“A political and economic disaster for England.”

How far do you agree with this view of the reign of Richard the Lionheart?

Richard's ascension to the throne of England on July 6th 1189 was perhaps the smoothest of successions the country had experienced. England looked forward to being ruled by a man they had grown to know and love and admire. A man with a serious reputation as a skilled warrior and embodiment of the chivalric values made popular in this century. Though he began his rule with a peaceful takeover, it was a peace which would not last long. Richard, known as the absentee king of England ruled his kingdom through an administrative kingship approach. Some historians have argued that he ruled England with a lack of interest in its affairs arguing as Appleby claims that he was “king in name only”[1], leading to the opinion that Richard's reign was a disaster for England. Politically he was seen to leave England undefended and disorganised and economically, many historians are of the opinion that England, for Richard, was only a well of wealth he could draw from for his continental exploits. Yet, despite this pessimistic outlook on Richard's reign, he brought many blessings to England that both strengthened and supported the land.

Succeeding Henry II, Richard had a great man’s footsteps to follow. In many ways he did, but Richard's decade long reign was at points a political disaster for England. Though military minded and politically apt, he sometimes made decisions that though perhaps avoided an immediate small conflict brought about a greater conflict in the future. A good example of this is when he allowed his younger brother John to marry the rich heiress Isabelle of Gloucester in 1189. This marriage was perhaps appropriate for a man currently first/second in line to throne as he became the overlord of seven great English counties, but it placed John in a position of wealth and power, with which he could easily attack Richard’s rule. During this period John was also made Count of Mortain and still held his position as Lord of Ireland given to him in 1177 by his father Henry II. However, John’s immediate response was not threatening and this union seemed to be reconciliation between the two brothers. Yet, when Richard was captured and held ransom by Duke Leopold on his return from the third crusade, John had no issue with rebelling against Richard’s rule and rallying support for himself as the new king. In 1192, after Richard’s capture, John paid homage to Philip for all England’s continental lands and demanded recognition of the new king. Thus, in setting up John with power and money, Richard has created himself a powerful enemy, one who had took advantage of his absence and united with Richard’s other powerful enemy; Philip of France. A bad, political decision. Though, perhaps had Richard been clearer about who his heir would have been, John’s rebellion may never have taken place at all.

Another political error made on Richard’s part, was his dying without naming a specific heir. England’s hope for another smooth succession had been abolished, and instead they were reminded of the turmoil of 1066 on the death of Edward the Confessor when several claimants made known their designs on the throne. Richard led a dance between his two potential heirs and simultaneously turned them against each other. Though married to Berengaria of Navarre, his marriage brought him no children and so he was left with two options, his youngest brother John or his younger brother’s son; Arthur of Brittany. Succession rules had not been made clear, and so it was unsure who had precedence; the nephew of the current king or the son of the previous king. Having alternatively named Arthur and John his heirs throughout his life, England was left in a political disaster as to who was their rightful king. However, can this really be perceived as an error? After all, he died not of old age but an arrow wound when protecting Chateaux Gaillard from Philip of France. He had no need to name an heir; he still had time to produce sons. Besides, naming an heir in his lifetime could have been a worse political decision, as he would have started a conflict between John and Arthur that would have ended with one of them dead.

Stubbs described Richard during his reign as a “failure of a statesman”[2] who didn’t understand the country he was ruling and did, in his opinion, require an “utter want of political sense”[3]. His culmination of bad political choices, led England to the mess it was in when John came to the throne in 1199.

The loss of Gisors in 1193 was also down to bad political decisions, leaving undefended Philip was able to take it and consolidate his control over Normandy, which forced Richard to look elsewhere for a means to start reclaiming the lands that had been taken from him during his imprisonment. But, he had lost an important castle, it was built strategically to help defend the Norman Vexin from the King of France.

The crusade was another major political controversy in Richard’s reign. Many modern historians see his decision to embark upon it as proof of his disinterest in England “going on crusade was itself seen as ‘neglecting England’”[4], however it is important to remember that though this may have had a political impact upon England, the contemporary people who lived there saw it as first and foremost the responsibility of the king to try and free the Holy Land.

Richard is frequently criticised for the government, or lack of government that he left behind on his travels to outremere with Philip and other crusading forces. Diceto remarked that Richard “considered a few aspects of the government of the kingdom with a few people”[5], certainly he left one man in charge; his chief justiciar. William Longchamp was appointed in 1190 and served Richard as chancellor first but then justiciar and regent of England during his absence. This decision angered John, and may have also affected his decisions to rebel against Richard. He was disliked among the nobility and people and seen as a weak man who lacked the sufficient knowledge to govern the country. His implicit trust in Longchamp was envied by many and he became an unpopular man known for extravagance.

Despite all of this, not all the political mishaps that occurred within Richard’s reign were his fault, or indeed able to be controlled by him. During his captivity in Austria, Philip had begun splitting up his lands in France, and with John fighting with Philip there was little he could do to prevent what seemed the inevitable. However the ransom money raised by Eleanor of Aquitaine and Berengaria of Navarre was enough to release him and he was able to set his lands in order. He knew the importance of politics and accordingly recompensed John, naming him as his heir so that further infractions would not occur. Politics for Richard was all about people management.

He knew the advantage of political marriages as well, marrying Berengaria in 1189 because her homeland of Navarre bordered with his lands in Gascony and would prevent Phillip another access route to dismantling his empire. Both these episodes show he was capable of thinking politically and making correct decisions that would benefit him and his lands.

To many historians, Richard was more interested in strengthened Outremere and regaining the Holy Land, but this too required politics. By enlisting Philip into the crusade he took his most powerful enemy with him, so his lands were protected and safe from the only one who could really make a difference. It became a disaster once Philip left early, leaving Richard still crusading in the East and Philip back in France already calculating which of Richard’s strongholds to take down first.

I agree with Gillingham, who argues that “Richard did not need much intellect, planning capacity or organizational ability to be a successful warrior”[6], he had natural leadership qualities that enable him to be a king in name and deed. His courage and strength has been tested by Saladin, Philip and John and yet it is not until his death that England starts to suffer.

As for England's economic situation during the reign of Richard, this is another highly debated topic. He is argued for being an economic disaster, simply extorting money and more money from his subjects. And on the surface this view may prove to be correct, however the further down you deep more reasons surface that explain Richard not as an economic disaster, but as a king who knows his kingdom well enough to know what they can cope with.

Perhaps the two of the largest expenses England forked out for during Richard’s reign was the money to pay for the third crusade and the ransom he was held for by Duke Leopold. Historians argue that Richard was ignorant of English life and this made his “touch clumsy”[7] when he tried to implement regimes. Yet Clanchy argues that Richard’s interefence with England only made it better and that in fact “the effort needed to raise his ransom had strengthened the administration”[8]. Perhaps Richard had made a mistake placing William Longchamp as justiciar, but his successor Hubert Walter was a significant improvement and it was clear that England had been transferred into good and capable hands.

Hubert Walter ran an effective administration in the absence of Richard. His appointment in December 1193 was one of the best decisions Richard could have made. Hubert remained in England as Richard set about trying to restore his continental lands, he oversaw the collection of money and taxes and the general administrative procedures of the kingdom. Walter’s main role consisted of there always being enough money to suit Richard’s needs and this money was harvested through a variety of methods. An Englishman, Hubert knew the kingdom very well and understood what could and could not be afforded. Thus, Richard’s choice of justiciar proved to be an effective one. Richard was “a good delegator and left England in good hands”[9].

What the historians seem to forget is that warfare was a necessary tool to securing safety and the borders of a vast and disconnected empire. Richard had to go to war to protect all of his lands. England was not the most important land to him. As McLynn says “To Richard, the title of duke of Aquitaine was actually more important than that of king of England”, Richard was a Plantagenet first, an Angevin, an English ruler second. However, as King of England, it was his right to extort money from his kingdom when he needed it, he certainly never taxed his people unnecessarily.

Was Richard an economic disaster? Or did Philip just have better lands? Richard was never short of money, he just had less than the French did. Holt found that Richard’s revenue had actually increased from “£13,991...in 1195...to £38,282... by 1198”[10], however he goes on to estimate that Richard’s wealth was no more than “45 per cent of Philip Augustus’ revenues”[11]. Thus the wealth difference was not due to mismanagement on Richard’s part, but a difference in lands and administration that led to Philip having the upper hand. And when money equalled armies and weapons, Richard would always be on the losing side.

Overall, it is hard to pinpoint down the exact reasons that caused England such turmoil in Richard’s reign and that led to the collapse of a tri-generational empire. Richard ran the country in a “fixed routine without the need for constant royal supervision”[12], but even though he was away he would still received “petitioners...while he was overseas”[13]. Surely that is evidence enough to suggest he has even a link with England and England with him. Despite Longchamp reflecting badly on Richard’s “lack of political judgement”[14] he corrected that mistake and didn’t make a further one. Surely if he didn’t care for England he wouldn’t have bothered. Richard ran a good government; he saw good financial returns and his people were happy. The ones who still perceive his rule as a disaster to England, are the anglo-centric historians who believe England is the centre of the world’s history. England was not the gem in Richard’s collection of lands, hence why he was out fighting in France. At his coronation he swore in his oath that he would “preserve and defend all lands and honours, all dignities and rights of the crown”[15], that is exactly what Richard was doing. Protecting his lands elsewhere. England didn’t need his protection, he had already provided for it.

[1] Appleby

[2] Stubbs, Bishop William

[3] Stubbs, Bishop William

[4] Gillingham, John

[5] Diceto, within Gillingham, John

[6] Gillingham, John within Turner, Ralph V

[7] Barlow

[8] Clanchy

[9] McLynn, Frank

[10] Turner, Ralph V

[11] Turner, Ralph V

[12] Baldwin and Hollister

[13] Richardson and Sayle

[14] Carpenter

[15] Gillingham, John

	Erstellt von marialidd vor mehr als 12 Jahre

BA Hons Medieval History (How good a King was Richard I) Notiz am “A political and economic disaster for England.” How far do you agree with this view of the reign of Richard the Lionheart?, erstellt von marialidd am 16/05/2014.

“A political and economic disaster for England.” How far do you agree with this view of the reign of Richard the Lionheart?