Labeling King Richard Lion Heart - Research Paper Example

?14 October Labeling King Richard I King Richard I was the son of King Henry III who ruled over England. Born in September of 1157, he was not originally set to be the next successor to the crown. King Richard’s older brothers would have been king had they both not perished before receiving the inheritance. When King Henry III ceased to rule, the crown was given to King Richard. Yet, King Richard could hardly be called the best king of England. While he made some very smart moves he also made some very selfish ones that caused life to be harder upon his citizens. For this reason, King Richard is suspect of being a bad king. Nevertheless, there are some qualities in him to be appreciated. The label of a ‘bad king’ may not fully suit him. As king, he gave much on the behalf of others. Unfortunately, those ‘others’ were not the people of his kingdom. King Richard should be taken as he is and not quickly judged. The conclusion that he was neither a good or bad king, but a king, most correctly suits him. While not perfect, he was not wholly corrupt. An intelligent man, King Richard had a reason for his actions. Surely, the people of his land desired a better life than what he brought them. However, their suffering served a purpose that was to benefit a greater good. King Richard fought on behalf of what he believed to be right. He fought for that right with all that he had; which happened to include everything that the people of kingdom had. It is not amazing in medieval times for the peoples of a kingdom to lack social mobility. The oppression of his people for the sake of financial gain made such mobility impossible for those under King Richard’s rule. In this paper, the evidences that have been presented to label King Richard as either a good or bad king will be discussed and analyzed. The intent is to demonstrate that neither of these labels can fully describe him. Having some qualities from both categories, King Richard does not fit neatly into either. The actions of King Richard often depict a King that was not very interested in caring for his kingdom. He was obsessed with money. The kingdom was no more than a source of revenue to him. King Richard was able to extract large amounts of wealth from his people and land. This money he used for his own purposes. Therefore, his people did not get to enjoy the best of lives. Instead, King Richard pressured the people to pay taxes. He did not seek to enrich the lives of his own people. Their lives were full of work and yet they languished because of poverty. It is because of King Richard that the legend of Robin Hood was born. Robin Hood was a bandit, an outlaw, who sought to promote financial equality. The low distribution of wealth was the result of King Richards rule. He raped the land and the people of riches. Many people resented King Richard’s actions; especially since his father was considered to be a much better king. However, King Richard was hardly interested in following his father’s example. In fact, during his younger years, King Richard had actually engauged in war against his father. As it has been reported “ In 1173 he, the Young King and a younger brother, Geoffrey, backed by their mother, took up arms against their father in a war that lasted eighteen months” (Cavendish 2007). King Richard came to be despised by many of his people. For his greed of gain he is considered to be a bad king. When the thought of a king is someone who is beloved of the people and seeks their best interests arises, King Richard seems to fall nicely into the category of ‘bad king’. His lack of patriotism also helps him to fit into this category. It has been noted that “historians have traditionally spoken of him as incompetent and destructive, small-minded and incapable” (Heiser 1997; p.1). It was only about five months out of each year of his reign that the king actually resided in his own land. The rest of this time he spent in France. When King Richard made decisions about his kingdom they were often misguided. Being absent from the region so much caused him to miss out on important knowledge that would have increased the effectiveness of his reign. His absence can cause the assumption that King Richard had no particular love for his own land or people. The way in which he used the kingdom to support his addiction to money only serves to further this perception. As it was noted, “He remained in England only long enough to receive the crown, make impetuous and ill-planned decisions for the governance of England in his absence, and to suck the country dry of every penny” (Humpert 2010; p.6). Ironically, some of what made King Richard gain the reputation of being a bad king is also what made him a good king. For, while he misused his position as king of England to extract money for the land, he used the money that he extracted and his title as king to fight on behalf of others. While the people who lived in his kingdom did not enjoy being under his authority, to many who never set foot in his land King Richard was a great king. The people that he worked to assist in their time of need surely saw him as a hero. While it might be said that because of King Richard’s financial oppression of his people inspired the legend of Robin Hood, in a sense the king took up actions that were similar to this beloved bandit. Robin Hood is mostly known for robbing the rich to give to the poor. Likewise, King Richard took from the wealth of his own land to give aid to a nation in need. Money was not all that King Richard was into. He is remembered for being one of the leaders of the third crusades. King Richard fought bravely for the cause of the Holy Land and the Nation of Israel. In fact, it was reported that, “he became a hero with the public and was popularly known as Richard the Lion-Heart” (Visser and Sunter 2002; p.1).When Muslims had taken over Jerusalem, he fought to get the land returned to the Israelites. Even though King Richard fought bravely and valiantly, he did not achieve the level of success from his efforts that he had hoped for. Instead of returning all power of Jerusalem to the Israelites, he managed to get a treaty implemented between the people and the Muslims so that they could visit their Holy Land. Not only was King Richard proven to be noble by these acts but he also worked hard to protect his inheritance. He made intelligent, strategic moves to keep England under his command. The biggest problem with his rule is that he left his subjects to suffer. They had to bear the financial burden of his escapades. Surely, King Richard could have acted differently. With the support of his subjects he might have been more successful. Had they come to support his causes it is possible that they would have worked hard for him and even enjoyed it. The people of England could have been included and made to feel that they were working for a greater good. It was within King Richard’s power to generate a sense of patriotism in his subjects. The way that he ruled his kingdom from a distance speaks somewhat of a hidden self concept. It is possible that King Richard felt that he did not have the ability of develop true loyalty from his countrymen. Yet, in leading many men on the battlefield, he demonstrated that he had the ability to be a good leader. After all, it was the vigor with which he fought that earned him the name Lionheart. The name was not given as derogatory term. There were qualities in King Richard that many men admired. He could have generated the same esteem among his own people. Also working against King Richard were the attitudes that the wealthy had against the poor. The elite tend to look upon those of a lower rank as lacking in more than finances. Such an attitude would have caused King Richard to look down upon his servants and deem them unworthy of is attention. With this perception, he would have considered the effort of being highly regarded by his people a waste of time. There were a lot of things that King Richard did which were harsh to some and unbecoming of a king. It was not only the fact that he took money from the kingdom but that he stayed away for long periods of time. His decisions negatively affected the lives of his people. There was an elite class on his land, but, for the most part, the people of his kingdom lived in poverty. Having to pay high taxes, they worked hard and gained nothing. Yet, King Richard was using the wealth of his nation, his strength and title on behalf of a cause that was noble and noteworthy. He fought hard and acted intelligently to come to the aid of a people that had been displaced; the Israelites. While they were not his own people King Richard did a lot for them. Even though he did not accomplish the goal of restoring them to power in their land, he did make it possible for them to enter and visit the land; a task that they could not accomplish on their own. King Richard’s acts of valor cannot be ignored when considering his case, but neither can the disregard that he showed towards his own kingdom. Therefore, the king cannot be labeled clearly as being either good or bad, but somewhere in between. Considering the fact that impoverished subjects who are overtaxed was not an unusual occurrence during that time period, King Richard’s treatment of the land can not be considered extraordinarily harsh. It was his father, King Henry III that had made King Richard’s actions to appear so wrong. King Henry had been a king that was more in touch with his people. After living under his father’s rule, the people of King Richard’s rule could easily compare the quality of their two kings and tended to disfavor King Richard. It can be supposed that King Richard felt that Jerusalem called for more attention than his own kingdom at that time; that he felt it was a noble enough cause that his kingdom should bear such a burden. Certainly there have been kings who were much worse than King Richard. There have been those who oppressed their people and extracted wealth from their own kingdom with out assisting anyone else. King Richard did not take the actions that he did against his own kingdom in order to consume the wealth lavishly. This was a man that spent a lot of time on the battle field and risked his life to save others who truly needed help. It is not hard to find points of appreciation for King Richard. Anyone who would label him a bad king judges to hastily. Even though King Richard could have done some things differently during his reign, he had many characteristics to be admired. Therefore, as humankind is often proclaimed to be imperfect because of the mistakes that they make, King Richard was just a man. Works Cited Cavendish, Richard. “Birth of Richard the Lionheart: September 8th,1157.” History Today 57.9 (2007): 62-3. Omnifile Full Text Select. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. Heiser, Richard, “Richard I and His Appointments to English Shrievalties” English Historical Review CXII (445) 1-19. 1997. doi: 10.1093/her/CXII445.1 Humpert, Edward “Richard I: Securing an Inheritance and Preparing a Crusade, 1189-1191” MA Thesis. Ohio University. 2010. Visser, Wayne & Sunter, Clem “Beyond Reasonable Greed: Why Sustainable Business is a Much Better Idea!” 2002. Read More