Should Richard the Lionheart Be Remembered as a Noble King of England - Essay Example

Should Richard the Lionheart be remembered as a noble king of England or as a murdering crusader? There are not many kings in the history of Europe that are subject to the kind of debate in terms of effectiveness as kings, and in terms of the quality of their reigns that have attracted the kind of attention and controversy that has been bestowed upon Richard I, King of England. Gillingham (1985) states that he has been subject to almost as much criticism by modern historians as praise by the contemporary ones1. Some of the outstanding traits of his reign include his brilliance in terms of the man himself, his courage, the fame he amassed even before he became king, the rift with his father, the crusade he waged tirelessly and the imprisonment afterwards.   Despite it all he was able to retain his is status and title-his most outstanding traits along with his aptitude in battle. Yet while he was abundant in the spirit of the body and heart, he lacked the true qualifications to run a kingdom. Hillam (2004) writes about the revolts that occurred during his reign due to his absence from England during the Crusade and his confinement2. The following analysis will argue both sides of the debate that range from naming Richard a Lionheart and a noble king of England, with an attempt at drawing its own conclusion on the credibility of the two claims. The discussion will conclude with a conclusion on the title that best fits his reign and his persona.   Richard Plantagenet is more famous for his part in the Crusades than his reign of ten years in England. Reston (2001) states that after being crowned King of England at the death of his father, Henry II, in 1189, Richard quickly departed for the Holy Land on what was to be the Third Crusade3 (This one is paraphrased and more importantly referenced too; so don’t need to change). There have been those that have stood firm in their criticism of him, in terms of his leadership of the King of England during his tenure as leader of the Third Crusade. According to Markowski (1990) one has to only examine the policies of his crusade to become aware of the absolute absence of control and check that characterize the Church and normative crusading precedents had over him4. (Same here as above) Modern historians use his failure to capture Jerusalem in leading themselves to conclusion in the context of creating his portrayal as a self-centered, puerile person that was interested in only his personal adventures, thereby ruining the chances of the successful Third Crusade, thereby elongating the warfare. Most wars have some sort of peace as the ultimate goal. The Third Crusade is no exception, but Richard subverted the goal of peace by turning away from a siege of Jerusalem and toward various other adventures, for example, attacks on Egyptian holdings, border skirmishes, the conquest of Cyprus from the Byzantines5 (reference). Still, the Lionheart's legend persists from his day to our own to extol chivalrous virtues and courageous action. In his capacity as an amazing warrior, one finds proof that Richard the lionheart did not just lead from the front but assiduously cultivated an aura of personal invincibility by constant acts of daring. There have been historians who have time and time again lauded instances of him having come to the rescue of his men when beleaguered in battle or siege, saving them from death or capture (reference) (It will be the repetition of the same reference everywhere . The strategy of his leadership was characterized by its high risk factor. In fact it has been stated by Ambroise (1941) that as his despairing counselors constantly reminded him, in the event of his death the crusades would be deprived of its head and frustrate he entire enterprise6. (No problem here) One can however find some method to his madness, given the fact that it was through his constantly placing his life in jeopardy that he was able to show that he was sharing the dangers of his fellow crusaders to the full-heightening their moral in the process and inspiring them to imitate his daring. According to Carpenter (2003), with respect to his fulfillment of duties as a king, one finds a divided opinion as well. Richards’s commitment to the cause of Christ won him immense respect nor was he heedless of the security of his dominions7. In 1190, before his departure, he toured Aquitaine and protected its southern boundaries by arranging to marry Berengaria, daughter of the king of Navarre (reference).(Footnote 9 below is common for the whole paragraph) Strickland (1996) identified the fact that he also took steps to keep in check both king William of Scotland and the Welsh rulers8. The five ministers on England’s regency council were trustworthy and experienced. Richard secured the loyalty of one of them, William Marshal by marrying him to the daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert (Strongbow) thus making him a great baron in Ireland, Wales and Normandy9 (reference). Richard’s overriding aim however was to gain resources for the crusades. In England, he received money for making men sheriffs and for conceding to heirs and claimants a wide range of lands which Henry II held in hand through wardhips and forfeitures (reference). The results were spectacular. The revenue recorded in the pipe roll of 1190 was £31, 000 , £10, 000 more than in 1188, yet there was a cost that had to be paid (reference). At the very top of the government Richard arrangements were in shambles, for the new justiciar, bishop of Durham, who had been appointed not from zeal of justice but simply for the money he offered clashed repeatedly with William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, Richard’s chancellor and protégé (reference). (All these above references that you have asked would lead to a reference already given, so duplication won’t make sense) Turner and Heiser (2000) identify the fact that Instability was also inherent in the extraordinary favors Richard bestowed on his younger brother John who now demanded recognition as heir to the Angevin dominions10. This Richard refused to concede, but he tried to kill discontent with kindness. John was already Lord of Ireland and count of Mortain. Richard now married him to Isabella, whose inheritance included the earldom of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan (reference). The union had long been planned by Henry II but it is difficult to concede the conjecture that with the marriage John would have been given control over six castles and total control of seven English counties, counties that now basically disappeared from pipe rolls, the chief records of the exchequer (reference). (Same true here) Having stated this one could outline the nature of his criticisms and tackle these one by one. The greatest charge that has been leveled against him by most modern historians who agree with each other on (this is correct) not much but have managed to agree on this that call him the worst king to have ever rule England.11 He was never at home, he did not acre for his kingdom, just for soldiers and that he was a man possessed by the crusades to an extent that he completely ignored his empire and subjects at home. One has to understand the fact that these are essentially a reaction that measure the definition, goals and functions of kingship in the context of the Henrician model that views the king as the imperial monarch, that should centralize function of statehood in the promotion of efficiency (reference). The compiler of an early thirteenth century version of the Laws of Edward the Confessor asserts that: the King ought to preserve and defend all lands and honors, all dignities, rights and liberties of the crown in their entirety without diminution and he ought with all his power restore to their former state any right of the realm which have been dispersed, destroyed or lost (reference). In case of the English domestic politics the stability of the realm depended primarily on king’s ability to manage the small but intensely powerful aristocratic establishment (reference). The fact that members if thus establishment were his feudal tenants gave him considerable amounts of control over inheritances and marriages giving him immense powers of patronage. Upon his ascendancy to the British throne he hd had made three promises-to protect the church, the do justice and to suppress evil laws and customs (reference). In all fairness, the steps that he took in his limited reign all point towards the fulfillment of these functions. He wanted to further the work of god achieve efficiency which he assumed he did through a process of decentralization of power. It is only when his reign is measured on the Henrician model that it comes up short on work. As a protector of the church he stands out among kings of England12. Integration of administration with the church ensured that in his absence, life was made easier for the bureaucrats. Whereas administration was his main concern, he worked towards removing evil by arresting and humiliating unpopular ministers. Finally there is also evidence that suggests that he was perfectly capable ruler and head of the royal family where the management of the issues that characterize a large and well spread royal family unit were concerned. He was cunning and smart and energetic-his courage cannot be misled as mindless-a man who preached what he practiced. In conclusion therefore one can state that it is true that he lived up to the contemporary concepts of proper kingship but even by modern standards one can in elements of a man clear in his administrative goals, competent in his role as emperor a just king and an able warrior. He was thus a deserving candidate for the title of lionheart for he was truly not just a good fighter but also a good king. Bibliography: Gillingham, J., (1973). ‘The Life and Times of Richard I’, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd. pp7-224 Hilliam, D., (2004). Richard the Lionheart and the Third Crusade: the English king confronts Saladin, AD 1191. New York, The Rosen Publishing Group, p. 67-69 Reston, J., 2001, Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade, London, Doubleday, p.201 Markowski, R. (1990). ‘Richard Lionheart: bad king, bad crusader?’ Journal of Medieval History. 23(4). Pp351-365 Michael Markowski, (1997) Richard Lionheart: bad king, bad crusader?, Journal of Medieval History Volume 23, Issue 4, , Pages 351-365. Ambroise, (1941). The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, translated from the Old French by Merton Jerome Hubert with notes and documentation by John La Monte. New York, Columbia University Press. pp288, 293-4 Carpenter, D. A, (2003). The struggle for mastery: Britain, 1066-1284. Oxford books. pp247-248 Strickland, M. (1996). War and chivalry: the conduct and perception of war in England and Normandy. Cambridge university Press. p101. David A. Carpenter,(2003) The struggle for mastery: Britain, 1066-1284, Page 246 Turner, R. V, and Heiser, R, (2000). the Reign of Richard Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199 The Medieval World). Pearson Books Heiser, Richard R., Richard I and His Appointments to English Shrievalties, The English Historical Review, 112(445), [Feb, 1997] pp. 1-19, Oxford University Press. \ Gillingham, J., 1978, Richard the Lion heart, New York, Times Book, p. 221-227 Read More