2 ms·

In case there is any doubt on what the article says the answer is, this is the 2nd paragraph: > Surely Richard was the least successful of English kings. His r

In case there is any doubt on what the article says the answer is, this is the 2nd paragraph: > Surely Richard was the least successful of English kings. His reign was brief (1483-85) and he left no legitimate issue and no political heirs. He destroyed his immediate Yorkist family and indeed the whole Plantagenet dynasty. He plunged England back into civil war. He re-started the Wars of the Roses that had ended with Yorkist victory in 1471; the conflict raged on for another 20 years. Richard’s principal achievement, albeit inadvertent, was to make feasible the vestigial claim of the obscure Henry Tudor and to create the Tudor monarchy. His regime was catastrophic.

hardlianotion 3y ago
Certainly a bonafide loser on Crusader Kings.
VintageCool 3y ago
The article really really wants to put a positive spin on Richard III, but in Dictator's Handbook terms he clearly failed at building an effective coalition to rule England. The people whose opinions counted in 1485 mostly did not want Richard III to be king. > That many allies of his brother, Edward IV, supported Henry Tudor speaks to Richard’s inability to command widespread loyalty. Richard’s rule failed because too few people supported him The established figures who had supported his brother rebelled against Richard. > Richard’s subjects and foreign observers were stunned by his brazen betrayal, his swift execution of Lord Hastings, and the disappearance of his young nephews, all of which undermined efforts to stabilise the kingdom in the two years that followed. Further resentment and anxiety festered when Richard misjudged regional politics and redistributed southern property among his northern affinity. Richard was redistributing southern property to northerners because he couldn't find southerners that would support him. On the plus side, Richard III ended the War of the Roses by convincing all the Yorkist supporters (who had supported his brother) that they had to cast their lot with the last Lancastrian candidate (Henry Tudor) in order to get rid of Richard.

hardlianotion 3y ago

Certainly a bonafide loser on Crusader Kings.

VintageCool 3y ago

The article really really wants to put a positive spin on Richard III, but in Dictator's Handbook terms he clearly failed at building an effective coalition to rule England. The people whose opinions counted in 1485 mostly did not want Richard III to be king. > That many allies of his brother, Edward IV, supported Henry Tudor speaks to Richard’s inability to command widespread loyalty. Richard’s rule failed because too few people supported him The established figures who had supported his brother rebelled against Richard. > Richard’s subjects and foreign observers were stunned by his brazen betrayal, his swift execution of Lord Hastings, and the disappearance of his young nephews, all of which undermined efforts to stabilise the kingdom in the two years that followed. Further resentment and anxiety festered when Richard misjudged regional politics and redistributed southern property among his northern affinity. Richard was redistributing southern property to northerners because he couldn't find southerners that would support him. On the plus side, Richard III ended the War of the Roses by convincing all the Yorkist supporters (who had supported his brother) that they had to cast their lot with the last Lancastrian candidate (Henry Tudor) in order to get rid of Richard.