Leadership in William Shakespeare's Henry V Essay

Richard II was one of Shakespeare's political works depicting the rise and fall of King Richard II. Richard became king of England as a boy at 10 years of age, although his advisors made most of the political decisions of the kingdom until he matured. During this maturation period, Richard was more interested in learning about aesthetic things in life rather than things more responsible to the monarch. He had very little experience and talent in the areas of military tactics and his decisions relating to the monarch seemed arbitrary.

         Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either inflated"deflated, or conflated to dramatize Henry V as a character suitable for a Renaissance audience.

Many Elizabethan bedsides were haunted from “the terrors of the night”. Back then their ghosts were nothing like the pasty blobs we call ghosts now. Theirs were quite gruesome. Ghostly visitations were claimed to have been very unpleasant. Not only this, but they claimed it cast them into a state of spiritual confusion.

Having leadership qualities means having charisma, resolves and protecting your citizens from any aspects that can come to harm them. The playwright portrays Oedipus as the King who cares for his people above all else and Kreon as a royalty, who attends only to hedonic lifestyle.

Unlike Hal, King Henry’s role consist of three qualities that radiate kingship, the traits being composed, assertive and commanding. Despite these traits being essential to kingship, they ultimately lead to the court turning against King Henry and planning a rebellion against him. When discussing news of war and casualties in his throne room, Henry remains composed and finds the positive points in the situation rather the

Henry VIII is one of the few English monarchs recognizable even in America, for his antics are legendary on both sides of the Atlantic. He is as notorious for killing important people as he is for getting married six times and his break with Rome. Indeed, Henry's reign would make a good comic book, for he was always off on some new half-baked project, be it invading France or plotting a crusade. His whole life was marked by impulsiveness and his "OK, that was fun, what's next?" attitude. He never outgrew many childlike character traits, at times stubborn and the next moment almost a gullible pushover. This childish disposition is the key to why he

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).

America has long observed the tradition of taking something that does not belong to them and claiming it as their own: Continental US from Native Americans, Puerto Rico from Spain, and cultural and political attributes from Western Europe. The founding fathers and their successors claimed not only land and culture from other nations; they also claimed people. One person in particular―perhaps surprisingly so, given his home country―has been at the center of American appropriation for centuries: William Shakespeare. Since America’s inception, Shakespeare and his work have played a prominent role in shaping the country’s culture, society, and leaders. The amazing story behind Shakespeare’s

King Henry V, is one of the only successful monarchs in Shakespeare’s plays. He displays great strength and intelligence. King Henry V is capable of uniting all of his people in his St. Crispin’s Day speech as they prepare to go to battle. The troops were greatly outnumbered and believed they had no chance at winning. But King Henry makes them feel like they are part of something important, and by doing this he motivates them to fight their hardest.

Based on the readings, I believe that a good hero does not make a good leader. After reading through Beowulf and Hamlet I found that many of the characteristics that made certain characters’ hero’s, did not allow them to become successful leaders. Although many people might think that the words “hero” and “leader” are interchangeable, I found that not to be the case. In the first example, Beowulf suffered from an obsession with personal accomplishment and fame which prevented him from leading his people in a proper way. Hamlet, on the other hand, was a different kind of hero who possessed flaws that stopped him from becoming a good leader. Examples of good hero’s not being good leaders occur in real life as well, not just literature. Many examples of this happening occur in sports where certain players have loads of talent, but no leadership skills.

"What is honor?" That question is one of the central themes from Shakespeare 's Henry IV. Throughout the play Shakespeare provides many different views of honor, but never directly states what honor is. Which makes sense because honor is a rather abstract concept that seems to vary depending on who states their opinion. There are some universal ideas of honorable deeds but the word itself is rarely defined by individuals. Two of the characters within the play have very different ideas of honor and vary greatly in their desire for it. They are Hotspur and Falstaff, Hotspur appears to have a very clear idea of what honor is and he pursues honor with great fervor. However, Falstaff questions the very existence of honor and has little to no desire for it. The ideas of Falstaff and Hotspur about honor are vastly different.

of Act 5.4, using his realization and motivation as a basis for his actions, Hal

indicated the coronation of him after the demise of the King. After a series of

supposed to be engaged to Nym at some point in time, but ran off with

Shakespeare’s context may have influenced his exploration of an individual’s struggle for power in the face of traditional discrimination. The 16th Century was a patriarchal society dominated by the military forces of Europe who sought to expand their empires through trade and exploration. European men took their power and authority for granted, and a rigid class system ensured their right to control the community. The exploration and colonisation of Elizabeth’s Golden Age inspired curiosity toward exotic people and places, but also challenged the culturally homogenous European communities with the reality of different ethnicities and belief systems. Episode 13 of Shakespeare’s Restless World, “From London to Marrakech” highlights the challenges