Richard I

John Gillingham describes his book on King Richard I, one in a series of biographies of English Monarchs by Yale University Press, as a political biography. In his preface to the book he stresses that he is not attempting to analyze Richard Plantagenet the man, but rather the political legacy of King Richard I, and he explicitly excludes from his discussion Richard’s “inner life.” He does not look at him as a son, husband or brother, but only in the context of his effectiveness as a ruler — first as a deputy for his mother and/or father and later in his own right as Duke of Aquitaine and King of England. Essentially, Gillingham sets out to determine whether Richard was a “good” or a “bad” king.The focus is justified by the fact that King Richard has been both lionized and vilified by historians over the centuries. As Gillingham catalogues, medieval historians saw in him a hero on the scale of King Arthur, Roland and Charlemagne. Later Plantagenet kings were judged in comparison with him — the highest praise being to come near to equaling him. Yet during the Reformation and the later Tudor era Richard started to fall into disrepute as a result of Protestant condemnation of the crusades. By the 19th century it was commonplace to dismiss his achievements as paltry because they did not promote Victorian values such as empire building, trade and sound fiscal policy. In the 20th century RIchard was condemned for spending too little time in England and “oppressing the masses” with his taxes for “worthless” ventures such as the Third Crusade — and his ransom, of course.Gillingham points out that, long before the historical debate, Richard inspired extreme opinions in his lifetime. Adulated and adored by some of his subjects and supporters, he was demonized by his political enemies, particularly Philip II of France. He is credited with abusing noblewomen and maidens, with hounding his father to his grave, murdering his political opponents, and with betraying the cause of Christ while in the Holy Land. The ironic result, Gillingham suggests, is that the most objective contemporary commentary on Richard probably come from Muslim sources. Unfortunately for us, these only describe his actions during the less than two years in which he was active in the Holy Land.Given the treacherous nature of his sources, Gillingham does an admirable job of depicting Richard Plantagenet based on what he actually did rather than on what people said about him. In doing so, he convincingly builds the case that Richard was a remarkably effective monarch — judged by the standards and values of his day. In doing so, he highlights the absurdity of expecting a mercantilist monarch in a feudal kingdom, much less a mild and tolerant ruler in a brutal and violent age.What emerges is a complex but on the whole admirable and competent leader, a statesman as well as a general. As Gillingham documents, Richard was not just a dashing knight and outstanding commander, nor merely a brilliant tactician, strategist and logistician. He was a sound financial manager, who alone among the leaders of the Third Crusade was consistently in a financial position to recruit and provision troops. He managed to raise a truly enormous ransom without, in fact, beggaring his subjects. He was, to be sure, creative in his methods of raising funds — from selling offices to selling conquests (Cyprus). Rather than wrinkling our noses at these allegedly distasteful practices, however, we should consider that the alternative would indeed have been to tax the innocent poor rather than milk the grasping rich. He was also an astonishingly effective diplomat, not only in his complicated negotiations with Saladin, but in turning his erstwhile German enemies into allies, and in his tedious but eventually effective efforts to pry the Counts of Flanders and Toulouse out of the French camp and into his own.Last but not least, despite his reluctance to discuss the private side of Richard, Gillingham does offer insight into Richard’s personality. We get glimpses of a man who was very well educated, loved music and was more than superficially pious. We learn that he had a fine and subtle sense of humor and often spoke half in jest, often using a light-hearted tone to deliver serious messages. While he clearly inherited the infamous Plantagenet temper, it did dominate him, and he was not irrational even when angry. Most important, Gillingham’s Richard is a man of many parts far removed from the buffoon-like Richard found in so many films and novels that reduce him to a brutal idiot or a jovial but empty-headed figurehead.This biography is well-worth reading and is a must for anyone interested in the period.

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.

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!

The best book for anything about this monarch

John Gillingham is an amazing great historian of Richard I

I enjoyed this book very much.It took me a while to get used to the style of the author, who like any good academic historian, is thoroughly familiar with all original sources, and frequently quotes them to good effect, rather in the manner David Frost used to use on his Sunday morning programme reviewing the day's papers. Depending on how interested the reader is in the matter at hand this can be a little tedious, or utterly gripping.At times, especially in an early chapter on Aquitaine, the author gets slightly carried away with his enjoyment of the ambience of his sources. My favourite is a guidebook for pilgrims in which the information about the habits of the people of different regions might be thought prejudiced.Mr Gillingham's task is to rescue the real Richard from the very contrasting opinions of historians over the centuries. Richard was a hero for several hundred years, and rather a scoundrel more recently, in the eyes of learned historians. Gillingham begins by surveying the different views and then moves on to his story.The story falls into four parts:1) Richard's early years, including from the age of fifteen on his rulership of Aquitaine, including more than one period where he was at war with his father, Henry II.2) When he became King, he spent a year or so sorting things out in France and England and then departed for the Third Crusade, in which he played, to say the least, the leading role on the Western side. He won every battle he undertook both on the way and while in Palestine, which is not to say that he didn't pick his battles, and the timing of them very carefully.3) On the way home Richard was shipwrecked, and owing to a propoganda hatchet job done on him by Philip of France and Leopold of Austria, both of whom had been humiliated by Richard, not out of spite but because their incompetence showed up too much against the glory of Richard's achievements, he then found it impossible to make it home overland and ended up a prisoner of the Holy Roman Emperor.It took him a couple of years, a vast amount of money, and the inconvenience of having his brother John giving away huge chunks of his French possessions to the French king in the meantime, before he was released.4) Richard then had four or five years of slowly and painfully putting everything back together in France until he was killed by a sharpshooter. Then John acceded to the throne, and promptly gave away his French possessions all over again.To me Richard comes over as a one off, a monarch unlike any other who ever sat on the English throne. He courage and ability at war were phenomenal. His judgment was unfailing. He was decisive, and could be brutal, but I felt from my reading that this was never because he lost his temper, or out of desperation, it was to administer justice, or necessary to achieve a greater goal. He was widely admired and respected by his contemporaries, especially, as is carefully documented here, by Saladin and his cohorts.The story is well, and memorably told.

A great historical overview filled with a treasure trove of details and footnotes.Read for personal research. Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.I found this book's contents helpful and inspiring.

Some pages creased. Otherwise.... good clean copy. Thank you

great

There have been many books written recently on Richard I but Gillingham remains the top authority on the legendary king. His detailed research is level-headed and thorough.