Aah gotcha. I thought it would be some bias against them in favour of say longbows, not simply being a too brave arse and getting shot by one.
AHC: Richard the Lionhearted, the Great King
- Thread starter Elfwine
- Start date
Richard isn't being given his due here: his reputation for bravery was legitimately earned, and he was a first rate field commander who defeated a formidable opponent (Saladin) with greater resources more than once and who had an excellent eye for fortifications. And while he didn't get on with other rulers (and made some unnecessary enemies), he could inspire his own men to follow him to the ends of the earth.
[A good source is this book: http://www.amazon.com/Richard-John-...d=1350024490&sr=1-1&keywords=richard+and+john]
What's needed is to have Richard direct his energies at an enemy closer to home, and the one that makes the most sense is Philip Augustus of France.
Comments ruing Richard's failure to produce a son or to manage non-military affairs of state, while legitimate, really belong on a different thread -- one where someone other than Richard succeeds. If Richard is to be king, he's going to spend his life on campaign, and the only way to improve the end result is to have him do so where it does England the most good.
[A good source is this book: http://www.amazon.com/Richard-John-...d=1350024490&sr=1-1&keywords=richard+and+john]
What's needed is to have Richard direct his energies at an enemy closer to home, and the one that makes the most sense is Philip Augustus of France.
Comments ruing Richard's failure to produce a son or to manage non-military affairs of state, while legitimate, really belong on a different thread -- one where someone other than Richard succeeds. If Richard is to be king, he's going to spend his life on campaign, and the only way to improve the end result is to have him do so where it does England the most good.
Richard's due as a general is not the problem, the fact that he wasn't as good a king as he was a general is the problem, so his deserved credit for the former is irrelevant to our discussion.
Because there's no way Richard can do anything other than the kind of things he did OTL?
Romanus: Most homosexuals don't sire bastards.
Or have a reputation in their day as lustful pursuers of women.
Maybe he swung both ways?
Edward II had a reputation as being a homosexual, but he had at least one illegitimate son too.
Edward II had a reputation as being a homosexual, but he had at least one illegitimate son too.
Maybe, but at least in Edward's case, I suspect propaganda.
Richard, I dunno - but he certainly seems to have been unconcerned with siring an heir.
He married in 1191, so he should have had plenty of time to sire a pack of kids.
POD#1: John Lackland dies during his father's latter days.
Richard has one clear heir, Arthur. There is no risk of civil war or of Arthur allying with the French. Richard spends less resources fighting internal and external enemies in Europe, meaning he has to tax his realms significantly less to go on Crusade.
Returning from Crusade, he either
- Gets captured, but there is less of a hurry to return home as there is no John to worry about
- Doesn't get captured.
Richard has one clear heir, Arthur. There is no risk of civil war or of Arthur allying with the French. Richard spends less resources fighting internal and external enemies in Europe, meaning he has to tax his realms significantly less to go on Crusade.
Returning from Crusade, he either
- Gets captured, but there is less of a hurry to return home as there is no John to worry about
- Doesn't get captured.
And he was rather notorious for kidnapping women to keep him company during his days as Duke of Aquitaine. Richard seems to have been an 'anything that moves' sort of guy.
Now, regarding him being seen as a Great King--I'll be honest, keeping the Angevin Empire together was a great deal like trying to hold onto a very large clump of sand. It's worth noting that Henry II, Richard I, and John all died in fighting rebellions against them. Once you can chalk up to chance, but three monarchs in a row suggests deep structural problems. Any monarch is going to batter his head against the impossible demands of having to keep together something that really can't be kept together.
Now, regarding him being seen as a Great King--I'll be honest, keeping the Angevin Empire together was a great deal like trying to hold onto a very large clump of sand. It's worth noting that Henry II, Richard I, and John all died in fighting rebellions against them. Once you can chalk up to chance, but three monarchs in a row suggests deep structural problems. Any monarch is going to batter his head against the impossible demands of having to keep together something that really can't be kept together.
John died of disease if I'm not mistaken, Henry I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why it can't be kept together exactly. I'm not saying that would be easy, but given that Richard is ruling several separate (Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, Poitou and England) domains - problems in one are not necessarily problems for him elsewhere.
One thing to do is to have Saladin die much earlier than OTL, robbing the Muslim forces of the man who led them so well and was able to unite the various forces that made their army up. Without such a man, Jerusalem might not fall which means the Crusade isn't called up. This allows Richard to remain in Europe while shoring up the Angevin possessions in France.
But how does that make him a better king?
As stated in the original post:
What happens in Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, etc. is secondary except to the extent to which it furthers Richard leaving England better off - richer, more powerful, whatever - than it was in 1199 OTL.
Although no crusade probably means no enormous ransom.
Yes. DURING a rebellion. Same thing with dear old dad--and in that case, the rebel was Richard.
Because the "Empire" isn't so much a polity as it is a huge chunk of domains that happen to share a single ruler--and in quite a few of those, he happens to be another ruler's subject. That gives said other ruler both the motive and the means to cause problems. And as we all know, they didn't fail to do so.
Well, except for the fact that problems in one part DO encourage problems in other parts.
It's not that Richard will inevitably fail to deal with the problems--it's that he inevitably will have to deal with said problems, and likely run himself ragged doing so. The longer the Angevins hold onto their continental empire, the less time and ability they have to take care of things in England.
My point is, John didn't die because of a rebellion. And that there would be rebellions in 1187, 1199, and 1216 is less dramatic sounding than "three successive kings'.
True enough.
Why? Why are the subjects of the Duke of Normandy going to object to their duke because of the policies of the Duke of Aquitaine just because Richard wears both hats?
This is true. Especially Aquitaine, which is a huge domain (and full of rebellious vassals).
Mmmm. Not sure if I agree on that. Much like his father, the combination of mental and physical exhaustion seems to have played a big part in killing him. And in John's case, he probably picked up dysentery as a result of campaigning.
Not that this is QUITE the point I was reaching for...
If those were the ONLY rebellions they'd faced maybe, but they weren't--they were simply the rebellions that were going on when those kings died. Which is my point--these things are symptomatic of a larger problem.
The Normandy vassals may not give a damn about the policies of the Duke of Aquitaine--but if they know he's distracted dealing with an uprising there, it's definitely an opportunity to deal with their objections to the policies of the Duke of Normandy. There's a definite tendency for these things to snowball.
Possibly.
For discussion's sake, I'll cede the point, as there's no way to prove that his dysentery was caused by campaigning - as in, if he'd been say, hunting, he wouldn't have had it.
And bringing up a quibble like that would just be obnoxious to boot.
Sufficient to say, the Angevins had a pile of problems to sort through, their kin included.
Which is where I'm hoping you have something more to add here (because your opinion and insight are much appreciated).
Sure. But that applies if and only if the Duke of Normandy's policies are objectionable at that time.
Otherwise, we would wind up with an argument that ruling France - for instance - was impossible, despite the fact OTL indicates that's not true (although I'm 90% certain you'll point out it was harder than we're usually lead to believe, or something like that).
Ruling France was usually quite difficult.
Ruling roughly half of France, as a French vassal--actually technically as several French vassals--while being a king in your own right in another country was even more difficult. John is said to have summed the matter up with a bit of Biblical paraphrasing, noting 'No man can serve two masters'. Much as we all love the Big Pink Blob on the map, its big political accomplishment was to give the Capets a never-ending supply of disgruntled stooges to cause problems for their rival.
(Though, of course, the Angevins made it all so much easier. John: "I'm facing a lot of political resistance to my plans right now. So it's clear what I must do. Kidnap another man's 12-year old fiancee--AND MARRY HER! BRILLIANT!!!")
Last edited:
Yeah. I think the northern half (Anjou-Normandy-Brittany) OR Aquitaine largely untrimmed (OTL does see it shrink so it doesn't count) would be manageable - plenty of work, but not beyond an active, but not both together. Not with England and its issues as well.
Even if we look at Henry's reign as largely successful except for his sons, he had to be extremely active to do that - and he was a far better king than John, Richard, or the average bear.
Agreed on John. What the hell was he thinking there?
John may not have been as horrible as sometimes painted, but his political judgment left a lot to be desired.