3 ms·

But again, this is a choice about how to characterise the people in this narrative. Certainly the king would be assaulting, killing, imprisoning/kidnapping too

But again, this is a choice about how to characterise the people in this narrative. Certainly the king would be assaulting, killing, imprisoning/kidnapping too. He would be doing it more. But he would not be characterised as a gangster.

defrost 3y ago
Wouldn't he? That seems odd given history frequently characterises various monarchs as more or less thuglife than others. Who was that villian in the tales of Robin Hood? Richard Lackland!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England Contemporary chroniclers were mostly critical of John's performance as king, and his reign has since been the subject of significant debate and periodic revision by historians from the 16th century onwards. Historian Jim Bradbury has summarised the current historical opinion of John's positive qualities, observing that John is today usually considered a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general". Nonetheless, modern historians agree that he also had many faults as king, including what historian Ralph Turner describes as "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", such as pettiness, spitefulness, and cruelty. These negative qualities provided extensive material for fiction writers in the Victorian era, and John remains a recurring character within Western popular culture, primarily as a villain in Robin Hood folklore. It's not the case that royalty is always viewed in a favourable light, history has many opinions and the balance of consensus swings from monarch to monarch wrt them being mostly harmless or not.
mistrial9 3y ago
American here but I agree with the healthy skepticism. Standards for warlords (Kings and Princes in other words) were quite different 800 years ago in that part of the world. It appears there is some balance in writing between historical accuracy, appeasing the attitudes prevalent today, and simply exaggerating in a colorful way to attract superficial readers. The heavy-handedness of the framing suggest the latter two have won here.

defrost 3y ago

Wouldn't he? That seems odd given history frequently characterises various monarchs as more or less thuglife than others. Who was that villian in the tales of Robin Hood? Richard Lackland!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England Contemporary chroniclers were mostly critical of John's performance as king, and his reign has since been the subject of significant debate and periodic revision by historians from the 16th century onwards. Historian Jim Bradbury has summarised the current historical opinion of John's positive qualities, observing that John is today usually considered a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general". Nonetheless, modern historians agree that he also had many faults as king, including what historian Ralph Turner describes as "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", such as pettiness, spitefulness, and cruelty. These negative qualities provided extensive material for fiction writers in the Victorian era, and John remains a recurring character within Western popular culture, primarily as a villain in Robin Hood folklore. It's not the case that royalty is always viewed in a favourable light, history has many opinions and the balance of consensus swings from monarch to monarch wrt them being mostly harmless or not.

mistrial9 3y ago

American here but I agree with the healthy skepticism. Standards for warlords (Kings and Princes in other words) were quite different 800 years ago in that part of the world. It appears there is some balance in writing between historical accuracy, appeasing the attitudes prevalent today, and simply exaggerating in a colorful way to attract superficial readers. The heavy-handedness of the framing suggest the latter two have won here.