Everyone knows the basics of the story: Robin Hood came back from the Crusades, saw that the Prince and his lackey were abusing the poor, and became a brigand to help them out. So my question is, was he a hero or a villain?
He robbed rich people and gave to the poor. It would seem like a clear case of wealth redistribution. However, it should also be noted that the government, under the prince, was taxing at a rate near 100%. John was financing a potential war against Richard for the throne, and didn't care about the long term consequences of starving farmers.
So, was Robin Hood initiating aggression by stealing from people? Or was he using retaliatory aggression in response to initial aggression by Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala: So my question is, was he a hero or a villain?
Choice C - idiot.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
in some movies he steals the collected tax money only, which makes him the good guy
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Robin Hood was an Anglo-Saxon who fought the Normans who had put his land and people under their heel.
The commonly-held notion of Robin Hood is villainous, because he's seen as someone who "fights for the poor," regardless of the motives behind it in the original fable.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
He was "stealing" mainly from illegitimate property-title holders, so much of his "theft" was not that at all, however he undoubtedly broke some ethical laws as some of the property may have been legitimately acquired.
As with most people, a bit of both is probably the correct answer.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
He was stealing from nobles, the old form of government bureaucrats, making him a hero. His violence was retaliatory.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
The basic 20th century version of the Robin Hood story is different from the earliest version.
In the earlier versions Robin Hood is a yeoman turned outlaw who robs people and befriends a knight. The King at the time is Edward, not Richard. The term "Robin Hood" was used to identify an unnamed outlaw - kind of like John Doe - and was in use at least a century prior to the stories. There were a series of robberies associated with a Robin Hood in the Yorkshire region during the 13th century. There was also a historical outlaw who lived in Sherwood forest that matched some of the aspects of the story. In all cases, Robin Hood was a criminal who was romanticised by the public - possibly due to their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
During Richard the Lion Hearted's reign, he was most often out of the country fighting. He didn't even speak English - not uncommon at that time. He was a bad king, but excellent soldier. He sold lands and titles to the highest bidder, with very little care for the country. He remarked that he would have sold London had he found a buyer. As for government and taxation, that had been structured by his father, Henry II, and Richard didn't do anything to change it. Taxation, even in the middle ages, was nothing like it is today. The Saladin Tax, which was collected for the Crusade Richard and King Phillip had pledged to undertake, was around 25%, collected over many years. The ransom for Richard demanded by the Holy Roman Emperor was of equal amount, and the collection was organized by his mother. These funds weren't just collected from England, as much of Richard's most valuable estates were on the continent. The total amount was around 2-3 times the annual income of England, and the family pawned the crown jewels to cover a large portion.
Richard left two regents in charge. John was not one of them, which was the cause of his displeasure. While John did plot to keep Richard away from England, along with Phillip who had offered the Emperor a large sum to keep Richard, he acquired his funds from his own lands. The association to Robin Hood from Nottinghamshire and Prince John simply doesn't match up with the historical facts. This relationship is a modern fictional addition to the classic tale.
King John was so bad of a king that he actually managed to contribute to the cause of liberty, not that that was his intent. His extreme incompetence led to the signing of the Magna Carta, which pathed the way for future limitations on government. Earlier in his career he had been made the ruler of Ireland, but only stayed 8 months before abandoning it - gee, I wonder why?
So let's assume that the modern version of Robin Hood was true, and that he was loyal to King Richard even though he siezed the very taxes that paid for the King's Ransom. He participated in using force to redistribute wealth. He supported a foreign policy of continual warfare. He fought against an incompetent ruler who, although he wasn't in power, would later go on to sign the Magna Carta and establish the Royal Navy (which would one day enable liberty-minded people to travel to the New World and seek out their own form of liberty from this monarchy). Robin Hood is indeed a villian in either version of the tale.
All robbers rob the rich if they can. How they got rich is irrelevent to the character and intent of a robber.
K.C. Farmer: In all cases, Robin Hood was a criminal who was romanticised by the public - possibly due to their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
In all cases, Robin Hood was a criminal who was romanticised by the public - possibly due to their dissatisfaction with the status quo.
An outlaw romanticised by the public. You have done nothing jet to establish him as a criminal.
An outlaw as a protector of the common folk and the bane of nobles is a common theme in most regions that knew serfdom, but particularly where the nobles were outsiders and not of the same stock.
You've got to remember in Robin Hood you have to assume that the money from the Lords and Ladies he robbed was mostly tax dollars and whatnot.
In the end though he was probably just looking out for number one, I don't think we can really uphold him as good or bad in general.
Marko:Robin Hood was an Anglo-Saxon who fought the Normans who had put his land and people under their heel
Then he was definitively a villain.
What makes you say that?
Marko: K.C. Farmer: In all cases, Robin Hood was a criminal who was romanticised by the public - possibly due to their dissatisfaction with the status quo. An outlaw romanticised by the public. You have done nothing jet to establish him as a criminal.
Eh?
Robin Hood. The guy who used aggression to steal property? That's criminal.
The traditional claim was that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor. That's not necessarily just taxes. Plus, it wasn't the poor's money in the first place. Robin Hood, if you buy the modern version of the story, was a wealth redistributionist during a feudal period, with manorialism being the common element. While not free, these serfs had fewer obligations than we have today, while having more direct benefits. In addition, each manor was not the same. This manorial system could also be applied to capitalism, as it was later on. There were legitimate services of voluntary exchange between the lord of the manor and his dependents along with peasants who were allowed access to free peasant property outlying the manor. There was also more than likely some involuntary exchange going on, but Robin Hood didn't pick and choose - he stole all of it and determined for himself who he'd give it.
Historically, the claim is that Robin Hood didn't really give to the poor, but only suggested that his men give to the poor as a matter of virtue. But then trying to demand proof from a fictional story is a bit much, don't you think?
*******************
One could make an argument that the Anglo-Saxons had no more right to England than the Normans. The Angles and Saxons invaded England, and took lands using aggression from a number of indigenous tribes. If we're going to parse aggression out to that extent, then who really does have the rightful claim?
The major difference between feudal society and the society we have today is that our overall productiveness has increased to the point where governments can squeeze 40% - 50% - 60% or more of our productive time. Feudal society required more productive time to sustain a living, and there were of course more hardships for the populace to overcome. The lord of such a place had to be practical in his abuse; ruling with a heavy hand but keeping his interests in mind. Today they rule speaking sweet promises of better days to come while they rob you blind. It was the self interest of the lord that kept things in check, while today's "lords and ladies" simply take without concern of the consequences.
K.C. Farmer: The traditional claim was that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor. That's not necessarily just taxes. Plus, it wasn't the poor's money in the first place. Robin Hood, if you buy the modern version of the story, was a wealth redistributionist during a feudal period, with manorialism being the common element. While not free, these serfs had fewer obligations than we have today, while having more direct benefits. In addition, each manor was not the same. This manorial system could also be applied to capitalism, as it was later on. There were legitimate services of voluntary exchange between the lord of the manor and his dependents along with peasants who were allowed access to free peasant property outlying the manor. There was also more than likely some involuntary exchange going on, but Robin Hood didn't pick and choose - he stole all of it and determined for himself who he'd give it.
Evil poor people, always trying to take more than their rightful share, preying on the produce creating manoralists.
The fact that he was celebrated is testament enough to the fact that the populace understood him as a protest against the system which then existed and which we know for a fact was oppressive, criminal, violent and unjust.
There is no such thing as a voluntary exchange between a lord and a serf, since a lord has nothing to give in return. A noble does not work therefore he has no produce to exchange. Also his legal titles of property being illegitimate he owns nothing and therefore has no property to let.
K.C. Farmer: One could make an argument that the Anglo-Saxons had no more right to England than the Normans. The Angles and Saxons invaded England, and took lands using aggression from a number of indigenous tribes. If we're going to parse aggression out to that extent, then who really does have the rightful claim?
The Normans were to be found exclusively among the parasitic aristocrats (and their retainers). A part of the Anglo-Saxons on the other hand worked the land therefore homesteading it.
Yes Robin Hood was a wealth redistributionist. He redistributed wealth from the non-owners (the Norman lords) to the rightful land owners (the Anglo-Saxon serfs). I guess he read Ethics of Liberty.
Marko:Yes Robin Hood was a wealth redistributionist. He redistributed wealth from the non-owners (the Norman lords) to the rightful land owners (the Anglo-Saxon serfs). I guess he read Ethics of Liberty.
Orthodox history: Normans overran Great Britain and enslaved, plundered, murdered and generally made life miserable form the locals.
Question: How the hell could such a regime of plunder have been put in place without the explicit/implicit consent of the locals? Can a state flourish when even a substantial minority of subjects oppose it? Of course not! It should be clear and simple to see that massive population movements can happen only when the newcomers blend naturally with the locals, at the benefit of both. The fact that today Anatolia is Turkish and not byzantine, that Eastern Europe is Slavic and not Celtic, that the Americas are European and not Mayan can only mean that the newcomers culture proved, on a mostly voluntarist basis, to be more powerful than that of the hosts. It’s called Evolution.
Hence, noble Robin, by trying to undo the effect of the natural tendency of people to move and compete and, of course the tendency of the better endowed to gain more than the otherts, was just the forerunner of such “heroes” as Hitler and Stalin. Nothing more.
Marko: Evil poor people, always trying to take more than their rightful share, preying on the produce creating manoralists.
Nice hyperbole.
Marko: The fact that he was celebrated is testament enough to the fact that the populace understood him as a protest against the system which then existed and which we know for a fact was oppressive, criminal, violent and unjust.
How do you know what the populace felt at that time? Was this a protest against a system or an invasion? Were the Angles and Saxons free market capitalists? I think not. And who is "we"?
Marko: There is no such thing as a voluntary exchange between a lord and a serf, since a lord has nothing to give in return. A noble does not work therefore he has no produce to exchange. Also his legal titles of property being illegitimate he owns nothing and therefore has no property to let.
You seem to have a limited understanding of the roles and obligations of feudalism. And how can you assert there was no voluntary exchange? Do also you take the position that the capitalist entrepreneur does no work, and therefore has no legitimate claim? The system of manorialism worked in both instances, with the incorporation of money becoming a more efficient method of trade. This system was replaced with a more centralized government. While I'd prefer no government at all, to claim justification of robbery based solely on the system of government at the time is a bit of a reach.
Marko:Nonsense. The Normans were to be found exclusively among the parasitic aristocrats (and their retainers). A part of the Anglo-Saxons on the other hand worked the land therefore homesteading it.
The Angles and Saxons invaded England, pillage the lands, killed or drove off the populace, and laid claim to the lands just as the Normans did. You seem to think Normans were just the aristrocrats, when in fact a large number were not (in fact most Normans were definitely not aristocrats - even the ones you may think of as being aristocrats). Those who fought in the Norman conquest were granted lands in the same way the Angles and Saxons had done before them. This is not homesteading on either party, and to suggest that it is ignores history. You also ignore the fact that many Angles and Saxons retained their property and were themselves lords over their own manors. That's not even considering that the Norman conquest occurred over 200 years before the assumed existence of Robin Hood. Please refer to the Doomsday Book, which was an accounting of all English lands at the time of Edward the Confessor's death. William the Conquerer came because he was supposedly heir to Edward the Confessor, a claim that was contested. So we have kings abound and you want to claim the Anglo-Saxons as having superior rights because they killed, pillaged and raped before the Normans came. And as a matter of contention, the Anglo-Saxons in England were viewed by some to be part of the wider Danish Empire.
Of course, with respect to Robin Hood, one could argue the point that there is no honor among thieves.
It was not a massive population movement.
K.C. Farmer: How do you know what the populace felt at that time? Was this a protest against a system or an invasion? Were the Angles and Saxons free market capitalists? I think not. And who is "we"?
K.C. Farmer: You seem to have a limited understanding of the roles and obligations of feudalism.
You seem to have a limited understanding of the roles and obligations of feudalism.
I have a perfectly fine understanding of feudalism. You just don`t know what property is.
K.C. Farmer: And how can you assert there was no voluntary exchange?
And how can you assert there was no voluntary exchange?
I explained how already. I see no point in repeating myself.
K.C. Farmer: Do also you take the position that the capitalist entrepreneur does no work, and therefore has no legitimate claim? The system of manorialism worked in both instances, with the incorporation of money becoming a more efficient method of trade.
Do also you take the position that the capitalist entrepreneur does no work, and therefore has no legitimate claim? The system of manorialism worked in both instances, with the incorporation of money becoming a more efficient method of trade.
What a load of crap. A feudal lord is not an entrepreneur. A capitalist landlord rents out what he has himself built or purchased. A feudal lord rents out land he has stolen, and the people he rents it out to are the very people he has stolen it from.
K.C. Farmer: The Angles and Saxons invaded England, pillage the lands, killed or drove off the populace, and laid claim to the lands just as the Normans did. You seem to think Normans were just the aristrocrats, when in fact a large number were not (in fact most Normans were definitely not aristocrats - even the ones you may think of as being aristocrats). Those who fought in the Norman conquest were granted lands in the same way the Angles and Saxons had done before them. This is not homesteading on either party, and to suggest that it is ignores history. You also ignore the fact that many Angles and Saxons retained their property and were themselves lords over their own manors. That's not even considering that the Norman conquest occurred over 200 years before the assumed existence of Robin Hood. Please refer to the Doomsday Book, which was an accounting of all English lands at the time of Edward the Confessor's death. William the Conquerer came because he was supposedly heir to Edward the Confessor, a claim that was contested. So we have kings abound and you want to claim the Anglo-Saxons as having superior rights because they killed, pillaged and raped before the Normans came. And as a matter of contention, the Anglo-Saxons in England were viewed by some to be part of the wider Danish Empire.
Blah, blah, blah. In 1200 there were two classes in England. The property owners, the serfs. And the squatters, the aristocracy. Robin Hood was an agent of the property owners against the squatters. Who owns property has nothing to do with who pillaged what. It has to do with who homesteaded the land. The aristocrats did not. The peasant who worked the land did. It just so happened the aristocrats were largely Norman and the serfs were largely Anglo-Saxon. Now who did what in 800 I couldn`t give a rat`s arse about. We are talking about 1200 and that was the situation then.
The situation was that the rightful owners were the people who had been working the land for the past few centuries, the Anglo-Saxon serfs. I couldn`t give a rats arse about the claim of the preceeding Anglo-Saxon aristocracy whatever it was based on, they were not the owners either.
We're talking about a fictional character based on the ballads of entertainers at the time - that time happens to be the 14th century. Each ballad differs, so this is not one homogeneous legend. The message changes over time based on what the storyteller wishes to portray. Perhaps it began loosely based on real individuals, and grew into something wider as time went on. One of the major themes in the stories are the conflict against corrupt abbots - which matches the mood of the populace at the time where there was a movement to produce an English version of the Bible. Taxation themes are more likely about the Poll Taxes of that time period.
The character of Robin Hood is a popular criminal (robber), but I can also see where one might identify him in a positive light due to defiant acts against a state. The following mises.org article addresses this in more detail:
Robin Hood, Friend of Liberty
Marko: It was not a massive population movement.
True, my mistake. But I’m afraid that only adds to the villainous nature of the character.