The history of storied rulers who engaged in battles, adventures, and war even amongst themselves during the 12th century. ( )

Tremendous book that reads like a medieval soap opera that was the Angevin Dynasty. ( )

Born into the great Angevin dynasty and with Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine as parents, neither Richard nor John were expected to rule the Empire. John was his father's favourite, Richard most beloved of their mother and whilst each were given some responsibilities, the heir was Henry the Young King. However the family fall-outs and rebellion meant that Henry died before ascending the throne and Richard became King of England and Aquitaine. Richard the Lionhearted is a heroic figure, talented at war he was successful on crusade and despite being captured whilst returning he survived to fight the old enemy, France. Dying as he lived at war, Richard was succeeded by his younger brother John, who quickly disposed of rightful heir Arthur and set himself up as a despotic ruler who lost much territory in France and almost lost England as well.

McLynn's book is excellent, he shows deep research and understanding of events in England and France as well as their implications on a Europe-wide scale. The contexts of the time mean that historically Richard is regarding as a hero and John as a villain but it is not so simple. Richard used England as a cash cow to raise money for war and crusade, he spent as little as six months in the country as king, preferring his domains in Aquitaine. John inherited an empire on the verge of collapse and history has not been kind to a generally unsympathetic figure. McLynn's talent is to bring both characters to life. Only one quibble, the absolutely tiny font! ( )

Here is another fantastic history by McLynn. As usual, he makes figures that might be easily seem one-dimensional become lively and human. When I picked up this book its heft alone was daunting, but it never dragged and always kept me interested. It's dense, no doubt, but always entertains. Although I'm not usually a fan of military history, McLynn's treatment of battles is especially good. He manages to describe the action clearly and with enough explanation for someone not necessarily intimate with medieval warfare, while somehow also making them suspenseful. His other forte is how he handles the politics in Europe in the12th and 13th centuries. Just enough detail and analysis is provided to make the story interesting but also worthwhile to read.

There are two reasons I only gave "Richard and John" four and a half stars instead of the full five (McLynn's "1066: The Year of Three Battles" easily gets a perfect score in my book). The first is that McLynn falls into the trap of overusing modern cliches to explain otherwise difficult-to-grasp medieval political concepts. Some of this type of thing is welcome in my opinion, as it really can help make a point clear without spending too much text, but the amount of times McLynn "visits that well" (see, I can do it too) was distracting. The second reason this book fell a little short is that McLynn spends far too much time and energy defending the classic evaluation of Richard as the "good" king and John as the "bad" king. I take issue with any historian feeling that they have to evaluate the merit of figures from the distant past. I get that it can make for more interesting reading, but it's easy enough to draw your own conclusions when the facts are stated as thoroughly as McLynn does here. It's impossible not to judge one king against another, especially when they contrast as starkly as Richard and John, and it might be asking too much for a historian not to throw in his own judgment now and then, but McLynn beats you over the head with it at times.

I have to end on a positive note, because overall this was a great read and I recommend it: if McLynn could just write a history of England from the Roman invasion to modern times I would be a happy camper. All histories should be this engaging and complete. ( )