AHC: Richard the Lionhearted, the Great King

[Bee]

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.]

Irrelevant only if he isn't a war leader at all, which is unlikely. Almost all European kings of Richard's era led their armies in person some of the time, including all the English kings from William I to Richard.

From the viewpoint of the 21st century, we can say that his energies would have been better spent on campaigning somewhere other than the Holy Land. People of the late 1100s, however, thought crusading was the highest cause possible, the kingdom of Jerusalem would have been in dire shape without Richard's intervention and none of the other crusading kings seem to get the same amount of criticism for crusading as Richard does. Plausible tweaks which affect England that could have happened in the Holy Land: (i) Richard doesn't make an unnecessary enemy of Leopold V of Austria; (ii) Richard and Philip leave together.

Because there's no way Richard can do anything other than the kind of things he did OTL?

Not sure what you're suggesting. I can't see Richard having a peaceful reign, if that's what you mean. No way he would have accepted French encroachments in Normandy or Acquitaine. If Philip kept the peace, I can imagine Richard campaigning in Scotland, Ireland or Wales instead.

 

[kasumigenx]

He could marry Eleanor of Brittany to Eudes of Burgundy starting an Angevin-Burgundian alliance.

 

[eliphas8]

He could marry Eleanor of Brittany to Eudes of Burgundy starting an Angevin-Burgundian alliance.

Angevin Burgundy alliances will only result in yet more costly wars that benefit england little and benefit Europe a lot, course it atleast has the interesing effects of most likely resulting in a Burgundian line taking over france.

 

[Elfwine]

Irrelevant only if he isn't a war leader at all, which is unlikely. Almost all European kings of Richard's era led their armies in person some of the time, including all the English kings from William I to Richard.

From the viewpoint of the 21st century, we can say that his energies would have been better spent on campaigning somewhere other than the Holy Land. People of the late 1100s, however, thought crusading was the highest cause possible, the kingdom of Jerusalem would have been in dire shape without Richard's intervention and none of the other crusading kings seem to get the same amount of criticism for crusading as Richard does. Plausible tweaks which affect England that could have happened in the Holy Land: (i) Richard doesn't make an unnecessary enemy of Leopold V of Austria; (ii) Richard and Philip leave together.

No, irrelevant because Richard being a good war leader has nothing to do with him not being good at being a king in the respects a king is not just a war leader. From the standpoint of any century, we can say that Richard did not spend very much time trying to be king even allowing for going on crusade.

None of the other crusading kings (that I can think of) were so willing to ignore their kingdom for the sake of crusading - Louis IX included.

Not sure what you're suggesting. I can't see Richard having a peaceful reign, if that's what you mean. No way he would have accepted French encroachments in Normandy or Acquitaine. If Philip kept the peace, I can imagine Richard campaigning in Scotland, Ireland or Wales instead.

Just that - that there's no way (according to what you seem to be saying) Richard will be able to be on campaign AND handle kingly duties aside from that (Edward I as an example, anyone?), that Richard will inevitably be all war, all the time.

 

[DAv]

The major problem here is that Richard ssaw himself as belonging to his French dominions first and England second. You'll need to change that attitude somewhat in order for him to give due emphasis to England.

 

[Space Oddity]

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.

Thing is people REALLY underestimate those rebellions. Henry died sad and alone in a monastery, cursing his entire family and most of his realm.

Agreed on John. What the hell was he thinking there?

He wasn't. At least, not with the head on his shoulders.

Still, every later King of England is descended from that marriage--as well, as a good chunk of the world. Including, in all likelihood, you and I.

Cheerful thought, isn't it?

 

[Elfwine]

Thing is people REALLY underestimate those rebellions. Henry died sad and alone in a monastery, cursing his entire family and most of his realm.

Not something one would expect of a king whose reign was by and large productive.

He wasn't. At least, not with the head on his shoulders.

Still, every later King of England is descended from that marriage--as well, as a good chunk of the world. Including, in all likelihood, you and I.

Cheerful thought, isn't it?

Makes one wonder what would have happened if John was thinking with the other head. So many butterflies even if he makes all the same decisions in every other field.


DAv: For purposes of the challenge, even thinking of England second doesn't necessarily mean he can't fulfill it - he just has to leave England better off than at the start of his reign, even if his primary focus is elsewhere.

It's not as if his father spent a lot of time on England exclusively, for instance.

 

[Velasco]

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.

You do realize that Isabella of Angoulême was also a pretty rich heiress in her own right? Angoulême was far from being some insignificant, obscure fief on the fringe of the Angevin Empire. Attraction may have played a part, but the marriage could well have been primarily politically-driven with a view to depriving the Lusignans of Angoulême.

 

[Velasco]

The major problem here is that Richard ssaw himself as belonging to his French dominions first and England second. You'll need to change that attitude somewhat in order for him to give due emphasis to England.

I believe Richard saw himself first and foremost as Poitevin - neither French nor English, Norman or Angevin. He was entirely focused on his southernmost domains, the rest was just...the rest.

 

[Nytram01]

Just that - that there's no way (according to what you seem to be saying) Richard will be able to be on campaign AND handle kingly duties aside from that (Edward I as an example, anyone?), that Richard will inevitably be all war, all the time.

Interestingly enough I once suggested an ASB scenario where the Lionheart and Longshanks were swapped around, and asked how the two Kings would handle the challenges the other faced. It didn't get many responses sadly.

 

[Elfwine]

You do realize that Isabella of Angoulême was also a pretty rich heiress in her own right? Angoulême was far from being some insignificant, obscure fief on the fringe of the Angevin Empire. Attraction may have played a part, but the marriage could well have been primarily politically-driven with a view to depriving the Lusignans of Angoulême.

Except that if it was politically driven - and thus a matter of weighing the costs and benefits, one would think John would have paid attention to the consequences instead of . . . not.

Certainly Angoulême is not a bad prize, but provoking more political troubles is a poor exchange.

 

[Velasco]

Except that if it was politically driven - and thus a matter of weighing the costs and benefits, one would think John would have paid attention to the consequences instead of . . . not.

Certainly Angoulême is not a bad prize, but provoking more political troubles is a poor exchange.

True. Perhaps he underestimated the power and/or tenacity of the Lusignans?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Every time this comes I up I have to mention the Lord Darcy stories by Randall Garrett, which are set in the 20th century in a TL whose PoD is this. OK, so it leads to magic and thus is ASB, but they're still good reads.

 

[Elfwine]

Every time this comes I up I have to mention the Lord Darcy stories by Randall Garrett, which are set in the 20th century in a TL whose PoD is this. OK, so it leads to magic and thus is ASB, but they're still good reads.

How do they relate to this, in regards to what is done differently?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

How do they relate to this, in regards to what is done differently?

It's kind of mentioned in passing, but the idea is the crossbow bolt makes him say 'Ooo.. I am mortal' and he settles down and becomes a good ruler, devoting his life to ruling properly. A little handwavium, actually...

 

[Flubber]

It's kind of mentioned in passing, but the idea is the crossbow bolt makes him say 'Ooo.. I am mortal' and he settles down and becomes a good ruler, devoting his life to ruling properly. A little handwavium, actually...

That's basically it with the addition of Richard taking his nephew Arthur under his wing and preparing him to reign. When Richard dies, Arthur goes on to rule so successfully that centuries later this "historical" King Arthur is often confused with the legendary King Arthur.

 

[Space Oddity]

True. Perhaps he underestimated the power and/or tenacity of the Lusignans?

The Lusignans?

The big problem was Philip. John handed the King of France a weapon to launch an attack on him, and Philip used it. Very well.

 

[DAv]

I believe Richard saw himself first and foremost as Poitevin - neither French nor English, Norman or Angevin. He was entirely focused on his southernmost domains, the rest was just...the rest.

Amusingly enough, that made Richard more popular than John in one way as the Barons became used under his reign and Henry's of a King who was absent and really didn't mess with their affairs. Once John was left with England, having a King on their doorstep made them realise that their ability to keep to themselves would be hampered.