Hi! I know, it's one of those frustrating and controversial questions about Feudalism. However, it is an honest question that I'd love to here some expert and knowledgeable opinions on.
Basically, were the landholdings named for the noble who administered them (i.e. therefore the original noble was measured by his own merits, given a title of a specific rank, then given holdings that were thus classified), or were the nobles named for the landholdings they were granted?
I know there would probably be iffiness with regard to this chicken-and-egg question, but I mean the original nobility (the ones whom everyone else inherited their titles and holdings from).
For example, 'Counts' are called such as they are nominally 'companions of the King' (i.e. his most loyal men). So given that, would a person who gained the title Count due to his service under the King when he did his original conquering, when given landholdings as a reward and a bond, would the landholdings be named 'Counties' to match his title?
Or did medieval land-surveyors look at the area, divided and categorized them by value as either baronies, counties, duchies, etc. Then someone who did well would be granted so-and-so land as a benefice, and since the so-and-so land was classified as a county, he would be called 'Count'? I'm sure the land chosen for him would be picked to 'match' his achievements, but the technical question of which is named first is of academic curiosity to me, I think.
Specifically because if noble are named for pre-categorized landholdings, then it must mean that there are a limited number of counts, barons, etc. that can be named. If a landholding is instead named for a noble, then a monarch can theoretically ennoble as many counts as he or she would like, and their holdings would then be elevated to the status of being a 'county'.
What do you think?
OK, I think firstly there's a misconception in your post that a count 'owns' his county, or has control over all the land within it. This was never the case in medieval Europe. Counts very often owned substantial amounts of property outside of the counties they ruled, and could (in theory if never in practice) rule a county in which they owned no land whatsoever.
In terms of your question as to which came first, counties predated counts by quite a bit, in the former Roman empire at least. Most counties were based on the old late antique city territories (pagi), just as most episcopal dioceses were, which is why, for the most part, medieval counties and dioceses are coterminous. This did change, especially after the year 1000, when weaker central control, particularly in France, allowed powerful aristocrats to either create new independent counties for themselves or to amalgamate several counties into one.
Counts were appointed by kings up to c.900 AD, and were usually a person who had considerable land and influence within the county already; since Early medieval government and administration was so simple, a count needed local resources in order to be effective. The count was given control of the royal lands (the fisc) within the county, but this wouldn't usually have been enough to fund a count's activities on their own.
From about 900 onwards, counties tended to drift out of the King's control and counts inherited from their counties from relatives, rather than being appointed by the king. So who controlled the country depended on who was count at the time when central control weakened to the extent that counts could go it on their own.
I'm on mobile, so haven't been able to give a super detailed answer, but feel free to ask follow-ups on anything I've been unclear about. I should also add that this answer is based on the Carolingian empire and its successor kingdoms. As far as I know England is very broadly similar, but royal central power over the aristocracy was stronger for most of the middle ages: hopefully some can come along and add more details on England, since I don't know much about it.