What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Monarchs
Richard I
With the emphasis firmly on Richard's monarchy rather than on his personal life, Gillingham's history aims to explain why the Lionheart's reputation has fluctuated more than that of any other monarch. The study places Richard in Europe, the Mediterranean and Palestine and demonstrates that few rulers had more enemies or more influence. The paperback edition includes an updated bibliography.
380 pages, Hardcover
First published December 11, 1999
12 people are currently reading
476 people want to read
About the author
John Gillingham
44 books30 followersJohn Bennett Gillingham is emeritus professor of medieval history at the London School of Economics and Political Science. On the 19th July 2007 he was elected into the Fellowship of the British Academy
He is renowned as an expert on the Angevin empire.
He is renowned as an expert on the Angevin empire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
August 15, 2015
John Gillingham describes his book on King Richard I, one in a series of biographies of English Monarchs by Yale University Press, as a political biography. In his preface to the book he stresses that he is not attempting to analyze Richard Plantagenet the man, but rather the political legacy of King Richard I, and he explicitly excludes from his discussion Richard’s “inner life.” He does not look at him as a son, husband or brother, but only in the context of his effectiveness as a ruler — first as a deputy for his mother and/or father and later in his own right as Duke of Aquitaine and King of England. Essentially, Gillingham sets out to determine whether Richard was a “good” or a “bad” king.
The focus is justified by the fact that King Richard has been both lionized and vilified by historians over the centuries. As Gillingham catalogues, medieval historians saw in him a hero on the scale of King Arthur, Roland and Charlemagne. Later Plantagenet kings were judged in comparison with him — the highest praise being to come near to equaling him. Yet during the Reformation and the later Tudor era Richard started to fall into disrepute as a result of Protestant condemnation of the crusades. By the 19th century it was commonplace to dismiss his achievements as paltry because they did not promote Victorian values such as empire building, trade and sound fiscal policy. In the 20th century RIchard was condemned for spending too little time in England and “oppressing the masses” with his taxes for “worthless” ventures such as the Third Crusade — and his ransom, of course.
Gillingham points out that, long before the historical debate, Richard inspired extreme opinions in his lifetime. Adulated and adored by some of his subjects and supporters, he was demonized by his political enemies, particularly Philip II of France. He is credited with abusing noblewomen and maidens, with hounding his father to his grave, murdering his political opponents, and with betraying the cause of Christ while in the Holy Land. The ironic result, Gillingham suggests, is that the most objective contemporary commentary on Richard probably come from Muslim sources. Unfortunately for us, these only describe his actions during the less than two years in which he was active in the Holy Land.
Given the treacherous nature of his sources, Gillingham does an admirable job of depicting Richard Plantagenet based on what he actually did rather than on what people said about him. In doing so, he convincingly builds the case that Richard was a remarkably effective monarch — judged by the standards and values of his day. In doing so, he highlights the absurdity of expecting a mercantilist monarch in a feudal kingdom, much less a mild and tolerant ruler in a brutal and violent age.
What emerges is a complex but on the whole admirable and competent leader, a statesman as well as a general. As Gillingham documents, Richard was not just a dashing knight and outstanding commander, nor merely a brilliant tactician, strategist and logistician. He was a sound financial manager, who alone among the leaders of the Third Crusade was consistently in a financial position to recruit and provision troops. He managed to raise a truly enormous ransom without, in fact, beggaring his subjects. He was, to be sure, creative in his methods of raising funds — from selling offices to selling conquests (Cyprus). Rather than wrinkling our noses at these allegedly distasteful practices, however, we should consider that the alternative would indeed have been to tax the innocent poor rather than milk the grasping rich. He was also an astonishingly effective diplomat, not only in his complicated negotiations with Saladin, but in turning his erstwhile German enemies into allies, and in his tedious but eventually effective efforts to pry the Counts of Flanders and Toulouse out of the French camp and into his own.
Last but not least, despite his reluctance to discuss the private side of Richard, Gillingham does offer insight into Richard’s personality. We get glimpses of a man who was very well educated, loved music and was more than superficially pious. We learn that he had a fine and subtle sense of humor and often spoke half in jest, often using a light-hearted tone to deliver serious messages. While he clearly inherited the infamous Plantagenet temper, it did dominate him, and he was not irrational even when angry. Most important, Gillingham’s Richard is a man of many parts far removed from the buffoon-like Richard found in so many films and novels that reduce him to a brutal idiot or a jovial but empty-headed figurehead.
This biography is well-worth reading and is a must for anyone interested in the period.
The focus is justified by the fact that King Richard has been both lionized and vilified by historians over the centuries. As Gillingham catalogues, medieval historians saw in him a hero on the scale of King Arthur, Roland and Charlemagne. Later Plantagenet kings were judged in comparison with him — the highest praise being to come near to equaling him. Yet during the Reformation and the later Tudor era Richard started to fall into disrepute as a result of Protestant condemnation of the crusades. By the 19th century it was commonplace to dismiss his achievements as paltry because they did not promote Victorian values such as empire building, trade and sound fiscal policy. In the 20th century RIchard was condemned for spending too little time in England and “oppressing the masses” with his taxes for “worthless” ventures such as the Third Crusade — and his ransom, of course.
Gillingham points out that, long before the historical debate, Richard inspired extreme opinions in his lifetime. Adulated and adored by some of his subjects and supporters, he was demonized by his political enemies, particularly Philip II of France. He is credited with abusing noblewomen and maidens, with hounding his father to his grave, murdering his political opponents, and with betraying the cause of Christ while in the Holy Land. The ironic result, Gillingham suggests, is that the most objective contemporary commentary on Richard probably come from Muslim sources. Unfortunately for us, these only describe his actions during the less than two years in which he was active in the Holy Land.
Given the treacherous nature of his sources, Gillingham does an admirable job of depicting Richard Plantagenet based on what he actually did rather than on what people said about him. In doing so, he convincingly builds the case that Richard was a remarkably effective monarch — judged by the standards and values of his day. In doing so, he highlights the absurdity of expecting a mercantilist monarch in a feudal kingdom, much less a mild and tolerant ruler in a brutal and violent age.
What emerges is a complex but on the whole admirable and competent leader, a statesman as well as a general. As Gillingham documents, Richard was not just a dashing knight and outstanding commander, nor merely a brilliant tactician, strategist and logistician. He was a sound financial manager, who alone among the leaders of the Third Crusade was consistently in a financial position to recruit and provision troops. He managed to raise a truly enormous ransom without, in fact, beggaring his subjects. He was, to be sure, creative in his methods of raising funds — from selling offices to selling conquests (Cyprus). Rather than wrinkling our noses at these allegedly distasteful practices, however, we should consider that the alternative would indeed have been to tax the innocent poor rather than milk the grasping rich. He was also an astonishingly effective diplomat, not only in his complicated negotiations with Saladin, but in turning his erstwhile German enemies into allies, and in his tedious but eventually effective efforts to pry the Counts of Flanders and Toulouse out of the French camp and into his own.
Last but not least, despite his reluctance to discuss the private side of Richard, Gillingham does offer insight into Richard’s personality. We get glimpses of a man who was very well educated, loved music and was more than superficially pious. We learn that he had a fine and subtle sense of humor and often spoke half in jest, often using a light-hearted tone to deliver serious messages. While he clearly inherited the infamous Plantagenet temper, it did dominate him, and he was not irrational even when angry. Most important, Gillingham’s Richard is a man of many parts far removed from the buffoon-like Richard found in so many films and novels that reduce him to a brutal idiot or a jovial but empty-headed figurehead.
This biography is well-worth reading and is a must for anyone interested in the period.
October 9, 2024
Very informative with play by play, battle by battle sometimes. Focused on facts, so lacks the (nonfactual) speculative thoughts about Richard's personality that I crave.
Source: ILL
Thanks to his crusade Richard moved on a world stage where all who supported him could admire his brilliant generalship, his personal prowess and courage; where all who loathed him could see his arrogance and his ruthlessness.
Richard's virtues as a crusading king who, unlike modern commanders, was willing to risk his own life as well as those of his soldiers, came to be less and less appreciated, so Daniel's innovative perception of him as a king who neglected his kingdom and wasted its resources abroad was all the more readily taken up.
The point is that Richard's closest family associations, whether real or legendary, were with western France and not with England or Normandy
There was, however, a special problem for the ducal government and one with which Richard was to become familiar at an early age. This lay in the fact that castles held by two great aristocratic families, the Lusignans and the counts of Angoulême, could at times hinder land communications between the duke's three administrative capitals,
But in view of Eleanor of Aquitaine's masterful political activity in later years it seems superfluous to look for a power behind the throne. If the initiative did not come from their mother it is hard to see either Richard, at fifteen, or Geoffrey, at fourteen, being persuaded to rebel by a man behind the scenes.
On this view, in the tension between Richard's parents which may have been developing from the late 1160s onwards, there was not just the clash of temperaments, there was also the conflict of two cultures. It would be hard to imagine a more complex and bewildering environment for an adolescent to grow up in.
The homage sworn by Raymond of Toulouse was a great triumph for Henry II, but did Eleanor see it in that light? As duchess of Aquitaine she had inherited the ducal claim to Toulouse, but at Limoges Raymond had not only done homage to the dukes of Aquitaine, he had also done homage to the Young King. Did this mean that Aquitaine was going to be permanently subordinated to the ruler of the Anglo-Norman realm? The possibility must have made Eleanor's ancestors turn in their graves. Nor can it have been pleasing to the Poitevin nobles.
Gervase of Canterbury reports that ‘the great nobles of Aquitaine hated him because of his great cruelty’. The dean of St Paul's heard that he ‘oppressed his subjects with unjustified demands and a régime of violence’. Roger of Howden, as usual, gives a more detailed account. ‘He carried off his subjects’ wives, daughters and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down for his soldiers to enjoy. He afflicted his people with these and many other wrongs.
Unlike his father, Richard was genuinely committed to the crusading cause. He was a soldier and no war could bring greater prestige than the war against the Saracens, the war in the Holy Land, the emotional centre of the Christian world. On this battleground no act of bravery, no deed of chivalry, would go unrecorded. But it would be a mistake to think that Richard was indifferent to the attractions of a plenary indulgence.
In W. L. Warren's words, ‘Henry had adopted the tactic of trying to discipline Richard by keeping him in uncertainty and had then become caught in the toils of his own deviousness
For this William paid 10,000 marks. In the future Richard would be much admired in Scottish historical writing. Many modern English historians, feeling that Scotland should be ruled from Westminster, have taken a different view, and have preferred to follow Gerald's description of the Quit-claim as ‘a piece of vile commerce and a shameful loss to the English crown’. But the Quit-claim not only helped to pay for Richard's crusade, it also ensured that when John rebelled in 1193–4 the Scots did not invade England
Once the act of going on crusade was itself seen as ‘neglecting England’, it was probably inevitable that Richard's preparatory measures would also be seen in a negative light as ‘the reckless expedients of a negligent king’. Since contemporaries did not view the crusade in that light they also saw his preparations differently
With hindsight contemporary historians were convinced that John had been treated with dangerous generosity, but in 1190 it might have been argued that he had been pensioned off with the wealth appropriate to his status but with very little power, as John himself doubtless thought
...benefiting from the wisdom of hindsight, have generally been those whose instincts told them that a king of England should stay in England. But this is not how people felt in 1189. Contemporaries were unanimous in believing that Richard's highest duty was to attempt the recovery of Jerusalem
In Rigord's view, the quarrel between the two kings began when Richard rejected Alice. It might be more accurate to say this was the moment when their quarrels turned into bitter hostility. From now on, in Ulrike Kessler's phrase, Philip's crusade was directed not so much against Saladin as against Richard
Authors loyal to Richard minimized King Philip's efforts and Philip's biographers did the same for Richard's. It was imperative that Philip's biographers portray Richard as a reluctant, unreliable and deceitful crusader; only in this way could they hope to provide any sort of moral justification for their king's subsequent invasion of a fellow-crusader's lands
By the 20th the prisoners had become an embarrassment rather than an asset and it seems that Richard and his fellow-soldiers had no compunction in ridding themselves of them in a fashion that was brutally efficient. How did contemporary or near-contemporary Christian authors deal with the massacre? Almost without exception they regarded it as the natural consequence of Saladin's failure to abide by the terms agreed and they either approved or referred to it in neutral tones
While Richard was king in reality, Guy could perfectly well be king in theory. But not even Richard had been able either to defeat Conrad of Montferrat or to secure his co-operation, and, left to his own resources, Guy had little or no chance against this clever and unscrupulous opponent. If Guy had succeeded in recapturing Acre it might have been different but, as it was, in the eyes of the barons of Outremer he was still the man who had lost the battle of Hattin
In the last few days events had moved with bewildering speed. From Richard's point of view, the outcome of it all was that, for the first time, he had all the forces of the kingdom at his disposal. If he had wished to put Henry on the throne he would have had to get rid of Conrad and placate Guy – which is what happened. Either he had reacted in a remarkably sure-footed way to the twists and turns of events, or some of them had been foreseen and, at the least, contingency plans had been laid
His subjects may have praised him to the skies and beyond, but it is the words of those who had to fight against him which carry weight. Even when they knew he was very ill, they preferred to make peace rather than prolong the war.
It was already obvious that his death would be followed by a struggle for power within his family. Had Richard stayed in the Holy Land until the next Easter – as he had once said he would, and as he nearly did, since 9 October was just about the latest date in the year at which it was safe to sail, he might have achieved his ambition. By one of the ironies of history, Saladin died on 4 March 1193, more than three weeks before Easter. But by that time Richard was a prisoner in Germany
The fact was that too many of those who had left the crusade earlier than Richard had returned home humiliated – and blaming him for their humiliation. Foremost among them was, of course, Philip Augustus – Richard's enemy from the moment he had shamed Philip's sister, Alice
Although he grieved over his brother's treachery, a poor return for the estates and titles which he had showered upon him, he consoled himself with the observation that ‘my brother John is not the man to win lands by force if there is anyone at all to oppose him
In the hope of ousting Richard he was prepared to undo all his father's and his brother's work
and be content with an Angevin empire which was not only much truncated but also seriously weakened by the loss of vitally important frontier regions. This was conduct which can only have led Philip to despise John, a view which was to be of critical importance in 1199 and after
The long captivity in Germany had cost him and his subjects dearly. On the other hand, the provisions he had made for defending and governing his dominions during his absence on crusade had worked well. For more than two and a half years, from July 1190 to March 1193, the Angevin institutions of government functioned remarkably well, in Aquitaine, in Anjou, in Normandy and, despite the bit of trouble between John and Longchamp, in England
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Richard's religious beliefs, but in the crises of his life he lived by another set of values: that ‘secular code of honour of a martially oriented aristocracy’ now known as chivalry. Chivalry, in Maurice Keen's words, ‘conflated in its ideal of honour, principles of personal integrity with the title to social respect’.33 Probably no one ever felt more entitled to ‘social respect’ than a king who was also ‘the finest knight on earth
According to William the Breton, although Richard hated John's odious conduct (William had in mind a treacherous surprise attack on Evreux and the slaughter that resulted), he was his brother and so did not withhold from him the love due to a brother. Except in such terms it is hard to explain the consistent generosity of Richard's treatment of his younger brother.
Whatever he did or didn't do, their marriage remained childless and this, given the desire of most kings to have a son to succeed them, is generally taken as evidence for one kind of failure. But
Richard acknowledged a child. Indeed his illegitimate son is a central figure in one of Shakespeare's plays.
Inevitably we are in the realm of speculation but the probability is that Berengaria was barren. An annulment might have been considered but in political terms the Navarre alliance was probably too important to be put at risk, at any rate until the ‘diplomatic revolution’ of 1196. Berengaria did not remarry
Despite his eagerness to hunt down the man whom he had learned to hate, Richard had not forgotten elementary tactics. One of his most experienced captains, William Marshal, had joined neither the pursuit nor the plundering of the wagon train, but had, on Richard's orders, held his troops together ready to deal with any attempt by the French to rally and counterattack. That evening, as Richard's men celebrated, boasting of their great deeds, the knights they had captured and the booty they had won, the king praised William, and, by implication, praised himself: ‘The Marshal did better than any of you. If there had been any trouble he would have helped us. When one has a good reserve, one does not fear one's enemies.’
In the spring of 1196 he summoned Constance of Brittany to attend his court. After the death of her first husband, Richard's brother Geoffrey, she had been given in marriage to Ranulf, earl of Chester. She, however, stayed in Brittany while he preferred to live in England or Normandy and in general it seems that the duchy had gone very much its own way after Henry II's death
But although Richard won his war, he lost the dispute. Arthur's guardians took him first into hiding and then to the safety of the court of King Philip. In granting Arthur asylum at his court Philip made a public declaration of hostile intent against Richard
William the Marshal's assessment of the situation early in 1199 was that Richard was winning. The Capetian assessment is that Richard thought he was winning – and that he was. According to Rigord, the truce was not properly ratified because Richard cunningly avoided doing this – i.e. he believed that continuing the war suited his interests.97 And the whole tone of Rigord's and William the Breton's narratives of 1197–8 is one of despair as the tide of war flowed strongly against them.
Richard's death came as a great shock. In the words of Abbot William of Andres, ‘at a time when almost the whole world either feared the king of England or praised him, he was snatched
suddenly from this life’.
A rebellion, moreover, which was encouraged by Philip Augustus and which Richard had good reason to take seriusly since it occurred in precisely that part of Aquitaine where revolts against ducal authority had been most common: in 1176-9, 1182-3, 1192, 1194 and now again in 1198-9. This was, in effect, the soft underbelly of the Angevin empire- as Philip has always known.
Source: ILL
Thanks to his crusade Richard moved on a world stage where all who supported him could admire his brilliant generalship, his personal prowess and courage; where all who loathed him could see his arrogance and his ruthlessness.
Richard's virtues as a crusading king who, unlike modern commanders, was willing to risk his own life as well as those of his soldiers, came to be less and less appreciated, so Daniel's innovative perception of him as a king who neglected his kingdom and wasted its resources abroad was all the more readily taken up.
The point is that Richard's closest family associations, whether real or legendary, were with western France and not with England or Normandy
There was, however, a special problem for the ducal government and one with which Richard was to become familiar at an early age. This lay in the fact that castles held by two great aristocratic families, the Lusignans and the counts of Angoulême, could at times hinder land communications between the duke's three administrative capitals,
But in view of Eleanor of Aquitaine's masterful political activity in later years it seems superfluous to look for a power behind the throne. If the initiative did not come from their mother it is hard to see either Richard, at fifteen, or Geoffrey, at fourteen, being persuaded to rebel by a man behind the scenes.
On this view, in the tension between Richard's parents which may have been developing from the late 1160s onwards, there was not just the clash of temperaments, there was also the conflict of two cultures. It would be hard to imagine a more complex and bewildering environment for an adolescent to grow up in.
The homage sworn by Raymond of Toulouse was a great triumph for Henry II, but did Eleanor see it in that light? As duchess of Aquitaine she had inherited the ducal claim to Toulouse, but at Limoges Raymond had not only done homage to the dukes of Aquitaine, he had also done homage to the Young King. Did this mean that Aquitaine was going to be permanently subordinated to the ruler of the Anglo-Norman realm? The possibility must have made Eleanor's ancestors turn in their graves. Nor can it have been pleasing to the Poitevin nobles.
Gervase of Canterbury reports that ‘the great nobles of Aquitaine hated him because of his great cruelty’. The dean of St Paul's heard that he ‘oppressed his subjects with unjustified demands and a régime of violence’. Roger of Howden, as usual, gives a more detailed account. ‘He carried off his subjects’ wives, daughters and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines; when he had sated his own lust on them he handed them down for his soldiers to enjoy. He afflicted his people with these and many other wrongs.
Unlike his father, Richard was genuinely committed to the crusading cause. He was a soldier and no war could bring greater prestige than the war against the Saracens, the war in the Holy Land, the emotional centre of the Christian world. On this battleground no act of bravery, no deed of chivalry, would go unrecorded. But it would be a mistake to think that Richard was indifferent to the attractions of a plenary indulgence.
In W. L. Warren's words, ‘Henry had adopted the tactic of trying to discipline Richard by keeping him in uncertainty and had then become caught in the toils of his own deviousness
For this William paid 10,000 marks. In the future Richard would be much admired in Scottish historical writing. Many modern English historians, feeling that Scotland should be ruled from Westminster, have taken a different view, and have preferred to follow Gerald's description of the Quit-claim as ‘a piece of vile commerce and a shameful loss to the English crown’. But the Quit-claim not only helped to pay for Richard's crusade, it also ensured that when John rebelled in 1193–4 the Scots did not invade England
Once the act of going on crusade was itself seen as ‘neglecting England’, it was probably inevitable that Richard's preparatory measures would also be seen in a negative light as ‘the reckless expedients of a negligent king’. Since contemporaries did not view the crusade in that light they also saw his preparations differently
With hindsight contemporary historians were convinced that John had been treated with dangerous generosity, but in 1190 it might have been argued that he had been pensioned off with the wealth appropriate to his status but with very little power, as John himself doubtless thought
...benefiting from the wisdom of hindsight, have generally been those whose instincts told them that a king of England should stay in England. But this is not how people felt in 1189. Contemporaries were unanimous in believing that Richard's highest duty was to attempt the recovery of Jerusalem
In Rigord's view, the quarrel between the two kings began when Richard rejected Alice. It might be more accurate to say this was the moment when their quarrels turned into bitter hostility. From now on, in Ulrike Kessler's phrase, Philip's crusade was directed not so much against Saladin as against Richard
Authors loyal to Richard minimized King Philip's efforts and Philip's biographers did the same for Richard's. It was imperative that Philip's biographers portray Richard as a reluctant, unreliable and deceitful crusader; only in this way could they hope to provide any sort of moral justification for their king's subsequent invasion of a fellow-crusader's lands
By the 20th the prisoners had become an embarrassment rather than an asset and it seems that Richard and his fellow-soldiers had no compunction in ridding themselves of them in a fashion that was brutally efficient. How did contemporary or near-contemporary Christian authors deal with the massacre? Almost without exception they regarded it as the natural consequence of Saladin's failure to abide by the terms agreed and they either approved or referred to it in neutral tones
While Richard was king in reality, Guy could perfectly well be king in theory. But not even Richard had been able either to defeat Conrad of Montferrat or to secure his co-operation, and, left to his own resources, Guy had little or no chance against this clever and unscrupulous opponent. If Guy had succeeded in recapturing Acre it might have been different but, as it was, in the eyes of the barons of Outremer he was still the man who had lost the battle of Hattin
In the last few days events had moved with bewildering speed. From Richard's point of view, the outcome of it all was that, for the first time, he had all the forces of the kingdom at his disposal. If he had wished to put Henry on the throne he would have had to get rid of Conrad and placate Guy – which is what happened. Either he had reacted in a remarkably sure-footed way to the twists and turns of events, or some of them had been foreseen and, at the least, contingency plans had been laid
His subjects may have praised him to the skies and beyond, but it is the words of those who had to fight against him which carry weight. Even when they knew he was very ill, they preferred to make peace rather than prolong the war.
It was already obvious that his death would be followed by a struggle for power within his family. Had Richard stayed in the Holy Land until the next Easter – as he had once said he would, and as he nearly did, since 9 October was just about the latest date in the year at which it was safe to sail, he might have achieved his ambition. By one of the ironies of history, Saladin died on 4 March 1193, more than three weeks before Easter. But by that time Richard was a prisoner in Germany
The fact was that too many of those who had left the crusade earlier than Richard had returned home humiliated – and blaming him for their humiliation. Foremost among them was, of course, Philip Augustus – Richard's enemy from the moment he had shamed Philip's sister, Alice
Although he grieved over his brother's treachery, a poor return for the estates and titles which he had showered upon him, he consoled himself with the observation that ‘my brother John is not the man to win lands by force if there is anyone at all to oppose him
In the hope of ousting Richard he was prepared to undo all his father's and his brother's work
and be content with an Angevin empire which was not only much truncated but also seriously weakened by the loss of vitally important frontier regions. This was conduct which can only have led Philip to despise John, a view which was to be of critical importance in 1199 and after
The long captivity in Germany had cost him and his subjects dearly. On the other hand, the provisions he had made for defending and governing his dominions during his absence on crusade had worked well. For more than two and a half years, from July 1190 to March 1193, the Angevin institutions of government functioned remarkably well, in Aquitaine, in Anjou, in Normandy and, despite the bit of trouble between John and Longchamp, in England
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Richard's religious beliefs, but in the crises of his life he lived by another set of values: that ‘secular code of honour of a martially oriented aristocracy’ now known as chivalry. Chivalry, in Maurice Keen's words, ‘conflated in its ideal of honour, principles of personal integrity with the title to social respect’.33 Probably no one ever felt more entitled to ‘social respect’ than a king who was also ‘the finest knight on earth
According to William the Breton, although Richard hated John's odious conduct (William had in mind a treacherous surprise attack on Evreux and the slaughter that resulted), he was his brother and so did not withhold from him the love due to a brother. Except in such terms it is hard to explain the consistent generosity of Richard's treatment of his younger brother.
Whatever he did or didn't do, their marriage remained childless and this, given the desire of most kings to have a son to succeed them, is generally taken as evidence for one kind of failure. But
Richard acknowledged a child. Indeed his illegitimate son is a central figure in one of Shakespeare's plays.
Inevitably we are in the realm of speculation but the probability is that Berengaria was barren. An annulment might have been considered but in political terms the Navarre alliance was probably too important to be put at risk, at any rate until the ‘diplomatic revolution’ of 1196. Berengaria did not remarry
Despite his eagerness to hunt down the man whom he had learned to hate, Richard had not forgotten elementary tactics. One of his most experienced captains, William Marshal, had joined neither the pursuit nor the plundering of the wagon train, but had, on Richard's orders, held his troops together ready to deal with any attempt by the French to rally and counterattack. That evening, as Richard's men celebrated, boasting of their great deeds, the knights they had captured and the booty they had won, the king praised William, and, by implication, praised himself: ‘The Marshal did better than any of you. If there had been any trouble he would have helped us. When one has a good reserve, one does not fear one's enemies.’
In the spring of 1196 he summoned Constance of Brittany to attend his court. After the death of her first husband, Richard's brother Geoffrey, she had been given in marriage to Ranulf, earl of Chester. She, however, stayed in Brittany while he preferred to live in England or Normandy and in general it seems that the duchy had gone very much its own way after Henry II's death
But although Richard won his war, he lost the dispute. Arthur's guardians took him first into hiding and then to the safety of the court of King Philip. In granting Arthur asylum at his court Philip made a public declaration of hostile intent against Richard
William the Marshal's assessment of the situation early in 1199 was that Richard was winning. The Capetian assessment is that Richard thought he was winning – and that he was. According to Rigord, the truce was not properly ratified because Richard cunningly avoided doing this – i.e. he believed that continuing the war suited his interests.97 And the whole tone of Rigord's and William the Breton's narratives of 1197–8 is one of despair as the tide of war flowed strongly against them.
Richard's death came as a great shock. In the words of Abbot William of Andres, ‘at a time when almost the whole world either feared the king of England or praised him, he was snatched
suddenly from this life’.
A rebellion, moreover, which was encouraged by Philip Augustus and which Richard had good reason to take seriusly since it occurred in precisely that part of Aquitaine where revolts against ducal authority had been most common: in 1176-9, 1182-3, 1192, 1194 and now again in 1198-9. This was, in effect, the soft underbelly of the Angevin empire- as Philip has always known.
January 30, 2022
A balanced biography of Richard.
Gillingham mainly looks at the political aspects of Richard’s reign; there’s not much on his personal life. He also looks at Richard’s courage and ability as a military leader and diplomat, his financial acumen, his sound judgment, and decisiveness. Gillingham notes how divergent contemporary opinions of Richard are, and points out that this was also the case in Richard’s day (he suggests that the most objective portraits of Richard might be from Islamic sources about his crusade) His rendition of the Third Crusade is lively and very well done, as is his discussion of Richard's imprisonment and ransom.
He also disputes the idea that Richard was homosexual, and also challenges the idea that Richard neglected administrative issues, or neglected England. Some critics even fault Richard for not speaking English, but this was true of English kings going back to William the Conqueror. There aren’t too many problems with the book, although his treatment of Richard’s rebellion against his father is pretty defensive (he’s more critical of people who rebel against Richard)
A compelling and well-written work.
Gillingham mainly looks at the political aspects of Richard’s reign; there’s not much on his personal life. He also looks at Richard’s courage and ability as a military leader and diplomat, his financial acumen, his sound judgment, and decisiveness. Gillingham notes how divergent contemporary opinions of Richard are, and points out that this was also the case in Richard’s day (he suggests that the most objective portraits of Richard might be from Islamic sources about his crusade) His rendition of the Third Crusade is lively and very well done, as is his discussion of Richard's imprisonment and ransom.
He also disputes the idea that Richard was homosexual, and also challenges the idea that Richard neglected administrative issues, or neglected England. Some critics even fault Richard for not speaking English, but this was true of English kings going back to William the Conqueror. There aren’t too many problems with the book, although his treatment of Richard’s rebellion against his father is pretty defensive (he’s more critical of people who rebel against Richard)
A compelling and well-written work.
February 9, 2009
I have the complete series of The Kings and Queens of England. Quite useful for ref.
November 14, 2016
This summer (2016) I went on a J-1 to America to work for two months at a creative and performing arts camp in sunny secluded Connecticut surrounded by a swath of green leafed trees and rugged wildlife. All in all, camp life in America was an interesting experience although one I am decidedly hesitant to repeat. However, one of the events I enjoyed immensely at camp were the weekly day trips in and out of the camp grounds and into the wider world (Seriously, getting a lift in and out of camp was next to impossible with many Americans being reluctant to help). On one of these trips in mid July, I went with my campers to the Yale Natural History Museum and afterwards to the legendary Whitlock Book Barn. This book shop is a bibliophile's dream; two rustic, cherry red barns encased in deciduous woodland stuffed to the brim with old and new books on every topic under and beyond the sun.
Frankly, it was heaven being there and I DID NOT want to leave.
Not ever.
Alas though, I had to bid adieu to such a glorious abode of books and slices of 50s Americana (due to my love for Fallout I persuaded myself to buy two 50s car adds in mint condition and have never regretted it) and return to the bubbly and painfully optimistic setting of the creative arts camp (As a proud cynic and pragmatist, American cheeriness and inborn positive nature made for some rather macabre moments of eye-rollingness on my part). At the end of the day I found myself with two fifties car adds, a map of 1940s America (No Hawaii!) and four books on medieval Europe-John Harvey's The Plantagenets, Knights of the Crusade, Duc of Chagny's Lives of the Kings and Queens of the France and finally John Gillingham's Richard I.
Okay enough mindless reminiscing! Lets get onto the book review!
Published first in 1978, John Gillingham's historical biography, on the famed crusader King himself, Richard I "Lionheart"details in a roughly chronological order the life and legacy of this most legendary figure from medieval history. This is a diligently researched and carefully crafted historical study on England's most (in)famous crusader and king starting a and ending with his shocking surprise death in Aquitaine France in 1199 at the hands of an unknown crossbowman at a castle siege. The book itself seeks to fully ground the reader in the political, social, economic, religious, familial and cultural background to Richard's life and how these unique conditions found in this historical era shaped and influenced the man who was to become on of England's most well-known and lionised king (no pun intended heh). Everything that concerns Richard and how it might have influenced his perception of the medieval world and his place within it is sensibly discussed. It is both interesting and illuminating to have the medieval world with all its quirks laid out before us and to see Richard's role within such a age is shown clearly to the reader.
Gillingham's bio of the Lionheart is your typical historical study of a famous individual of the Middle Ages. It is expertly written, thoughtfully critiqued and written with a measured and sedate manner. Gillingham writes, with no apology, with the subtle acumen of a gifted and lofty scholar. His research into the life and legend of the Lionheart is done with careful study and due regard for the facts known about Richard. It is competent, well-written, candid and its arguments are deftly put forward for an interested audience. Gillingham writes in an unbiased manner; unafraid to place blame on Richard himself or castigate the king for his arrogance, cruelty and lack of forethought. the entire bio is not written through a modern mindset; rather Gillingham focuses on examining Richard and his legacy through proper historical context. This is an interesting retelling of the highlights of Richard's life and how he succeeded at being a competent and clever king, a determined and crafty crusader adn a charismatic and tenacious diplomat.
Despite being an interesting account of Richard I and his times, this can be at times a dry and dense read with overly academic bent to it. This may have the impact of scaring off more general readers of medieval history. Also, in my honest opinion the ending to Richard's life and his shocking death felt somewhat rushed bu these can be considered minor flaws at worst.
Highly recommended. A good historical bio of a complex and enigmatic figure. Historically accurate, non-biased and written in a calm, controlled manner. Relevant to this day and backed up with credible research.
P.S
Was Richard I gay?
To be frank, I'm with Gillingham on this one.
Here are are combined reasons.
1. Richard being gay was only proposed in 1948. Richard I died in 1199 so that's a gap of 749 years which speaks volumes IMHO. (In fact I have the book that proposes the theory of Richard I being gay while being skeptical of Edward II, James I and William II.)
2. Richard I had no children with his queen Berengaria (does that every man without children is gay or every man with children is straight?)
3. Richard I is accused of having an affair with arch-nemesis Phillip II of France. (anachroistic reading of a single source from Roger of Howden and to put it bluntly if the two most powerful kings in western Europe were romantically involved more people would have been aware, neither king would be so stupid to be involved with the other and the Catholic Church would have lost it).
4. Richard I was known to kidnap and seduce women in Aquitaine and on Crusade.
5. Not one of Richard's enemies ever accused him of such behavior and no writer ever mentions Richard's ever having relations with men or even rumours of such things.
5. A hermit threatened Richard with the destruction of Sodom. Sodom=Sodomy much later in the 13th and 14th centuries. Neither does it imply gay relationships. In the 12th century, Sodom stood for general deviancy (Adultery and fornication).
Frankly, it was heaven being there and I DID NOT want to leave.
Not ever.
Alas though, I had to bid adieu to such a glorious abode of books and slices of 50s Americana (due to my love for Fallout I persuaded myself to buy two 50s car adds in mint condition and have never regretted it) and return to the bubbly and painfully optimistic setting of the creative arts camp (As a proud cynic and pragmatist, American cheeriness and inborn positive nature made for some rather macabre moments of eye-rollingness on my part). At the end of the day I found myself with two fifties car adds, a map of 1940s America (No Hawaii!) and four books on medieval Europe-John Harvey's The Plantagenets, Knights of the Crusade, Duc of Chagny's Lives of the Kings and Queens of the France and finally John Gillingham's Richard I.
Okay enough mindless reminiscing! Lets get onto the book review!
Published first in 1978, John Gillingham's historical biography, on the famed crusader King himself, Richard I "Lionheart"details in a roughly chronological order the life and legacy of this most legendary figure from medieval history. This is a diligently researched and carefully crafted historical study on England's most (in)famous crusader and king starting a and ending with his shocking surprise death in Aquitaine France in 1199 at the hands of an unknown crossbowman at a castle siege. The book itself seeks to fully ground the reader in the political, social, economic, religious, familial and cultural background to Richard's life and how these unique conditions found in this historical era shaped and influenced the man who was to become on of England's most well-known and lionised king (no pun intended heh). Everything that concerns Richard and how it might have influenced his perception of the medieval world and his place within it is sensibly discussed. It is both interesting and illuminating to have the medieval world with all its quirks laid out before us and to see Richard's role within such a age is shown clearly to the reader.
Gillingham's bio of the Lionheart is your typical historical study of a famous individual of the Middle Ages. It is expertly written, thoughtfully critiqued and written with a measured and sedate manner. Gillingham writes, with no apology, with the subtle acumen of a gifted and lofty scholar. His research into the life and legend of the Lionheart is done with careful study and due regard for the facts known about Richard. It is competent, well-written, candid and its arguments are deftly put forward for an interested audience. Gillingham writes in an unbiased manner; unafraid to place blame on Richard himself or castigate the king for his arrogance, cruelty and lack of forethought. the entire bio is not written through a modern mindset; rather Gillingham focuses on examining Richard and his legacy through proper historical context. This is an interesting retelling of the highlights of Richard's life and how he succeeded at being a competent and clever king, a determined and crafty crusader adn a charismatic and tenacious diplomat.
Despite being an interesting account of Richard I and his times, this can be at times a dry and dense read with overly academic bent to it. This may have the impact of scaring off more general readers of medieval history. Also, in my honest opinion the ending to Richard's life and his shocking death felt somewhat rushed bu these can be considered minor flaws at worst.
Highly recommended. A good historical bio of a complex and enigmatic figure. Historically accurate, non-biased and written in a calm, controlled manner. Relevant to this day and backed up with credible research.
P.S
Was Richard I gay?
To be frank, I'm with Gillingham on this one.
Here are are combined reasons.
1. Richard being gay was only proposed in 1948. Richard I died in 1199 so that's a gap of 749 years which speaks volumes IMHO. (In fact I have the book that proposes the theory of Richard I being gay while being skeptical of Edward II, James I and William II.)
2. Richard I had no children with his queen Berengaria (does that every man without children is gay or every man with children is straight?)
3. Richard I is accused of having an affair with arch-nemesis Phillip II of France. (anachroistic reading of a single source from Roger of Howden and to put it bluntly if the two most powerful kings in western Europe were romantically involved more people would have been aware, neither king would be so stupid to be involved with the other and the Catholic Church would have lost it).
4. Richard I was known to kidnap and seduce women in Aquitaine and on Crusade.
5. Not one of Richard's enemies ever accused him of such behavior and no writer ever mentions Richard's ever having relations with men or even rumours of such things.
5. A hermit threatened Richard with the destruction of Sodom. Sodom=Sodomy much later in the 13th and 14th centuries. Neither does it imply gay relationships. In the 12th century, Sodom stood for general deviancy (Adultery and fornication).
March 15, 2021
I am nearly done with my long, winding tour of the monarchy under Henry II and his spawn (only one King John biography to go!) and although Henry, Eleanor, and their children were fascinating people, I am beginning to find them a bit claustrophobic. I will not miss them. The more I read about them the more infuriating I find them. Multiple wars fought because a father could not sit down with his sons in a room and peacefully parcel out large sections of England and France! After a while you begin to want to shake them bodily. How many innocent people died because of your little teenage egos? you want to ask.
So that was the frame of mind with which I opened John Gillingham's biography of Richard I. This is a perfectly serviceable biography, and I thought that Gillingham did a good job of presenting various historical controversies and explaining why he found one side or another more plausible. He also convincingly explains why Richard's subjects may have considered him a perfectly good king even though he doesn't hold up particularly well to the glare of twenty-first century examination. He could not make me like Richard, or make me less tired of his arrogance, but I suppose that is not what he set out to do.
So that was the frame of mind with which I opened John Gillingham's biography of Richard I. This is a perfectly serviceable biography, and I thought that Gillingham did a good job of presenting various historical controversies and explaining why he found one side or another more plausible. He also convincingly explains why Richard's subjects may have considered him a perfectly good king even though he doesn't hold up particularly well to the glare of twenty-first century examination. He could not make me like Richard, or make me less tired of his arrogance, but I suppose that is not what he set out to do.
December 14, 2017
A fantastic, in-depth look at one of the most famous medieval kings.
There are several chapters that deal with Richard's reputation through history, and in popular culture, as well as turning the tables and looking at him from the Muslim perspective during his crusade. This book is a slightly more academic look at Richard and some of the chapters are a little heavy on the detail, but most of the writing as approachable and interesting.
The author presents positive and negative views of this famous man, and his references to the contemporary sources are interesting, especially ones from the Muslim world.
A great book about this famous/infamous warrior king!
There are several chapters that deal with Richard's reputation through history, and in popular culture, as well as turning the tables and looking at him from the Muslim perspective during his crusade. This book is a slightly more academic look at Richard and some of the chapters are a little heavy on the detail, but most of the writing as approachable and interesting.
The author presents positive and negative views of this famous man, and his references to the contemporary sources are interesting, especially ones from the Muslim world.
A great book about this famous/infamous warrior king!
March 13, 2018
An exciting not-to-long read for the researching historian. I read it for personal research.
I found this work of interest and the contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, this work is a good resource for the historian, researcher, and enthusiast.
I found this work of interest and the contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, this work is a good resource for the historian, researcher, and enthusiast.
August 24, 2017
Very well researched book. Gets a bid too academic in some places.
November 2, 2018
The best of the biographies of Richard.
Read
December 26, 2019read for grad school
May 11, 2025
An excellent, comprehensive, balanced treatment of Richard I. As the author acknowledges, slightly more engagement with the Arabic sources would be even more helpful!
January 30, 2011
For quite a few decades now the scholastically renowned Yale University Press has been publishing fabulous biographies as part of their Yale English Monarchs. In 2001 the expensive hardback of Richard I came out, then in April a more affordable and easier to handle paperback was published.
The author is John Gillingham, formerly a professor of medieval history at the London School of Economics and is currently the leading authority on Richard’s reign; who better to write an extensive biography on one of Britain’s greatest monarchs. As a matter of fact, a larger than life statue currently stands outside London’s Houses of Parliament depicting the valiant and honorable King Richard on horseback with sword drawn.
The statue is much like this biography: complete, majestic, encompassing, and overpowering. Written in a hand that threatens to become over-complicated but never does, here is Richard the Lionhearted under a microscope, from his early years with his mother and father, through his older years warring with his bothers, and then through his later years on crusade against the devilish Saladin whom he never actually met. Richard is a great and just king whom all should know about.
Originally published on November 18th, 2002.
For over 500 book reviews, and over 40 exclusive author interviews (both audio and written), visit BookBanter.
The author is John Gillingham, formerly a professor of medieval history at the London School of Economics and is currently the leading authority on Richard’s reign; who better to write an extensive biography on one of Britain’s greatest monarchs. As a matter of fact, a larger than life statue currently stands outside London’s Houses of Parliament depicting the valiant and honorable King Richard on horseback with sword drawn.
The statue is much like this biography: complete, majestic, encompassing, and overpowering. Written in a hand that threatens to become over-complicated but never does, here is Richard the Lionhearted under a microscope, from his early years with his mother and father, through his older years warring with his bothers, and then through his later years on crusade against the devilish Saladin whom he never actually met. Richard is a great and just king whom all should know about.
Originally published on November 18th, 2002.
For over 500 book reviews, and over 40 exclusive author interviews (both audio and written), visit BookBanter.
February 2, 2015
Richard I
John Gillingham
Read it in Hardcover in 378 pages
The Lion Heart, the first King of England to participate in a Crusade. Long before he was the Lion Hearted though, he was a third son of Henry II of England (Plantagenet Dynasty) and was widely responsible, as Count/Duke for his mother's demesne of Aquitaine and its surrounding Duchies once he came into his majority. Gillingham does a thrilling job at depicting Richard in his youth, troublesome management and revolt(s) against his father in his early majority, and eventually detailing out the conflict between Phillip Augustus and Saladin on the Third Crusade which would have wide reaching repercussions for Richard as he returned from Crusade. While Gillingham obviously favors Richard in his narrative against the aggressions of Philip, he still portrays a King with political acumen, a man drunk on Kingship and chivalry, and a warrior above all else.
Mr. Gillingham is most qualified to wright this as an Emeritus Professor and renowned expert on the Angevin Empire and a host of well lauded published works. A lot if not most of the current works on the time period that I read seem to acknowledge and thank Gillingham in their 'Acknowledgements' section and I can't wait to read more of his work.
John Gillingham
Read it in Hardcover in 378 pages
The Lion Heart, the first King of England to participate in a Crusade. Long before he was the Lion Hearted though, he was a third son of Henry II of England (Plantagenet Dynasty) and was widely responsible, as Count/Duke for his mother's demesne of Aquitaine and its surrounding Duchies once he came into his majority. Gillingham does a thrilling job at depicting Richard in his youth, troublesome management and revolt(s) against his father in his early majority, and eventually detailing out the conflict between Phillip Augustus and Saladin on the Third Crusade which would have wide reaching repercussions for Richard as he returned from Crusade. While Gillingham obviously favors Richard in his narrative against the aggressions of Philip, he still portrays a King with political acumen, a man drunk on Kingship and chivalry, and a warrior above all else.
Mr. Gillingham is most qualified to wright this as an Emeritus Professor and renowned expert on the Angevin Empire and a host of well lauded published works. A lot if not most of the current works on the time period that I read seem to acknowledge and thank Gillingham in their 'Acknowledgements' section and I can't wait to read more of his work.
April 10, 2010
John Gillingham is a great historian but a less than riveting writer. His history of Richard I -- the Lionheart -- is less written for readers interested in this fascinating character than it is for other historians, living and deceased, who have made a royal mess of scholarship on the subject. Thus much time and energy is given to recounting what others have written about Richard and how much of it is incorrect. It is easy to get bogged down in what is not a very long book on a very exciting life. But that criticism should not overshadow the fact that with this and other books on Richard, the author has done a tremendous service to our understanding of a man who had an outsized influence on world events. One of my very favorite historical figures, he was king of England and lord of what is now western France. The king of France was his bitter rival and fellow crusader, the emperor of Germany was his jailor, and Saladin himself was his opponent in the epic contest for control of the Holy Land. In a scene eerily reminiscent of Moses gazing upon the promised land, Richard comes to the top of a hill and sees before him Jerusalem. It was the closest he would ever come.
June 22, 2016
This biography of Richard I is imminently readable and very engaging, an excellent introduction to Richard's life and times. Gillingham takes a number of liberties in glossing over points of debate about Richard and his legacy, but his efforts are well within the rights of any biographer who must condense a man's life down to one book.
I think that this book would be very enjoyable for anyone who is interested in medieval English history, the English monarchy, or even general Anglophiles. Trained medievalists could find the book useful for its breadth of subject matter, but I imagine that the amateur or casual historian would get the most use out of it
I think that this book would be very enjoyable for anyone who is interested in medieval English history, the English monarchy, or even general Anglophiles. Trained medievalists could find the book useful for its breadth of subject matter, but I imagine that the amateur or casual historian would get the most use out of it
January 29, 2023
Definitely learnt a lot about Richard Lionheart and his contemporaries and ambitions and achievements. As authorJohn Gillingham and introducer Antonia Fraser tell us, he hardly ever set foot in Britain and his parts were buried in France. But his recklessness (adventure gene?) gothiminto trouble and his lastescapade at Chalus didforhim at 41. So meanwhilemostly the 12th century women were onlookers andchattelswithoutmuch clout. My question is why didnt Beringeria produce Richard an heir? Aspects of his biology or makeup probably -meanwhilebrother John went onto have5 children to keep the Frenchconnection going.
August 20, 2013
Un análisis espectacular no sólo de la vida de Ricardo, sino de los años centrales del Imperio Angevino.analiza los años finales del reinado de Enrique II y, a través de todo el libro, va anunciando la traicionera y débil actitud de Juan que llevaría, una vez muerto Ricardo, al principio del fin del Imperio Angevino.
Se lee muy bien y, en ocasiones, parece una novela donde la enemistad y rivalidad entre los dos monstruos políticos del momento, Ricardo y Felipe Augusto, marcan todo el lo el y la Europa del momento.
Se lee muy bien y, en ocasiones, parece una novela donde la enemistad y rivalidad entre los dos monstruos políticos del momento, Ricardo y Felipe Augusto, marcan todo el lo el y la Europa del momento.
February 2, 2017
Czytając tę i inne książki dotyczące wczesnośredniowiecznej historii Anglii zawsze zazdroszczę Brytyjczykom: prawie tysiącletniej przewagi nad nami jeśli chodzi o historyczne źródła. Mam nadzieję, że więcej książek z serii English Monarchs wyda u nas Wydawnictwo Astra. Historia Ryszarda Lwie Serce jest bardziej fascynująca niż te płytkie i naciągane jej motywy obijające się w popkulturze. A przy tym dobrze napisana.
May 26, 2021
Must-read for anyone interested in Richard I. Gillingham does a great job at viewing Richard not as a perfect king, nor as a terrible and distant failue of a king, but rather as what he was - doing what he thought was right, in a world that kept going against him.
October 11, 2011
A good concise history of Richard's life and times. Easy read and galloped along splendidly.
Read
May 18, 2022(someone looooooves Richard I)
(hint: it's Gillingham, Gillingham loves Richard I)
(hint: it's Gillingham, Gillingham loves Richard I)
September 11, 2021
a good point of view showing the real Richard and not just the Lionheart Myth.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews