Medieval Archives Podcast Lesson 79. Welcome back to the Medieval Archives podcast, the podcast for medieval news, history and entertainment. I'm your host, Gary, a.k.a. the Archivist, in this lesson, along with author Wayne Bartlett, we're going to examine the reign of King Richard the Lionheart, a warrior king who spent the majority of his time away from England. We'll look at his upbringing, the Crusades, his war with France and the aftermath of his
death. Now, before we jump into the discussion, if you have any questions or comments or there's a topic you're dying to hear on the show, send them over to podcast at medieval archives dot com. So I had a great talk with Wayne about Richard the Lionheart and Wayne's book titled Richard the Lionheart. The Crusader King of England is the first biography of Richard in almost 20 years. You can find the links to all of Wayne's
books at medieval archives dot com slash 79. Let's dive into medieval England and learn more about Richard the Lionheart. Today we are joined by Wayne Bartlett, author of Medieval books. And Wayne, you've written over a dozen medieval books. Thank you for being on the show.
Thank you very much, Garry. I'm looking forward to talking with you. And yeah, it would be very interesting to explore the medieval period and obviously the Crusades and Richard Quest in particular.
So for those who don't know, you give us a little introduction or a brief bio on on who you are.
Sure. Yeah. My name is Wayne Bartlett, and I've been writing my first book was published in 1998, and it was a general history of the crusade called God Wills It and since then I've written about 15 other books, mainly on the medieval period, though I have strayed from that call, I guess, once or twice for more general interest things. But yeah, I just love the medieval period and the Crusades in particular.
In your career, how did you become a writer? Is that what you aspired to be when you started out?
No, not at all, Gary. When I started out, I left. I left school, went into employment as an accountant, which I remain. And, you know, that's been a good career. But I'd always been interested in history and in my in my teens even, I would regularly be reading various history books and, you know, have always been really interested in medieval
history. In particular. In my late thirties, I became a little bit aware that I was reading a lot of books on history, which were quite academic in style, and although they were obviously well researched and of great interest in some respects, I felt sometimes the storyline got lost in the midst of all the facts and I just I'd always enjoyed writing without any
particular end in mind. I suddenly thought, well, maybe I should maybe explore a bit more the possibilities of writing in medieval history, particularly always been a great interest, as I say, but not necessarily as a writer. That general interest really sparked my kind of desire to research more deeply, but also to tell a story which I think sometimes get lost in the in the middle of maybe too many facts. Sometimes we lose track of the story line, which is sometimes extremely gripping.
So in your writing process, is it working from an outline kind of thing, or how do you how do you go about writing your books?
Yes, a very good question. Obviously, when you start off, you have to have a general idea of of what particular approach you're going to take of the subject that you are looking at. You need to be very, very informed as to the general
subject matter. So you always start really because the publisher will insist on this that you come up with or not outline as what you intend to write, that the issue is then until you actually get into deeper research, you don't really always know where the storyline is going to take you. There is never more than an outline because as you start to dig more deeply, you get pulled off in perhaps unexpected
directions and then you have to be adaptable. In terms of my writing approach, once this initial high level outline is in place, my philosophy is very much around the principle of don't get it right, get it written. If you write something down, it's much easier to work on it, to critique it, to change things. So I write quite quickly, but I haven't really routinely returned to my work and change things and and as I say, are often be read in an unexpected direction by some previously
unexpected facts. So I get something written down, keep reviewing it as new evidence comes along. I'm quite happy to go off in a slightly different direction than perhaps the one I originally intended to go in.
And I like that philosophy of don't get it right, get it written, it's going to get your ideas out there and then fine tune them after that instead of just thinking about them and never actually acting on them.
Excellent. Yeah, I think I think that's the thing for me. You know, I've tried other approaches. The thing with writing is you're always learning not just about the content of what you're writing about, but also about you as a writer. And, you know, over time, I've learned to be a little bit more sort of ambitious in getting things written up, but
then take much longer to review what you've written. So, you know, I can write a first draft quite quickly, but I often take maybe 6 to 9 months after the draft is written to really work on it and and to change and adjust things as new evidence emerges.
You said you started out with just a general interest in history, in medieval history. Were there books or authors that kind of sparked that flame or you you read a book and you said, Oh, wow, I need to learn more about this, this subject because of a certain author or just books in general. What got you interested?
Well, well, I think early on it was perhaps books in general, but there is certainly one writer in particular who I think pulled me into the Crusade specifically, and that was Stephen Runciman, who over half a century ago wrote a three volume History of the Crusades and and although in some of the the historical analysis some may argue with I gave him the benefit of a half centuries more research perspective, his
writing style I thought was amazing. It was a it was wonderfully easy to read but told everything that need to be told as well. So he definitely was was an early inspiration for me and has remained so as I've read other works of his. You know, I never cease to be impressed by by both his his grasp of the subject and his writing style. And that doesn't mean that everything he wrote is necessarily correct or something
that I agree with. But having said that, I think is his work was just a fantastic way of bringing general readers into the medieval period and the Crusades in particular.
It seems always that our love for history or for whatever subject comes from books that we've read, or a certain author that kind of grabs our attention or has a writing style that right attention to it really draws into that subject.
Absolutely. You have to be interested in a subject. I think you have to be almost passionate about it before you can really start to understand the period. You know, it is not it's not necessarily a straightforward process to really understand what was going on in history. You do have to you do have to think, you do have to analyse, you do have to scratch below the surface to really understand. But to do
that you need to be motivated to do it. And I think influential and skilled writers like Stephen Runciman really, really help work and pique your interest in a particular subject and really make you feel passionate about it.
You have about 15 books that you've written on the medieval period.
Yeah, that's right.
You said that you get your first draft out and then you take maybe seven or so, nine months to kind of fine tune those details and get new research and things like that. So how much research goes into your each book that you write.
Is very extensive. And, you know, I probably think from start to finish maybe eight months to write a book and the first nine months of that would be working on the first draft, doing the research. I would have done some research even before the publisher's proposal goes. Then obviously, I but I think, you know, once once I started, as I say, about 18 months from beginning to end is the normal time. I really even when I'm writing and even when I'm reviewing, I'm always
researching at the same time. You know, it's a research that shapes my general direction. And I think we are lucky these days in that medieval source documents are maybe much more available than they were even half a century ago. There are many English translations available. I very much like to go back to source and to kind of understand the Chronicles and things like that, as well as the perhaps more boring that may be more reliable archival records which which fortunately in
England we have the extensive medieval records to refer to. So I'm very much research led and to me that's the main part of the fun. I love writing, but perhaps I love researching a more, you know, it's all part of the same end result, but you have to dig one to do the other. Well.
Your last book was on King Canute of England and your current book is on Richard the Lionheart.
That's right.
What spurred your interest to take the biography of Richard the Lionheart?
Well, he's a he's a very controversial figure, for one thing, even in his own time, he was a very controversial king and a very controversial man. So he's a generally interesting subject just because he's a slightly larger than life character now, he's also a very divisive character. I think, even into modern times. Some historians have been extremely dismissive of Richard, regard him as a not very good king of
England. Others, perhaps have been more supportive of Richard, and I really wanted to find out for myself how I viewed Richard. You know, was he a good medieval king? Was he flawed as a human being? So all of those factors together, Richard, the king and Richard, the man, as well as obviously Richard the crusader with my interest in the Crusades, made it a fascinating subject
for me. So I was really genuinely interested and motivated to try and find out who Richard the real man and Richard the real king actually was, because he is such a larger than life character. And sometimes it's hard to get to the real man and the real monarch behind the legend and the myths.
And I know as a kid, I my first introduction for Kings was Richard the Lionheart. You know, it's the one, you know, Robin Hood, It's in the movies.
And absolutely.
He was kind of the one that you get, I guess maybe introduced to first as a child or easiest suspect. Then he definitely has a legacy, a good legacy and a good legend about him as being the warrior.
KING Exactly.
So he was the third son of Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine, third son. He's not necessarily in line to be king, and he doesn't even expect to be king. The oldest son is brought up as the prince. He's brought up to be a king. He goes through certain yes, genes and culture. So as a third son did, was he ever he wasn't expected to be king. But was his upbringing the same as his older brother or was his upbringing completely different? And did it prepare him for the kingship that was coming his way?
Well, it's a very good question. I first of all, Richard's eldest brother actually only lived for two or three years. So. So or then he was the third son. He quickly became the second survive king son. So even when he was a boy of five, perhaps he would have been second in line to take over from his father, Henry The second. He did have, though, a very charismatic and very significant older brother
remaining. It was also called Henry after his father, Henry the second and really the formative years of Richard and the whole family. There is a large family with many brothers and sisters. It was all shaped by the actions and the personalities of their parents. So Henry, the second ruled over a vast empire, effectively including England and parts of Wales. But right down through the west, in the north of France, he had many more lands in France than the French king even did.
So this was a massive empire. And to roll it in a certain way. HENRY The second quickly delegated, in theory, responsibility to various of his sons to take over various parts of his vast territories. The eldest surviving son, Henry, was
given the lion's share of that. In fact, he was nominally king of England, and Richard was given eventually Aquitaine in the southwest of France, where he was brought up with his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and eventually became Duke of Aquitaine, which was a very significant territory in its own right. So the two brothers, these two eldest Provence, ultimately became rivals. You know, it's it's almost like a case of they say this territory is not big enough for the both
of us. So they were very competitive. And Richard's life, certainly from his teens, was a very competitive and sometimes literal conflict with his older brother. But Henry, the second the king very much remained the dominant power, even though he delegated, in theory, responsibility. In practice, he
very much held on to the strengths of power. So there was this complicated struggle between Richard is the older brother Henry, and his father, Henry, and second, which really shaped Richard's and a formative years well into his twenties.
That rivalry that that was there eventually it did has him and his older brother get along because there was a revolt against King Henry and it was with his brothers. Was it was the young Henry involved in that revolt or just Richard?
He certainly was, in fact, Henry, Richard, And then Richard's next youngest brother called Geoffrey, the three of them. Initially, they were involved in the revolt against Henry the second, and they were supported, very interestingly by their mother and then there their pockets. And so really, this was a very significant revolt against Henry the second. But it was a very complex situation because that revolt was put down within about a year or so by Henry the second and all three brothers then
theoretically came into line and did as they were told. But subsequently they that they are that Richard's elder brother Henry revolted again against Henry the second. And this time Richard took the part of Henry the second. So he ended up fighting his elder brother Henry. And during one of the campaigns in this revolt, the elder brother Henry died of dysentery, which left the road to become the dominant brother open for
Richard. But even that wasn't the end of it. The revolt really spluttered on and off for about 15 years, and eventually Richard would revolt again against his father, Henry, the second at the end of which in 1189, his father, Henry, the second would die effectively deserted by the rest of the family. So it was a very complicated and its own family way, a very sad state of affairs.
It was only a rivalry between all the family members, it sounds like.
Yeah, exactly. They were all very ambitious. S In some ways they were all very similar, which perhaps was part of the problem. They had a bit too much in common and they all wanted, I think, to be the dominant figure and they all wanted much more power than their father. King Henry. The second was never prepared to really dedicate to them in practice as well as in theory. So it was really a case of frustrated ambition which which led to these problems.
So when Henry Henry, the second died in 1189, was the younger Henry that he was already dead at that point.
He'd been dead for for a good ten years. At that stage. So Richard had effectively been the heir apparent for over a decade. But very interestingly, King Henry, the second, never formally designated Richard as his heir, in stark contrast to what he previously done with his eldest son. He's now oldest surviving son, the late Henry, the elder brother of Richard,
the first he had been made heir apparent. He'd actually even be crowned as king of England had he been enthroned, if you like, is the key to Normandy, then he had very much remained very publicly. The heir apparent. But that never, ever happened with
Richard, which is a very interesting contrast. So although it was widely expected that Richard would probably take over on his father's death, there was a younger brother, John, and certainly there were some stories that Henry the second was going to pass over Richard and nominate John as his
heir, which he never actually did. But the element of uncertainty, I think, probably quite deliberately created by Henry the second very much created a lot of uncertainty and a lot of tension in the family, especially from Richard.
And we've seen with what John did as king. So it made for an interesting.
Historical.
Path if John had become king right away and not Richard.
Absolutely. That was said. Well, I think for one thing, Richard would probably never, ever have accepted that. And I think given the respective military records to Richard and John, I think the outcome would have been probably quite a violent and virtual civil war, where I think Richard would probably have attempted and may well have succeeded in taking things by force.
Richard was crowned king in 1189 in about the fall, and then shortly after that, I think it was the next summer he left on Crusade, the Third Crusade, Correct. That was almost the last time England saw him.
So, yes, absolutely.
So what was the I guess, the impetus for the crusade? Did he think that the kingdom was stable enough that he could leave? And I guess did he expect to be gone that long?
I think well, certainly the main impetus for the crusade was a catastrophic defeat for the effectively the Crusader army in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which took place at the Battle of Hatton on the fourth and 5th of July 1187. So a couple of years before and subsequent to that, the city of Jerusalem was captured by Muslims at a previous. They'd been hailed by crusaders for the best part of 90 years. So this was a major shockwave for the West, certainly one of the seminal
pieces of news of the Middle Ages. And in response to this, a crusade was quickly summoned, to which Richard declared his is kind of interesting support that very early on, even before he was king whilst his father, Henry, the second was still alive. So that was the main impetus. But it then took a couple of years to organize that crusade. For a time, Richard was partly busy fighting his own father, Henry, the second set
off on Crusade anywhere. It was only really on Henry, the second's death with the vast access to Tim money and other resources that that also gave Richard that he was able to think about setting out. So he spent, as you say, about nine months in England getting things organised. And there were really two main things he was trying to do in that period. The first one was unashamedly to raise money. Crusading was a very expensive
option and he needed money to do it. So he introduced a whole raft of measures to raise money and that was one aspect of his short but very significant few months in England. The other one was trying to set up an establishment which would be able to look after his interests, not just in England, but also across these French territories, which were equally insignificant in many ways. Whilst he was away,
he probably didn't expect to be away for as long as he was. And one of the issues was that he was later captured and half ransom on his way back, the crusade. So effectively he was
out of the country for four years. Maybe he would have expected to have been out for maybe two years and said he'd be sent away for longer than he thought it would be, and the establishment of which he had set up in England to look after his interests while he was absent, sent me on occasion that was very stretched and came close to collapsing, but never autumn if am ever quite date.
And so while he was away that he put John in as to rule the Kingdom, or did he have a just a council of people that he trusted instead of John?
That's a very good question and very interesting. They he very much important to the council to look after his interests. He had already fought against John when he had not been king and in the frequent disputes he had with the rest of his family. So he probably had very little trust in John even before he left England. And at one stage before he was, King insisted he would only go on crusade if John came with him. Obviously, he was afraid that John would try and manipulate
against him while he was away. Once he became king, perhaps, maybe even Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose influence may have played a part here she probably thought is not good for both sons to be a wife fighting in a crusade, especially when Richard had no children. So he may have been persuaded that that was sensible to leave John, but he actually went out of his way to make sure that John's powers were reasonably limited while he was absent from England and from France.
Didn't want a revolt or someone to take over the crown while he was gone.
Exactly. Exactly. And, you know, as it happened, that came very close, quite close to happening. I mean, Richard's selection of people to look after his interests was not 100% successful. There were some people in it world, too, very well in his interest, his mother, everyone was extremely supportive of him. I was a very clever political player in her own right, so she effectively where we did a lot of power on
his behalf, but not all of his councils were successful. One William Longshore effectively ended up being thrown out of England, and for a time it looked as if John's party, if you like, would would assume the most dominant position. And they even at one stage tried to replace Richard, but they were they were kind of outmaneuvered and never quite managed to achieve that.
So he's fighting a crusade in one continent. And then he's got his his council and his men trying to save his kingship on the other, it sounds like.
Exactly. And another complicating factor was that his chief crown crusader was King Philip of France. And if Augustus of France, he returned from the crusade early, much earlier than Richard did, and then started to create a lot of difficulties for Richard back in France while he was away and ended up plotting with John as well. So Richard certainly had a very complicated political situation back in Western Europe to distract him while he was trying to fight the crusade as well.
And the crusade as the third crusade, I think, is one of those that it's one that maybe a lot of people know about or if they hear of battles or things like that. It's the third you say that kind of gets the focus. And it's it's one of the ones that it's kings of Europe. Philip and Richard, against one of the greatest, I guess, Muslim warriors or rulers of the time, maybe all time. And that's of Saladin.
So. Correct. Yeah.
Did this rivalry spring up during the Crusade or was it was Saladin taking over in the in the Middle East? And Richard and Philip had to go and put him down?
Yes. Well, Saladin was the victor of the great battle, that hot air. And he was the Muslim leader who had then reconquered Jerusalem for Islam. And that that made him, if you like, a boogeyman for all of Western Europe, you know, But in fact, he was a it was a very astute political individual. He managed to unite Islam, really, which had up until quite recently been quite disunited and I think significantly quickly became very disunited after his death
as well. So he was a very formidable character, a very estate politician, a capable military leader. But I guess the rivalry between him and Richard was was not really a fierce one until they started to come into close proximity to each other in or out from either the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem or what was left of it after the victory of Saladin. And that really created they the story, if you like, of Richard and Saladin as the great military rivals of the medieval era, something which I
think even resonates a bit today. The influence of the Crusades, at least in psychological terms, I think is still quite significant in the Middle East. Even now in some parts of the Middle East, Saladin is still regarded as an iconic Muslim leader. And Richard, same as they the ultimate crusader enemy, in fact. So certainly once they started to come into close military contact with each other, a face, maybe slightly exaggerated rivalry did come about. It was certainly written
off as a fierce rivalry. I don't think on a personal level it was perhaps as fast as perhaps the chroniclers of the time might have suggested it to be.
And it's I guess it's easier to depict the head of one army against the head of the other army and kind of personalize it that way, as opposed.
To.
Actually two armies going at each other.
Exactly. Yeah. I mean, ultimately, both ladies were, you know, the figureheads of the respective armies, and it was a natural thing to do. Medieval chroniclers were what kind of very good at that kind of, you know, shaping things to give a coherent storyline and not necessarily always letting the facts get in the way. But, you know, they certainly painted this as a fierce rival.
And so were these two men Richard's led. And they have like a warriors respect for each other. Were they bitter enemies or were they just kind of indifferent and like they were just going after the other army?
It's an interesting question. I mean, it's quite difficult to answer because the two of them never actually met. But from what I what I've looked at and what I read on the subject and looking at the various documents in particular,
what comes across is certainly a respect for each other. We do, interestingly have at least one direct comment that is attributed to Martin about Richard, and that was that he regarded him as a great warrior, though someone who was perhaps a bit rash and did not always maximise the potential impact of
his military prowess by my in political actions. So I think Saladin had big respect for him, but maybe now that he was not the complete king and the complete statesman, perhaps in contrast to himself, he didn't say that in so many words, but maybe he was implying, Well, I am more politically astute of Richard's and for Richard's power. I think, you know, there's not much directly attributed to Richard about Saladin, But from what we can tell, he certainly had a degree
of respect for him. But he was Richard. Richard, consistent may one significant military actions against Saladin, but he never actually won the war. So, you know, maybe that in itself would have led to some kind of grudging respect from Richard. For Saladin.
Like you said, they won the battles, but they didn't win the war. So Richard goes into the crusade to win back Jerusalem. Did that happen? And how did the crusade end up ending it?
It never did happen. And you know, from map respect in black and white terms, you you might even say the Crusades should be considered as a failure because the ultimate aim, the recovery of Jerusalem, didn't happen as a result of the crusade. And effectively, I think what happened in the crusade is it kind of fizzled out because both Saladin and
Richard had other concerns. They worried that Richard in particular had this terrible political problem back in Western Europe and must have said that he would not have a kingdom to go back to. So to that respect, he obviously would have wanted to return to sort that out before things had gone too far. He'd already effectively been left by the French king, Philip Augustus. Ultimately, some of the French stayed, but they ended up falling out with Richard and
going their own ways too. So Richard lost a good part of his army, Saladin, and on the other hand was, I think, tired. He had been seriously ill a few years before and he did not long survive the crusade. He died the year after the crusade finished. So he was anxious, I think, some kind of peace settlement to be made, because he suspected that as soon as the Crusader army made his way back to Western Europe, as most of it indeed did, things would return to normal and he would be able to reassert
his authority. But, you know, the big question after is then, for example, he would never give up Jerusalem because that would effectively damage his reputation so much. So what ended it ended up at the conclusion on the crusade was a negotiated truce to last for a few years with some of the lost crusader territories being restored to the the Crusaders. So it cannot therefore be felt that the crusade was an unmitigated disaster. But on the other hand, Jerusalem remained
firmly in Muslim hands. So to that respect, Richard failed to achieve his ultimate objectives.
So somewhat of a compromise. Is there a tie at the end that will give you a little bit back, but we're not going to give you the the prize that they were looking for?
Exactly. Exactly. It was you know, it was a truce. It wasn't really an end to the war. It was just like a break, if you like. And there was always the option. Then in three or so years time, the Crusader would restart again. Ironically, by the time that period of past, Saladin was dead and Richard was in prison, so neither of them were really in a position to do much about it.
All right. All right. Let's get to that part, Richard. The crusade ends. Richard heads back to the Kingdom of England, and then on his way, he gets a captured and arrested in Austria. It was just part of the brewing, I guess, rivalries throughout Europe against him that caused him to be captured.
Absolutely. Although The circumstances which led to it really did start with the crusade itself. But at the time, Europe, certainly Western Europe was falling into three major camps. The first camp was the the English empire, if you like, the Angevin empire, as it was called. So that would have been England in large parts of France that would have been one camp. Then you had a very confident and an emerging French king, Philip, who clearly wanted to win as much land in France from
Richard as he could. That was the second camp. And the third camp was what was called the Holy Roman Empire, which stretched out from Germany through Austria into Italy. And Leopold of Austria was very much in this third camp of a holy Roman Empire. He was a relative of the Holy Roman Emperor. And great. What had happened was that during the Crusade, Leopold had been present at the great Siege of Acre, one of the great
peace sieges of the Middle Ages, and the Crusade succeeded. And in winning the stage and conquering anchor, which was a huge, hugely significant moment because I think it was a very important sea port and ultimately reopened the the former question of Jerusalem to the Crusaders at the end of the siege. Richard and King Philip of France had been leading Richard in large part is there, but there have been a third party led by what we might call simplistically now Germans,
including the Austrians, led by Duke Leopold of Austria. And as the siege ended, Richard Philip and Leopold all put their banners up. I wouldn't say it's a that might sound like very, very much about pride and status, and to some extent it was about art, but it was also about something far more practical. When you put your banner up over a city at the end of the siege, you were staking your claim to a share of the plunder and of the
proceeds of the siege. So Leopold put his flag up alongside those Richard and Philip, and the next thing we know, Duke Leopold Flag is lying in a ditch where it had been thrown from the walls into a ditch and very much, if you like, a rebuttal of his right to any share in the proceeds of the crusade. So he shortly afterwards left there, understandably in a bit of a huff, and he blamed Richard
probably directly for this action. Richard then had to return home and things had got very complicated by now because it was very difficult for him to make his way home in a way that he would avoid his enemies. So very difficult to travel, for example, through France, because the French king Philip would have been back for a while now. We certainly tried to capture him, but he was also very unsure of the actions of the Holy Roman
Empire. The Emperor and Emery was a very manipulative, almost Machiavellian figure, I think not the sort of man you would want to fall into the hands of. So Richard tried to avoid both of these, but it was very difficult to find a route that did so. And unfortunately for him, it was blown off course. His ship was blown ashore in the lands of Duke Leopold and ashore thereafter. He was captured whilst trying to make his way across Austria in disguise. Someone saw through his disguise
and he was seized. Then basically put on trial for various alleged offences which ultimately led to a huge ransom being negotiated for him.
It sounds like coming home from the Crusaders almost more dangerous than being on the crusade. It's tough to get from the Middle East to England over the continent when everyone on the continents out to get you.
Exactly. Yes. Yes. He was certainly very unlucky in the way things had gone politically. And he was very conscious really from the outset that this was going to be a very dangerous journey. And unfortunately for him, things just didn't go to plan. And, you know, he was captured and ironically, he was criticised for abandoning the crusade, even though he was the last king to leave. And even though the man doing the criticism of the Emperor Henry, the Holy Roman emperor, had
never stepped foot on the crusade. So I found that slightly ironic.
The ransom was paid and Richard gets to get back to England. Now, earlier we discussed that Richard faced a revolt from his brother John Did Philip Augustus of France take part in their help spur that revolt, or was he still in the Crusades at that point?
No, he was he was very much instrumental in John's revolt against Richard. He returned back at least 18 months before Richard did. And then, of course, Richard was further delayed by being held captive for a year. So he'd been in France for over ten years by the time Richard got back. And certainly during Richard's absence, especially after Richard had been captured and held for he really stirred the pot, he realized that John was extremely personally ambitious
and he really saw that he could benefit greatly from this. He was, I think, a much stronger character and a much more able character than John. And he was able to dangle various carrots in front of John in return for his support. And John was quick
to take it to try and take advantage of that. So I think Philip was very much the senior partner in encouraging John to revolt and it was only the actions of an area of Aquitaine and some of richest council in England that managed to keep John under some sort of control for while, but even may eventually lost control. John went to France. He very openly did allegiance to Philip for the launch of in Lands in Normandy in particular. And it was it was really, I think, Philip really
driving the revolt. I say John was very much in cahoots with him, but very much the junior partner.
I think Richard gets back from the crusade and then he's Philip is back two years prior trying to take his lands that he had gained through his mother and his father in France. It was Philip's involvement in that revolt that I guess leads Richard into another war, and that's against France to get his lands back.
And the interesting thing about that for me is that you asked the and about whether there was a bit of a rivalry between Richard and Saladin. I think there was a much more bitter rivalry between Richard and Philip named Richard seems to have taken in its actions in the Crusades very personally. He considered it a treacherous state of affairs that while he was in prison, Philip had been attacking his lands and taking a
number of them off him. In fairness to Philip, this was not just a one way street where Richard had been effectively engaged to Philip's sister, Alice, for over 25 years without actually going through with a marriage. And early on in the crusade, he had openly rejected Alice and taken as his wife bearing Aria, a Spanish princess, which was a very public humiliation for Philip. So I don't think we can we can paint
Richard as being squeaky clean here either. But there was a very bitter and intense rivalry between these two men, which really dominated the latter part of Richard's right. I mean, to me, far more than even the Crusades that did, you know. So Richard has a reputation for squeezing England dry of its money, and that's probably true. But it was as much, if not more, to recover his lands in France that he did that as he did the crusade.
He was engaged to Philip's sister and he liked it for 25 years, which is a long engage.
A long time indeed.
And did he meet the wife that he ended up marrying on The Crusade is what was the reason that he decided not to marry Philip's sister and go with the Spanish princess?
That's a good question. I mean, it is a little bit unclear how long he, the Spanish princess wearing Aria of Navarre, had actually known each other by the records, are not 100% persuasive on that. But the arrangements to marry Baron Aria had taken place before he set out on Crusade, and they actually got married during the crusade on Cyprus on their way out to the crusade. And I think the the reasons for not going ahead to the marriage with Alice and then marrying the Spanish
princess, both of those were political. I think he felt it was a card in his hand not to go through with the marriage to Alice. You know, it wasn't just him. His father, Henry. The second had also stopped the marriage from going. There were even allegations that Henry, the second, had had an illicit relationship with Richard's bride to be, Alice. So it all
got tangled. And I think Richard always saw Philip as a rival. He felt it would be more in his interest to protect his his frontiers in the south of France by entering into an alliance with the Spanish kingdom of Navarre than to to marry into Philip's family. So I think there were political and military reasons for this to protect his very important southern flank in France, which Richard was very attached to, which was, I think, probably more in love with his lands in
France than he was his lands in England. So I think politics a military reason they were behind this change of allegiance.
On the surface, it would seem more advantageous to to marry the sister of Philip and kind of unite those lands in France. But I guess on the other side, as you pointed out, the southern part of France is where, you know, if you solidify that alliance and then the Spain isn't coming into to invade that way.
Exactly. Exactly. I, I suspect Philip and Richard had known each other for a number of years before they left on Crusade. I suspect neither of them trusted each other one iota.
And I think Richard quickly identified his main potential opponent was Philip, and I'm sure it would be the same the other way round with Philip regarding Richard as his greatest threat because both of them coveted the same thing, which was ultimately to be the dominant force in France, I think even when they were on the surface on good terms and at times they had been in theory extremely close friends. Even then, I suspect in the background there was no real
trust and perhaps even no real liking between the two men. Some of it almost seems personal, to be honest. You know, it's very easy to get seduced by the stories of politics and alliances and things. But don't forget that we're dealing with two human beings here as well. And I suspect there was a very human mistrust between both of the men.
Richard comes back from a crusade. He spent three years or so on a crusade and then his fight in France to get his lands back and is dispute with Philip. And this is where he gets wounded. And while surveying one of the castles, I see it's shot with a bow or with a crossbow, correct?
Yeah.
All went into his shoulder. Could he have been saved if there was a better surgeon? You know, the wound was it was it fatal from the from the beginning?
It was always dangerous from the beginning. I think medieval surgery, especially in Western Europe, was pretty much a lottery. If you got wounded, you were probably more at risk of dying from infection and from the wound itself. There is always a real danger, even from relatively minor wounds, that an infection would set in and that you would die. The Muslims ironically, had access to far better medical knowledge than
the Crusaders did. So there was always a real risk that Richard could die from this wound in the shoulder, which ultimately went gangrenous. That said, the accounts of his death, he was besieging a mine, a castle in the south of France. The story goes, because the Lord of the castle advanced and treasure, which Richard wanted for himself, and he was basically besieging this castle with a group of mercenaries. And that does not
seem to have been very good medical support with him. I think perhaps this was, after all, expected to be quite a mine, a relatively low risk siege. Certainly when Richard was hit, there appears there is no very good medical facilities to hand. The accounts we have suggest that Richard was butchered
somewhat in trying to remove the boat. So it may within a very short time it became obvious even to Richard, that he was not going to survive this, not because of the wound personally, but because of the infection.
So then he dies, I guess, unfortunately for England, he dies childless. Did he set up his brother John to be king? And was John accepted as king or was there any kind of succession crisis that happened during that period?
That that that's a good question, because he never formally designated John, as is there. And there was a small succession crisis. Richard had a nephew of Brittany, and at one stage he had talked about making off his heir when he was not on very good terms with John, but that had long gone out the window, if you like. And Arthur was not formally designated heir, neither was John. But the crown of England and the French
territories quickly passed to John. Most people staying there seemed to accept that John was the best choice as a replacement for Richard. Things changed somewhat, ironically, when Arthur was captured and then subsequently murdered, according to some accounts by John himself. This had a very dramatic negative effect on John's reputation and on his great
rival, formerly Richard's great rival, King Philip. France was very quick to use the death of Arthur as a reason to to punish John and to take his French territories off him, which he proceeded to do. So there was no immediate succession crisis. And John, as I say, became widely accepted as king. But his treatment of Arthur turned out to be a politically extremely clumsy and rather foolish move which came back to haunt John.
It sounds like Philip was taking any opportunity to get some land away from England at that time and get it back into France's hands.
Exactly Or not? Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, every chance Philip had, he took and he was a very, very small king, You know, he really built the power of medieval France from relatively humble beginnings. He made France the great European power. I'd say he certainly was a hugely capable, if somewhat devious and Machiavellian figure in his own right.
Richard is looked at as kind of the warrior king, you know, fighting the Crusades. He had the battle against France to to win those lands back. Was he liked by the population of England? And did he have a domestic policy or any kind of policy at home that was anything other than taxing the people for the wars?
I don't really think he had much of a domestic policy in England outside of what was in his own best personal interests. And to me, England comes across as being a source of power and wealth. Obviously those two things are quite closely connected and I think everything in England was subservient to his own personal interest, his own personal desires, both first of all, during the Crusades, then for his ransom, which cost an enormous amount of money, you could, of course, argue that
wasn't really his fault. But nevertheless, you know, the policy was all about getting enough money to release Richard. And then finally, in some ways, in his most extreme form, to recover his lost lands in France. So I think England was never really his main priority other than as his most significant source of power. And wealth. And I don't really detect a strong love of England. You know, I detect a much stronger love of
these French lands than is lands in England. I think in England itself he was to some extent respected as a mighty warrior. We have, remember to try and avoid judging the the the 12th century from the perspective of the 21st century, because what we might consider to be a good king now may be full of liberal
principles and Democratic ideas, that kind of thing. That's not really how 12th century medieval Europe generally worked, but by the standards of his own time, I think he was regarded as a very strong warrior and there would have been a certain pride in
that in England. And I think as time went on, particularly in the latter years of his reign, when taxation started to become have they met or even isolated outbreaks of rebellion in England, we can see an increasing disaffection with Richard from England, maybe not once, but maybe not completely dangerous, but certainly symptomatic of a king who had, to some extent in some quarters lost his popularity in England.
Richard the Lionheart is definitely the king that everyone kind of knows the name. What is his ultimate legacy to England and to history?
Well, I think in England itself, his legacy is that is as a kind of inspirational, maybe semi legendary figure, Richard became regarded as the ultimate chivalric warrior. There is a very impressive 19th century statue of Richard outside the Houses of Parliament in London. Clearly, in Victorian times he was seen as a great warrior, an iconic, perhaps in some ways an empire builder. And there's a resonance with the Victorian view of empire there as well. And I think I think that's his
main legacy as a symbolically inspirational figure. As always in history, the facts don't really matter too much. It's the perception which is often more powerful than he was seen as this chivalric figure in some quarters. Now as an inspiration and, you know, as a mighty warrior. His legacy on history,
I think, is more complex than that. It's very interesting that when we had all of the issues in the Middle East post 1911, you may remember there was an adamant offer of difficulty when President George W Bush mentioned the Crusades as as a kind of word to be associated with the military campaign in the Middle East. And Osama bin Laden was very quick to pick up on that as a negative thing, saying this is just the continuation of the Crusades. This is really, you know, part
of a 800 year old battle. Again, whether that's true or not does not really matter. It's the perception which is more powerful. And it's very interesting that he named certain individuals as being significant characters, if you like, on the enemy Christian side during the Crusades. And he picked out Richard for personal mention. I found that very interesting and powerful that 800 years after Rich's death, he still used as a negative representative of the Christian
enemy. In some parts of this ongoing difficult situation we have between some parts of Islam and the rest of the world.
Definitely left an impact. The battles that he wanders character in that part of the world. And he certainly brings up emotion on all sides. You talk to people, historians or whatever, and and you speak of Richard, and they're either usually one way or the other. And he is a horrible king because he was never in England or he was a great king because
he fought these wars for England and then won land back. And it's certainly an impassioned debate when you when you get into Richard Knox, not quite as impassioned as Richard the third. But certainly it's. Yeah.
Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah He still stirs emotions, you know, and maybe a thousand years on, which I think is a mark that is certainly something incredibly powerful in his persona or at least his perceived persona. And I think that's the real legacy which lives on and continues to stimulate debate and divide people. Indeed, to this very day.
Yes, you've covered Richard, the first Richard the Lionheart, and you've covered King Canute and you've covered the Crusades in your various books. Is there another book on the horizon for you?
There is, yes. So following on from my other early medieval interest of the Viking period, I'm in the process of writing a book, which is a history of the Viking era from its beginning to its end. So really picking up the baton a bit from Canute, who was, you know, maybe the most successful and the most significant Viking figure, but that was part of a
much wider movement. So that's my next book, which I'm currently working on and I think probably the middle of next year by the time that's, that's ready to go, that's currently taking up a lot of my research time.
Can't wait for that one for sure.
Excellent. Now it has been fun so far.
Yeah, I bet.
Yes.
Working your fans connect with you. Do you have your own social media? Do you have a website, anything like that?
I'm on I'm on Facebook and LinkedIn and I'm actually in the process of setting up a blog. And so I'm planning to go live for that in a two or three months time, you know, to try and sort of stimulate debate and discussion where the particular emphasis on the medieval period, which as I say, is the one with interest, made the most. So as I say, in 2 to 3 months, I hope that will be up and running. And in the meantime, you know, I'm available on Facebook. Amazon have an all of their site on
that as well. So I'm very happy to connect with anybody in way they wish they.
All right, great. Certainly links all your sites on our show notes here. Are there any any last words you like to say to your fans out there?
I just think the main thing is to be passionate and what you're interested in. You know, I find it very difficult. I mean, my reading was quite eclectic. For the first 30 years of my life. I would dip in here, I'd dip in there. But really for the last 15, 20 years, I focus in the Crusades, particularly medieval period a bit more generally. And I think it's great to identify with a particular aspect of history that particularly draws you in and just throw yourself with
passion into that. I think the other thing is never be afraid to write something. I have some very good friends who are very knowledgeable and I keep on hassling them to write what we know down, because I think particularly in this age of internet and the like, it's never been easier to record your thoughts and the trouble is, if you don't write those thoughts down, one day they'll be gone. And I think that's a real sad loss of, you know, sometimes very specific, very interesting,
very useful knowledge. So never be afraid, never think you're not good enough. Just engage and and share your ideas and your thoughts with others. Never think you've got nothing to say because everybody, I think, has something to say and everybody brings a new perspective to things.
Yeah, that's great. And it's, you know, not even at a national level, right? There's a lot of history being lost on just a family level or local level for all these the older generation that's going away and it never shares their stories sometimes. So it's it's.
Exactly you know, I can remember great characters in my family from when I was a kid. And, you know, I wish now I'd asked more questions of them when they were still around to ask those questions of And I'm now trying to make sure that I write things down and, you know, at least our own legacy. I think it's good to do that.
Earl Wain Bartlett, author of Richard The First The Crusader King of England Thank you for being on the show.
Thanks, Carrie. It's been a pleasure talking to you.
I'd like to thank Wayne for taking the time to come on the show. I hope you guys enjoyed it as much as I did. You can pick up a copy of his book from Amberley Publishing or you can pick it up on Amazon. And again, all the links to his sites and books are at medieval archives dot com slash 79. Richard the Lionheart, The Crusader King of England is a great and a king that everyone seems to know. And now you can get to know him even better. What are your thoughts on
Richard the Lionheart? Was he a great king for England or was he out for personal gain at England's expense? Send your comments and questions over to podcast at medieval archives Ao.com. Now, if you're enjoying the podcast, the easiest way to support us is to tell your friends about it. If you're listening in on your smartphone, you can send them a link right from your phone. The second easiest way to support the podcast rate is on Apple Podcasts. To leave a rating,
visit Medieval Archives XCOM slash iTunes. And if you feel you want to support even more, you can always give a donation at medieval archives dot com slash donate Any amount is appreciated and helps keep the podcast going. And don't forget to check out our website at medieval archives ao.com. Thanks for your time and thanks for your continued support. That's going to wrap it up for this week. Thanks again for subscribing and listening to the Medieval Archives podcast.
Illuminating the Dark Ages for the digital World. The Medieval Archives Podcast. The podcast for medieval news, history and entertainment. If you have any questions, comments, topic, ideas, or would like to sponsor an episode. Send an email to podcast editor. Medieval Archives dot com. Audio files are welcome. You can call in your question or comment. 27207221066. International and long distance charges may apply.
Visit medieval archives at Medieval Archives dot com. You can also follow medieval archives on Facebook at Facebook.com. Forward slash medieval Archives and on Twitter at twitter.com. Forward slash medieval archive. For all your daily medieval updates.