Richard’s credibility has come under fire from historians in the last hundred years as to whether his prolonged absence shows that he neglected England. Whilst it is true that Richard I may have little interest in England, he did manage to use his diplomatic skills to secure England’s borders. On the other hand, it can be argued that he was too military based which portrays him as a war-obsessed king who did not succeed in the Crusades; he also failed to form key alliances. Richard I did leave a well-respected man, Hubert Walter, in charge during his absence who kept Richard informed as to what was happening in England. Furthermore, Richard was one of the best military commanders and his tactical nous made him one of the most skilled military …show more content…
Before coming to the throne in 1189, Richard possessed a lot of previous military experience. A large portion of this was in Aquitaine where he faced off rebels and even invasion from his brother, John. Despite all of this being a positive for some, Richard was always focused on fighting and was very militant. When Richard went on the Crusades, the sole purpose was to gain back Jerusalem which was currently under Saladin. However, when Richard returned to England, he did not fully have control of Jerusalem. This implies that he had perhaps failed. In order to fund his Crusade, Richard did everything he could to raise funds and even sold prestigious positions and offices. Famously he joked, "I would have sold London if I could find a buyer." This highlights how much money the Crusade cost England and also how it was a major financial strain on England. Therefore, for him to lose the Crusades was a waste of not only money, but also resources and soldiers. Richard used the wealth of England abroad to fight his battles and is seen as war-obsessed by some. All in all, Richard won small victories at home in France yet could not gain back full control of Jerusalem. In order to fund the Crusades, Richard made huge financial demands and so for him to lose all that money demonstrates how he neglected the wealth of …show more content…
Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem prompted Richard to start building an army to go on the Third Crusade in order to remove Saladin’s forces from the Holy Land. Richard was supported by French king, Philip II and Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire. The Crusaders captured Acre however Richard could not get on with Leopold who was ascended to command Imperial forces in the Holy Land after the death of Frederick Barbarossa in 1190. Richard questioned Leopold’s place in the Crusade. After the conquest of Acre, Richard’s men pulled down Leopold's banner at Acre, the Austrian departed and returned home in anger with his forces. Questioning Leopold’s ability was a costly mistake as it would later be Leopold who would capture Richard on his journey back from Jerusalem and demand a ransom of 150,000 marks. Now Richard’s only alliance was France’s Philip II and he was a vital ally. However, their alliance came to an end when the two had a disagreement concerning Cyprus and the kingship of Jerusalem after they would drive out Saladin’s men. Philip made the decision to return to France. These decisions weakened Richard’s military position as he was fully aware that he could not hold Jerusalem if he took it and that John and Philip were plotting against him at home at the same time. Circumstances may have varied greatly in Richard’s favour had he been
...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
Another cause for his unpopularity was the question of benevolences. When he was crowned Richard promised to stop the use of benevolences as this was particularly disliked by the nobles. However because of the war with Scotland , the threat of Henry and rebellions Richard had to later ask for benevolences once again. This made him even more
Richard the Lionheart is the only King to stay and take Jerusalem. Even though Richard has a strange relationship with Saladin, he still fails to retake the city. After reaching a truce in 1192, Saladin gets to keep control of Jerusalem, but has to allow the Christians to visit the city. After the Third Crusade, there was never enough will power to do much to retake the city.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
He eventually was weakening the nations funding in huge amounts. Richard had made large mistakes in his previous years, including when he offered the Duke of Brittany a whole legion of British Archers in return for Henry as a prisoner. This event backfired when Henry fled to France after hearing of the plot, he then revealed this offer to the King of France, which enraged him, as the British were cooperating with the Bretons. The King of France gave Henry huge support, including financial backing, and military backing so that he could overthrow Richard III. It is certain that lacking this support Henry Tudors attempted revolt would have been suppressed.
Beginning not too long after the failure of the Second Crusade, the Third Crusade (also known as the Kings' Crusade) spanned from 1189 to 1192. It's purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land from Saladin, and was largely successful, and the European leaders managed to capture the cities Acre and Jaffa, as well undo the majority of Saladin's previous conquests. However, it was unable to capture Jerusalem, the key motivation to the Crusades. The key figures in this Crusade were Richard I of England (also known as Richard the Lionhearted), King Philip II of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
When you hear of historical figures that “conquered” a certain time period, you think of barbarians, spartans, or other gruesome, battle-tested men. While William I, the King of England and Duke of Normandy, was also nicknamed the “Conqueror”, he achieved success reigning over his time period in very different ways than that of Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. Regardless of his path to success, William I played a huge part in the religious evolution of England. Using his advantageous leadership position, William I was able to be prosperous for many decades. His illustrious career is historical proof that a country does not need to be overtaken by brute force alone.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Richard had weakened since he had become king and was no longer ruthless as he had no reason to be ruthless. He had got what he wanted and was pleased with himself. He thought he was invincible, and he was too confident, which cost him his life. If he had been more careful, he would have been aware of the danger that lied before him. But, he did use some similar techniques in both the scenes.
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
He was the son either of the police actuary Friedrich Wagner, who died soon after his birth, or of his mother's friend the painter, actor and poet Ludwig Geyer, whom she married in August 1814. He went to school in Dresden and then Leipzig; at 15 he wrote a play, at 16 his first compositions. In 1831 he went to Leipzig University, also studying music with the Thomaskantor, C.T. Weinlig; a symphony was written and successfully performed in 1832. In 1833 he became chorus master at the Würzburg theatre and wrote the text and music of his first opera, Die Feen; this remained unheard, but his next, Das Liebesverbot, written in 1833, was staged in 1836. By then he had made his début as an opera conductor with a small company which however went bankrupt soon after performing his opera. He married the singer Minna Planer in 1836 and went with her to Königsberg where he became musical director at the theatre, but he soon left and took a similar post in Riga where he began his next opera, Rienzi, and did much conducting, especially of Beethoven.
The Difference of Understanding and Accepting Richard’s growing disdain for organized religion upsets his family greatly, considering he grows up in an intensely religious household. Richard is shut out by his family due to the lack of appreciation and practice of religion. Also, Richard is critical about the idea of faith, because Richard feels as if God was real then why would he make people suffer the way he felt black individuals did. He also sees the idea of faith as a way to further oppress the black community, due to black people accepting how white people treat them. Richard’s intellectual curiosity also disregards his family’s own value system because of the sinful nature of reading books and obtaining knowledge that is not
Hidden in the shadows, flitting from window to wall to door and beyond, monsters creep into the world and turn it inside-out and upside-down. As can be seen in Richard III by William Shakespeare, the monster exists as a corporeal and analytical creature that has a tendency to hide from the general population. Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, is arguably the most prominent and alluring monster in the book. Despite his deformities—the bent spine, unbalanced shuffle, and shrunken arm—Richard manages to overcome his perceived bodily hindrances by using his mind to play different roles. This suggests that it might not be an unfinished body that makes him monstrous, but rather a duplicitous mind. Richard’s case clarifies the common notion that monsters
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of