The Pope never had any meaningful ability to determine the outcome of the struggle for French territory. It was always going to be determined by armies and resources, and Richard bled a lot of blood, gold and time into something that had zero meaningfully ability to alter the real endgame; his continental territories.
Joined Aug 2010
10,440 Posts | 17+
Wales
Still waiting on those sources, since again you are talking about Richard and the expenditure of resources. Why havent you provided them yet?
Last edited:
This has been covered, and the conversation moved on. Money and resources and time Richard used on the crusade was money, resources and time he couldn't use to defend his empire in France. Money and men he'd lost on the crusades were money and men John didn't have available later. If Richard didn't impose so many taxes, maybe John would have been free to impose less. Debating the exact quantum of the taxes, whether they were "huge" or merely "large" isn't particularly important right now. Calling for sources is just you being a distraction from the issues that are now in play, because nobody disputes Richard used lots of money, resources and time on the crusades. Exactly how much is something we can discuss later, but right now the discussion has moved elsewhere. I'm not going to go waste my time playing big D@#$ sources with you to reward you highjacking the discussion with tangential issues, and generally acting like an A$$hat.
You've been providing nothing to this discussion. 90% of my posts you've been responding to with one liners like "critical failure" and "misunderstand context", but you think I'm going to humour you by getting your sources for 1 aspect of the discussion here, while you actively derail the thread with dumba$$ one liners for 90% of the content? GTFO.
You've been providing nothing to this discussion. 90% of my posts you've been responding to with one liners like "critical failure" and "misunderstand context", but you think I'm going to humour you by getting your sources for 1 aspect of the discussion here, while you actively derail the thread with dumba$$ one liners for 90% of the content? GTFO.
Joined Mar 2014
8,881 Posts | 30+
Canterbury
Last edited:
John Gillingham has. He's a renowned expert on the Angevin Empire whose primary source, pipe roll, and charter-based approach has done a lot to redeem Richard's reputation from Victorian anachronisms, like the 'he didn't do anything for England' fallacy. He's also shown Richard's finances to be nowhere near as bad as made out, and finds 13th and 14th century chroniclers - from all over Europe and the Middle East - unanimously looked on Richard as a model ruler.
Last edited:
I think Richard was very effective at fighting wars and keeping his people onside/cowed. It's just that half his reign wasn't spent on that, it was spent on nonsense.
Joined Nov 2011
8,454 Posts | 3,271+
Ohio, USA
Last edited:
I know I'm not a moderator, but seriously, your attitude is not something that I can respect. Honestly, ad hominems, especially taken to your extreme, derail threads far more than just someone trying to inquire into where you got your information. Since I'm not one to rat people out I won't make any noise to them about this myself, but I do hope that actual moderators here do become aware of this.
Joined Aug 2010
10,440 Posts | 17+
Wales
Last edited:
You refuse to post source material to support your assertions on the economic effects of Richard I 's reign when these are called into question. You are unwilling to engage in historical debate or basic historical methodology and practice. Your attitude is not that of a historian. Your entire opinion on this matter can be readily discounted and ignored.
I will speculate, and it is only speculation, that you are unwilling to post or discuss source material because you dont actually have any. Rather than simply admit this and risk looking a little foolish you have continued to dig yourself a hole by blaming others making entirely reasonable requests and engaging in various attempted deflections, evasions and ad hominems.
You also continue to swear despite having been asked to stop.
Joined May 2009
14,691 Posts | 61+
A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
CM,
Swearing is unnecessary and expressly forbidden on historum. Please refrain from using such language in the future. Consider this your warning.
Joined Mar 2014
8,881 Posts | 30+
Canterbury
Last edited:
Crusading was nonsense in hindsight, and five years of such isn't exactly unusual for any monarch considering they're human and can't predict the future. It's also much too short a time for foreign policy to develop itself in an age of slow communication, and dynastic, generational chess-games. If Richard had lived longer, the reasons of many 'nonsensical' decisions would've became clear.
You're also wrong about the impact of Richard's taxes and spending. Simply because, it wasn't that bad. Contemporary writer Howden's figure of £900,000 was a mistake, later revised by Howden himself to 100,000 marks - a much, much smaller figure, which is itself too high as Richard paid two-thirds towards the cost of crusading's great expenses, like ship requisition and soldier outfitting.
I somehow doubt the contemporary English would agree.
He was a very good king of England for his Norman followers, though, many of whom got rewarded with land after the conquest.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Laid waste to the North, made most of the people of the Kingdom second class citizens?
If the English looked at their history as the Irish do then William the Bastard (as the Normans called him because of his birth) would be a name to frighten children.
Ahh so that's why the Norman invasion had to be added to the Chronicles after the fact. He was a bastard, illegitimate.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Joined Oct 2013
3,463 Posts | 12+
Montreal, QC
How is William the Conqueror the best English King? He massacred large swaths of his own subjects, battered his wife in order to get her to marry him, made everyone second class citizens, and all other sorts of awful things. If you're looking at his might, then I guess he's fine; last man to successfully invade England, but that's it.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
A Bastard quite literally, his prospects on birth were not great to say the least and he died King of England and founder of a dynasty, a good result as far as he was concerned.
Pretty good King if judged by the standards of Medieval Warlords by modern perceptions not nice at all.
Joined Mar 2014
8,881 Posts | 30+
Canterbury
Last edited:
William the Conqueror was fantastic at staying king, average at becoming one, and awful at being one.
When he wasn't turning the north into a desert or provoking a rebellion every five minutes, he was using Saxon infrastructure to produce 'Norman' achievements like the Domesday Book, and if a threat got too close to home he'd cower with fear. It took twenty years to subdue England; technically, he died before it was done, as a Scots occupation of Cumbria meant his son had to conquer it. He also killed an anointed king - a very bad thing for the standards of the time, and in his shoes - and Norman propaganda for the next two hundred years rested on 'fixing' that mistake.
If anyone stands out amid the general shower of incompetence and set-backs that characterised the long Norman Conquest, it's William's wife Matilda and Harold II himself. People forget because he lost - mostly through luck - at Hastings that Harold II was actually quite the military commander. He fought in Flanders and against the Bretons. He'd killed two kings, of Wales and Norway.
Unlike the English in Ireland, the Normans managed to obliterate the national identity that came before. English identity is far closer to them than the Saxons.
I'd probably have go with Henry V, only lived to be 35 having become ill on campaign and lost much of his territory but what an exciting career.
Display of courage and interesting character.
However a more sober assessment might look at which King introduced the most changes through Acts and culture and that would be more difficult to determine.
Display of courage and interesting character.
However a more sober assessment might look at which King introduced the most changes through Acts and culture and that would be more difficult to determine.
Joined Jan 2010
12,635 Posts | 4,362+
UK
This is just my opinion, I'm not calling you out or anything, but Henry V was not just a brilliant leader, and warrior, but he was a first class administrator, and he did what no other other English king would do before or after him, and he got the French to put an English heir to their throne. That he never lived to see this was unfortunate, and part of the risks of warring in those days, i.e, risks of disease, such as dysentery, which was the cause of his death.
His brother, John, Duke of Bedford was the perfect man to administer the dual throne, though as he was an able warrior and administrator but more than that, he was a francophile, and he did his best to not upset those French who were loyal to him, like the citizens of Paris. He implemented laws against any rogue English knights who were causing trouble, and he did his best to keep the law. That the throne eventually collapsed and Henry's territories eventually fell was not entirely his fault, but moreso because the French united more against the strung out English armies, and the fact that the Burgundians for a time reneged on their dal and made peace with armagnacs against the English, though were forced back into an alliance, they were never trustworthy allies. With Bedford's death, there was no longer anyone who could keep this throne together, and though John Talbot did an admirable job, the English were eventually swamped out by a united French force, and once the French Dauphin became sane, he proved to be a capable leader.
Tough, I would nominate Edward I.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-