Aspects of Shakespeare’s Henry IV and V‘s Warfare: Legitimacy, Religion, Tactics and the Battlefield

      Henry IV and his son Henry V are great orators and politicians. Both have great rhetorical skills, and it helps them be powerful, political, and militaristic leaders. Prominent aspects of warfare in William Shakespeare’s Henry IV: Part One and Henry V are represented by legitimacy of their right to rule, religion, leadership as kings, and the way war is handled within the plays. These elements are characterized mainly through the actions of the titled characters of their respective plays, Henry IV and his son Henry V, in order to illustrate how these aspects of warfare are tied together in the plays and reveal how the kings attempt to legitimate their cause as just and remain in power.

Legitimacy is important to the father and son duo as it affects the very foundation of their power, and how they choose to lead their nation in times of war. Henry IV suffers from paranoia of his usurpation decision to refuse to send ransom to recover Mortimer from the Welsh as Mortimer is the rightful heir to the throne of England, which is revealed in a conversation between the Percys in act 1, scene 3:

HOTSPUR. But, soft, I pray you, did King Richard then

Proclaim my brother Edmund Mortimer

Heir to the crown?

NORTHUMBERLAND. He did; myself did hear it.

HOTSPUR. Nay, then I cannot blame his cousin king [Henry IV],

That wished him on the barren mountains starve. (Henry IV Act 1, scene 3, lines 155-159)

      Although the Percys understand why Henry IV doesn’t want to pay the ransom, the revelation of Mortimer’s position as the rightful heir is problematic for Henry IV as it threatens his legitimacy, and the legitimacy of his lineage to inherit the throne ala Henry V. Considering that his rise to power was through illegitimate means, there is a just right for Mortimer to come back to claim the throne of England because he was announced by Richard II as his heir, which would cause Henry IV to lose power and the throne of England. This worry carries into Henry V as the father tells the son on how their family came to power.

On the legitimacy of his war in France, Henry V suffers in the lack of seeming legitimate as seen during Henry V’s Act 4: Scene 1 where Henry V goes undercover among his soldiers and finds some of them disillusioned with his war on France, and considers their voices to be synecdoche of all his soldiers. Therefore, it is imperative for both Henrys to lead their subjects and have the public believe that their cause is just so that they, and their soldiers, do no lose spirit, which may potentially cause them to lose the war. At the end of Act 4: Scene 1, Henry V prays to God for fortunate results and to think not upon his father’s actions as Henry V fears that his father’s way of attaining the crown still has a hold over his bloodline: “Not today, O Lord, / Oh, not today, think upon the fault / My father made in compassing the crown!” (Henry V act 4, scene 1, lines 290-292). The play Henry V, and Henry V himself, are haunted by what has occurred by the past and the decisions and actions of his father. Henry IV hangs over Henry V’s as his personal ghost that partially affects some decisions that Harry V chooses to make.

Religion plays an aspect in both plays as religion pertains to war considering that Henry IV wants to repent for his sins through a Christian crusade and Henry V modelling his piousness as a Christian king invading France with the blessing of the church power in England. Henry IV begins his play with a long speech about going to the holy land in a crusade:

As far as to the sepulchre of Christ,

Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross

We are impressed and engaged to fight,

Forthwith a power of English shall we levy;

Whose arms were moulded in their mothers’ womb

To chase these pagans in those holy fields     25

Over whose acres walk’d those blessed feet

Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail’d

For our advantage on the bitter cross. (Henry IV Act 1, scene 1, lines 19-27)

      Henry IV’s desire to go on a crusade to the Holy Land to take back Jerusalem from the pagans (Muslims) as he still felt guilty about stealing the crown from Richard II and saw his crusade as a way for his repentance. In a way, Henry IV’s wish to have a holy war is achieved as a bastardized sense when Henry V used religious justification in order to justify his invasion of France to lay claim on French territory that his genealogy through the Black Prince Edward II gives him rights to by English law – just like the Christians would invade Jerusalem in order to take back what they consider to be their rightful holy land from people who stole the land from them.

Religious allies also play a part in legitimizing war by religious justification by the church allying themselves with the side that would benefit them the most. The Archbishop of York is on the Percy’s side making Henry IV’s side not having the blessing of the English church unlike in the play Henry V’s where the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely are on Henry V’s side, and thus Henry V’s capable of utilizing religious justification to legitimize his war. Henry V’s piousness to reclaim his inheritance isn’t reflected in Henry IV’s war beyond the mentioning of a crusade from the first act; however, Henry V’s war is a bastardized reflection in the very crusade that his father wanted to do for his repentance as Henry V has the blessing of the church while his father did not. With the church on his side giving Henry V religious legitimacy to invade France, Henry V can maintain his image as a pious, Christian king as a way to prove that he has matured from boyhood to adulthood compared to his wilder days in Henry IV: Part One, but there are some things that mark Henry V as terrible such as the scathing scolding he received in act 3, scene 2 in Henry IV: Part One by his father in that Henry V is unjust for his aggressive war campaign.

Henry IV and Henry V are on opposing sides in terms of just war theory. Henry IV fights a defensive war and Henry V fights an aggressive war. The Percy’s are the aggressors in the war in Henry IV: Part One. Considering that they are the aggressors, the self-defense response to the war by Henry IV and his army is considered just by just war theory because they are reacting to protect themselves after being attacked. Meanwhile, due to Henry V’s war starting on unjust terms according to just war theory, it’s a continuation of stealing by the Bolingbroke/Plantagenet dynasty continues to overthrow another king’s power as Henry IV had done to Richard II and Henry V had done to King Louis of France. Regardless of any justification, Henry V’s war on France will always be considered illegitimate because it’s a war of aggression. Furthermore, Henry V’s violates jus ad bellum but does his best to follow jus in bello, but his adherence to jus in bello is blurred upon the execution of the French prisoners in Henry V’s act 4, scene 6: “But, hark! what new alarum is this same? /The French have reinforced their scatter’d men: / Then every soldier kill his prisoners” (lines 35-37). The audience does learn the full reason through Fluellen and Gower’s dialogue that the king has ordered the French soldiers execution because according to Gower: ‘Tis certain there’s not a boy left alive; and the cowardly rascals that ran from the battle ha’ done this slaughter: besides, they have burned and carried away all that was in the king’s tent” (lines 5-8). Even though the audience learns why Henry V ordered the French soldiers’ executions, the fact that we learn why after he has already given the order without a hint as to what exactly went on makes Henry V’s decision ambiguous enough for some to see his killing of the soldiers as unjust. Henry V is already toeing the line of the legitimacy of the war, but if he was to also violate the second part of just war theory, no amount of trying to divert blame on someone else will justify his killing of prisoners who unconditionally surrendered.

Both father and son do offer their respective enemy side a chance to surrender, but neither enemy agree. Henry IV: Part One deals with a rebellion that the King must put down in order to stay in power. However, in act 4, scene 3, Henry IV is willing to not fight with the Percys if they surrendered and sends Sir Blunt as the negotiator:

BLUNT. If that the king

Have any way your good deserts forgot,

Which he confesseth to be manifold,

He bids you name your griefs, and with all speed

You shall have your desires with interest

And pardon absolute for yourself and these

Herein misled by your suggestion. (Henry IV Act 4, scene 3, lines 47-53)

      By Henry IV giving the Percys a chance to surrender, it’s a way for him to show repentance towards them as they were the ones who helped put him on the throne, but Worcester refuses to surrender and never tells Hotspur about the chance the king gave to forgive them. The civil war must end before they advance to fighting others as the Welsh and Scots prepare to fight against the English army under Henry IV. His son, on the other hand, as the aggressor, Henry V’s invasion of France after the Dauphin’s arrogant insult to him in his own royal court after having sent a message to the French king to adhere to Henry V’s wishes crosses nationalistic lines in order to gain territory. However, Henry V does make sure to leave a portion of his army behind to protect England against the restless Scots who are a threat to England and might invade her while Henry V’s leads the invasion in France.

The representation of war in both plays differ in how the battles are fought with the Henrys in charge of their respected armies in their plays. Henry IV: Part One has battle scenes unlike Henry V. Henry IV participates in the fighting in his respected play, which is the opposite for his son, Henry V, in his play. Henry IV employs the notion of a leader fighting alongside his soldiers to lead them to victory. Although, as a way to protect himself with his soldiers ready to die for their king, Henry IV utilizes body doubles to fool the opposing army, and the fight he does get into with Douglas, he loses and needs Hal to rescue him. On the other hand, for Henry V, Shakespeare having been inspired by Christopher Marlowe’s great war play Tamburlaine has Henry V employing war tactics similar to modern warfare where the general/leader commands the army rather than physically leading the fight fully utilizing his position to intimidate his opponents. Henry V gives out orders but remains behind and leaves his soldiers to fight while he employs fear and intimidation tactics to force the city of Harfleur to surrender. Henry V begins act 3, scene 3 with a long intimidation speech:

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?

This is the latest parle we will admit.

Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves,

Or, like to men proud of destruction,

Defy us to our worst; for as I am a soldier,

A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,

If I begin the batt’ry once again

I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur

Till in her ashes she le buried. (Henry V act 3, scene 3, lines 1-9)

      This final warning by Henry V follows the same tactic utilized in Tamburlaine. Considering that Tamburlaine does follow through with his threat, it creates an ambiguity on whether Henry V will actually follow through with his threat towards Harfleur. If he does, he will have not only violated jus ad bellum by engaging in aggressive warfare, but also jus in bello in how he fights his war. The battlefield tactics of both Henrys differ greatly, but show the distance in how they operate as kings who do what they feel is best and proper for themselves and their armies.

The English kings Henry IV and Henry V represent aspects of warfare differently in their respected title plays. Both are operating on the internal crisis that their divine right to rule is illegitimate because Henry IV’s ascent to power as king of England was through a coup, and thus is a usurper. Hence, Henry V’s rule is also illegitimate because he inherited his kingship tainted by the usurpation. They do their best to justify their choices in engaging in warfare, two through religious justification to repent and seize and the last a defensive war, making the actual wars that took place within the two plays fall under opposing sides of just war theory.