Henry V
A great leader is someone who possesses confidence, determination, and quick thinking skills. An exceptional leader was a man named Henry V. Henry V took his place in rule at the age of 26 as the king of England. He is very well known due to a famous play which was written by William Shakespeare. During his rule, Henry V was primarily fixated on conquering the French lands for England. The king had excellent determination to push through battles even when faced with an illness. He had great fighting tactics which allowed him to prosper in battles and sieges. With such skillful tactics and strategies, King Henry established strict discipline among his troops. With these traits as well as skills Henry V was a successful leader.
Henry
…show more content…
V had an interesting as well as simple rise to power though he gained it just when the long Hundred Years War was beginning leaving him a lot to deal with. He started fighting at a relatively young age alongside his father. This allowed him to develop many of the fighting skills which he used in the future to win battles. Though, in 1413 when his father Henry IV died Henry V gained rule over England. This was around the time in which the ongoing Hundred Years War was being taken place. This long and vicious battle with 3.5 million deaths, began far before Henry V was born when the French king died with no children to take his place in rule. As a result, the English King thought that he should take over in rule due to a hereditary connection from the former king and his mother. Though the French were not on board with having a foreign ruler rule over them causing the massive Hundred Years War. During the start of the war in 1337, the French were very weak also making them an easy target for the British to attack, though they slowly rose back up and fought ambitiously (Theotherside.co.uk). Once ins rule Henry was very focused on conquering French lands due to the war. Due to such strong French competition, Henry had remarkable determination which permitted him to succeed. During one of Henry V’s most famous battles, the Battle of Agincourt the king showed a substantial amount of determination due to England being greatly outnumbered. With England at 11,000 fighters and the French at a massive 20,000, numerous people believed that this was no uncertainty going to be a triumph for the French. Though in spite of this Henry V was not impacted. He had great diligence and was able to win the battle while only losing 400 of his men and causing up to 6,000 French fatalities (History.com). Amid the Siege of Meaux, an illness invaded Henry V’s body, though this did not stop him. The king continued to maintain his troops as well as give them orders (Erickson 116). While England did not win this battle it was evident that the king gave it his all. Even while having only slim chance of winning the battles Henry V kept his troops going and pushed through. Henry's determination helped him to develop fighting tactics which allowed him to prevail in battle.
During the Battle of Agincourt, Henry V gained crucial information about how the French were planning to attack on mounted cavalry. Using this information Henry V made his archers drive stakes into the ground at an angle that would pierce the horse with the stake. These stakes were placed in a dense group of bushes making it hard for a mounted rider to pass but just enough space for a slightly armed archer to move freely (Beck 1). Henry also fought using longbow contradicting how the French fought using crossbow. He taught his troops how to skillfully aim and shoot the bow. A longbow could fire up to 8-10 bows per minute compared to the French crossbow which could shoot up to 5-6 arrows a minute (BBC UK). A longbow was a better weapon than a crossbow and Henry V understood this and used it to his advantage. Overall Henry V’s fighting skills helped him to thrive when in …show more content…
battles. As a result of Henry's great fighting skills, it was unquestionable that he had strict discipline among his troops in order to ensure success in battle.
During the siege of Harfleur, a French man was caught stealing from a church. Henry V enforced that the man would be executed due to his theft while protecting the rights of innocent French citizens (Schmitt and Pejic 405). Henry V had the man hanged for his theft in order to show an example to others that he was not afraid to take disciplinary action if necessary. This goes to show how Henry could have just as easily threatened to punish his troops if they were unsuccessful in maintaining discipline. The night before the battle of Agincourt Henry heard news that his enemies were planning an ambush and therefore he demanded that his troops spend a night in silence. Those who dared to disobey him would be deprived of their horse and harness while others were even threatened with losing their right ear (Evan 1). The King enforced strict discipline in order to prevent failure, though he did also motivate and push his soldiers to do their best in order to achieve success in
battle. In conclusion, Henry V was a remarkable leader due to his excellent determination to push through difficult conflicts as well as his ability to develop effective fighting skills and strategies. With such skillful tactics and strategies, it was crucial that the King had rigorous discipline among his troops in order to ensure success. Henry also had great persuasion and was able to persuade his troops as well as followers to obey his command. Many people in the business world today such as salespeople or corporate CEO’s use persuasion as well as their speaking abilities in order to try and get work done in a cooperative manner. Henry V also tried setting examples for his troops as well as the people he ruled over. This applies to how many role models today set themselves to be examples for others. Henry V’s perseverance to win and eventual success in the battle of Agincourt can additionally teach people that giving up will not be beneficial and that working hard can lead to eventual success.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
After many failed attempts to obtain a divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII took momentous steps that led to "The Reformation," a significant occurrence in the history of religion. Prior to the reformation, all of England's inhabitants including King Henry VIII prescribed to Catholicism. In fact, King Henry VIII was such a strong supporter that he was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the pope for his efforts in protecting Catholicism against the Protestants. However, all these changed upon the pope's denial of Henry's request for a divorce.
Long distance weapons were essential to European combat. The main long distance weapons used by Europeans during that time were the longbow and the crossbow. Each form of weaponry had its unique advantages and their pejorative. The long bow (shown in figure 1) was the original form of distance weapons. The term ‘bow’ means to be made from wood, iron or steel. The Welsh, who inhabited England, were the first people to use longbows. Longbows were 6-7 feet long and had a range of 250 yards, and still had the ability to pierce a knight’s armor (Byam 12). A well trained archer could shot 10- 12 arrows in a single minute. Despite these pro’s the longbow had a lot of disadvantages as well. One draw back was only skilled archers, who were costly to train, could use a longbow. Another disadvantage was it didn’t have a ready loaded arrow (Edge 34). The crossbow (shown in figure 2) on the other had been emphatically different. The crossbow had a span of 2-3 feet and could kill a knight on horseback with one shot, because of good aim (Byam 30). Crossbows had ready loaded projectiles, while the longbow didn’t and the crossbow could be used by anyone since it didn’t require any skill. The crossbow did have a down side though, it had slow reloaded because of a crank and it was expensive. Crossbows were also used for other thi...
Henry VI had a lot of weaknesses with foreign policy, his inability to make decisions, patronage, Richard duke of York, finance and evil council. With foreign policy he showed weakness in defending his country, after his father Henry VII had conquered land in France, he lost it. He lost Normandy and Gascony in 1451 due to defeat in France. This affected morale and the incomes of nobles because they had lost, reducing their reputation, especially as they had lost some of their own land, and the incomes went down because money was spent on war, so less money was available to give as income. This could have been a reason for the outbreak of conflict because the people would not have been happy with their situation. Henry's next weakness was his inability to make decisions.
When the English were facing great defeat in the Battle of Agincourt, Henry tells him mean that it is up to God’s will. This is a great act of faith and trust in God and it emphasizes his noble Christian qualities. Also Henry displays mercy when he gave those who “Hath no stomach to fight” the option to leave. He did not force them to fight in the battle of Agincourt he trusted in God because all his men left him. This is the Kind of wisdom that we often see displayed by kings in the
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
King Henry VIII was one of the most powerful rulers in the fifteenth century, who had a very captivating life many people are not aware of. Most people know Henry VIII as a berserk king with too many wives, but there is more to Henry VIII than that. Many few people know about his life and what he truly contributed to our world. Henry VIII was an almighty leader in England who won’t soon be forgotten.
William the Conqueror was a very commendable leader, and he used his
Leadership in William Shakespeare's Henry V. At the time when "Henry V" was written in 1599, England was in chaos. facing many dilemmas and challenges. The country was coming to the end of the Elizabethan era. Queen Elizabeth was in the final years of her reign. and she was getting old, which must be taken into consideration.
Leadership. What does it take to be a successful leader? An exceptional leader is able to captivate their followers and lead them to accomplish a task that will, overall, help the cause. William Bradford’s leadership was far superior than John Smith’s because of differences in values, captivating followers, and the response that colonists had to the leaders.
“A leader or a man of action in a crisis almost always acts subconsciously and then thinks of the reasons for his action.” (Jawaharlal Nehru) Leaders throughout history have been idolized as the magnificent humans with the ability to sway the heart of man with both silent and thunderous footsteps. One such man being Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Shakespeare dictates that a leader is cunning, sharp minded, and a caring person who is prepared to dedicate their life to a goal and to the people they care for; the reason be “right” or “wrong”.
The master of historiography is, perhaps, Shakespeare as evidenced by his History Plays. Whereas most writers merely borrow from history to fuel their creative fires, Shakespeare goes so far as to rewrite history. The First Part of Henry the Fourth follows history fairly closely, and Shakespeare draws this history primarily from Raphael Holinshed's Chronicle of England, Scotland, and Ireland and from Samuel Daniel's verse epic The Civil Wars (Abrams 823).
The Deuteronomistic literature of the Hebrew Bible seem to present opposite viewpoints on the topic of kingship. The pro platform presents the Davidic kingship in a very positive light, while other texts particularly 1 Samuel appear to be against the topic of kingship. Upon further evaluation, the institution of a monarchy in the Ancient Near East (ANE) was appropriate because it could provide stability to Israel. On the other hand the monarchy was not appropriate because it was a clear rejection of God. A kingship is not inherently evil, but the people’s request for a human as king showed a complete lack of faith in God as the primary ruler of his people.