This is the first major study in English this century of the life and reign of one of the greatest of medieval monarchs, Philip Augustus (Philip II), conqueror and crusader, who ruled France from 1180 to 1223 and in the process transformed both his kingdom and the fortunes of the Capetian dynasty. Friend and confidant of all the Angevins in turn - Henry II, and his sons RiThis is the first major study in English this century of the life and reign of one of the greatest of medieval monarchs, Philip Augustus (Philip II), conqueror and crusader, who ruled France from 1180 to 1223 and in the process transformed both his kingdom and the fortunes of the Capetian dynasty. Friend and confidant of all the Angevins in turn - Henry II, and his sons Richard the Lionheart and John - he was a master at playing off the members of that notoriously turbulent family against each other; and he outlived, and outplayed, them all. His crushing defeat of John (and John's Flemish allies and the emperor Otto) at the battle of Bouvines on 29 August 1214 confirmed his ascendancy, and form the dramatic climax of both the reign and this book....
|Title||:||Philip Augustus: King of France, 1180-1223|
|Number of Pages||:||376 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Philip Augustus: King of France, 1180-1223 Reviews
Jim Bradbury has some notable books on his resume, including The Medieval Siege and Stephen and Matilda. The Civil War of 1139-53, but this one, to me, fell short of what I’ve come to expect from him. In a word, he’s too much of an apologist for Philip II. Bradbury manages to subtly shift almost any responsibility for things gone bad away from Philip, while insinuating that he deserves the credit for things that went well. If he sometimes says “Philip was no saint”, he follows that up by poiting out what he thinks Philip did well, in effect ‘proving’ that he was very saintlike.But I’m getting ahead of myself. Bradbury has obviously done his research, and knows what he’s talking about. He takes the same approach here which he did later with Stephen of Blois. Whereas Stephen of Blois has been put down by chroniclers and historians as a weak and foolish king, Philip has a reputation for malice, cowardice, duplicity and ruthlessness. With both Stephen and Philip Bradbury then sets out to show how there is more to either man. With Stephen I found in credible, as he gave a serious, conscientious reading of the evidence (and for the battles/campaigns of the sites involved), but for Philip not so much so. One part of that is his insistence of taking the French chronicles practically at face value and disregarding the Anglo-Norman ones. Another part is because of the way he treats the evidence. Bradbury is, in my humble opinion, much too eager to assume the best of Philip. Now, it may be that the idea of the duplicitous Capetian king was already firmly entrenched in my mind (it is), but even with an open mind I found many of Bradbury’s theses too simple, or convenient, or perhaps downright misleading.Here are some examples:Bradbury asserts that Philip was responsible for the Third Crusade’s biggest success (the Fall of Acre), but suggests that while Philip left for home right after, he was still an ardent and conscientious crusader. I find this hard to believe, as it was reluctance to play second fiddle to Richard the Lionheart and avarice for the Flemish inheritance that are most likely what drove him to leave for France. With their combined power, Richard and Philip might have been able to decisively defeat Saladin, but Philip chose not to try. I don’t see how that works with conscientious crusading.Bradbury also implies that Philip is responsible for many Byzantine riches to reach France after the Fourth Crusade, while at the same time Philip took no part in it and barely supported it. On the whole there are many instances where Bradbury seems to suggest that Philip deserves credit for something, without actually proving why this should be. As I progressed through this book, I found this attitude more and more grating.Conclusion: interesting enough read for those who know something about the timeframe, but a bit misleading for those who do not. Interesting because of a different approach of Philip than is usual, but misleading because it doesn’t really make its case and can be considered suggestive.
This readable survey offers a broadly comprehensive introduction to Philip and his reign. Bradbury surveys the key facts of Philip's personal life, the governmental reforms undertaken during his rule, and the most important political and military events of the reign such as the Battle of Bouvines. There's no original archival research in here, but Bradbury's contribution to the topic is to re-read the Anglo-Norman chronicles with an eye to their bias against Philip. Bradbury's contention is that Philip was a better ruler, and a more admirable man, than most Anglophone scholarship has portrayed him (given the bias of many British historians in favour of Richard I of England). I'll grant the evidence of anti-Capetian bias in those chronicles, though I don't know that I would be as thoroughly favourable in my estimation of the man as Bradbury is.
A bit too dry, too academically written.
Solidly academic. It can be very dry.
يعتبر فيليب أغسطس الملك الفرنسي من آل كوبيه الذي أعاد لفرنسا رونقها انصح كل المهتمين بالعصور الوسطى بقراءة هذا الكتاب