King John: An Underrated King

Quite an impressive case for the much maligned King John. The author tries hard to compare some of King John's more brutal actions with the context of what was deemed to be acceptable in the 13th century. John was famous for scheming and plotting against his brother King Richard. This author reminds us that Richard schemed and plotted against their father Henry II. John gets the condemnation.Moreover John could be brutal , such as most likely being involved in the death of his nephew Arthur whilst in his custody, starving Maude de Briouze, and her son to death , the killing of 28 young Welsh hostages in 1212, the author is keen to against put these acts in context what was expected from a king at the time. It is mentioned at least twice that Richard the Lionheart ordered the deaths of 2,500 Muslim prisoners at Jaffa . This comparative approach works only to a point but has some validity.One of the strengths of the books is looking at where John 's achievements were overlooked. His rule in Ireland, his ability to contain Scotland from invading Northern England , John's naval building programme spring to mind.Another helpful aspect of this book is to show how John was maligned at the end of his reign and by subsequent generations for losing Normandy , Anjou and Maine to the French in 1204. And for then imposing an extensive taxation system to fund an alliance against France to regain these territories and perhaps take more .After ten years a military campaign was launched against France, only to end in decisive French victory at Bouvines on 27th July 1214 . The alliance fell apart, John returned home, somewhat humiliated. He faced financial crisis rebellion, the Magna Carta, died in 1216 with huge swathes of England in the hands of rebel barons and Crown Prince Louis of France. The author's view is that had John's campaign in France succeeded in 1214, there would have been no baronial revolt or invasion by Prince Louis, and a lot of misgivings about certain aspect of his reign may have faded away over time. Finally should mention the 'text book' layout .....didn't have a problem with it but not all readers have approved.

This book provided the basis and inspiration for my undergraduate dissertation. King John has always been a monarch that fascinated me - specifically due to the way that he was taught to us at school.The stereotype of 'bad King John' has been one that has been repeated throughout history and it's exciting to see a book such as this which challenges the typical and accepted view of John.Seel makes excellent use of a wide range of sources and his writing style is thoroughly enjoyable to read.I had the chance to watch a lecture of his and his writing style is similar to his lectures - enjoyable, personable and funny.Well worth a read.

One of the better books about King John and his reign. Well written and well presented.

Great account

This was an interesting "take" on one of our most reviled monarchs. Basically the writer is making the case that seen in the context of his own time, John was actually quite an effective ruler, in many respects equal if not superior to his immediate predecessors Richard I and Henry II. Posterity has judged him by the more "enlightened" standards of post Civil War thinking which seized on Magna Carta as the basis for modern democracy, which it most certainly wasn't. The argument is that John was the victim of his own self-seeking barons who objected to being coerced into fighting for John's French territories, and it is often their supporters and chroniclers who have shaped our view of the King. History in this case was most certainly written by the winners.So, a balanced re-appraisal of King John, but I didn't like the lay-out of the book. It struck me more as the skeleton of an academic thesis than a completed work. Each chapter starts with notes, then a time-line and then a "narrative". It would have been a more satisfying book had it all been combined into continuous prose.