Teachers.io

• Read the following sources

SOURCE A

John was a tyrant rather than a king, a destroyer rather than a governor, an oppressor of his own people. He was a lion to his own subjects, a lamb to foreigners and those who fought against him; because of his laziness, he lost Normandy; he was incredibly greedy for money, and an invader and destroyer of the possessions of his own people. Hell is too good for a person like him.

Adapted from Matthew Paris's Greater Chronicle. Paris wrote his Chronicle around the year 1260. He based much of his description of John on an earlier account by a monk called Roger of Wendover, who did not like John.

SOURCE B

John possessed some good qualities. Few kings took such a close interest in the details of governing and the daily business of the law courts, but in his own time this counted for very little. John was suspicious of other men and they of him. He inspired neither affection nor loyalty and once he had shown that, no matter how hard he tried, he lacked his older brother Richard's ability to win in war, then he was lost in the eyes of his people.

Adapted from John Gillingham's The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England (1975). Gillingham is Professor of Medieval History at the London School of Economics and is an expert in the reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John.