I need this for my school assignment.
2007-04-29 22:20:02 · 4 answers · asked by Kisheena Valentine 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes - - - and it is one of histories mysteries - - - Richard the First was a vainglorious blow-hard who wasted most of his time fighting in the Holy Land, ignoring his duties at home. And here is a kicker - - - Richard the 1st is revered by The English but he himself was more proud of his Norman and Aquitaine Heritage, rarely visited England, spoke Norman French and most likely boffed young boys instead of comely wenches (a key difference between the French and the English).
Yet Richard was considered to be brave, judicious, a firm even handed ruler and widely respected. A lot of that was wistful thinking; the alternatives to Richard were his brothers Henry, who died young following an estrangement with their father, Geoffrey of Brittany one of those people who was simply not popular, and youngest brother John/ In the wake of the greatness that was his father Henry the 2nd, rebellious Richard was well regarded, fortunate for him he did not live long enough to become unpopular and so enters the exalted ranks of history with a reputation as a great leader.
A short answer; charming charismatic dashing dynamic in an age of lesser men.
Peace....
2007-04-29 22:46:22 · answer #1 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he joined the Crusade and did okay. He conquered a few cities and islands, like Cyprus.
Overall his Crusade record was good enough not to be bad, which made it great. It was really more that he actually went. That was a big deal.
If all he did was walk up to the gates of Jerusalam and fart in the general direction of the turks and leave, that would have still made him great.
That being said, he was thought of as a just and intelligent ruler who was a skillful commander. And he did do very well against his rival, Phillip, King of France. The two of them were in a constant stuggle for disputed lands in France.
2007-04-30 07:58:47 · answer #2 · answered by Adrian B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he was capable of looking for diplomatic solutions as well as military ones. He was also prepared to abandon his ambitions if he found they were leading in a foolish direction. Look up his relationship with Saladin, and why he stopped short of trying to take Jerusalem.
2007-04-30 09:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by Bernard B (yahoo answers) 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you look in your history book?
2007-04-30 05:24:24 · answer #4 · answered by Alice K 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋