– WIED –

In the late ninth century Engersgau and neighboring Einrich were held by a Count Rochar, evidently a Konradiner from a line that was established in Swabia in the late eighth century, but returned to take up inheritances in Hessen. It is conceivable that the name Rugger arrived to later family members ultimately from him. Yet the mechanisms by which those pagi were maintained within the Konradiner fold are not established with clarity. The tenth-century succession can be understood in general terms of Udo of Rheingau’s testament of 949, which preserved counties to the agnatic branches. Count Waltbert of Engersgau (958) should be a Konradiner of some description.

Cognatic relationships may have supported the implementation of the testament, yet it is virtually certain that Otto of Hammerstein († 1036) succeeded in Engersgau solely by virtue of his agnatic Konradiner lineage. In all likelihood he was preceded by his younger brother Gebhard, Emperor Henry II’s favorite, who would have been installed there in the course of the imperial succession dispute of 1002. Later, Otto of Hammerstein is likely to have passed Engersgau to his son Udo.

The Wiggers as successors to the Konradiner: When Udo predeceased Otto in 1034, jurisdiction of the pagus of Engersgau passed to Count Wigger, undoubtedly Udo’s brother-in-law. Wigger represented a Thuringian dynasty that later went by the Bilstein cognomen. For the time being his relatives and descendants must have continued to hold the Germarmark pagus in Thuringia, until Count Rugger forfeited in 1075. Rugger’s brothers were not involved in his forfeiture, hence there is no reason to believe that the succession in Engersgau was broken in any way. A regional count named Wigger, who documents in 1069 and 1090, is likely to have carried forward the line of Engersgau counts.

The first Wigger documents in 1034, thus before Otto of Hammerstein’s death, which suggests that he succeeded Otto’s son Udo, who died in that year. There are numerous onomastic details to confirm relationship with the Hammersteins. Advocacy for Hersfeld passed down Wigger’s line, and the advocate documented from 1057 to 1075 is an Udo. Since the name Udo had become rare among the Eberhardine Konradiner, direct inheritance from Otto’s son is evident. Widukind, count of Engersgau in 1044 – undoubtedly the Count Widelo father of Rugger indicated as founder of the monastery of Gerode – derived his name from the paternal ancestry. Conversely, Rugger’s brothers included an Eberhard and a Gebhard, the latter name arriving from Otto of Hammerstein’s brother.

Matfried (fl. 1093-1129), the last to document as count of the Engersgau pagus, adopted the Wied cognomen, which stemmed from a tributary stream of the Rhine where two castles were built, one (later known as Altwied) being maintained by the comital family, the other (later Altenwied) passing from them into the family of the landgraves of Thuringia. The dynasty became extinct three generations later with Count Lothar of Wied (fl. 1218-43), at which time the comital title was allowed to expire.

Dormancy and revival: At some point – perhaps under Frederick Barbarossa – the jurisdiction was mediatized and Wied’s suzerain became the count palatine of the Rhine. At the time of the Wied extinction the palatinate was held by the Wittelsbachs in the person of Duke Otto II of Bavaria. He was a supporter of the Staufer monarchy and joined with Archbishop Siegfried II of Mainz in electing Emperor Frederick’s son Konrad king in 1237. Siegfried was of the house of Eppenstein, one of two lines able to inherit directly from Wied. The other was Isenburg-Braunsberg, whose position in the imperial schism is unknown, but one may assume it was antithetical to Eppenstein’s if the Wied inheritance became subject to dispute.

Isenburg-Braunsberg was the elder of these two cognatic lines. Rather than acceed to its succession in the county, Duke Otto may simply have postponed the matter until the title fell visibly into neglect. Prior to Count Lothar’s death the inheriting houses had agreed to seek the advice of ecclesiastical family members in dividing the inheritance. Perhaps this consultation could not take place. Furthermore, at an early date Bruno of Isenburg-Braunsberg had renounced a certain part of the inheritance in exchange for money. Perhaps this was construed as a renunciation of the title.

The title expired, but was not forgotten. William of Isenburg-Braunsberg achieved a revival of the Wied county in 1338, through inheritance, yet artificially. The portion of the Wied inheritance that had fallen to Eppenstein was purchased by Count Rupert II of Virneburg in 1306, who appears to represent an ancient branch of the Wied dynasty. In the following year he was enfoeffed by the count palatine and adopted the title of count of Wied. But his son Rupert III, being impecunious, was obliged to pawn these possessions a number of times. His granddaughter Agnes brought them to her marriage with William of Isenburg-Braunsberg, who having reunited the original inheritance revived the Wied county on a more permanent basis.

[proceed to page 2]