Henry V is a history play by William Shakespeare based on the life of the real Henry V. The play shows King Henry's development from his youth when he was considered to be wild, to him becoming a respected king whose soldiers willingly follow him into war. A letter is sent from the King of France's son to Henry questioning his claim to French land. This leads Henry to invade France, attacking and against odds of five to one wins the battles. It could be seen that it is King Henry's speeches that motivate his soldiers to fight so well for him are the main reason the English triumphed. The feud between the two countries is eventually settled by an agreement between the King of France and King Henry that Henry will marry the King of France's daughter.
…show more content…
The whole of the play centres on King Henry's ability to lead, from the beginning where he has to prove his leadership qualities through to the end where he has to lead his people through battle and negotiate peace for his country. At the start of the play, Henry's ability to lead was questioned due to his behaviour in his youth which was not deemed appropriate for someone of his standing. When Henry took the throne he seemed to prove himself as it is said in Act One Scene One of the play, "The breath no sooner left his father's body but that his wildness, mortified in him, seemed to die too." showing that once he was truly given the role of leadership, he rose to it, proving himself to be a good king. When Henry gets to battle he proves himself once again by motivating his soldiers who do not believe it is possible to win, into fighting better than they knew they could, leading them to be successful in their …show more content…
This is shown when King Henry calls for war against France after receiving a spiteful letter from the King of France's son. The letter in no way suggested that France wanted war yet it still led Henry to attack a country that was not causing him any trouble. By leading his men into battle with France he caused unnecessary bloodshed which could have been avoided had he not wished for revenge on something that was not an act of war. In some ways, this could mean that Henry could be considered a bad leader by choosing to lead men to their deaths for his own revenge, however, covered it up by describing the soldier's deaths as
The whole of the play centres on King Henry's ability to lead, from the beginning where he has to prove his leadership qualities through to the end where he has to lead his people through battle and negotiate peace for his country. At the start of the play, Henry's ability to lead was questioned due to his behaviour in his youth which was not deemed appropriate for someone of his standing. When Henry took the throne he seemed to prove himself as it is said in Act One Scene One of the play, "The breath no sooner left his father's body but that his wildness, mortified in him, seemed to die too." showing that once he was truly given the role of leadership, he rose to it, proving himself to be a good king. When Henry gets to battle he proves himself once again by motivating his soldiers who do not believe it is possible to win, into fighting better than they knew they could, leading them to be successful in their …show more content…
This is shown when King Henry calls for war against France after receiving a spiteful letter from the King of France's son. The letter in no way suggested that France wanted war yet it still led Henry to attack a country that was not causing him any trouble. By leading his men into battle with France he caused unnecessary bloodshed which could have been avoided had he not wished for revenge on something that was not an act of war. In some ways, this could mean that Henry could be considered a bad leader by choosing to lead men to their deaths for his own revenge, however, covered it up by describing the soldier's deaths as