Henry V Leadership Style Analysis

When in the course of human events, every country, state, or territory has and always will have a leader. Even though this truism exists, to make the claim that all leaders govern the same would be ludicrous, as no one would argue that former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and former South African President Nelson Mandela follow the same moral and legal codes. Yet, this does not mean that all leaders are fundamentally different at a base level. In William Shakespeare’s 1599 play, Henry V, Shakespeare explores the concept of leadership through the titular character, Henry V, the king of England. By looking carefully at King Henry V and understanding the cultural and historical context of the production, we can assert not only how Shakespeare

First, that Henry is acutely aware of the price of his victories, as bloodshed and human suffering run rampant in times of war, for both the conquered and the conquerors. This dispels any notion that Henry is merely a young king who is unaware of the realities of war, or the knowledge behind battles. To say that King Henry is too young to understand the truth behind the war is to trivialize upon one aspect of a lengthy and complex scene. However, this is not the only truth learned about the king, as the audience, if paying close attention, will note that with this rhetoric, Henry covertly refuses to take on the burden of the acts and decisions to go to war with France; instead, he shifts all of the responsibility to the Archbishop for starting the war. By both Henry’s use of language and his merciless insistence that the Archbishop only tell the truth, he places the burden of determining if the war is just onto the Archbishop, even though the decision to go to war is entirely the king’s responsibility within both a cultural and historical context. In fact, Henry wants to appear to the public as fully undecided, even though he has already made his decision, and only takes action by the Archbishop’s justifications, stating that “Now we are well resolved, and by God’s help/And yours, the noble sinews of our power” (1. 2. 222-223). With this, the king directly and openly places his conclusion on the hands of two people: God, and the Archbishop, which are inexplicably connected, depriving him of all responsibility for the ensuing chaos and loss of