Is there a more overrated King than Richard the Lionheart?
In fact I'll go a step further, he was a bad king.
>calling a homosexual bad at something
Enjoy doing community service for hate speech
He made Salahuddin al Ayyubi his bitch
>>1230007
He was a "great king" because he failed to retake the holy lands. I like people who don't fail to take the holy lands.
>>1230041
>Saladin walked all over him
Lionheart won pretty much every battle of note.
>>1230046
And yet he failed to take Jerusalem, the actual goal of the crusades, when it was well within his grasp.
John III Sobieski
>score two very impressive victories
>fuck up everything
>try to capture Moldavia for your son, fail
>try to gain some territories off Turks, fail
>put all power into your Pac buttbuddies
>fuck up political system beyond repair
>don't even get your son elected
>>1230007
Nobody rates him too highly as a king in terms of duties, he's rated high simply because he's fascinating.
>>1230051
>he failed
He didn't try. He was a better military commander than Salahuddin by a large margin.
He fought in the fucking front line, which king does that? He was one of the greatest Christian fighters.
>>1230051
He didn't "fail", he never tried because he didn't have enough men to attempt to. Richard did make Saladin his bitch with less men every time they fought though. At Jaffa he rode out in front of Saladin's troops and they were too afraid to move.
>>1230053
He was the last decent commonwealth ruler. The Saxon kings were far worse after him.
>>1230060
>He fought in the fucking front line, which king does that? He was one of the greatest Christian fighters
A lot of kings in the 12th century did that. He was a great fighter, he deserves the name Lionheart, but he was not a good king, he was a bad king who spend the majority of his reign far away, and bleeding his country dry of money. John, his brother and successor, is seen as a bad king yet the truth of it is he had to clean up Richards mess. Richard got captured and held ransom by the HRE to the sum £65,000, the average Englishman had to pay 1/4 of his yearly income just to get the king back.
Anyway, a good crusader doesnt mean a good king.
>>1230007
>ayy sorry I thought you guys were arabs
![uwi3K[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fdvZFDZ.jpg "uwi3K[1].jpg")
>>1230083
>He was a great fighter but he was not a good king
>bleeding his country dry of money
Richard the Lionheart was literally Robert Baratheon.
>>1230037
>He made Salahuddin al Ayyubi his bitch
Even if true, who gives a shit? He was king of England. How is that good for England? His responsibility was the wellbeing of his subjects, not playing soldier a 6 month journey away.
>>1230166
And John was Stannis.
>>1230170
>Come home
>die
>>1230170
He was only ever in England for something like 4 months of his life.
He fucked his mom
>>1230182
Actually he was born and raised in England
>>1230007
Yes.
>>1230053
>fat
>hated Muslims
>loved guns
>patriotic
Was he the prototypical American?
>>1230210
I meant his reign
He was a pretty cool guy, he just didn't give a flying fuck about England, and desu why would he.
Richard the Lionheart is pretty overrated, but overall he wasn't too bad of a king. Even though he was absent for a lot of it he generally left competent officials in charge of the Kingdom, it was his brother John who tried to meddle with them however that made things weird.
Though he didn't win Jerusalem he managed to preserve SOME Christian principalities in the Levant.
His worst crime was not having a son.
>>1230210
Born in England, raised by his Mom in Poiters which he preferred
>>1230175
Nah, John was more like Ramsay, he really liked to torture religious officials and noblewomen
I liked how he offered his sisters hand in marriage to Saladins brother. And history since have debated if the royal marriage proposal of England and the Arabs was done as a joke. And if Saladin agreed as a joke too.
>>1230051
>secure pilgrimage rights to Jerusalem, one of the main reasons for even being there
>can go home and muslims are appeased
It's called a treaty, it's mutual. He never even tried for Jerusalem
>>1233529
Doesnt matter, the goal was to capture Jerusalem and he failed.
>>1233126
>Even though he was absent for a lot of it he generally left competent officials in charge of the Kingdom
All established by his father, so no thanks to Richard. Inheriting a good infrastructure does not a good king make.
>>1233538
His goal changed and he satisfied what he went out to do. Deeming him a failure just sounds like irrational and contrived butthurt
>>1233538
>the goal was to capture Jerusalem and he failed.
According to who, you? The religiously motivated goal of the crusaders was to open pilgrimage to Jerusalem again. He accomplished this and left.
>>1230060
>He fought in the fucking front line, which king does that?
One who cares more about personal glory than the wellbeing of the realm. Or even winning, for that matter. "Who cares if they're fucked without me, I'll be dead anyway." Asshole.
>>1233545
Not completely true, he specifically replaced several unpopular chancellors to be in charge while John who he had wanted to help in England ran away to France. He also maintained forest laws, appointed several bishops and sheriffs himself, and made peace with the Welsh and the Scots while making sure there were troops ready in France and a navy being built in Portsmouth so that the Kingdom would be safe while he was Crusading.
Overall he marginally improved the administration of his father and preserved the Plantagenet Empire while not even being in the country, something John couldn't accomplish.
>>1230007
Shitty king, fantastic military commander and soldier.
>>1230041
>No he didn't, Saladin walked all over him. Regardless his crusading is the primary reason he was a shit king.
Richard beat Saladin in every single engagement. Richard didn't take Jerusalem (even though he could have, and Saladin was begging his generals not to flee from the city) because he knew that he would not have been able to hold it against the Saracens for long. Most Crusaders would just return home after reaching Jerusalem.
>>1230182
How did he manage to rule? Was it all handed off to someone else?
>>1233674
Not sure. But this was back in the days of feudalism, so the local lords were the ones who micromanaged things.
>>1233674
People move around and do things, he appointed people to control things, which was how things were usually in the Kingdom already, and he did a lot of appointing and signing in those four months, he probably thought of it all before then too.
When Richard was away on the crusades though here's what he set out: John was to get his little estates and be sort of the representative for the crown and give his word in, but officials like William Longchamp, who was replaced by Walter of Coutances, an Archbishop, and Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury were the ones that he had actually look after the kingdom as Chancellors. They were all quite effective in what they did, though they quarreled with John who had a habit of not being good at representing the crown and controlling Ireland (which was also one of his jobs)
>>1233507
it was to win some time. Saladin knew that so he accepted to produce butthurt.
>>1230170
>He was king of England. How is that good for England? His responsibility was the wellbeing of his subjects
No it fucking wasn't. When will this meme end? The king has not this responsability. He has responsabilities, but those are mostly based around respecting the law of the kingdom. Richard had no responsability to give a single fuck about England save because it's intelligent to care about what gives you profit.
>>1233785
The laws, legitimacy and religion. Keep in mind that in Richard's case his brother the Prince was over there who though he probably would have just run away or have been paid off, would have been firmly against it. Also consider that there are lots of loyalties at work in the feudal society (I struggle to say state, because I don't want to create too much of a link between the monarchies of the 12th and 13th centuries and say the United States Government.) and some guy claiming to be King of England without any lineage from previous Kings or the support of the many lords and church men bound to the actual King by ecclesiastic and legal contract.
Also these regent figures would rarely WANT to be King, since that puts a big target on ones back as opposed to the free payroll and power you get by being a regent. Notice in history with figures like Richard III and whatnot what happens when a Regent styles themselves as the one legitimate King.
>>1233126
>coolest King of England
>doesn't give two fucks about Englel, prefers France
CAN'T FABRICATE THIS
>>1233927
>ALL OF THIS can't beat France
>>1234530
England was cold and wet and relatively peaceful because of his dad, France was where all the cool wars and nobles were at for him to fight in.
>>1234530
Henry V died which meant England was run by less than competent regents who didn't know how to deal with France, and also this was about the time Charles was going heavier on the reforms and Joan of Arc was really riling people up.
>>1234562
(You)ing me twice
Thanks anon, I-I love you too
>>1230007
>he was a bad king.
Agreed.
Even John Lackland was better, than this fucker.
>>1234569
(You) did the same thing for me, had to return the favor, plus I like talking about this since this period is one of my favorites.
>>1234571
Generally Richard put measures in place to improve the administration and protect the empire of his father, Lackland managed to do the opposite while being given a generally better hand than his brother.
>>1234616
Well it was Lackland, who was forced into signing Magna Charta, and that's all that matters for me. Without, we wouldn't be living in modern parliamentary democracies right now.
