Henry...Did he have good judgment?

I don't think that going to war was necessarily a sound decision, and obviously it was, for the most part, a power grab. However, that isn't what's important. What's important was that Henry proved himself to be a great leader, and a great king-- possibly the greatest that England ever had. He was willing to fight alongside his men and risk his own life, like the great warrior kings of the ancient world. He was a leader who took upon himself the same danger that he put his men through, and if that was the standard we held all of our leaders to, few would hold up to Henry. He may not have made a wise choice in going to war, but when he was in the war, he proved his best qualities. He was loyal to his men, and as a result his men were loyal to him.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

As a warrior Henry had good judgement but as a king ... I'm not so sure. It seemed to me that he betrayed some of his country men and himself, to an extent, in order to win the battle.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues

reply share

add reply

formatting help

..in going to war? Was he on good ground when he enmeshed the French in his war against them?

Absolutely, the very best in the world. Knowledge of the facts of the situation are crucial. Some things are touched upon in the text of the play, others are omitted. Possibly Shakespeare believe his audience would know the implications of what was being presented and never question Henry's wisdom.

After Henry IV had put down all the rebellions that occurred after he deposed Richard II the English crown was in dire financial straights. Henry needed operating revenue. People had to be paid and obligations had to be met. There was no money to do this with. This left Henry with three options:

1) Tax the peasants more.
Rewards - Meager, that bone was fairly well gnawed already.
Risks - Great, the peasants were already forced to give 10% to the church and then were taxed. Raising taxes on the peasants could have had disastrous consequences for all levels of English society.
Who bears the cost - The English people you are supposed to take care of.
Worst case scenario - Civil war, extended disorder, huge body count.

2) Confiscate secular land holdings from the church that they had acquired from English nobility through extortion, exploiting superstitions, and invented doctrine. There was a bill before the Parliament to do just this. At the time Parliaments entire duty consisted of devising ways to raise revenue for the king. It did not meet according to a schedule, rather the king assembled Parliament when he needed money.
Rewards - Great, it would have been an immense payday.
Risks - Great, Henry may have been personally excommunicated and the Church may have imposed numerous sanction against England. This would have caused a lot of alarm in the population and could get out of hand. Further the Church had the ear of just about everyone in England and was a very powerful enemy. English kings deferred to the Church. They were crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Who pays the cost - The Church, an organization you want friendly to you.
Worst case scenario - Civil war, extended disorder, huge body count.

3) Invade France
Rewards - Possibly the throne of France.
Risks - Relatively low, excluding the personal risk to Henry. (Especially when the greedy Church is paying the bills to prevent their thefts from being recovered.)
Who pays the cost - France, an entity that is already your enemy.

Next, it's not as if Henry fabricated his claim to the French throne. The claim was pressed previously but was rejected in favor of the Valois dynasty's claim. As far as I can determine the claims had about equal merit. It goes far against human nature to want to let someone else, whom you hate, keep something you feel you have an equal or better right to.

Last, and most important, when the herald tells Henry to take the tennis balls in lieu of 'certain dukedoms that you claim' he is telling him that the French crown intends to continue stealing his money. The dukedoms that Henry had demanded were undeniably Plantagenet holdings. The French had inserted Dukes of their own in place of the absentee English landlords and had diverted the revenue to themselves.

What would you do if you owned rental properties and someone else started to collect the rents? Sit by the fire?

It's a perfect morality tale; thieves got their arses kicked.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

reply share

add reply

formatting help