Why ‘Bad King John’ wasn’t so bad
If I were to ask you to name a great King of England, it is unlikely that you’d name King John, a King considered to be the epitome of a ‘bad king’ and whose name has been forever entangled, inaccurately or otherwise, with the outlaw Robin Hood fighting the injustice of his rule.
King John, SOURCE: Wikipedia
Most of us know John as an evil, murderous and cruel monarch. He is known for the catastrophic loss of Normandy, the mysterious disappearance and alleged murder of his nephew, Arthur of Brittany and his forced signing of the Magna Carta. In the words of a timeless Disney classic, John was: “too late to be known as John the First, he’s sure to be known as John the Worst”.
John was paranoid, merciless and heavy-handed, his opportunistic tendencies and unpredictable character contributing to the turbulence of his reign. At one stage, historians even tried to explain his actions by claiming he was the victim of ‘periodical psychosis’. This is no longer accepted, but the fact that John was so terrible that his actions were once explained by psychotic breakdown makes you wonder just how awful he must have been.
It’s obvious that John’s personal morality on many occasions was questionable at best and cruel at worst. But is that all there is to him? Is he solely a cruel, twisted and wicked man? His shortfalls are well documented, but what isn’t always considered is John’s obvious capability as monarch, especially in the context of his predecessors. Maybe, just maybe, ‘Bad King John’ wasn’t so ‘bad’ after all.
13th-century depiction of John with two hunting dogs, SOURCE Wikipedia
The Rightful King?
John was the youngest of eight children. As the youngest, he was never meant to be king; John’s nickname ‘Lackland’ was an affectionate joke from his father in reference to the fact that there was little to give him after the empire had been divided between his four older brothers. They took precedence over him in the line of succession, but his eldest brother, William, had died as a child and both Henry and Geoffrey would follow suit, succumbing to dysentery and a horse trampling respectively.
John’s only surviving brother, Richard, became the next King of England in 1189 and would rule for 10 years. But as fate (or an aversion to women) would have it, Richard never produced a legitimate heir. And so, despite his position as youngest son, John would succeed Richard in 1199 after the latter's death.
Effigy of Richard I of England in the church of Fontevraud Abbey, SOURCE Public Domain
Although John’s right to the throne was contested by some, it was agreed by chroniclers that Richard named John his heir on his deathbed and he was accepted as the new King of England by the English barons. Arthur - son of John’s dead brother, Geoffrey - was the alternative, but seen by some as an unsuitable leader.
The fact that John later murdered Arthur at Rouen in a drunken rage after capturing him mid-siege at Mirebeau is almost universally accepted. This rumour would haunt John for the rest of his life and seal his negative reputation. Although John had clear reasons for doing so (Arthur was head of a rebellion against him), he never accepted responsibility for it and there is little definitive evidence.
The keep of Rouen Castle, SOURCE: Wikipedia
But this act was not necessarily out of character for the period and didn’t mark him out from his predecessors who could also display incredible cruelty at times. Henry I pushed a servant to their death from the top of Rouen Castle; Henry II had male Welsh hostages castrated and blinded while the females had their ears and noses cut off; Richard I ordered the massacre of hundreds of prisoners of war during the third crusade and slaughtered civilians. Fast forward a few centuries and kings were still at it - Richard III and the ‘disappearance’ of the Princes in the Tower springs to mind.
John’s alleged actions are evidence of his ruthlessness but, in context, such cruelty was standard practice of the Plantagenet dynasty.
Dismal Inheritance
The kingdom that John inherited was in a terrible state: Richard I, who famously never spoke English, was a neglectful king. He had impoverished England twice - to fund his crusade and pay his ransom - and had no interest in actually ruling his Kingdom; he was famously quoted as saying that he would happily sell London, if only he could find a buyer.
King John presenting a church SOURCE: Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum c. 1250–1259
Richard needed lots of money to fund his desire for glory and happily exploited his power to get it. He sold lands and titles as if they were going out of fashion and spent as little as six months of his ten year reign in England, plundering his way around the continent in a near constant war with the French. The fact that Richard was absent most of the time may have been his salvation - his barons had less opportunity to voice their frustrations.
John was left to deal with serious economic problems caused by his brother. The empire was unstable and fragile, especially since the rise of Philip II Augustus. Richard had lost and regained various duchies in his constant war with him. With growing French power, it was perhaps inevitable that the empire would collapse eventually, or otherwise require a never-ending drainage of England’s money to protect it.
John knew he couldn’t afford to pay for these endless wars so negotiated a peace with Philip in which he recognised Philip as his feudal overlord. He was criticised for this and earned another more damning nickname - ‘Softsword’ - despite the fact that his nobility knew that England could not afford it and didn't have the stomach for war. This truce actually gave John stability, legitimacy and security at the start of his reign and was a logical move, given the circumstances.
The Angevin continental empire (orange shades) in the late 12th century,
The Age of Warrior Kings
In a medieval world, a King was expected to be many things, but perhaps most of all he was expected to be a warrior. It was in large part due to his warrior reputation that Richard I was spared from criticism - he won battles and went on crusade, so how could they possibly criticise his shoddy running of the country?
John was always going to struggle to stand out in the shadow of his brother, and the loss of Normandy and Anjou often clouds his military successes. Its loss was in no small part due to a lack of leadership and poor decision making - John, having been betrayed by a number of allies, fled back to England, leaving those still loyal to continue fighting in his name.
But John could and did display military talent. He greatly developed the English navy: with Normandy lost, the English Channel became a new frontier and he spent time building, strengthening and re-organising the English fleet but he is rarely given credit for this. It was during John’s reign that the first, great naval victory of the English Navy took place at the Battle of Damme in 1214.
An 1873 illustration of the English attack at Damme, SOURCE: Mechanical Curator Collection, British Library
John’s forte was the lightning raid or forced march. He was capable of driving armies over vast distances at great speed in order to catch his opponents off guard. He executed this strategy with precision in 1202 when he marched his army 80 miles in 48 hours to Mirebeau, taking his enemies by complete surprise and achieving a resounding victory. He was also more successful in dealing with the Welsh, Irish and Scots than his predecessors had been, notably brokering a fragile peace with Llewelyn ap Iowerth and beating back Alex II in 1215.
John wasn’t a top military leader when compared to his brother and father, but he wasn’t incompetent. Had he actually won the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 - one the most important battles in English history that no-one has heard of - it is almost certain that his barons would have seen him as a powerful leader and put their grievances to one side.
John had paid for the army at Bouvines, led by his nephew Otto, and masterminded an excellent plan of several years in the making. But John’s whole position would crumble because of the pitched battle at Bouvines that he wasn’t even present at and had no knowledge of. Is it possible that, had John won at Bouvines, we would remember him differently?
The Battle of Bouvines, by Horace Vernet in 1827
Making enemies and frenemies
John had a gift for making enemies. The fact that Isabelle of Angoulême was betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan didn’t stop John from marrying her anyway, and his hostility to the Lusignans afterwards eventually caused a war. John’s flirtations also offended his barons, although his lustfulness is again comparable to his predecessors; his great-grandfather, for example, had no less than twenty illegitimate children.
John on a stag hunt, SOURCE: historyextra.com
His reign was plagued by repeated treason which deeply affected his confidence. But John was good at making powerful friends when it mattered. He was on good terms with the Knights Templar in London and counted them and Alan Martel, future Grand Master, among some of his most trustworthy friends.
John’s quarrel with Pope Innocent III over who should be Archbishop of Canterbury overshadowed much of his reign. This resulted in an interdict - basically a suspension of all religious ceremonies in England - that lasted for 5 years, and the Pope requested Philip to invade England. Yet, by 1214, John had manoeuvred and submitted in such a way that the Pope had become a powerful and protective ally. John was criticised by his barons once again for doing so, and when he pledged to go on crusade, many doubted the honesty of his promise. Yet the move was sensible and ended the immediate threat of French invasion.
Pope Innocent III SOURCE: Britannica.com
An England-based King
John wanted to rule effectively and his failures tend to overshadow this. In reality, he was very intelligent and faithful, perhaps too faithful, in his duties as monarch.
He went on unrelenting tours of the country in the name of administering law and order. On average, he is believed to have moved his court 13 times a month. On muddy, medieval roads using medieval modes of transport, this was no small achievement. His energy was almost limitless, even finding time to visit some towns that hadn’t seen a king for nearly 100 years.
One of the biggest gripes the nobility had with John was his increased imposition in court cases, frequent taxation and ruthless recovery of debts and fines. After Richard, they had become accustomed to a king that preferred to be abroad, rarely intervening in the way they did things. With the loss of the empire, the King was now England based. Alongside being a stickler for the finer details, John’s presence was now strongly felt by all as he squeezed efficiency and money out of them. While John didn’t design new ways to do this (he used traditional sources of income that had been used and abused by his predecessors) he did pursue them with a particular ruthlessness.
A romanticised 19th-century recreation of King John signing Magna Carta, SOURCE: Wikipedia
The now England-based king and his relentless application of the legal tools available to him were seen as oppressive. A further blow was struck when the overseas properties were lost. Yet exacting money from the rich and powerful through high inheritance fees and tax was similar to the policies of John’s rival, Philip, and if not moral, it was considered lawful.
John was King for nearly 18 years and had all the attributes to make a great king. Visually, he looked the part: he was striking, wore expensive cloaks lined with ermine and ensured both he and his retinue were kitted out with bright clothing. He also had the necessary intelligence, commitment and energy to govern England. But the long term Plantagenet policies of oppression had built simmering anger amongst the nobility that John’s short term failures pushed to boiling point. It is probable that, had he lived, Richard would have eventually had to deal with the same problems. In any case, the singular view of John as a ‘bad King’ fails to consider the fact that in reality, he was a complex, capable and, dare I say it, talented man.
Written By Jessica Bean
Did you enjoy this article?
I’d love to hear your thoughts so please leave a comment below or follow me on instagram @historywithjess for more history-related posts!
Sources and Further Reading
Morris, M., Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta (Pegasus Books, 2016)
Jones, D., In the Reign of King John (London, 2016)
Hollister, C. W., “King John and the Historians.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1961, pp. 1–19.
Norgate, K, John Lackland (London, 1902)
Warren, W. L., King John (New York, 1961)
Packard, S. R., “King John and the Norman Church.” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 1922, pp. 15–40.
Petit-DUtaillis, C., The Feudal Monarchy in France and England, (London 1936) p.215
Sibly, J., “The Anomalous Case of King John.” ELH, vol. 33, no. 4, 1966, pp. 415–421