Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 9 years ago

Do you think Richard the Lionheart was a good ruler?

I'm doing a research topic at the moment and i just need a few opinions to help me. ANY INFORMATION WILL BE AMAZING!

1. Do you think he was a good ruler?

2. How did he excercise power though the Crusades

3. How did he gain power. eg. Was it easy, was it though his family or the support of the people

4. How was his power effective or not effective

5. How did he maintain power.

Any extra infomation to help argue the "NATURE OF POWER" of Richard would be so helpful. As well as primary, secondary and ancient sources that may prove argument.

Thankyou - there is not much information on Richard!!!

4 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The reputation of Richard has fluctuated wildly. The Victorians were divided. Many of them admired him as a crusader and man of God, erecting an heroic statue to him outside the Houses of Parliament; but on the other hand, thought him ‘a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man’. Though born in Oxford, he spoke no English. During his ten years' reign, he was in England for no more than six months, and was totally absent for the last five years.

    Richard's contemporaneous image was that of a king who was also a knight, and that was apparently the first such instance of this combination. He was known as a valiant and competent military leader and individual fighter: courageous and generous. That reputation has come down through the ages and defines the popular image of Richard. He left an indelible imprint on the imagination extending to the present, in large part because of his military exploits. This is reflected in Steven Runciman's final verdict of Richard I: "he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier."("History of the Crusades" Vol. III) meanwhile, Muslim writers during the Crusades period and after wrote of him: 'Never have we had to face a bolder or more subtle opponent.'

    During his life, he was criticized by chroniclers (and the clergy) for having taxed the clergy both for the Crusade and for his ransom, whereas the church and the clergy were usually exempt from taxes.

    Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. As a result, he was succeeded by his brother John as King of England. However, his French territories initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur of Brittany, the son of their late brother Geoffrey, whose claim is by modern standards better than John's. Significantly, the lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire. While Kings of England continued to press claims to properties on the continent, they would never again command the territories Richard I inherited.

    His significance was not his participation in the Crusades but the amount of money he invested in it. Furthermore, how he left King John in Charge of England.

    These two actions led to the revolt of the Barons and thus the signing of the Magna Carta

    Magna Carta was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Nope Richard was a crappy king to say the least. He did nothing great for his country except spend most of his reign fighting in the crusades. He was a military man as a the 3rd son he was not expected to be king,but his elder 2 brother died leaving the way open for him He treated Britain as a source of income for his army. HE almost bled the country dry. His is idealized as a great king when in actual fact the country was left to be run by other. He was eventually killed when an arrow was shot in the left shoulder near the neck. He died in the arms of his mother and His youngest brother became King John.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Lomax
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Long subject. Short answer.

    1) Compared to his brother John, yes. Not one of England's all-time greats, but better than most.

    2) Not at all. He was distracted from the porcess of ruling through his desire to go on crusade.

    3) He and his brothers were continually in a state of rebellion against their father and each other (with the French King frequently stirring things up). However, two of his brothers pre-deceased him; and when his father died, there was no barrier between him and the exercise of power.

    4) In England, very effective. In his French possessions less so.

    5) In England there was no threat to his power (he was king of england for ten years, but spent less than six months of this time actually in England - but he did make sure that some pretty competent men looked after things for him). In France he was engaged in a long series of petty wars and rebellions. Generally, he won. Unlike his brother, who generally lost.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    As a political chief, Richard I of england became a foul king, in terms of what he did. He spent little or no time in England and England could could desire to pay very lots of money to ransom him after the 0.33 marketing campaign, and while he died, he died no longer in England yet in Aquitaine (now element of France, yet ruled by employing the Plantagenet kin then). His taxes have been probable each and each bit as no longer undemanding as John's have been as regent and while John grew to become King. besides the fact that, whilst his polices weren't all that great, Richard i became truthfully fairly the in a position flesh presser. He became in a position to sell his rules nicely to the British human beings and he knew the thank you to apply his protection rigidity successes to assist him. So whilst he had undesirable rules, the British human beings by no ability quite rebelled against him. The thoughts of Robin Hood have been in many cases directed against John and the Barons of england could insurrection against John after Richard died. yet, John became in England greater and became probable a greater suitable administrator then his brother became, yet Richard became a greater suitable salesman and the English human beings observed him. That and the reality that on the grounds that he became no longer in England, the community barons had to take greater advantageous authority for themselves to run the rustic, which they have been fairly keen to take... and this freedom could finally enable Britain's constitutional monarchy to enhance, and by employing extension, usa's federal device. Richard probable became a foul chief politically talking, yet his device could finally carry approximately the creation of the main helpful forms of governing on earth... no longer that Richard meant this... His death in Aquitaine became the effect of community lords there refusing to stick to his instructions.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.