Richard and John: Kings at War (review)

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

Reviewed by: Richard and John: Kings at War Malcolm Barber Richard and John: Kings at War. By Frank McLynn. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-306-81579-9. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xii, 578. $30.00. Twelfth- and thirteenth-century kings spent a high proportion of their time either at war or preparing for it, especially if they held large and disparate territories and had an interest in crusading. However, this is not a specialist study of warfare as such, nor does it contain new research on the subject, although it is based on extensive reading, both of the chronicles and the modern historical literature. It is meant as a dual biography of Richard and John and consequently gives particular attention to their personalities and to the effects of those personalities upon those whom they ruled or encountered as enemies. There is a huge literature on both men and the author makes it clear that there is no consensus on almost any aspect of their reigns, although he himself has come to some robust conclusions about the respective merits of the brothers. He tells a familiar story, making effective use of contemporary narrative accounts, whose judgments are as vigorous as his own. He covers the well-known anecdotes and tackles the main issues which have preoccupied historians. Richard's crusade comes over the most vividly, largely because it is easier for a writer to maintain the central theme; the seemingly endless campaigns needed to maintain the Angevin empire are more difficult to present, especially to readers unfamiliar with the geography of western France. He is a [End Page 257] particular admirer of John Gillingham's favourable view of Richard, and has little time for historians whom he sees as offering a largely specious defence of John's incompetence and cruelty, such as Lewis Warren and Ralph Turner, or whom he thinks are too pro-Philip Augustus, such as Jim Bradbury. In general, he is inclined to accept Richard's view of himself, which is perhaps a tribute to what Gillingham has called the king's 'news management'. In his concluding chapter he sets out the major arguments which he sees as 'defences' of John's behaviour and seeks to show why they do not hold water. Given the importance he places on the narrative sources, the author could have provided a deeper analysis of the nature and aims of the chroniclers. They, too, had their own agendas, and he should not dismiss those historians who seek to adopt a critical approach to them as condescending or afflicted by what he sees as 'political correctness'. After all, a chronicler wrote with a particular purpose in mind, and it was natural for him to mould his material in a manner appropriate to that purpose. McLynn feels there is no need 'to get snarled up in the heated debate' about the state of Angevin finances in 1199, although this greatly impinges upon the reputations of both rulers, for it is a key part of the legacy which John inherited. There are a few mistakes of fact and emphasis, such as his references to pronouncements from the Vatican, inappropriate for this period, and some rather idiosyncratic interpretations of the Albigensian Crusades. The lack of a contents list and chapter headings makes the book more difficult to use than it need be, but this is not fundamentally important in the pursuit of the author's main aim, which is to assess the merits and deficiencies of these two famous or notorious kings, and to present the results of this assessment to a wider public. Malcolm Barber University of Reading Reading, United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 The Society for Military History