The debate between King Henry and the common soldiers like Williams and Bates illustrate fundamental problems with Henry's rule and asks important questions about the motives behind war itself. In Act 4, Scene 1 of Shakespeare's Henry V, the king does incognito in a cloak to interact with the everyman of his army. This is in order to gauge feelings about the war and of the king himself. Luckily, Henry has experience in the realm of being a commoner, from his days of debauchery with Falstaff and the rest of the tavern crowd when he was Prince Harry.
However, these days are long gone and, while he can still pretend to be a normal Englishman, it's apparent that his connection with them is estranged. When Henry goes undercover, he disputes the …show more content…
To them, fighting doesn't seem to be valiant and honorable like it might be to Henry. Instead, Williams states that those who die fighting should burden the king's conscious because they don't deserve to killed in Henry's imperial quest. There will be gore and disembowelment, children without fathers, and debts left unpaid if many soldiers are to die in the battle of Agincourt. "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place'…" (4.1.125-28).
This debate sparks an important question for the reader to comprehend: when is war justified? When is it okay to put the lives of hundreds or thousands of men in jeopardy?
To me, the cause must be pretty humungous and completely urgent or necessary. There should be good reason to cause so much destruction and loss of life, unless your motives aren't very just. Unfortunately, Henry's justification for going to war with France over the throne doesn't seem very necessary and I consider it to be reckless and …show more content…
The French hasn't done anything to deserve the invasion and conquest. It's based off of Henry's own hunger for power or foolishness that he has begun this crusade. Like many modern conflicts, the war with France is used almost as a scapegoat to unify the nation of English and to distract against domestic issues. It's clear that there's at least some issues within the nation. Looking back at the rebellion and unease of Henry IV's rule and his overthrowing of Richard II before him is a prolonged example of turmoil within English borders. It's possible that the war with France is, in some ways, the king's insecurities with his nation and his own rule.
Through our reading of Henry IV, we learn of Harry's past as a prince that behaves in a manner that isn't fit to inherit the crown. He is a thief and hangs out with tavern slobs like Falstaff. He eventually must prove himself worthy to his father to gain his respect and assurance that he will be a good successor. He has clearly transformed into a different person from these days; however, it seems like he is overcompensating and trying hard to destroy his old reckless life as Prince Harry/Hal. This is demonstrated in a number of
However, these days are long gone and, while he can still pretend to be a normal Englishman, it's apparent that his connection with them is estranged. When Henry goes undercover, he disputes the …show more content…
To them, fighting doesn't seem to be valiant and honorable like it might be to Henry. Instead, Williams states that those who die fighting should burden the king's conscious because they don't deserve to killed in Henry's imperial quest. There will be gore and disembowelment, children without fathers, and debts left unpaid if many soldiers are to die in the battle of Agincourt. "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place'…" (4.1.125-28).
This debate sparks an important question for the reader to comprehend: when is war justified? When is it okay to put the lives of hundreds or thousands of men in jeopardy?
To me, the cause must be pretty humungous and completely urgent or necessary. There should be good reason to cause so much destruction and loss of life, unless your motives aren't very just. Unfortunately, Henry's justification for going to war with France over the throne doesn't seem very necessary and I consider it to be reckless and …show more content…
The French hasn't done anything to deserve the invasion and conquest. It's based off of Henry's own hunger for power or foolishness that he has begun this crusade. Like many modern conflicts, the war with France is used almost as a scapegoat to unify the nation of English and to distract against domestic issues. It's clear that there's at least some issues within the nation. Looking back at the rebellion and unease of Henry IV's rule and his overthrowing of Richard II before him is a prolonged example of turmoil within English borders. It's possible that the war with France is, in some ways, the king's insecurities with his nation and his own rule.
Through our reading of Henry IV, we learn of Harry's past as a prince that behaves in a manner that isn't fit to inherit the crown. He is a thief and hangs out with tavern slobs like Falstaff. He eventually must prove himself worthy to his father to gain his respect and assurance that he will be a good successor. He has clearly transformed into a different person from these days; however, it seems like he is overcompensating and trying hard to destroy his old reckless life as Prince Harry/Hal. This is demonstrated in a number of