King Henry IV

History is written by the winners, so by this logic, Shakespeare wins. Although frequently forgotten as the writer’s third genre, Shakespeare’s histories reveal insights on human action and reasoning. His other plays, such as the comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream, include allusions to the political powers of his time, but his histories always contain relevant reminders to play attendees: history has and always will repeat itself. From the battlefields of England and France, all the way to Ancient Rome, leaders of the state will take any action necessary to protect the state, other than place themselves in harm’s way, as without them, no state exists. King Henry IV fascinated Shakespeare; the author tells the man’s achievements over the course …show more content…
In his father’s titular play, he disagrees on how royals should handle power. His father reveres it as an abstract concept, but Harry acts as one of the commoners; Harry builds his power up, whereas his father seizes it. In 1 Henry IV, Harry fights alongside the other soldiers in the Battle of Shrewsbury and refuses to leave the battlefield when wounded, citing, “God forbid a shallow scratch should drive The Prince of Wales from such a field as this” (V.iv.10-11). Harry sets himself up for success by lowering others’ expectations of him by associating with drunkards and other lowlifes. King Henry verbally battles his son, voicing how he would rather have the rebel Hotspur as a son than Harry. The elder man’s comments stick with his son, who then proves himself a worthy king. His status remains this way until the Battle of Agincourt in Henry V. The leader believes he has a claim to the French claim, due to a convoluted family tree and a bending of succession laws. On the battlefield, the French outnumber the English five to one, but the monarch ensures his men maintain morale by giving a rousing speech, admitting that those who fight side-by-side can brag forever and be brothers forever. This changes the fate of the English: they take control of the field and French nobles suddenly ponder committing suicide, rather than becoming prisoners of …show more content…
Just as Coriolanus breaks the author’s setting norms, it breaks the protagonist norms of other histories. Coriolanus never wants to lead the Romans, nor does he want the power. Both Henrys cherish their influence over England, but Coriolanus wants nothing to do with the Roman people. When the Senate forces him to walk the streets to gain votes from the masses, he begs, “I do beseech you, Let me o’erleap that custom, for I cannot, Put on the gown, stand naked and entreat them, For my wounds’ sake, to give their suffrage” (II.ii). He feels safer on the battlefield than he does selling himself to others. Walking through the marketplace is either of the Henrys marching on to the battlefield. He shrugs the power of the state from his shoulders instead of embracing it because he sees the state as a maternal figure. There is a clear divide between him and the Roman Empire; he fights for it and is celebrated in return, but he never asks to command it. He places his life in danger to make his mothers, Volumnia and Rome, proud, not to prove he could adequately control the government. Fighting for glory is all he has ever known. Coriolanus follows these sentiments, but not everyone in Rome believes in the same ideology. Brutus and Sicinius, as tribunes, resent how the plebeians applaud Coriolanus, so the two plot to turn the vote against the warrior. Sicinius tells the common people, “you have