Mercury

John Ridpath on "Robin Hood."

25 posts in this topic

Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

What's interesting is the movie ACTUALLY portrays the Robin Hood described in the last paragraph above. So what the hell is Crowe talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

What's interesting is the movie ACTUALLY portrays the Robin Hood described in the last paragraph above. So what the hell is Crowe talking about?

This would be my question, too, Jason. I haven't watched any of the press for the movie, but if Crowe is saying what Dr. Ridpath reports, he is playing to a widely-held misconception. It is possible, of course, that the studio thinks this approach will play well and has advised Crowe accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

What's interesting is the movie ACTUALLY portrays the Robin Hood described in the last paragraph above. So what the hell is Crowe talking about?

My question as well given the reports I've read of the film. Although I have great respect for him as an actor (perhaps the finest of his generation), Mr. Crowe's statement in this case is that of an actor who does not understand the essence his assigned character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

What's interesting is the movie ACTUALLY portrays the Robin Hood described in the last paragraph above. So what the hell is Crowe talking about?

My question as well given the reports I've read of the film. Although I have great respect for him as an actor (perhaps the finest of his generation), Mr. Crowe's statement in this case is that of an actor who does not understand the essence his assigned character.

I agree. What I saw on the screen does not match Crowe's statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Ridpath makes a classic blunder: He pays any attention at all to the actor when he's not reading off a script. There are some intelligent actors, in fact, Crowe is to some limited extent one of them, but I do not look to an actor, first, for insight into the story. That is the job of the writer and the director. And to judge and condemn the movie not for what it actually protrays but by what its lead actor says, when, as others have already pointed out, it does not correspond to the plot-theme presented on screen, I think is a serious mistake and invalidates the opinion.

That said, I haven't yet seen the movie and I intend to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Ridpath makes a classic blunder: He pays any attention at all to the actor when he's not reading off a script. There are some intelligent actors, in fact, Crowe is to some limited extent one of them, but I do not look to an actor, first, for insight into the story. That is the job of the writer and the director. And to judge and condemn the movie not for what it actually protrays but by what its lead actor says, when, as others have already pointed out, it does not correspond to the plot-theme presented on screen, I think is a serious mistake and invalidates the opinion.

That said, I haven't yet seen the movie and I intend to.

I don't see Dr. Ridpath's analysis following what you say. He does not evaluate what the movie portrays, but what everyone typically thinks of Robin Hood, namely he steals from the rich to give to the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

What's interesting is the movie ACTUALLY portrays the Robin Hood described in the last paragraph above. So what the hell is Crowe talking about?

I think he suffers from the usual misunderstanding of what being rich involves. He confuses expropriated wealth with earned wealth, and puts these under the label of 'the rich'. Thus, if the 'rich' are expropriators, then Robin Hood is moral. However, if the rich have earned their wealth, he is not.

Crow has not thought this through, but it is apparent that he acted on the moral premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the movie, but here is an interesting account of the legend of Robin Hood in Willaim Manchester's A World Lit Only by Fire, The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance - Portrait of an Age, 1992.

A Yorkshire gravestone bears this inscription:

Hear underneath dis laihl stean

las Robert earl of Huntingtun

neer arcir yer az hie sa geud

And ipl kauld in Robin Heud

sick utlawz as he an iz men

il england nivr si agen

Obiit 24 kal Decembris 1247

Robin Hood lived; this marker confirms it, just as the Easter tables attest to the existence of the great Arthur. But that is all the tombstone does. Everything we know about that period suggests that Robin was merely another wellborn cutthroat who hid in shrubbery by roadsides, waiting to rob helpless wayfarers. The possibility that he stole from the rich and gave to the poor is, like the tale of that other cold-blooded rogue, Jesse James, highly unlikely. Even unlikelier is the conceit that Robin Hood, aka Heud, was accompanied by a bedmate called Maid Marian, a giant known as Little John, and a lapsed Catholic named Friar Tuck. Almost certainly they were creatures of an ingenious folk imagination, and their contemporary, the sheriff of Nottingham, is probably the most libeled law enforcement in this millennium.

The more we study those remote centuries, the unlikelier those legends become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen the movie, but here is an interesting account of the legend of Robin Hood in Willaim Manchester's A World Lit Only by Fire, The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance - Portrait of an Age, 1992.
A Yorkshire gravestone bears this inscription:

Hear underneath dis laihl stean

las Robert earl of Huntingtun

neer arcir yer az hie sa geud

And ipl kauld in Robin Heud

sick utlawz as he an iz men

il england nivr si agen

Obiit 24 kal Decembris 1247

Robin Hood lived; this marker confirms it, just as the Easter tables attest to the existence of the great Arthur. But that is all the tombstone does. Everything we know about that period suggests that Robin was merely another wellborn cutthroat who hid in shrubbery by roadsides, waiting to rob helpless wayfarers. The possibility that he stole from the rich and gave to the poor is, like the tale of that other cold-blooded rogue, Jesse James, highly unlikely. Even unlikelier is the conceit that Robin Hood, aka Heud, was accompanied by a bedmate called Maid Marian, a giant known as Little John, and a lapsed Catholic named Friar Tuck. Almost certainly they were creatures of an ingenious folk imagination, and their contemporary, the sheriff of Nottingham, is probably the most libeled law enforcement in this millennium.

The more we study those remote centuries, the unlikelier those legends become.

Whether one is arguing about a legend or history are two different issues. I think most of us have grown up with the legend, and it is so widespread, I don't think very many are concerned with whether he existed. His fictional character, portrayed in many movies, is what is real to most people.

It is like arguing whether Jesus existed or not as an argument against Christianity. Whether he existed or not, someone formulated the ideas of Christianity and attributed them to Jesus. What the real Robin Hood actually did is irrelevant to the issue of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" vs. "returning stolen property to those from whom it was stolen." As Dr. Ridpath notes, "First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Everything we know about that period suggests that Robin was merely another wellborn cutthroat who hid in shrubbery by roadsides, waiting to rob helpless wayfarers...

Whether one is arguing about a legend or history are two different issues. I think most of us have grown up with the legend, and it is so widespread, I don't think very many are concerned with whether he existed. His fictional character, portrayed in many movies, is what is real to most people.

... What the real Robin Hood actually did is irrelevant to the issue of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" vs. "returning stolen property to those from whom it was stolen." As Dr. Ridpath notes, "First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice."

We know what the common legend is and what is wrong with regarding and spreading it as an ideal. According to Manchester's history there is no basis for the claim that Robin Hood was actually the opposite of that, claimed here to be:

He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

There is no reason to believe that he was "an agent of justice". A "wellborn" royalty "cutthroat" -- the "earl of Huntingtun" -- who "hid in shrubbery by the roadsides, waiting to rob helpless wayfarers" (such highway robbery was common in the Middle Ages) is not returning anything to "rightful owners". Rampant theft by cutthroats does not imply a "defender of the common man's right to his earned property".

The account by Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged -- "It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed" -- was a good fictional device, but if Manchester is right on the history, Ridpath's account isn't true. Ayn Rand didn't say it was either. I wonder what Ridpath's source was for his elaboration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see the film, and while I have issues with its artistic merit, the philosophical message is loud and clear: King John is a tyrant who abuses his power to rob from the people who have worked to earn their own keep. Robin Hood explicitly (though not eloquently) stands up for his individual rights and his liberty. He insists that a man's home is his castle. He unites Britain against France by getting the King to agree to terms with the barons (with allusions to a "great charter" -- ie, the Magna Carta).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Ridpath makes a classic blunder: He pays any attention at all to the actor when he's not reading off a script. There are some intelligent actors, in fact, Crowe is to some limited extent one of them, but I do not look to an actor, first, for insight into the story. That is the job of the writer and the director. And to judge and condemn the movie not for what it actually protrays but by what its lead actor says, when, as others have already pointed out, it does not correspond to the plot-theme presented on screen, I think is a serious mistake and invalidates the opinion.

That said, I haven't yet seen the movie and I intend to.

I don't see Dr. Ridpath's analysis following what you say. He does not evaluate what the movie portrays, but what everyone typically thinks of Robin Hood, namely he steals from the rich to give to the poor.

I see your point, Paul. He was essentially using Crowe as a proxy for those who believe as he spouted, that Mr. Hood was an altruistic hero of redistribution. He wasn't condemning the movie, but the the cultural symbol as commonly accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

Aha! This is what I thought Robin Hood was about! I'm happy to see that point bolstered by such an esteemed mind as John Ridpath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. John Ridpath had a short, intriguing article published in the Financial Post yesterday:

Another Robin Hood movie, another ideological travesty. Interviewed recently on his role in the new epic, Russell Crowe said it was a story of class warfare, of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

It’s an alarming omen to again see Robin Hood heroism mindlessly distorted. Aside from its vacuously erroneous simplicity, this standard image of Robin Hood is grounds for concern about the state of our culture.

First is the injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait. He was, in fact, an agent of justice. He took the money and property that the Norman conquerors and their minions seized, by force, from the British yeomanry, and returned it to the rightful owners. Robin Hood, in short, was a defender of the common man’s right to his earned property. He was a courageous enemy of state-enforced robbery.

Aha! This is what I thought Robin Hood was about! I'm happy to see that point bolstered by such an esteemed mind as John Ridpath.

But what is the evidence that the more pleasing alternative is any more true of what "Robin Hood was about" than the commonly promoted legend? See these two posts above [1] [2].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got back from seeing the movie. It was absolutely wonderful and great. Forget about what Robin Hood was about. This is what Robin Hood should be about. No rich vs. poor: just right vs. wrong, rights vs. force, justice vs. arbitrary decisions.

Russell Crowe's and Cate Blanchett's acting are wonderful and powerfully appropriate to the story.

The "rich" ("No one should be allowed to own 4,000 acres," utters one character. "It's 5,000 acres," replies Marian) are just as much exploited as the poor by the force of King John.

It is sad indeed when those who, like Crowe, cannot grasp what is so eloquently presented in the movie and cannot apply them to reality, today's society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got back from seeing the movie. It was absolutely wonderful and great. Forget about what Robin Hood was about. This is what Robin Hood should be about.

That is true, but -- not to detract from enjoyment of the movie -- objectivity in commentaries requires accurately describing what Robin Hood was when that is explicitly addressed, and Ridpath put a big emphasis on what he claimed Robin Hood actually was.

He protested "mindless distortion" of "Robin Hood heroism" and stated that the better, alternate version differing from the common one today was not only the one portrayed in the movie, but as "historians report". What historians and based on what?

There is very little evidence of what, if anything, Robin Hood may have been. Some even doubt that the tombstone cited by Manchester (described above) is legitimate. If Robin Hood did exist, it is unlikely that either emphasis of the legend of the "good outlaw" is true for either of the competing notions of "good". There is apparently no evidence for either; he would most likely have been only a ruthless outlaw stealing from whomever had something to steal, which was common at the time.

Ridpath refers to an "injustice being done to Robin Hood, whether he was an actual person or an artistic portrait". Presumably, that means that if Robin Hood didn't exist, then the injustice is to an actual historical fiction.

Whether or not he existed, the legend has existed for centuries in various versions. What is the relation of the image of him today in comparison with the different historical stories, ballads, poems, songs and plays, and what is the basis for saying that robbing from the rich to give to the poor was not the sense intended (which in at least some cases it may not have been)?

These questions arise because of the emphasis Ridpath himself put in his article on what "historians report" about something real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got back from seeing the movie. It was absolutely wonderful and great. Forget about what Robin Hood was about. This is what Robin Hood should be about. No rich vs. poor: just right vs. wrong, rights vs. force, justice vs. arbitrary decisions.

Russell Crowe's and Cate Blanchett's acting are wonderful and powerfully appropriate to the story.

The "rich" ("No one should be allowed to own 4,000 acres," utters one character. "It's 5,000 acres," replies Marian) are just as much exploited as the poor by the force of King John.

It is sad indeed when those who, like Crowe, cannot grasp what is so eloquently presented in the movie and cannot apply them to reality, today's society.

I, likewise, just saw the movie last night and I really can't say it any better than Paul. Crowe and Blanchett were powerful and the writing, when it was good, was beautifully and pointedly delivered. The bad guys were solidly and consistently evil.

This movie was about historical injustice and intrigue and rang true in the way good fiction can; whatever the "real" Robin Hood may have been. It is appropriate in fiction to personify and personalize a conflict. It may have been many principled, just men who stood against the rapacious gov't of England. The Magna Carta and the birth of the concept of individual rights in England tells us this is the case. This movie was a beautiful prequel to the classic Robin Hood story, setting it in a context of the individual against the state. Setting that context is a service to the story that may change the conversation. This is a case in which art can change minds and point up the true moral issue, rather than the Altruistic interpretation that has so long refused to die.

Allowing for the modern post-Buffy The Vampire Slayer historical unlikelihood of Marian leading a military charge (Joan of Arc had to be insane and hear voices to do that) and the coincidence of Robin's birth and its unfolding in the narrative of his suddenly adoptive father (coulda happened! :-) ), this story was well-structured and suspension of disbelief not a problem. It is a mix of Romantic historical fiction and modern cinematic Naturalism, but, given the majority of what we are given to select from, I had no trouble sifting considerable enjoyment and value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw a History Channel TV show about the Real Robin Hood. Ridley Scott says that the character is a composite of at least 4 figures spanning several hundred years. The legend has grown over the years and continues to change today. Marian was not introduced into the legend until over 200 years after the Robin Hood story began. Scott maintains that the movie is based upon the most accurate information. This show is where Crowe makes his statement that the legend is about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw a History Channel TV show about the Real Robin Hood. Ridley Scott says that the character is a composite of at least 4 figures spanning several hundred years.

So now the problem of who and what a shadowy figure in the middle ages was has been replaced by the same problem for four such shadowy figures?

The legend has grown over the years and continues to change today. Marian was not introduced into the legend until over 200 years after the Robin Hood story began. Scott maintains that the movie is based upon the most accurate information. This show is where Crowe makes his statement that the legend is about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Nothing like bringing in a real historical expert who can't even accurately describe his own movie?

What is the most accurate information, since no one seems to know anything about who he really was, if anything? Do they mean information about the original legend as opposed to a real person? There seems to be more known about the historical evolution of the legend. (I don't have that book.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be forgotten that riches in those days were not earned as they are today. A wealthy king obtained his wealth very differently from Warren Buffet. It is easy to see the wealthy of those days as exploiters rather than creators. As I said before, one cannot judge Robin Hood's morality before one judges the circumstances. Context is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should not be forgotten that riches in those days were not earned as they are today. A wealthy king obtained his wealth very differently from Warren Buffet. It is easy to see the wealthy of those days as exploiters rather than creators. As I said before, one cannot judge Robin Hood's morality before one judges the circumstances. Context is important.

But Robin Hood was not acting on the premise of stealing from the rich. That is the context and the "facts" the of legend. It is the interpretation of his actions that are incorrect and based upon altruism. He was always fighting against the king and returning stolen money to those from whom is was stolen. In the movie, he is fighting for justice and the rule of law, much wider principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should not be forgotten that riches in those days were not earned as they are today. A wealthy king obtained his wealth very differently from Warren Buffet. It is easy to see the wealthy of those days as exploiters rather than creators. As I said before, one cannot judge Robin Hood's morality before one judges the circumstances. Context is important.

Before you can judge him you have to know what he actually did, if he existed at all. No one seems to know because there aren't adequate records. If he was a common highwayman stealing from anyone with something to steal, then neither account is correct.

You can judge a fictional character if enough information is available in the story. But there are multiple stories that have to be sorted out and compared to see if there is even a single moral theme in common to all of them. That won't be resolved until someone goes through the relevant scholarly research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw a History Channel TV show about the Real Robin Hood. Ridley Scott says that the character is a composite of at least 4 figures spanning several hundred years.

So now the problem of who and what a shadowy figure in the middle ages was has been replaced by the same problem for four such shadowy figures?

The legend has grown over the years and continues to change today. Marian was not introduced into the legend until over 200 years after the Robin Hood story began. Scott maintains that the movie is based upon the most accurate information. This show is where Crowe makes his statement that the legend is about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Nothing like bringing in a real historical expert who can't even accurately describe his own movie?

What is the most accurate information, since no one seems to know anything about who he really was, if anything? Do they mean information about the original legend as opposed to a real person? There seems to be more known about the historical evolution of the legend. (I don't have that book.)

I haven't read the book but the TV show seems to imply that there may have been someone called Robin Hood, but the legend is what has been developed over the centuries. So the information in the current movie is based upon the "historical" legends with some new interpretations, such as Marian being a much more independently minded woman who rushed into battle to help Robin Hood. She was never referred to as Maid Marian in the movie.

Personnally, I don't know what Ridpath was referring to when he mentioned the historical Robin Hood and I don't care. The only knowledge I have is of the legendary figures from the movies and TV:Erol Flynn, Kevin Costner, and Russell Crowe. And the principle guiding his action is justice for those who have suffered injustice. And the important social issue is to get people to reject the view that he's motivated by a desire to help the poor at the expense of the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
------------------

You can judge a fictional character if enough information is available in the story. But there are multiple stories that have to be sorted out and compared to see if there is even a single moral theme in common to all of them. That won't be resolved until someone goes through the relevant scholarly research.

One of the points mentioned in the TV show is that how Robin Hood has been presented over the centuries has changed depending upon the mores of the society in which the story was written. Things varied such as his relationship with Maid Marian, that she was a pure virgin or a married woman, were they lovers or not, etc. I'm not sure if the moral theme changed during these times, but as far as I understood what was presented in the TV show, the facts of each story over time was always Robin Hood fighting against the king to help the poor whose money was stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites