Landmark Assessment - King John (History Essay)

Throughout history, King John had gained numerous enemies, disliking him immensely for his unjust and ill-treatment towards many, as well as his errors, failings, misjudgments and various faults, all of which caused him to be detested, and to be labelled as a ‘wicked ruler who stole from the English’ - this source was produced from none other than an English monk, in 1216. It is apparent that the monks were not favorably towards John as his actions were much against the church – this they despised. The source

tells us that John taxed the people unfairly, using the money to create unnecessary battles. Worst of all, he lost a fair percentage of these, which led to the end of many lives. 

The source also mentions that ‘… he had been abandoned before the end by his people, and his own end was little mourned.’ This phrase implies that that John must have been an incredibly poor ruler, for England and its people must have undergone great hardships over his reign to abandon him as the quote suggests.

In addition, when the English monk mentions ‘…his own end was little mourned’, the source means that the death of King John did not cause his people to grieve (with the exception of a few); instead, they rejoiced in the absence of his presence, relieved that they would have a ruler that was fair, good hearted, pious, wise and generous - all the qualities a good king possessed and John did not.

I believe that this source is reliable is because it fits in perfectly with the knowledge I have already gained about King John, for he did indeed trust and help more foreigners, and was rather ignorant to his own people’s requirements, however desperate or unnecessary they may be. One of the examples of this is that he trusted the French Nobleman and Lords; as he gained their trust, he had an advantage (that being to coax them into letting him off easily if he were to be in trouble should he be in France) whilst controlling land in Northern France – however, since he lost all of the land by 1204, England was at an even worse setback than usual. Whilst other countries that John helped prospered, England was near to its worst. In addition, the origin of the source was based in 1216, causing it to be a primary source. This makes the source more reliable, as the evidence and details about John is taken at the time, to make the monks perspective of King John to being more believable.

However, this source is also unreliable and likely to be biased as all the monks disliked John, and tried to portray and present him in the worst possible light, which is the motive as to why the source was produced. The monks were obviously rather vindictive and bore a strong grudge towards John, since he had many negative afflictions towards the church and Christianity. Therefore, they wished to present him probably even worse than he may be in reality, and for others to view him in a spiteful perspective as they did themselves.

In my opinion, I believe that this source is half reliable, as there are certain facts listed in this content that match up with my gained knowledge; nevertheless, due to certain statements and accusations in the source, it is uncertain whether the monk is completely biased, as he may have exaggerated upon some of his points; his words full of dislike for John. All in all, I feel that John could have easily avoided so much contempt towards him; had he tried to paint a lasting impression of a fine king upon the English by showing more generosity in their favor, he would have had heads inclined respectfully in his name, to remember what a noble character he was in history.