Medieval Archives

Gary: Medieval Archives Podcast
Lesson 79.

Welcome back to the Medieval
Archives podcast, the podcast

for medieval news, history and
entertainment. I'm your host,

Gary, a.k.a. the Archivist, in
this lesson, along with author

Wayne Bartlett, we're going to
examine the reign of King

Richard the Lionheart, a warrior
king who spent the majority of

his time away from England.
We'll look at his upbringing,

the Crusades, his war with
France and the aftermath of his

death. Now, before we jump into
the discussion, if you have any

questions or comments or there's
a topic you're dying to hear on

the show, send them over to
podcast at medieval archives dot

com. So I had a great talk with
Wayne about Richard the

Lionheart and Wayne's book
titled Richard the Lionheart.

The Crusader King of England is
the first biography of Richard

in almost 20 years. You can find
the links to all of Wayne's

books at medieval archives dot
com slash 79. Let's dive into

medieval England and learn more
about Richard the Lionheart.

Today we are joined by Wayne
Bartlett, author of Medieval

books. And Wayne, you've written
over a dozen medieval books.

Thank you for being on the show.

Wayne: Thank you very much,
Garry. I'm looking forward to

talking with you. And yeah, it
would be very interesting to

explore the medieval period and
obviously the Crusades and

Richard Quest in particular.

Gary: So for those who don't
know, you give us a little

introduction or a brief bio on
on who you are.

Wayne: Sure. Yeah. My name is
Wayne Bartlett, and I've been

writing my first book was
published in 1998, and it was a

general history of the crusade
called God Wills It and since

then I've written about 15 other
books, mainly on the medieval

period, though I have strayed
from that call, I guess, once or

twice for more general interest
things. But yeah, I just love

the medieval period and the
Crusades in particular.

Gary: In your career, how did
you become a writer? Is that

what you aspired to be when you
started out?

Wayne: No, not at all, Gary.
When I started out, I left. I

left school, went into
employment as an accountant,

which I remain. And, you know,
that's been a good career. But

I'd always been interested in
history and in my in my teens

even, I would regularly be
reading various history books

and, you know, have always been
really interested in medieval

history. In particular. In my
late thirties, I became a little

bit aware that I was reading a
lot of books on history, which

were quite academic in style,
and although they were obviously

well researched and of great
interest in some respects, I

felt sometimes the storyline got
lost in the midst of all the

facts and I just I'd always
enjoyed writing without any

particular end in mind. I
suddenly thought, well, maybe I

should maybe explore a bit more
the possibilities of writing in

medieval history, particularly
always been a great interest, as

I say, but not necessarily as a
writer. That general interest

really sparked my kind of desire
to research more deeply, but

also to tell a story which I
think sometimes get lost in the

in the middle of maybe too many
facts. Sometimes we lose track

of the story line, which is
sometimes extremely gripping.

Gary: So in your writing process,
is it working from an outline

kind of thing, or how do you how
do you go about writing your

books?

Wayne: Yes, a very good question.
Obviously, when you start off,

you have to have a general idea
of of what particular approach

you're going to take of the
subject that you are looking at.

You need to be very, very
informed as to the general

subject matter. So you always
start really because the

publisher will insist on this
that you come up with or not

outline as what you intend to
write, that the issue is then

until you actually get into
deeper research, you don't

really always know where the
storyline is going to take you.

There is never more than an
outline because as you start to

dig more deeply, you get pulled
off in perhaps unexpected

directions and then you have to
be adaptable. In terms of my

writing approach, once this
initial high level outline is in

place, my philosophy is very
much around the principle of

don't get it right, get it
written. If you write something

down, it's much easier to work
on it, to critique it, to change

things. So I write quite quickly,
but I haven't really routinely

returned to my work and change
things and and as I say, are

often be read in an unexpected
direction by some previously

unexpected facts. So I get
something written down, keep

reviewing it as new evidence
comes along. I'm quite happy to

go off in a slightly different
direction than perhaps the one I

originally intended to go in.

Gary: And I like that philosophy
of don't get it right, get it

written, it's going to get your
ideas out there and then fine

tune them after that instead of
just thinking about them and

never actually acting on them.

Wayne: Excellent. Yeah, I think
I think that's the thing for me.

You know, I've tried other
approaches. The thing with

writing is you're always
learning not just about the

content of what you're writing
about, but also about you as a

writer. And, you know, over time,
I've learned to be a little bit

more sort of ambitious in
getting things written up, but

then take much longer to review
what you've written. So, you

know, I can write a first draft
quite quickly, but I often take

maybe 6 to 9 months after the
draft is written to really work

on it and and to change and
adjust things as new evidence

emerges.

Gary: You said you started out
with just a general interest in

history, in medieval history.
Were there books or authors that

kind of sparked that flame or
you you read a book and you said,

Oh, wow, I need to learn more
about this, this subject because

of a certain author or just
books in general. What got you

interested?

Wayne: Well, well, I think early
on it was perhaps books in

general, but there is certainly
one writer in particular who I

think pulled me into the Crusade
specifically, and that was

Stephen Runciman, who over half
a century ago wrote a three

volume History of the Crusades
and and although in some of the

the historical analysis some may
argue with I gave him the

benefit of a half centuries more
research perspective, his

writing style I thought was
amazing. It was a it was

wonderfully easy to read but
told everything that need to be

told as well. So he definitely
was was an early inspiration for

me and has remained so as I've
read other works of his. You

know, I never cease to be
impressed by by both his his

grasp of the subject and his
writing style. And that doesn't

mean that everything he wrote is
necessarily correct or something

that I agree with. But having
said that, I think is his work

was just a fantastic way of
bringing general readers into

the medieval period and the
Crusades in particular.

Gary: It seems always that our
love for history or for whatever

subject comes from books that
we've read, or a certain author

that kind of grabs our attention
or has a writing style that

right attention to it really
draws into that subject.

Wayne: Absolutely. You have to
be interested in a subject. I

think you have to be almost
passionate about it before you

can really start to understand
the period. You know, it is not

it's not necessarily a
straightforward process to

really understand what was going
on in history. You do have to

you do have to think, you do
have to analyse, you do have to

scratch below the surface to
really understand. But to do

that you need to be motivated to
do it. And I think influential

and skilled writers like Stephen
Runciman really, really help

work and pique your interest in
a particular subject and really

make you feel passionate about
it.

Gary: You have about 15 books
that you've written on the

medieval period.

Wayne: Yeah, that's right.

Gary: You said that you get your
first draft out and then you

take maybe seven or so, nine
months to kind of fine tune

those details and get new
research and things like that.

So how much research goes into
your each book that you write.

Wayne: Is very extensive. And,
you know, I probably think from

start to finish maybe eight
months to write a book and the

first nine months of that would
be working on the first draft,

doing the research. I would have
done some research even before

the publisher's proposal goes.
Then obviously, I but I think,

you know, once once I started,
as I say, about 18 months from

beginning to end is the normal
time. I really even when I'm

writing and even when I'm
reviewing, I'm always

researching at the same time.
You know, it's a research that

shapes my general direction. And
I think we are lucky these days

in that medieval source
documents are maybe much more

available than they were even
half a century ago. There are

many English translations
available. I very much like to

go back to source and to kind of
understand the Chronicles and

things like that, as well as the
perhaps more boring that may be

more reliable archival records
which which fortunately in

England we have the extensive
medieval records to refer to. So

I'm very much research led and
to me that's the main part of

the fun. I love writing, but
perhaps I love researching a

more, you know, it's all part of
the same end result, but you

have to dig one to do the other.
Well.

Gary: Your last book was on King
Canute of England and your

current book is on Richard the
Lionheart.

Wayne: That's right.

Gary: What spurred your interest
to take the biography of Richard

the Lionheart?

Wayne: Well, he's a he's a very
controversial figure, for one

thing, even in his own time, he
was a very controversial king

and a very controversial man. So
he's a generally interesting

subject just because he's a
slightly larger than life

character now, he's also a very
divisive character. I think,

even into modern times. Some
historians have been extremely

dismissive of Richard, regard
him as a not very good king of

England. Others, perhaps have
been more supportive of Richard,

and I really wanted to find out
for myself how I viewed Richard.

You know, was he a good medieval
king? Was he flawed as a human

being? So all of those factors
together, Richard, the king and

Richard, the man, as well as
obviously Richard the crusader

with my interest in the Crusades,
made it a fascinating subject

for me. So I was really
genuinely interested and

motivated to try and find out
who Richard the real man and

Richard the real king actually
was, because he is such a larger

than life character. And
sometimes it's hard to get to

the real man and the real
monarch behind the legend and

the myths.

Gary: And I know as a kid, I my
first introduction for Kings was

Richard the Lionheart. You know,
it's the one, you know, Robin

Hood, It's in the movies.

Wayne: And absolutely.

Gary: He was kind of the one
that you get, I guess maybe

introduced to first as a child
or easiest suspect. Then he

definitely has a legacy, a good
legacy and a good legend about

him as being the warrior.

Wayne: KING Exactly.

Gary: So he was the third son of
Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine,

third son. He's not necessarily
in line to be king, and he

doesn't even expect to be king.
The oldest son is brought up as

the prince. He's brought up to
be a king. He goes through

certain yes, genes and culture.
So as a third son did, was he

ever he wasn't expected to be
king. But was his upbringing the

same as his older brother or was
his upbringing completely

different? And did it prepare
him for the kingship that was

coming his way?

Wayne: Well, it's a very good
question. I first of all,

Richard's eldest brother
actually only lived for two or

three years. So. So or then he
was the third son. He quickly

became the second survive king
son. So even when he was a boy

of five, perhaps he would have
been second in line to take over

from his father, Henry The
second. He did have, though, a

very charismatic and very
significant older brother

remaining. It was also called
Henry after his father, Henry

the second and really the
formative years of Richard and

the whole family. There is a
large family with many brothers

and sisters. It was all shaped
by the actions and the

personalities of their parents.
So Henry, the second ruled over

a vast empire, effectively
including England and parts of

Wales. But right down through
the west, in the north of France,

he had many more lands in France
than the French king even did.

So this was a massive empire.
And to roll it in a certain way.

HENRY The second quickly
delegated, in theory,

responsibility to various of his
sons to take over various parts

of his vast territories. The
eldest surviving son, Henry, was

given the lion's share of that.
In fact, he was nominally king

of England, and Richard was
given eventually Aquitaine in

the southwest of France, where
he was brought up with his

mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine,
and eventually became Duke of

Aquitaine, which was a very
significant territory in its own

right. So the two brothers,
these two eldest Provence,

ultimately became rivals. You
know, it's it's almost like a

case of they say this territory
is not big enough for the both

of us. So they were very
competitive. And Richard's life,

certainly from his teens, was a
very competitive and sometimes

literal conflict with his older
brother. But Henry, the second

the king very much remained the
dominant power, even though he

delegated, in theory,
responsibility. In practice, he

very much held on to the
strengths of power. So there was

this complicated struggle
between Richard is the older

brother Henry, and his father,
Henry, and second, which really

shaped Richard's and a formative
years well into his twenties.

Gary: That rivalry that that was
there eventually it did has him

and his older brother get along
because there was a revolt

against King Henry and it was
with his brothers. Was it was

the young Henry involved in that
revolt or just Richard?

Wayne: He certainly was, in fact,

Henry, Richard, And then
Richard's next youngest brother

called Geoffrey, the three of
them. Initially, they were

involved in the revolt against
Henry the second, and they were

supported, very interestingly by
their mother and then there

their pockets. And so really,
this was a very significant

revolt against Henry the second.
But it was a very complex

situation because that revolt
was put down within about a year

or so by Henry the second and
all three brothers then

theoretically came into line and
did as they were told. But

subsequently they that they are
that Richard's elder brother

Henry revolted again against
Henry the second. And this time

Richard took the part of Henry
the second. So he ended up

fighting his elder brother Henry.
And during one of the campaigns

in this revolt, the elder
brother Henry died of dysentery,

which left the road to become
the dominant brother open for

Richard. But even that wasn't
the end of it. The revolt really

spluttered on and off for about
15 years, and eventually Richard

would revolt again against his
father, Henry, the second at the

end of which in 1189, his father,
Henry, the second would die

effectively deserted by the rest
of the family. So it was a very

complicated and its own family
way, a very sad state of affairs.

Gary: It was only a rivalry
between all the family members,

it sounds like.

Wayne: Yeah, exactly. They were
all very ambitious. S In some

ways they were all very similar,
which perhaps was part of the

problem. They had a bit too much
in common and they all wanted, I

think, to be the dominant figure
and they all wanted much more

power than their father. King
Henry. The second was never

prepared to really dedicate to
them in practice as well as in

theory. So it was really a case
of frustrated ambition which

which led to these problems.

Gary: So when Henry Henry, the
second died in 1189, was the

younger Henry that he was
already dead at that point.

Wayne: He'd been dead for for a
good ten years. At that stage.

So Richard had effectively been
the heir apparent for over a

decade. But very interestingly,
King Henry, the second, never

formally designated Richard as
his heir, in stark contrast to

what he previously done with his
eldest son. He's now oldest

surviving son, the late Henry,
the elder brother of Richard,

the first he had been made heir
apparent. He'd actually even be

crowned as king of England had
he been enthroned, if you like,

is the key to Normandy, then he
had very much remained very

publicly. The heir apparent. But
that never, ever happened with

Richard, which is a very
interesting contrast. So

although it was widely expected
that Richard would probably take

over on his father's death,
there was a younger brother,

John, and certainly there were
some stories that Henry the

second was going to pass over
Richard and nominate John as his

heir, which he never actually
did. But the element of

uncertainty, I think, probably
quite deliberately created by

Henry the second very much
created a lot of uncertainty and

a lot of tension in the family,
especially from Richard.

Gary: And we've seen with what
John did as king. So it made for

an interesting.

Wayne: Historical.

Gary: Path if John had become
king right away and not Richard.

Wayne: Absolutely. That was said.
Well, I think for one thing,

Richard would probably never,
ever have accepted that. And I

think given the respective
military records to Richard and

John, I think the outcome would
have been probably quite a

violent and virtual civil war,
where I think Richard would

probably have attempted and may
well have succeeded in taking

things by force.

Gary: Richard was crowned king
in 1189 in about the fall, and

then shortly after that, I think
it was the next summer he left

on Crusade, the Third Crusade,
Correct. That was almost the

last time England saw him.

Wayne: So, yes, absolutely.

Gary: So what was the I guess,
the impetus for the crusade? Did

he think that the kingdom was
stable enough that he could

leave? And I guess did he expect
to be gone that long?

Wayne: I think well, certainly
the main impetus for the crusade

was a catastrophic defeat for
the effectively the Crusader

army in the Kingdom of Jerusalem,
which took place at the Battle

of Hatton on the fourth and 5th
of July 1187. So a couple of

years before and subsequent to
that, the city of Jerusalem was

captured by Muslims at a
previous. They'd been hailed by

crusaders for the best part of
90 years. So this was a major

shockwave for the West,
certainly one of the seminal

pieces of news of the Middle
Ages. And in response to this, a

crusade was quickly summoned, to
which Richard declared his is

kind of interesting support that
very early on, even before he

was king whilst his father,
Henry, the second was still

alive. So that was the main
impetus. But it then took a

couple of years to organize that
crusade. For a time, Richard was

partly busy fighting his own
father, Henry, the second set

off on Crusade anywhere. It was
only really on Henry, the

second's death with the vast
access to Tim money and other

resources that that also gave
Richard that he was able to

think about setting out. So he
spent, as you say, about nine

months in England getting things
organised. And there were really

two main things he was trying to
do in that period. The first one

was unashamedly to raise money.
Crusading was a very expensive

option and he needed money to do
it. So he introduced a whole

raft of measures to raise money
and that was one aspect of his

short but very significant few
months in England. The other one

was trying to set up an
establishment which would be

able to look after his interests,
not just in England, but also

across these French territories,
which were equally insignificant

in many ways. Whilst he was away,

he probably didn't expect to be
away for as long as he was. And

one of the issues was that he
was later captured and half

ransom on his way back, the
crusade. So effectively he was

out of the country for four
years. Maybe he would have

expected to have been out for
maybe two years and said he'd be

sent away for longer than he
thought it would be, and the

establishment of which he had
set up in England to look after

his interests while he was
absent, sent me on occasion that

was very stretched and came
close to collapsing, but never

autumn if am ever quite date.

Gary: And so while he was away
that he put John in as to rule

the Kingdom, or did he have a
just a council of people that he

trusted instead of John?

Wayne: That's a very good
question and very interesting.

They he very much important to
the council to look after his

interests. He had already fought
against John when he had not

been king and in the frequent
disputes he had with the rest of

his family. So he probably had
very little trust in John even

before he left England. And at
one stage before he was, King

insisted he would only go on
crusade if John came with him.

Obviously, he was afraid that
John would try and manipulate

against him while he was away.
Once he became king, perhaps,

maybe even Eleanor of Aquitaine,
whose influence may have played

a part here she probably thought
is not good for both sons to be

a wife fighting in a crusade,
especially when Richard had no

children. So he may have been
persuaded that that was sensible

to leave John, but he actually
went out of his way to make sure

that John's powers were
reasonably limited while he was

absent from England and from
France.

Gary: Didn't want a revolt or
someone to take over the crown

while he was gone.

Wayne: Exactly. Exactly. And,
you know, as it happened, that

came very close, quite close to
happening. I mean, Richard's

selection of people to look
after his interests was not 100%

successful. There were some
people in it world, too, very

well in his interest, his mother,
everyone was extremely

supportive of him. I was a very
clever political player in her

own right, so she effectively
where we did a lot of power on

his behalf, but not all of his
councils were successful. One

William Longshore effectively
ended up being thrown out of

England, and for a time it
looked as if John's party, if

you like, would would assume the
most dominant position. And they

even at one stage tried to
replace Richard, but they were

they were kind of outmaneuvered
and never quite managed to

achieve that.

Gary: So he's fighting a crusade
in one continent. And then he's

got his his council and his men
trying to save his kingship on

the other, it sounds like.

Wayne: Exactly. And another
complicating factor was that his

chief crown crusader was King
Philip of France. And if

Augustus of France, he returned
from the crusade early, much

earlier than Richard did, and
then started to create a lot of

difficulties for Richard back in
France while he was away and

ended up plotting with John as
well. So Richard certainly had a

very complicated political
situation back in Western Europe

to distract him while he was
trying to fight the crusade as

well.

Gary: And the crusade as the
third crusade, I think, is one

of those that it's one that
maybe a lot of people know about

or if they hear of battles or
things like that. It's the third

you say that kind of gets the
focus. And it's it's one of the

ones that it's kings of Europe.
Philip and Richard, against one

of the greatest, I guess, Muslim
warriors or rulers of the time,

maybe all time. And that's of
Saladin.

Wayne: So. Correct. Yeah.

Gary: Did this rivalry spring up
during the Crusade or was it was

Saladin taking over in the in
the Middle East? And Richard and

Philip had to go and put him
down?

Wayne: Yes. Well, Saladin was
the victor of the great battle,

that hot air. And he was the
Muslim leader who had then

reconquered Jerusalem for Islam.
And that that made him, if you

like, a boogeyman for all of
Western Europe, you know, But in

fact, he was a it was a very
astute political

individual. He managed to unite
Islam, really, which had up

until quite recently been quite
disunited and I think

significantly quickly became
very disunited after his death

as well. So he was a very
formidable character, a very

estate politician, a capable
military leader. But I guess the

rivalry between him and Richard
was was not really a fierce one

until they started to come into
close proximity to each other in

or out from either the Christian
kingdom of Jerusalem or what was

left of it after the victory of
Saladin. And that really

created they the story, if you
like, of Richard and Saladin as

the great military rivals of the
medieval era, something which I

think even resonates a bit today.
The influence of the Crusades,

at least in psychological terms,
I think is still quite

significant in the Middle East.
Even now in some parts of the

Middle East, Saladin is still
regarded as an iconic Muslim

leader. And Richard, same as
they the ultimate crusader enemy,

in fact. So certainly once they
started to come into close

military contact with each other,
a face, maybe slightly

exaggerated rivalry did come
about. It was certainly written

off as a fierce rivalry. I don't
think on a personal level it was

perhaps as fast as perhaps the
chroniclers of the time might

have suggested it to be.

Gary: And it's I guess it's
easier to depict the head of one

army against the head of the
other army and kind of

personalize it that way, as
opposed.

Wayne: To.

Gary: Actually two armies going
at each other.

Wayne: Exactly. Yeah. I mean,
ultimately, both ladies were,

you know, the figureheads of the
respective armies, and it was a

natural thing to do. Medieval
chroniclers were what kind of

very good at that kind of, you
know, shaping things to give a

coherent storyline and not
necessarily always letting the

facts get in the way. But, you
know, they certainly painted

this as a fierce rival.

Gary: And so were these two men
Richard's led. And they have

like a warriors respect for each
other. Were they bitter enemies

or were they just kind of
indifferent and like they were

just going after the other army?

Wayne: It's an interesting
question. I mean, it's quite

difficult to answer because the
two of them never actually met.

But from what I what I've looked
at and what I read on the

subject and looking at the
various documents in particular,

what comes across is certainly a
respect for each other. We do,

interestingly have at least one
direct comment that is

attributed to Martin about
Richard, and that was that he

regarded him as a great warrior,
though someone who was perhaps a

bit rash and did not always
maximise the potential impact of

his military prowess by my in
political actions. So I think

Saladin had big respect for him,
but maybe now that he was not

the complete king and the
complete statesman, perhaps in

contrast to himself, he didn't
say that in so many words, but

maybe he was implying, Well, I
am more politically astute of

Richard's and for Richard's
power. I think, you know,

there's not much directly
attributed to Richard about

Saladin, But from what we can
tell, he certainly had a degree

of respect for him. But he was
Richard. Richard, consistent may

one significant military actions
against Saladin, but he never

actually won the war. So, you
know, maybe that in itself would

have led to some kind of
grudging respect from Richard.

For Saladin.

Gary: Like you said, they won
the battles, but they didn't win

the war. So Richard goes into
the crusade to win back

Jerusalem. Did that happen? And
how did the crusade end up

ending it?

Wayne: It never did happen. And
you know, from map respect in

black and white terms, you you
might even say the Crusades

should be considered as a
failure because the ultimate aim,

the recovery of Jerusalem,
didn't happen as a result of the

crusade. And effectively, I
think what happened in the

crusade is it kind of fizzled
out because both Saladin and

Richard had other concerns. They
worried that Richard in

particular had this terrible
political problem back in

Western Europe and must have
said that he would not have a

kingdom to go back to. So to
that respect, he obviously would

have wanted to return to sort
that out before things had gone

too far. He'd already
effectively been left by the

French king, Philip Augustus.
Ultimately, some of the French

stayed, but they ended up
falling out with Richard and

going their own ways too. So
Richard lost a good part of his

army, Saladin, and on the other
hand was, I think, tired. He had

been seriously ill a few years
before and he did not long

survive the crusade. He died the
year after the crusade finished.

So he was anxious, I think, some
kind of peace settlement to be

made, because he suspected that
as soon as the Crusader army

made his way back to Western
Europe, as most of it indeed did,

things would return to normal
and he would be able to reassert

his authority. But, you know,
the big question after is then,

for example, he would never give
up Jerusalem because that would

effectively damage his
reputation so much. So what

ended it ended up at the
conclusion on the crusade was a

negotiated truce to last for a
few years with some of the lost

crusader territories being
restored to the the Crusaders.

So it cannot therefore be felt
that the crusade was an

unmitigated disaster. But on the
other hand, Jerusalem remained

firmly in Muslim hands. So to
that respect, Richard failed to

achieve his ultimate objectives.

Gary: So somewhat of a
compromise. Is there a tie at

the end that will give you a
little bit back, but we're not

going to give you the the prize
that they were looking for?

Wayne: Exactly. Exactly. It was
you know, it was a truce. It

wasn't really an end to the war.
It was just like a break, if you

like. And there was always the
option. Then in three or so

years time, the Crusader would
restart again. Ironically, by

the time that period of past,
Saladin was dead and Richard was

in prison, so neither of them
were really in a position to do

much about it.

Gary: All right. All right.
Let's get to that part, Richard.

The crusade ends. Richard heads
back to the Kingdom of England,

and then on his way, he gets a
captured and arrested in Austria.

It was just part of the brewing,
I guess, rivalries throughout

Europe against him that caused
him to be captured.

Wayne: Absolutely. Although The
circumstances which led to it

really did start with the
crusade itself. But at the time,

Europe, certainly Western Europe
was falling into three major

camps. The first camp was the
the English empire, if you like,

the Angevin empire, as it was
called. So that would have been

England in large parts of France
that would have been one camp.

Then you had a very confident
and an emerging French king,

Philip, who clearly wanted to
win as much land in France from

Richard as he could. That was
the second camp. And the third

camp was what was called the
Holy Roman Empire, which

stretched out from Germany
through Austria into Italy. And

Leopold of Austria was very much
in this third camp of a holy

Roman Empire. He was a relative
of the Holy Roman Emperor. And

great. What had happened was
that during the Crusade, Leopold

had been present at the great
Siege of Acre, one of the great

peace sieges of the Middle Ages,
and the Crusade succeeded. And

in winning the stage and
conquering anchor, which was a

huge, hugely significant moment
because I think it was a very

important sea port and
ultimately reopened the the

former question of Jerusalem to
the Crusaders at the end of the

siege. Richard and King Philip
of France had been leading

Richard in large part is there,
but there have been a third

party led by what we might call
simplistically now Germans,

including the Austrians, led by
Duke Leopold of Austria. And as

the siege ended, Richard Philip
and Leopold all put their

banners up. I wouldn't say it's
a that might sound like very,

very much about pride and status,
and to some extent it was about

art, but it was also about
something far more practical.

When you put your banner up over
a city at the end of the siege,

you were staking your claim to a
share of the plunder and of the

proceeds of the siege. So
Leopold put his flag up

alongside those Richard and
Philip, and the next thing we

know, Duke Leopold Flag is lying
in a ditch where it had been

thrown from the walls into a
ditch and very much, if you like,

a rebuttal of his right to any
share in the proceeds of the

crusade. So he shortly
afterwards left there,

understandably in a bit of a
huff, and he blamed Richard

probably directly for this
action. Richard then had to

return home and things had got
very complicated by now because

it was very difficult for him to
make his way home in a way that

he would avoid his enemies. So
very difficult to travel, for

example, through France, because
the French king Philip would

have been back for a while now.
We certainly tried to capture

him, but he was also very unsure
of the actions of the Holy Roman

Empire. The Emperor and Emery
was a very manipulative, almost

Machiavellian figure, I think
not the sort of man you would

want to fall into the hands of.
So Richard tried to avoid both

of these, but it was very
difficult to find a route that

did so. And unfortunately for
him, it was blown off course.

His ship was blown ashore in the
lands of Duke Leopold and ashore

thereafter. He was captured
whilst trying to make his way

across Austria in disguise.
Someone saw through his disguise

and he was seized. Then
basically put on trial for

various alleged offences which
ultimately led to a huge ransom

being negotiated for him.

Gary: It sounds like coming home
from the Crusaders almost more

dangerous than being on the
crusade. It's tough to get from

the Middle East to England over
the continent when everyone on

the continents out to get you.

Wayne: Exactly. Yes. Yes. He was
certainly very unlucky in the

way things had gone politically.
And he was very conscious really

from the outset that this was
going to be a very dangerous

journey. And unfortunately for
him, things just didn't go to

plan. And, you know, he was
captured and ironically, he was

criticised for abandoning the
crusade, even though he was the

last king to leave. And even
though the man doing the

criticism of the Emperor Henry,
the Holy Roman emperor, had

never stepped foot on the
crusade. So I found that

slightly ironic.

Gary: The ransom was paid and
Richard gets to get back to

England. Now, earlier we
discussed that Richard faced a

revolt from his brother John Did
Philip Augustus of France take

part in their help spur that
revolt, or was he still in the

Crusades at that point?

Wayne: No, he was he was very
much instrumental in John's

revolt against Richard. He
returned back at least 18 months

before Richard did. And then, of
course, Richard was further

delayed by being held captive
for a year. So he'd been in

France for over ten years by the
time Richard got back. And

certainly during Richard's
absence, especially after

Richard had been captured and
held for he really stirred the

pot, he realized that John was
extremely personally ambitious

and he really saw that he could
benefit greatly from this. He

was, I think, a much stronger
character and a much more able

character than John. And he was
able to dangle various carrots

in front of John in return for
his support. And John was quick

to take it to try and take
advantage of that. So I think

Philip was very much the senior
partner in encouraging John to

revolt and it was only the
actions of an area of Aquitaine

and some of richest council in
England that managed to keep

John under some sort of control
for while, but even may

eventually lost control. John
went to France. He very openly

did allegiance to Philip for the
launch of in Lands in Normandy

in particular. And it was it was
really, I think, Philip really

driving the revolt. I say John
was very much in cahoots with

him, but very much the junior
partner.

Gary: I think Richard gets back
from the crusade and then he's

Philip is back two years prior
trying to take his lands that he

had gained through his mother
and his father in France. It was

Philip's involvement in that
revolt that I guess leads

Richard into another war, and
that's against France to get his

lands back.

Wayne: And the interesting thing
about that for me is that you

asked the and about whether
there was a bit of a rivalry

between Richard and Saladin. I
think there was a much more

bitter rivalry between Richard
and Philip named Richard seems

to have taken in its actions in
the Crusades very personally. He

considered it a treacherous
state of affairs that while he

was in prison, Philip had been
attacking his lands and taking a

number of them off him. In
fairness to Philip, this was not

just a one way street where
Richard had been effectively

engaged to Philip's sister,
Alice, for over 25 years without

actually going through with a
marriage. And early on in the

crusade, he had openly rejected
Alice and taken as his wife

bearing Aria, a Spanish princess,
which was a very public

humiliation for Philip. So I
don't think we can we can paint

Richard as being squeaky clean
here either. But there was a

very bitter and intense rivalry
between these two men, which

really dominated the latter part
of Richard's right. I mean, to

me, far more than even the
Crusades that did, you know. So

Richard has a reputation for
squeezing England dry of its

money, and that's probably true.
But it was as much, if not more,

to recover his lands in France
that he did that as he did the

crusade.

Gary: He was engaged to Philip's
sister and he liked it for 25

years, which is a long engage.

Wayne: A long time indeed.

Gary: And did he meet the wife
that he ended up marrying on The

Crusade is what was the reason
that he decided not to marry

Philip's sister and go with the
Spanish princess?

Wayne: That's a good question. I
mean, it is a little bit unclear

how long he, the Spanish
princess wearing Aria of Navarre,

had actually known each other by
the records, are not 100%

persuasive on that. But the
arrangements to marry Baron Aria

had taken place before he set
out on Crusade, and they

actually got married during the
crusade on Cyprus on their way

out to the crusade. And I think
the the reasons for not going

ahead to the marriage with Alice
and then marrying the Spanish

princess, both of those were
political. I think he felt it

was a card in his hand not to go
through with the marriage to

Alice. You know, it wasn't just
him. His father, Henry. The

second had also stopped the
marriage from going. There were

even allegations that Henry, the
second, had had an illicit

relationship with Richard's
bride to be, Alice. So it all

got tangled. And I think Richard
always saw Philip as a rival. He

felt it would be more in his
interest to protect his his

frontiers in the south of France
by entering into an alliance

with the Spanish kingdom of
Navarre than to to marry into

Philip's family. So I think
there were political and

military reasons for this to
protect his very important

southern flank in France, which
Richard was very attached to,

which was, I think, probably
more in love with his lands in

France than he was his lands in
England. So I think politics a

military reason they were behind
this change of allegiance.

Gary: On the surface, it would
seem more advantageous to to

marry the sister of Philip and
kind of unite those lands in

France. But I guess on the other
side, as you pointed out, the

southern part of France is where,
you know, if you solidify that

alliance and then the Spain
isn't coming into to invade that

way.

Wayne: Exactly. Exactly. I, I
suspect Philip and Richard had

known each other for a number of
years before they left on

Crusade. I suspect neither of
them trusted each other one iota.

And I think Richard quickly
identified his main potential

opponent was Philip, and I'm
sure it would be the same the

other way round with Philip
regarding Richard as his

greatest threat because both of
them coveted the same thing,

which was ultimately to be the
dominant force in France, I

think even when they were on the
surface on good terms and at

times they had been in theory
extremely close friends. Even

then, I suspect in the
background there was no real

trust and perhaps even no real
liking between the two men. Some

of it almost seems personal, to
be honest. You know, it's very

easy to get seduced by the
stories of politics and

alliances and things. But don't
forget that we're dealing with

two human beings here as well.
And I suspect there was a very

human mistrust between both of
the men.

Gary: Richard comes back from a
crusade. He spent three years or

so on a crusade and then his
fight in France to get his lands

back and is dispute with Philip.
And this is where he gets

wounded. And while surveying one
of the castles, I see it's shot

with a bow or with a crossbow,
correct?

Wayne: Yeah.

Gary: All went into his shoulder.
Could he have been saved if

there was a better surgeon? You
know, the wound was it was it

fatal from the from the
beginning?

Wayne: It was always dangerous
from the beginning. I think

medieval surgery, especially in
Western Europe, was pretty much

a lottery. If you got wounded,
you were probably more at risk

of dying from infection and from
the wound itself. There is

always a real danger, even from
relatively minor wounds, that an

infection would set in and that
you would die. The Muslims

ironically, had access to far
better medical knowledge than

the Crusaders did. So there was
always a real risk that Richard

could die from this wound in the
shoulder, which ultimately went

gangrenous. That said, the
accounts of his death, he was

besieging a mine, a castle in
the south of France. The story

goes, because the Lord of the
castle advanced and treasure,

which Richard wanted for himself,
and he was basically besieging

this castle with a group of
mercenaries. And that does not

seem to have been very good
medical support with him. I

think perhaps this was, after
all, expected to be quite a mine,

a relatively low risk siege.
Certainly when Richard was hit,

there appears there is no very
good medical facilities to hand.

The accounts we have suggest
that Richard was butchered

somewhat in trying to remove the
boat. So it may within a very

short time it became obvious
even to Richard, that he was not

going to survive this, not
because of the wound personally,

but because of the infection.

Gary: So then he dies, I guess,
unfortunately for England, he

dies childless. Did he set up
his brother John to be king? And

was John accepted as king or was
there any kind of succession

crisis that happened during that
period?

Wayne: That that that's a good
question, because he never

formally designated John, as is
there. And there was a small

succession crisis. Richard had a
nephew of Brittany, and at one

stage he had talked about making
off his heir when he was not on

very good terms with John, but
that had long gone out the

window, if you like. And Arthur
was not formally designated heir,

neither was John. But the crown
of England and the French

territories quickly passed to
John. Most people staying there

seemed to accept that John was
the best choice as a replacement

for Richard. Things changed
somewhat, ironically, when

Arthur was captured and then
subsequently murdered, according

to some accounts by John himself.
This had a very dramatic

negative effect on John's
reputation and on his great

rival, formerly Richard's great
rival, King Philip. France was

very quick to use the death of
Arthur as a reason to to punish

John and to take his French
territories off him, which he

proceeded to do. So there was no
immediate succession crisis. And

John, as I say, became widely
accepted as king. But his

treatment of Arthur turned out
to be a politically extremely

clumsy and rather foolish move
which came back to haunt John.

Gary: It sounds like Philip was
taking any opportunity to get

some land away from England at
that time and get it back into

France's hands.

Wayne: Exactly Or not? Yeah,
you're absolutely right. I mean,

every chance Philip had, he took
and he was a very, very small

king, You know, he really built
the power of medieval France

from relatively humble
beginnings. He made France the

great European power. I'd say he
certainly was a hugely capable,

if somewhat devious and
Machiavellian figure in his own

right.

Gary: Richard is looked at as
kind of the warrior king, you

know, fighting the Crusades. He
had the battle against France to

to win those lands back. Was he
liked by the population of

England? And did he have a
domestic policy or any kind of

policy at home that was anything
other than taxing the people for

the wars?

Wayne: I don't really think he
had much of a domestic policy in

England outside of what was in
his own best personal interests.

And to me, England comes across
as being a source of power and

wealth. Obviously those two
things are quite closely

connected and I think everything
in England was subservient to

his own personal interest, his
own personal desires, both first

of all, during the Crusades,
then for his ransom, which cost

an enormous amount of money, you
could, of course, argue that

wasn't really his fault. But
nevertheless, you know, the

policy was all about getting
enough money to release Richard.

And then finally, in some ways,
in his most extreme form, to

recover his lost lands in France.
So I think England was never

really his main priority other
than as his most significant

source of power. And wealth. And
I don't really detect a strong

love of England. You know, I
detect a much stronger love of

these French lands than is lands
in England. I think in England

itself he was to some extent
respected as a mighty warrior.

We have, remember to try and
avoid judging the the the 12th

century from the perspective of
the 21st century, because what

we might consider to be a good
king now may be full of liberal

principles and Democratic ideas,
that kind of thing. That's not

really how 12th century medieval
Europe generally worked, but by

the standards of his own time, I
think he was regarded as a very

strong warrior and there would
have been a certain pride in

that in England. And I think as
time went on, particularly in

the latter years of his reign,
when taxation started to become

have they met or even isolated
outbreaks of rebellion in

England, we can see an
increasing disaffection with

Richard from England, maybe not
once, but maybe not completely

dangerous, but certainly
symptomatic of a king who had,

to some extent in some quarters
lost his popularity in England.

Gary: Richard the Lionheart is
definitely the king that

everyone kind of knows the name.
What is his ultimate legacy to

England and to history?

Wayne: Well, I think in England
itself, his legacy is that is as

a kind of inspirational, maybe
semi legendary figure, Richard

became regarded as the ultimate
chivalric warrior. There is a

very impressive 19th century
statue of Richard outside the

Houses of Parliament in London.
Clearly, in Victorian times he

was seen as a great warrior, an
iconic, perhaps in some ways an

empire builder. And there's a
resonance with the Victorian

view of empire there as well.
And I think I think that's his

main legacy as a symbolically
inspirational figure. As always

in history, the facts don't
really matter too much. It's the

perception which is often more
powerful than he was seen as

this chivalric figure in some
quarters. Now as an inspiration

and, you know, as a mighty
warrior. His legacy on history,

I think, is more complex than
that. It's very interesting that

when we had all of the issues in
the Middle East post 1911, you

may remember there was an
adamant offer of difficulty when

President George W Bush
mentioned the Crusades as as a

kind of word to be associated
with the military campaign in

the Middle East. And Osama bin
Laden was very quick to pick up

on that as a negative thing,
saying this is just the

continuation of the Crusades.
This is really, you know, part

of a 800 year old battle. Again,
whether that's true or not does

not really matter. It's the
perception which is more

powerful. And it's very
interesting that he named

certain individuals as being
significant characters, if you

like, on the enemy Christian
side during the Crusades. And he

picked out Richard for personal
mention. I found that very

interesting and powerful that
800 years after Rich's death, he

still used as a negative
representative of the Christian

enemy. In some parts of this
ongoing difficult situation we

have between some parts of Islam
and the rest of the world.

Gary: Definitely left an impact.
The battles that he wanders

character in that part of the
world. And he certainly brings

up emotion on all sides. You
talk to people, historians or

whatever, and and you speak of
Richard, and they're either

usually one way or the other.
And he is a horrible king

because he was never in England
or he was a great king because

he fought these wars for England
and then won land back. And it's

certainly an impassioned debate
when you when you get into

Richard Knox, not quite as
impassioned as Richard the third.

But certainly it's. Yeah.

Wayne: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Yeah He still stirs emotions,

you know, and maybe a thousand
years on, which I think is a

mark that is certainly something
incredibly powerful in his

persona or at least his
perceived persona. And I think

that's the real legacy which
lives on and continues to

stimulate debate and divide
people. Indeed, to this very day.

Gary: Yes, you've covered
Richard, the first Richard the

Lionheart, and you've covered
King Canute and you've covered

the Crusades in your various
books. Is there another book on

the horizon for you?

Wayne: There is, yes. So
following on from my other early

medieval interest of the Viking
period, I'm in the process of

writing a book, which is a
history of the Viking era from

its beginning to its end. So
really picking up the baton a

bit from Canute, who was, you
know, maybe the most successful

and the most significant Viking
figure, but that was part of a

much wider movement. So that's
my next book, which I'm

currently working on and I think
probably the middle of next year

by the time that's, that's ready
to go, that's currently taking

up a lot of my research time.

Gary: Can't wait for that one
for sure.

Wayne: Excellent. Now it has
been fun so far.

Gary: Yeah, I bet.

Wayne: Yes.

Gary: Working your fans connect
with you. Do you have your own

social media? Do you have a
website, anything like that?

Wayne: I'm on I'm on Facebook
and LinkedIn and I'm actually in

the process of setting up a blog.
And so I'm planning to go live

for that in a two or three
months time, you know, to try

and sort of stimulate debate and
discussion where the particular

emphasis on the medieval period,
which as I say, is the one with

interest, made the most. So as I
say, in 2 to 3 months, I hope

that will be up and running. And
in the meantime, you know, I'm

available on Facebook. Amazon
have an all of their site on

that as well. So I'm very happy
to connect with anybody in way

they wish they.

Gary: All right, great.
Certainly links all your sites

on our show notes here. Are
there any any last words you

like to say to your fans out
there?

Wayne: I just think the main
thing is to be passionate and

what you're interested in. You
know, I find it very difficult.

I mean, my reading was quite
eclectic. For the first 30 years

of my life. I would dip in here,
I'd dip in there. But really for

the last 15, 20 years, I focus
in the Crusades, particularly

medieval period a bit more
generally. And I think it's

great to identify with a
particular aspect of history

that particularly draws you in
and just throw yourself with

passion into that. I think the
other thing is never be afraid

to write something. I have some
very good friends who are very

knowledgeable and I keep on
hassling them to write what we

know down, because I think
particularly in this age of

internet and the like, it's
never been easier to record your

thoughts and the trouble is, if
you don't write those thoughts

down, one day they'll be gone.
And I think that's a real sad

loss of, you know, sometimes
very specific, very interesting,

very useful knowledge. So never
be afraid, never think you're

not good enough. Just engage and
and share your ideas and your

thoughts with others. Never
think you've got nothing to say

because everybody, I think, has
something to say and everybody

brings a new perspective to
things.

Gary: Yeah, that's great. And
it's, you know, not even at a

national level, right? There's a
lot of history being lost on

just a family level or local
level for all these the older

generation that's going away and
it never shares their stories

sometimes. So it's it's.

Wayne: Exactly you know, I can
remember great characters in my

family from when I was a kid.
And, you know, I wish now I'd

asked more questions of them
when they were still around to

ask those questions of And I'm
now trying to make sure that I

write things down and, you know,
at least our own legacy. I think

it's good to do that.

Gary: Earl Wain Bartlett, author
of Richard The First The

Crusader King of England Thank
you for being on the show.

Wayne: Thanks, Carrie. It's been
a pleasure talking to you.

Gary: I'd like to thank Wayne
for taking the time to come on

the show. I hope you guys
enjoyed it as much as I did. You

can pick up a copy of his book
from Amberley Publishing or you

can pick it up on Amazon. And
again, all the links to his

sites and books are at medieval
archives dot com slash 79.

Richard the Lionheart, The
Crusader King of England is a

great and a king that everyone
seems to know. And now you can

get to know him even better.
What are your thoughts on

Richard the Lionheart? Was he a
great king for England or was he

out for personal gain at
England's expense? Send your

comments and questions over to
podcast at medieval archives

Ao.com. Now, if you're enjoying
the podcast, the easiest way to

support us is to tell your
friends about it. If you're

listening in on your smartphone,
you can send them a link right

from your phone. The second
easiest way to support the

podcast rate is on Apple
Podcasts. To leave a rating,

visit Medieval Archives XCOM
slash iTunes. And if you feel

you want to support even more,
you can always give a donation

at medieval archives dot com
slash donate Any amount is

appreciated and helps keep the
podcast going. And don't forget

to check out our website at
medieval archives ao.com. Thanks

for your time and thanks for
your continued support. That's

going to wrap it up for this
week. Thanks again for

subscribing and listening to the
Medieval Archives podcast.

Illuminating the Dark Ages for
the digital World.

The Medieval Archives Podcast.
The podcast for medieval news,

history and entertainment. If
you have any questions, comments,

topic, ideas, or would like to
sponsor an episode. Send an

email to podcast editor.
Medieval Archives dot com. Audio

files are welcome. You can call
in your question or comment.

27207221066. International and
long distance charges may apply.

Visit medieval archives at
Medieval Archives dot com. You

can also follow medieval
archives on Facebook at

Facebook.com. Forward slash
medieval Archives and on Twitter

at twitter.com. Forward slash
medieval archive. For all your

daily medieval updates.