Richard I - my pet hate
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4695
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 00:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Richard I - my pet hate
Posted By: Constantine XI
Subject: Richard I - my pet hate
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 19:03
|
One historical figure who I cannot help but have a mitigated contempt
for is Richard I of England (better known among popular circles as the
Lionheart). One thing I cannot fathom is how historians continually
exalt this man as a great English King, a model ruler for the states of
Medieval Europe. Quite frankly, I disagree heartily. His reign, from
start to finish, was a rapid slide towards the decline of English power. In his early life he can be noted as a brutal thug, something I personally think he never grew out of. His father, Henry II, was a wise and very capable English ruler who had seen his kingdom prosper and expand. Richard treacherously joined a conspiracy against his father and raised revolt, only to feebly end up surrendering after begging for mercy. The territories of Aquitaine, which Richard was administering, saw a number of revolts which were said to be especially inspired by Richard's maladministration, cruelty and military depredations. It was an area which remained frequently inflamed until Richard made personal forays onto the scene to quell dissatisfaction with the sword. As a King he did not much improve his capacity as an administrator, he simply expanded his ineptitude to the whole Anglo-Norman realm instead of just Aquitaine. He spent only 6 months of his 10 year reign on the island of Britain itself, which he excused by saying "it's always cold and raining here". Indeed he cared so little for the British Isles that he once remarked, "if I could find a buyer I would have sold London itself." This remark he made while raising funds to go on a vain-glorious military adventure to Palestine, better known as the Third Crusade. In that campaign he distinguished himself with his usual courage and battlefield warrior skills, in one engagement he charged nearly singlehanded into a mass of Saracen soldiers to relieve a desperately hard pressed Christian fortress. So impressed was Saladin with Richard that when Richard's horse was killed from under him Saladin ordered one of his prize mounts be led out to the man the Arabs forever referred to after as Malik Rik. But once again Richard's personal arrogance, diplomatic ineptitude, cruelty and sheer pig headedness betrayed the entire expedition. His premature execution of Saracen prisoners inspite of an agreement with Saladin saw Saladin execute his Christian prisoners in turn, causing major divisions in the heterogenous Crusader army. Richard also antagonized the other Christian leaders of the Crusade to such an extent that a combined march on Jerusalem under the shadow of this boorish thug became unthinkable. After the capture of Acre he actually threw down the royal standard of the Austrian Duke Leopold so he could hoist up his own. His warrior skills were an asset, but his personality defects eventually made a continuing united effort on campaign beyond the patience of his allies who returned home prematurely. Richard stayed for a while longer, failing to achieve much now that his allies had gone home. He then attempted to return home, only to be captured en rout by the same Duke Leopold whom he had insulted earlier. Leopold handed him over to the Holy Roman Emperor, he ransomed him for a sum which bankrupted the badly neglected English Kingdom. Richard then returned home and died needlessly while on campaign. The well run and prosperous state of Henry II by that time was gone. Replacing it was a badly neglected, impoverished, bankrupt kingdom with constant rebellions sweeping its maladministered lands. Easy pickings for the waiting Phillip II Augustus. As a soldier Richard was brilliant, I would love to have had such a man at sergeant level in Medieval days. But as a King he betrayed his nation with a range of personal vices, leaving it too severely crippled to be properly rescued by a man of the likes of Richard's brother John. Basically Richard failed in his duty, he was a man better suited to lead a band of roving warriors in the Dark Ages than run England. A good soldier, but for the grief and suffering he brought his people in the name of his vain glorious adventures I cannot help but feel utter contempt for him. |
Replies:
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 21:55
|
Im glad you posted this. I always reall yhated Richard I. I usually have more contempt for people who are regarded as great (James Wolfe as a general, Andre Jackson as a leader) and arent than those that everyone just acknowledges are bad. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 22:03
|
Richard I was a lousy King in terms of his duty to England, I wouldnt even try and argue against that, he couldnt care less for England and used us just for money. However its the legend of Richard we love, his fearlessness, leadership, his sheer disregard for personal safety which few Kings did is inspirational. All based on fact but romantised so that his deteste for England is nullified and his courage and bravery is all we see. I think he can easily be considered one of if not THE greatest soldier in history. I dont hate him he's the embodiment of chivalry (or atleast the romantic perspective) and our greatest warrior King, regardless of his obvious flaws, as an Englishman I cant help but feel patriotic when I think of the man, Richards legend is far more important than the reality of the man. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 22:18
Or for anything...When he arrived on Cyprus, he captured the island, ransacked it, and then when the Island started rebelling, he sold it to the Templars. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 22:39
|
He had one aim to take Jerusalem and he failed not because he was inadequate but because circumstances were against him, you cant help but respect the man for having a goal and of done anything he could to get it only to fail through no fault of his own. Its that great sense of destiny that you find in all the great generals etc, like Alexander or Caeser they had a burning desire and what they believed a destiny and theyd of done anything to achieve it. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 23:50
Well I agree with parts of what you said. He was an incredibly fearless man, but then again when you are 6ft 4' in a part of history when your average European man was 5ft 3' I guess it is much easier to dash into combat. I give him full credit for his valour, never did I try and take anything away from that. As for circumstances being against him, well aren't there always things in the way of getting what you want when you embark on a war? Every man has a goal, but I don't think he failed through no fault of his own. My view used to be identical to yours, but last semester our tutor posed us the question again and I see things differently. Firstly we must acknowledge that Richard arrogated to himself leadership of the Crusade. By his command ability, bossiness and force of personality, he thrust responsibility for how the Crusade went directly into his own hands. Consequently we can lay blame on him for failing to achieve. He had at his disposal a large heterogenous European army in the hands of their local rulers. This army possessed some of the best military equipment and professionalism of the day, was well provisioned, had spiritual sactioning and support etc. I believe the goal of capturing Jerusalem was not impossible, Saladin having been defeated by Richard on a number of occasions when Richard possessed only a fraction of the total Crusader forces. So what actually stopped the capture of the city? Well Richard showed utter lack of diplomatic tact by alienating his allies. If he were a good leader he would have established good relations with the other leaders to ensure a cooperative effort. He didn't, he was bossy, rude and plain insulting at times. When you assume command of the crusading force, those personality defects are something you must control for the good of the expedition. He also ensured the needless slaughter of hundreds of captured Christians when he became impatient over negotiations with Saladin, further alienating his fellow crusaders and earning a reputation for callousness. By his arrogance, irresponsibility, single mindedness, lack of tact and egotistic vain glory he turned a perfectly viable military expedition into a wreck. It takes one thing to be a great warrior, it takes ALOT more to be a great leader. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2005 at 00:57
|
I believe he was a great leader because I believe few men would have been able to keep an army together in the conditions Richard often found himself in whilst campaigning in the holyland. Professional or not crusades had been plagued by deserters everytime things got tough, it takes an inspirational leader to keep people together epsecially when so greatly outnumbered with seemingly no hope of survival or success. From what ive read about the 3rd crusade, Richard knew he could take Jerusalem but also knew it would immediately be under siege by a much larger army under Saladin therefore making its conquest pointless. The same old problem of having the ability to conquer but not hold territory. He was diplomatically ignorant and vain, but he was a great soldier and he knew it, as far as he was concerned other rulers wernt upto his standards, his standards being performance on the field of battle. He knew regardless of his diplomatic failings through his ability on the field he could recover almost any situation. He was a typical Norman, his reason for existing was war and conquest and glory he seems to me the kind of man who was utterly bored by diplomacy and far to restless and impatient to care. Through his life as a soldier though, for which he is remembered and for what he deserves to be remembered for IMHO. Should also mention though that thanks to Richard the crusader presence in the holyland was prolonged for many decades, which is a brilliant feat since it looked on the brink of collapse when he arrived. I say remember the soldier not the king. I think this sums Richard up from wikipedia "There is no doubt that Richard had many admirable qualities, as well as many bad ones. He was a military mastermind, and politically astute in many ways; yet incredibly foolish in others, and unwilling to give way to public opinion. He was capable of great humility as well as great arrogance. He loved his family, but behaved ruthlessly to his enemies. He was revered by his most worthy rival, Saladin, and respected by the Emperor Henry, but hated by many who had been his friends, especially King Philip. He was often careless of his own safety: the wound which killed him need not have been inflicted at all if he had been properly armoured." ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2005 at 01:50
|
Richard Coeur de Lion may have been a bad king of england but England was simply part of the Angevin empire, he was also Duke of Aquittaine and we can say the Emperor of the Angevin Empire, as Emperor and Duke I think he was great but I think he didn't care much about England. I couldn't agree more with him. He shold instead have tried to conquer ile-de-France, making him rightful king of France, thus making england only duchy. this would solve many problem. He could have triumphed if he hadn't let the kingdom to the incompetent John. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2005 at 16:30
|
I don't really have anything to add to this discussion, as everything about Richard I has been said already here, but I want to report that my heart lept, when I read the thread's title this morning. Finally somebody someone said, what I didn't dare to. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 07:30
|
Richard inherited a perfectly viable Kingdom. It was strong, well
organised, possessed a great army and had every chance to become a
dominant nation had it been under the leadership of even a moderately
capable ruler. Imagine had Henry II produced a son half as worthy as
himself, the whole long drawn out and terrible Hundred Years War may
have been avoided by a much shorter one centuries beforehand. Because
of Richard's squandering of his unusually lucky position (I might also
point out another failing, in not replacing his brother John with an
heir of some sort of competence) the nations of England and France were
destined to struggle against one another for hundreds of years to come.
He did England the greatest of diservices over both the long and short
term. Infact, I cannot recall a reign which sabotaged the future of
England so much as that of Richard I and John I combined. Their
combination of personal vices, in the most centralized large-sized
state in Europe at the time, ensured that these individuals had a
massive impact on government policy. Those policies set the Kingdom of
England back hundreds of years. Forgive me, dear Heraclius, for being a tad unromantic. To me the unflambouyant yet responsible individuals I value far more than the self-indulgent, negligent showmen. I always end up translating poor policy of leaders into ground level suffering of the underlings, imagine the life of your English peasant as he struggles to deal with misadministration, crushing taxes (to pay Richard's ransom), lawlessness, widespread poverty, being the laughing stock of Europe for having a King in chains, the depredations of once-restrained landowners etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 13:38
|
Your right Constantine I wont argue that, ive already said he was a lousy king who didnt do anything for my country, for that he cant be considered a great king obviously, but is considered a great warrior king and thats what i remember him for. Your analysis of Richard I is perfectly correct even the most romantic view cant deny that. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 07:37
|
I have long felt that Richard I got a good press BECAUSE he was away
most of the time. He didn't stay around for many years and give
the English plenty of opportunities to see his defects up close, the
way Henry III would, a generation later. In fact, when the
English realized that Henry was a bad king, they responded by creating
Parliament, to put a limit on his power, so I will venture to say that
if Richard had lasted longer, the incident that led to the Magna Carta
probably would have happened sooner.
------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: ShadowedRealm
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 12:53
I disagree. The English didn't seem to mind the defects that Richard had, mostly because he was a good warrior-king. You are judging Richard by today's standards. We might think that it would be impossible for Richard to be a good king without having hardly ever been present in his country. Yet he retained loyalty and there were no rebellions while he was away (other than John's plotting, which are a different story). The English also raised a huge sum of money to release Richard, and there is evidence to suggest that if Richard had lived, he would have done well in France. Your definition of a "bad king" is off. The English didn't think Richard was a bad king, nor do I think they would have if things would have continued to go the way that they had prior to his death, and they probably would have considering how able he was militarily. English kings typically ran into problems over matters of finance. Henry III, toward the beginning of his reign, was able to secure the money that he wanted from taxation without too much of a problem. It was his failure in winning wars and his debt that led to the Council of Fifteen and baronial reforms in 1258. John faced his barons and was forced to sign Magna Carta for similar reasons: he had raised huge amounts of taxes that came to nothing - the Angevin Empire was actually disintegrating despite John's attempts and heavy-handed taxation. Later kings like Edward I also seriously strained their own resources and the resources of their country, but as long as they handled it well (and won), there wasn't a problem. No matter what your opinion of Richard, he is quite different from John and Henry III, as well as other 'infamous' English kings. I really can't see someone like Richard ever having to sign the Magna Carta. Richard did not contribute to administrative or legal developments in England, but within the context of his own time, in which chivalry, valor, and military ability were important, he was a good king. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 07:30
|
Did anyone watch this Robin and Marian movie with Sean Connery as an old Robin Hood. There is a scene where you can see Lion heart drinking a bucket wine despite being previously gravely wounded by the arrow in the neck. He died soon after drinking his bucket of wine (yes a bucket full of wine). It was funny as hell, this is how I started to like Lion heart. ------------- |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 12:42
| Personally Im with Salladin. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 13:43
There has never been a title of Angevin Emperor. He was Count of Anjou, not Emperor of Anjou. If he conquered France, like all those pompous king he would have used the two titles of King of France and England. Like Charlemagne used the titles of King of the Franks and King of the Lombards (and western Emperor) or Louis XIV used the titles of Kings of France and Navarre. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 13:46
I'm with Philip II. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 13:04
|
As Steven Runciman wrote, "He was bad son, bad husband and bad king but brave and great soldier." ------------- |
Posted By: HistoryGuy
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 20:03
and he was a homosexual...... ------------- هیچ مردی تا به حال به شما درباره خدا گفته. |
Posted By: shurite7
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 01:14
|
There is no evidence of this. I'll have to pull the book out but there is a reference of Phillip II, Richard I and "bed". The author explains the meaning of this, but it was not homosexuality. Sir Steven Runciman sums it up quite well as do many of the comments above. There is one note, had the crusaders taken Jerusalem, there is no guarantee they could have kept it because so many would have gone back to Europe. However, with Salah al-Din passing away in 1193 CE they may have been able to keep it. Bottom line is Richard took the advise of the local barons of the Levant and the advise of the 2 grand masters.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 01:42
|
He wasn't homosexual, he was just more interested in "glory" than
women. Though he wasn't overly fond of being a lover, he did marry
Berengaria. If you can dig up some evidence of a homosexual affair,
then present it to us.
------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 19:20
|
Sharon K Penman has presented him as a homosexual in her historical-fiction Here be Dragons.
Though there isn't much ground upon which to build the argument (though
her notes on research in the bibliography are actually quite
remarkable). All in all though, I like and respect the man. He did
whatever the hell he wanted to whoever the hell he wanted and ended up
getting away with it everytime. He was a lucky bastard, considering all
the people who wished he'd wake up with a knife between his ribs (I
heard one story that in the Levant, he was surprised by an Egyptian
assassin while he himself was unarmed, but wrestled the man down and
threw him out of a window about 60 feet off the ground. Damn!). Any
soldier who earns the respect of his enemies is obviously a man to be
feared, and to be held in high esteem. Other records point towards the Holy Roman Emperor having a genuine personal affinity for that barbaric English King, and it's said they often practiced swordsmanship together and hunted as well while Richard was in "captivity." Richard was never kept in chains, nor were his personal freedoms or movement greatly restricted. The only reason the Emperor couldn't let him go is because it would have been political suicide (throwing away the huge sum Richard's ransom would bring his kingdom). Even so, when Eleanor of Aquitaine was only able to raise a fraction of the pre-agreed ransom, the Emperor let him go (though he obviously still took the money)! It's said Richard even pardoned the archer or crossbowman who put the arrow in his shoulder. After he died, of course, the man was flayed alive by the late King's furious soldiers. And what he was doing riding around a battlefield in just his linens is anyone's guess. In short, he was a brute, a thug, a bastard, and one of the few military geniuses of history. He's like an English Davey Crockett or Sigurd the Viking. I have the utmost respect for the man. Cheers. |
Posted By: shurite7
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 00:55
|
I heard one story that in the Levant, he was surprised by an Egyptian assassin while he himself was unarmed, but wrestled the man down and threw him out of a window about 60 feet off the ground.
Where did you hear this story? I've never heard or read anything regarding this.
------------- Cheers Chris |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 01:59
|
I personally agree that his personal vendettas cost crusaders a lot. From the very start of the crusades you could note that the relief of the |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 05:49
|
With regards to Richard's alleged homosexuality ...
Richard's enemies would surely have seized upon this in an instant if there was any truth to the rumour. Especially King Philip II of France, whose sister Richard handed back after she was so graciously "used" by his father.
Yet, there is no contemporary (ie: in Richard's day and after his death) evidence of this alleged homosexuality - this rumour only circulates much much later.
Even Richard's greatest critic, Gerald of Wales, makes no mention - and he would surely have been the first to eagerly do so. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: shurite7
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 01:12
|
In Gillingham's book he explains where some earlier historians got the idea Richard I was a homosexual.
I can't remember details of the book but it references the term "bed". I don't have the book with me, it is packed. Nonetheless, it clarifies the fact Richard I was not a homosexual.
------------- Cheers Chris |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 04:33
I seem to remember Gore Vidal quoting it in A Search For the King But I can't verify that since we're moving next week and all my books are packed in boxes. I think it was a fairly common story: whether it was true or not is a different matter of course. Vidal also hints heavily at Richard's homosexuality (which was all he could do in 1950) but he is something of a biassed witness on that issue, though I do have the greatest respect for his historical novels in general. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 05:56
What I have trouble fathoming is why you should say that. Certainly sixty years agob it was being taught in English schools that Richard was not a good king, and I never grew up thinking anything else.
In 1066 And All That Sellers and Yeatman classified him as 'a Good Thing', but that was satire and over 75 years ago.
Someone already pointed out that debunking Richard I can be traced back at least to Giraldus Cambrensis, and he was a contemporary.
That being so, it's interesting to consider why the legend of Richard arose, and I think a key consideraton here is the saga of Robin Hood, in which Richard plays an ultimately conclusive role.
The Robin Hood saga, as it moves from antagonism between Saxon (Hood's band is at least largely Saxon) and Norman (personified by the Sheriff of Nottingham) to eventual reconciliation brought about by the return of Richard, is a metaphor for the reconciliation of Saxon and Norman into the English. And for that - as the saga implies - the tipping point came in Richard's reign.
Richard is probably the first king to lead armies that considered themselves English (no matter whether Richard in fact saw himself as English or not) but all subsequent ones would (until the union with Scotland complicated matters).
Hence, it seems to me, his place in English legend.
------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 06:45
|
I think that the "bed" reference in Gillingham's book is as follows:
"English chronicler Roger of Howden reported that in 1187 Richard and King Philip of
If this is the reference upon which all allegations of Richard I's homesexuality rest - shouldn't this then equally be applied to King Philip of France with whom Richard I "shared a bed". And yet Philip is not tarred with the same brush. Curious. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 12:05
Gore Vidal didn't write a novel about Philip.  ------------- |
Posted By: shurite7
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 23:11
|
http://allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3470&FID=14 - Melisende ,
Thanks for displaying the passage. I too have noticed nothing has ever been brought out about Philip's sexuality.
Some people took Richard's lack of an heir as proof of homosexuality. Richard may have been impotent or his wife, Berengaria, may not have been able to conceive. Look at modern times; today there is a multi-million dollar business helping women become pregnant.
------------- Cheers Chris |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 02:07
The only problem with this is that Roger of Howden would not have written such things down if they weren't seen as embarassing or derogatory in some manner. Howden wasn't interested in general political moves such as kissing, sleeping in the same bed, or holding hands. He was more interested in these moves as scandal than anything else. Howden would not have written contemporary political practices in his chronicle since his readers would have known these practices. The reason for taking down these occurances was because they were out of the ordinary. |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 04:49
|
What you say may indeed be true of Howden - but question - why have no other contemporary chroniclers commented - especially the fiercely anti-Angevin Gerald of Wales. His silence is espcially noteworthy.
Side note - Richard did father two sons - Philip, Lord of Cognac, and Fulk. So he certainly wasn't impotent - and no one will really know whether poor Berengaria was barren or not considering the little amount of time that she spent with Richard. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 17:12
|
..hello everyone
.it would be impossible for me to address all of the comments made in this thread.. however, the whole topic has been a very interesting enterprise.i would just like to add a few thoughts and words to the discussion. many of the negative judgements about Richard have been formed with the neglect of his English kingdom in mind (as addressed earlier in the thread)and the English kings leadership of the Third Crusade has generally been regarded as one of limited success, if not complete failure.however, there are some arguments that point to degrees of success.and can at least salvage some degree of respectability to Richards crusading reputation
.chronicle accounts of Richards crusade have often been coloured according to the political alignment and propaganda needs of those countries and personalities that featured in Richards reign.. German and French accounts differ in their interpretation of Richards deeds with many attacking the kings decision making, along with accusations of ineffective leadership.. Many of the English contemporary accounts of Richards exploits have portrayed the king with an obvious tendency to highlight the positive aspects of Richards reign and his successful crusade in the East.. this ensured that Richard had a fair degree of control over what John Gillingham describes as the kings publicity machine.. .nevertheless, there are a number of Arab chroniclers who have written in detail about Richard and in particular his relationship with Saladin..I have lifted these quotes from a previous work I did but I think it is useful to highlight them in short form here.. the Muslim records often refer to the English kings diplomatic style of leadership, his wisdom, experience, courage and energy, and it is evident that the Muslims feared Richards diplomacy skills and the cunning of this accursed man..arguably, because the Muslims never had to face a subtler or bolder a opponent it is relatively safe to assume that Arab accounts provide a reliable indication of Richards successes and failures, as seen from the enemys point of view. ..It could also be argued that Richard gave the Christian crusaders a sense of prestige that had been lost by the disaster of the Second Crusade Baha al-Din noted that Muslim hearts were filled with fear and apprehension upon the arrival of the English king in the holy land.. .In addition, when Acre surrendered, Richard managed to capture the ships employed in the Egyptian fleet, a substantial defeat for Saladin and a noteworthy success.Gillingham has also proposed that this victory marked the end of Saladins challenge against the Christian dominance at sea. For Richard, Acre was a great success and it showed the Muslim forces that the king was resolute, determined and an enemy to be both feared and respected The Arab chronicler Baha al-Din wrote of Richards conduct in the siege of Acre as one of good judgement and extreme daring. .in June 1192, Richard attacked a army caravan on its way from Egypt, scattering the Muslim soldiers, seizing valuable supplies and depriving Saladin of much need reinforcement in men, arms and transport. It has been stated that strategically, it was an important strike, rightly regarded by Richards contemporaries as one of the kings greatest victories. Even Baha al-Din noted that the defeat was a most disgraceful event; it was long since Islam had suffered so serious a disaster, adding that Saladin was never more grieved or rendered more anxious. At a time when Christian influence in the East was diminishing, I think Richard at least provided some degree of Christian victory, and managed to ensure the continued survival of Crusader presence in Muslim territory for the next 100 years. .In the words of Baha al-Din the Muslims never had to face a craftier or a bolder enemy. Sources referred to ..although I must point out that Gillinghams works are very much pro Richard and seek to paint a more positive picture of the English king. John Gillingham, Royal Newsletters, Forgeries and English Historians: Some Links between Court and History in the Reign of Richard I John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart (London, 1989) John Gillingham, Richard I (London, 1999) Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes(London, 1984) J. O. Prestwich, Richard Coeur de Lion:Rex Bellicosus (Rome, 1980) ------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 06:03
|
It appeared that Richard and Saladin had a regard for each other as warriors and leaders; and the Arab sources give, as you say (AofO), a far less politically biased view of Richard than say French or German sources.
Any references to Richard's alleged homosexuality from these "enemy" (Arab) sources???
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 06:31
|
I think there's a problem with what is meant by "homosexual" here. In Richard's day you were despicable and un-manly if you submitted to the role of "woman". If one stayed in the male role, things were less problematic. It makes it harder to make a call on homsexuality, certainly in a modern sense. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 15:29
|
...Hello Melisende...
..nothing from what i have read, although i will admit the Arab sources i have are limited in their scope.....so nothing conclusive from what i am aware of...
...personally, i do not see how sexuality actually means anything at all to the story of Richard I...it does not add anything much to the history, bit like Alexander really, does not take anything way from the individuals exploits and achievements..if your a bad king or a good king, does it matter what your sexual preferences are??... ------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 06:08
|
Unfortunately - it did back then - it was a crime punishable by death.
One of the reasons Isabella of France gained substantial support in her attempt to depose her husband was due to Edward II's sexual preferences.
Unfortunately for Isabella, she lost a lot of support when she let Roger Mortimer control the throne, and became finally unstuck when Edward was murdered (whether it was on hers or Mortimer's orders is speculative).
So really, if your sexual preferences weren't the norm, so to speak, then how great or bad a ruler you were was washed away in a torrent of public opposition. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: shurite7
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 20:16
|
Any references to Richard's alleged homosexuality from these "enemy" (Arab) sources???
I haven't read any reference to Richard's sexual preference in any translated Arabic sources.
At the moment I am reading Baha al-din's biography of Salah al-din and just getting into the era of the crusade or Barbarossa, Philip and Richard.
------------- Cheers Chris |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 05:09
|
i think that there are some common misconceptions here id like to point out , first of all , a lot has been said about Richard's alleged homosexuality , today many historians agree he was in fact homosexual , although there is still some speculation , there are quite a few references to this , as well if u study his person u might come to an understanding of this too. let me just add that Richard really wasn't a French man , he was in every way a southerner , i.e more in keeping with such courts as those of Navarre and Castille rather than France or england he was groomed and raised to be a duke of Aquitaine , as well we cant really accuse Richard of causing the revolts of the Aquitaine's nobility who were notoriously known to be of a volatile and unruly nature , and having reason for grief since they have had in turn two ' alien ' lords prior to Richard , Louis VII and king henry II respectively. Richard was a reputed womanizer , one contemporary resource reads ' he did not scruple to resort to rape: 'he carried off the the wives daughters and kinswoman of his freemen by force , and made them his concubines, and when he sated his lust on them , he handed them over to his knights for whoring '. in those days homosexuality was seen as a mortal sin..and was a sensitive subject for both faiths , yet his reputation of being a womanizer only leads me to believe he was in a state of denial..as according to his environment which condemned homosexuality, as well...Richard had only one woman whom he was emotionally involved with , and that was his mother , he had no love for his wife Berengaria of Navarre , whose conjugal visits to her where far and in between and even then only in keeping with his need to sire a male heir , when he died...she was left almost destitute another sign of his disaffection towards her. we should also lets take in perspective that there are in fact quite a few contemporary sources which may lead us to believe he was indeed a homosexual , besides bedding with Philip which was substantial enough to be mentioned by the chronicle as was said above , he ' so honored him that every day they ate at the same table , shared the plate, and at night the bed did not separate them ' , there was another contemporary source which said that Richard met a hermit in a forest who warned him of the sins of Sodom , another was that he confessed for ' sins against nature ' and was flogged before he went on crusade , not to mention in those days lets not forget people believed in the divine right of kings , the only people who would dare say something that horrendous about a king..would be a member of the clergy , who could have easily winked at something like Richards sexual preference in exchange for him going on crusade , as well in the reign of henry II england first witnessed the torturing of people accused of homosexuality , which henry himself saw as a sin against god , as well it would remain a wonder why henry showed more of a dislike towards his son Richard than any of his other sons , although the young king..and duke Geoffrey were just as treacherous as he was. he had re-trusted Geoffrey..and made him his regent in Normandy even after the rebellion of 1172-3 , but he really did dislike Richard , in fact he wanted to wrestle the duchy of Aquitaine from its rightful suzerains ( Eleanor and Richard ) in order to provide john lack land with an inheritance yet he did not try to confiscate any of the fiefs owed to the young king or duke Geoffrey. modern biographers today have also suspected that Berengaria's brother king Sancho VII was one of Richards lovers , this is just me , but could it be possible...that in those days..since same gender marriages were unknown , and in order to bind they're love and allegiance together..that they married each others sister? , lets not forget although it was henry and Louis who first arranged for the marriage between Richard and Alys of France , Philip also pressed for the match and was extremely annoyed , hurt and maddened at the fact that Richard supplemented his sister with Berengaria , or was it rather..that he supplement Philip by Sancho VII both on a political..and perhaps personal level?? ( I've read that king Sancho was his lover in numerous books , but it would be easier to just look up Richard on the Wikipedia , it is mentioned briefly there.) in regards to Philip using Richards homosexuality for winning public opnion over to his side , this would feel highly unlikely if it was he who bedded with him...lol ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 08:29
|
You make some good points Duchess. However, Henry's dislike from Richard could quite easily stem from the fact that Richard reminded Henry too much of himself - pig-headed, petulant, stubborn, a man who liked to get his own way. You said that: "he [Henry II] really did dislike Richard , in fact he wanted to wrestle the duchy of Aquitaine from its rightful suzerains ( Eleanor and Richard )". Both Eleanor and Richard considered Aquitaine quite seperate from any of Henry II's landholdings - Eleanor loved Aquitaine. What better or crueler punishment could be inflicted upon both his rebellious wife and son than to take away that which they both prized - Aquitaine - and give it to the one person they both disliked - John.
With regards to the question of Alys / Alice of France - Henry had bedded Alice and sired at least two children upon her. In Richard's eyes, she was "soiled / used goods" - hardly the pure virgin she was when she entered into Henry's II household as a child when initially betrothed to Richard. So, to Richard Alice was merely one of his father's "cast-offs" - hardly a suitable beginning for a Duchess of Aquitaine let alone possible future Queen. So, unless she were a widow, husband's expected their brides to be "pure" - virgins. And in the eyes of the Church, Henry's bedding of Alys technically debarred Richard from any marriage (consider Henry VIII's marriage of his brother's widow - Henry VIII was said to have "sinned" in the eyes of the Church). It was her dowry that delayed Alice's return to her brother - Henry II coveted the Vexin - and that fact that she was of royal birth delayed her return by Richard - Philip was his ally.
Philip of France could be annoyed - it was his sister whose reputation was sullied (but that was Henry's doing not Richards) and was now being put aside - but you can't argue that in casting Alice aside that Richard was "spurning" his alleged lover - ie: Philip. Afterall - you said that "modern biographers today have also suspected that Berengaria's brother king Sancho VII was one of Richards lovers ... that he supplement Philip by Sancho ". But surely this would have occurred the other way around - Sancho would have preceeded Philip and so would have been the "spurned lover" not Philip.
And as for Roger of Hovedon's quote: "He carried off by force the wives, daughters and female relatives of his free men, and made them his concubines; and after he had extinguished the ardour of his lust on them, he handed them over to his soldiers for whoring." Richard was no different in this respect than any other ruler of his day - Louis VII (Eleanor's first husband) didn't hesitate to burn hundreds of innocents in a locked church - thousands of innocents were slaughtered in the name of God by pious and God-fearing monarchs.
And as for Hovedon's other quote that Richard and Philip: "ate from the same dish and at night slept in one bed" and had a "strong love between them" - that can be interpreted any way you wish - and for whatever political mileage - political mudslinging they call it nowadays. Does he come out and accuse Richard - no. But Hovedon was also biased in favour of his patron - Henry II. Hovedon spent nearly 20 years serving Henry II - whereas he barely recorded three years of Richard's reign. And sons do have a habit of replacing their father's ministers with men of their own choosing - a bitter pill to swallow for Hovedon perhaps - losing his position at court??? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me.
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:24
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:30
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 10:03
|
good point melisende however you can always look at it this way, Richard was raised to be a duke of Aquitaine..that was his role , and the only person he had to learn about playing that role was his mother , he idolized her. Isn't it a common trait among homosexuals in general..to have a certain matriarch role model?..or be very close with their mothers? Richard (Eleanor's heir ) in many respects tried to be his mother , he went on crusade as she did , he tried to govern Aquitaine as she did and he ' allegedly ' bedded a Capet ( Philip II Louis' heir) and who also went on crusade with him , a little too similar..don't you think Melisende? and not to mention..Richard and Philip were good friends prior to the crusade and when they returned to France , their friendship was over , Louis and Eleanor went on crusade..and the marriage was effectively over , maybe I'm too quixotic..but the incidents do seem to resemble each other As for the incident at Vezelay , i hardly contribute that to Louis...it wasn't his fault he didn't order the place to be ransacked or burned or pillaged , hes one of the few medieval kings whom i regard with admiration , he was kind and affable , had a big heart , and in my honest opinion..he came to fulfill the knightly chivalrous ideal. oh and he was good looking...lol ( sorry had to say it ) obviously i was enraptured by him...as im sure many people found him to be  let me just add that richard wanted to marry alys for the longest time he and philip both pressed for the marriage , but henry prevaricated , her affair was ongoing at the time , so i hardly think that richard was against the idea of marrying alys just because she was ' used ' by his father. ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 10:37
You might be surprised but I don't think that is the case necessarily. Eleanor was a a woman of exceptional strength and character, someone any son could look up to. That didn't translate into Richard being homosexual.
I don't think that's a fair comparison either. Phillip went home early from the crusade and began making moves against Richard's lands, that's enough to turn any friend against another. Two kings with rival desires on eachothers' lands are unlikely to stay friends for long. ------------- |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 11:51
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 17:22
Richard inexcusably waited until both he and Philip started the trip to the holy land to divulge to him the fact that betrothal richard had spent many many years pressing with Alys...wont come fruition , that I'm sure he knew would not have been any welcoming news for Philip , in fact it was meant to antagonize him... , not only did he do that , he antagonized him further by marrying Berengaria AND bringing her on crusade with him ( flaunting his new wife in front of his alleged lover and dumping his sister in the process ). it seems likely to me that Philip..had fallen out of favor with Richard , it could even be seen as an act..to sabotage his friendship WHILE they are on crusade. so yeah...i still think Richard had done a great deal in the ' break up ' between him and Philip whichever way u interpret it ( political or personal ) another similarity is...that a ' new ' person...a new ' lover ' sort of comes into play , during the second crusade , it was most ardently Raymond the prince of Antioch ( alleged lover of Eleanor ) who came in between man and wife. Berengaria was definitely some one Philip didn't even relish to meet , while on her way to Messina Philip left in advance JUST so he wouldn't have to meet her and tried all he could to delay her arrival in the process. ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:04
How did Philip delay her progress - it was severe storms and Isaac Comnenus that delayed her. Sure Philip would not relish meeting with her - but ultimately, the choice of bride was Richard's not Philips. What you seem to be implying was that Richard should do and say what Philip wanted. Politics, either today or yester-year, does not work that way. Richard was a stubborn as his father - he would marry where HE chose.
And I think the generalisation that Richard's love for his mother "turned him homosexual" is very niave and has no academic or scientific basis. You could then say that Richard's hatred of his father "turned him gay".
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: New User
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 11:36
I think like hetrosexual men some gay men love their mums and some don't.
I was of the opinion when studying Richard that he was bisexual , as a strong king it would have been easy to keep fairly quiet, only weaker kings who did not show any prudence came a cropper from their homosexual dalliances. It is only of passing interest though in the story of Richard 1, wouldn't you agree?
|
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 07:08
|
Unfortunately, Richard's alleged homosexuality will forever be the yardstick by which he is judged as both a ruler and a man.
What is curious though, are the number of comparisons that can be made between Richard and his contemporary Philip Augustus, and Saint Louis - the latter two Kings who have not had such personal enmity directed at them.
Philip Augustus:
Many complain of Richard's treatment of his betrothed, Alice, sister of Philip - yet Philip himself did not lift a finger to rescue his other sister Agnes from her poor treatment in Byzantium following the death of her husband Emperor Alexius II. It was said that Philip himself was indifferent to his own family. Philip actually gave his blessing to Richard upon releasing him from his betrothal - why - his fear of an alliance between Richard and Tancred of Sicily was more than his concern for his sister's reputation.
Philip spent most of his time on Crusade suffering from illness - which was the reason he returned early from the Crusade - his departure, however, gave rise to taunts of cowardice and traitorous desertion. Prior to leaving, Philip promised Richard he would not attack his lands - but as soon as Philip returned home, he reneged and intrigued with John against Richard. Hardly a man to be trusted.
Philip's own personal and moral conduct was not much better than Richard's. However, unlike Philip, Richard did not have England placed under Interdict for the sake of a woman. Philip wanted to annul his marriage to Ingebjorg and marry a bride of his own choosing - sound familiar. Excommunication and Interdict followed when he didn't toe the moral line.
Saint Louis IX:
Like Richard - Louis heavily taxed his subjects, including the clergy (which proved extremely unpopular). The first Crusade of Louis lasted TEN years - three years in preparation (1245 - 1248); the actual Crusade (1248 - 1250); his prolonged and voluntary stay - four years (1250 1254). So, Louis himself spent some time out of his own Kingdom - something Richard was vilified for.
Unlike Richard, however, Louis' Crusade was a complete failure - "to Palestine, which he loved even more dearly [than France], he had brought little but disappointment and sorrow". And yet Richard was vilified for his Crusading intentions and lack of love for England - but no derogatory comment against Saint Louis for harbouring the same feelings. I believe Matthew Paris in his "Chronica" was alleged to have said "it might have been better for Outremer had he never left France".
The only reasons for Louis return to France were: the death of his beloved mother - whom he relied upon as both regent and advisor (something he shared in common with Richard - a love for his mother - oops must be a homosexual!!); internal strife, civil war and rebellion (his kingdom was hardly stable); and the fact that his mother Blanche, whilst alive, refused to fund and supply his Crusade any further. So Louis absence from France on Crusade was not wholly welcomed within his own kingdom - his return was demanded and yet Louis ignored this. But yet again, Louis embarked upon another Crusade (1269 - 1270) - barely ten years after the debacle of his first attempt. This time, his second Crusade not only ended in failure but in his own death.
Henry II:
Richard can even be compared with his own father.
Richard was again criticised for refused to give Aquitaine to John. Upon the death of his own father, Henry refused to give out the patrimony left to his younger brothers but instead kept the lot for himself. In fact, disinheriting his own brothers in order to satisfy his own personal greed.
Richard, just like his father, conducted a civil war on behalf of his mother - Henry gladly fought for the crown of England on behalf of his mother, Empress Maud, a woman whom he greatly admired, respected and who advice he followed - oops, must be a homosexual!!
Summary:
Richard was no better or worse than any other King or indeed man of his time. And it seems that some of the actions that Richard is readily vilified for other Kings are praised for. It all comes down to personal bias - and the fact that many continue to judge Richard by today's standards and not the standards of his own times.
Someone has to play devil's advocate! ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 08:09
when i said it was Raymond prince of Antioch who most ardently came in between man and wife , i meant it was under the influence of Raymond that Eleanor choose to follow another political stand , however in regards to him being Eleanor's lover i did say ALLEGED to sound professional , i never stated it as hardcore fact , whether it was propaganda or not is up to interpretation, ultimately Raymond did in fact come in between husband and wife whether politically or personally. as for Richard having to listen to Philip in most things , yes i do actually expect that, Philip was his overlord maybe I'm too simple..but by law and by rights of the time..Richard was a vassal for almost half his lands ( his continental fiefs ) and does owe Philip fealty. you yourself Melisende have said that Philip was indifferent to his family , then why did he want the marriage of Richard and Alys to take place? possibly because he wanted to keep Richard as an ally or to keep him close ( keep your friends close but your enemies closer ) so therefore he might have pressed for the match..not because of his love for his half sister Alys but rather for his alacrity to have Richard , on any level, personal or political. as for Philip not caring for his sister Agnes...that can also be debatable..Richard was his vassal..and his lands were right on Philip's doorstep therefore Philip held a much bigger threat..and a greater authority and a force to be reckoned with when it came to Richard , but when it came to far away Byzantium there could have been little that Philip could have done. lastly i actually think that parental influence and guidance...does in fact play a major role in determining a person's sexual orientation , within the field of psychology several well known theory's have been proposed to be the reason of why people develop a certain sexual identity as opposed to others , however i do state that these are still theories and open to debate ( although they were credible enough to be taught in many institutions of learning.) ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 08:47
Bravo on the wonderful summary. I can only agree that the presence of women in political power in the Middle Ages in no way is proof that the man in charge is was a homosexual. Women, as important figures in the court with a tendency to survive better than men, brought with them a wealth of diplomatic and even military experience. Listening to one's mother may not merely have been a sign of deference, but rather a very smart way of gaining access to valuable experience and knowledge. ------------- |