Now reading John Gillingham’s article “The Unromantic Death of Richard I” and appreciating his usual Dickriding (ha), but it really is a great work of historical analysis. Great to see an evaluation of the many different sources that record his death, and a more critical look at the political context in which the attack on Chalus-Chabrol took place. Once again the work of the historian is to No Fun Allowed (buried Roman treasure…. Probably FAKE NEWS ), but the idea that the Limousin and the contested loyalties of the lords of Limoges was something that already had conflict, even since 1183, and that carrying over into 1199 is very fascinating.
Also his annoyance at people taking William the Breton’s source at face value is very funny. William
places a 31 line speech explaining why Richard no longer deserved to live. He is greedy, has no respect for God and holy days, breaks treaties made with his lord, and offends against the law of nature
Yeah that IS what Philip’s historian would record lool. Overall, it’s a good paper on talking about how medieval writers loved to turn their historical events into structures of moral narratives—something we still do today of course, and something to keep aware of when looking at our own sources…