100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
Eerder door jou gezocht
"Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that the years were a disaster for John" Model essay€7,35
In winkelwagen
Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view
that the years 1202-1203 were a disaster for John
During the years 1202-1203, John faced many failures concerning his French lands. However, he also faced
some successes such as the siege at Mirabeau, so it is an overstatement to claim that he only faced
disasters during these years. Source A clearly disagrees that John faced failures and highlights how John did
not only face disasters as it highlights one of his few successes and to some extent, source B also disagrees
and mentions this success regarding the siege at Mirabeau. However, sources B, C and D all agree and
focus on the disasters rather than successes John faced during these years.
Source A clearly disagrees that the years 1202-1203 were a disaster for John and focuses on one of his few
successes: the siege at Mirabeau. However, it is important to note that this source is written by John so
omits his failures and only highlights his successes in order to present himself in a positive light. During this
source, John boasts about how “we captured our nephew Arthur”. This was a success for John as Arthur
posed a serious threat to him and was his main competition for the throne. Arthur was initially claimed as
Richard’s heir and many people believed that he had a stronger claim to the throne than John despite
Richard claiming John as his heir on his deathbed. By capturing Arthur, John showed brilliant strategic
tactics as this eliminated his main threat. This is also mentioned in source B. Source A strongly highlights
this as a “happy success”. This source is useful for us as John was an eyewitness to this event, increasing
the reliability and accuracy. This source also shows how John presented himself and viewed these
situations. However, this source is likely to be incomplete, as previously mentioned, as it omits John’s
failures which as we know, strongly outweighed his successes as well as ignoring the fact that John later
turned this success into a failure, which is mentioned in source B.
In addition, initially, source B seems to disagree that the years 1202-1203 were a disaster for John,
mentioning how “King John had captured Arthur”. This was one of John’s few successes and is also
highlighted in source A. As previously mentioned, Arthur was John’s biggest rival for the throne, not only
because he was initially claimed as Richard’s heir but his father, Geoffrey, was John’s older brother so
should have been king before John had he not died. Therefore, Arthur arguably had a stronger claim to the
throne than John so capturing and imprisoning Arthur helped John keep him under control and secure his
position as king. However, John turned this success into a disaster which was very typical of John. Source B
goes on to mention how “when John was drunk and possessed by the devil, he slew him with his own
hand”. Whilst there is no factual evidence that John ever murdered Arthur, which is one of the weaknesses
of this source, the rumours which spread claiming that he did were certainly a disaster for John. Arthur was
very well liked in Brittany so this rumour led to John losing the support of his Breton vassals. Also, this
rumour painted John as unchivalrous as he murdered his own family member and this was an unlawful
execution. This led to him losing a lot of support from his English vassals as well. This source has some
reliability to it as William de Briouze, who sponsored the Abbey which wrote this source, was the man who
captured Arthur so was an eyewitness. However, he would not be an eyewitness to this certain event and
the chroniclers clearly make up details in order to paint John in a bad light. For example, this source
mentions how Arthur’s body “was discovered by a fisherman in his net” when in reality, Arthur’s body was
never found. This makes this source not impartial and very anti-John. We know that William de Briouze did
not have a good relationship with John because his son and wife died under John’s care. Therefore, this
decreases the reliability of this source because, whilst William may have been an eyewitness, this source is
biased against John so is likely to paint him in a negative light and highlight his disasters rather than
successes.
Moreover, source C also agrees that the years 1202-1203 were a disaster for John but this source focuses
on a different failure: the capture of Chateau Gaillard. Source C mentions how “the King of France has
made war on your territory, he has taken such and such castle”. Phillip capturing Chateau Gaillard was a
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper bethemmahook. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,35. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
