Richard the Lionheart by John Gillingham

Extensive footnotes are at the bottom of each page. Gillingham's arguments are logical and straightforward and the text's organization reflects this. The writing style is excellent and moves quickly, although all the Henrys, Johns and Hughs can become confusing. Additionally, Gillingham explains the standards of the times by which Richard and his contemporaries felt his responsibilities and duties lay and whether they viewed his efforts as worthwhile, frivolous, successful, or short. Richard is evaluated as a statesman, administrator, leader, strategist, tactician, warrior, husband, son, and believer. Gillingham's solid history gathers this information into one narrative, refuting unfounded accusations, supporting the accurate, and admitting where the historical record is silent. Since the 1970's medievalists have consistently found that the data disproves much of the negative history.

Over time, the orthodox position became 'bad son, bad husband, bad king.' Later historians would echo these criticisms and add unfounded rumors of their own. Unfortunately, revisionist historians beginning in the eighteenth century - including Hume and Gibbon - judged him harshly by the standards of their own eras. Admired or envied by his Muslim and European opponents and contemporaries, Richard the Lionheart cast a long shadow. For almost 600 years Richard I was regarded as one of England's greatest kings - the standard that other kings strove to emulate or were measured against, not only in England but across Europe.

Richard the Lionheart by John Gillingham