On the 4th of February 1194 Richard I paid Henry IV, the Holy Roman Emperor, a ransom of 150,000 marks (£100,000) and was released from what was, by the standards of the time, illegal imprisonment.
Richard was born on the 8th of September 1157, he was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. It was never intended that the lands that Henry and Eleanor held between them would be left to one single heir, and Eleanor gave Richard Aquitaine when he was eleven and ensured that he was formally installed as the Duke in 1172 when he was sixteen. However, despite having autonomy in Aquitaine, Richard, with the aid of his father’s enemy the King of France, was more or less in constant rebellion against Henry until the latter’s death in 1189.
By 1189, both of Richard’s elder brothers had died and Richard inherited the English Crown. Richard had taken the cross in 1187 and he used the resources of England to raise a force estimated at 4,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 foot-soldiers, and a fleet of 100 transports.
Richard sold offices to the highest bidder, so one should remember that the ‘evil’ sheriff of Nottingham of Robin Hood fame was only there thanks to Richard. Having bought the office, it is hardly surprising that the sheriff set out to recoup his investment as best he could. A new tax was devised, The Saldin Tithe, whereby everyone paid one tenth of the value of their movable goods to the King. And Richard is reputed to have said he would sell London, could he find a buyer.
Richard was captured on his return to England and ended up in confinement. The sum demanded for his release was enormous. It was raised by taxing the clergy and laity 25% of the value of their moveable goods, raising money from other feudal dues and stripping the churches of their valuables. The taxes that the evil sheriff collected were mainly for Richard.
I wonder why it is that I have never believed those Hollywood films where the peasantry of England fall on their knees for joy when ‘Good King Richard’ rides into Sherwood forest…
Boadicea's Chariot 
I always understood that wicked, but ineffectual, Prince John tried to take over when Richard was a prisoner. Perhaps he was so bad that even Richard seemed better.
On a lighter note, if Sean Connery rode into Sherwood Forest when I was there, I’d be cheering along with the Hollywood peasantry.
Hi Sheona – did you get my e-mail about your gravatar?
Prince John was not a lot worse than the rest of Henry II’s brood. They were a thoroughly treacherous bunch. Richard’s massacre of some 3,000 prisoners at Acre was seen as despicable by contemporaries, even though the prisoners were Muslims. John’s true colours didn’t really some to light until much later.
Richard has had the fortune to have been given a ‘good press’, with Church historians lauding him for fighting under the Cross – John, on the other hand, has had the bad fortune to have an extremely bad press for fighting with the Church. He really should have remembered that History was being writ by his enemies…
On that lighter note – I’d also be cheering along with the Hollywood peasantry…
Bo, I have a related article I will publish next week on the Magna Carta, it will address some of the reasons for King John’s unpopularity. The reason the Robin Hood myth is so blurred is that both Kings raises huge taxes from the people. John rasied 11 such taxes in his reign (equivilent to the past three monarchs put together), and imposed unpopular laws like the infamous Forestry Law.
For now I would just add that Richard spent very few days actually in England and I believe only spoke French (as was the Royal/Court language of the period). He is probably more kindly regarded for his Religious convictions and his successes against the infamous ‘Saladin’, despite his ultimate failure in the Holy Land. This holy conviction and his legendary bravery (before Acre he rode out before the army and challenged the entire enemy host to combat with his axe, at which point they recoiled, dissolved and withdrew; thus earning the sobriquet ‘Lion Heart’) earned him the love and respect of his people that is reflected in the tales of ‘good king Richard’.
Paul
I don’t know where you get your information, but let me assure you that both Richard and John raised only three ‘taxes’ apiece. I have the definitive book on Lay Taxation open in front of me at this very moment.
Richard did indeed spend little time in England after becoming king, between 6 and 11 months, and he spoke very little English. But I doubt that the English peasants gave two hoots as to whether he challenged a whole army with an axe – which if he did he well knew was a challenge that would not be accepted. How brave is that?
His wars and ransom left England in such a financially depleted state, that the next monarch (John) was bound to run into difficulties.
I suggest you read my comment to Sheona as to why Richard is seen as ‘Good’ and his brother, John, seen as ‘Bad’.
In fairness to Richard, he was only King of England by default. He very likely considered his other territories as important or even more so than the English crown. He was after all Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Lord of Ireland, Lord of Cyprus, Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Count of Nantes and Overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period. There are those who say that rather than England ‘owning’ large tracts of France, England was ‘owned’ by a French noble. Richard’s father Henry II was the most powerful vassal in France. Henry’s son also Henry was crowned ‘joint king’ upon his coming of age. Though, as he played a junior role and did not survive his father he did not become Henry III. So the reality is that Richard was a Frenchman or rather a Norman. He was born to French parents in France which is where he died.
Time for my favourite poem about Richard
To hew and hack the paynim black
To flay and fell the infidel
To make short work of the murky Turk
To draw the gore of the dusky moor
This was the first and favourite art
Or reckless Richard the Lion Heart
Who was sure of aim and never afraid
And always game for a good crusade.
The Lionheart was obviously our dear Charlie’s rôle model: self-acclaimed good sort, a spender to make Shirley bassey blush and not much liked by his siblings. A deserving successor, methinks.
Oops, I said he was born in France. My mistake. He was apparently born in Beaumont Palace in Oxford. His closest English relative was his great grandmother, Edith (who changed her name to Matilda to please the Norman barons), wife of Henry I. I also said he was a Norman. That was wrong too, though he had Norman blood through his paternal grandmother, also called Matilda. Perhaps I should give up this game, though I do enjoy it. Its fascinating what one learns if one follows threads on the internet.
boadicea
Here is reason number 1 to join this site; blogs like this. Excellent lesson in history for me. Thanks.
You’re absolutely right Sipu. Richard’s great love was Aquitaine, although I’m not sure that he was the great love of his vassals in Aquitaine ! They found him to be over-bearing on more than one occasion!
It is interesting that although Henry did not intend for any one son to inherit the lot that’s in fact what happened.
Don’t give up!
Thanks Shermeen!
Bo,
A really interesting read. Have you written anything about Phillip IV of France and in particular his hit man Guillaume de Nogaret or William of Nogaret?
No – I haven’t. Be my guest! I’m really hoping that other people will share their knowledge.
William looks an interesting topic, especially his role in the dissolution of the Knights Templar.
That is what I was thinking about, the dissolution of the Knights Templar. It all sounds very French!
Hello Bo,
On John’s Taxations:
John also increased the pre-existing scutage (feudal payment to an overlord replacing direct military service) eleven times in his seventeen years as king, as compared to eleven times during the reign of the preceding three monarchs. The last two of these increases were double the increase of their predecessors. He also imposed the first income tax, raising the (then) extortionate sum of £70,000.
The typical knight’s fee was around £20 per year circa 1200. The derivation of the amount probably comes from a minor medieval obsession with the number three, based on the Holy Trinity: the three estates, the Church, the nobility, and the peasantry; taxation and fees assessed by thirds – the ‘third penny’ going to the Crown or local lord – and so on. £20 is 30 Marks, a monetary unit commonly used for assessing taxes, paying ransoms, and other such official usage. The mark was 2/3 of a pound.
A free peasant paid for field work around the same period could expect around 3d per day, or a much as £3-4 in a year, meaning that a knight’s fee was about three to five times more than a peasant’s average income.
The institution existed under Henry I (reigned 1100–1135) and Stephen (reigned 1135–1154), when it occurs as scutagium, scuagium or escuagium. The creation of fractions of knights’ fee probably hastened its introduction: the holders of such fractions could only discharge their obligation via scutage. The increasing use of mercenaries in the 12th century would also make a money payment of greater use to the crown.
Separate levies of scutage received the names of the campaigns for which they were raised, as “the scutage of Toulouse” (or “great scutage”), “the scutage of Ireland”, and so forth. The levy demanded from each fee one marc (13s. 4d.), one pound or two marcs, but anything above a pound seemed abnormal till John (reigned 1199–1216) imposed levies of two marcs in most years without even the excuse of a war. The irritation caused by these exactions reached a climax in 1214, when John demanded three marcs, and this became a prominent cause among the many causes that led the barons to insist on the Great Charter (1215). Its provisions prohibited the crown from levying any scutage save by “the common counsel of our realm”.
The reissued Charter of 1217 provided, instead of this, that scutage levies should remain at the rate as of the reign of Henry II. In practice, however, under Henry III (reigned 1216–1272), scutage rates usually amounted to three marcs, but required the assent of the barons, and levies occurred only on adequate occasions.
Meanwhile, a practice had arisen, possibly as early as Richard I’s reign (1189–1199), of accepting from great barons special “fines” for permission not to serve in a campaign. This practice appears to have rested on the crown’s right to decide whether to exact personal service or to accept scutage in lieu of service. A system of special composition thus arose which largely replaced the old one of scutage. As between the tenants-in-chief, however, and their under-tenants, the payment of scutage continued. The terms of charters of subinfeudation, which specified the quota of scutage due rather than the proportion of a knight’s fee granted, often stereotyped scutage. For the purpose of recouping themselves by levying from their under-tenants, the tenants-in-chief received from the crown writs de scutagio habendo. Under Edward I (reigned 1272–1307) the new system developed so completely that the six levies of the reign, each as high as two pounds on the fee, applied in practice only to the under-tenants, their lords compounding with the crown by the payment of large sums, though their nominal assessment, somewhat mysteriously, became much lower (see knight service).
References
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
Sally Harvey, “The Knight and Knight’s Fee in England”, Past and Present, No. 49. (Nov., 1970), pp. 3-43.
On John’s disposition:
Before his accession, John had already acquired a reputation for treachery, having conspired sometimes with and sometimes against his elder brothers, Henry, Richard and Geoffrey. In 1184, John and Richard both claimed that they were the rightful heir to Aquitaine, one of many unfriendly encounters between the two. In 1185, John became the ruler of Ireland, whose people grew to despise him, causing John to leave after only eight months.
During Richard’s absence on the Third Crusade from 1190 to 1194, John attempted to overthrow William Longchamp, the Bishop of Ely and Richard’s designated justiciar. This was one of the events that inspired later writers to cast John as the villain in their reworking of the legend of Robin Hood.
John was more popular than Longchamp in London, and in October 1191 the leading citizens of the city opened the gates to him while Longchamp was confined in the tower. John promised the city the right to govern itself as a commune in return for recognition as Richard’s heir presumptive.[4] While returning from the Crusade, Richard was captured by Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and handed over to Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, who held him for ransom. Meanwhile, John had joined forces with Philip Augustus, King of France, and they sent a letter to Henry asking him to keep Richard away from England for as long as possible, offering payment to keep Richard imprisoned. Henry declined their offer, and once Richard’s ransom was paid by his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine (who had to pawn the Crown Jewels of England to do so), he was set free. Upon the release, John pleaded for forgiveness from Richard, who granted it and named him heir presumptive.
References
King John, by W.L. Warren ISBN 0-520-03643-3
The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216, by Frank Barlow ISBN 0-582-49504-0
Medieval Europe: A Short History (Seventh Edition), by C. Warren Hollister ISBN 0-07-029637-5
On Richard I:
Richard had kept 2,700 Muslim prisoners as hostages against Saladin fulfilling all the terms of the surrender of the lands around Acre. Philip, before leaving, had entrusted his prisoners to Conrad, but Richard forced him to hand them over to him. Richard feared his forces being bottled up in Acre, as he believed his campaign could not advance with the prisoners in train. He therefore ordered all the prisoners executed.
There appears to have been reasons of military expediency for the massacre and the number of prisoners would certainly have been a problem for the dwindling Crusader army. (Richard came to the Holy land with only 8,000 men in a fleet which was subsequently wrecked by storm before landing in Cyprus).
Interestingly enough, the source for the story of his actions before Acre appear to conflict with other references which state:
He was known as Cœur de Lion, or Richard the Lionheart; even before his accession, because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior. In Aquitaine, Richard was to punish the barons who had fought for him.
According to Roger of Howden’s chronicle of Henry’s reign:
most of the castles belonging to rebels were to be returned to the state they were in 15 days before the outbreak of war, while others were to be razed to the ground. Given that by this time it was common for castles to be built in stone, and that many barons had expanded or refortified their castles, this was not an easy task. It was on this campaign that Richard acquired the name “Richard the Lionheart”. The first such success was the siege of Castillon-sur-Agen. The castle was “notoriously strong”, but in a two-month siege the defenders were battered into submission by Richard’s siege engines.
Oh boy, you’ve gone and done it now, Paul, good and proper. Cutting and pasting from reference books is more than a little unwise at the best of times, but it’s decidedly contra-indicated in this particular scenario.
I say this in a really caring way, Possum, although you’ll probably say I’ve acquired a dose of the Sciencebods, but are you aware, dear boy, that you’re debating the subject with a lady who has a PhD in Economic History from the London School of Economics, is a published author [OUP] and a recognised authority in her particular corner of the field of Medieval Taxation?
No, I thought you weren’t.
She hasn’t read your C&P yet, and it may be a while before she finds the time, but when she does, you’d better be 100% correct in your choice of abstracts and their validity and applicability, or you’re toast!
On the other hand, if you’re lucky, she may just choose to ignore you.
Even I could have told you what a mark was. Posting that definition here is rather like trying to teach a nuclear physicist Ohms law. It might be a good time to think about making your will.
😀
First let me say that I omitted very little of the historical data that you copied and pasted. I write to amuse, and, hopefully, to encourage people to read more. If you would like to take over the ‘On This Day’ blogs and copy and paste huge screeds from the web – be my guest…
Your comment to which I responded was that John raised 11 taxes. He did not, he may have taxed his own domains but he did not impose eleven taxes on the whole of England. A carucage of 3s was levied in 1200, a seventh was levied in 1203, and a thirteenth in 1207. And incidentally not one of those taxes was an income tax.
I take my authority for the number of taxes from a publication by the National Archives, written by three people, one of whom was the Chief Archivist of the E179 collection. Every tax, aid, tallage, scutage, subsidy, loan or otherwise granted and raised between 1188 and 1688 is listed and discussed. The book was written to accompany a huge database that is now available on line detailing every single tax document held by the Archives.
For once and once only will I blow my own trumpet. I was an advisor to the compilation of that database, and I am extensively quoted in that book.
I am always wary of trying to put anyone down when they make definite statements on subjects with which I have but a passing acquaintance… might I, tactfully, suggest you do the same…
Boadicea, yesterday when I was having a look on this subject I came across the fact that Henry I introduced Tally sticks as a form of currency, if I understand it correctly. Can you tell me a bit about these. I could not find much that was informative on the internet. I found it fascinating that they helped grow the economy and were only outlawed in the 19th century. Not only that it was their destruction that caused the old Palace of Westminster to burn down.
Bo, I wasn’t looking for a ‘fight’ but you asked me to defend my corner, so I did. I don’t have time to spend poring over the record books and as you say, this is very much a point for discussion, for which I assume you welcome contributions. In providing the information I am merely supporting the suppositions I put forward. I am not seeking to ‘go one better’ or ‘show off’ or ‘get one over on any one’. My intention was merely to offer alternative view that in fact (prior to the imposition of income tax by William Pitt (I believe) there were eleven events during John’s reign (allegedly) when he demanded scrutage (the equivilent of taxation) to raise money for his wars in France and verious other needs.
Richard did not raise as many or as highly as to cause Baronial revolt, though this probably excludes the cost of Elenor raising her son’s randsom.
It is a very interesting period and I find this a very interesting discussion. My name isn’t Colin and I don’t get offended if you have a contrary view. 🙂
Good! Delighted to hear it!
Scutage was not the same as taxation, in that it was a financial composition for knight service. When the king summoned the feudal host each of his tenants-in-chief was expected to turn up with his full compliment of knights. If he didn’t, for whatever reason, he was expected to pay, so that the king had sufficient money to buy mercenaries. It was not a tax on the general population.
The scutage raised by Richard I in 1189 was 10s per knight fee. In 1195 (still Richard) it was 20s. In 1199 (Richard again) it was 26s 8d. Under John it was set at 33s 4d, reduced (please note!) to 20s between 1206 and 1212, and raised to 40s in 1212 and 1214. But at the same time as these rates rose, John and later Henry III compromised with the barons to reduce the number of knight fees from which scutage was due. However, John was notorious for summoning the host, dismissing it and then charging those who did not turn up!
Bearsy, Thank you for your background comment. There is nothing ‘competitive’ intended here. I just thought it added to the discussion. I was challenged and I responded.
Bo, I already commented below on this, so I just wanted the Bear to know I wasn’t ignoring his teasing!
I think it is interesting for other readers to follow, even if they are not nuclear physicists. I don’t think this discussion at all detracts from the original piece or the quality of Bo’s wonderful precise, which I appreciate of course that it is.
As Medieval tax and economics are a minefield with a big ‘KEEP OUT’ sign on it, I shall refrain on challenging the established view. As a poor uneducated ouik, I cannot possibly challenge an authority on the subject. I don’t even speak Middle-English, so what chance do I have? 😉
Bo, That is very interesting, thank you.
I take it from your use of an exclamation mark that you are somewhat annoyed (though why is beyond me).
Knight scutage (or shield tax) was I believe in turn collected from retainers and tenants, so indirectly it must have been passed on.
It is certainly interesting to see that there is no clear cut differences in the scutage between John and Richard, despite what is claimed in general references. Clearly the populist movement have taken a hand in casting John as the villain more for his overthrow of Richard’s justicar than for the taxes allegedly the root cause of the Baronial Revolts leading to Magna Carta (clearly sometime later).
John was apparently renowned for employing mercenries and so preferred to collect taxes to pay for them, perhaps that is why he called his Barons but dismissed them in lieu of coin. Magna Carta actually precludes the use of Msercenries by the English monarch as part of it’s provisions.
John was also unpopular because of the imposition of Forest Law meted out by the King’s Wardens which is popularised by the severe prosecution of poachers on Royal lands in the ‘Robin Hood’ myths and legends.
Boadicea: the “good press” and the romanticization of Richard, Coeur de Lion may be partly to do with Elenor, who was responsible perhaps for importing the Courtly love tradition into the English court,and a great patron of the arts. It was certainly very much connected with the Crusades and certainly influenced literature for some time afterwards.
He was in some respects, seen as a fine example of the “veray, parfit, gentil knight” of Chaucer fame, although I doubt that Chaucer had Richard in mind when he wrote it.
sorry, Eleanor.
Bo, some illumination upon the following please.
Richard married Berengaria of Navarre, I believe as a political machination, to obtain the support of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, (her uncle ) on his way to whichever Crusade he was on at the time. Allegedly he went home overland through the Balkans in an effort not to collect her! Thus he got nicked and incarcerated and ransomed etc. Had he gone and fetched her on the way home, none of it would have ever have happened.
Rumour has it that he was as queer as a two bob bit and had no intention of having a woman around in England. She was evidently the only Queen of England never to visit the place!
It has always struck me that he must have employed the Max Clifford of his day, the whitewash job of the time and subsequently appears to be beyond belief.
He appears to have no bastards which rather lends credence to the homosexual trait.
Can you throw any further light on the subject?
Christina, while it is entirely possible that Richard was gay, I have seen no evidence of it. You must remember that is easy to draw a modern day conclusion to a seemingly strange event in a different period of thinking and practice. As a Crusader, it is equally feasible that Richard may have considered himself under a vow of celibacy. Indeed a man going to fight in the holy land might well be considered to have certain convictions, even though many quite clearly did not! Again, I am merely suggesting an alternative to your interpretation. As a warrior king, it is unlikely the man was in the least bit effeminate; but you will have to get an official answer from the resident guru.