| For the DEFENSE
When Richard 1 died , his brother John, the fourth and youngest son
of Henry II, succeeded to the throne.
The task of ruling the assortment of lands which constituted the Angevin
Empire, to which he succeeded, was a difficult one. The heavy financial
demands that John was accused of making ,because of inflation, followed
Richard's expensive crusading activities plus the heavy taxation for ransom
to release him from captivity. Until recently the reputation of John has
been based on chroniclers who wrote of John before he had established himself
as a monarch or after his death.
William of Newburgh and Gerald of Wales wrote observations of John as
a teenager, before he became king
Most influential in creating John's bad historical reputation is Roger
of Wendover, who wrote his Flowers of History well after John was dead.
Victorian historians have vented their disapproval of John's morality,
founded on these monastic chronicles.
None of the Angevins were attractive characters. Richard like John,
has been described as ' a graceless boor', but Richard had the glamour
of having been a Crusader in the Holy Land.
It is only in recent times, since administrative records have been studied
by experts, that a more balanced view of John and his reign has emerged.
Official records depict John observing the church's feasts and participating
in penitential practices. The king made arrangements for feeding hundreds
of paupers, and almsgiving was a normal part of the royal household's expenses.
Testimony of Lady Doris Mary Stenton, historian
I studied some of the pipe rolls for John's reign and was the general
editor 1933-1964 of The Great Roll of the Pipe 1-17.
John's frequent gifts to small and obscure religious houses, often convents,
suggests his uncalculating generosity. John had a lively mind and a keen
intelligence and I consider him to be no tyrant.
His personal attention to the work of his courts and legal development
has led me to discount the barons' conviction that the king tampered with
justice for selfish ends and to conclude that he deserves more praise than
blame for his tireless activity in hearing pleas, especially his readiness
to admit litigants not only into his court but to his presence, and, for
developing judicial administration.
Of John's military ability, his ill-repute results chiefly from his
disastrous failed defence of Normandy, 1202-1204. Yet, John's military
record on his death is hardly one of cowardice or incompetence; he was
a capable enough strategist and skilled in seigecraft. His strategy for
recovering his lost duchy came incredibly close in 1214. Philip Augustus
had at his command far superior resources than John. John recruited experienced
mercenary officers and soldiers in preference to the untrained and disorderly
feudal host, but John's allies failed him, not his mercenaries but his
barons.
Some of the most respected barons remained loyal to the king, despite
occasional quarrels.
One was William Marshal, soldier of fortune in his youth, and subject
of a French poem of more than 19,ooo lines, and considered the very model
of feudal virtue
Testimony of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke, the nation's leading
soldier d.1219
I was a mentor and companion at arms to John's elder brother Henry,
teaching him courtesy and martial arts.
When Richard I went to the crusades I remained as one of his agents
in England.
I favoured John when it came to determining Richard's successor and
persuaded wavering English barons to support him. John made me earl of
Pembroke at his coronation. and I became royal companion, counsellor and
military commander
Even Philip Augustus declared me the most loyal man he had ever known.
Before John died he appointed me as regent and guardian for Henry III,
John's son.
Some of the most powerful barons remained loyal to the king, even though
they had interests in Normandy to consider.
Testimony of Ranulf III, earl of Chester
I had substantial Norman holdings, as did many English barons. Many
important Norman barons defected to the French king Philip Augustus' side
in 1203. When my brother-in-law, the lord of Fougères, Brittany
deserted, John was suspicious of, but quickly regained confidence in me.
John relied on me as a Marcher Lord to defend the frontier with Wales,
and at the height of the rebellion of the barons when a formidable proportion
of the baronage was from the northern counties he could count on my allegiance.
I was a leading loyalist magnate in the troubles which followed the great
baronial revolt of 1215-16
John could inspire loyalty among capable administrative officials:
and he took a serious interest in administration. The long series of the
English charter, patent, and close rolls date from his early years. John
chose initially administrators who had already proved themselves to be
very able men in Richard's absence and they also won easy acceptance by
their fellow barons.
Testimony of Hubert Walter: Chancellor and Archbishop of
Canterbury and former justiciar. Died in July 1205
I had served Richard I as justiciar and accompanied him on crusade,
returning to England in 1193. Considering that Richard spent the greatest
part of his reign away from England, I had to be an able administrator
in his absence.
I resigned as justiciar for Richard in 1198, but at his coronation John
retained me as his chancellor.
Testimony of Geoffrey fitz Peter, Earl of Essex, justiciar. Died
1213
I succeeded Hubert Walter as Chief justiciar in 1198, and headed England's
administration in that post until my death in 1213.
With William Marshal and the archbishop, I helped persuade hesitant
English barons to accept John as their king and swear fealty to him after
Richard died.
At his coronation John made me Earl of Essex. Most of John's justices
owed their selection to me and I organised periodic circuits of royal justices
that carried the king's justice to the shires, creating a link between
central government and the localities.
With the loss of Normandy, John's almost permanent residence in England
gave him greater opportunity to involve himself personally in the work
of justice.
John was also wise in his later choice of leading officers of State.
When Geoffrey fitz Peter died he appointed Peter de Roches as justiciar.
After him, John appointed Hubert de Burgh. Both of Geoffrey fitz Peter's
successors proved to be reliable men. John de Grey, a trusted bishop of
Norwich whom John had tried to appoint as Archbishop of Canterbury, he
made Irish Justiciar in 1208.
An accomplishment of John's was to establish the nucleus for a royal
navy. He understood the importance of seapower and the value of economic
sanctions maintained by naval blockade. In his wars against Wales and Ireland
John made good use of his seapower. There was also always the treat of
invasion from the French and soon after John's death, it was to be Hubert
de Burgh's sea victory over Louis of France in 1217, which brought an end
and humiliation to French Prince's invasion.
Testimony of William of Wrotham, Canon of Wells and Archdeacon
of Taunton and royal clerk King John made me the mediaeval equivalent of
First Lord of the Admiralty
I was one of the chief keepers of the ports, concerned with allocating
to particular ports the galleys being built for coastal defence.
I organised the fledgling navy that protected England's coasts and transported
forces abroad.
The early feudal method of raising ships had been to commandeer ships
and sailors for a limited period from the barons, in the same way that
knights were called up to form royal armies. John had a substantial number
of galleys built and galleymen were enlisted or impressed and paid at a
relatively high rate of sixpence a day. John would often give the galleymen
half the proceeds of any prize ships or goods captured.
In 1213, King John ended a period of struggle with the papacy, when
he surrendered his crowns of England and Ireland, putting himself and his
realms under apostolic suzerainty, receiving them back as fiefs to be held
by him and his heirs of the popes. This was at a time when Philip Augustus
king of France was threatening to invade.
John's only contemporary chronicler without blatant bias is the anonymous
Barnwell Chronicler
Testimony of The Barnwell Chronicler, writing c.1202-25
I am the annalist of Barnwell near Cambridge
Of his surrender to the Pope, I wrote that : "the king provided wisely
for himself and his people by this deed.....For as soon as he put himself
under apostolic protection and made his kingdom part of St.Peter's Patrimony,
there was no prince in the Roman world who would dare attack him or invade
his lands"
At the peak of his power I wrote: "That there is now no one in Ireland,
Scotland and Wales who does not obey the command of the king of England;
that, as is well known, is more than any of his ancestors achieved." John
was certainly a great prince but hardly a happy one.
SUMMARY
To summarise what we have attempted to demonstrate
John was an energetic administrator
a competent general and at times, a clever diplomatist
He developed the institutions of English law and government
He established the makings of a navy
And he was wise in his choice of ministers; appointing men of outstanding
quality and loyalty
Sidney Painter produced one of the first reappraisals of the reign of
King John, and I call on him to summarise this advocacy of John and his
reign
Testimony of Sidney Painter, historian 1902-1960
I wrote the book: The Reign of King John which was published in 1949.
My arguments almost entirely rest upon contemporary administrative records
and I do not often cite chronicles unless it is to demonstrate their unreliability.
John was more greedy in his financial demands than his predecessors,
but his extortions were a question of degree not of nature; John generally
remained within the framework of custom set by those predecessors even
though he strained it at the edges.
The unenthusiastic if not actually treasonable behaviour of the Anglo-Norman
baronage was a factor in the loss of Normandy
If Bouvines had been won, John would have been the dominant power in
Europe. I think that John's putting himself and his realms under papal
suzerainty was a diplomatic stroke of genius - in giving his kingdoms in
fief to the pope, John drew about him the protection of Pope Innocent III,
who interceded for John against his enemies both domestic and foreign.
Finally, John contributed to the relatively peaceful succession of his
ten-year-old son, leaving behind him an able group of statesmen who were
loyal to the Angevin monarchy, including William Marshal who became Protector
of the kingdom.
Caryl Dane
For the PROSECUTION
JOHN LACKLAND
John's character was made up of negative characteristics, he was weak,
petty, a bad general and ruthless, all of which led him to disaster.
John ruthlessly alienated the barons by bleeding them dry of money.
He exploited to the utmost the feudal aids and incidents, which were paid
by the tenants in chief. Took scutage as an annual payment from the barons
who offered to fight personally, raised the amount of feudal incidents,
insisted on exercising the archaic right of marrying heiresses to persons
of his own choice and ruthlessly exploited his right to take the income
from wards during their minorities. He also levied two taxes on moveable
property in 1203 and 1207 only to pay for his failures abroad.
(John was forced to rely on these unpopular sources of income as there
was a period of inflation and the rents were fixed, so he was forced to
find funds else where. This indeed by the end of the 13th century has actually
become the normal way for the King to earn money. John then sets a precedent
for future Kings.)
Johns petty argument with the pope lead to his excommunication. His
weakness as a king lead him to later give homage to the pope and as a result
England and Ireland fief to the pope. Also lumbering England with a 1000
pound sterling tribute to pay each year and forever more.
(The way in which John gets the Pope back on side is quite a shrude
political move, which gains him the support of the Pope for him and his
successors in future crisis.)
Johns failure to compensate his new wife's ex-betrothed, Hugh of Lusignan,
resulted in the King of France, Philip II, to pronounce all of John's lands
forfeit after John failed to respond to summons. Philip enforced this ruling,
and John showing is his weakness once again fought a few skirmishes and
ran to England loosing his French territories. He again shows his ineptitude
when he tries to regain his lands in france, and even though having a much
larger force fails to beat Philip in a pitched battle at Bouvines on the
27th of July 1214. So through his poor leadership he forever loses his
continental territories.
(Granted he does cause his own problems by not giving compensation,
but he actually unable to defend his territory as he cannot rely upon his
troops, and later at Bouvines it is his allies that let him down and do
not show up on time allowing Phillip to fight each army separately therefore
wining. Also John is a quite good general as ever castle he lays siege
to falls to him, it is the people who are with him in battle that fail
him again and again, the lack of support from the Barons, but whether this
lack of support stems from his character I don't know.)
It is therefore not surprising that john would return to deal with insurrection
on his return in 1214. His lack of character had lead the Barons to lose
all faith or respect for John, whose reputation was rightfully a bad one
after al these acts plus throwing his only rival for power, a young boy,
Arthur of Brittany off Rouen Cathedral.
(This is only rumour, there is no evidence for this.)
He was a bad King. It was his inability's which lead his actions and
these in turn fail. Ruthless, petty, weak and un-chivalric John had not
the ability to rule over his more powerful subjects and so this incompetent
tyrant was a failure as a King.
(John was certainly duplicitous, but he was a good administrator and
it would not be too lenient to say he was as much a victim of circumstance
as he was of his lack of ability.)
By Jonathan Eastwood.
-- ------------
J.P.Eastwood hiu42d@bangor.ac.uk |