Richard the Lionheart - Professor Robert Bartlett 

Buy a book!

Exactly England was pretty stable by this time with 3 centuries as a kingdom . Meanwhile these lands in Aquitaine were new acquisitions to the kingdom and rebellions needed to be put done to ensure they wouldn’t secede

He was French ultimately - much moreso than English and his principle concern was lands in France. England was a convenient possession to this end.

​@@nutyyyy not really. His French lands were the ones that had been taken while he was captive. He needed to take them back.

For my money his best performance,,with a stellar supporting cast and a superb script.

‘ I had no sons.’ ‘I had but 3 wiskered things, but no sons’.

"Well, what shall we hang? The holly or each other?"

Well said. Couldn’t agree more 👍🏻

Agreed! Bartlett did a great documentary series on medieval lives and the plantagenent. He's excellent!

I also like David Starkley

Exactly. Hollywood tho lol even documentaries. Dan snow looks "prettier " for TV soooooo yeah lol they pick who looks good. Ridiculous

Arguable but another great historian focusing on medieval England is dan jones who did a series on the plantagenets

That was an amazing series,along with his series on the Normans...

100 percent true....

depends on your desired profession. For the layman, this kind of learning is great.

Richard was not the only king to go on crusade but he was one of the more successful. He made terms with Saladin because he wasn't going to defeat him. Seriously you people just like to be edgy.

@@erikmacleod9934 it's simple go look the fact ( History can't be changed) and you should know that by now ?

@@erikmacleod9934 Salah Eddine open and took back the holy land of palastian did he not ? And that Richard was ambush on wood 🪵 before get back to england !! That Richard killed so many 🤔 men's without Sord on exchange he was nothing compar to Salah Eddine and history prove that ... But is out of context to original of subject ?

@@erikmacleod9934 And even with those 'glorious' victories, he didn't take back Jerusalem, you know the main goal of the crusade. So whatever Saladin lost those battles, he won the war.

@@galatzy01 Richard realized he had to return and conquer Egypt and then Jerusalem would change hands and this state could be maintained long term. Philippe Augustus and his duplicity destroyed his plan.

@@richardpaschal2218 It doesn't change the outcome, Saladin by merely holding Jerusalem won the war. We can find as many excuses we want to absolve Richard however his own behaviour facilitated the outcome Putting down the standard of the duke of Austria at the end of the siege of Acre was a stupid move, deprieving the crusade of the German contigent and came back to bite him in the ... when he was captured by the same duke later. The ransom bankrupted the Angevin Empire, dooming any attempt for John to keep it together and giving a field day for Philippe to destroy it. Choosing over Conrad of Montferrat to maintain Guy of Lusignan as king of Jerusalem, the same man who was crushed at Hattin and provoked the downfall of the kingdom alienated half of the forces present in the Levant, mind you in the end, he accepted that Conrad should be the next king, but it was far too late for the crusade. Keeping secret his intentions for attacking or not Jerusalem also alienated the duke of Burgundy, the leader of the French contigent of crusaders after Acre. I believe the worse is the guy had everything for him, Richard was a gifted great fighter, heir of the richest French holdings and king of an efficient and centralized England, he was most certainly on paper the most powerful and richest man of Europe. But in terms of strategy and politics, he was so useless that it is infuriating to see how he wasted everything. At the opposite, if we look at what Philippe started with, a title of king on paper with meager holdings around Paris and Orléans and what he ended with, Isle de France, Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Artois, Berry, Auvergne and Brittany back in the French fold, arguably taking the mantle from Richard as the most powerful man in Europe, we see clearly the difference between a great king and Richard.

Precisely. I dont understand how anyone would call him their favourite king when he was in fact poor at it. There are far more competent warrior kings of the english monarch like Edward I and Edward III.

Why was he not a good king?

Couldn’t agree more

I mean it lowkey was a good thing a king having absolutely all the power is horrifying no person she have have that much power and the Barron’s knew it .

Megan Markle, the current Eleanor of Aquitaine...lol

There’s only so much he can cover in an hour… the specifics behind raising the ransom isn’t that relevant to his overarching story 🤷🏻‍♀️

Freddie Mercury.