Aims and Motives
Aims and ObjectivesA number of motives behind Richard's broad activities have been suggested by historians over the last few centuries and as with all famous individuals, perceptions and accounts of him change and continue to change in light of shifting focuses, fresh analysis and new sources.
Some of the key motives for Richard's activities in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East are identified as:
On one view, Richard's primary interest was war with victory. Often, he has been evaluated in that context by historians from the 18th century onwards. Even if he was a neglectful ruler, his military prowess, tactical astuteness and resolute determination overshadow that aspect. Thus, historians have privileged his military deeds over his governance. In fact, these military deeds it can even be argued were seen to mitigate his negative character traits.
As an example, the historian William E. Aytoun writing in the early 19th century admits Richard's poor governance but gives precedence to his military ambitions due to the necessity of that kind of ambition - according to Aytoun - for the political unity of Anglo-Norman and Angevin Kings. Aytoun writes in hyperbolic fashion:
Richard has been often and justly blamed for his inattention to the interests of his subjects but [...] as a warrior Richard is certainly entitled to rank amongst the most distinguished of ancient or of modern times. The field of his exploits was indeed circumscribed when compared with that of others; but such as it was, it offers to our view as dazzling a train of splendid successes as ever fell to the lot of king or chieftain to achieve.
The Life and Times of Richard I, pp.347, 349.
William Stubbs late in the 19th century also highlights Richard's ambitions being primarily glory and military success:
[it] was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory he sought was victory rather than conquest.
Constitutional History of England, 1:575.
However, even before Aytoun and Stubbs in the 19th century, the great Scottish empiricist Philosopher David Hume defined Richard's valour and military achievements as not only defining of his success and reputation, but the factors that made him a real man:
The most shining part of this prince’s character are his military talents. No man, even in that romantic age, carried personal courage and intrepidity to a greater height and this quality gained him the appellation of the lionhearted, coeur de lion. He passionately loved glory, chiefly military glory; and as his conduct in the field was not inferior to his valour, he seems to have possessed every talent necessary for acquiring it.
Thus, It seems to be that Richard's ambitions were primarily military. His character consisted of valour and desire for glory. It was these qualities some historians argued that made him so successful (especially in the Third Crusades) as a king and leader. Not only did it make him successful, but it shaped him to become the kind of man he was; differentiated from other medieval commanders. In other words, his love of military adventure and expedition made him a better general. "Military maketh the man" one could say.
On Richards character and qualities, see the page "Chivalrous Warrior" and the sources and analysis in there.
Wealth and Power
A number of historians have also suggested that Richard's aims were not really good governance - nor even glory - but war and wealth in order to serve to consolidate his power. His desire for wealth was also to fund his ambition to retake Jerusalem - but for another pretext for him to acquire new wealth and new regions to control and dominate. In Kings and Queens of England, p.28, Moncrieff writes:
Richard tended to regard England mainly as a piece of property from which, by taxes or other means, he could raise money for the Crusades. He got it chiefly in large lump sums from the wealthier people. For instance, he sold the Archbishopric of York for £2,000. He put Ranulf Glanvill in prison, for no reason except that the old man rich - King Henry's strong sense of justice not having descended to his sons - and this fetched a ransom of £15,000.
Some of the key motives for Richard's activities in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East are identified as:
- Personal glory.
- Direct conquest.
- power and wealth.
- Strategic vision.
- Defense of territory.
On one view, Richard's primary interest was war with victory. Often, he has been evaluated in that context by historians from the 18th century onwards. Even if he was a neglectful ruler, his military prowess, tactical astuteness and resolute determination overshadow that aspect. Thus, historians have privileged his military deeds over his governance. In fact, these military deeds it can even be argued were seen to mitigate his negative character traits.
As an example, the historian William E. Aytoun writing in the early 19th century admits Richard's poor governance but gives precedence to his military ambitions due to the necessity of that kind of ambition - according to Aytoun - for the political unity of Anglo-Norman and Angevin Kings. Aytoun writes in hyperbolic fashion:
Richard has been often and justly blamed for his inattention to the interests of his subjects but [...] as a warrior Richard is certainly entitled to rank amongst the most distinguished of ancient or of modern times. The field of his exploits was indeed circumscribed when compared with that of others; but such as it was, it offers to our view as dazzling a train of splendid successes as ever fell to the lot of king or chieftain to achieve.
The Life and Times of Richard I, pp.347, 349.
William Stubbs late in the 19th century also highlights Richard's ambitions being primarily glory and military success:
[it] was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory he sought was victory rather than conquest.
Constitutional History of England, 1:575.
However, even before Aytoun and Stubbs in the 19th century, the great Scottish empiricist Philosopher David Hume defined Richard's valour and military achievements as not only defining of his success and reputation, but the factors that made him a real man:
The most shining part of this prince’s character are his military talents. No man, even in that romantic age, carried personal courage and intrepidity to a greater height and this quality gained him the appellation of the lionhearted, coeur de lion. He passionately loved glory, chiefly military glory; and as his conduct in the field was not inferior to his valour, he seems to have possessed every talent necessary for acquiring it.
Thus, It seems to be that Richard's ambitions were primarily military. His character consisted of valour and desire for glory. It was these qualities some historians argued that made him so successful (especially in the Third Crusades) as a king and leader. Not only did it make him successful, but it shaped him to become the kind of man he was; differentiated from other medieval commanders. In other words, his love of military adventure and expedition made him a better general. "Military maketh the man" one could say.
On Richards character and qualities, see the page "Chivalrous Warrior" and the sources and analysis in there.
Wealth and Power
A number of historians have also suggested that Richard's aims were not really good governance - nor even glory - but war and wealth in order to serve to consolidate his power. His desire for wealth was also to fund his ambition to retake Jerusalem - but for another pretext for him to acquire new wealth and new regions to control and dominate. In Kings and Queens of England, p.28, Moncrieff writes:
Richard tended to regard England mainly as a piece of property from which, by taxes or other means, he could raise money for the Crusades. He got it chiefly in large lump sums from the wealthier people. For instance, he sold the Archbishopric of York for £2,000. He put Ranulf Glanvill in prison, for no reason except that the old man rich - King Henry's strong sense of justice not having descended to his sons - and this fetched a ransom of £15,000.
Gerald of Wales - a long time clerk of the Angevins who later became a scathing critic - describes Richard in this way:
The King (Richard the Lionheart) is like a robber permanently on the prowl, always probing, always searching for the weak spot where there is something to steal.
Gerald of Wales, vol.8, p.13 translated by Gillingham in Richard, p.133 as cited in Turner and Heiser, The Reign of Richard Lionheart, p.12.
Roger of Howden writes:
Richard put up for sale everything he had - offices, lordships, earldoms, sheriffdoms, castles, towns, lands, the lot.
John T. Appleby in England without Richard 1189-1199 (New York: Ithaca, 1965), p.36 states that Richard was:
"for all practical purposes, he was king in name only ..." making England "an inexhaustible source of money".
The King (Richard the Lionheart) is like a robber permanently on the prowl, always probing, always searching for the weak spot where there is something to steal.
Gerald of Wales, vol.8, p.13 translated by Gillingham in Richard, p.133 as cited in Turner and Heiser, The Reign of Richard Lionheart, p.12.
Roger of Howden writes:
Richard put up for sale everything he had - offices, lordships, earldoms, sheriffdoms, castles, towns, lands, the lot.
John T. Appleby in England without Richard 1189-1199 (New York: Ithaca, 1965), p.36 states that Richard was:
"for all practical purposes, he was king in name only ..." making England "an inexhaustible source of money".
Jerusalem
- Richard’s motive for being involved in the Third Crusade was religious. The Holy Land was the emotional center of the Christian world.
- Richard no doubt had a personal connection to the Holy Land. His great grandfather was Fulk of Anjou, the King of Jerusalem (jure uxoris) from 1134-1142.
- Richard may also have seen the Crusades as a military adventure – an opportunity for prestige and glory. A means for military posterity.
- No doubt he achieved that posterity in the annals of religious and military history.
Successes and Failures of the Third Crusade
Perspectives
Alternative viewsRichard I is situated in what is labeled as the "Third Crusade". The literature on the crusades is vast and some background on the Third Crusade for the purpose of understanding the context that defines Richard's objective and strategy is already given in another page.
However, a number of historians are increasingly inclining towards a view that Richard's immediate aim was never to capture Jerusalem, i.e. it was never direct military conquest. Rather, his aim appears to be securing a political base for himself in thee Middle East by strategically seeking a settlement with Saladin. This would over time allow for a Christian political presence in the region to grow. One of the key locations for enabling this was the coastal cities like Jaffa, Acre and Ascalon (See map below) and neighbouring Egypt - which Saladin considered immensely important. The main thrust of the reasoning of these historians is that Richard prioritised a long-term geo-political strategy over military intervention.
Professor Andrew Latham is one academic who argues for the alternative reading of why Richard abandoned directly occupying Jerusalem despite there being a few opportunities to do so.
Andrew LathamLatham concludes:
Viewed in this way, the decision to “abandon” the advance on Jerusalem in January 1192 is perfectly explicable. For Richard, taking Jerusalem by force of arms was never a primary strategic objective. To be sure, he agreed to lead the advance under pressure, and probably hoped that such an advance would add to the pressure on Saladin to negotiate a settlement favorable to the crusaders. But my reading is that he never seriously intended to lay siege to the Holy City. When it became possible for him to call off the advance, he seized the opportunity, renewing both negotiations and his indirect strategy of pressuring Saladin by taking, refortifying and holding Ascalon.
However, a number of historians are increasingly inclining towards a view that Richard's immediate aim was never to capture Jerusalem, i.e. it was never direct military conquest. Rather, his aim appears to be securing a political base for himself in thee Middle East by strategically seeking a settlement with Saladin. This would over time allow for a Christian political presence in the region to grow. One of the key locations for enabling this was the coastal cities like Jaffa, Acre and Ascalon (See map below) and neighbouring Egypt - which Saladin considered immensely important. The main thrust of the reasoning of these historians is that Richard prioritised a long-term geo-political strategy over military intervention.
Professor Andrew Latham is one academic who argues for the alternative reading of why Richard abandoned directly occupying Jerusalem despite there being a few opportunities to do so.
Andrew LathamLatham concludes:
Viewed in this way, the decision to “abandon” the advance on Jerusalem in January 1192 is perfectly explicable. For Richard, taking Jerusalem by force of arms was never a primary strategic objective. To be sure, he agreed to lead the advance under pressure, and probably hoped that such an advance would add to the pressure on Saladin to negotiate a settlement favorable to the crusaders. But my reading is that he never seriously intended to lay siege to the Holy City. When it became possible for him to call off the advance, he seized the opportunity, renewing both negotiations and his indirect strategy of pressuring Saladin by taking, refortifying and holding Ascalon.
Skills: Critical Thinking
Alternative Historical Interpretation
Read professor Latham's full essay "Why King Richard Did not March on Jerusalem" here.
Questions:
1. What according to Latham was the conventional view of Richard abandoning his advancement into Jerusalem?
2. What reasons does Latham offer to challenge the conventional view?
3. What is your view? Give reasons for your view and understanding
Alternative Historical Interpretation
Read professor Latham's full essay "Why King Richard Did not March on Jerusalem" here.
Questions:
1. What according to Latham was the conventional view of Richard abandoning his advancement into Jerusalem?
2. What reasons does Latham offer to challenge the conventional view?
3. What is your view? Give reasons for your view and understanding