Was King John Really the Worst King Ever?
Was King John really the worst king ever?
The question as to whether King John was really the worst king ever, stills seems to be a topic of much controversy amongst historians, as they have not yet come to an exact decision on which side of the argument to deem as the truth. Some people believe that King John is to be blamed for the fate that he suffered because of certain decisions he made and brought himself to his state in the society through his actions; however, those who disagree, claim that it was simply his misfortune and that the events that came about were inevitable and were supposed to happen at some point in history, which had to unfortunately be during the reign of King John. Let's look more closely into the matter to see which side of the argument should be supported…
The first reason for the belief that King John was the worst king is: he lost most of the land his ancestors had died fighting for including his hereditary lands of Normandy and Anjou. This, of course, brought shame to his name for being unable to retain lands which rightfully belonged to him. However, in addition to that, owning quite a huge realm means that you need to be able to control it and make sure you are aware of what is going on, on the lands that you own. This, once he had lost Normandy and Anjou, was not possible because he didn't have any proper access into France without having to face an attack by the soldiers of Philip II Augustus (King of France during the reign of John); when trying to cross the French border, he would have to go all the way around Anjou and Normandy, then attempt to enter into Aquitaine. Eventually, this meant he was unable to control any French lands and ended up losing Aquitaine altogether as well.
On the other hand, those against, argue that no King would have been able to maintain that realm forever and would, at some point, lose it. This, conveniently enough, happened to occur whilst John was reigning. They also mention frequently
The question as to whether King John was really the worst king ever, stills seems to be a topic of much controversy amongst historians, as they have not yet come to an exact decision on which side of the argument to deem as the truth. Some people believe that King John is to be blamed for the fate that he suffered because of certain decisions he made and brought himself to his state in the society through his actions; however, those who disagree, claim that it was simply his misfortune and that the events that came about were inevitable and were supposed to happen at some point in history, which had to unfortunately be during the reign of King John. Let's look more closely into the matter to see which side of the argument should be supported…
The first reason for the belief that King John was the worst king is: he lost most of the land his ancestors had died fighting for including his hereditary lands of Normandy and Anjou. This, of course, brought shame to his name for being unable to retain lands which rightfully belonged to him. However, in addition to that, owning quite a huge realm means that you need to be able to control it and make sure you are aware of what is going on, on the lands that you own. This, once he had lost Normandy and Anjou, was not possible because he didn't have any proper access into France without having to face an attack by the soldiers of Philip II Augustus (King of France during the reign of John); when trying to cross the French border, he would have to go all the way around Anjou and Normandy, then attempt to enter into Aquitaine. Eventually, this meant he was unable to control any French lands and ended up losing Aquitaine altogether as well.
On the other hand, those against, argue that no King would have been able to maintain that realm forever and would, at some point, lose it. This, conveniently enough, happened to occur whilst John was reigning. They also mention frequently