Siegfried I, count of Northeim

http://www.our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p276.h...

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Northeim#/Notable_natives_and_residents

Northeim is first mentioned in 800 in a document recording a property transfer by a Frankish nobleman to the Abbey of Fulda. In the 10th century the surrounding region became a county, administered by the Counts of Northeim. The first of them, Siegfried is mentioned in 982. From 1061 to 1070 Count Otto II held the stem duchy of Bavaria as an Imperial fief, but lost it again because of his involvement in the Saxon plot against King Henry IV

http://genealogy.richardremme.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I51882...

"The Counts of Northeim 950-1144" Occurring in the year 982 in the oft-mentioned document OTTO II. For the monastery Fulda Count Siegfried has been rightly regarded by all researchers as the first safe identifiable member of northeimischen comital. However, we now face the question of which of the Saxon counts meeting at this time with the name Siegfried could be identical with the NORTHEIMER. Through Thietmar von Merseburg we learn of a gathering of royally loyal Saxon princes which took place at the Asselburg after Easter 984, and which was directed against the ambitions of Henry the Bazar. Thietmar differs among those present clearly two groups, namely those from the eastern areas (oriente Ex ...) and those who were native to the area of ​​the meeting place (Conprovoncialium sutem ...). Among the former is also a Count Siegfried with his son, who has been generally considered to be the eponymous NORTHEIMER. However, serious objections can be raised against such identification. First, it is striking that said at Thietmar Siegfried from the eastern Saxony came while the Saxon Count Palatine Dietrich and his brother Sigibert that has been shown Graf rights Liesgau so east of Rittigaus exercised, be counted among the "Conprovinciales". Already from this circumstance the conclusion can be drawn that Siegfried could not have been the NORTHEIMER. There are also other additions that point in the same direction. Was Siegfried I. in the year 984 at the Asselburg, his son, who was also present, should already have been grown up at the same time. Siegfried I had two sons who first met in 1002 as murderers of Margrave Ekkehard: Siegfried II and Benno. The last one will hardly have been around 12 years old in 984, since he still appears as Count in 1047. He would then have the birth of his son Ottoalready numbered 55-60 years around 1025. His older brother Siegfried is also referred to in 1003 by Thietmar as "filius iuvenis" (Siegfrieds I.), a fact that is questionable if one wants to identify him with the son of the count Siegfried, who was already one of his sons (filius) in 984. In addition, he would then have considerably older than his brother Benno been, but this is also unlikely. All these difficulties are resolved when, for better reasons, we identify the Count Thiemann's Siegfried "Ex oriente", 984 referred to by Thietmar, with the Count of Walbeck of the same name or of the Maritime Peoples, who are detectable at this time. On the basis of Thietmar's report, no judgment can be made about the attitude of the Counts of Northeim during the uprising of Henry the Prisoner in 984. Only 6 years later does Siegfried I. meet with a number of royally loyal Saxon Great. At the beginning of July, 990, the Empress Theophanu sent "Ekkihardum, Esiconem, Binizonem, cum patre meo eius equivico, Brunone ac Udene" from Magdeburg to help Duke Miseco I of Poland against Boleslaw of Bohemia. The train remained without result. However, it can be considered certain that the NORTHEIMER, who bore the same name as Thietmar's father Siegfried von Walbeck, was involved. The events of the year 1002 we owe the first detailed customer of the family relations of Siegfried I and the role of his sons at the beginning of the reign HEINRICH II Thietmar, our main source, reported in detail of a meeting held at Frohse / Elbe Saxon, HEINRICH II favorable minded Great on which the Thuringian margrave Ekkehard tried in vain to win supporters for his claims to the throne. His main opponent seems to have been Count Lothar von Walbeck, who opposed his demands in the strongest terms. After Ekkehard as an uninvited guest in Werla the hatred of the two sisters OTTOS III, Sophie and Adelheid, had contracted, he went through Hildesheim to Paderborn, but where he was told that his with Duke Hermann II of Swabia, another entrant, in Duisburg planned meeting could not take place. On his way back from Paderborn he also touched Northeim, the curtis of Count Siegfried I. Here he opened "domna Ethelind cometissa, euod Sigifrith et Benno, senioris suimet filii, cum confratibus Heinrico et Udone aliisoue suis se nace sua tractarent insidiis, supporter efflagitens, ut aut ibi usque in crastinum maneret seu alio diverteret. "However, as the Margrave did not want to delay his journey, he broke The conspirators attacked Ekkehard and his retinue, and he himself was struck by the deadly spear of the lance of young Siegfried II of Northeim, and Siegfried appears in the parallel sources as the real one Ekkehard's killer, so he may be called the head of the conspiracy without the complicity of his brother Bennoand the "confratres" Heinrich and Udo underestimate. After the account of the murder, we stop to order the genealogy. The statement by Thietmar that Siegfried I had two sons, Siegfried II and Benno, is confirmed by Annalisto Saxo and expanded insofar as he also calls us the mother of the brothers named Mathilde. It follows that the Ethilinde mentioned by Thietmar at least since the end of April 1002, but probably much earlier, Siegfried's second wife has been. No news has been received about Mathilde and Ethilinde. To understand the murder of Pöhlde, it is still necessary to clarify the origin of the confratres Heinrich and Udo mentioned at Thietmar and their relationship to the Northeim brothers. The Annalista Saxo describes both as KATLENBURGER, but without specifying their origin. The view of Wedekind, who saw in them the sons of Count Sigebert, who was traceable in Liesgau until 995, was met with a quick reply from Schrader, who, tempted by the term "confratres" at Thietmar, the two KATLENBURGERS as "brothers" of Siegfried II and Benno von Northeim and sons from Siegfried I.'s second marriage with Ethilinde. The alleged descent of the Counts of Katlenburg from those of Northeim initially found general approval until Kurz in his Thietmar edition this error Schrader correct and wanted to know "confratres" with "brothers" wanted to know translated. The thesis Schraders then learned through Uslar equals their final refutation. His sound arguments can still be added that when the KATLENBURGER were assigned as relatives of the NORTHEIMER in the sense of Schraders, the marriage between Dietrich III. from Katlenburg and Adela, the daughter of Kunos von Beichlingen and granddaughter of Otto of Northeim, a relative of the fourth grade. The fact, however, that this marriage was carried out clearly speaks against Schrader's thesis. A relationship of both sexes is after all not before the marriage just mentioned undetectable. The assertion Uslar-Gleichens goes a step further, that the counts Heinrich and Udo von Katlenburg are to be regarded as the sons of Count Luder-Udo I. von Stade, a thesis which was recently supported by Hucke by the combination of two Thietmarstellen source wise. Thus, the descent of the Counts of Katlenburg by the Counts of Stade can be considered safe. After these preliminary investigations, we want to answer the question of the motives for the murder of Pöhlde, as far as the sparse allusions of the sources allow to gain an image. It will not be wrong to assume that the efforts of Lothar von Walbeck, the main opponent of Ekkehard, were the heirs of HEINRICH II. Proving that the Counts of Katlenburg are descendants of the Counts of Stade, it is also clear that Heinrich and Udo took part in the murder as the relatives and accomplices of Lothar von Walbeck, they were nephews of Lothar's sister-in-law, the city Kunigunde. These circumstances have apparently caused Thietmar, the son of Kunigunde, to conceal the actual background of the bloody deed. Since it did not happen on behalf of HEINRICH II, As far as can be seen, the family disputes between Lothar von Walbeck and Ekkehard, about which Thietmar reports in detail to us, and Lothar's jealousy, directed against the ambitious plans of the rival, at least gave the external cause for the murder. The other circumstances mentioned by Thietmar as motives from second source, which were on whipping Ekkehard's whipping Heinrichs of Katlenburg and the service of the murderers the offended sisters OTTOS III. In any case, they are not at the heart of the matter and should have played only a secondary role. One is therefore involuntarily inclined to ask for deeper causes. The question still remains to be answered, which has led the brothers Siegfried II and Benno von Northeim to participate in the murder of Pöhlde. The thesis of the descent of the NORTHEIMER by the counts of Stade, drawn up by Uslar-Gleichen, provided that it was convincing, could also give a clear explanation for this. The role of the Northeim brothers in 1002 could then be made understandable by their relationship with Heinrich and Udo von Katlenburg as descendants of the Counts of Stade. Let us therefore check the thesis Uslar-Gleichen for their validity. Already Schrader and others before him had noticed the peculiar fact that the counts of NortheimM since the end of the 11th century in the possession of considerable allodial goods between Niederelbe and Niederweser, so in the territory of the Counts of Stade, can be found. With the help of an indication Lamperts, who called the Magnus Magnus as "propinquus" Otto of Northeim, and other less significant reasons, he believed to make the descent of the ancestors of Siegfried I of Northeim of bitch of Stade (+ 929) probably to be able to. Following these suggestions by Schrader, Uslar-Gleichen came to the assertion, using two Widukindstellen, according to which Count Siegfried, together with his brother, Count Heinrich (the Count of Stade), was involved in Slavic fighting in 955 The thesis Uslar-Gleichens is incompatible with our supposition that the ancestors of Siegfried I were already resident in the area of ​​the Rittigau as early as 950; However, it is based solely on the argument of the name equality of the urban and local Siegfried and has therefore found in recent research mostly rejection. Already Bollnow recognized that the thesis Uslar-Gleichens "only by detailed historical-geographical investigations of the property ownership and the official authority of the Stader and NORTHEIMER" could be checked for their soundness. Now, in another context, an attempt has been made to clarify the origin of the northrend allode in the city. It has led to the result that the extensive goods complexes in N-Sachsen did not come into possession of NORTHEIMER around 1050. Thus, the assertion Uslar-Gleichens should be finally deprived of the bottom: the descent of the Counts of Northeim by the Counts of Stade is not only unproven, but also unlikely; There are better reasons for the fact that the NORTHEIMER have long resided in the area of ​​the Rittigau. We therefore anticipated this result in order to reach a certain conclusion on the question of the murder of Pöhlde. After all, if the involvement of the Northeim brothers can not be accounted for as a family relationship, all that remains is to look for the reasons in the close neighborly relationship that has united the KATLENBURGERS and NORTHEIMER throughout the eleventh century. It seems that Heinrich and Udo von Katlenburg have moved the young NORTHEIMER - perhaps through promises - to participate in the murder. Her father, Siegfried I von Northeim, apparently held back during the turmoil of the year 1002; the sources are completely silent about him. He is probably identical to Count Siegfried, who died in 1004 after the Fulda annals.