What a hit piece! I've rarely read scholarly work that was so one-sided in its treatment. McLynn glosses over Richard's faults while extolling him on nearly every page, and has nothing even neutral to say for John -- John is simply an evil afterthought to Richard's "genius." McLynn spends almost as much time savaging other Angevin scholars for their "absurd canards" as he does a man who's been dead for 800 years. It's almost like McLynn has some personal stake in the Richard vs. John debate, as if he's besties with Richard and really wants the reader to know that John was nothing but a despicable, cruel and dim-witted tyrant, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of historical revisionism. John probably was a pretty bad egg, but if you want me to take you seriously as a scholar, give me the facts and keep your opinions to yourself. But beyond that, a great read and valuable research tool, fairly well cited.