Richard and Philip
Since some time last year (which is a pretty long time, considering how old I am), I've taken a great interest in history--just that it was not the kind they taught at school so I cannot say I studied it properly(twentieth century onwards only, meaning the First World War, the Holocaust, Marxism etc.). It was http://en.wikipedia.org/ which gave me this interest as I have a habit of going to one article, then navigating randomly by clicking on any links in the first article that catch my attention (ADHD?). Now I'm automatically drawn to anything related to sixteenth century Europe, the Middle Ages, and sometimes even to the Ancient Greek and Roman civillisations.
Although it sounds really cliche and all that, I have a great interest in the Crusades. It's not due to the fabulously strong attention of macho men riding horses in the name of Christendom, driving out the dark barbarian forces. Really. I like to believe that I have a more lucid, mature and humanist view of the period. It's nothing on current affairs either, what with Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up all around the world in the name of jihad (that's simply violence due to misguidedness, human egocentricity and self-righteousness, pure and simple--extremist know and need no reason for what they do).
I just like examining the past, human behaviour and how history has left its mark on people, individually and culturally (like, for instance, how we love looking at History, and how human behaviour follows a cycle as history is always bound to repeat itself by dint of human nature itself).
However, it's not as serious as it sounds. Not all the time. I also like looking at the People themselves. One topic that is of particular interest (or maybe just because I visited a bookstore today and saw so many books on Richard Lionheart and the Fourth Crusade) is the friendship of Richard I of England and Philip II of France. I know very little concerning them as the only information I can get my hands on is wikipedia (as the poxy local library won't buy any biographies of either of them--if there are any in existence in the first place). But that's not going to stop me from writing an entry about them (and especially my feelings about this odd couple, what the heck).
I felt that both Richard and Philip were terribly interesting and complex personalities. Richard looms large in legend as a gallant knight, riding gloriously off to battle in the name of his faith, but the real man was more...human. He might have been a splendid warrior, a brilliant military strategist, but he was also a son who tried (unsuccessfully) to overthrow his father to take the crown of England (although on a later attemp he finally succeeded); a king who was hardly ever present in his realm (as he apparently did not like the weather, and preferred the joys of riding off to battle to administrative work); and a good friend of Philip II of France, who betrayed him in the end (after their relationship soured).
Philip was also a fascinating person. He was somewhat more sedate than Richard, not much of a warrior king being more at home with the role of an administrator. He was crowned king of France at fourteen as "Louis VII, in the tradition of his forefathers going back to Hugh Capet, had his son Philip crowned king to assure his smooth succession" (wikipedia--told you that was my only resource!); his father died the year after his coronation. From wikipedia:
As King, Philip II would become one of the most successful in consolidating northern France into one royal domain, but he never had more than limited influence in southern France. He seized the territories of Maine, Touraine, Anjou, Brittany and all of Normandy from King John of England (1199–1216). His decisive victory at the Battle of Bouvines over King John and a coalition of forces that included Otto IV of Germany ended the immediate threat of challenges to this expansion (1214) and left Philip II Augustus as the most powerful monarch in all of Europe.
He reorganized the government, bringing financial stability to the country and thus making possible a sharp increase in prosperity. His reign was popular with ordinary people because he checked the power of the nobles and passed some of it on to the growing middle class that his reign had created.
But what really caught my attention was their friendship. Richard and Philip first met as allies against Henry II of England (Richard's father). Then afterward they became friends (as far as I can tell--wikipedia just says so...and so did all the books I browsed through today). They were surprisingly close, considering that they were, first and foremost, political allies; Roger of Hoveden reported that they "ate from the same dish and at night slept in one bed" and had a "strong love between them" (it doesn't mean that they were ever lovers though, it's just that in the past, relationships between heterosexual men were so much more intense, so much so that the word Love may be seriously applied to it). I wonder if their actions were sincere at all in view of what happened later on, and what their true motivations were. Even then, Richard and Philip still acted as politicians with differing agendas in their dealings with each other:
In exchange for Philip's help against his father, Richard promised to concede to him his rights to both Normandy and Anjou. Richard did homage to Philip in November of the same year. With news arriving of the battle of Hattin, he took the cross at Tours, in the company of a number of other French nobles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Occupation_of_Sicily
Richard had already taken the cross as Count of Poitou in 1187. His father Henry II of England and Philip II of France had done so at Gisors on 21 January 1188, after receiving news of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. Having become king, Richard and Philip agreed to go on the Third Crusade together, since each feared that, during his absence, the other might usurp his territories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Crusade_plans
In spite of the politics between them, I still found the eventual split heartbreaking in the disappointment I felt (and that I feel that the two kings might have felt--I'm sentimental, aren't I?). From the little that I have read, I suppose it began on the Third Crusade:
On March 30, 1191 the French set sail for the Holy Land, where they launched several assaults on Acre before King Richard I arrived (see Siege of Acre). By the time Acre surrendered on July 12, Philip was severely ill with dysentery and had little more interest in further crusading. He decided to return to France, a decision that displeased King Richard I, who said, "It is a shame and a disgrace on my lord if he goes away without having finished the business that brought him hither. But still, if he finds himself in bad health, or is afraid lest he should die here, his will be done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_France#Third_Crusade
Richard decided to return from Crusade as he knew that he would not be able to win Jerusalem, and also that Philip and his own brother, John, were plotting (!) against him.
The end was bitter:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Later_years_and_death
Richard came into conflict with Philip. When the latter attacked Richard's fortress, Chateau-Gaillard, he boasted that "if its walls were iron, yet would I take it," to which Richard replied, "If these walls were butter, yet would I hold them!"
... ...
In 1199 Richard faced another rebellion by Aimar V of Limoges and his half-brother, Ademar, Count of Angoulême, backed by Philip of France. Although it was Lent, he "devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword"[3]. He besieged the castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin. (An apocryphal legend, recounted by some chroniclers, claimed that Richard had heard of a treasure trove of golden statues at Châlus.) On 26 March, Richard, not wearing his chainmail, was wounded in the left shoulder by a crossbow bolt allegedly fired by Pierre Basile, one of only two knights defending Châlus. Gangrene set in and Richard asked to see his killer. He ordered that Basile be set free and awarded a sum of money. However as soon as Richard died, with his mother at his side, on 6 April, 1199, his most infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had Basile flayed alive and then hanged.
Philip went on to live to the (relatively) ripe old age of 57, dying in the year 1223. He "would play a significant role in one of the greatest centuries of innovation in construction and in education. With Paris as his capital, he had the main thoroughfares paved, built a central market, Les Halles, continued the construction begun in 1163 of the Gothic Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral, constructed the Louvre as a fortress and gave a charter to the University of Paris in 1200. Under his guidance, Paris became the first city of teachers the medieval world had known. In 1224, the French poet Henry d'Andeli wrote of the great wine tasting competition that Philip II Augustus commissioned The Battle of the Wines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_France#Last_years
Although I know that I'm being a fool to get so emotional about this (since it was all so long ago and I'm not even in the slightest way involved), I cannot help but feel terribly wistful about all this. Richard and Philip most likely felt no pain at all concerning their ruined relationship; they were kings with their legacies and lands to look after, riches and territories to fight over, political alliances and enemies were all just a part of life. The relationship (whatever the nature) was doomed to fail right from the beginning, whether or not they liked each other personally. But I wonder...suppose either of them (Philip, the old and unromantic one especially) ever woke up on a cold night and lay awake with strange memories of each other and all that "oh we were young and foolish" nonsense that we all get misty-eyed about from time to time.
I hope it was so. A memory of idealism and true love's truth is infinitely better than an entire existence in the knowledge of deceit.
After all is said and done, history, often maligned as a meaningless series of events typical of this chaotic universe, does have considerable depth if we are bothered to look at it properly. The people of ages past were not that different from ourselves--in fact, no different at all; I suppose this serves to tell us, even as we continue to live alone as individuals, that we are as a stream flowing constantly although to what end we do not know. And we may be comforted that even in these dark times, we are not alone for every age is a dark age and where we are now, someone has been before and has carried the same pain that we carry.
Although it sounds really cliche and all that, I have a great interest in the Crusades. It's not due to the fabulously strong attention of macho men riding horses in the name of Christendom, driving out the dark barbarian forces. Really. I like to believe that I have a more lucid, mature and humanist view of the period. It's nothing on current affairs either, what with Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up all around the world in the name of jihad (that's simply violence due to misguidedness, human egocentricity and self-righteousness, pure and simple--extremist know and need no reason for what they do).
I just like examining the past, human behaviour and how history has left its mark on people, individually and culturally (like, for instance, how we love looking at History, and how human behaviour follows a cycle as history is always bound to repeat itself by dint of human nature itself).
However, it's not as serious as it sounds. Not all the time. I also like looking at the People themselves. One topic that is of particular interest (or maybe just because I visited a bookstore today and saw so many books on Richard Lionheart and the Fourth Crusade) is the friendship of Richard I of England and Philip II of France. I know very little concerning them as the only information I can get my hands on is wikipedia (as the poxy local library won't buy any biographies of either of them--if there are any in existence in the first place). But that's not going to stop me from writing an entry about them (and especially my feelings about this odd couple, what the heck).
I felt that both Richard and Philip were terribly interesting and complex personalities. Richard looms large in legend as a gallant knight, riding gloriously off to battle in the name of his faith, but the real man was more...human. He might have been a splendid warrior, a brilliant military strategist, but he was also a son who tried (unsuccessfully) to overthrow his father to take the crown of England (although on a later attemp he finally succeeded); a king who was hardly ever present in his realm (as he apparently did not like the weather, and preferred the joys of riding off to battle to administrative work); and a good friend of Philip II of France, who betrayed him in the end (after their relationship soured).
Philip was also a fascinating person. He was somewhat more sedate than Richard, not much of a warrior king being more at home with the role of an administrator. He was crowned king of France at fourteen as "Louis VII, in the tradition of his forefathers going back to Hugh Capet, had his son Philip crowned king to assure his smooth succession" (wikipedia--told you that was my only resource!); his father died the year after his coronation. From wikipedia:
As King, Philip II would become one of the most successful in consolidating northern France into one royal domain, but he never had more than limited influence in southern France. He seized the territories of Maine, Touraine, Anjou, Brittany and all of Normandy from King John of England (1199–1216). His decisive victory at the Battle of Bouvines over King John and a coalition of forces that included Otto IV of Germany ended the immediate threat of challenges to this expansion (1214) and left Philip II Augustus as the most powerful monarch in all of Europe.
He reorganized the government, bringing financial stability to the country and thus making possible a sharp increase in prosperity. His reign was popular with ordinary people because he checked the power of the nobles and passed some of it on to the growing middle class that his reign had created.
But what really caught my attention was their friendship. Richard and Philip first met as allies against Henry II of England (Richard's father). Then afterward they became friends (as far as I can tell--wikipedia just says so...and so did all the books I browsed through today). They were surprisingly close, considering that they were, first and foremost, political allies; Roger of Hoveden reported that they "ate from the same dish and at night slept in one bed" and had a "strong love between them" (it doesn't mean that they were ever lovers though, it's just that in the past, relationships between heterosexual men were so much more intense, so much so that the word Love may be seriously applied to it). I wonder if their actions were sincere at all in view of what happened later on, and what their true motivations were. Even then, Richard and Philip still acted as politicians with differing agendas in their dealings with each other:
In exchange for Philip's help against his father, Richard promised to concede to him his rights to both Normandy and Anjou. Richard did homage to Philip in November of the same year. With news arriving of the battle of Hattin, he took the cross at Tours, in the company of a number of other French nobles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Occupation_of_Sicily
Richard had already taken the cross as Count of Poitou in 1187. His father Henry II of England and Philip II of France had done so at Gisors on 21 January 1188, after receiving news of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. Having become king, Richard and Philip agreed to go on the Third Crusade together, since each feared that, during his absence, the other might usurp his territories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Crusade_plans
In spite of the politics between them, I still found the eventual split heartbreaking in the disappointment I felt (and that I feel that the two kings might have felt--I'm sentimental, aren't I?). From the little that I have read, I suppose it began on the Third Crusade:
On March 30, 1191 the French set sail for the Holy Land, where they launched several assaults on Acre before King Richard I arrived (see Siege of Acre). By the time Acre surrendered on July 12, Philip was severely ill with dysentery and had little more interest in further crusading. He decided to return to France, a decision that displeased King Richard I, who said, "It is a shame and a disgrace on my lord if he goes away without having finished the business that brought him hither. But still, if he finds himself in bad health, or is afraid lest he should die here, his will be done."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_France#Third_Crusade
Richard decided to return from Crusade as he knew that he would not be able to win Jerusalem, and also that Philip and his own brother, John, were plotting (!) against him.
The end was bitter:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lionheart#Later_years_and_death
Richard came into conflict with Philip. When the latter attacked Richard's fortress, Chateau-Gaillard, he boasted that "if its walls were iron, yet would I take it," to which Richard replied, "If these walls were butter, yet would I hold them!"
... ...
In 1199 Richard faced another rebellion by Aimar V of Limoges and his half-brother, Ademar, Count of Angoulême, backed by Philip of France. Although it was Lent, he "devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword"[3]. He besieged the castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin. (An apocryphal legend, recounted by some chroniclers, claimed that Richard had heard of a treasure trove of golden statues at Châlus.) On 26 March, Richard, not wearing his chainmail, was wounded in the left shoulder by a crossbow bolt allegedly fired by Pierre Basile, one of only two knights defending Châlus. Gangrene set in and Richard asked to see his killer. He ordered that Basile be set free and awarded a sum of money. However as soon as Richard died, with his mother at his side, on 6 April, 1199, his most infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had Basile flayed alive and then hanged.
Philip went on to live to the (relatively) ripe old age of 57, dying in the year 1223. He "would play a significant role in one of the greatest centuries of innovation in construction and in education. With Paris as his capital, he had the main thoroughfares paved, built a central market, Les Halles, continued the construction begun in 1163 of the Gothic Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral, constructed the Louvre as a fortress and gave a charter to the University of Paris in 1200. Under his guidance, Paris became the first city of teachers the medieval world had known. In 1224, the French poet Henry d'Andeli wrote of the great wine tasting competition that Philip II Augustus commissioned The Battle of the Wines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_France#Last_years
Although I know that I'm being a fool to get so emotional about this (since it was all so long ago and I'm not even in the slightest way involved), I cannot help but feel terribly wistful about all this. Richard and Philip most likely felt no pain at all concerning their ruined relationship; they were kings with their legacies and lands to look after, riches and territories to fight over, political alliances and enemies were all just a part of life. The relationship (whatever the nature) was doomed to fail right from the beginning, whether or not they liked each other personally. But I wonder...suppose either of them (Philip, the old and unromantic one especially) ever woke up on a cold night and lay awake with strange memories of each other and all that "oh we were young and foolish" nonsense that we all get misty-eyed about from time to time.
I hope it was so. A memory of idealism and true love's truth is infinitely better than an entire existence in the knowledge of deceit.
After all is said and done, history, often maligned as a meaningless series of events typical of this chaotic universe, does have considerable depth if we are bothered to look at it properly. The people of ages past were not that different from ourselves--in fact, no different at all; I suppose this serves to tell us, even as we continue to live alone as individuals, that we are as a stream flowing constantly although to what end we do not know. And we may be comforted that even in these dark times, we are not alone for every age is a dark age and where we are now, someone has been before and has carried the same pain that we carry.
posted by fairypenguin at 4:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home