This was an interesting read about a subject I previously did not know much about. McLynn goes into great detail, challenging historian's theories and offering his own interpretation of the events that dominated the lives of King Richard and King John. At times however it didn't always feel like McLynn was being truly objective in his account, with him strongly portraying Richard as the brilliant brother and John as the bad one. Whilst the evidence of John's cruelty and Richard's successes do show this largely to be the case, it did feel that McLynn took this feeling too far at some points. The history portrayed is mainly concerned with the military and politic aspects of the period. This is not normally the type of history that interests me and the book did lose me sometimes as the detailed battle accounts and lists of movement do get quite tedious. McLynn also had a love of certain phrases, such as 'raison d'etat', that seemed to appear too frequently and became slightly annoying as a result. His frequent comparisons to Napoleon also bothered me and seemed misplaced within the context of the book. Overall it was a good, detailed book but in concentrating almost wholly on the military and political aspects, I felt something was lacking. I feel I am still largely in the dark about the social aspects that shaped the period and the problems they faced, and the other key players within both inner circles, who I feel I only know by name alone. If you are looking for a military biography of Richard and John then this one will certainly fulfil that wish.
It took me a long time to get around to reading this, mainly because McLynn 'sets his stall', so to speak, right from the start as regards his opinions of Richard and John. Good King Richard, Bad King John could sum up this entire book, and I was looking for something with a little more historical impartiality. That said, McLynn is a good writer. He has a real feel for the medieval era and this book never flags or fails.But as history, I have to hesitate in recommending it.McLynn makes a ridiculous number of definitive pronouncements on Richard and John's characters than can in no way be supported by historical record or sources. He announces things as 'fact' when in reality there is no such thing - his description of Eleanor of Aquitaine is pure fancy, as there are no records of her personal appearance or looks.A good historical biography, as this purports to be, presents the facts as they are and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. McLynn makes it clear right from the start that Richard is the all-conquering hero, the golden boy of the Angevin empire, and John is the black sheep in every sense of the word - and boy, does he repeat this, ad infinitum. Good King Richard, Bad King John. I get it.If you're looking a balanced historical assessment of the reigns of King Richard and King John, this is not the place to find. If, however, you are actually looking for a hagiography of Richard and a polemic against John, then by all means, buy this book.
Do You like book Richard And John: Kings At War (2007)?
OMG this is the hardest book to read, and so dry! But filled with anecdotes and tidbits of medieval life that make it interesting. I've already fallen in love with one historical character - can't remember his name just yet, but he was a devilishly handsome machiavelli who had his nose in the young Richard the Lionheart's business and was important as a troublemaker! And, oh, did you know that if a paid mercenary didn't fulfill his duties on the battlefield or tried to run away he would be hanged? And you were also ex-communicated, since putting yourself in a position where you could die was a form of suicide in the Church's eyes. So, lots of interesting things but I think I've managed to read 2 or 3 pages a day! That's all I can take.
—Anna Small
This was a great book made even better by how easy it reads.My only complaint is McLynns apparent man-crush on Richard the 'genius' which is evident through his total bias to John the lecherous 'embodiement of the seven deadly sins' but if thats what the evidence points to then the boot probalby fits.An area of contention dominating much of the book is Richards sexualality (something i had not thought of until reading this) which has apparently been in hot debate in recent years. Again McLynn defending his hero who couldnt possibly have been gay under any circumstance it seems. What what would be so unusual about a medieval King taking who he wanted when he wanted?Johns taking of his barrons wives and daughters is well documented, why couldnt Richard have the stable boy or the kitchen maid if he desired? Who would stop him or talk against him?A bisexual king (a word not mentioned at all in the book) wouldn't be the strangest scandal in the English royal family.
—Joel
This book falls uncomfortably between two stools. It is difficult to understand why, when any pretence at scholarly objectivity has been abandoned, a writer wouldn't trouble to make the book entertaining; it's hard on the reader when it is neither fun nor particularly credible.It's always a mistake, I feel, when writing history, to allow oneself to develop a crush on one's subject. We saw the terrible effect of doing so on fiction in the work of the late Dorothy Sayers, and we are now seeing the effect of it on history in the instant work.A good analysis of Magna Carta, however, saves the book from being a total loss.
—Tabitha Ormiston-Smith
