Why is Richard Lionheart so adored in Britain?

[Korgeta]

Your right with Napoleon After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost along with military disasters in russia and egypt. Like Richard he helped self destroy an empire (Richard bankrupted the Angevian empire his father made) yet they managed to make themselves popular with military actions and that lead to victory and whitewash of any atrocities, that is the point am making.

Had the crusades never occurred then Richard would had been a standard king who brutally put down civil unrest during 1179 and 1181-1182.

[Thanas]

Your right with Napoleon After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost along with military disasters in russia and egypt. Like Richard he helped self destroy an empire (Richard bankrupted the Angevian empire his father made) yet they managed to make themselves popular with military actions and that lead to victory and whitewash of any atrocities, that is the point am making.

You are wrong with Napoleon, or you know next to nothing about his accomplishments. The Code civil alone is a momentous achievement, which Europe owes a lot to even today. Same with the development of roads, the centralization of France, the French political system of today etc...all positive changes which profit the whole of Europe even today. Richard I on the other hand has only the military exploits and they are far from as glorious as those of Napoleon.

[Korgeta]

I know a lot about Napoleon's achievements: unification of the german states for one but I also don't choose to whitewhash some of his dirter work, you questioned why richard was so adored in britain (which is not entirely true as he isn't) whilst adding the negativity of his legacy such as his backstabbing and atrocities. Napoleon is no different, a military genius yes but a tyrant also much like Richard except your whitewashing Napoleon. For example the Napoleonic Code works in favour of the prosecution where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. (and as Napoleon was emporer, one isn't surprised at this rather clever stint to surpress opposition.)

[Thanas]

I know a lot about Napoleon's achievements: unification of the german states for one

Apparently you do not because none of that happened.

but I also don't choose to whitewhash some of his dirter work, you questioned why richard was so adored in britain (which is not entirely true as he isn't) whilst adding the negativity of his legacy such as his backstabbing and atrocities. Napoleon is no different, a military genius yes but a tyrant also much like Richard except your whitewashing Napoleon. For example the Napoleonic Code works in favour of the prosecution where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. (and as Napoleon was emporer, one isn't surprised at this rather clever stint to surpress opposition.)

Unlike Richard, Napoleon's action are a mixed bag of net-negative good and net-negative evil. And besides, you once more are incorrect about the extent of Napoleon's activities, as the Code d'instruction criminelle was not part of the Napoleonic code I mentioned above. Besides, it still was a massive improvement over the previous systems.

[Metahive]

I know a lot about Napoleon's achievements: unification of the german states for one[...]

That isn't quite true. What he did was dissolving several of the tiny german "duodez" microstates in favor of creating larger entities that were easier to keep track of and control. Speaking of unification in this context is rather grossly inappropriate. Even if you count the quasi-unified and fueled by nationalistic fervor german block during the "Befreiungskriege" 1814, that only held as long until Napoleon was beaten and afterwards the Holy Alliance of Prussia, Russia and Austria took care to suppress the idea of national unification rather vigorously.

For better or worse, Napoleon did actually manage to leave something impressive behind, whereas Richard the Lionheart has not much to show for besides slaughtering people in the Middle East and getting himself captured on the way home. I think Richard's reputation nowadays owes a lot to Sir Walter Scott who was among the first, as far as I know, to present Richard in a stark contrast, as an archetypical just white knight in shining armor to his little brother, the wildly disliked and unpopular John Lackland, who was in return made into an archetypical scheming and fratricidal tyrant.

[Elfdart]

To be fair, Richard didn't enact any real reforms because thanks to his father Henry II, he didn't need to. Henry left behind a fairly well-run government (which his sons squandered) that functioned well enough without the king having to be everywhere at once AND without giving more power to the barons (in fact, he restricted the powers of his nobles) but because he locked up his wife and had Thomas Beckett killed, he gets a worse reputation than some real monsters.

[ronindave]

Was he adored at the time might be a better question. Was this adoration and hero worship a product of his time or later? With the barons of England I think they loved Richard over his brother John because when Richard was King of England he was almost never there during his 10 year reign so they could pretty much do as they want. King John on the other hand was more "Johnny-on-the-spot" and was more administrative minded then his brother who once remarked he would have sold the whole of England if he could have found a buyer (some king!)

The guy never even tried to speak English as it was spoken then whereas his father and brother did. He was practically French through and through.

[Iroscato]

He is probably admired for two different reasons:
1) Leaders often are far more popular in times of war, as they become a focal point for patriots and warmongers in the country (think of Churchill during WW2, or *spit* George Bush in the early days of the Iraq invasion). By starting the crusades and saying it was to protect the Holy Land, he became inspirational to some people and clearly this admiration has at least partially survived to this day. Speaking as a Brit, I've never noticed a particular warmth towards Richard in my country, although he is one of the best known kings to have ruled Britain.
2) Also, people also simply get nostalgic about times past. There is some underlying psychological mechanism to this, but I can't be bothered to quote. Think of your grandfather/grandmother talking about 'the good old days', days that were filled with cholera, war and death.
Strange how the mind works, and how history establishes itself.

[ronindave]

I've never noticed a particular warmth towards Richard in my country, although he is one of the best known kings to have ruled Britain.

Because of Hollywood and the Robin Hood films (all of them) I think most Americans see him as a hero king. We have little reason to think otherwise. It's interesting you say there is no particular warmth for him in Britain. Is his brother still seen as a bad king and villain? I think his brother wasn't as bad of a king as history and legend make him out to be. The loss of Normandy was inevitable and in the end a boon for English identity

[Iroscato]

I'm not too clued up on medieval history, so I'm not too sure how history favours his brother
Are you English ronin?

[ronindave]

American but you know much of historical perspective kind wanders around that area particularly Robin Hood and the Magna Carta. Because of Robin Hood and to seem degree Ivanhoe, John is the evil prince that gets driven off by his heroic brother Richard. Makes me wonder if a many people don't realize that John eventually does become the King

[Iroscato]

Believe me when I say probably about 80% of Enland's history is romanticised bullshit
The Victorian era seemed to be the cause of most of it, for example they are mostly responsible for the idea that all Scottish people wear kilts and have tartan colours. It's bs lol.

As for Robin Hood, we're not even sure he existed, and if he did he was probably an evil rotten murdering bastard, like Henry VII, and countless other kings. It does wind me up sometimes how confused and muddled history gets...

[ronindave]

No doubt. I for one used to swallow the pro-Norman crap that 1066 was the beginning of proper British history and that the Norman invasion was a good thing but in reality it led to nearly 2 centuries of a foreign occupation with a foreign-speaking ruling class that spurned the locals and built myriads of castles to control the populace.

[Thanas]

Which locals, really? The english army at hastings was composed largely of Normans and Danes as well, not to mention that there had also been widespread colonization of England.

[ronindave]

Uh, the locals who inhabited England? The Normans didn't build their castles to be romantic

[Thanas]

My point (which I admittedly did not phrase as succinct as I wanted to) was that the "locals" in England were to a large part themselves invaders, so speaking of a foreign occupation is not the term I would use.

[ronindave]

Invaders who had been there for centuries by then. And Celts had been the invaders before. We're all invaders to some extend anywhere. The difference was the Anglo-Saxon invasions and later Danish invasion of Northern England were whole peoples. The Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celts out and/or assimilated those who remained. The Normans only replaced the ruling class and their presence was one of a foreigner occupier hence all the castles they initially built in the years following 1066. Many of the lords had their original lands in Normandy and treated their newly acquired English land which they had little ties with as cashcows to milk.

[Thanas]

Invaders who had been there for centuries by then.

Or mere decades.

The Normans only replaced the ruling class and their presence was one of a foreigner occupier hence all the castles they initially built in the years following 1066. Many of the lords had their original lands in Normandy and treated their newly acquired English land which they had little ties with as cashcows to milk.

The same is true for the Danes who were given money by the crown. Really, I do not get what you have against the Normans, especially considering that the saxons were known for their brutality and mistreatment of people they deemed lesser themselves. I doubt it made much difference to the peasants wether they were exploited by the anglo-saxon landowners or by the normans.

[ronindave]

The same is true for the Danes who were given money by the crown. Really, I do not get what you have against the Normans, especially considering that the saxons were known for their brutality and mistreatment of people they deemed lesser themselves. I doubt it made much difference to the peasants wether they were exploited by the anglo-saxon landowners or by the normans.

You're compressing centuries like they were grapes. It don't work that way. The peasants were anglo-saxon or danish anglo-saxon mix or basically English by the time of the Normans. Previously their lords lived in close proximity to them and considered themselves to be one of them sharing pretty much the same language and culture. The Norman lords were aloof in the their castles which they built after several Norman lords were killed by the local populace. Those castles were not build to defend against other castle-owning lords. they were built to protect the Normans lords so they could administer the land. The Normans lords spoke a different language and had a different culture.

especially considering that the saxons were known for their brutality and mistreatment of people they deemed lesser themselves.

Really? You got some evidence to back that up other than a King Arthur novel? The English of 1066 were not the same as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes of the 4th and 5th centuries. I'm not saying they were like the Naavi of England just that the Normans did oppress them as a foreign occupation. Plus William the Conqueror ransacked northern England so bad that he depopulated whole sections of it and supposedly when he was dying it was one of his greatest guilts in a lifetime of war and conquest.

[Thanas]

The same is true for the Danes who were given money by the crown. Really, I do not get what you have against the Normans, especially considering that the saxons were known for their brutality and mistreatment of people they deemed lesser themselves. I doubt it made much difference to the peasants wether they were exploited by the anglo-saxon landowners or by the normans.

You're compressing centuries like they were grapes.

Look now, either do some research into the huscarles, especially those that formed the retinue of the English king, or stop thinking of mere decades as centuries.

It don't work that way. The peasants were anglo-saxon or danish anglo-saxon mix or basically English by the time of the Normans. Previously their lords lived in close proximity to them and considered themselves to be one of them sharing pretty much the same language and culture. The Norman lords were aloof in the their castles which they built after several Norman lords were killed by the local populace. Those castles were not build to defend against other castle-owning lords. they were built to protect the Normans lords so they could administer the land. The Normans lords spoke a different language and had a different culture.

The danish lords also spoke a different language and had a different culture. The saxons who invaded England and (unlike other "barbarians", like the franks) made no real effort to integrate themselves were also foreign occupiers and enslavers. Integration only seems to have happened after a substantial amount of time.

As for the castles, the evidence there is not as clear cut as you seem to think. Undoubtedly the Normans built castles, but these did exist in England before, even apparently in the motte modell. Meanwhile the Anglo-saxons also had fortified homes not open to the public, though they too served as early models of castles (and were also later expanded into new castles etc.). Castle building also seems to have skyrocketed in the civil war of the 12th century.

I am not doubting that the Norman invasion was a conquest by force, but I really do not think one can claim one side is morally superior to the other, especially not in those times.

Really? You got some evidence to back that up other than a King Arthur novel?

Sure, just take a look at England's dark ages. Everything you claim is bad about the normans can also be said about the Saxons when they first arrived.

[ronindave]

I am not doubting that the Norman invasion was a conquest by force, but I really do not think one can claim one side is morally superior to the other, especially not in those times.

never did say they were.

Undoubtedly the Normans built castles, but these did exist in England before, even apparently in the motte modell.

No. What existed before was fortified structures built against Viking incursions. They were defensive in a militaristic way not in occupational way. The Norman castles which built in the years following 1066 were constructed because the Normans were vastly outnumbered by the Saxon inhabitants. Those castles of later eras were different. The first generation of Norman castles was built solely for occupation.

The danish lords also spoke a different language and had a different culture.

Actually not so much - not as different than the continental french-speaking Normans. When the Scandanavians kings ruled England it was quite different than when the Normans did. The Scandanavian kings respected English laws and customs whereas the Normans did not.

The saxons who invaded England and (unlike other "barbarians", like the franks) made no real effort to integrate themselves were also foreign occupiers and enslavers.

So what? That was 500 years before 1066. So they Saxons deserved what they got for what their ancestors did centuries earlier? Centuries aren't grapes for you press into this heady wine of nonsense

[Thanas]

I am not doubting that the Norman invasion was a conquest by force, but I really do not think one can claim one side is morally superior to the other, especially not in those times.

never did say they were.

My apologies. So you are actually saying that there is no "good" side in this? Wanted to get this out before.

No. What existed before was fortified structures built against Viking incursions. They were defensive in a militaristic way not in occupational way. The Norman castles which built in the years following 1066 were constructed because the Normans were vastly outnumbered by the Saxon inhabitants. Those castles of later eras were different. The first generation of Norman castles was built solely for occupation.

I love how you overgeneralize things like that. It may surprise you to know that raiding from the welsh and the north was still in force, so there is one reason for building castles right there.

Pray tell, what have you read on the subject?

Actually not so much - not as different than the continental french-speaking Normans. When the Scandanavians kings ruled England it was quite different than when the Normans did. The Scandanavian kings respected English laws and customs whereas the Normans did not.

Yes. So? What does that have anything to do with the fact that the vikings and danes were also invaders, just as the saxons before them?

So what? That was 500 years before 1066. So they Saxons deserved what they got for what their ancestors did centuries earlier? Centuries aren't grapes for you press into this heady wine of nonsense

You are the one talking nonsense here. You deride the normans for not integrating for 200 years when in fact, the saxons hardly did any better and set back civilization far more. If you want to blame the normans for not integrating sooner, fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit they were far less destructive than the saxons when they invaded and brought far more technologies with them, so when comparing them to the saxons they were far more beneficial overall.

[ronindave]

Anyway going back to Richard, Richard was the son of Henry II and Eleanor of Acquitaine through which he inherited (due to the death of his older brother) a huge amount of land and titles of which crown of England was one of them. Though born in England he never spoke anything other than French. He wasn't so much the King of England as he was kind of emperor of the Angevin Empire. He spent much of his reign fighting to hold on to his continental possessions while England served as his cashcow to finance his wars.

[ronindave]

If you want to blame the normans for not integrating sooner, fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit they were far less destructive than the saxons when they invaded and brought far more technologies with them, so when comparing them to the saxons they were far more beneficial overall.

What? Again you are squishing the centuries. The Saxons of 1066 weren't the Saxons of the 5th century try to comprehend this. I don't even know why you brought them up to begin with unless it were to somehow justify the norman invasion and occupation.

Going back to my original point, I said the Normans occupied England and they were a foreign occupying force. due to myths and hollywood this tends to be forgotten. Many people are often surprised to learn that Richard the Lionheart was pretty much French through and through and spent very little time in England during his reign and he spoke French not English.

[Thanas]

If you want to blame the normans for not integrating sooner, fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit they were far less destructive than the saxons when they invaded and brought far more technologies with them, so when comparing them to the saxons they were far more beneficial overall.

What? Again you are squishing the centuries. The Saxons of 1066 weren't the Saxons of the 5th century try to comprehend this. I don't even know why you brought them up to begin with unless it were to somehow justify the norman invasion and occupation.

I am arguing against what looked to me like the poor saxons getting occupied and trodded upon by the brutal norman invaders.

And as far as occupying forces, the normans were actually pretty benevolent compared to other occupiers, like the saxons.