Richard I "The Lionheart" (1157-1199)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
37
City
Trier
Country
Germany
Richard I (8 September 1157 – 6 April 1199) was King of England from 6 July 1189 until his death. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Lord of Ireland, Lord of Cyprus, Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Count of Nantes, and Overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period. He was known as Cœur de Lion, or Richard the Lionheart, even before his accession, because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior.[1] The Muslims (referred to as Saracens at the time) called him Melek-Ric or Malek al-Inkitar (King of England).[2]
By age 16, Richard was commanding his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitou against his father, King Henry II.[1] Richard was a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade, effectively leading the campaign after the departure of Philip Augustus and scoring considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin, but was unable to reconquer Jerusalem.[3][4]
While he spoke very little English and spent very little time in England (he lived in his Duchy of Aquitaine, in the southwest of France), preferring to use his kingdom as a source of revenue to support his armies,[5] he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects.[6] He remains one of the very few Kings of England remembered by his epithet rather than regnal number, and is an enduring, iconic figure in England.[5]

Reign6 July 1189 – 6 April 1199Coronation3 September 1189PredecessorHenry IISuccessorJohnRegentEleanor of Aquitaine; William Longchamp (Third Crusade)ConsortBerengaria of NavarreHouseHouse of PlantagenetFatherHenry II of EnglandMotherEleanor of AquitaineBorn8 September 1157(1157-09-08)
Beaumont Palace, OxfordDied6 April 1199 (aged 41)
Châlus, LimousinBurialFontevraud Abbey, France



I really like Richard, and i think that he was one of the best and most interesting kings england ever had.
A really great tough knight.

Are there any others who like Richard?
 
Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.

Totally agree. I have only got this impression since, I must admit watching the latest Robin Hood film.
But I do think he was marginally better than his brother John.
 
Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.

Well, i think that he feel more than a french like an english, because he spent more time in the aquitaine than in england.
I like him, but i knew, that he made a few mistakes as king.
This crusade was so unnessesary. but richard didnt take the money for the crusade from the poor people, he hold the taxes from the rich people and he sells titels and land to everyone who can pay.
I dont like his brother john, i think john I was the worst king, england ever had(he even hang children in the age between five and twelve).

What i like on Richard is:

In the third crusade he send a few of his knights out to watch the area.
when they didnt come back, he himself rides out in dangerous area to find and sive them, and he had said:
"If i cant find and save them from danger, i am not worth to be their king. I have send them there, so i had to save them."
He find the man and save them from the enemys.

I think that made him a good king.
 
Totally agree. I have only got this impression since, I must admit watching the latest Robin Hood film.
But I do think he was marginally better than his brother John.


I think John was a better King of England because he was there and was doing things for England even if he went about things the wrong way. His biggest problem was dealing with the bankrupt country he inherited from his brother (much like Obama's situation inherited from G. Bush - but people are more understanding of the situation now).
 
The rich had to get their money from somewhere and where did they get it - from the poor. Richard's crusade was funded at the expense of his people - the people he should have been caring about but instead he raped his country and caused the peasants to be more put upon by the nobility than before because the nobility had to raise the taxes by imposing extra charges on the peasants.

As for going to rescue his men - that isn't all the special - that is simply the sign of any decent officer.

Kings need to put their country first and Richard didn't. True he didn't care about England which makes the situation worse as he saw England as simply a place to raise money to promote his own position and not a place that he had to care about or even take an interest in.

Given a choice - I would take John over Richard any day simply because John at least was in England (John wasn't a good King by any stretch of the imagination but I rate him a whole lot better than Richard).

As a kid I was taught that Richard was a great king and when I challenged my teachers with the above arguements they couldn't counter but came back with 'Richard was a good Christian' to which my counter was 'but he killed people which goes against Christ's teachings' so again they couldn't counter. Even then I was opposed to the argument of fighting 'for King and Country' but rather saw the soldiers for what they are - state sanctioned murderers - particularly when they are invading other countries such as Richard's invasion of the Holy Land in the third crusade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think John was a better King of England because he was there and was doing things for England even if he went about things the wrong way. His biggest problem was dealing with the bankrupt country he inherited from his brother (much like Obama's situation inherited from G. Bush - but people are more understanding of the situation now).

I think, you cant compare Obama(which is a really great man) with King John.
King John did nothing for his country, and the magna charta was not his contributions.
His barons had coerced him to sign the magna charta, because he had broke many of their reights.
And the reason, why he was almost everytime in england, was, that he has lose his french estates in the first years of his reign.
But in one point i agree with you.
the crusade of richard was so senseless. He was a gread king, but his cusade was a great misstake.

But I think, everyone has his own meaning about this, and if you think, that john was the better king, thats ok.
 
I wasn't comparing Obama with John but rather the situations in which they found themselves when they came to power - countries in financial difficulties because of the disastrous decisions of their predecessors.

John had a problem with his barons because he had to raise taxes again - but why did he have to do so - yes he lost the French lands but he also had inherited a bankrupt country thanks to his brother. Had Richard been a good king he would have left his country in a far better state than he did and thus a lot of John's problems wouldn't have arisen. The same can be said for Obama - a lot of the problems he has had to deal with in the first 18 months of his presidency are the left overs of his predecessor. That was the comparison I was making - not a man for man comparison (it is way too early to judge Obama as a president) but a situation for situation comparison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was not only the taxes...King John had send the wife of one baron (William de Braose) to the dungon with her youngest son.
And the poor woman and the child famished there.
John made a reign of violence and fear.

And when Richard was on crusade, John had take also high taxes, because he wanted to prevent, that eleanor can pay the ransome for Richard when he became a hostage of Leopold from austria, who sold him to Heinrich VI.

And i read, that Queen Eleanor does not like her youngest son...and a man, which was even disliked by his mother must be a very bad man.

I think, that john would have been a worst king, even if richard had left the land in a better state. I read, that john was mentally disordered, since he was a child, and a mentally ill king cant reign a country.

There is only one thing, i found good on him: he has made the efford to learn the english language. Most english Kings in the 12 century dont speak a word englisch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rich had to get their money from somewhere and where did they get it - from the poor. Richard's crusade was funded at the expense of his people - the people he should have been caring about but instead he raped his country and caused the peasants to be more put upon by the nobility than before because the nobility had to raise the taxes by imposing extra charges on the peasants.

Although Richard most likely did put great importance on the Crusades, I think another explanation of the nobility bleeding the peasants for all they could get has a bit of a side trip here also. It was quite popular during this time period to be a member of The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon known also the Knights Templar. A noble family was more prestigious if they donated wealth and/or land to the "cause". It wasn't Richard alone that was funding this crusade but also other Kings and nobles of the Holy Roman Empire. The third Crusade's aim was to recapture the Holy Land back from the Saracens which failed.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't believe that Richard in the Crusades was "going on a play soldiers" mission and ignoring his subjects' welfare but rather joining in with Kings of France and other countries along with the nobles to fight for the Holy Roman Empire.

Its interesting to note also that it is right after the failed third Crusade where interest in the once hallowed Knights Templar began to wane and a lot of interesting history begins. :D



Knights Templar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
King Richard the Lionheart and the Knights Templar
 
I also rate King Richard as one of the worst kings England ever had, if not the worst.
How long was he in England when he was king? I believe it was not more than 6 months.
King John had to find the money to pay for Richard playing crusader and then his ransom and that way got the reputation of being Bad King John, someone had to rule England if the King was away. Also we have the little detail of Berengaria the neglected wife.
Very dashing and a pretty story of Blondel finding him but a very bad king in times when Kings actually ruled countries.
 
I also rate King Richard as one of the worst kings England ever had, if not the worst.
How long was he in England when he was king? I believe it was not more than 6 months.

Actually if I remember my history correctly (and trust me... I am no intellectual when it comes to history), it was after the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066 and William became King of England that things drastically changed. French became the language of the court, administration and culture and would remain so for about 300 years. It wasn't uncommon that the King of England ruled from the provinces of France as we know it now as that is where the Court was.
 
Hi,

Ironic isn't it, that a huge statue of Richard on horseback is erected outside Parliament in London???
I often wondered who thought of that and who approved it....

Eleanor of Aquitaine disliked John because John mostly supported his father.
Also, Richard was Eleanor's favourite child.

Larry
 
After the Conquest William built castles and introduced the feudal system to
England. From being the illegitimate son of Robert of Normandy he became King of England and brought the French language to the Court. As to him reigning from France, I have my doubts, but he definitely made sure he had an eye on both France and England.
Richard when he became king, completely neglected England, he was off on adventure, a dashing knight with a mission and so felt completely at ease with his conscious, he was doing God´s work, and no doubt, having a jolly good time while he was doing it.
His brother John was left to slog away at the actual work of making the country work and paying for his brother´s extravagances and as happens quite often not getting any credit for it, not even in history books. People would rather believe the wonderful story of Robin Hood and Good King Richard than the real story of an absent king. I believe the English were very lucky to have John to do the reigning, but John had to pay for everything and that meant only one thing, taxes and of course the hated tax collectors.
I can understand how the people longed for a saviour and so had this fantasy
Good King who would come back and life would be good and easy.
 
@ Osipi

You are right. In the middle ages all kings have to go when the pope calls them for crusade, they didnt have a choice. So Richard couldnt say no to this crusade, because then he wold be very unpopular in the whole europe, by the other kings and the nobility. This was really a trainforced (i hope this is the right word, in germany we say zugzwang), and a king like richard couldnt afford to say no, when all other kings go on crusade.
The people of the middle ages had an ofter thinking than we today. for tem the crusades were gods will, and someone who dont follow gods will would be a very bad human for them.
 
There were a number of crusades and yet only one King of England actually went so there was no need for the Kings to go if the Pope called. In fact most Kings stayed at home and did their jobs of ruling their countries. Richard went because he wanted to do so not because he had to. There were at least 7 crusades in different centuries and different reigns but only one king felt the necessity to desert his people and take his army there in person. Most other kings throughout the invasions by the Europeans of the Holy Land (and that is all it was - aggressive war against people of a different religion) gave support to some of their own people going but to a large extent realised that their role was to stay in their own countries and do the job God had called them to do - rule their God-given country - but not Richard - no he left his country, bled it dry, and then let his hated little brother take all the blame both during his reign and then afterwards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And i read, that Queen Eleanor does not like her youngest son...and a man, which was even disliked by his mother must be a very bad man.
John was hated by his mother and brothers because he remained loyal to his father when the marriage between his parents collapsed and when his mother encouraged his brothers to lead a rebellion against their father. Henry hated Richard by the way - so what does that say about Richard - a son and heir whose father hated him - why? because Richard lead a rebellion and supported his mother. It isn't fair to say that there is something wrong with a son who is hated by his mother if you don't also acknowledge that there is something wrong with a man who hates and is hated by his father and that was Richard.

Of course medieval Kings were ruthless (don't think that Richard wasn't ruthless - to be a knight meant you had to be ruthless - it wasn't just being nice to each other but also being as nasty as you can be and get away with and Richard was that) - they had to be in order to keep their crowns as they were always facing unruly nobles who would challenge the authority of the monarch if given a chance which is why they were all so ruthless and imprisoned and killed anyone, regardless of gender or age, who posed a threat in any way. That continued really until the Restoration and the end of the King's having sole decision making and they all did it not just John (or Henry VIII - whose daughters killed just as many people)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:

Exactly, a very true description of what happened. Richard had the fun of doing what he liked best (fighting it seems) and John has gone down in history as Bad King John. A cognomen that will stick until the end of time I suppose.
 
From english kings richard was the only who goes on crusade, thats true.
But in germany we had a lot of kings and empereors on crusade.
Empereor Friedrich Barbarossa dies in third crusade, and his son didnt co home, he makes the crusade further, altaugh the death of his father.
And the other son, Heinrich VI died also on crusade a few years later.

And most of french kings joined the crusades to.

Richard was only one of a lot of kings and empereors who went to the holy land. And you must grant richard, that he endet his crusade and make peace with saladin instead of fightin further.

@wisteria

this cognomen is Johns own fault. He was bad, he murdered helpless woman and children. But Richard was mostly of time a mercy king.
he even didnt punish john for colluded against him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There appears to be many victims of royal propaganda here. I am not a revisionist, however historically we should look at events in context. The barons who supported William of Normandy were from Flanders, Britany, and Normandy. Indeed after the victory at Senlac some of these gangster barons never saw their English baronies, but made sure their bailifs exacted rents and taxes. The Norman ruling family saw England as a milch cow. The irony is that 30% of the land in England is still owned by the descendants of these militarists.
 
I love these discussions! Not only because of the wealth of knowledge contained in all these posts but also gets this ol' lady to do a wee bit of studying and go fetchin' on the internet to make sure her facts aren't too way off base. :ohmy:

I think to put the Crusades into perspective, while I have been reading these posts for some reason I got the image of WWI and WWII in my head.

For the Crusade period of time, we also have to remember that it was the time of the Holy Roman Empire. We have kings, nobles and knights all banded together for a common purpose... claiming and protecting and then reclaiming the Holy Land. Sure there was a lot of invading and pillaging and such between feudal lords and territories back home but they also banded together for this one common cause. It was the nobles and the knights and a lot of the Kings that actually went into battle "For God and Country".

Just as with in recent memory we had the World Wars. Countries that have had problems with each other over history and perhaps even still had problems banded together to form the Allies against a common threat. Of course by the time the World Wars occurred it was the Kings, nobles and politicians that stayed behind the lines and it was the everyday man (peasant) that was armed and sent into the front lines.

The Crusades were a period in European history where they banded together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John was hated by his mother and brothers because he remained loyal to his father when the marriage between his parents collapsed and when his mother encouraged his brothers to lead a rebellion against their father. /QUOTE] John was loyal to his father? I read in a fact book, that john had left his moribund father to join Richard. And when the old king saw a list which man who betrayed him, his sohn John was the first man on this list and tat really hurtet him.
I really cant have any sympathy for a man who left his dying father, only because he had fear what could happend to him if the father is dead and the brother knew, that he has provides the father.
Poor King Henry, he really loved the false son.

Richard however was everytime loyal to his mother.

And i knew, that richard sometimes was ruthless, i knew what he had done in accon. And i never said, that he was a perfekt human. In the middle ages there were no kings who arent ruthless, they all believe, god gave them the right to rull all other people.
But John was more ruthless, i read a story where he was playing chess, when some of his barons begging him for help to save their city. John have sayed no, he were to busy at the moment. Then he contuinued his chess game and let the helpless barons go.
Richard would never done that, he would help his barons.

And Eleanor had made a rebellion against henry, because he was cheating her with richards fiancee alais. I read, that he even was planned to divorced frem eleanor to marry alais. So it is no wonder, that eleanor rebelled against him.

But you are right, in one point i have chosen the wrong words.
When parents hate their children, then is something wrong with tem, not with the child.
Richard couldnt nothing for the hate of his father, and so i must say this for john also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think of Richard as a warrior king who revelled in physical activities and went on the crusades more for the adventure than to champion Christianity. He was his mother's favorite child but who knows what endears one to one's parent. Eleanor was a politically astute woman but she must have known that Richard was not cut out to be an administrator which all monarchs must be, or they must be able to appoint capable people to help them administer the country. Richard was unfit to rule, in my opinion, not because he was intellectually incapable, but because he did not want to sit on the throne and run the country.
 
John was loyal to his father until such a time as to be loyal would mean probably death at the hands of his brother (and yes I do think that if John had stayed with his father at the end Richard would have had him executed). John had to leave to swear allegiance to Richard to keep his own life.

John wasn't perfect but at least he tried to do the job of ruling. Richard didn't.

Which was the better man isn't the same as which was the better king. Richard was by far the worst of the two as a monarch as he simply didn't do the job but ran away from his God given duty and responsibility to kill in the name of Christ.

John wasn't a great man but he did try to rule his country and get it out of mess Richard had left it in. Had Richard stayed and ruled John wouldn't have had to be as ruthless as he was to try to raise the funds to simply manage the place.

Richard might have helped the barons but only if he benefitted from it. You don't know that he would have done so - you believe so because of the propaganda that has been put out about the two men. The same as the story about John not helping them - more propaganda to blacken the man's name. Do you have a link to a source from the time period or one within a reasonably close period of time that this actually happened remembering that most of these stories were simply fantasy stories to blacken the name of one and make people dream of a better time - like the Robin Hood legend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@ivluvbertie

I read to find on Wikipedia to find somethin about bad things King John had done...but i was surprised to find some good things:

As far as the administration of his kingdom went, John functioned as an efficient ruler, but he lost approval of the English barons by taxing them in ways outside those traditionally allowed by feudal overlords. The tax known as scutage, payment made instead of providing knights (as required by feudal law), became particularly unpopular. John was a very fair-minded and well informed king, however, often acting as a judge in the Royal Courts, and his justice was much sought after. Also, John's employment of an able Chancellor and certain clerks resulted in the first proper set of records, the Pipe Rolls. Tudor historiography was particularly interested in him, for his independence from the papacy (or lack of it) – this atmosphere produced not only Shakespeare's own King John but also its model The Troublesome Reign of King John and John Bale's Kynge Johan.


Well, i had seen him ever as the bad king john in the robin Hood movies...a man who let his knights burned churches and houses with innocent people in it. The bad king john in die Movies had coined my picture of him, and even i must say, that he wasnt as bad as a thought, i must say, that i still dont like him very much, but now i think, that he has do more for england than richard. I found it strange to read, that his justice was sough.
But i like richard more, because he is still in our time the ideal of an knight, and i blunder him for his courage.

@ Vasillisos

Sometimes i asking me, what would happend, if he didnt had die so early.
Maybe then he had managed to rule the land and make his adminstration.
If he didnt die, he would maybe have childen with berengaria, and then history would have been an other.
I think, that it is a pitty, that he had die so early.
 
What would have happened if he hadn´t died so early? You could ask what would have happened if he had stayed in England and left the crusades to others?
As far as having children with Berengaria, if you read a little more about King Richard you will see that it is said that this would have been highly unlikely.
 
@ivluvbertie

@ Vasillisos

Sometimes i asking me, what would happend, if he didnt had die so early.
Maybe then he had managed to rule the land and make his adminstration.
If he didnt die, he would maybe have childen with berengaria, and then history would have been an other.
I think, that it is a pitty, that he had die so early.

I agree with you that Richard was a troubador/knight, which undoubtedly endeared him to Eleanor whose grandfather was considered the first troubador. And maybe he would have become more of a reigning monarch instead of warrior king if he had lived long enought but that is one of the "what ifs" of history.:flowers:
 
To be accurate and fair regarding the reign of Richard I, England was only a small part of the much larger Angevin Empire that he inherited from his father. There is no guarantee that had he been an astute administrator and remained in his realm that he would have spent a great deal of time in England.

Most of the Angevin territories were on the continent, and would have required more of his attention.. and he was at heart, like his father and grandfather, a Frenchman. Both Henry II and Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, were decidedly French and not English, and the Plantagenet family at that time identified more with French interests.

Henry II spent his childhood in Anjou, and although he went to England when he was nine, he only spent two years there before moving on to Normandy. After his succession, he made himself Lord of Ireland- but only spent six months there, and never returned. He sporadically visited England during his reign, but could not live there permanently.. he was busy conquering new lands.. and keeping the ones he had under control.

Only three of Henry's children were born in England.. the rest were born in Normandy, France and Anjou.

England merely provided the Plantagenents with a kingly title, which gave them equal rank with the monarchs on the continent.. and by the time Richard inherited the throne in 1189, the Angevin Empire was vast.

Of course, King John spent much time in England because he lost most of his father's territories on the continent. After Richard died, the people of Anjou, Maine and Brittany, declared for Arthur of Brittany - they would not accept John as their ruler. Then the King of France declared all his French territories forfeit because he refused to pay homage to France as his overlord.

In the end, John had no choice but to rule England.. he had lost control over the major continental territories of his father and brother Richard.. and even he only spent eight months in Ireland before he was driven out. But perhaps it was good for England not to be a minor part of an empire.. it seems the English got more attention from their king that way.
 
King John made a virtue from a necessity and thank goodness for England he did.
He had the cognome of Lackland because of this loss, but it is his descendants that ruled England after him.
For people brought up on Robin Hood, a person, who it must be said, has not been proven to even have existed and even in the stories about him was a felon living with other outlaws in a dense forest so they could avoid being arrested and could rob travellers. It has always been a wonderful story and many many generations of people have really enjoyed reading these adventures, but on the whole it just a lovely fairy story made up of wishful thinking.
The hardworking person who held England together ended up being called Bad, and the other who really couldn´t have cared less for England ended up being called Good.
Maybe it was destiny that John lost his lands and took the throne of England but it was definitely a good thing when one reads about the character of his brother, Richard.
 
@Vasillios

I read, that Richard had swear to never go on a crusade, when he made peace with Saladin. But after crusade and prisoning he had this war with the french King Philippe Auguste. And he had win the war against Philippe and sure the estates of the plantagenets.
I think if he didnt die, he maybe had could been even the king of france some day, if he had conquer Paris. But thats only one of the "what ifs" in history...

@All

There is one thing, i really dont understand. Richards nephew arthur of the bretagne was 12 or 13 when he died...old enough to be king(England had a lot of kings which were even some years younger)
and in the succecion to the throne arthur was bevore John, because his father was Johns older brother.
How was it possible, that a Richard could name a successor on his death bed, even if there was a fixed line of succession?
And in this line arthur had stand bevore John.
Or could the english kings of the middle ages choose a successor by themselves when they had no own children?

@ Queen Catherine

But hundred years later or so the english kings had again estates in france...and then it was a big war about the english land in france again...i think it was called "the hundred year war"
But what i dont understand...when king john loses all french estates...who did conquer them back for england? Was ist his son or grandson?
 
Back
Top Bottom