Was William II or Henry I king of England the better King? Essay

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

William was a better leader because although Harold had the upper hand in the battle and they were losing, William managed to outwit and defeat the English. In the Bayeux Tapestry there is a scene depicting that in the days preceding the

they were organized and knew what to do when the time came to set sail

King Henry V was an honorable king who was powerful and feared. King Henry V said to the ambassador that he was not a tyrant. Is Henry V an oppressive leader or, is he a good virtues Christian king? King Henry V is an oppressive leader since he led his men to battle for his own desires, he was not merciful, and he seemed to have a disguise for who he really was. In conclusion, King Henry V was not a Christian King but instead feared since Facilius est autem timeri quam

King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).

Achilles and Beowulf both were born of high importance and were known throughout the lands. Beowulf and Achilles fought for two different reasons. Beowulf was being a help by contributing his talents with the defeating of Grendel. He never was even asked to do it, he volunteered himself. Beowulf used his talents to conquer bad monsters and super naturals in a good way.

William’s father went on a pilgrimage in 1034 to release his sins. While returning home from his journey, he died suddenly. Having no other heir, William took his place as Duke of Normandy.

When Edward came into power in 1042, England was in a poor state financially and also because of threats of an invasion and this made the first few years of his rule difficult. Edward was faced with many problems which he had to overcome. These problems involved; powerful Earls, (especially the Godwine’s), the foreign policy and the domestic policy. Edward both failed and succeeded in these problems due to a number of factors. These include a lack of knowledge about his kingdom and some may argue that he was naïve in his decisions. With some evaluation, we will be able to judge if Edward was a successful King or not.

Although one fights by themselves and the other fights with many, they are unknowing of the outcome. Beowulf is fighting heads up, whereas the soldiers don’t have one specific target. Does this make one better than the other? Certainly not, but then again I’m not sure I wouldn’t be a little more comfortable knowing that I had the strength of thirty men in my hand such as Beowulf.

Then there is King Hrolf Kraki who shows us an example of what was a truly great king. King Hrolf has most of the honorable traits of that time that allowed him to obtain his leader ship along with his fame. Hrolf was for the most part successful in his battles due to being able to gather up many noble warriors who were called “King Hrolf’s Champions” He treated these mean with a certain brotherhood that isn’t really shown by the other kings in the Saga. This appears to be an important trait for him to have during this time and it works in his favor. As more men heard about how he honored his champions, they were attracted towards him which allowed him to build a decent sized “army” of warriors. An example of this happening is when Svipdag told his king that he was leaving because he wanted “to look for a king who will honour” (Pg. 30) him and his brothers more. Although King Hrolf Kraki had many honorable traits he too was flawed like most people. One mistake

Arguably the most important factor in the exertion of power over the English was the ability by the Normans to act militarily. The warlike attitude of the Normans, combined with the religious aspects that will be discussed later, provided them with a ready and capable army with which to support William’s claim to the throne. The early years of William’s rule, after the 1066 defeat of Harold, emerged as a sort of military occupation within England by the Normans. These years were crucial in the Norman advance within England. When William came to England he arrived with a large support of military men and much of these supporting military men remained in England because of their military duties. This army aided William not only in the initial battle against Harold, but later as well, through their

Overall, Beowulf is a better ruler than Arthur because although Arthur had remarkable morals and intentions, he was not praised nor respected like Beowulf. If there is no respect for a leader, than how can one be a “good” leader? Beowulf’s men cherished him and believed in him. They had his back for every choice he made. After Arthur decided to not accuse his wife of treason, some of his men betrayed and left him. Also, Beowulf had no gluttony and did not desire any gold or riches. He was generous and gave all to his people. For example, Beowulf admirably states, “I sold my life/ For this treasure and I sold it well” (l. 809-810). His relief upon seeing the treasure demonstrates his desire to leave something to his citizens. Beowulf made the Danes a peaceful people once again, making him one of their greatest kings and heroes.

While these Epic Heroes mainly fought for glory, how they achieved it is what sets them apart. Beowulf vanquished evil such as Grendel and Grendel’s Mother for the Danes to achieve his glory; “he’d [Beowulf] go to that famous king, would sail across the sea to Hrothgar, now when help was needed” (Beowulf 114-116). This was a noble way to achieve glory because this helped everyone, not only the Geats. Beowulf also defended his people, slaying a dragon in his old age even if it would cause his death. Achilles achieved his glory by slaying men such as Hector and many other trojans out of revenge for Patroclus, and it is clear that Achilles fights for revenge: “You'll pay the reckoning in full for all the pain my men have borne”, (Homer 99-100). The war he fought in was over a woman, not fighting against evil like in the

Henry the Fifth has been noted as England’s best King throughout history. He was loved among the common people and nobles alike for his fairness, his effectiveness on the throne, his justness, and his ability to relate to people of all classes. The kings that reigned before him, especially his father King Henry IV and King John, provide a striking contrast to Hal’s attitude on the throne. Kings of the past had not experienced the life of the common people, and chose to lead their lives in the realm of the castle. As we witnessed in I Henry IV, Hal’s father even went as far to discuss this approach to ruling at length with Hal. Henry IV believed that a king was best admired and supplicated if he was kept

1. “Cease to look upon Edmund as the enemy of your house; look upon him as a son, and make him so indeed!—How say you, Sir Philip? My son!—Yes, my Lord; give him your daughter: He is already your son in filial affection! Your son William and he are sworn brothers; what remains but to make him yours? He deserves such a parent, you such a son; and you will by this means, ingraft into your family, the name, title, and estate of Lovel, which will be entailed on your posterity for ever.” — The Old English Baron, 110