YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:4 132 3504 448 6554 312 7664 443 4173 738 248
-
The Roman Empire. Or Republic. Or...Which Was It?: Crash Course World History #10
-
The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5
-
Mesopotamia: Crash Course World History #3
-
2,000 Years of Chinese History! The Mandate of Heaven and Confucius: World History #7
-
Buddha and Ashoka: Crash Course World History #6
Transcription
Hi, I’m John Green, this is crash course: world history and today we’re going to learn about the Roman Empire, which of course began when two totally nonfictional twins, Romulus and Remus, who’d been raised by wolves, founded a city on seven hills. Mr Green, Mr Green, what, what does SPQR stand for? It means shut piehole quickly, rapscallion. No, it means Senatus Populusque Romanus, one of the mottoes of the Roman Republic. So today we’re going to do some old school Great Man History and focus on Julius Caesar while trying to answer a question: When, if ever, is it OK to stab someone 23 times? [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] [music intro] Shakespeare answers that question by saying that Roman senators killed Caesar because he was going to destroy the Roman republic, but even if that’s true, we still have to answer whether: a. The Roman Republic was worth preserving, and b. whether Caesar actually destroyed it. One of the things that made the Roman republic endure, both in reality and in imagination was its balance. According to the Greek historian Polybius, "THE THREE kinds of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, were all found united in Rome. And … it was no easy thing to determine with assurance, whether the entire state was an aristocracy, a democracy, or a monarchy.” At the heart of this blended system was the Senate, a body of legislators chosen from a group of elite families. (Rome was divided into two broad classes: the Patricians – the small group of aristocratic families and the Plebeians, basically everybody else. The Senators were drawn from the Patricians.) The Senate was a sort of a mixture of legislature and giant advisory council. Their main job was to set the policy for the Consuls. Each year the Senate would choose from among its ranks 2 co-Consuls to serve as sort of the chief executives of Rome. There needed to be two so they could check each other’s ambition, and also so that one could, you know, take care of Rome domestically, while the other was off fighting wars, and conquering new territory. There were two additional checks on power: First, the one-year term. I mean, how much trouble could you really do in a year, right? Unless you’re the CEO of Netflix, I mean he destroyed that company in like two weeks. And secondly, once a senator had served as consul, he was forbidden to serve as consul again for at least 10 years. Although that went a little bit like you say you’re only going to eat one Chipotle burrito per week, and then there are a few exceptions, and then all of a sudden you’re there every day, and YES, I know guacamole is more, JUST GIVE IT TO ME! But right, we were talking about the Romans. The Romans also had a position of dictator, a person who would who’d take over in the event the Republic was in imminent danger. The paradigm for this selfless Roman ruler was Cincinnatus, a general who came out of comfortable retirement at his plantation, took command an army, defeated whatever enemy he was battling, and then laid down his command and returned to his farm, safe in the knowledge that one day the second largest city in Ohio would be named for him. If that model of leadership sounds familiar to Americans by the way, it’s because George Washington was heavily influenced by Cincinnatus when he invented the idea of a two term presidency. So along comes Caesar. Gaius Ju- Gay-us? No it’s Gaius, I know from Battlestar Galactica. Gaius Julius Caesar was born around 100 BCE to one of Rome’s leading families. His birth was somewhat miraculous, requiring a surgical procedure that we know as Caesarian section. Coming as he did from the senatorial class, it was natural that Caesar would serve in both the army and the Senate, which he did. He rose through the ranks, and after some top-notch generalling, and a gig as the governor of Spain, he decided to run for consul. In order to win, Caesar needed financial help, which he got from Crassus, one of Rome’s richest men. Crassus ran a private fire company whose business model was essentially, “hey, I notice your house is on fire. Give me some money and I’ll help you out with that.” Caesar succeeded in becoming consul in 59 BC and thereafter sought to dominate Roman politics by allying himself with Crassus and also with Rome’s other most powerful man, the general Pompey. You’ll no doubt remember Pompey from his fascination with Alexander the Great. Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar were the so-called first triumvirate, and the alliance worked out super well, for Caesar. Not so well for the other two. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. After a year as consul that included getting the senate to pass laws largely because of intimidation by Pompey’s troops, Caesar landed the governorship of Gaul, at least the southern part of Gaul that Rome controlled. He quickly conquered the rest of Gaul and his four loyal armies—or legions, as the Romans called them—became his source of power. Caesar continued his conquests, invading Britain and waging another successful war against the Gauls. While he was away, Crassus died in battle with the Parthians and Pompey, who had become Caesar’s rival and enemy, was elected Consul. Pompey and the Senate decided to try to strip Caesar of his command and recall him to Rome. If he returned to Rome without an army, Caesar would have been prosecuted for corrupt consuling and also probably exceeding his authority as governor, so instead he returned with the 13th Legion. He crossed the Rubicon River, famously saying, “the die is cast” or possibly, “Let the die be cast.” Sorry, Thought Bubble, sources disagree. Basically, Caesar was invading his own hometown. Pompey was in charge of Rome’s army but like a boss fled the city, and by 48 BCE Caesar was in total command of all of Rome’s holdings, having been named both dictator and consul. Caesar set out to Egypt to track down Pompey only to learn that he’d already been assassinated by agents of the Pharaoh Ptolemy. Egypt had its own civil war at the time, between the Pharaoh and his sister/wife Cleopatra. Ptolemy was trying to curry favor with Caesar by killing his enemy, but Caesar was mad in that the-only-person-who-gets-to-tease-my-little-brother-is-me kind of way, except with murder instead of teasing. So Caesar sided with—and skoodilypooped with—Cleopatra. Thank you, Thought Bubble. Cleopatra went on to become tBut before all that, Caesar made his way back from Egypt to Rome, stopping off to defeat a few kings in the east, and was declared dictator again. he last Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt and bet on Marc “I am the Wrong Horse” Antony instead of Emperor “There Is a Baby Attached to My Leg” Augustus. But before all that, Caesar made his way back from Egypt to Rome, stopping off to defeat a few kings in the east, and was declared dictator again. That position that was later extended for ten years, and then for life. He was elected consul in 46 and then again in 45 BCE, this last time without a co-consul. By 45 BCE Caesar was the undisputed master of Rome and he pursued reforms that strengthened his own power. He provided land pensions for his soldiers, restructured the debts of a huge percentage of Rome’s debtors, and also changed the calendar to make it look more like the one we use today. But by 44 BCE, many Senators had decided that Caesar controlled too much of the power in Rome, and so they stabbed him 23 times on the floor of the Roman senate. Caesar was duly surprised about this and all, but he never said, “Et Tu, Brute” when he realized Brutus was one of the co-conspirators. That was an invention of Shakespeare. The conspirators thought that the death of Caesar would bring about the restoration of the Republic, and they were wrong. For one thing, Caesar’s reforms were really popular with the Rome’s people, who were quick to hail his adopted son Octavian, along with his second in command Mark “I am the wrong horse” Antony and a dude named Lepidus, as a second triumvirate. This triumvirate was an awesome failure, degenerating into a second civil war. Octavian and Antony fought it out. Antony being the wrong horse lost. Octavian won, changed his name to Caesar Augustus, became sole ruler of Rome, attached a baby to his leg, adopted the title Emperor, and started printing coins identifying himself as Divini Filius: Son of God. More on that next week. Although Augustus tried to pretend that the forms of the Roman republic were still intact, the truth was that he made the laws and the Senate had become nothing more than a rubber stamp. Which reminds me, it’s time for the open letter. Movie magic! An open letter to the Roman Senate. Oh, but first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment. Ah, it’s a harmonica! Stan, do you want me to play some old, Roman folk songs? Very well. Stan, I just want to thank you for doing such a good job of overdubbing there. Dear Roman Senate, whether you were rubber stamping the laws of Emperor Augustus, or stabbing Caesar on the floor of your sacred hall, you were always doing something! I don’t want to sound nostalgic for a time when people lived to be 30, a tiny minority of adults could vote, and the best fashion choice was bedsheets, but oh my god, at least you did something! You’re senate was chosen from among the Patrician class. Our senate here in the United States is chosen from among the obstructionist class. But don’t get me wrong Roman senate, you were terrible. Best wishes, John Green. So did Caesar destroy the Republic? Well, he started a series of civil wars, he seized power for himself, subverted the ideas of the republic, he changed the constitution, but he’s only really to blame if he was the first one to do that. And he wasn’t. Take the general Marius, for instance, who rose to power on the strength of his generalship and on his willingness to open up the army to the poor, who were loyal to him personally, and not to Rome,and whom he promised land in exchange for their good service in the army. This of course required the Romans to keep conquering new land so they could keep giving it to new legionnaires. Marius also was consul 5 times in a row 60 years before Caesar. Or look at the general Sulla who, like Marius, ensured that his armies would be more loyal to him personally than to Rome, but who marched against Rome itself, and then became its dictator, executing thousands of people in 81 BCE, 30 years before Caesar entered the scene. There is another way of looking at this question altogether if we dispense with great man history. Maybe Rome became an empire before it had an emperor. Like, remember the Persian Empire? You’ll remember that empire had some characteristics that made it, imperial. Like a unified system of government, continual military expansion, and a diversity of subject peoples. The Roman empire had all three of those characteristics long before it became The Roman Empire. Like Rome started In 219 BCE, Hannibal attacked a Roman town and then led an army across Spain, and then crossed the freaking Alps with elephants. out as a city, and then it became a city state, then a kingdom, and then a Republic, but that entire time, it was basically comprised of the area around Rome. By the 4th century BCE, Rome started to incorporate its neighbors like the Latins and the Etruscans, and pretty soon they had all of Italy under their control, but that’s not really diversity of subject peoples. I mean, nothing personal Italians, but you have a lot of things in common, like the constant gesticulations. If you want to talk about real expansion and diversity, you’ve got to talk about the Punic Wars. These were the wars that I remember, primarily because they involved Hannibal crossing the Alps with freaking war-elephants, which was probably the last time that the elephants could have risen up, and formed their awesome secret elephant society with elephant planes and elephant cars. In the First Punic War, Rome wanted Sicily, which was controlled by the Carthaganians. Rome won, which made Carthage cranky, so they started the second Punic war. In 219 BCE, Hannibal attacked a Roman town and then led an army across Spain, and then crossed the freaking Alps with elephants. Hannibal and his elephant army almost won, but alas, they didn’t and as a result the Romans got Spain. People in Spain are definitely NOT Romans (despite Russell Crowe’s character in Gladiator), which means that by 201 BCE Rome was definitely an empire. People in Spain are definitely NOT Romans (despite Russell Crowe’s character in Gladiator), which means that by 201 BCE Rome was definitely an empire. The third Punic War was a formality – Rome found some excuse to attack Carthage and then destroyed it so completely that these days you can’t even find it on a map. Eventually this whole area, and a lot more would be incorporated into a system of provinces and millions of people would be ruled by the Roman Empire. And it’s ridiculous to say that Rome was a Republic until Augustus became Rome’s first official emperor, because by the time he did that, Rome had been an empire for 200 years. There is a reason why I am arguing that the death of the Republic came before Caesar and probably around the time that Rome became an Empire. If anything destroyed the idea of Republican Rome, it was the concentration of power into the hands of one man. And this man was always a general. I mean, you can’t march on Rome without an army, after all. Why were there such powerful generals? Because Rome had decided to become an Empire, and empires need to expand militarily. Particularly, the Roman empire needed to expand militarily because it always needed new land to give its retired legionnaires. That expansion created the all-powerful general and the incorporation of diverse peoples made it easier for them to be loyal to him, rather than to some abstract idea of the Republic. Julius Caesar didn’t create emperors: Empire created them. Next week we’ll be discussing Christianity, so that shouldn’t be controversial. Until then, thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself and our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week's Phrase of the Week was "Pre-Distressed Designer Jeans" If you want to guess at this week’s Phrase of the Week or suggest future ones, you can do so in Comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video which our team of historians will endeavor to answer. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. [scoots out of frame] [scoots out of frame] Whoah... Geez!
List of states in the Holy Roman Empire
This is a list of states in the Holy Roman Empire beginning with the letter K:[1][2][3][4]
| Name | Type | Imperial circle | Imperial diet | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Käfernburg (Kevernburg)
|
County | n/a | n/a | 1103: First mentioned; to Schwarzburg 1160: Partitioned from Schwarzburg 1184: Inherited Schwarzburg 1197: Partitioned into Schwarzburg, itself and Hallermund 1227: Partitioned into itself and Rabenswalde-Wiehe 1384: Extinct in male line 1387: Sold to Thuringia 1446: To Schwarzburg-Arnstadt Younger Line |
 Kaisheim (Kaisersheim)
|
Abbacy | Swab | SP / RP | 1135: Formed 1346: Imperial immediacy, though not recognised by Bavaria 1656: Imperial immediacy recognised by Bavaria 1803: To Bavaria |
 Kalenbergsee: Brunswick-Calenberg |
Duchy | |||
 Katzenelnbogen
|
Lordship 1138: County |
n/a | n/a | 11th Century: Formed 1066: First mentioned as advocates of Prüm Abbey 1138: HRE Count 1190: Acquired Hohenstein c. 1215: Partitioned into itself and Hohenstein 1259: Acquired Dornberg 1260: Partitioned into Katzenelnbogen Elder Line and Katzenelnbogen Younger Line 1402: Reunited by Younger Line 1453: Acquired part of Diez (de) and Eppstein 1479: Extinct; to Hesse-Marburg |
| Katzenelnbogen Elder Line
|
County | n/a | n/a | 1260: Partitioned from Katzenelnbogen 1284: Acquired St Goarshausen 1402: Extinct; to Katzenelnbogen Younger Line |
| Katzenelnbogen Younger Line
|
County | n/a | n/a | 1260: Partitioned from Katzenelnbogen 1283: Acquired Brauback 1384: Much of the county pledged to the Archbishopric of Mainz 1402: Renamed to Katzenelnbogen |
 Kaufbeuren
|
Imperial City | Swab | SW | 1286: Free Imperial City 1803: To Bavaria |
 Kaufungen
|
Abbacy | Upp Rhen | RP | 1017: Formed 1089: Imperial immediacy 1527: Mediatised to Hesse 1533: To the Hessian Knighthood under Hesse |
 Kaunitz
|
1642: County | n/a | n/a | 14th Century: First mentioned; possibly a branch of Stosch 1642: Moravian line made HRE Count 1699: Moravian line in succession dispute over Rietberg 1726: Moravian line acquired Rietberg; renamed to Kaunitz-Rietberg |
 Kaunitz-RietbergHRE Prince of Kaunitz, Count of Rietberg & East Frisia, Lord of Esens, Stadesdorf, Wittmund & Melrich |
County 1764: Principality |
Low Rhen | WE | 1726: Moravian line of the House of Kaunitz acquired Rietberg 1764: HRE Prince 1803: Bench of Princes 1807: To Westphalia 1813: To Prussia 1848: Extinct |
 Kaysersberg (Kaisersberg)
|
Imperial City | Upp Rhen | RH | 1353: Free Imperial City 1648: To France |
 Kempten
|
Abbacy | Swab | EC | 752 1062: Imperial immediacy 1524: HRE Prince-Abbey 1548: Bench of Spiritual Princes 1803: To Bavaria |
 Kempten
|
1289: Imperial Free City | Swab | SW | 1289: Free Imperial City 1803: To Bavaria |
 Kerpen and Lommersum
|
Lordship 1713: Imperial County |
Low Rhen | WE | 1288: Territory of Brabant 1430: To Burgundy 1477: To the Burgundian Netherlands 1516: To the Spanish Netherlands 1710: To Palatinate-Neuburg (within Jülich) 1712: To Schaesberg as fief of Palatinate-Neuburg 1713: Imperial County 1786: Imperial immediacy; Bench of Counts of Westphalia 1794: To France |
 Kettershausen
|
Lordship | n/a | n/a | 1556: To Fugger-Babenhausen 1806: To Bavaria |
 Khevenhüller-MetschKhevenhuller-Metsch Prince of Khevenhüller-Metsch, Count of Hochosterwitz, Baron of Landskron and Wernberg, etc. |
County 1763: Principality |
n/a | SC | 1751: Line formed by a scion of the Khevenhüller family that inherited Metsch 1763: HRE Prince; Personalist vote in Bench of Counts of Swabia |
 KirchbergBurgrave of Kirchberg, Count of Sayn and Wittgenstein, Lord of Farnrode |
Burgraviate | Upp Rhen | WT | 1149: Counts of Kapellendorf invested with the burgraviate of Kirchberg bei Jena 1294: Partitioned into Kirchberg-Windberg, Kirchberg-Kaulsdorf, Kirchberg-Greiffenberg and Kirchberg-Kapellendorf 1495: Reunited by Kirchberg-Altenberga 1714: Acquired Sayn-Hachenburg 1799: To Nassau-Weilburg |
| Kirchberg-Altenberga
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1427: Partitioned from Kirchberg-Greiffenberg 1461: Acquired Farnroda 1495: Renamed to Kirchberg |
| Kirchberg-Greiffenberg
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1294: Partitioned from Kirchberg 1412: Acquired Kranichfeld 1427: Partitioned into Kirchberg-Kranichfeld and Kirchberg-Altenberga |
| Kirchberg-Kapellenberg
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1294: Partitioned from Kirchberg 1304: Sold Kapellenberg to Erfurt 1362: Acquired Camburg 1393: Extinct; to Meissen |
| Kirchberg-Kaulsdorf
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1294: Partitioned from Kirchberg 1357: Extinct; to Weimar-Orlamünde |
| Kirchberg-Kranichfeld
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1427: Partitioned from Kirchberg-Greiffenberg 1455: Kranichfeld to Gleichen-Blankenhain 1495: Extinct; to Kirchberg-Altenberga |
| Kirchberg-Windberg
|
Burgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1294: Partitioned from Kirchberg 1311: Extinct; to Kirchberg-Kaulsdorf and Kirchberg-Greiffenberg |
 Kirchberg(not to be confused with Burgraviate above) |
County | n/a | n/a | 11th Century: Formed 1087: First mentioned Early history of the counts is unclear; eventually formed the lines Kirchberg-Kirchberg, Kirchberg-Brandenburg and Kirchberg-Wullenstetten in the 12th Century |
| Kirchberg-Brandenburg
|
County | n/a | n/a | Partitioned from Kirchberg 1298: Extinct; to Austria 1313: To Ellersbach 1466: To Krafft 1481: To Rechberg 1539: To Fugger |
| Kirchberg-Kirchberg
|
County | n/a | n/a | Partitioned from Kirchberg 1366: Extinct; to Matsch 1399: To Kirchberg-Wullenstetten |
| Kirchberg-Wullenstetten
|
County | Swab | SC | Partitioned from Kirchberg 1399: Acquired Kirchberg-Kirchberg 1481: Half sold to Bavaria-Landshut 1503: Landshut half to Austria 1507: Landshut half to Fugger 1510: Extinct; rest to Fugger |
 Kirkel
|
Lordship | n/a | n/a | 1075: First mentioned 1212: Partitioned from Saarwerden 1242: Extinct; divided between numerous heirs 1250: Most acquired by John of Siersberg who took the name Kirkel 1386: Extinct; to the Palatinate |
 Klettgau
|
County 1325: Landgraviate |
Swab | SC | Originally a gau county of the Carolingian Empire 1040: To Habsburg 1280: To Habsburg-Laufenburg 1410: To Sulz 1687: To Schwarzenberg 1806: To Baden |
| Klingenmünster
|
Abbacy 1490: Provostry |
Upp Rhen | RP | 636 ? 1115: Imperial immediacy 1490: Provost 1567: To the Palatinate |
 Knyphausen (Kniphausen)
|
Barony 1653: County |
n/a | n/a | Part of East Frisia 1588: Lord of Inhausen and Knyphausen made HRE Baron 1624: To Oldenburg 1653: HRE Count 1667: To Aldenburg 1738: To Aldenburg-Bentinck 1807: To Holland 1810: To France 1813: To Oldenburg 1826: To Aldenburg-Bentinck with limited sovereignty 1854: To Oldenburg |
 Koblenz (Coblenz / Coblence)
|
Bailiwick of the Teutonic Order | El Rhin | n/a | 1216: Teutonic Order received land in fief from the Archbishopric of Trier 1263: Acquired Elsen 1313: Acquired Waldbreitbach 1613: Acquired Morsbroich 1794: Left-bank territory to France 1806-9: Rest to Berg and Nassau |
| Koevorden (Coevorden)
|
Lordship | |||
 Kolb von Wartenberg (Kolbe)
|
Lordship | n/a | n/a | 12th Century: First mentioned; ministerialis of Franconia 1699: HRE County; renamed to Wartenberg |
 Königsbronn
|
Abbacy | Swab | SP | 1303: Formed 15th Century?: Imperial immediacy 1553: Mediatised to Württemberg 1710: Abolished |
 Königsegg (Konigsegg)HRE Count of Königsegg & Rothenfels, Baron of Aulendorf & Stauffen, Lord of Ebenweiler & Wald in Swabia |
Lordship 1621:Barony 1629: County |
Swab | SC | c. 1171: First mentioned as a property of the Lords of Fronhofen c. 1251: Partitioned from Fronhofen 1381: Acquired Aulendorf 1595: Acquired Rothenfels 1621: HRE Baron 1622: Partitioned into Königsegg-Rothenfels and Königsegg-Aulendorf |
| Königsegg-Aulendorf
|
Barony 1629: County |
Swab | SC | 1622: Partitioned from Königsegg 1629: HRE County 1806: To Württemberg |
| Königsegg-Rothenfels
|
Barony 1629: County |
Swab | SC | 1622: Partitioned from Königsegg 1629: HRE County 1804: To Austria; acquired Boros-Sebiș as fief of Hungary |
 Königsfeld (Black Forest)
|
||||
 Konstanz (Constance)
|
Prince-Bishopric | Swab | EC | 585 1155: HRE Prince of the Empire 1803: To Baden |
 Konstanz (Constance)
|
1192: Imperial Free City | Swab | SW | 1192: Free Imperial City 1548: To Austria 1805: To Baden |
| Konzenberg
|
Lordship | n/a | n/a | 1305: To Burgau 1351: To Halder 1361: To Waldkirch 13??: To Villenbach 13??: To the Bishopric of Augsburg 1454: To Grafeneck 1456: To Stain 1457: to Westernach 1511: To Knöringen 1524: To Augsburg 1530: To Baumgartner 16??: To ? 1684: To the Bishopric of Augsburg 1803: To Bavaria |
 Kornelimünster (Cornelimünster; St Kornelimünster)
|
Abbacy | Low Rhen | RP | 614 9th Century: Imperial immediacy 1795: To France |
 Kranenburg
|
County | n/a | n/a | 1255: Partitioned from Cleves 1277: Extinct; to Cleves |
 Krautheim
|
Lordship 1803: HRE Principality of Krautheim and Gerlachsheim |
n/a | n/a | c. 1213: Mentioned as belonging to Lords of Krautheim 1399: To the Archbishopric of Mainz 1803: To Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim 1806: To Württemberg |
| Kreuzlingen
|
Abbacy | Swab | SP | c. 1125: Formed 1145: Imperial immediacy 1648: To Switzerland |
| Kriechingen (Criechingen)
|
Barony | n/a | n/a | c. 1150: First mention of Lords of Kriechingen, fiefs of Lorraine 1239: Partitioned into itself and Helfedange 1295: To Torcheville who assumed the name Kriechingen 13th Century: HRE Baron 1557: Partitioned into Kriechingen-Püttlingen-Bacourt and Kriechingen-Homburg-Bruchkastel |
| Kriechingen-Homburg-Bruchkastel
|
Barony 1617: County |
Upp Rhen | n/a | 1557: Partitioned from Kriechingen 1617: HRE Count; Imperial immediacy in core lands; Upper Rhenish Circle 1697: Extinct; to East Frisia To Wied-Runkel 1793: To France |
| Kriechingen-Püttlingen-Bacourt
|
Barony | n/a | n/a | 1557: Partitioned from Kriechingen 1681: Extinct; to Salm-Reifferscheid |
 Kronburg
|
Lordship | 1460: Partitioned from Aichen 1540: Partitioned into Osterberg, Schwabeck and Weissenstein | ||
 Kuefstein-GreillensteinCount of Kuefstein, Baron of Greillenstein, of Hohenkraen, etc. |
1709: County (Personalist) | n/a | FR | 1602: HRE Baron 1654?: HRE Count 1709: Bench of Counts of Franconia (personalist vote) |
 Kulmbach
|
Lordship | 1057-1234: To Andechs-Meran 1248: To Counts of Orlamunde 1340: To Hohenzollern Burgraves of Nuremberg 1792: To Prussia 1807: French occupation 1810: To Bavaria | ||
 Kyburg (Kiburg)
|
County | n/a | n/a | 11th century: Formed c. 1053: Counts of Winterthur-Kyburg extinct; to Dillingen by marriage 1180: Partitioned from Dillingen 1218: Acquired left-bank territory of Zähringen 1273: To Habsburg-Laufenburg by marriage 1274: Partitioned from Habsburg-Laufenburg (Neu-Kyburg) 1379: Most to Austria 1384: Fief of Bern 1417: Extinct |
 Kyrburg
|
Wildgraviate | n/a | n/a | 1258: Partitioned from the Wildgraviate 1284: Partitioned into itself and Schmidtburg 1419: Extinct; to Stein |
References
This page was last edited on 15 February 2024, at 16:40