Philip Augustus: King of France, 1180-1223

by Jim Bradbury

This text sets out to do justice to Philip (II) Augustus as a man and a king and to redress the balance of assessment in relation to his contemporaries. The conclusions that emerge from the text provide a picture of a very high intelligence, a remarkable capacity to assess realistically the situations he faced and a determination to succeed which frequently crossed over the boundary into ruthlessness.

Genres: History, France, Nonfiction, Biography, Medieval

352 pages, Hardcover

First published February 1, 1997

About the author

Jim Bradbury (born 27 February 1937) is a British historian specialising in the military history of the Middle Ages. Bradbury lectured in history at Brunel University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bra...

Reviews

[Ton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jim Bradbury has some notable books on his resume, including The Medieval Siege and Stephen and Matilda. The Civil War of 1139-53, but this one, to me, fell short of what I’ve come to expect from him. In a word, he’s too much of an apologist for Philip II. Bradbury manages to subtly shift almost any responsibility for things gone bad away from Philip, while insinuating that he deserves the credit for things that went well. If he sometimes says “Philip was no saint”, he follows that up by poiting out what he thinks Philip did well, in effect ‘proving’ that he was very saintlike.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Bradbury has obviously done his research, and knows what he’s talking about. He takes the same approach here which he did later with Stephen of Blois. Whereas Stephen of Blois has been put down by chroniclers and historians as a weak and foolish king, Philip has a reputation for malice, cowardice, duplicity and ruthlessness. With both Stephen and Philip Bradbury then sets out to show how there is more to either man. With Stephen I found in credible, as he gave a serious, conscientious reading of the evidence (and for the battles/campaigns of the sites involved), but for Philip not so much so. One part of that is his insistence of taking the French chronicles practically at face value and disregarding the Anglo-Norman ones. Another part is because of the way he treats the evidence. Bradbury is, in my humble opinion, much too eager to assume the best of Philip. Now, it may be that the idea of the duplicitous Capetian king was already firmly entrenched in my mind (it is), but even with an open mind I found many of Bradbury’s theses too simple, or convenient, or perhaps downright misleading.

Here are some examples:
Bradbury asserts that Philip was responsible for the Third Crusade’s biggest success (the Fall of Acre), but suggests that while Philip left for home right after, he was still an ardent and conscientious crusader. I find this hard to believe, as it was reluctance to play second fiddle to Richard the Lionheart and avarice for the Flemish inheritance that are most likely what drove him to leave for France. With their combined power, Richard and Philip might have been able to decisively defeat Saladin, but Philip chose not to try. I don’t see how that works with conscientious crusading.
Bradbury also implies that Philip is responsible for many Byzantine riches to reach France after the Fourth Crusade, while at the same time Philip took no part in it and barely supported it. On the whole there are many instances where Bradbury seems to suggest that Philip deserves credit for something, without actually proving why this should be. As I progressed through this book, I found this attitude more and more grating.

Conclusion: interesting enough read for those who know something about the timeframe, but a bit misleading for those who do not. Interesting because of a different approach of Philip than is usual, but misleading because it doesn’t really make its case and can be considered suggestive.

[Andrew Dockrill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a phenomenal read, both academically and just in terms of pleasure and a much needed work to be done in the field of medieval history. This was not a book for school or anything, just an enjoyment read, and it did succeed in that. I have been fascinated by Philip Augustus, ever since I saw Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, and have read countless Richard the Lionheart biographies where the British historian naturally was setting out to give a positive historical impression of Richard who by and large is one of the biggest medieval heroes of their country, while leaving Philip in the dust. With this book I felt that I finally managed to make a balanced opinion of both monarchs now, or as balanced as it could reasonably be.

This book did a fantastic job of covering just about every aspect of Philip's reign, from the time of his birth, to spending a considerable amount of time on the Third Crusade all the way to the momentous moment of his reign at the battle of Bouvines. One section of the book which was both interesting but also a bit heavy handed was where he seems to try so hard to make the argument in Philips favor that it was really Philip and the French who were the unsung heroes of the Crusade while Richard was the diva from England who wanted the pomp and to be center stage (I exaggerate) while Philip was more in the background. I did find that Bradbury did go a bit too far in his defense of Philip in trying to provide explanation for all of the criticism that he did receive by history for either leaving the crusade early or his lack of glorious achievement during it. While Richard was a bit of a knob while on the crusade which I wouldn't argue, Bradbury literally tries and tears him down while bringing Philip up. I suppose to some degree this is warranted though given all of the work on Richard who was the English superstar of the medieval period, it should be considered that Philip was more than just a silent partner.

He also made the argument that Philip was a political genius, the example he used was that instead of trying to fight the Plantagenets wherever he could in hand to hand engagements, he instead followed a similar method which his father Louis VII had done and played the Planagenet family members off one another. Luckily for Philip there was tremendous infighting so he was quite successful in this approach. But when the actual need for arms did come about he was able to win the majority of his raids into Normandy, taking much of Richards castles.

He also dealt with much of the infrastructure and improvement that Philip managed to consolidate not only within Paris, where he had defensive walls, and improved the roads, but also in consolidating and expanding the Capetain territory within France, where unlike England where the monarchy largely controlled all of the island, the french had very limited power. Philip increased the monarchs power by obtaining the lands of those who did not manage to return from the Third Crusade, and taking possession of their domains. Bradbury also made the argument that it was under Philip the the blueprint for the French navy finally took off, largely with little success as he did not have any naval battles to note of, he set the project in motion that would later be taken up by his great great grandson Philip IV.

Overall I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Philip Auguste as it is a thorough look at his life and reign and what records there remain of it. The book was highly readable and I learned a considerable amount about him while also enjoying the read tremendously, or as Adam Zamoyski would say "it was a rattling good read".

[Julie Yates · Rating 3 out of 5]

I finished this not feeling like I knew much more about Phillip than when I started. This is definitely a me problem in that I did not know enough going in to understand what Bradbury was attempting to do (rehabilitate King Philip's reputation.) And since I don't actually like King Richard, I should have been an easy sale! Anyway, I found this really dense and this is more like a published argument with other researchers who I haven't read and didn't understand.

Here are 2 opposing views (who clearly know enough about Phillip to get something out of this work.) First is Ton who gave a 3 and does not think Bradbury rehabilitated Phillip; 2nd is Andrew who gave 5 stars and felt Bradbury proved his point.

[Lois · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is well written and well researched.
I took off a star for sexist views of Eleanor of Aquitaine primarily. Yikes moments there.
Otherwise exceptionally well researched.

[Bartek Maciej · Rating 4 out of 5]

Świetna książka, w zwięzły i przystępny sposób opowiada dzieje panowanie jednego z największych królów Francji

[Michael Bully · Rating 4 out of 5]

Found this biography useful in looking at the rise of France, achieved largely at the expense of the Anglo-Norman Angevin empire during the early 13th century. Also covers Philip's participation on the Third Crusade, which has been largely overshadowed by Richard the Lionheart, in a fair amount of detail. The section on the Battle of Bouvines of 1214 , Philip's triumphant crushing of the anti French alliance, contains a great range of information that is not found in other modern historians writing in English.
The parts on the finance and the administration of France are probably of lesser interest for non-academic readers. Would have been interested to read more about the scholars of the University of Paris. Also more on heresy, and the Jewish community of France. The author finds Philip's conduct towards these groups unjustifiable, so they tend to get marginalised, The complexities of Philip's relationship with the Papacy, particularly in trying to end his marriage with Ingeborg of Denmark on quite dubious grounds , come over well.
Some readers have found this book too uncritical of Philip, especially his motives in leaving the Third Crusade early, and his manipulation of the tensions within the Angevin dynasty of England purely for his own advantage. But for someone like myself, who knows little about French history, gained a lot from reading this book.

[Hannahcomb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this in conjunction with John W. Baldwin's books on France and Phillip Augustus's governments. I can't comment on whether these authors are over-emphasizing Phillip's accomplishments because I've not read anything in particular about his foil, Richard the Lionheart. If all we're doing is comparing books about 12 century French monarchy and country unification, this is the lighter read, for certain.

In terms of helpfulness for historical fiction research, this was a good addition to the Baldwin books, as I wouldn't want to rely too fanatically on only one author. I currently believe the Baldwin books have more going for them in terms of reference material and historical citations but this was a good read if you only need an overview of Philip's reign. I think some of the battles get a bit more detail than in Baldwin and there's more anecdotes (such as the descriptions about how to sneak or break into a 12th century castle during battle).

[Eugene · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit too dry, too academically written.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solidly academic. It can be very dry.

[فيصل اللنقاوي · Rating 4 out of 5]

يعتبر فيليب أغسطس الملك الفرنسي من آل كوبيه الذي أعاد لفرنسا رونقها

انصح كل المهتمين بالعصور الوسطى بقراءة هذا الكتاب