Product Description

Anyone who has seen 'The Lion in Winter' will remember the vicious, compelling world of the Plantagenets: the towering, almost psychopathic Henry II, commander of the slaughter of Thomas a' Becket, at war with both his wife the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine and his sons (including the subjects of this remarkable book, Richard and John). And readers of the romance of Robin Hood will be familiar with the type-casting of Good King Richard, defending Christendom in the Holy Land, and Bad King John who usurps the kingdom in his absence. But how much do these popular stereotypes correspond with reality? Frank McLynn, known for a wide range of historical studies which are scholarly, punchy and wonderfully readable, has returned to the original sources to discover what the Plantagenets were really like and how their history measures up to their myth. In a substantial but riveting narrative he turns the tables on modern revisionist historians by showing exactly how bad a king John was, despite his intellectual gifts, and in contrast how impressive Richard was - brilliantly successful in war, accomplished artistically and the nearest we are likely to get to the medieval ideal of chivalry. In a narrative that spans most of Europe and the middle east he shows these larger-than-life characters as they really were - Crusading, waging wars in France, negotiating with the papacy, engaging in ruthless dynastic intrigue, often against each other: in Richard's case, holding the kingdom together even when fighting in the Holy Land; and in John's, losing Normandy, catastrophically antagonizing the barons over Magna Carta and losing the Crown Jewels in the Wash. This is history at its most revealing and enjoyable. It conjures up a vanished world in vivid primary colours and in the process gives us the nearest we are likely to get to the truth about two compelling historical archetypes.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #96052 in Books
• Published on: 2007-10-04
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 592 pages

Independent on Sunday, 25 October 2006
'I finished this book thoroughly convinced... his book kept me
locked to its pages for four
hours at a stretch'

Historical Novels Review
A good, old fashioned biography

From the Publisher
The truth behind Richard the Lionheart and Bad King John - brilliantly readable, scrupulously researched and full of powerful story-telling.

Customer Reviews

AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE
I bought this book hoping to gain new insights into Richard and John. What I discovered was a book that is so badly researched that it is a disgrace to the genre.
The author either hasn't read the primacy sources he cites, or hasn't understood them. Most of the time he appears to make it up as he goes along. I reached page 62 and was astonished to read that William Marshal's father was called Geoffrey. Ummm....no. His name was John FitzGilbert. I was further astounded to discover that little William himself was threatened with beheading but was saved when King Stephen took pity on him when he saw the lad playing with the headsman's sword. Where does it say this in any of the sources Mr McClynn? I assume you used l'Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal for this detail? William Marshal was actually threatened with hanging and at some point he enjoyed playing with the Earl of Arundel's fancy spear. Nowhere is a headsman or a sword mentioned. Where on earth did the comment come from that William Marshal as a grown man was boastful when drunk? Again, it's total fabrication.
There is no known description anywhere of Eleanor of Aquitaine, but Mr Mclynn blithely informs the reader that she had dark hair and dark eyes. Would you care to cite the primary source on this? I'd LOVE to see it and so would every other medievalist in the room.
The author states his own opinions as hard fact which is inexcusable. Primary sources (see above) are mauled, distorted and misquoted throughout. The above are only the tip of the iceberg. The author seems to have totally misunderstood the period and the personalities involved.
Quite frankly this is a biased, badly researched work chock full of historical errors and lacking insight. Not recommended.

Dull and simplistic
According to the blurb, Frank McLynn 'turns the tables on modern revisionist historians' who view King John as an innocent victim of circumstance while criticising his much more successful brother, Richard I, out of 'political correctness'. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, garbage. What 'modern revisionist historians' does McLynn have in mind? Every single point for Richard and against John in this book is derived straight from John Gillingham's excellent recent biography of Richard I, dumbed down a notch or two, and then presented as some kind of earth-shattering revelation. Gillingham, far from being a lone crusader against a sea of liberal John-bashers, is in reality representative of current academic consensus. Richard was a good king and John was a bad one, but not such a bad one as McLynn makes out. It is assumed, based on no evidence, that John was afflicted by a bipolar personality disorder, and McLynn wastes no opportunity to blacken his character as he lets his imagination run wild.

More deeply disturbing, however, is the contention that Richard as Holy Warrior has unjustly fallen foul of 'political correctness'. Surely it is not just 'politically' incorrect to massacre 3,000 enemy prisoners in cold blood to avoid the effort of keeping them alive, as Richard did in 1191. Sidestepping this potentially thorny issue, McLynn merely states that contemporary opinion excused it as 'raison d'etat'.

The book is written in an annoying brand of tabloid-journalese which drags on for page after page, and quickly becomes very boring. It's hard not to think that McLynn has aimed this book specifically at Daily Mail readers infuriated at perceived cases of 'political correctness gone mad', who will doubtless find much to enjoy in this appalling book. Anyone with sense should read this instead: Richard I (Yale English Monarchs)

Very dry
I always try to finish a book, no matter how bad but this title was a struggle. You cannot imagine my relief at finally putting it down.

My gripe is with the author's prose, it felt like I was reading a textbook. Bits of history I was looking forward to in this title such as Richard I on crusade, the battle of Bouvines and King John signing the Magna Carta were described with such dry tones, I couldn't help feeling the author had lost all perspective of what his readers would be interested in. I did not in any way feel myself drawn into this period.

If anything, the only real impression made by this work is the author's continual axe-grinding in relation to redressing what he perceives to be an injustice committed by modern historians to the Lionheart and a determination to prove the very same historians wrong in their assessment of lackland.

I do not recommend this title to popular history fans.