Thoughts on King John

I would like to know what you all think about King John and his reign. Was he as certain historians say a much maligned king or was he horrible? Or was he actually a fairly astute politician who was a victim of circumstance?

Personally I think he was a fairly astute politician and maligned by history.

Iirc while John did have to pay for Richard's follies, he added considerbaly to it as well.

He made an ambitious plan to conquer France with his cousin Otto of the HRE, to which end he elevated squeezing money out of commoners and nobles alike to a fine art. That's why he was generally hated.

It might have come out alright if he had been successful, but the French slapped Otto and his allies silly at Bouvines, and John himself didn't even dare face the Dauphin in a battle over Bordeaux and simply buggered home to England.

All the money and effort was wasted, and the only thing John got for his pains was being universally despised by his own.

I think John understood the difference between being a good person and a good leader. He learned from two of the best politicians of his time - Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. In terms of securing lands against foreign invaders King John was the Foreign invader. Philip II was actually John's leige lord in France - although nominally. He lost those lands because he went up against a superior tactician, Philip II who had done battle politically and militarily against Henry II and Richard I. He was a smart enough to realise this and to return to England and tend to matters there.

I would argue as a side note that this is one of the events that helped to shape the English identity since at this point family members had to choose where there lands were (if they had lands on both sides of the channel). Some like the nobles in Normandy, Brittany, or even Anju had to decide do I back my lord or my lord's lord. Thus defining a specific "us" and "them" English and French.

Edited by King John - 24-Feb-2007 at 20:37

i actually think john was just a very emotionally deprived child , his mother abandoned him to a church..and his father didn't leave him any inheritance , he was in fact destined to become a member of the clergy in his youth ( this act was believed to contribute to his contempt towards religion) , he at times showed military brilliance , but over all i think he lacked in confidence and was as used as a scape goats for Richards failures , he didn't inherit a viable kingdom like Richard but one full of trouble..and it was attributed to him rather than Richard , personally i think on some things he did try to do his best , although he may have realized he could never beat Philip in war...he did not waste time campaigning against him , he saw it pointless regarded what he stood to lose.
what i find most interesting is that..of all the depictions of john , in movies like the lion in winter , plays and the robin hood series...it is interesting to note that the Disney animated animal kingdom movie of robin hood seems to be the most accurate!
john is by no means a good man...but i think people in his era painted a much darker picture of him , his contempt for religion was alarming in an age of faith , one bishop did not stoop to low to say ' hell itself foul as it may be is defiled by the presence of john '
he was cruel but no more so than those in his age , his greed was notorious but then all the Angevin's were known for that , but mostly i would have to say his ditherings and procrastinations in dealing with Philip when he invaded Normandy and other parts of the Angevin empire would be his greatest failure.

I think the Magna Carta ought to answer this question for us.

Why wasn't it his place to be king? He was next in line after Richard, since Richard died childless.

And when did he officially take the throne?

Originally posted by Melisende And whilst he was still alive, Richard named his nephew, Arthur, son of their elder brother Geoffrey, as his heir. �

Originally posted by King John And when did he officially take the throne?

Don't know, but he tried to assume power while Richard was still alive.

Officially - 6th April 1999 - the date of Richard's death.