Customer Reviews

Yale English Monarchs - Richard I (The English Monarchs Series)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Richard the Lionheart's life and personality may be the stuff of legend, but they are hidden by the mists of time -- or rather the paucity of relevant documents. Gillingham does a brilliant job of breathing as much life as possible into rather arid fragments without stepping beyond what is warranted by the evidence. For his understanding of the king, he draws as much on contempory Arab sources as European ones, arguing convincingly that the Arab writers may have had fewer axes to grind in talking of Richard. Gillingham goes so far as to place his evaluation of Richard's character at the point where the evidence ends -- following his captivity in Germany -- rather than at the end of the book. Instead the book ends with a well reasoned argument that it was John (and John alone) who lost Normandy whereas Richard was winning the war against Philip Agustus of France. Gillingham also points out that, had Richard lived to complete that struggle, the empire of Henry II might still have disappeared with his death.

Inevitably, some of the work is frustratingly dry -- especially for the process of Richard's development into a strong ruler and military genius against the background of one of history's most disfunctional families. But that dryness arises from the lack of evidence, not from immersion in trivia at the expense of substance.

The book itself is a delight, with strong narrative supported by a myriad of footnotes which are where they should be -- at the bottom of the pages. All in all, a good story well told with insightful analysis based on the record.

This is the most balanced royal biography I've read to date. Gillingham begins by tracing Richard's reputation through the ages, beginning at it's peak in the 12th and 13th centuries, when he was considered one of the great leaders of his time to it's nadir in the 1950's when academics began to consider him a "Bad son and a bad king..." who spent far more time on the continent than he ever did in England, leaving it in terrible financial straits when he went off to fight in the crusades, and began to conjecture about his sexual preference. Gillingham explores and discounts these and other myths about Richard and his reign simply by letting the historical record speak for itself and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions, rather than stating his own opinions as facts and then selectively using the historical record to back them up. He also isn't afraid to admit that he can't be sure of something when the historical evidence is either too thin or simply obscured by the mists of time, which is refreshing. The author is among the first to rely heavily on contemporary Muslim sources in constructing his portrait of Richard, because he believes they are less biased in their evaluation of Richard's character than a European chronicler might be. These sources are, for the most part, complimentary, and add great perspective and depth to the reader's understanding of Richard as a warrior. Gillingham strikes the perfect balance between academic research and popular history, making the book very readable. Whether you're interested in Richard himself, or merely seeking an introduction into reading further about his fascinating family dynamics, or the crusades, this is the book to read!

I was sceptical getting started on this biography. Certainly, the early parts were fact-laden, slightly uninteresting and slow going.

I am very glad I did not give up.

This is one of the few strictly historical books that restores one's faith in objective research and non-agenda, non-ego driven truth finding.

One might wish for a bit more of a picture of Richard's persona, but from the remove of nearly a millenium, this would be fudging anyway. The facts that there are are clearly and neatly laid out regarding all of Richard's attributes, and some of the modern fadist mythologies (so many of which have their underpinnings in a given academic's desire or need for attention) are dealt with fairly and thoroughly.

Example: Richard was not a homosexual, as "The Lion in Winter" would have a viewer believe. The evidence against it is clear and plenary. It isn't that one doesn't wish him to be, it's just that this notion has its roots in a modern attempt to overlay ancient male and political bonding customs with a template of modern behaviours and modern conclusions which would stem from modern interpretations of those behaviors.

All in all, Richard emerges from the historical record as a great warrior King, who was grossly treated following his exertions during the Crusades, and was forced to try to reclaim the lands that Phillip of France stole while Richard was away. He was therefore forced to stay away from Britain, because the Angevin and Acquitainian and Norman parts of his empire were on the continent. He did not stay away from Britain by choice or by neglect (another myth debunked), but because he was forced to by the duties of his Kingship. Also, Britain WAS part of continental Europe as well in those days. (Or vice versa, if you happen to be English.)

This book exemplifies what biographies should be. John Gillingham is to Richard Lionheart what John Calvin was to Christianity.
Gillingham has combined profound scholarship with a very readable style.
The book is only one of four books Prof. Gillingham has written on Richard I of England & he is without a doubt the world's authority on this subject. Prof Ralph Turner would be the authority on Richard's administration and reign.
The book is in essence a chronological narrative which treats Richard as a twelfth century prince and king. Gillingham refutes many of the myths surrounding Richard including the following three:

The claim that Richard was a homosexual.
Gillingham meticulously disproves this allegation in terms of twelfth century political-culture and the misinterpretation by some modern historians of twelfth century Biblical analogies of Richard's life.
The homosexual claim is based upon three instances in Richard's life:
1. That Richard and King Philip II shared a bed in 1187. This was a common gesture at the time to publicly signify a political allegiance; in this case against Richard's father King Henry II. It in no way implied or was inferred as a sexual encounter.
2. In 1198 Richard and Baldwin IX count of Flanders arrived at a conference hand-in-hand for the same reason, this time against King Philip II if France. Again twelfth century princes would have interpreted this correctly as a political allegiance not a sexual relationship.
3. Richard was apparently accused in 1195 by a monk of having the sin of Sodom. In the twelfth century this was taken to mean that if Richard did not redeem himself he would, like the town of Sodom, face the severe justice and wrath of God. That is, the reference to Sodom has less to do with the offence and more to do with the punishment. In the twentieth century historians incorrectly concluded that the monk was referring to the act of sodomy. In fact this tells us more about ourselves that about Richard. Our society's wider interest in sex and its poor understanding of the Old Testament and biblical allegories.
In fact Richard fathered at least one illegitimate son - Philip of Cognac. He also was accused by the count of Angouleme and Viscount of Limoges in 1182 of raping the daughters and wives of their vassals. This is disgraceful but hardly supports a charge of homosexuality.
Finally, when on his death bed Richard supposedly, in defiance of his doctor's orders, had young maidens brought to him.

The claim that Richard was a negligent King who was not interested in administration.
The assertion by some early twentieth century historians that Richard was a negligent king who cared nothing for England or administration is exposed as false.
Prudence & foresight characterised Richard's placement of sheriffs and clerics not carelessness & recklessness, & Richard's handling of these officials shows that he understood & appreciated their significance, demonstrating that he was a monarch who was interested in the proper functioning of his English kingdom.
In addition, prior to departing on the Third Crusade Richard negotiated peace with Scotland (Quit Claim of Canterbury 1189), peace with Wales, appointed justiciars for England & Seneschals for France to govern his domains whilst he was away.
Before leaving on crusade, Richard went to great lengths to ensure that his brother John was well established with lands concomitant with his station as a Angevin Prince whilst ensuring that these lands were not in key positions thereby depriving John from having an effective power base for his inevitable rebellion.
This political and administrative edifice, with the exception of William Longchamps revolt against Prince John, worked marvellously well whilst Richard was away on crusade as both Scotland and Wales refrained from attacking England during John & Philip's attacks on Richard's European territories; unlike the crises during the reigns of his father Henry II in 1173 and his brother John in 1216 when Scotland did join rebels in attacking England.
Richard arranged for his marriage to Berengaria before he left Europe on crusade. They eventually wed in Cyprus. This arrangement ensured that whilst away Richard's southern dominions would be protected from the count of Toulouse, who wasn't crusading, by Berengaria's brother Sancho of Navarre.

The claim that Richard hated England and only used the Kingdom as a source of money.
Modern historians often criticise the fact that Richard only spent six months of his reign in England. However, this a really good example of modern historians not understanding the extent of English territories in the late twelfth century. Between 1154 and 1204 the kings of England were also rulers of the Angevin Empire which stretched from the borders of Scotland to the Pyrenees and encompassed about two thirds of what we today would call France. Richard's authority was not challenged in Britain but in France, in particular by the Viscounts of Limoges & the Counts of Angouleme, and so he naturally and wisely spent the majority of his time meeting those challenges in France.
All of Richard's dominions throughout the Angevin Empire were taxed to fund his crusade not only England. Thus the argument that he saw England as only a source of revenue is flawed and ignorant.
Many critics claim that Richard could not speak English. This is not only true of Richard but of all the Kings of England between William the Conqueror and John (1066 to 1216). To select Richard for special denegation is a mark of partiality and redolent of another agenda against Richard.

Richard Lionheart was a man who protected his inheritance (the Angevin Empire) against King Philip of France , his family (John, Eleanor & his cousins in the Holy land) his God (by crusading) and England, by a meticulous selection of able administrators, justiciars, chancellors, Clerics and sheriffs. His statue rightly deserves to be in pride of place outside Westminster.
Well done Professor Gillingham for revealing the real Richard the Lionheart to us all.

The Reign of Richard Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199 (The Medieval World)

While I have not yet completed this book, I have found it to be a very well-balanced look at the life of a person better known through legend than history. The readability is excellent. Gillingham takes a very balanced view of Richard, looking at him both in his own time period and from our own. I highly recommend this book.

A great introduction to those curious about this legendary monarch. Gillingham pulls off a bit of a hat trick here. While he does have strong opinions of surrounding figures, particularly Philip and John, he lets the facts speak for themselves about Richard and does not argue one particular point of view. With one exception, his sexuality. This also one of the few times where I found the primary historians, both Arab and Norman, becoming "characters" and their presence is missed when they die or no longer are around the King. The very difficult task of giving all of the counts of Normandy, the Vexin, and the Aquitaine distinctiveness is handled incredibly well. In the hands of a less skilled author this would have been very dry reading and frustratingly convoluted. Also, bit of a heads up to the future reader: This is Gillingham's second book on Richard the Lionheart and he has written numerous articles and essays on the monarch. He has no problem using himself as a reference and he flat out lifts an entire chapter from his previous work and places it in this one. I found this shrewdly entertaining. It does benefit this volume and since the older version is no longer in print, no harm done. After reading this you come away better informed, entertained and with a desire to pick up another book on this era and this king. I can't think of much better praise than that. An essential work for a medieval library.

John Gillingham had a tough project for several reasons. Unlike so many of the early English kings, Richard I has plenty written about him. The problem is that so much of it is either made up or grossly exaggerated. Gillingham's first chapter called "The Best of Kings, the Worst of Kings" does a nice job of explaining this problem. What makes a biography of Richard doubly difficult is that the man never stood still. He was in England less than 10% of the time in his reign so his contributions to domestic policies were small or unknown or shrouded in the work of the men he left behind to govern. Gillingham fully explains this dilemma but this does not lessen the problem of determining what exactly Richard contributed to English history per se other than some very large taxes and a great legend. Richard is most in one place on Crusade in the Holy Land. Here Gillingham tracks the man in a way that brings life to the legend. That was for me the best part of the book, especially Gillingham's use of Muslim sources to describe both Richard the man and his exploits. When Richard was in France he was constantly in motion and the why, when and where of his life are hard to trace. Gillingham tracks Richard as well as can be done but the man's motives are often not clear and his whereabouts mostly but not always clear. There are five maps after the text, one of the Holy Land and four of parts of Normandy. I constantly was flipping back to them, distracting in itself, but often the reference in the text is not shown on any of the maps. For me it would have helped the flow of the book to have more frequent and more detailed maps placed within the text itself, especially since Richard spent so much of his reign in France. (A map or two of where Richard was held captive in Germany and his various movements there also would have helped.) A final reason this biography was such a challenge is that Richard himself seemed to be a mass of contradictions, for example, his back and forth hostile relationship with his father, his intriguing relationship with the Muslim leader Saladin, his relationship with his brothers. All of it is interesting yet I kept wondering "why." With other kings up to Richard one can frequently get a sense of one or more underlying character motivations, a certain consistency of their life from adolescence on. I did not get that here. This is not Gillingham's fault. I am not sure anyone can venture to claim underlying motivations for this man without becoming too speculative. So this is a fine biography but it was frustrating at times. Tracking where Richard was at any point, especially in France, could have used more detailed and frequent maps and the man himself remains for me a courageous but otherwise enigmatic figure.

John Gillingham is possibly the world's most respected Richard scholar. This book is a masterpiece. I don't use that word a lot. This book is an exploration of the career of King Richard the Lionheart, one of the most famous of English kings. Although his reputation has remained high among the general population, among scholars his reputation has suffered under a series of attacks. For over a century he has been considered, in Steven Runciman's words, "a bad son, a bad king, but a noble and valiant soldier." His is a relatively positive interpretation compared to others. Professor Gillingham helps put the record straight, in part with the help of modern analysis of the writs and charters of his reign. He shows that the criticisms of the worst of King Richard's detractors are mistaken. The economy that Richard is accused of stretching to the breaking point is shown to have been healthy throughout his reign.

The Angevin kings are easy to understand, as their personalities are so strong that they show through even in the flat and adulatory writings of the period. And Gillingham's book brings their personalities across very well. You see Richard in all his larger than life nature. He is the dominating figure in this biography.

For almost 600 years Richard I was regarded as one of England's greatest kings - the standard that other kings strove to emulate or were measured against, not only in England but across Europe. Admired or envied by his Muslim and European opponents and contemporaries, Richard the Lionheart cast a long shadow.

Unfortunately, revisionist historians beginning in the eighteenth century - including Hume and Gibbon - judged him harshly by the standards of their own eras. Over time, the orthodox position became "bad son, bad husband, bad king." Later historians would echo these criticisms and add unfounded rumors of their own.

Since the 1970's medievalists have consistently found that the data disproves much of the negative history. Gillingham's solid history gathers this information into one narrative, refuting unfounded accusations, supporting the accurate, and admitting where the historical record is silent. Richard is evaluated as a statesman, administrator, leader, strategist, tactician, warrior, husband, son, and believer. Additionally, Gillingham explains the standards of the times by which Richard and his contemporaries felt his responsibilities and duties lay and whether they viewed his efforts as worthwhile, frivolous, successful, or short.

The writing style is excellent and moves quickly, although all the Henrys, Johns and Hughs can become confusing. Gillingham's arguments are logical and straightforward and the text's organization reflects this. Extensive footnotes are at the bottom of each page. I found no typos or errors, misplaced pages or other mistakes.

Maybe this is the greatest book about richard I ..
Gillingham done a great job for all the history buffs & specialist ..

Richard the man who was one of the greatest warrior kings In all the time
finally found for himself a marvelous author .

I strongly recommend this Amazing book even fo those who don't read
history at all ! ..