Part 1:

            One of the primary challenges for 16th Century monarchs was gathering and organizing a unified army. This was certainly a challenge for Queen Elizabeth in England. Still transitioning from feudalism, England struggled for unity. Communication was limited and geographic regions were largely divided into familial boundaries. Power was isolated in the Nobility, forcing the monarch to mitigate between often polar ambitions. During Elizabeth’s reign, the monarch’s role underwent a remarkable change. Instead of depending on military might, Elizabeth relied on her diplomatic abilities and the uncertainty of her successor. Samuel Daniel wrote that this period “began a greater improvement of the Sovereignty, and more came to be effected by wit than by the sword” (Qtd. in Hodgdon 332). Elizabeth did not have a standing army, nor could she physically domineer her nobles; rather, she used her “wit” and cunning diplomatic skills to maintain control.

However, this style of monarchy was not quickly accepted. Many English nobles thought that a woman ruler was emasculating. Along with Elizabeth’s gender, the previously mentioned diplomatic style of leadership was distasteful for many nobles. They preferred a strong military minded monarchy. A century before, dominance was established by sheer militaristic strength, forcing subjects into a shaky submission. However, Elizabeth changed the rules. She ushered in a diplomacy centered government, largely eliminating the feudalistic disjointed sovereignty. Nonetheless, this movement did not occur without significant challenges.

During the late 1500s, the crown struggled to levy men into military service. Unable to pay for a standing army, Elizabeth had to convince her nobles to recruit forces (329). After this delegation, nobles had to overcome several issues. First, during the middle and late 1500s, English troops were continually scattered, warring against the Irish and French. This decreased the pool of available soldiers. Secondly, expeditions to the New World promised wealth, fame, and opportunity, pulling many eligible young men away from military service (332). The situation became so desperate that nobles turned to drastic measures. In the 1590s, jails were often opened and prisoners forced to serve. Also, officers would lock churches and impress every man within the congregation (332). Thus, raising a national army required diligent support at numerous stratified levels. Elizabeth depended not only on her nobles, but also on popular opinion.

Soon however, a paradigm shift occurred. The concept of a professional soldier began to integrate popular belief. Before this shift, soldiering was an occupation not a career. It was the citizen’s duty, but not their profession. Yet, men like Leonard Digges and Barnaby Rich argued for a new breed of soldier. They insisted that men could be “professional soldiers in command of a scientific body of knowledge” (333). Although this small differentiation between occupation and profession appears minute, it was quite significant. As this idea grew in acceptance, nobles and the emerging middle class began pursuing full time military careers, eventually developing into a centralized federal army.

Part 2

            Scholars have interpreted Henry V in numerous different ways. Yet, two main interpretations seem to rise to the surface. First, Henry V can be viewed as a celebration of a great English monarch and a grand victory. It pits the honorable English crown and his army of faithful nobles against the dastardly Dauphin and a weak French monarch. The action is swift and the battle is glorious. However, an auxiliary interpretation is easily adopted. This view holds Henry as a Machiavellian ruler, who uses facades of honor to accomplish his own ambitions. He is not the boy we thought we knew in Henry IV; he is a stoic and fierce leader, never hesitating to slaughter prisoners and traitors. He leads England into needless war under religious guise and convoluted birthright. So, what is the correct interpretation? The complexity and nuanced brilliance of Shakespeare’s play demands a balanced view; yet, it must be one that leans towards celebration.

One of the main indicators of this interpretation is Shakespeare’s masculine image of Henry. From his initial handling of Scroop, Grey and Cambridge to his inspiring speeche at Harfleur, Henry is painted as a man’s man. However, nowhere else is this more explicit than the famous Crispin’s day speech at Agincourt. Attempting to inspire his downtrodden and sick army, Henry bellows a wonderful oration which ends in these lines: “And gentlemen in England now abed / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.” (IV. Iii. 65-68). This final line draws upon each soldier’s sense of manhood. Despite background or social position, each soldier shared a common manhood, an English manhood at that. Henry is stoking that internal flame to arouse a roaring lion. He succeeds. The outnumbered English win a glorious victory over a pompous and arrogant French army.

Ideas of manhood, bravery, brotherhood, and ferocity inspire the men. But they are not the only ones inspired. Ever since Shakespeare penned the lines, audiences have been enthralled and moved by Henry’s oration. Written for an Elizabethan audience, Shakespeare evokes nostalgic memories of a vanishing monarchy. He crafts Henry more like Richard the Lionheart than Elizabeth. He purposely depicts a monarch who rules by masculine charisma and military might. The subtleties of diplomatic negations are downplayed in Henry V. Shakespeare emphasizes action. Elizabeth’s emerging monarchy style is not present; rather, it is a past monarchy which dominates the narrative. Henry does not negotiate, he fights. He stands as a contrast to Elizabeth and symbolizes a beloved chivalric past. Although there are hints of Machiavellian undertones, Henry V was written to entertain audiences with heroic feats of nationalism and vivacious characters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.

McEachern, Claire. Henry V. By William Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Books Inc. 1999. Print.