electorate of Cologne who restored the Gudenau name. (Note that the Cologne subject claiming the Gudenau share was not the same as the Cologne subject claiming the Tomburg share, so the country remains in Jointly-Ruled Germany.)

 

• Simplified country names
  • Landskron-Gudenau et al. (1554-1735)
  • Landskron-Bornheim et al. (1735-1777)
  • Landskron-Bonn~ et al. (1777-1794)
• Nation: Jointly-Ruled Germany
• Chronology
  • 1397: Condominium established between the Tomburg (2/3 share) and Eyneburg lines (1/3 share)
  • 1513: Eyneburg sector transferred to Plettenberg
  • 1545: Eyneburg sector split between Harff (2/3) and Pyrmont (1/3)
  • 1554: Harff share transferred to Lordship of Bassenheim-Gudenau
  • 1560: Pyrmont share transferred to the rulers of the Tomburg sector, the Lords of Quadt-Landskron, who were Jülich subjects/beginning of database
  • 1633: Tomburg share transferred to the Lords of Brembt, also Jülich subjects
  • 1659: Several villages in the Eyneburg sector transferred to the Duchy of Jülich (thus creating a Jülich sector) in exchange for the Lordships of Adendorf and Villip, which were granted independence
  • 1729: Tomburg share transferred to the Lords of Nesselrode-Landskron, also Jülich subjects
  • 1735: Gudenau share transferred to Bassenheim-Bornheim upon the extinction of the Gudenau line
  • 1775: Tomburg share transferred to Cloedt, a subject of the Electorate of Cologne
  • 1777: Gudenau share transferred to Vorst-Lombeck-Gudenau, a subject of the Electorate of Cologne, upon the extinction of the Bornheim line
  • 1794: Occupied by France/end of database
• Personal unions
  • as shared primary
    • Lordship of Bassenheim-Gudenau (1554-1735)
    • Lordship of Bassenheim-Bornheim (1735-1777)

 

Lordship of Landskron [Jülich sector]

 

For roughly one month during 1659, all or part of the Gudenau share of the Eyneburg sector was placed in the hands of the Elector of Trier, who was a member of the von Leyen family. He negotiated the following three-way trade with the Duchy of Jülich:

 

• Jülich received the Gudenau share of three villages in the Eyneburg sector, thereby creating a Jülich sector of Landskron. The Tomburg shares of those villages were unaffected by the trade.
• Bassenheim-Gudenau received Dingstuhl Villip from Jülich, which it governed as an independent country in personal union with its other holdings. It also retained its interest in two villages in the Eyneburg sector.
• Leyen-Adendorf received from Jülich sovereignty over Herrschaft Adendorf, over which it already had administrative rights. The von Leyens retained no interest in Landskron.

 

It should be noted that this was not the first time Jülich shared villages associated with Landskron. Three villages in the Tomburg sector were geographically partitioned between Landskron and Jülich, dating back to a period before the database begins. The Jülich portion of those villages is not part of the Jülich sector of Landskron. I handle those geographically partitioned villages by creating separate places for the Jülich portion in Wittelsbachian Germany and the Landskron portion in Minor-Dynastic Germany. Within the Jülich sector of Landskron, in contrast, each village is a single place in Jointly-Ruled Germany in which sovereignty is shared without regard to geography.

 

• • Simplified country name: Landskron-Jülich et al.
  • Nation: Jointly-Ruled Germany
  • Predeccessor: Lordship of Landskron [Eyneburg sector]
  • Chronology
    • 1659: Created when Jülich received the Gudenau share of three villages in the Eyneburg sector in trade
    • 1729: Tomburg share transferred to the Lords of Nesselrode-Landskron, also Jülich subjects
    • 1775: Tomburg share transferred to Cloedt, a subject of the Electorate of Cologne
    • 1794: Occupied by France/end of database
  • Personal unions
    • as shared primary
      • Duchy of Jülich (1659-1794)

 

The sovereignty over two of the villages in the Tomburg Anteil (Gimmigen and Kirchdaun) was split between Landskron and Jülich. I begin the database for Landskron in 1565—the year Schleiden assumed administrative responsibilities for the Jülich portions. Landskron itself held administrative responsibilities for the Jülich portions between 1641 and 1661. During that period, I render the simplified country name as “Jülich-Landskron”.