Thank you, your honour and members of the jury. It is appalling and truly disrespectful to even have the intrepidity to label they King Henry V a war criminal. Given the option of picking an immaculate hero from all English history, I'd go for Henry V, the victor of Agincourt. Your honour, Henry was definitely the most able man ever to sit on the throne of England and has a strong claim as the greatest of all our monarchs. A war criminal is someone that carries out an act during the conduct of war that violates international rules of war. Rather, he was a perfect role model and religious man who showed tremendous love not only for his people but his country, England. Shakespeare highlights these traits and characteristics through his play …show more content…
Whilst the French army thought they'd walk through England Henry and his soldiers had thought through a wise strategy. With this Henry also delivers one of the most famous speeches ever delivered by one of the greatest monarchs to ever sit the throne. In this particular speech it was noted that the battle took place on a day that was called St. Crispin's day, a day when two twins died fighting for there country. Henry used this to his advantage explaining to his troops that they too will fight as brothers defending their country, creating an allusion, sense of passion and unity amongst the soldiers. With such a powerful and motivational speech we truly can compare him to the most recognized people in society like martin luther king as he too segregated a country into believing a right …show more content…
He begins to talk about his doubts and fears to the Dukes of Gloucester and Bedford. After talking to them, he disguises himself and goes for a walk around his men's campus. He meets his old friend pistol, who does not recognise him and they begin talking. Henry does this to find out how his men truly feel about him and all the fighting. He is put in a very difficult situation further in the scene as he meets some men who don't think to highly of him and even mock him. He is forced to hear their opinions of him and does not punish the men for their hatred or disrespect. This is very noble of him and truly shows how much of a great leader he really was. He has spoken to some men who don't like him and who have insulted him yet he did nothing about it. He just listened and defended 'The King' where he could perfectly exemplifying him as a great
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
Henry had no means of knowing how much support the rebels might attract when they landed. This suggests that Henry was not fully aware or informed of the rebellion and therefore was unsure what to do. Without knowing fully about the challenge the success with which he could deal with the challenge was severely undermined. Henry raised an army to answer the rebellion and on the 16th June, the two armies met at East Stoke; just outside Newark.
Henry is worried about how he will do in this first battle. He isn't. sure if he will run or not, and he is scared that he might. He doesn't. want to look like a fool and run, but he is also scared of getting killed.
...e colonial leaders, by stating he is ready to die for his cause. This would make the members of the house introspective and look into their hearts to see if they are ready to die for their cause. Henry excites fear by stating he is so passionately ready to sacrifice for his country. This play towards pathos, or appealing to the audience’s emotions, is an effective way of trying to convince the House to go to war against Britain. This pathos combined with the logic of Henry’s speech, makes for a convincing argument. Logically taking the house step by step from stating that because he has an outlook on their situation, he should express it to them, to stating his argument before the House, to saying that lacking freedom is worse then death, then taking it full circle pronouncing he would prefer to be “give[n] death” then to have his freedom taken away by the British.
Rather than a sense of patriotism, it is clear to the reader that Henry's goals seem a little different, he wants praise and adulation. "On the way to Washington, the regiment was fed and caressed for station after station until the youth beloved that he must be a hero."
There is quite a lot of turn around and Henry never uses negative comments. Henry has close relationship with his men, by using a variety of strong terms. Henry's lecture has reference to the superior being to give more assurance. Furthermore King Henry gives divine inspiration to many leaders now days.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
The film uses various techniques to present a particular view of the war against France. What is that interpretation and how does the film convey it?Although the Branagh version of Shakespeare's Henry V remains very close to the text, with only a few lines left out of the film, the movie portrays a very clear and distinct message about war and Branagh's opinion on the matter. Henry V is fundamentally a play about war, and it would have been very easy for Branagh to make his version of the play into a film that glorified war. Instead, Branagh took the opportunity to make a statement about what he felt was the true essence of wars - both medieval and modern.It is clear through Henry V that Branagh thinks that wars are a waste of precious human life, and in the end are fruitless, causing more loss than gain.
... his soliloquy by proving that he is an admirable leader, and fulfils his solemn oath to kill Hotspur which makes his word honorable. Prince Henry completes his rite of passage after his defeat of Hotspur. Henry entered the battle field as a boy and has formed into a responsible adult and an adequate heir to throne.
To turn Henry V into a play glorifying war or a play condemning war would be to presume Shakespeare's intentions too much. He does both of these and more in his recount of the historical battle of Agincourt. Although Shakespeare devotes the play to the events leading to war, he simultaneously gives us insight into the political and private life of a king. It is this unity of two distinct areas that has turned the play into a critical no man's land, "acrimoniously contested and periodically disfigured by opposing barrages of intellectual artillery" (Taylor 1). One may believe that Henry is the epitome of kingly glory, a disgrace of royalty, or think that Shakespeare himself disliked Henry and attempted to express his moral distaste subtly to his audience. No matter in which camp one rests, Henry V holds relevance for the modern stage. Despite containing contradictions, Henry is also a symbol as he is one person. This unity of person brings about the victory in the battle of Agincourt.
When the English were facing great defeat in the Battle of Agincourt, Henry tells him mean that it is up to God’s will. This is a great act of faith and trust in God and it emphasizes his noble Christian qualities. Also Henry displays mercy when he gave those who “Hath no stomach to fight” the option to leave. He did not force them to fight in the battle of Agincourt he trusted in God because all his men left him. This is the Kind of wisdom that we often see displayed by kings in the
King Henry IV, and Hotspur are both from England’s highest social level. They are both shown to believe that war will help their nation thrive. Hotspur introduces the idea that fighting in a battle is a “such a courtesy” (Act 5, Scene 2), meanwhile King Henry IV pleads for more wars to increase his people’s patriotism. King Henry IV trusts
Henry came to the throne at the age of 17. Henry was said to be the King to “clense every eye of tears and substitute praise for loan moaning”. (Starkey 1985) As his first act, Henry imprisoned the two most unpopular ministers and charged them with high treason, and had them executed. Such executions would be Henry’s main tactic for dealing with the ones who stood in his way.
(1:2 272-274) Determined to prove his mental growth away from his irresponsible teenage years and into the role of a successful king, Henry embarks on war with France to gain his rightfully deserved country as well as the respect of rulers and nobles alike. However merciless in his course of action, King Henry's steadfast resolve grants him the ability to make changes quickly and improve his beloved country. Furthermore, King Henry demonstrates his ruthless determination as king when he ordered, "all such offenders so cut off" meaning to be executed, including his close friend Bardolph. 3:6 109) Henry clearly takes his role of kingship very seriously, and is committed to fulfilling his obligations of upholding the law, even if that means executing a long time companion.... ...
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of