Was king john really a failure
King John is one of the most well-known figures in history because he was the son of King Henry and his brother was Richard the lionheart. Many people think that john was a failure to the throne. However, some people disagree with this view of john. They argue that the evidence that supports the traditional story is unreliable. My view is that john was a successful king. My interpretation differs to the traditional story of king john but it is essential that you know it before I can go on with my argument. Firstly, he supposedly had his first place to rule (Ireland) at the age of eighteen though it also says he lost that part of the empire shortly after because he insulted the Irish barons. Secondly, he plotted against his own brother to take his land and crown whilst he was away on a crusade. Also, he had an opposition to the throne, his twelve year old nephew called Arthur, and in 1202 he was captured and imprisoned which the people didn’t like and soon after a rumour was spread that john murdered Arthur in a drunken rage. Another thing was that john quarrelled with the pope over who should be the archbishop of Canterbury and it ended up with the churches property being taken away and john being excommunicated. Finally, john raised the taxes in England to fund an attack on France to regain his empire though his plan did not succeed and his army was crushed at the battle of bouvines by King Philip II. The traditional story of king john shows that king john was a failure, but how much of it is true? The evidence about king john suggests that the traditional story of his life is not altogether accurate and I’m going to show you how. Roger of Wendover and Gervase obtained there information from visitors and passers-by so it could have just been rumours and not a great deal of fact. Roger of Wendover, Gervase and a man from Barnwell were all monks and would have been influenced by there personal...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document