Philip Augustus

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Mon January 12th, 2009, 4:59 pm

In the book I'm reading, King Philip Augustus of France plays a minor role in as much as he had a relationship of sorts with one of Eleanor of Aquitaine's sons. When he is mentioned departing the Third Crusade and thereby leaving King Richard to fight alone, he mentions that his hair is falling out and fingernails falling off. I thought Wikipedia might shed some light on whatever disease might've caused this, but the article focuses mainly on his military conflics and marrital problems. Anyone know this info off hand or know where I can find it?

annis · Post by **annis** » Mon January 12th, 2009, 9:02 pm

There was some doubt at the time that Philip Augustus was in fact ill. Many thought this illness of his was just an excuse to head off back to France, leaving his part in the crusade unfinished.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1191philaug.html

Accounts do say that Philip had a bout of illness, but I don't think the cause is specified. I imagine it would have been some type of fever. Richard of course was very peeved at being left in the lurch, and suspicious that Philip had other reasons for wanting to leave which made bad health a convenient excuse. He commented somewhat acidly:
"It is a shame and a disgrace on my lord if he goes away without having finished the business that brought him hither. But still, if he finds himself in bad health, or is afraid lest he should die here, his will be done."

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Mon January 12th, 2009, 9:59 pm

Thanks Annis.

Y'know, I went through all the trouble of bookmarking several history-related sites through StumbleUpon (the one you shared included) and then forget to even search there for info! *slaps forehead*

annis · Post by **annis** » Mon January 12th, 2009, 10:35 pm

Sorry I couldn't actually answer your question, Rowan. Someone may know what illness Philip had - I just haven't seen it mentioned. The Crusaders did fall prey to any number of fevers and diseases, and it's possible that at the time physicians wouldn't necessarily have been able to make a specific diagnosis.

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Tue January 13th, 2009, 2:21 pm

Well I was thinking more along the lines of using today's diagnosing methods to determine what he (or anyone for that matter) suffered from based on their symptoms. Or perhaps that they might've called it something different. For instance, Plaidy stated Richard suffered from the ague all his life, but in today's world it's called malaria.