The characterizing difference between Hamlet and Fortinbras is his approach in dealing with the trauma as he redirects his anger from achieving self-gain alone; to achieving both self and national gain due to his character of leadership, ambition, and being unequivocal. Firstly, Fortinbras is a natural leader compared to Hamlet because he is able to unite a group of countrymen from the outskirts of Norway to conquer the lost territories of Norway. (Hamlet) This is observable by the effect on the national security of Denmark that this leadership of Fortinbras has when Marcellus …show more content…
This motivated Hamlet to find a means to return to Denmark and seek his revenge. Thirdly, Fortinbras is able to achieve more than just conquer territory unlike Hamlet who by chance had a second opportunity to finalize his revenge due to him being unequivocal. Fortinbras demonstrates this quality when he has accomplished his revenge by conquering Polack territory and being named King of Denmark. He would have not achieved his revenge if he did not chart out a clear plan that is understood by all and that does not manipulate anyone to suit his needs, but rather persuades them as he did with the countrymen of Norway. In contrast, Hamlet was not quite certain how he will achieve his revenge but knows that he has to seek revenge. This causes Hamlet to display an antic disposition to provide him more time to wait for an opportunity like the coincidental arrival of the actor group, Claudius praying, and when Laertes exposes Claudius in the duelling scene. This proves that because of Fortinbras unequivocal planning, he was able to achieve more than what he intended, unlike Hamlet who only achieved his revenge and not more since he died right after being successful. In brief, through Fortinbras