Talk:County of Mark

message: "Earl" is not a category that can be applied here. A new better title is needed. --Wetman 02:05, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl 

message: In English publications, "County of Mark" is used much more frequently than "County of the Mark". Olessi 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to restoring it to the previous title of County of Mark? Olessi 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would prefer the current title or something that eliminates the matter altogether. Charles 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply calling it "Mark" may sound bizarre since it refers to an entity, but that is indeed how that state is usually called. "Mark" primarily is used in a historical sense; the present-day territory of the historical state does not seem to be called "Mark" (aside from the Märkischer Kreis) in the way that the historical Osterland of Thuringia is still used as a geographical term (:de:Osterland). With that in mind, Mark (state) seems redundant as it was always a county, unlike the various historical states of Baden or Saxony. Mark (region) also seems unnecessary, as it is not used present-day, AFAIK. The remaining alternatives are "County of Mark" or "County of the Mark", and the former is used more frequently.   Olessi 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The area is still occasionally called "Mark" today (more frequently used in the adjective form das Märkische). I am unclear why there would be an article in English "County of the Mark", since there is no article in the German form, Grafschaft Mark. Chl 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I prefer to avoid parentheses if possible. Using the word County won't cause any confusion even if it isn't a county anymore. Chl 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With that in mind, I propose moving the article back to the previous title of County of Mark. If there is still a desire for including "the" in the title, a proper WP:RM can be initiated to gauge the opinion of the community at large. Olessi 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to RM to be done, but for the request to be for the title you propose, rather than moving the page then requesting another move. Charles 03:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have initiated a move proposal as per your request. Olessi 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
County of the Mark → County of Mark – "County of Mark", the previous title of the article, is the phrasing by which the subject in question is most commonly known in texts. Olessi 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was moved and removed from WP:RM out of process; I am relisting the proposed move. Olessi 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as originator. Olessi 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Add any additional comments
Here are two searches through Google Books:
*"County of Mark": 281
*"County of the Mark": 5
Here is how it is referenced in the books I physically have access to at the moment:
*H.W. Koch: A History of Prussia (1978)
#...Brandenburg governing the predominantly Protestant regions of Cleves, Mark, Ravensberg and Ravenstein, while Neuburg took over the Catholic regions of Jülich and Berg." (pp. 40-41)
#"Although Frederick William was willing to concede the point and transfer the troops to the county of Mark, he could only do so once the respective garrisons there had been evacuated by the imperial troops." (pp. 49-50)
#"The territories of Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg provided additional economic resources. While Ravensberg produced cotton, Mark possessed a sizeable iron and steel industry and Cleves cloth and silk manufacture." (p. 53)
*Geoffrey Barraclough: The Origins of Modern Germany (1984)
#"In the duchy of Lower Bavaria knights and cities joined together in 1347 to form the confederation of Landshut for the mutual protection of their rights and privileges. In the county of Mark they united in the same year in protest against a division of the land. In the case of Jülich..." (p. 330)
#"As we have seen, it [general taxes] began in Silesia in 1474 and soon became established; in Pomerania and Mecklenburg the first general tax was in 1484, in the county of Mark in 1486, in Hesse after reunion of all Hessian territories by Landgrave William II in 1504." (p. 349)
*Hajo Halborn: A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation (1959)
#"Still greater support of the reformatory endeavors of the archbishop of Cologne and of the whole cause of Protestantism in this corner of the Empire appeared in the new policy of the most powerful secular ruler of this region, William V of Jülich-Cleves (1539-92), who also inherited Mark, Berg, and Ravensberg." (p. 222)
#"Minor incidents could easily set fire to that tinderbox, as occurred after the death of the last ruler of Jülich-Cleves — or, more precisely, of that agglomeration of territories in the lower Rhineland which consisted of Cleves, Berg, Mark, and Ravensberg." (p. 297)
#"The emperor backed the Catholic councilors against the estates of Cleves and Mark, which remonstrated against their pro-Catholic church policies." (p. 298)
#"According to the provision of the Treaty of Xanten on November, 12, 1614, Wolfgang William received Jülich and Berg; John Sigismund, Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg." (p. 301)
*Hajo Halborn: A History of Modern Germany: 1648-1840 (1964)
#Cleves, on the Lower Rhine and adjacent to the United Provinces, and Mark, which contained a large segment of what has become in modern times the Ruhr districts, were territories vastly different from those of the Elbe and Oder, or those east of the Vistula." (p. 62) In the rest of the book he refers to "Cleves-Mark".
*Herbert Eulenberg: The Hohenzollerns (translated by M. M. Bozman, 1929)
#"This again was due to disputes about the Jülich-Cleves succession, to which the Palatines also laid claim, and the quarrel continued till the Treaty of Xanten gave Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg provisionally to the Brandenburg crown, and Jülich-Berg to the princedom of Palatinate-Neuburg." (p. 69)
*Christopher Clark: Iron Kingdom (2006)
#" In 1616, after further quarrels, the Jülich-Kleve legacy was divided – pending a final settlement – between the two claimants: the Duke of Pfalz-Neuburg received Jülich and Berg, while Brandenburg secured Kleve, Mark, Ravensberg, and Ravenstein." & "The County of Mark" was less fertile and less populous, but here there were significant pockets of mining and metallurgical activity." (p. 16)
#"After the armies of the Catholic League under General Tilly had defeated Protestant forces at Stadlohn in 1623, the Westphalian territories of Mark and Ravensberg became quartering areas for Leaguist troops." (p. 20)
#"This was the view espoused by Count Adam Schwarzenberg, a Catholic native of the County of Mark who had supported the Brandenburg claim to Jülich-Berg." (p. 27)
#"They [the Estates of Kleve] frequently conferred with the Estates of Mark, Jülich and Berg on how to best respond to (and resist) the Elector's demands."  (p. 55)
#"In Kleve, where the wealthy urban patriciate still regarded the Elector as a foreign interloper, the Estates revived the traditional 'alliance' with Mark, Jülich and Berg..." (p. 57)
#"In return for rendering a formal declaration of fealty to the Elector in 1665, the little Westphalian city of Soest in the County of Mark was allowed to retain its ancient 'constitution'..." (p. 63)
#"Department III combined responsibility for Kleve, Mark and various other exclaves with management of the salt monopoly and the postal services." (p. 89)
#"In many provinces, years of negotiation were required before the new tax could be introduced; in Kleve and Mark no agreement was reached and the tax had to be extracted through 'forced execution'." (p. 91)
#"The role of the state was less prominent in the western provinces, where there were major independent centres of metallurgy (in the county of Mark)..." (p. 180)
#"In Kleve and Mark, the mortality for the war years amounted to 15 per cent of the population." (p. 210)
#"In Kleve and Mark, for example, there were many who provoked the Austrian occupation authorities by demonstratively wearing black to mark the death of Frederick's brother, August William, heir to the Prussian throne, in 1758." (p. 223)
#"The lucrative mines of the county of Mark were at this time largely under the control of the Gewerke, corporate, trade union-like bodies that managed the local labour market." & "Stein's originality and brilliance were quickly recognized and by 1788 he held two senior posts within the chamber administration in Kleve and the county of Mark. (p. 277)
*Gordon A. Craig: The Politics of the Prussian Army, 1640-1945 (1955)
#"Between Ravensberg and Mark and Electoral Brandenburg and East Prussia there was no natural connection of any kink..." (p. 1)
#"The Elector was dependent upon the Estates of Brandenburg, Cleves, Mark, and East Prussia for the funds with which to support his administration and pay his troops..." (pp. 2-3).
#"The Estates of Cleves and Mark and those of East Prussia he now forced into subjection by threatening military execution of his decrees." (p. 5)
*Robert M. Citino: The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich (2005)
#"Frederick William was the Margrave (Markgraf, or "Count of the Mark") of Brandenburg...." (p. 2, a reference to Brandenburg, not Westphalian Mark)
#"Besides Brandenburg in the north German plain, there was the small but lucrative territories of Cleves and Mark on the lower Rhine to the west, as well as the Duchy of Prussia to the east." (p. 3)
#"The only alternative was the loss of his western provinces (Cleves and Mark) to the French." (p. 15)
*C.W. Wedgwood: The Thirty Years' War (1961)
#"In 1610 the death of the Duke of Cleves-Jülich without heirs brought the third and worst crisis. His lands, the provinces of Jülich, Cleves, Mark and Ravensberg, formed a scattered group on the Rhine from the Dutch frontier to Cologne and were an essential miitary base for the Hapsburg or their opponents." & "the step involved him in so many private difficulties that he was forced in the end to accquiesce in a temporary settlement which gave Jülich and Berg to his rival and left him only Cleves, Mark and Ravensberg." (pp. 51-52)
#"He was forced at first to live at Königsberg  in Prussia because the roof his castle at Berlin was falling in, and the province was too short of food to supply the Electoral household. 'Pomerania is lost, Jülich is lost, we hold Prussia like an eel by the tail, and we must mortgage the Mark', lamented one of his advisors. Frederick William intended neither to mortgage the Mark, nor to lose any more land or money for the Emperor." (pp. 424-425, more references to the Mark Brandenburg)
*Geoffrey Parker: The Thirty Years' War (1997)
#"The government of the duchies, pending a final settlement, was now divided: Brandenburg received Cleves and Mark; Neuburg secured Jülich and Berg." (p. 32)
*Rudolf von Thadden: Prussia: The History of a Lost State (translated by Angi Rutter, 1981)
#"the acquisition of Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg forged links between Brandenburg and the western regions of Germany, drawing interest towards an ambitious Holland..." (p. 3)
#"For instance, Frederick the Great was, among other things, King of Prussia, Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke of Pomerania, Magdeburg and Cleves, Prince (Fürst) of Minden and Halberstadt, Count of Mark and Ravensberg, Lord of Lauenburg and Bütow and, not least, Prince of Neuchâtel." (p. 12)
*Sidney B. Fay: The Rise of Brandenburg-Prussia to 1786 (1964)
#"The Cleves-Jülich inheritance  consisted chiefly of five small duchies and countires: Cleves, Mark, Jülich, Berg, and Ravensberg (cf. Shepherd's Atlas, maps 114, 122)..." (p. 34)
#"in the Treaty of Xanten of 1614 John Sigismund took over the administration of Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg..." (p. 36)
These examples indicate to me that the territory is most commonly known in English without "the" in the title. Olessi 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The county was not seperated from the Duchy or more correct from the County of Berg in 1160. It is only the year of a distribution of the estates of the family of Berg into a Branch in Altena (Berg-Altena) and the main Line Berg. 
At that time the possions of the German nobility were a collection of punctual rights and estates, the forming of territories wasn't realy started then, as you might recognise by the simple fact of the many distribution of estates in the 12. and 13. century. 
The village Mark, which lend its name to the family and the county, wasn't even in the possession of the Berg family, it was held by members of the Family of Rüdenberg until it was sold either to the Archbishop of Cologne or the Father of the first count of Mark, (that is uncertain in Literature) Adolf I. puer comes de marca as he was named after 1200. He inherited a part of the county of Altena and the lands and rights of his father arround the village Mark (today part of the City of Hamm) where his father had build the Castle Mark. Castle Mark became Adolfs new main House. 
The other part of Altena was in the hands of a colletral line, the Isenbergs named after their new main castle Isenberg near Hattingen. 
Frederick (Friedrich) of Isenberg or Altena-Isenberg ambushed his close Kinsmen Engelbert of Berg Archbishop of Cologne, Reichsverweser of the HRE and Count of Berg near Gevelsberg. The Archbishop was killed and Fredick was accused and sentenced for murder after a wild escape to Rome, where he had hoped to gain pardon by the Pope himself. 
On his way back he was captured and brought to cologne. There he was bound on the breaking wheel for execution before the Severins gate and later cut in to four parts. 
The Familynames of Altena and Isenberg became dishonored (entehrt und verfehmt) and they were seldom or even not longer used. 
The main Castle of the Isenberg branch and town and Castle of Nienbrügge (old german for Newbridge) had to be destroyed. The latter was executed by Adolf I. de la Mark, he resetteld the people of Neienbrügge in the angle between Lippe and Ahse about two up the Lippe river. The new settlement became the old german/saxon name for an angle between rivers Ham(m). 
Adolf as a vassal to the Archbishops of Cologne and Dukes of Westphalia could, as one of the executers of the verdict against the possessions of the Isenbergs, save his possessions and regained most parts of the rights and possesions of the former Counts of Altena-Isenberg. Due to this action he nealy doubled his estates.   
Even the other family branch in Mark, especially Adolf I. no lnger used the Title of Altena. 
The Son of Frederick and his legal guardians fought against Adolf for over a decade to regain the families possessions. In the 1240ies they came to an arangement which formed the very small County of Limburg, and Mark lost the scattered properties north of the Lippe river to the former Isenberg family, now the family of Limburg.
The county was formed out of the County Altena, the former Rüdenberg properties arround the village Mark between Lippe and Ahse, the HRE possessions near Schwerte (Westhoven) and other scattered properties of the family and parts of the Duchy Westphalia arround the City of Soest.
That is the long version why i have deleted the date 1160 and the Duchy of Berg as parent territory for the County of Mark. Time permitting i will ad this information to the article, please feel free to find the citings in literature and add it by yourself. 
--Gabriel-Royce (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox