Terry Jones asks just how much we really know about our medieval kings. Using the three king Richards as a sample, he discovers that ‘Good’ King Richard the Lionheart was anything but, and discovers one ‘king’ who’s been deliberately airbrushed from history.
Album : Chinnari Chitti Patalu – Vol – 2 Music Director : Snehalatha Murali Singers : Manogna, Prathyusha, Bhanu Chandrika Enjoy this Hit song from Chinnari Chitti Patalu – Vol – 2. For Daily Updates & Fun Stuff Subscribe – www.youtube.com Join us on Facebook – www.facebook.com Follow us on Twitter at twitter.com
anwealde
February 5, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Well I guess you and Terry were wrong, a wickedly curved spine? buried at the site of the old greyfriar’s church was recently found and identified as Richard III’s
InnannasRainbow
February 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm
AHA! On a different history of Richard III, I said that he did NOT have a hunchback and someone from England said he did and whal would an American know? about English kings? Well, this American loves English history! I don’t care much for American history, though.
I also said that I heard Richard III did not have a shriveled arm nor did he kill his nephews in the Tower.
greatunknowableevil
February 5, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Wait, how is ordering the death of? jesters bad?
Frank McEvoy
February 5, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Actually, the whole mess with King Louis is chronicled (more? or less) in Shakespeare’s “King John.”
Nate Fellows
February 5, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Yes, well we know all about that. However, one has to wonder what really happened…
What we know is pretty bad, what we don’t? know could be far worse, or I suppose, exonerating. History never gives us the whole picture.
Nate Fellows
February 5, 2013 at 8:13 pm
I’m inclined to agree to a certain extent. As I recall, Richard was quite happy with what he did capture and never made much of a play for the holy city. Plus what more can we really expect? when the wolves were to some extent already within the walls? He was not the only king headed in that direction and they did as much head butting with each other as they did with the muslims.
Nate Fellows
February 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Perhaps. But perhaps not. It’s important to make distinctions between that done at the kings behest and that done in the kings name. History, as Jones points out, is not always what happened. Churchill went on to say in the last century? that, “history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”, or words to that effect.
Constantine Joseph
February 5, 2013 at 9:25 pm
The Massacre at Arsuf was definitely a black mark. No one can deny that as even the women? were slaughtered
Constantine Joseph
February 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Failed crusader Richard I??? He maybe so, but considering he had so few men in comparison to the armies of Saladin, it was an astonishing job. Battle of Arsuf, Acre, Jaffa…..
Bad king but immense warrior of his day. If Phillip? II and Frederick Barbarossa had truly took on Saladin, the Kingdom of Jerusalem would be reinstated.
Soren G
February 5, 2013 at 9:45 pm
As in the other docu depicted:It was Richards nobility,which clamped down on the peasants leaders.Certainly,the king couldn´t have real objections to that,but I was surprised that only the leaders were hanged and no major example (leveling villages etc) was done.The biggest help for his people was,to end that? war with France,cause that took away the need for raising ever higher taxes,so in a way he is right about RichardII
Gina Gololtrolol
February 5, 2013 at 10:41 pm
@ 25:37 … Symbol of? the ‘Rosecutions’?? Wouldn’t suprise me if true.
Joeri Foolen
February 5, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Richard III FTW.?
24SparrowJack
February 5, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Yep i have heard king Louis before this don’t know much? about him though
LambChowder1
February 5, 2013 at 11:55 pm
richard II had the peasants hunted down? and killed
EpicEarthComix
February 6, 2013 at 12:15 am
Seems to be Mr. Jones MO when covering history – to sort of “present the? other side” even if that mean presenting views that oppose his own . .um . presented views.(?) Or something like that. 🙂
Ryuu44
February 6, 2013 at 12:29 am
Yes, I think it’s posible. It’s just that I watched this part right after that one and it stroke me how using the same animation and the same? situation he once shows Richard as a canny king who tricked the peasants into not fighting and then killed them, but later on he’s shown as the good king that didn’t want people to get hurt.
EpicEarthComix
February 6, 2013 at 1:06 am
Not an expert here – but maybe the important distinction lies in – Richard II tried to avoid open warfare using it as a last resort and as a means to achieve broader peace as opposed to profit – whereas the Peasant Revolt aftermath and the infighting among nobility was more? of a criminal/civil matter. (?) Law enforcement vs. warfare. Just a suggestion.
Ryuu44
February 6, 2013 at 1:07 am
I don’t get one thing? about Richard II. In an earlier episode it was mentioned that after the peasants’ revolt he murdered a lot of the rebels, but in this episode I hear that he was a good king because he didn’t want any blood shed.
FieldMarshalRommel23
February 6, 2013 at 1:49 am
Is London weather more French? than Irish?
cbohar84
February 6, 2013 at 2:49 am
Richard the First was? a sexy beast!
cittiavaticano
February 6, 2013 at 2:50 am
bad history, damn shame because Id expect more? from the BBC, esb. when it came to english history proper.
michaelccozens
February 6, 2013 at 3:32 am
That’s a misunderstanding of statistics. Average life expectancy was low, but that’s only because the death-rate of pre-adults was so high. If you made it to 15 or so, you could expect to live about as long in 100 or 1000 CE as 1900. We’ve really only tacked on 10-20 years to adult life expectancy in the last 70 years or so, and that’s mostly down to antibiotics.?
michaelccozens
February 6, 2013 at 3:51 am
Couple of things there. First, there’s the hard political reality, still seen today, that responding to a rumour can sometimes give it legs. If Richard had produced the boys? to quell the rumour, it could have legitimized the accusation. Rumour-quashing is a tricky business.
Then there’s the obvious fact that just being a child was dangerous in those times. Disease often kills the young and old, and the odds of making it to adulthood in that era were not great, even for the rich.
Stephen Jackson
February 6, 2013 at 4:01 am
After this, I have come to like Richard II and hate Richard I. As for Richard III, I have to admit he wasn’t? such a bad guy after all.
shiftyjake
February 6, 2013 at 5:00 am
The trouble with the “savage” narrative isn’t that Indians weren’t cruel, but that they were? no more cruel than the Europeans or anyone else in the world for that matter. The “noble savage” is a newer, but no less belittling narrative IMO. But I guess at least it manages to subvert the “we’re the bestest ever and ever and those jerks deserved whatever we did to them” narrative that uneducated populations the world over seem to naturally fall into.