cimorene

After reading the introduction to Scott's The Talisman, I was kind of like ... Whoa Richard the Lionheart was somewhat horrible? I only knew about him previously from like. Robin Hood. And Ivanhoe, which is almost the same thing. (In retrospect it's not surprising that these sources were not very reliable.)

Now that I've read a bunch of articles on Wikipedia I know that historians debate, but he is widely considered arguably a bad king and not great guy, although definitely a very good warrior and general. And he did punish anti-semitic rioters one time. But other than that, there's little to be said for him except that his brother John was worse.

Scott was a fan, but his introduction doesn't really have any more to say in his favor, just basically: He was brave! and He was super into the Crusade! The latter may argue for his emotions and conviction of purpose, but I can't count it as a positive overall.

All that said, clearly people are not reading The Talisman, or there would be way more Richard I/Saladin on AO3.