Is Henry V a war hero or war criminal?
Shakespeare's Henry V is a character who is traditionally lauded as an example of heroism, honour, glory in war, and courage in leadership. He delivers stirring battle speeches, moving both his troops and the audience. He presents an image of a just and honourable king, and has often been held up as a model of virtue and bravery.
However, Henry's actions also paint a more complex figure, replete with less desirable qualities. He displays a chilling capacity for violence that is so marked that some have argued he is a war criminal. Henry is cold in his ditching of his former friend Falstaff, who purportedly dies of a broken heart. He sentences other friends to death and makes others prisoners of war. He is responsible for leading his men to slaughter thousands of French soldiers. Henry's stirring speeches could also be viewed as the words of a calculating politician.
Both interpretations of his character are possible and can be supported by evidence from the text. Which one makes the most sense to you?
Was the war against France justified?
In 2010 a mock trial was held in Washington DC, in which arguments for and against the legality of Henry’s invasion of France were put before real-life judges, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Both the audience and the judges were equally divided in their opinions of whether the war was justified. What is your opinion? Are you convinced by the Archbishop’s arguments in the opening scene? Does the legality of the war justify the loss of life that resulted from it?
Is the wooing of Katherine romantic?
In modern film adaptations of Henry V, including the 1944 film starring Sir Laurence Olivier; the 1989 version starring Kenneth Branagh; and the 2012 film starring Tom Hiddleston, the wooing of Katherine is played as a romantic scene. However, in the printed text, Katherine’s feelings seem ambiguous and open to interpretation. Her dialogue does not make it clear whether or not she is happy about the marriage. Regardless of her true feelings, she ultimately does not have much choice in the marriage, as she is Henry’s “capital demand” (Act 5, Scene 2). The scene can be performed as a comedic romance, or as a more complex and less positive interaction between Henry and Katherine. What do you think the most interesting interpretation is? Do you think Katherine likes Henry, or is she simply agreeing to marry him to please her father? How should this scene be presented for modern audiences?
Does the play end on a positive note?
The tone of the play’s ending is complex; England has won the war and Henry has wooed Princess Katherine, but the Chorus reminds the audience that everything Henry gained would be lost in a single generation, due to his son losing the crown.
The way that we interpret the ending of Henry V depends on:
- whether you think the war was justified;
- whether you side with England or France;
- how you read Katherine’s responses to Henry in the wooing scene; and
- how you interpret the character of Henry himself.
How do you feel about the ending of the play? Do you think it ends on a positive or negative note?
Is a king responsible for his subjects?
In Act 4 Scene 1, a soldier in Henry’s army, Michael Williams, argues that the king bears responsibility for the deaths of his men. He says, “if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make” (Act 4, Scene 1). Williams claims that if a soldier dies in war, the king is responsible, because he sent the soldier into battle in the first place. Henry responds that every human is responsible for his own actions, and “the king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers” (Act 4, Scene 1).
What do you think? If a soldier freely joins the army and follows his king into battle, is the king responsible for leading him to his death, or is the soldier responsible for their own death, in choosing to follow the king?
