is on that list, then you would be right.
In regard to Richard he writes:
"If Richard had lived another five years, there would have been one notable difference in the course of the campaign. The king himself would have been on the heights above Les Andelys and even when all else had gone, Richard would have been urging the citizens of Rouen to arms, parrying the first assault with blows of his great sword..."
This then is how history views Richard, Warren then goes on to write:
"By comparison with Richard, then, John has been seen as a weedy little tick"
England's problems, created by Richard, were blamed on John and when he had difficulty dealing with them he is labeled a bad king. How can you can a monarch slaughter hundreds of people at home, thousands of people on crusade and is still not classed as a bad king. What exactly did King Richard I do for his country?
Well one thing that pleases me at least is Richard III is not on this list.