how did richard the lionheart make an impact on his nation?

Question

help please ):

Answer 1

All he is ever known for is going to the crusades and he just went b/c the french and Spanish kings were going and they just went for selfish reasons. His brother was a good king and if not for Robin Hood would be remembered as such. and I'm not just saying that as a decedent of King John

Answer 2

I suppose it depends which nation you mean. Before coming to the throne Richard was made Duke of Aquitaine and, like his Aquitainian mother, likely thought of himself more as French than English.

In terms of his impact on England, the other answerers are broadly correct; he was not much in England, but used the country to finance his crusade. When he died he was succeeded by his brother John, who quarrel led with the Pope and his own subjects; the Pope amplified the reputation of his crusading brother to show that John was the very opposite, and the propaganda became historical fact.

Richard's statue stands outside the Palace of Westminster to this day and, as an Englishman, I think his main impact is symbolic. He is the symbol of the heroic Christian King, an aspirational figure; he symbolizes what Kingship should be, whether that was the truth of his reign or not.

Answer 3

Let's look at his coronation oath to see how he did.
First he pledged to rule his kingdom. This is accomplished by his regent, though John did edge the regent out after Richard went on Holy Crusade

He promised to to Do Justice and to suppress evil laws and customs.
Richard did defend the rights of the Jews in England, that is, when he was there. (Doing Justice and supressing an evil custom)

He pledged to defend the lands of his ancestors:
He did manage to maintain the ancestral lands, in Normandy, Aquitaine, and Anjou, this is more than any king of England other than his father Henry II had done. Of course, those lands were only the property of the King of England from 1154 until around 1216. (maintain the lands of his ancestors)

He pledged to defend the Church.
On Crusade, he did also manage to take Acre.

So, he managed three out of four, not bad on a Plantagenet scale.

He gave England a symbol, if nothing else. He has a statue outside the Houses of Parliament at Westminster.

John is sort of a hard luck case. It really is more than the Robin Hood movies that made his less than stellar reign what it is today. You may notice that no King of England or the United Kingdom has been named for him in the last 793 years. He did manage to lose all the continental holdings except Calais. He was also the next to last sovereign to have lost the country to a foreign sovereign in English History. Louis, who later became St. Louis, was king of England, and Dauphin of France for a few months prior to John's death in 1216. The only other successful invasions were by Henry Bolingbroke (English) (later Henry IV) who deposed Richard II, and Henry Tudor (Welsh-English) (later Henry VII) who deposed Richard III, and William of Orange (Dutch) (later William III) who deposed James II, his father in law.

Answer 4

Only in that he was the greatest warrior-king in Europe of his time and thus remains a popular national hero, second only to Henry V.

In terms of making a positive impact when he was a monarch, very little, since he spent less than a year in England during his decade in power. It was as one of the leaders of the third crusade and once defeating the great muslim commander Saladin that his reputation and myth come from. Also, he looks better in comparison to the following King John, his brother, who traditionally was one of the most unpopular of monarchs although recent historians are looking at him in a better light.

Answer 5

He didn't. He totally ignored his nation and spent only about 6 months of his 10 year reign in England. He was far more interested in the crusades and in his French possessions (where he died and is buried). All the rest is myth and legend. if had not been for his brother John and his misrule leading to the excommunication of the whole of England, it is likely that Richard I would have been seen as one of the worst kings of England.