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

Page 1

“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

New Page