information:classification
Historical reputation and modern reception

Richard's reputation over the years has "fluctuated wildly", according to historian John Gillingham. According to Gillingham, "Richard's reputation, above all as a crusader, meant that the tone of contemporaries and near contemporaries, whether writing in the West or the Middle East, was overwhelmingly favourable." Even historians attached to the court of his enemy Philip Augustus believed that if Richard had not fought against Philip then England would never have had a better king. A German contemporary, Walther von der Vogelweide, believed that Richard's generosity was what made his subjects willing to raise a king's ransom on his behalf. Richard's character was also praised by figures in Saladin's court such as Baha ad-Din and Ibn al-Athir, who judged him the most remarkable ruler of his time. Even in Scotland he won a high place in historical tradition.

After Richard's death his image was further romanticized and for at least four centuries Richard was considered a model king by historians such as Holinshed and John Speed. However, in 1621 the Stuart courtier and poet and historian Samuel Daniel criticized Richard for wasting English resources on the crusade and wars in France. This "remarkably original and consciously anachronistic interpretation" eventually became the common opinion of scholars. Though Richard's popular image tended to be dominated by the positive qualities of chivalry and military competence, his reputation among historians was typified by Steven Runciman 's verdict: "he was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier" ("History of the Crusades" Vol. III).

Victorian England was divided on Richard: many admired him as a crusader and man of God, erecting an heroic statue to him outside the Houses of Parliament. The late-Victorian scholar William Stubbs, however, thought him "a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man". During his ten years' reign, Richard was in England for no more than six months, and totally absent for the last five years., which led to Stubbs argue that Richard had no sympathy, "or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman," and "his ambition was that of a mere warrior."

However, since 1978 this approach has been increasingly questioned for its insularity. According to Gillingham, "it is now more widely acknowledged that Richard was head of a dynasty with far wider responsibilities than merely English ones, and that in judging a ruler's political acumen more weight might be attached to contemporary opinion than to views which occurred to no one until many centuries after his death."

In World War I, when British troops commanded by General Edmund Allenby captured Jerusalem, the British press printed cartoons of Richard looking down from the heavens with the caption reading, "At last my dream has come true". General Allenby protested against his campaign being presented as a latter-day Crusade, stating "The importance of Jerusalem lay in its strategic importance, there was no religious impulse in this campaign".