Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: vianden castle found but on wrong bank
Date: Apr 23, 2001 @ 01:52
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


peter
that is a perceptive & comprehensive guess by you
which i would like to add on to
as it would make the entire seignory into the cherry
& it only increases my curiosity about whether the condo & castle dates overlap
if not also enlarging the actual import of this question

moreover you really do seem to have discovered here a nicely fossilized &
perhaps even archetypal 3 nautical mile sort of boundary
for landlocked luxemburgish cannonballs that couldnt hope to reach the sea

& the fact that the bridgehead is actually of less than normal cannon range
could be a clue that these were not just normal cannon
but rather very early cannon
which also fits the chronology

for example
i have found dates of 1284 to 1304 for the earliest of cannon
& dates of 1129 to 1315 for the original vianden castle & seigniory
after which its allegiance evidently bounced all around europe
perhaps just to whichever power had the biggest cannon of the day
but possibly with its territorial limits intact

it might be a trick tho to find any hard evidence of the condos before 1815
not to mention closing the entire remaining gap of 500 years
nor may anything of punctological importance hinge on the outcome
but it is at least a very interesting side issue


there is something tho about both the position of vianden & the unusual
condo frontier passing thru it that redoubles the impression of a
traditional borderland march


also it is nice to see that luxembourg even has this historical &
geographical leading edge
suggesting it is not just a little place that got jerked around
but a veritable mouse that roared & kept roaring

m


>
>Yes I knew that, but I was rather thinking of the castle being in the
>middle of some sort of a military defined area (e.g. the area a
>cannon can cover from the castle), or something else. The castle
>seems to be guarding the bridge, and the territory on the left bank
>could be considered a bridgehead, belonging to the nobleman in
>possession of the bridge and the castle as well. Note that Vianden is
>on both banks of the river Our, but other towns on the boundary river
>(be it Our or Sauer) are definitely divided, e.g. Wallendorf
>(D)/Wallendorf-Pont (L), Dasburg (D)/Dasburg-Pont (L), Bollendorf
>(D)/Bollendorf-Pont (L), Dillingen (L)/Dillingerbrueck (D),
>Echternach (L)/Echternacherbrueck (D), Wasserbillig
>(L)/Wasserbilligerbrueck (D). The fact that a similar thing didn't
>happen to Vianden has possibly (although this is a guess and I
>haven't seen any evidence in writing of it) to do with the feudal
>situation at this particular place.
>
>Peter S.
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> <http://luxembourg.co.uk/pics/vianden_water.jpg>
>>http://luxembourg.co.uk/pics/vianden_water.jpg
>> places vianden castle squarely above the right bank of the river
>ours
>> & thus on the wrong bank for it to have really been a bicondominial
>> tripoint castle
>> oops
>> tho the vianden seigneury as a whole may still have spanned the 2
>condos &
>> their terminal points
>> depending of course on the dates of them all
>> for whatever that may still be worth
>> even if not a cherry on top
>>
>> in any case the news throws the cause & minimum age of the peculiar
>> luxembourg salient on the left bank of the ours into some doubt
>> since it could now conceivably have had nothing to do with the
>castle or
>> its position
>>
>> m
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
>1015/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.