King John Book

I purchased and read the 2009 edition via kindle : The writer tries hard to present a more objective view of King John. The writer looks at both at the opinions of contemporary chroniclers and subsequent work and covers many different aspects of John's reign including the economics, the religious affairs, the success of Philip Augustus as ruler of France, besides the more well known aspects of John's reign.
The writer concedes that John did commit acts of cruelty, certainly being complicit in the killing of his nephew Arthur, having William de Braose's wife and son , and others opponents starved to death. The hanging of 28 sons of Welsh chieftains who were his hostages. ( For some reason the alleged mutilation of rebels when Rochester Castle fell in 1215 is not included in list of John's unnecessary viciousness to those he defeated.) And of course the fact John died in 1216 with so much of his realm in rebel hands- with support from Crown Prince Louis of France- suggests that his rule had failed-though it is pointed out that certain rebels became Royalists once John had died.
He points out that in respect of English chroniclers, they tended to become very critical of royal administration as from 1300, accusing Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris of 'anti-royalist' bias. The writer tries to show that the loss of Normandy in 1204 was most likely beyond John's control, as the dukedom was moving toward a greater affinity with France, and France simply had greater financial resources in any case. But its loss, along with that of Anjou and Poitou , forever damaged John's reputation. The fact that John had to resort to all sorts of harsh measures to raise as much money as possible to regain the lost territories only to have his forces and the anti-French alliance he sponsored lose to Philip Augustus at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 set John on a collision course with his subjects leading to Magna Carta and civil war.
It would have been good to have more on the campaign leading to Bouvines : It was by no means a foregone conclusion that this campaign would fail. John himself was with a force near Angouleme and not present at the battle. The chapter on Magna Carta is interesting but contains quite a few untranslated Latin terms that makes it hard to follow.
Overall a thoughtful book. One begins to see that perhaps if John had not lost the Angevin territories or had regained them, a lot of his excesses just might have been overlooked.