Not Good King Richard

Berengaria of Navarre dies prematurely. Richard either marries the princess of Cyprus or Isabella of Jerusalem, hanging around a while longer in the East and leaving England to the wolves.

If he does finally return, he does so by way of the Holy Roman Empire, replicating his historical capture and ransom. When he returns, he brutally executes John and Arthur or repeatedly loses to them and King Philip's forces.
 
Bee said:
The criticism launched at Richard, at the top of this thread and elsewhere, is that he went on Crusade in the first place and gouged England to do it. The first is true of all the kings who went to the Holy Land on any of the crusades (Sigurd I of Norway, Louis VII and IX and Philip II of France, HRE Conrad III, Frederick I and II of Germany and Andrew II of Hungary are others I can think of), and I haven't see them being subjected to the same criticism as Richard. Did they raise their funds in a less extortionate way so as to distinguish their methods from his?
The only one I can talk about is Philip II Augustus of France who raised the Dîme Saladine, which was basically a tax to finance the crusade. That said, given that Philip left the crusade early, I don't think it costed much to the French people. It does seem to me though that Philip was criticized because he spent the money of the Dîme Saladine elsewhere.

That said, the crusade is barely a footnote in Philip Augustus' life: he lived up until 1223 and he used his time as King to reinforce royal power, destroy the Plantagenêts' power in France and conquer much of their possession (he conquered Anjou, Normandy and Poitou as well as a good deal of Aquitaine) and scored a big victory at Bouvines in 1214 against Emperor Otto IV. Those events completely overshadow the rest of his reign (including his early difficulties and the war against Richard) and that's why he is seen as the first of three Great Capetian Kings (the other two being St. Louis IX and Philip IV the Fair).
 
Top