What do you think?
Rate this book
King John
This book is part of a series which provides the student, scholar and general reader with authoritative short studies of key aspects and personalities in the medieval world.
306 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1994
5 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
About the author
Ralph V. Turner
8 books8 followersA specialist on the Angevin kings and their government, Ralph V. Turner is is Distinguished Research Professor of History (emeritus) at Florida State University. He earned a BA and an MA in history at the University of Arkansas, and after spending an academic year at Poitiers, France, as a Fulbright Scholar he attended the Johns Hopkins University, where he completed his doctorate in history in 1962.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 14, 2025
Academic and somewhat revisionist; geared toward those with more knowledge of the time period with lots of discussion about what other scholars think and often why they are wrong, (but as I have not yet read those works I have no idea who is right). He also believes that John's poor reputation, especially compared to Philip Agustus is in part due to the lack of chroniclers who liked him. ( In contract to the pious Louis VII, Henry and his sons had no goodwill that they could draw on when making new demamns on their subjects. He is also large fan of John's administrative abilities, even though this is pointed out as one of the reasons his baron's rebelled. I found Marc Morris's King John: Treachery and Tyranny in Medieval England: The Road to Magna Carta a much better book (even with the very odd time jumps.)
The fact remains that John's father and brother left him a legacy of diverse lands and people that the most able and amiable of monarchs could not have satisfied, as well as a series of near insoluble economic, political and military problems.
The fact remains that John's father and brother left him a legacy of diverse lands and people that the most able and amiable of monarchs could not have satisfied, as well as a series of near insoluble economic, political and military problems.
July 8, 2019
Read my review on this link :
https://allaboutroyalfamilies.blogspo...
https://allaboutroyalfamilies.blogspo...
August 28, 2019
This is fascinating reading. SO far I'm learning about John's early life and administration of England and the French possesions (basically Western France from Normandy to the Pyrenees).
the whole thing is finely balanced between John's control of strategic castles and highly trained and mobile army against a host of enemies which are in the end mostly a result of him being an utter prick. His death may even have saved England from French domination as John's young son Henry (III) was a much more agreeable monarch than French Louis.
John has a rather bad reputation, which doesn't entirely do him justice. He was an utter prick, but so were his father Henry II and brother Richard Lionheart. Richard's saving grace was his generosity, but his generous spending on his crusade, then his bail from captivity, followed by continuous war against France to retain hold of Normandy plundered the treasury.
The treasury was mostly filled from then English possessions as the power of the kings was greater here than in their other lands of Anjou, Normandy and Acquitaine. So John inherited a mostly bankrupt country from which he tried to squeeze the last drops. This was always unlikely to ingratiate him with the barons.
John's character didn't help, but he was a sound administrator and a capable commander, as his early campaigns in Normandy show, but even more so in 1215-1216, where he combined a small but high quality field army with a carefully laid out system of royal castles that allowed him to race from Rochester to Edinburgh in just over a month and then back south again in as much time. He also used his strategic mobility to outmanouvre the rebels and troops of Louis in 1216.
the whole thing is finely balanced between John's control of strategic castles and highly trained and mobile army against a host of enemies which are in the end mostly a result of him being an utter prick. His death may even have saved England from French domination as John's young son Henry (III) was a much more agreeable monarch than French Louis.
John has a rather bad reputation, which doesn't entirely do him justice. He was an utter prick, but so were his father Henry II and brother Richard Lionheart. Richard's saving grace was his generosity, but his generous spending on his crusade, then his bail from captivity, followed by continuous war against France to retain hold of Normandy plundered the treasury.
The treasury was mostly filled from then English possessions as the power of the kings was greater here than in their other lands of Anjou, Normandy and Acquitaine. So John inherited a mostly bankrupt country from which he tried to squeeze the last drops. This was always unlikely to ingratiate him with the barons.
John's character didn't help, but he was a sound administrator and a capable commander, as his early campaigns in Normandy show, but even more so in 1215-1216, where he combined a small but high quality field army with a carefully laid out system of royal castles that allowed him to race from Rochester to Edinburgh in just over a month and then back south again in as much time. He also used his strategic mobility to outmanouvre the rebels and troops of Louis in 1216.
July 23, 2017
Don't get me wrong. If you want to know everything there is about King John, this book will do the job. However, it is a rather exhausting read. Very detailed, very dry, very complex. For anyone just wanting to get some deeper insight into the events of 1215 and what lead there (like myself), this is just a bit over the top.
May 4, 2020
A reappraisal of King John and shows him as a flawed man and king. But not the complete failure some previous historians had claimed.
If you want a short history of King John this is a well written and interesting book.
If you want a short history of King John this is a well written and interesting book.
April 19, 2020
I purchased and read the 2009 edition via kindle : The writer tries hard to present a more objective view of King John. The writer looks at both at the opinions of contemporary chroniclers and subsequent work and covers many different aspects of John's reign including the economics, the religious affairs, the success of Philip Augustus as ruler of France, besides the more well known aspects of John's reign.
The writer concedes that John did commit acts of cruelty, certainly being complicit in the killing of his nephew Arthur, having William de Braose's wife and son , and others opponents starved to death. The hanging of 28 sons of Welsh chieftains who were his hostages. ( For some reason the alleged mutilation of rebels when Rochester Castle fell in 1215 is not included in list of John's unnecessary viciousness to those he defeated.) And of course the fact John died in 1216 with so much of his realm in rebel hands- with support from Crown Prince Louis of France- suggests that his rule had failed-though it is pointed out that certain rebels became Royalists once John had died.
He points out that in respect of English chroniclers, they tended to become very critical of royal administration as from 1300, accusing Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris of 'anti-royalist' bias. The writer tries to show that the loss of Normandy in 1204 was most likely beyond John's control, as the dukedom was moving toward a greater affinity with France, and France simply had greater financial resources in any case. But its loss, along with that of Anjou and Poitou , forever damaged John's reputation. The fact that John had to resort to all sorts of harsh measures to raise as much money as possible to regain the lost territories only to have his forces and the anti-French alliance he sponsored lose to Philip Augustus at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 set John on a collision course with his subjects leading to Magna Carta and civil war.
It would have been good to have more on the campaign leading to Bouvines : It was by no means a foregone conclusion that this campaign would fail. John himself was with a force near Angouleme and not present at the battle. The chapter on Magna Carta is interesting but contains quite a few untranslated Latin terms that makes it hard to follow.
Overall a thoughtful book. One begins to see that perhaps if John had not lost the Angevin territories or had regained them, a lot of his excesses just might have been overlooked.
The writer concedes that John did commit acts of cruelty, certainly being complicit in the killing of his nephew Arthur, having William de Braose's wife and son , and others opponents starved to death. The hanging of 28 sons of Welsh chieftains who were his hostages. ( For some reason the alleged mutilation of rebels when Rochester Castle fell in 1215 is not included in list of John's unnecessary viciousness to those he defeated.) And of course the fact John died in 1216 with so much of his realm in rebel hands- with support from Crown Prince Louis of France- suggests that his rule had failed-though it is pointed out that certain rebels became Royalists once John had died.
He points out that in respect of English chroniclers, they tended to become very critical of royal administration as from 1300, accusing Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris of 'anti-royalist' bias. The writer tries to show that the loss of Normandy in 1204 was most likely beyond John's control, as the dukedom was moving toward a greater affinity with France, and France simply had greater financial resources in any case. But its loss, along with that of Anjou and Poitou , forever damaged John's reputation. The fact that John had to resort to all sorts of harsh measures to raise as much money as possible to regain the lost territories only to have his forces and the anti-French alliance he sponsored lose to Philip Augustus at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 set John on a collision course with his subjects leading to Magna Carta and civil war.
It would have been good to have more on the campaign leading to Bouvines : It was by no means a foregone conclusion that this campaign would fail. John himself was with a force near Angouleme and not present at the battle. The chapter on Magna Carta is interesting but contains quite a few untranslated Latin terms that makes it hard to follow.
Overall a thoughtful book. One begins to see that perhaps if John had not lost the Angevin territories or had regained them, a lot of his excesses just might have been overlooked.
March 24, 2021
This is more of a book of the evils of governmental bureaucrats like Turner. All kings are evil in the measure that they will uphold unjust laws, start wars, tax and thus make their subjects more poor than people without a king. For evil leeches like Turner things are a bit different. Wars generated by the kings are an excellent opportunity to praise the dead, also called heroes, and sneer at the individuals who protect the lives of themselves and their families. Leeches like Turner thrive on tax money and all their minions are paid from the same taxes. So long live the king! Sure, there were some less pleasant, but overall they are an excellent business. Take for example the present volume: trees had to be cut, and more tax money used only so Turner can see his name in print and proudly add one more ”published works” item on his resume for when he will come to claim a lifetime pension, it better be higher than what a worker can get after a week of toil.
December 11, 2021
A technical and in-depth view of one of England's most nefarious monarchs. It's a bit thick with information, and has a stale reading quality to it, but some valuable points, overall, about King John and his reign.
June 23, 2013
The font size is hellishly tiny.
It looks like a decent "revisionist" attempt of introducing King John to the general public. The last civil war, Magna Carta and French invasion of Britain take smth like 10 pages - that's a bit surprising but gives better focus on John's earlier reign.
It looks like a decent "revisionist" attempt of introducing King John to the general public. The last civil war, Magna Carta and French invasion of Britain take smth like 10 pages - that's a bit surprising but gives better focus on John's earlier reign.
May 8, 2012
Good book, which gives a different angel on King John. Very useful when working with the life of the king.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews