Subject: Re: vianden castle found  but on wrong bank<br/>
Date: Apr 22, 2001 @ 11:04<br/>
Author: smaardijk@yahoo.com (smaardijk@...)<br/>
<a href="2114.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2124.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2114.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="2119.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2121.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-303345546">Yes I knew that, but I was rather thinking of the castle being in the <br/>
middle of some sort of a military defined area (e.g. the area a <br/>
cannon can cover from the castle), or something else. The castle <br/>
seems to be guarding the bridge, and the territory on the left bank <br/>
could be considered a bridgehead, belonging to the nobleman in <br/>
possession of the bridge and the castle as well. Note that Vianden is <br/>
on both banks of the river Our, but other towns on the boundary river <br/>
(be it Our or Sauer) are definitely divided, e.g. Wallendorf <br/>
(D)/Wallendorf-Pont (L), Dasburg (D)/Dasburg-Pont (L), Bollendorf <br/>
(D)/Bollendorf-Pont (L), Dillingen (L)/Dillingerbrueck (D), <br/>
Echternach (L)/Echternacherbrueck (D), Wasserbillig <br/>
(L)/Wasserbilligerbrueck (D). The fact that a similar thing didn&#39;t <br/>
happen to Vianden has possibly (although this is a guess and I <br/>
haven&#39;t seen any evidence in writing of it) to do with the feudal <br/>
situation at this particular place.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner &lt;m@d...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://luxembourg.co.uk/pics/vianden_water.jpg">http://luxembourg.co.uk/pics/vianden_water.jpg</a><br/>
&gt; places vianden castle squarely above the right bank of the river <br/>
ours<br/>
&gt; & thus on the wrong bank for it to have really been a bicondominial<br/>
&gt; tripoint castle<br/>
&gt;   oops<br/>
&gt; tho the vianden seigneury as a whole may still have spanned the 2 <br/>
condos &<br/>
&gt; their terminal points<br/>
&gt;   depending of course on the dates of them all<br/>
&gt; for whatever that may still be worth<br/>
&gt;   even if not a cherry on top<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; in any case the news throws the cause & minimum age of the peculiar<br/>
&gt; luxembourg salient on the left bank of the ours into some doubt<br/>
&gt; since it could now conceivably have had nothing to do with the <br/>
castle or<br/>
&gt; its position<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; m </span></blockquote></div>