Richard did not try to colonize, he effectively owned the largest share of it through his mother, the Empress of the Angevin Empire.
It was his from the start, and the Aquitainians were his lawful subjects.
If anything, the French were the colonists, since the king of France had inherited a crippled kingdom, and his subjects (like Richard) were effectively more powerful than he was, owning more and better lands.
King Phillip of France was the aggressor and the colonizer, since he claimed rulership of lands that were not only not his, but rightfully belonged to one of his own subjects.
This part is factually incorrect, John was appointed to rule in Richard’s place by Richard himself while he was away on the Crusades. It was on John’s behest that Leopold of Austria imprisoned and ransomed Richard. Not everything in the legends are mere fantasy you know, there are a lot of facts melded with fiction. John was extremely ambitious and wanted the rule for himself. Richard and Leopold were rival Crusaders but he would never dare making Richard a captive if he did not have assurance from John that he would not send his army to Austria to free Richard. John even tried to delay the collection of ransom to free Richard. When Richard finally returned thanks to the money collected from the Jews who remembered his just treatment he even forgave John. I don’t know why but you seem to be so hell bent on proving that Richard wasn’t a good king that you would even compare him to his brother John, who was unequivocally one of the most vainly ambitious rulers of England.
It was you who started comparing the achievement of Richard and Edward else it’s painfully obvious that the Third Crusade was the most important Crusade and none of the others even come close to it in terms of the leaders, the strength of the forces, the events and their outcomes.
I believe the answer has already been given by JonOli12
I get it, Richard should have returned from the dead to make sure his orders were being followed but I sincerely doubt that the people of medieval England were even familiar with the concept of a zombie, let alone follow the orders of a zombie king.
Thanks but that was mostly rhetorical. But I never intended to get aggressive and I doubt I ever really did, that is why I tend to make use of humour a lot to keep things light but if anything I said did seem overtly aggressive, my apologies.
I am not even European, let alone English. I have no rat in this race so my passion is quite irrelevant. But the real reason I like Richard more than Edward or any other English king of the time is his sheer sense of nobility. The ability to show a modicum of empathy towards the Jews at a time when even the Church of England turned a blind eye toward their massacre and even evoking the Church’s ire by sentencing the murders to death. The ability to pardon ones own assassin and have him sent off with a reward. And all this from an English king of the middle ages, one who was a predecessor of Edwards by almost a century, if you don’t find that remarkable I’m afraid your judgement is beyond repair.
But I am not talking about who we feel was a better king or a better person here, at least I was initially before I was drawn into this debate. It’s about whose life is more interesting and would make a better campaign in a game. The answer to which I believe is Richard the Lionheart hands down.
Interesting but you know what, everything we are busy debating here is based on information handed down though ages, omissions and embellishments included. There is no way of ever truly knowing unless someone invents a time machine.
P.S. Wanted to add this into my last post by apparently that’s no longer allowed because this topic is on something called slow mode.
I said in terms of everything like leaders involved, size of their armies, events and outcomes, not just territorial changes. Also the capture of Jerusalem was one of the turning points that furthered the Crusades but that does not make the First one the most important. It’s just not my opinion alone, you may come across this in many books and articles where many historians and biographers name the Third as the most significant one.
If the First Crusade had failed, there would most likely be no others.
But because it proved the Holy Land could be taken again by a Christian power, there was incentive to do several more.
I did say the capture of Jerusalem was one of the turning points but the Third Crusade involved a lot more than territorial gains, it’s the first time the concept of Jihad was established and the Muslim forces were able to unite under a strong leader like Salah al-Din Yusuf and fight back and even recapture lost territories. It was the first time the conquest for something else other than mere territories was in play with the capture of the Piece of the True Cross by Saladin. It was perhaps the oldest historical account of POW exchange, albeit the negotiations broke down. All this and other facts like the involvement of the most important monarchs of Europe, the largest armies on both sides and other pretty significant events and their outcomes make the Third one the most studied, depicted in arts and literature and not to mention the most interesting one of all.
