Comparing The Qualities Of A Good Leader In Shakespeare's Henry V '

In Henry V, Shakespeare clearly shows that powerful speech and eloquent rhetoric is more effective in times of war than threat of sharp swords and numerous soldiers. King Henry V - the young and bright king of England - establishes himself as a devout leader to his country and his people. Throughout the story he demonstrates his ability to articulate in order to manipulate his audience, whether it be commoners, enemies, or friends. After an argument with the Dauphin of France over land claims, Henry gathers an army to invade French territory. Following a surprising march through the country against all odds, the king and his soldiers find themselves in a five to one battle, destined to fall defeated. The character of King Henry is exemplified

Henry V, a play narrating King Henry V’s journey to invading the French throne and take what is ‘rightfully’ his. The five act drama had been written by William Shakespeare, whose work had consisted of unrivalled plays and poems. This play, acts as a sequel to Henry IV, viewing Henry’s drastic growth from a reckless Prince to an unforgettable King. Like many other plays, Henry V consists of many major themes that shape the story; one being betrayal. This essay will further discuss the theme of betrayal and its impact on the play.

Two of the important characters in Shakespeare’s Henry V are King Henry V, and the Dauphin. Henry V is the ruling monarch of England who, in the previous plays of the tetralogy, was presented as a riotous youth and troublemaker. This former life ultimately becomes a preparation for his sovereignty, and his earlier experiences of immaturity and unprincipled living allow him to understand his common subjects and to measure his own sense of worth by their lack of honorable qualities. With the ascension to the throne, the rowdiness of the king vanishes entirely and he promises his subjects that his life of wild living ended with his father’s death, and he is now a completely reformed person altogether. The main purpose of Henry V is to convey the idea that King Henry represents in all aspects the model of the ideal Christian ruler. Various scenes depict his religious nature, his mercy, pity, and compassion, his absolute sense of justice, his administrative skill, his fighting ability, his instinctive nobility, his ability to connect with the common class of soldiers and people, his self-discipline, evenness of temper, complete courtesy, and finally his role as a romantic lover in the suit of Princess Katharine’s hand in marriage.

In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part 1 Prince Hal’s world influences him to transform into a strong leader that will influence . With all the detail of politics and the diverse of social status of the Tavern, the King, and the Rebels; each sector of this story has compiled together to create Hal from a rebellious boy into a persona with ideals and experience.

Henry is trying to communicate to his audience that the British will betray them in terms that his audience will relate to or understand, so he uses a situation that happens in a well-known piece of

During the war, Henry’s emotions overcome him which compels him to make wicked decisions. After the war begins, Henry is committed to winning and does not care about the obstacles that lie ahead. After his friends are slaughtered, Henry decides that “every soldier kill his prisoners.” (4.6.38) All the prisoners taken by the English were slaughtered because Henry’s emotions interfered with his decision making. Moreover, Henry’s intellect got in the way with his decision-making, which cost the lives of many

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part One presents a world of social and political change and bloody civil war where in the struggle for power and ascendency many individuals are motivated by self-aggrandisement, seeking to better themselves and their reputations at the expense of others. Both the King and his son Hal are opportunistic and self-interested, employing self-promotion and expediency. Moreover, the desire for personal gain and power at others’ cost permeates all echelons of society, fuelling the actions of both the nobility and those from the inns and taverns. Self-interest motivates nearly all, including those perceived as honourable and those who are known as disreputable. However, whilst self-interest and expediency are foregrounded in

The question that Shakespeare raises throughout the series of Henry IV, Part I, Henry IV, Part II, and Henry V is that of whether Prince Hal (eventually King Henry V), is a true manifestation of an ideal ruler, and whether he is a rightful heir to his father’s ill-begotten throne. England is without a true king, being run by a ruler without the right of divine providence on his side– altogether, a very difficult situation for a young, inexperienced, and slightly delinquent Prince to take on. The task of proving himself a reliable Prince and a concerned ruler is of utmost importance to Hal, as he does not enjoy the mantle of divine right– perhaps by being an excellent ruler, Hal can make up for the

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

Shakespeare’s ideas towards kingship can be seen throughout the play. He shows that a king should be chosen by divine right and shows the attributes of what a good king should be.

Act one, scene two takes place in the “presence chamber” of the palace. The archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Ely convince Henry to go to war for his rightful claim to the French throne. One of the strongest reasons for him to claim the French throne was that Henry’s great-great-grand mother named Isabella was French. She was supposed to become the queen of France but because of the “Salic” law she could not be crowned. The “Salic” law meant that ladies were not allowed to become rulers of the country. The archbishop of Canterbury encourages the king in the quote “When a man dies, let the inheritance descend unto the daughter”. This quote explains the archbishop is urging the king from the bible that he has a right to become the king because of Isabella. The archbishop of Canterbury was forcing the king because invading France meant that the archbishop was going to become more powerful in wealth. King Henry V agreed with the archbishop and thought that invading France was a great idea. King Henry calls the French ambassador, the French had sent Dauphin. Dauphin’s delivers an insulting message, he gives the king tennis balls saying that he is too immature to become a king yet. Henry V becomes insulted and says in the quote, “Hath turned his balls to gunstones, and his soul

Henry was barely eighteen years of age when got to the thrown. He has been prepared ever since the death of his brother Arthur. At this age, he was not the kind of person you would

In the play “Henry V”, William Shakespeare, to a strong extent, seeks to evoke nationalistic fervour. In the play, this patriotic sentiment is often used to display one’s sense of pride and belonging in what they may believe to be the best country and is often manipulated by the main characters to influence one’s emotions. This sense of patriotism is expressed through the Archbishop’s statement towards Henry to invade France, the prosecution of the three traitors who were set out to kill King Henry and the use of nationalistic fervour by King Henry to motivate the English soldiers into war against France,

William Shakespeare wrote his histories focusing on an individual historical character and how they interact with their community as well as how it affect them or how they affected it. In Richard III, the titular character ambition is to become a true king, but being the youngest of three brothers (who have male sons as well) his chances are very slim so he ascends into the throne by deceit and murder. In Henry V, the titular character agrees to go to war to extend his influence onto France over a confusing reason by clergymen. Shakespeare, through both of the monarchs of these plays, explores Machiavellian politics and what it means to be live by these principles. Although both Richard the Third and Henry the Fifth are Machiavellians by having the ability to be a constant actor and doing whatever it takes to remain in power, but by having Henry succeed in the end shows how superior of a Machiavellian he was because he had a concrete goal in mind throughout Henry V.