King John is one of the most famous “bad” kings of England. So bad that no future king dared to name a possible heir John. Even though it is the most common name in England. But does he deserve the reputation. Whatever he was, we have to consider his family background as a factor. His father was the undeniably great Henry II. And his older brother was the great Crusader Richard the Lionheart (but overrated King Richard). And his mother was one of the most brilliant women of the Middle Ages – Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was his father’s favorite and his mother’s least favorite. He came from a family of backstabbers. He joined his brothers in a rebellion against their father. John came with a lot of baggage when he was crowned. It bent his personality into that of a conniving ass hole. But there were plenty of kings that could be described as such.
John has his supporters among recent historians. There has been some revisionism with regard to his reign. He was a competent administrator, especially when you consider the financial problems he had been handed by his father and brother. The cupboard was bare and he had to use heavy-handed measures like extorting funds from the nobility and Church. He could be a competent military leader when his back was against the wall. He sometimes protected Jews from persecution. And, of course, he signed the Magna Carta.
His supporters have had a steep hill to climb to rehabilitate him. In an age of cruel kings, he stands above average. His nephew, the legitimate heir to the throne, “disappeared” while in his custody. He may have even killed him himself. He starved to death the wife and son of a former friend, a baron who would later lead a rebellion against him. He starved knights who honorably surrendered to him. He could be cowardly. When Philip Augustus of France invaded Normandy in 1203, John fled to England. In 1206 and 1214, he tried to regain Normandy, but he retreated when confronted by French armies. When France invaded in 1216, he abandoned his army on the coast. (He did put up a good fight after that, but died of dysentery mid-campaign.) He was a treacherous individual. He tried to usurp the throne when Richard was being held captive. He slept with the wives and daughters of his barons.
His biggest negatives come in the area of “burning his bridges”. John just could not help himself in alienating groups. The Magna Carta was forced on him by his barons. Although he gets credit for signing this key document in the development of democracy and the rights of man, he soon violated it which led to the First Barons’ War. He was excommunicated by the Pope and England was put under an interdict because of his seizure of Church lands and mistreatment of the clergy. But most important, he incompetently lost almost all British lands in France.
In conclusion, John was not an evil king. At least not in comparison to other tyrants of the Middle Ages. He might have been an evil person, however. He had some positive accomplishments, but overall he was a poor king.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/plantagenet/king-john-bad-personality-evil-worst/
https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-king-john/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12603356
https://dandavisauthor.com/king-john-good-king/
0 Comments