Why is Richard Lionheart so adored in Britain?

[lord Martiya]

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.

Tell that to the Hollywood filmmakers or the guys who watches Robin Hood movies.

[ronindave]

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

take out the subjective "poor" and what you have is a fact which is what I originally stated. The Normans did occupy and oppress the Saxons but with the exception of the later Robin Hood legends this fact does get address very much. Many people tend to think Saxon and Norman blended quickly and smoothly in a short time. This is why you find a number of people shocked when they discover certain monarchs and what not were a lot less English and more French. This is misconception is further compounded by movies and novels.

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

No you appear to be justifying oppression because the saxons were oppressors 5 centuries earlier. You know the Celts were invaders too you know? There wasn't any King Arthur though to make them out to be bad guys. If the Saxons of the 5th century were oppressors, then you must concede that the Normans were as well. Their "benevolence" reflects a difference in the invasions. The Saxons came as a whole immigrating people whereas the Normans came as the ruling class. They were outnumbered by the locals and so they built their castles to occupy the land, land that served to fill their coffers.

[lord Martiya]

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

I don't know in Britain, but in Southern Italy they built up a nice kingdom and were benevolent occupiers. It wasn't the big nobles of Normandy but mercenaries who made a career jump, but they were still Norman nobles, so I suppose the mentality was similar.

[Spoonist]

@ronindave

I think that you are misunderstanding parts of your conversation with Thanas. You started by stating that you used to think that the Norman invasion was a good thing due to Hollywood bias. Which is all fine and dandy, but then you started to make claims why that was not so. To me it looks like it is not the premise that Hollywood is wrong that Thanas is criticising, instead its your claims vs the normands and your inability to back them up with anything but your say so. So none is arguing against your POV that hollywood got the normands wrong, instead its the details you claim make the normands different. Please note the difference.
So before I continue with a point-by-point, I reiterate Thanas question: "Pray tell, what have you read on the subject?" because to me it seems that you claimed Hollywoodesque ignorance before but your claims show that your grasp on the subject is still ignorant.

Lets look at the first of your claims:

foreign-speaking ruling class that spurned the locals and built myriads of castles to control the populace

While true vs hollywood its such a big oversimplification that it becomes false in an historical context.
Not only does it miss the start of the conflict being a succession war after Edward the Confessor. Edward spent lots of time in Normandy and brought in nobles, courtiers and staff from there. It also miss that Normand soldiers fought and died in Edward's service.
So they were already an established presence. Not some unknown foreigners. Just like the other interested parties except for the saxons ie Danes and Norwegians.
Add to that the legacy of scandinavia in Normandy giving the intermarriage of nobles resulting in Williams claim. Plus how normandy was considered a "special" part of france with unique mix of language and unique mix of culture. It being only three generations since Rollo etc. So the french would hardly think that the normands where 'proper' frenchies either.

It also misses that the same Normands when doing conquest elsewhere are known to be relatively benign to their new subjects contemporarily. Even to subjects of different creeds or faiths. So how come the Normans acted differently in England? Two major factors:
1) The local lords didn't surrender, but instead continued to resist.
You see the battle of Hastings was supposed to be the end of the succession of Edward but it wasn't. Some of the local lords did not pledge loyalty to William as King. Instead the following years are rife with rebellion and invasions. Usually instigated by the local nobility (Wessex etc). Which of course leads to retribution and defensive works. The normands would be insane by contemporary standards not to. Which leads to:
2) William the Bastard
Since that was what he was he didn't have anything to pay his mercenaries and allies with except land. What better land to give away than that of those not submitting to his rule? Which starts a vicious circle of confiscation - rebellion - subjugation - paying for the subjugation with new confiscations. Until it was clear that William and the local nobility couldn't agree at all which led to the replacement of all land-owning nobles and clergy to those loyal with William, ie normands and allies.
What is debatable is whether this was the original plan or a revision of the plan. In correspondance preserved it seems the latter but that is heavily censored normand records so their truthfulness is to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Also note the similarities of wales where William had no interest at first but which in the believed power-vacuum attacked england, where the Normands again had to respond strongly.
So its SOP of almost all conquest in european history, if they resist too much why bother with the locals, its easier and more cost effective to subjugate and replace the local nobility.

Please note that during all of those rebellions and invasions none attacked Normandy itself. This because it was seen as a seperate demesne and a subject to the king of france. (Which in a round-about way some centuries later leads to the anymosity between france & england).

After all of that also note that just like with all the isle invasions before by Angles/Jutes/Danes/Saxons/etc the first century its almost exclusively soldiers and nobility of the new tribe that settles first, then as time goes on they bring more and more of the people from back home so that within a couple of hundred years they have intermingled so much they are no longer seperate. For the normands that would be around two-three centuries later. For the angles & saxons it took longer, for the danes they didn't hold it long enough for such a thorough mix to occur.

Where your sentiment is true is that the subjugation process was considered by its contemporaries as a brutal one. (Not vs the populace mind you but against the local lords.) So much so that William had to answer to the pope why he did what he did. But this you don't mention at all. Or you could have mentioned that the replacement of nobles was a continous process, so much so that William replaced 'loyal' nobles as well in the end as seen in the domesday book. So it was a complete takeover forcing the former thegns of the danes to abondon england altogether and go elsewhere (lots to Byzans).

was the beginning of proper British history

Completely missing why that is tounge-in-cheek claimed by historians. Its not because of the actual rule of the Normands, instead its because Angles, Saxons, Danes, et al where crap at writing their history down. This since they had little in a centralized bureacracy. While the Normands had inherited the Frankish way of historical hubris, thus not only writing down a huge legacy but also creating a centralized administration that kept records of everything, and on top of that having correspondance with most of mainland europe.
Thus leading to an actual traceable History being kept, one which can be compared and verified by several sources. Which is why its called tounge-in-cheek the beginning of 'proper' English history.
But also because the administration put in place to rule england by proxy from normandy is the seed for what later became the british parliamentary system.

---

Most of your claims could be expanded in the same ways, where your claim seem to say that the normands conquest where uniquely cruel and not standard is in context flawed. Same with your grasp on the particulars of scandinavian rule in england. While your sentiment that normand conquest of england was brutal etc vs the hollywood image is certainly true.

The difference was the Anglo-Saxon invasions and later Danish invasion of Northern England were whole peoples.

True for the Saxons. False for the Danes. (Unless you count the Angles/Jutes as danish?) As both archeology and geneaolgy has proven the danish settlement in england was so small as to make insignificant lasting effect. So we know that they didn't send over the people, instead mostly just the fighting men and nobility with families. Maybe there is some traces left in the York area but that's about it. Unless you include scotland in this which would be flawed. Unlike some norwegian conquest in the north where the local population was replaced as well over time.

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.

True explicitly, but false implicitly. How could they have done anything else in such a short time-span? In the years following indeed...
But as I said above the intermixing came two-three centuries later.

The peasants were anglo-saxon or danish anglo-saxon mix or basically English by the time of the Normans.

True for the angles and saxons, false for the danes. Even within the Danelaw the peasants where never danish, or anglo-danish. Some servants perhaps but never peasants.

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.

False. All those rebellions and invasions where never by the "downtrodden" populace, instead its by the lords within and without the realm. Who of course where other "defensive works-owning" lords Or don't you coun't the welsh/mercia/danish/norwegian lords as "castle-owning"?

No. What existed before was fortified structures built against Viking incursions.

Huh? That is just ignorant. There was lots of defensive works all around the intra-kingdom borders. There where at least 20ish self-proclaimed kingdoms or deratives. Then there where threats from without in all directions of the compass. Plus neighbourhood feuds etc.
Add to that the teutonic legacy that saxons usually built their main-houses (aka later manors) on hilltops or other easily defensible positions. Not only vs other lords but against uprisings as well. Especially when the peasants where not saxon or similar.
Heck, I bet there even was leftovers of the limes in some remnant use.

You are comparing established saxon/danish rule vs newly conquered normand rule. Which is ridicilous. All the conquerors build defensive works vs their main threats. It makes sense both then and now.

The Scandanavian kings respected English laws and customs whereas the Normans did not.

Complete and utter bullshit. Danelaw replaced the local law. The danes redrew the shire maps, etc. While the normands centralized the local law and integrated the shires etc into their administration.
The danes of course respected some saxon customs because of their common heritage. Just like the normands respected some of the danish customs because of their common heritage.
The only place where you have a thin leg to stand on is the replacement of the clergy.

He (Richard) spent much of his reign fighting to hold on to his continental possessions while England served as his cashcow to finance his wars.

This is just palm-in-face stuff. If I own two demsnes and one is attacked while the other is not, then of course I will use the one to finance the war in the other. Its stating the obvious as if it is something sinister.
Likewise with the ownership of two demesnes and staying in the most influential one.

Many people tend to think Saxon and Norman blended quickly and smoothly in a short time.

They did. Not by Hollywood standards but by historical standards they did. Complete conquest has that effect. See the difference between nationalism in wales and scotland for instance.

This is why you find a number of people shocked when they discover certain monarchs and what not were a lot less English and more French. This is misconception is further compounded by movies and novels.

Those same people are shocked when they find how much of english language and culture isn't. So what? You sound like you have a personal bias against the french which, somehow strangely, you then paint the normands with. It's easier to list what is originally english than the other way around because the list is so short. Same goes with almost all places with a rich history. 18th century nationalism did wonders in deluding the population of most european countries that their history/culture/heritage is "unique" while the opposite is more true. Only the ignorant and nationalisticly inclined would argue such today. Which leads us to Hollywood being both.

[The Asiduo]

I think the main reasons of Richard I being so loved in Britain are:

a) He was kind of successful in the Third Crusade (kind of)
b) His successor had VERY bad reputation.
c) The modern retellings of "Robin Hood" put him as "The Good King".

And, pretty much, that's it.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

True for the angles and saxons, false for the danes. Even within the Danelaw the peasants where never danish, or anglo-danish. Some servants perhaps but never peasants.

It's debatable whether the even Angles and Saxons managed to effectively colonise Britain, rather than just insert their rulers at the top of the social pyramid; IIRC, recent genetic analysis suggests that most British people had ancestors living here maybe even before the Romans arrived. It's pretty clear that even if there was a mass movement of Angles and Saxons to England large enough to have actual demographic implications, they didn't replace the people already living there, they interbred with them and imported their culture.

[Rommel123]

I think the main reasons of Richard I being so loved in Britain are:

a) He was kind of successful in the Third Crusade (kind of)
b) His successor had VERY bad reputation.
c) The modern retellings of "Robin Hood" put him as "The Good King".

And, pretty much, that's it.

Yeah. I wonder if it could be told for some other rulers too.

[Imperial Overlord]

True for the angles and saxons, false for the danes. Even within the Danelaw the peasants where never danish, or anglo-danish. Some servants perhaps but never peasants.

It's debatable whether the even Angles and Saxons managed to effectively colonise Britain, rather than just insert their rulers at the top of the social pyramid; IIRC, recent genetic analysis suggests that most British people had ancestors living here maybe even before the Romans arrived. It's pretty clear that even if there was a mass movement of Angles and Saxons to England large enough to have actual demographic implications, they didn't replace the people already living there, they interbred with them and imported their culture.

They were successful enough to take over parts of Britain linguistically and make it stick and religiously there was a drive to rechristianize the region after they took over so I'll say they were successful at colonizing the country.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Like I said; they imported their culture and ruling class. It was in general still a native speaking their language, though, not a settler, and the settlers that did exist were absorbed into the local population rather than driving the people already living in the area out.

[Imperial Overlord]

Like I said; they imported their culture and ruling class. It was in general still a native speaking their language, though, not a settler, and the settlers that did exist were absorbed into the local population rather than driving the people already living in the area out.

More than just that. Their language became the dominant one in the country. The Franks, for example, conquered Gaul and became a large chunk of the ruling class . . . and ended up speaking bad Latin aka French. The Anglo-Saxons didn't merely take over, they linguistically assimilated the surviving inhabitants.

[The Asiduo]

Yeah. I wonder if it could be told for some other rulers too.

Movies have an impact in these topics. I guess many people thinks Edward I was a "bad dude", when he just was an skilled politician and warrior who tried to profit from a civil war in Scotland. He was a tyrant, yeah, but by Medieval standards, he doesn't seem much different... but tell that to "Braveheart" fans.

[Covenant]

Yeah. I wonder if it could be told for some other rulers too.

Movies have an impact in these topics. I guess many people thinks Edward I was a "bad dude", when he just was an skilled politician and warrior who tried to profit from a civil war in Scotland. He was a tyrant, yeah, but by Medieval standards, he doesn't seem much different... but tell that to "Braveheart" fans.

I've got a solution for ye' then. Let's get someone in Hollywood, eager to roll on the success of The King's Speech, to remake The Lion in Winter. Suddenly King Richard won't have such a shiny lustre on him. Plus it'd beat the pants off another Robin Hood movie.

Related question, there was an excellent documentary that I believe was called A History of Britain. I adored it and am looking for a copy (as well as trying to remember if it was correctly named) and offhandedly wondered if it was a successful series on the non-Colonial side of the pond where I am. I learned a ton from that (and hope it was factually correct) and think that documentaries could also help add some context to people's understanding.

[thejester]

Talking about the Simon Schama one, yeah?

[Artemas]

"Like so many sad eeyores on a rainy day"

yeah, schama is pretty good

[TheHammer]

Yeah. I wonder if it could be told for some other rulers too.

Movies have an impact in these topics. I guess many people thinks Edward I was a "bad dude", when he just was an skilled politician and warrior who tried to profit from a civil war in Scotland. He was a tyrant, yeah, but by Medieval standards, he doesn't seem much different... but tell that to "Braveheart" fans.

I've got a solution for ye' then. Let's get someone in Hollywood, eager to roll on the success of The King's Speech, to remake The Lion in Winter. Suddenly King Richard won't have such a shiny lustre on him. Plus it'd beat the pants off another Robin Hood movie.

Related question, there was an excellent documentary that I believe was called A History of Britain. I adored it and am looking for a copy (as well as trying to remember if it was correctly named) and offhandedly wondered if it was a successful series on the non-Colonial side of the pond where I am. I learned a ton from that (and hope it was factually correct) and think that documentaries could also help add some context to people's understanding.

Apparently, they did (fairly) recently do a remake of The Lion in Winter - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319754/

But admitedly it was a "made for TV" movie.

[Danny]

Misconceptions of history. Originally, Richard was not liked by his own people. He ruled the Angevin kingdom, and as part of the Plantagenet- ruled in a french fashion. He was called "the absent king" The fucking guy didnt even speak English, since he only spoke in French. According to history, the most he stayed in England was 7+months, and the rest of his time crusading or in France.

I suppose hes revered because he was the "English king" who kicked Christendoms most hated enemy- Saracens, ass couple of times. Though he didnt win the 3rd crusade, he is well known for his bravery in the battle of Jaffa and others that earned him his title.

I only been to england once for 2 days, so i didnt exactly bring up a dialogue about Richard, but i did find out they do not like outsiders calling them "british". They prefer the term "englishman", which is understandable.

Though i highly doubt the english adore richard over Lord Nelson or Henry V.

[Thanas]

Misconceptions of history. Originally, Richard was not liked by his own people. He ruled the Angevin kingdom, and as part of the Plantagenet- ruled in a french fashion. He was called "the absent king" The fucking guy didnt even speak English, since he only spoke in French. According to history, the most he stayed in England was 7+months, and the rest of his time crusading or in France.

I suppose hes revered because he was the "English king" who kicked Christendoms most hated enemy- Saracens, ass couple of times. Though he didnt win the 3rd crusade, he is well known for his bravery in the battle of Jaffa and others that earned him his title.

I only been to england once for 2 days, so i didnt exactly bring up a dialogue about Richard, but i did find out they do not like outsiders calling them "british". They prefer the term "englishman", which is understandable.

Though i highly doubt the english adore richard over Lord Nelson or Henry V.

If you got nothing to add to the thread, best stay silent.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Like I said; they imported their culture and ruling class. It was in general still a native speaking their language, though, not a settler, and the settlers that did exist were absorbed into the local population rather than driving the people already living in the area out.

More than just that. Their language became the dominant one in the country. The Franks, for example, conquered Gaul and became a large chunk of the ruling class . . . and ended up speaking bad Latin aka French. The Anglo-Saxons didn't merely take over, they linguistically assimilated the surviving inhabitants.

Which is the reason why Welsh is way the fuck different from english. It along with Cornish and Breton are Celtic languages (Brythonic branch). They did not have as much anglo-saxon influence in their language. Something similar to Old Welsh (Brythonic, actually. The common ancestor for those languages) would have been spoken before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. (this was not said for your benefit. I know that you know, rather, it is for the benefit of others)

Something said earlier stuck out at me as well:

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

Yeah, but more commonly they were (to my knowledge) ringworks around towns in which the nobility was installed. The Burgh, I believe the word was. Basically just the Bailey, or a Motte and Bailey without the Motte for a particularly large or important working. After the late tenth century, they would often use stone rather than wood for this (to the extent that they did not simply repair and re-use roman fortifications). Motte and Bailey castles at this point, while they existed, were relatively uncommon. Though, admittedly, it can be very difficult to get precise dates on some of these old fortifications. The english (or rather anglo-saxons) just did not need much else. They needed a place where the population could sit tight when vikings/welsh were along the coast/in the woods, and because most raiding parties were relatively small and didnt exactly have the baggage trains to do a siege, they just had to bar the gate and put a few men with bows on the earthwork/fighting platforms/wall-walk and be done with it. Even the Mottes that did exist were IIRC, relatively short

Complicating matters, is that the normans would often build a motte and its fortifications outside an existing ringwork fortification and connected them with a causway. Their Mottes tended to be higher (five to ten meters or more) which was as much defensive as a symbolic "you are a conquered people" statement. Also, unlike the Saxons, they never brought enough people over to assimilate and linguistically dominate england. They brought some vocabulary, but IIRC the language of government was french, while the common language spoken by the population was old to middle english (depending on when you are talking about. Old was transitioning to middle english by the time Harry came to power).

So, that part under contention is true. On the other hand, I very much doubt that the Normans were in any way worse than the initial Saxon occupation.