AHC: Richard the Lionhearted, the Great King

[Elfwine]

Instead of Richard the Lionhearted, the...well, what did he accomplish as king?

Not much good.

PODs permitted at any point after his ascension to the crown.

Edit: The challenge is for Richard to leave England better off after his death than at the time of his ascension to the crown. How this occurs is up to the responder.

 

[Color-Copycat]

I'm a bit puzzled... what's the challenge? Make him stay home from the Third Crusade and actually rule England?

 

[Elfwine]

I'm a bit puzzled... what's the challenge? Make him stay home from the Third Crusade and actually rule England?

It doesn't matter (for purposes of the challenge) if he goes on Crusade and fights in France. If he can do those things and still rule England well, great. If the answer involves him not doing so, that's fine too.

All that matters for the challenge is that he leaves England better off on his death than it was when he took the crown. Bonus points if that includes areas outside England, like Aquitaine or Normandy.

Bold to draw attention to it.

 

[Turkey Braveheart]

Instead of Richard the Lionhearted, the...well, what did he accomplish as king?

Not much good.

PODs permitted at any point after his ascension to the crown.

Edit: The challenge is for Richard to leave England better off after his death than at the time of his ascension to the crown. How this occurs is up to the responder.

That would be a hard one to do, as Richard the man has already been formed. And I have a hard time seeing him transform into a better ruler or better man at that point.

 

[Nytram01]

The man was not interested in organizing and administrating a nation. All he cared about was war and he only used England as his own person bank to finance his wars. I'd agree with the assessment I heard of him somewhere, cant remember where, that although he was a gallant knight and great soldier he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king.

 

[Turkey Braveheart]

The best change I can think of is that his mother exerts less influence over him and his father exerts more. No civil war and at least the possibility of a man more interested in bettering his country than fighting pointless wars only to die like a fool.

Or, for the good of Angevin England and France, he could die young.

 

[Elfwine]

The best change I can think of is that his mother exerts less influence over him and his father exerts more. No civil war and at least the possibility of a man more interested in bettering his country than fighting pointless wars only to die like a fool.

Or, for the good of Angevin England and France, he could die young.

That leaves either John, who we know proved...less than successful (whether or not he was the Cruel & Wicked Prince of Robin Hood, he was certainly not a king who left England stronger), Geoffrey, or Henry the Young King.

Or their kids.

On the issue of him being only interested in war: And there's no possibility of any of those wars being you know, good for England? He's just fighting for the sake of fighting and none of his wars have any purpose other than his ambition to please Ares (picked instead of Mars because Mars isn't a bloodthirsty son of a...)?

That seems a bit harsh.

 

[King Gorilla]

That leaves either John, who we know proved...less than successful (whether or not he was the Cruel & Wicked Prince of Robin Hood, he was certainly not a king who left England stronger), Geoffrey, or Henry the Young King.

To qoute the ever timeless, Lion in the Winter "No one ever thinks of the crown and mentions Geoffrey"

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Have him decide not to make enemies as some people make dandruff, not to squander British treasure and soldiers needlessly, consider providing for the succession through marriage and a child...


Let's not be too hard on John. He's the one who inherited a distinct lack of British manpower and treasure and many natural allies offended by Richard. Not to mention that whole thing about valiant Saxons forced to flee to the forests for killing the king's deer. John wasn't king when all that was going on...Richard was.

 

[Elfwine]

To qoute the ever timeless, Lion in the Winter "No one ever thinks of the crown and mentions Geoffrey"

There have been a few not very good timelines on the AH wiki (not our wiki, this one: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/History_1200-1250_(British_Brittany)) involving Geoffrey becoming king, but they seem to be on the sloppily written and researched end as a rule.

Pity, he seems less dysfunctional than his other brothers. Not sure that's because I know less of him or not, but its still my impression.

 

[Elfwine]

Have him decide not to make enemies as some people make dandruff, not to squander British treasure and soldiers needlessly, consider providing for the succession through marriage and a child...


Let's not be too hard on John. He's the one who inherited a distinct lack of British manpower and treasure and many natural allies offended by Richard. Not to mention that whole thing about valiant Saxons forced to flee to the forests for killing the king's deer. John wasn't king when all that was going on...Richard was.

This is true (looking at the part on John). But John's distinct lack of talent seems to have made the situation worse for the Angevins.

He might not have been John the Cruel Peasant Burdener (and my favorite version of the tale of Robin Hood only mentions him in passing when Richard returns from the Crusade as part of Richard restoring his authority - with Robin an outlaw from Henry II's time, at that), but he wasn't a man cut out to handle kingship.

That his brother OTL showed he wasn't either is why the challenge exists. Richard the Heroic is too cool a legend to not want to see if there's a way that the historical Richard could lead there to some extent, even if he's still a warrior king first and foremost.

 

[Kome]

On the issue of him being only interested in war: And there's no possibility of any of those wars being you know, good for England? He's just fighting for the sake of fighting and none of his wars have any purpose other than his ambition to please Ares (picked instead of Mars because Mars isn't a bloodthirsty son of a...)?

That seems a bit harsh.

Not for the good of England at the very least. Im not sure whether we should call him a blood knight, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, he was fighting for the good of his French possessions at most, and merely using England to help maintain his hold on them.

 

[Elfwine]

Not for the good of England at the very least. Im not sure whether we should call him a blood knight, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, he was fighting for the good of his French possessions at most, and merely using England to help maintain his hold on them.

This is why this challenge exists. Could Richard instead pursue wars that would be beneficial to England AND his French possessions?

Its not as if England being better off hurts Aquitaine.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

maybe richard eludes capture on his way back from the crusades?

It cost a crap load of cash to bail him out, and that cash could instead be used to make domestic imporvments of finance wars

 

[Turkey Braveheart]

That leaves either John, who we know proved...less than successful (whether or not he was the Cruel & Wicked Prince of Robin Hood, he was certainly not a king who left England stronger), Geoffrey, or Henry the Young King.

Or their kids.

On the issue of him being only interested in war: And there's no possibility of any of those wars being you know, good for England? He's just fighting for the sake of fighting and none of his wars have any purpose other than his ambition to please Ares (picked instead of Mars because Mars isn't a bloodthirsty son of a...)?

That seems a bit harsh.

Well, his Crusade was only nominally successful and his wars with Philip II were hamstrung by his expenditures in the holy land and his ransom. Still, if he had been a wiser man who didn't mock crossbowman he could have prevented the collapse of the Angevin kingdom. He was, at the very least, ten times the general John was.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, his Crusade was only nominally successful and his wars with Philip II were hamstrung by his expenditures in the holy land and his ransom. Still, if he had been a wiser man who didn't mock crossbowman he could have prevented the collapse of the Angevin kingdom. He was, at the very least, ten times the general John was.

Well, with a POD at the start of his reign, we could deal with those issues (the crusade, his wars with Philip). And Richard not mocking crossbowmen seems an easier POD than some of the (perfectly plausible) ones proposed here.

I mean, he has seen the crossbow in action, he does know its deadly. And an I Am Immortal complex in his late forties...

Well, maybe some of that is impossible to remove, but surely it could be diluted.

 

[Romanus696]

I think that he could be like Edward the II. Only thing he ever did right was make Edward the III and help with his baptism by fire. Basically my idea is this: he forgets about his dislike of women, fathers a couple of children, not piss off all of his barons, instead leads them to war against France, and manages to stay alive long enough for his sons to mature and pick up the slack for him. Also allows them to gain experience in diplomacy, warfare, and civil management. If said sons can be half as successful as Edward III, then I say Richard has done his duty as the warrior king (for someone whose priorities in life are in that order)

 

[Simon]

Well IIRC when he was selling everything that wasn't nailed down to fund his jaunt to the Holy Land he effectively annulled the Treaty of Falaise in return for a rather large payment from William I. Whilst not important immediately, although it did help secure England's northern flank, if would come in rather handy a century or so down the line or whenever there's a Scottish Interregnum by putting the English in a much stronger position. Hell, could we perhaps see a union of the crowns?

The man was not interested in organizing and administrating a nation. All he cared about was war and he only used England as his own person bank to finance his wars. I'd agree with the assessment I heard of him somewhere, cant remember where, that although he was a gallant knight and great soldier he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king.

Perhaps have him war with the French instead of the Ayyubids? Leave John to look after England and keep the money supply coming and go knock heads in France. It would probably help John's position if he wasn't seen as losing territory to the French and had Richard and a large army a short voyage away in case any of the Barons decided to get frisky.

Well, his Crusade was only nominally successful and his wars with Philip II were hamstrung by his expenditures in the holy land and his ransom. Still, if he had been a wiser man who didn't mock crossbowman he could have prevented the collapse of the Angevin kingdom. He was, at the very least, ten times the general John was.

Oho? I haven't heard about the crossbowmen bit before, but then I haven't really read up that much on the period, but could you expand on it a little? I'm guessing some boneheaded situation like his seeing them as common, unsporting, and unknightly so therefore doesn't utilise them effectively.

 

[Elfwine]

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon27.html

Specifically, a crossbow bolt.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

PODs permitted at any point after his ascension to the crown.

Edit: The challenge is for Richard to leave England better off after his death than at the time of his ascension to the crown. How this occurs is up to the responder.

Now where does this say anything about him being a good king? Why not make the sibling feud worthy of the Byzantines or an episode of Jerry Springer.

So, Richard eludes his captors, but to throw others off the trail accepts the suggestion of the person who protected in a harrowing attempt. Some fear that Richard was killed (it was a peasant who looked similar) and so rumor has it that Richard has died.

John takes voer the crown and begins taxing the people. He also orders the imprisonment of Eleanor and Arthur, who Richard learns of and frees ina tense battle. (If you feelt he need ou can have 1-2 of them die, too) John is disliked becasue of his imprisoning such young folk by some,a nd because of his taxing by some.

Richard shows up and he demands the crown back. John has won enough nobles to his side that a bloody fight ensues. John is killed, Richard badly wounded. However, he lives long enough to mold Arthur and marry him to Isabella of Scotland. The two had children,a nd whent he rest of the Scottish line dies out, there is a clear English claim on the Scottish throne; some might claim independence but it should hopefully go easier than OTL.

(Note - I almost had it 100 years too early for the Scots, where a 3rd son of the king was going to marry Eleanor, who would then be queen, and a union formed, but alas, that was the early 1100s, not early 1200s)