Customer Reviews

King John

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

W.L. Warren begins this biography with an explanation of how and why King John ended up with the dastardly reputation we all know from Robin Hood stories and other popular fiction. John, Warren says, suffered from a confluence of factors that have rendered a slanted and warped portrait of him. Historiography methods of the past concentrated almost entirely on contemporary chronicles, practically ignoring administrative records and other types of extraneous material. John especially suffers under this kind of examination, since the chroniclers who wrote about his reign were all either poorly informed, outrageously prejudiced, or both.

John is mocked with the name "Softsword" for having lost his hold on the French domains his father, Henry II, and his brother, Richard I, worked so hard to keep. Warren points out, however, that such far-flung territories could never have been maintained, and, even had Richard lived, the French outcome would probably have been the same. Far from being a military do-nothing, John is the founder of the Royal Navy. Warren marvels that a nation that came to treasure its naval superiority as England did could so completely vilify the founder of its navy.

But this book is no whitewash, either. John was duplicitous and grasping and didn't trust anyone who wasn't beholden to him. He surrounded himself with baseborn hangers-on, excluding and alienating the barons of his realm. He took money for dispensing justice and then still ruled against the side that paid him. He was cunning and conniving, and was known to issue decrees that said one thing while secretly issuing instructions that ran exactly counter to what he wrote.

Yet this same king instituted something that, to historians, is even more important than the Royal Navy: the systematic keeping of government and court records. Before John ascended the throne in 1199, English government recordkeeping is spotty and haphazard - a frustratingly obscure and incomplete source for the study of history. But from 1199 on, these same records emerge as a rich and authoritative resource. Hmm, almost as if John knew the chroniclers weren't going to treat him fairly...

Another myth that gets busted in this book is the one about King John's being forced to sign the Magna Carta. While Warren concedes that John had backed himself into a corner by running roughshod over his barons, he explains that the Magna Carta was simply a compromise brokered between him and his opponents. Nobody was holding a gun to his head - and wouldn't have been even had guns been invented. And John had the last laugh when, days later, he made England a fief of the Pope, who reciprocated by declaring the Magna Carta null and void.

When I started reading this book, I had a fairly negative attitude about King John. By the time I finished, I still didn't like him much, but I had a new appreciation for him as a brilliant, complex, and probably tortured soul who tried to do great things and occasionally succeeded.

If you've been conditioned by the Robin Hood stories to think of King John as the ultimate bad guy, read this book. It will show you that, while he was not a saint and not the best ruler of England, he really was not all that bad. I found this to be a useful, informative, and well-written biography. One of the points I came away with was that King John was apparently the founder of the great British navy, that pride of later generations. His struggles with Pope Innocent III show him to be a nationalist, even a patriot of sorts. And those rebellious barons who forced the Magna Carta upon the king may have had some valid arguments, but it can also be argued that John was doing the best he could. This book shows that John compares favorably with his much more popular brother Richard the Lionheart.

While this is the best overall modern biography of King John, it is a bit dated with so much new research having been done in this field. For those seriously interested in this subject, the works of Ralph Turner and S.D.Church should also be considered. If possible, the best overall biography still remains Kate Norgates but it is ancient at this point.

I was a little hesitant about ordering this book at first for fear it would be dry and complicated. I was very happy to discover it was neither. It is well researched and well written. Warren gives you a good feel about the period and the challenges John faced. I even found myself asking "what would I have done in his place?" This book busted a few of the "Bad King John" myths as well as some of the "Good King Richard" ones. This is a very readable book provided you have an interest and a little knowledge about the period. If you are looking for a "Robin Hood" type story this isn't it. It's not a page turner but nor should it be. This is the story of a complex man during a complex time and Warren did a great job of bringing it to life without making it dull.

This book shows the "dastardly" King John of Robin Hood fame in a more realistic light. He is seen to be an enlightened ruler who reviewed the law courts and other English institutions and who truly, of all the previous Plantagenet kings, preferred England as his inheritance. He is not the cowed king who is seen to have signed the Magna Carta, but a king who was faced with the accumulatiom of misrule by previous Plantagnet rulers including his brother Richard the Lion Heart. This book does not hide the King's less likeable attributes, avarice, lustfullness, a bad temper, a vengeful nature, but then Richard Coeur de Leon had that too. This book shows that John was no worse than his predecessors. Read also "Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Alison Weir, which corroborates this book very well..

W.L. Warren's King John attempts to resurrect John's reputation or, at least, improve it. It reads quite differently from Warren's biography of Henry II, published over ten years later. The biography of John's father is extensively detailed in Henry's relationship to the British law system, the church, and the barons. Henry reigned much longer, there are some very good sources and he was a more complex man. This biography of John is primarily chronological and is much more a "story" from beginning to end. At times Warren seems to swing the pendulum on John too much the other way. For example, calling him "dynamic" is true as long as the word does not have positive connotations. A lot of bad leaders have been "dynamic" in that they did things forcefully. John was treacherous, generally cowardly, had terrible judgment, both about people and situations, and did not seem to understand the effects of his actions. The unfair and heavy taxes, the bringing into England of large numbers of "aliens" to enforce his policies and fight against his own people in his home country, the meaninglessness of his promises, the buying of "justice" - he deserves a bad reputation. It is true that Richard and, to some extent, Henry II, are the source of many of the bad situations in which John found himself. Warren points this out several times and, in an effort to defend John, treats them as explanations for John's behavior. But a different king would have responded to these crises very differently.

Warren argues that John was the founder of the Royal Navy. Yes in that John was the first to organize what might be called a viable fleet. However, Alfred is also called the founder of the Navy in that he was the first to use ships in a systematic way to guard the nation. The issue depends on what you mean by "founding." Warren thinks that John should be given more credit here but maybe the reason is that a nation would prefer to look up to someone who had genuine courage and wisdom rather than someone who had little of both. John signs Magna Carta as a last resort and then promptly does everything he can to void it. The barons are hardly models of moral uprightness but nothing gets done without a trust in leadership. I have a new appreciation for Archbishop Stephen Langton who, Warren implies, had a major hand in crafting the compromise that produced the Charter. The luck of history plays a large role here. John signs it because he is cornered and the barons force him because he is completely untrustworthy. Then he dies soon after and a boy (Henry III) in a tenuous position with some good advice re-issues it several times. Magna Carta becomes part of the accepted way things are done and the boy becomes a king who is not "dynamic," has a long reign, and whose later efforts to void the Charter failed. This gives the ideas in Magna Carta even more time to become solidified in people's minds. If John does not die so quickly afterwards, if Henry had been more forceful and intelligent in his own self-interest.... History is filled with "what if's" but this is a turning point. Though I sometimes wondered whether Warren may go too far in defending a weak and treacherous king, this book is a great read.

King John the first, last, and only is famous for two things, and one of those things he did not really do. As a prince, he is known to have chased around Robin Hood--that is fiction. As the King of England, he signed the famous Magna Carta; he did do that, but Warren points out that it is not quite the historic event that many thought it was. W.L. Warren attempts in this biography of King John to strip way the myth--particularly negative myth--about a ruler who in his view was quite competent but just really unlucky.

Historical giants surround King John throughout his life. His father is the famous King Henry II who established Common Law in England. His mother is the famous Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was the wife of two kings and the mother of two kings . His famous brother Richard the Lionhearted, was a celebrated and overrated crusader. His archrival is King Philip II of France, known as Philip Augustus, who begins the process of transforming France into a nation by expanding French royal power at the expense of King John. Amongst these great people John seems small by comparison and his reputation suffers.

"The persisting images are of Henry as a strong and beneficent ruler, of Richard as a glamorous hero, and of John as a villainous failure; but these sharp contrasts reflect the attitudes of the more influential of the chroniclers rather than real differences of personality. The dominant impression of Henry is closest to reality, that of John furthest removed." (p.4)

Warren describes John as the son who was most like his father--who is generally regarded as great monarch. Like his father, John is interested in governing his kingdom. This passion is in direct contrast to his brothers who saw kingship as something that was prestigious but not something one needed spend their energies on. As a ruler, John is a great politician who suffers from a lot of reverses. The fact the he manages to survive all of them is testament to his ability but that is not to say he his actions should not invoke criticism. How he handled the loss of Normandy was not one of his prouder moments.

"Richard himself could not have beaten that combination. If Richard had lived for another five years, though, there would have been one notable difference in the course of the campaign. The king himself would have been on the heights above Les Andelys as dawn broke, to give the single of the combined attack on the French camp; however ready the Normans were to surrender, Philip would not have been able to march up the valley of the Orne to Caen without fear of sudden assault by Richard and his household cavalry; and even when all else had gone, Richard would have been urging the citizens of Rouen to arms, and parrying the first assault with blows from his great sword. John stayed in England biting his nails." (p.99)

Throughout the book Warren tries his best to present what John was like as a person. Part of his negative reputation comes from the fact that most the people who disliked him were nobles whose interests would often conflict with the royal interest. These nobles, as the most literate men of the kingdom would often wright the history of John's reign. King John was often could show great acts of kindness with the average everyday people who worked for him.

"On the other hand he will make presents to men who have served him well--barrels of wine, it may be, or even a hundred head of deer. When he hears that the son of his henchmen William Brewer has fallen into the hands of the French, John helps to pay his ransom. When his valet Petit falls ill and has to stay behind in Somerset, the sheriff is instructed to see that he wants for nothing. John was, it seems, the old-fashioned kind of paternalistic employer who is intolerant of laxity in his workers but ready to set his own shoulder to the wheel, able to talk familiarly with the lowest of them, and remember their birthdays and their babies. John's trouble was that he could not get along with the men who claimed to be his fellow directors." (p.145)

Magna Carta has been considered by people since the 17th century to be the most important aspect of King John's reign. However, Warren points out that the whole event was overrated and what we were taught in school is mostly a false image.

"One of the most remarkable things about Magna Carta is the obscurity of its antecedents. This obscurity extends from the dating of the charter itself, back over the preceding negotiations and parleys to the muster of rebellion. One of the few things that can be said with certainty is that the hallowed tradition, derived largely from Wendover, is false which pictures a baronage united in arms against the Crown, confronting a cowed and humiliated king at Runnymede on 15 June 1215, and obliging him, with praiseworthy restraint, to set his seal to a statement of constitutional liberties with it had drawn up. It does not make the picture more true merely to darken the colours by saying that the baronial rebels were reactionaries pursuing selfish class interests." (p.224)

The important thing about Magna Carta is not what it actually was but an idea that it came to represent. That idea is: a government is legitimate only if it has the consent of the governed, that idea became the bedrock of Anglo-American thought on government.

"As such it opened the way to periodic revisions of custom and law, and implied that the government should not be conducted to damage the governed. Moreover, merely by existing it was a standing condemnation of the rule of arbitrary will. Even in the emasculated form in which it eventually got on to the statute book, an appeal to Magna Carta was a shorthand way of proclaiming the rule of law. Its actual provisions exercised little influence on the development of the constitution until misinterpreted by 17th century lawyers to mean trial by jury, and no taxation without the consent of representatives; yet their interpretations are not wholly absurd, for they accurately reflected the spirit if not the purpose of the 13th century original. It should be remembered, however, that the charter which the 17th century politicians studied with such zeal was not the one issued by John in 1215, but a truncated and modified version promulgated by his son, Henry III, in 1225." (p.240)

King John is a great book. I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to know more about the life a reign of one of the most important (not great) monarchs in the history of the world. This book shows the reader the truth behind the historical events surrounding the signing of Magna Carta, and the revelation that maybe John is not the villain history holds him to be.

In this excellent book, W. L. Warren attempts to rehabilitate the image of King John of England. Warren sees a gulf existing between the reality of John's reign and its popular perception. He writes, "It is a gulf that I have attempted in this book to bridge--reassessing the reign of King John in the light of the most recent research, and presenting it in a way that is, I hope, both readable and sound" (xi). In KING JOHN, Warren succeeds in this aim by producing an accessible text that illuminates the complex rule of John.

Warren begins by analyzing the source materials and the biases that the sources contain. He explains how depending on which sources you believe, John was either an industrious and clever, yet flawed, monarch, or a foolish and wicked do-nothing king. Warren convincingly argues for the former portrait of John.

John's reputation is much lower than that of his father and elder brother, but Warren's book shows that in many ways he was much like them. John was far from being the inept successor to great men. John had Henry and Richard's talent and energy, but he also had their heavy-handedness. John inherited a dire need for silver and an unstable political situation on the continent from his brother. These things coupled with John's inherent distrust of his barons robbed him of much of his continental territory. John's reign, however, was not merely one of failure. Though he didn't regain Normandy, he did consolidate power over Ireland and manage to frustrate Philip's seemingly realistic dreams of conquering England. Warren's portrayal of John is much more interesting than his reputation as the wicked king. KING JOHN is an excellent example of biography, both convincing and readable.

An excellent history book, factual as a text book but reads like a novel. Hollywood could never dream up a life or character so complex.

King John has the reputation as being the absolutely worse King England has ever had. Accused of lechery, murder, treason and much more, John is looked on as an absolute failure, and is warped out of all recognition as the bad Prince John of Robin Hood. The only bright spot in his reign is John's grant of the Magna Charta, which is looked on by many as the ultimate foundation stone upon which English and American freedoms rest.
W.L. Warren, in this exhaustively researched book, paints a full picture of the life of this least successful of English kings. Dr. Warren points out that much of John's bad reputation results from writer's contrasting him with his brother, Richard the Lionheart.
This book gives us the reality of King John. It doesn't excuse him. It does explain him.