Among the kings of England there have been eight Henrys, eight Edwards, and six Georges but there has only ever been one John. His successors did not want to be associated with the stain the name had in the minds of the English people. Considering what the monk Matthew Paris penned (writing decades after Johns death) it is perhaps easy to see why. Foul as it is, Hell itself is made fouler by the presence of John. Is this a historical hit job, or was John really that terrible?SuccessionRichard I, the Lionheart, King of England, by Merry-Joseph Blondel, 1841 Source: Westminster AbbeyJohn was never supposed to be king. The youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, there were many in front of him in the line of succession to sit on the throne. But, in 1183 Henry the Young King died of dysentery. This was followed by his brother Geoffrey dying in 1186. Suddenly, only his brother Richard and his nephew Arthur were ahead of him in line to the throne.While Richard The Lionheart was away crusading, it was an open question of who would succeed him if things went south for the warrior king. Arthur was the son of Johns elder brother Geoffrey and, according to primogeniture inheritance, he had the stronger claim. However, he was still only a young child. The realities of child kingship being what they were, John was able to convince and strong-arm his way to being named as the heir apparent.Then, on a fateful day in 1199, a crossbow bolt struck down Richard in France. Suddenly, the man who was so far away from the throne for much of his life, found himself being anointed with the holy oil and crowned king of England.SoftswordArthur I of Britain doing homage to Philip II Augustus of France, 14th century. Source: British LibraryJohn inherited Richards war in France against the formidable King Philip II Augustus. It is important to remember that at this point England controlled much of the west of modern-day France. It had been a long-term project of Philip Augustus to regain control over the lands he saw as rightly his. However, rather than continue to fight over his French lands, John sought to make peace.In 1200 the treaty of Le Goulet was signed, bringing an end to the open hostilities between the two realms. The war ended on terms that were seen as more favorable to Philip than they were to John. John received recognition that he was the rightful heir to Richard over Arthur and Philip gained a promise that the traditional Plantagenet policy of encircling France through alliances with neighboring realms would cease and that Philip was formally recognized as the true feudal overlord of Johns French lands.Signing an unfavorable treaty rather than continuing the war earned John the nickname of Softsword. This was a not-so-subtle dig at Johns perceived lack of military prowess but also his masculinity. The medieval world had a much different relationship to war than we do in the modern world but even today leaders can be seen as weak when signing treaties and resolving issues diplomatically.The Disappearance of ArthurKing John hunting, 14th century. Source: The British LibraryArthur led a rebellion against his uncle to press his claim to the throne but was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempt. After his defeat and capture by John, the fate of Arthur of Brittany becomes murky. It is not known for sure what happened to him, but rumors abound that there was foul play.In the Annales De Margan, John is alleged to have gone to see Arthur after dinner the Thursday before Easter. John had been drinking heavily and was quite drunk. The chronicle is sparse on specific detail but it says that John became possessed by the Devil and slew Arthur with his own hand. Then, he tied a heavy stone to the body and dumped the boys body in the Seine River, only for it to be discovered by a fisherman sometime later.Did this actually happen? The only person who knew for sure was John, and he didnt write on the matter. However, one can see how it might have occurred. Arthur was a threat to Johns power. Hed already rebelled once and as he had a strong claim to be the rightful heir there was a chance it could happen again. On a more speculative, personal level, Arthur was beloved by the people of Brittany. Perhaps, if John really did drunkenly wander down to Arthurs cell that fateful night, jealous rage guided his hand rather than the calculated removal of a political rival.TaxationBattle between Philip II August and John Lackland, 14th century. Source: The British LibraryIn 1204, after a series of devastating military campaigns by Philip II, John lost control of Normandy, Anjou, and Poitouthe majority of his holdings on the mainland. This was a loss to Johns prestige as well as his treasury. He wanted to regain the rich lands he had lost but war was very expensive and he would need an enormous amount of money to be able to raise the army he needed to do so. After 1204, he turned his royal power toward extracting as much money as possible from his vassals and subjects.One of the main areas that John had direct control over was royal forests. Use of these required royal approval, and they were governed under forestry law. John hiked up the fees associated with gaining approval to use forest lands and raised the penalties for those caught illegally using the forests to extortionate amounts. One of the reasons that Sherwood Forest plays a large part in the Robin Hood legend is precisely due to the impact of forestry laws on the general population.Portrait of King John, 1620. Source: Wikimedia CommonsScutage was a tax that could be levied on nobles and knights as a substitute for military service. John utilized this tax eleven times during his 17-year reign. As a point of comparison, scutage had been utilized only eleven times over the preceding 40 years. The noblemen hated this constant imposition. Johns brother and father had been politically astute enough to know that imposing too many taxes too fast would be counter-productive but John didnt have the same sense the rest of his family did.John, still needing more money, imposed a 13% tax on all goods within the country. This was an unprecedented expansion of royal power. Never before in English history had a king imposed a tax on nobles and commoners alike. The burden of taxation created a simmering resentment against the king across the land.Papal SanctionsPope Innocent III, 13th century fresco, photo by Carlo Raso. Source: FlickrJohn continued to make everyone who mattered angry at him when the Archbishop of Canterbury died in 1205. Johns preferred candidate was loyal to him, but word came from Pope Innocent III in Rome that Stephen Langton was to be appointed to the archbishops throne in Canterbury. Like many secular rulers in the Middle Ages before and after him, John bristled at being told who to appoint to such an important position and he refused.Unfortunately for John, Innocent III was perhaps one of the most formidable occupants of the chair of St Peter in the long history of the Papacy. The project of his pontificate was to increase his control over all aspects of the Church and to place popes firmly above kings in the power structure of the medieval world. Innocent would not tolerate such insolence from John, and in retaliation, he not only excommunicated the king but placed the entirety of England under Interdict.As long as the interdict remained in effect Johns subjects could not attend mass, could not receive sacraments, and could not bury their dead in churchyards. Services deemed absolutely essential such as baptism and the last rites for the dying were permitted but the greatly reduced spiritual life of England would have been keenly felt by those affected.In this calamity though, John saw opportunity. Like a 13th-century Henry VIII, he confiscated vast sums of wealth from the churches that sat empty and unused, infuriating priests and monks. When John finally relented and submitted to papal authority, six long years had passed.Magna CartaThe Magna Carta (originally known as the Charter of Liberties), 1215. Source: The British LibraryAfter years of ruinous taxation, John finally had enough money to launch a campaign to retake the lands he lost in 1204. However, disaster struck when he suffered a decisive defeat at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214. Following the defeat, the nobility of England had had enough of John. He had nothing to show for his trampling of feudal custom in his quest for more money. In 1215 the barons demanded that John sign a document known as Magna Carta (Great Charter in Latin) that would reign in his power.The Magna Carta is remembered today for clauses 39 and 40.(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.However, much of the rest of the document is related more to protection of feudal rights from royal overreach than lofty ideals about justice and the rule of law. Those drawing up the Magna Carta were concerned with protecting themselves from Johns tyrannical rule.When John immediately wriggled out of having to obey the Magna Carta thanks to intervention from, of all people, Pope Innocent III, the barons rose up in rebellion against John. They went so far as to invite the French prince Louis to land in England and take the throne for himself.Johns reign ended in the midst of that catastrophic rebellion. In 1216 John died of dysentery, putting an end to 13 years of turmoil. He was succeeded by his nine-year-old son Henry.The VerdictHerbert Beerbhom Tree as King John, by Charles A Buchel, 1900. Source: The Folger Shakespeare LibraryWhen looking at a historical figure that is almost universally reviled, it is always good to examine the bias of the sources. During the Medieval Period, much of the history was written by churchmen, which can be problematic for historians when the subject they were writing about was actively hostile to the Church. It can be argued that Johns terrible reputation is due in large part to his six-year feud with the pope, leaving the Church in England reeling and much of their wealth confiscated.While there may be an argument for exaggerations of Johns own personal moral failings, it is hard to look at the objective facts of Johns reign and come to a conclusion other than that he was a bad king. He managed not only to lose a huge chunk of his land to the French but was then so egregious in his collection of taxes that his own nobles preferred to invite a foreign prince to take his throne rather than suffer his incompetence and tyranny any longer.Being a medieval king was a delicate balancing act. Kings had to weigh their own needs against the needs of their nobility, the clergy, other royal houses, and even other members of their own families. It was a difficult job at the best of times. John certainly found himself up against some of the toughest challenges the Medieval Period could throw at a monarch, and he was found wanting.Bad King John certainly seems to deserve the moniker. He proves that one does not need to be great to change history. Monumental incompetence can be just as powerful a force for change.