Why was king Richard the lionheart a better king than his brother King John?

Answer 1

That really depends on your point of view. I think it is accepted that in terms of being warlike that Richard was the more aggressive, but whether that makes him a good or bad king is difficult to prove. Similarly John appears to be manipulated by circumstances by the barons in England at the time. But apparrently during his reign King Richard was only in England for less than 1 year, so the effects of English politics affected him only in a limited way. Richard was busy campaining in Palestine & imprisoned in Bohemia ? or somewhere. A huge ransom was paid for his release. It remains that Richard Lionheart as far more Richard Coer de Leon, more french than English.

this is also true, that Richard the 'lionheart' did not speak a word of English so calling him an English king over a french one would be completely unnecessary.

Another answer: King Richard cut a dashing figure as he made his trip around England and then vanished to the Holy Land. John then took over and raised taxes, and raised taxes, and raised taxes. While not an especially good administrator, King Richard kept his word and ruled briefly. King John was otherwise. King John repudiated the Magna Carta he signed at Runnymede. He then fined the Barons that made him sign it. John was one of the worst kings England ever had. John's real problem was that people compared him to his father, Henry II. King Henry wanted England prosperous and established policies that would make England that way. King John threatened to undo his father's work.

Answer 2

Being a "better" king is a matter of opinion, but the general views are that Richard was better than John, because John was a very selfish king who cared nothing for the people, but rather for his own personal riches.