Leadership in William Shakespeare's Henry V
At the time when "Henry V" was written in 1599, Englandwas in chaos,
facing many dilemmas. The country was coming to the end of the
Elizabethan era. Queen Elizabeth was in the final years of her reign
and she was getting old, which must be taken into consideration.
Therefore, the issue of succession was very topical. Who was to become
the next monarch of England? This issue arose because there was no
heir to the throne since the Queen had no children and had remained
unmarried. Powerful Catholic countries surrounded England, who had
broken away from the Pope in the reign of Henry VIII. They saw Englandas
a potential country to invade and reconvert to Catholicism. The
possibility of civil war was becoming a real threat, as many people
believed that they had a rightful claim to the throne. Therefore there
was much discontent throughout the country.
When Shakespeare's play was written, the English were vulnerable, weak
and living in fear. Shakespeare's intention was to increase the morale
of the citizens of England by reuniting the country, making the English
feel proud and of their noble heritage. By writing the play, he hoped
to raise their self-esteem and enthusiasm for the forthcoming events.
He wanted to remind the English about the good times in the past and
their heroic victory at the Battleof Agincourt. This made the play a
propaganda piece. The play has many references to English greatness
throughout, for example the victory of the Black Prince. By doing
this, he makes the English people see what a powerful and immense
country they actually were and that Englandwas a force to be re...
... middle of paper ...
...s and Fluellen. In matters of state Henry is
firm and decisive as demonstrated by his reply to the Dauphin's
'tennis balls' insult, which is dignified but restrained. He is also
fair and just. Shakespeare's exploration of leadership, through the
character of Henry V, Shakespeare shows us that Henry has truly
changed from the real tearaway he used to be. It seems that
Shakespeare has presented us with the ideal monarch. Henry is loyal
and leads by example. I think that the play was a great success. It
gave the country a big boost and improved their self-esteem, which
gave the citizens of England more confidence. However another opinion
is that Henry is cold hearted, and a cynical ruthless manipulator, his
piety a mask for his ambition and in seeking the approval of the
church gave him someone to blame if all went wrong.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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".
In The Once and Future King T.H. White conveys his personal thoughts on leadership through the help of Merlin, and Wart's transformations. Through each transformation Wart experiences different forms of power, each being a part of a whole idea on how a leader should act. He must piece together these ideas for the definitive way he should rule as king. In order to teach Wart, Merlin transforms him into several different forms, a fish, hawk, ant, goose and a badger.
Shakespeare’s Personality. Ed. Norman N. Holland, Sidney Homan, and Bernard J. Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. 116. - 134.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
then when your next in line for the throne, to bare the weight of a
Shakespeare portrays how his ideal king is defined as an ultimate hero in the historic play, Henry V. This play helps everyone in the Elizabethan time period understand the reality of being a ruler. During this summary of the Elizabethan time period and Henry V, I will be talking about Queen Elizabeth and how she affected the time period all together including social class and the Hundred Years War. The Globe also played a major role in the Elizabethan era. It hosted many different types of plays with many different audiences. Henry the V is a major part in this time period because it shows just how people lived in the royal family. It makes people wonder how someone could go through this all without going insane. That is why the Elizabethan era is one of the greatest of all time.
Shakespeare writes with purpose in this play, he is showing that our ideals are not always what they seem. That in the end the truth wins. As in the case of his main characters in the play they needed to think about their ideals and see what the truth would be before they moved forward with their plans. These characters needed guidance and should have allowed life to happen instead of forcing situations; maybe then they would have survived.
There are various displays of leadership and role modeling in the Shakespearean play 'Romeo and Juliet'. When one hears the term leader, there may be some confusion around what qualities a leader may or may not possess. One should also avoid confusing a good leader with a good role model, because although a good role model may possess similar qualities, there are a few qualities that are required in order to be a strong leader. Two very good examples of the contrasts between a good leader and a good role model are the characters Friar Lawrence and the Prince of Verona, in Romeo and Juliet. The Friar may very well be a good role model, however many would likely hesitate to classify him as a good leader. Just the same, the Prince of Verona would be classified by many as a strong leader.
Queen Elizabeth I ruled for much of Shakespeare’s life in England and therefore had a great impact on his work. She had a big role in the social arts and culture. Affecting many peoples’ lives in England; she especially affected those in the arts. She supported artists in their work in many different ways. Shakespeare and his theatre being one of the artists she supported. The Queen would come to the theatres to enjoy a show, and whether or not she enjoyed it would be the result of the popularity and success of that play. Shakespeare made a living out of his play writings; the Queen would come and spend many pounds to see a play. This being the reason why Shakespeare would create characters appealing to his Queen.
A leader is someone who can take charge of a situation and be able to make the right decisions in a short amount of time. A leader works well with others and those around him follow his instructions. Some people are natural leaders and others only think they should be in charge, but all of them are nothing without people to direct. The choice to take on the responsibility of leadership is hardly ever one’s own, especially when one is a member of the royal family and has to take command because of his bloodline. To become king is an honour that passes through a family that has earned the respect of the country. Sometimes though, the person who receives this honour is not right for the position and needs to step down by his own will or by force. Other times the heir to the throne has the perfect balance of attributes and is able to lead the country to prosperity. In literature, kings are often the main leaders and all fit into different categories both good and bad. One piece of writing where this categorization is the case is in the tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare. Throughout the play, multiple characters that have different qualities and strengths hold the title of king. Two of the characters, Duncan and Macbeth, who become king die because of their positions and their leadership styles. Meanwhile, the fate of the third king, Malcolm, is unknown but gives a sense of hope and stability for Scotland. Macbeth develops these characters through their leadership types of leading from afar, leading by control, and leading by example.
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
I feel as if boys had actor role models to look up to within theatre. The idea that Shakespeare may have written roles especially for boys, and that the characters may have been female, may have been an inspiration to boys to take on those roles. During the eighteenth century it was mainly males who played characters on stage, and for the more comedic roles it was probably easier for boys to play the characters as they would tend to have a crack in their voice due to puberty that would add a comedic effect; especially with the younger or female characters on stage. Boy players would probably have been essential to Shakespeare’s writings as they would have been easier to create parts for. Boy players would have seen these opportunities to begin
... version of Henry's court and Henry's camp, the dramatic effect constituted, in its way, a reasonably accurate depiction of Henry's achievement in England." (Pilkington 1-2) I believe that Shakespeare's Henry V contains more charm and less fanaticism than the true Henry V. Shakespeare has created a fairly accurate depiction of life in this time period, altering only what he saw fit for his own lifetime.
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