However, this question of Henry's morals is more difficult than it seems at first glance. Henry is a model of traditional "heroism", but his value system is confusing - after all, his patriotism (or land lust, depending on how you look at it) leads him to invade a non-aggressive country and to slaughter thousands. He sentences former friends and prisoners of war to death, while giving the impression that he will show mercy; he never acknowledges that he holds any responsibility for the bloodshed he has initiated. The brilliance of Henry's speeches, his oratory and his careful development of his image make him an effective a

Shakespeare draws the connection between this play and contemporary events as strongly as in a lot of other plays. Elizabeth had mobilized England for a major campaign against Ireland to be led by the Earl of Essex. This generated a great deal of patriotic excitement similar to that of Henry V's battles in France (However, the Earl of Essex lost disastrously in his campaign.). England was becoming more powerful all the time, and it soon became obvious that she could defend her own borders without any trouble. This meant that expansion soon became possible, with Ireland and the Netherlands nearby, as well as much of the New World to conquer. The exploits, and representation on stage of Henry V fuelled the desire for expansion as contemporaries of Shakespeare pushed for more aggressive military exploits. Henry V may have to appear benevolent to confirm Queen Elizabeth's empire expansion plans as being the right way to act.

Shakespeare has decided to alter his sources to highlight the positive aspects of Henry's character. He makes the Dauphin a complete opposite to the plain Henry by showing him as a stylish gallant; the tennis ball scene occurs after Henry has already decided on war, not before, showing Henry's pride in his country perhaps. Shakespeare's addition of Henry pardoning the drunkard shows mercy and possibly a concern and sense for his priorities, a petty crime is nothing compared to impending war against France. Chronicles showed Harfleur suffered terribly but Henry goes against this and shows mercy, also in the Chronicles Henry supervises the execution of a unnamed soldier, but in Shakespeare Henry approves but doesn't personally participate in the hanging of an old "friend" from his youth, Bardolph, even an old friend must be treated without bias - in Branagh's production Henry weeps when the execution is carried out; Holinshed, Shakespeare's historical source, writes at length ab!

nd inspiring leader. But his morality is questionable; Shakespeare's original production seems to highlight both sides, and it can be argued, equally.

or Henry's scheming earlier in the play, is Henry in going to war doing on a grand scale what Bardolph and Pistol are doing on a much smaller scale? This is a question that has two answers, both a Yes and a No. It becomes apparent through the invented scene of Henry's soliloquy that he does care, or has come to care for his men and possibly regrets the decision to put so many people in danger, including him. His reasons for starting the war are not just and maybe he regrets this more than anything, it would seem more honourable to fight and die because of a justified, morally correct war than one orchestrated by a corrupted church out for their own gain who sway a still-easily influenced King looking for glory.

lack of access to the people, which is the by-product of the reformation in his character and because he is king by divine right and, by definition, must be separate from the people. The chorus at the beginning of Act four states that "A little touch of Harry in the night" has kept the men's spirits up, Henry has visited the men and tried to keep their morale high.

y be cold and cruel, but he is also a political genius, he rules without real revolt, the only intrigue against him is easily found out and the criminals themselves seem glad to be uncovered; he takes France; only natural and untimely death brings him low. There is much in Henry V that suggests Shakespeare in fact saw Henry V as the most perfect monarch. He is one who took the throne unrightfully, but kept the throne safe and had no threats to his reign, the only King in Shakespeare's tales. This would appeal to the audience at the time, as Henry V was comparable to Elizabeth I - Shakespeare's patron and the current monarch. It would be very important to please her at the time.

my and he might have lost the battle, by this he is being hypocritical. If you were to contrast between these words and his warning t

Some common words found in the essay are:
King Henry, Shakespeare Chorus, Elizabeth Shakespeare's, Henry IV, Excess Falstaff, Scheming Politician, Governor Harfleur, Fluellen Pistol's, Bardolph Pistol, Canterbury Ely, henry iv, king henry, french town, value system, king shakespeare's, father henry iv, richard ii, successful king, exploits henry, shakespeare henry, henry's scheming, military exploits henry, elizabeth shakespeare's patron,
Approximate Word count = 3341
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)