But isn’t it based on facts and evidence that Richard was skilled in warfare? I feel like this is a difference between partial truths and holistic overview rather than accuracy vs inaccuracy. Again the relevance of each varies depending on the context and depth of conversation. If someone were to argue that Richard was a great king based solely on his martial prowess then I absolutely would agree with you, in that context

Well what exactly qualifies as a historically minded viewpoint? We don’t see these people glorified in textbooks, but we do in the history subreddit while talking about how a historical figures life was movie-like. Is this making its way into academic publications or is it more casual history conversations? Because the latter is rightfully affected by pop culture, we want interesting conversation topics, not to quote a phd thesis

Because correctly or not, people see greatness as something you do, not something you preside over. We’re sympathetic to people overcoming odds and subverting expectations and this is most achievable on the battlefield. And if we’re being real, conquest is one of, if not the most significant way in which history changes course. Where would Rome have gone without Caesar? Islam without Khalid Ibn Al Walid?

The songs and storytellers remember these people because they changed the world. But at the end of the day it’s propaganda, the person with the best story is most remembered. Richard the lionheart is a great example of this carrying over to someone whose reign was a categorical failure simply because we’ve established an expectation of warfare being the road to greatness. People don’t talk about how he bankrupted his kingdom or lost the Angevin lands in france as part of his story, so it might as well have never happened