This book presents Richard in four clear phases of kingship: ‘absent’, ‘crusader’, ‘warrior’ and ‘legendary’. This is especially helpful in exploring the reign thematically, offering a fresher perspective than the traditional narrative accounts. Asbridge looks to tease apart myth and legend, and he explores whether Richard was a ‘reckless brute’ or a ‘deft mastermind’. This goes to the heart of the debate on Richard and over a series of lessons students could gather evidence for both sides of the argument before coming to their own conclusion about Richard.

Asbridge explores the depth of Richard’s religious commitment to crusading, the argument over how far he simply exploited England for his own purposes and the extent of his military abilities. He suggests that Richard’s real driving force was chivalric expectations, not religion. He also suggests that Richard only honed his skills later in life, and that 1194–98 ‘should be recognized as the pinnacle of Richard’s military career.’ I would use this as the basis of a comparison task: students could assess the reign in two halves: 1189–93 and 1194–99. They could assemble evidence to rate Richard as a king, a military leader, a diplomat and in regard to his relations with the church. 

Gillingham’s biography is detailed and authoritative. I would suggest two main ways to use it in teaching. First, the extremely useful chapter ‘Through Muslim Eyes’ examines Richard through the Muslim sources – Gillingham calls this ‘maybe the best place for a detached judgement of his character and abilities’. This offers an opportunity to do some work with original sources. I would use the extremely helpful footnotes to construct a collection of source material for your students to examine. Second, Gillingham looks to challenge the orthodoxy of the last 200 years with regard to Richard’s reputation. The supposed failures of royal government and the Third Crusade are re-examined through the eyes of Richard’s contemporaries. Gillingham maintains that ‘few rulers can have faced greater difficulties than Richard’. I would use this idea to divide the class into three, with each group taking one difficulty: Saladin, Leopold of Austria, and Philip of France. Students could research the nature of the difficulty, how Richard tackled it, and how successful he was overall. 

This highly critical article could be set against the more admiring views of Richard. Accusing the king of having ‘self-centred, puerile interests in personal adventures’, Markowski presents a very different type of Richard. Arguing that a cautious crusading policy was actually counterproductive to peace, Markowski concludes that Richard ‘was no hero, but a man who wanted to fight hand-to-hand forever’, and that by failing to lay siege and capture Jerusalem, Richard condemned the region to ongoing war and guaranteed a string of future crusades that were bound to fail.