War Crimes in Henry V and in Historical Context
Eric Brown
Shakespeare’s Henry V centers on the Hundred Years’ War, specifically dramatizing the chain of events leading to the battle of Agincourt. Although war is a predominant subject throughout each of the four plays that makeup the Henriad, Henry’s invasion of France marks the first international conflict that Shakespeare actually depicts in this cluster of works. With the unique status of Henry V’s war come distinct features; Henry has to find a compelling, legal justification for engaging in this war. He has to stage negotiations with the French court. He has to command his soldiers to act with certain civility while in this foreign country. In Henry V, Shakespeare introduces new issues relating to how a king and his army ought to conduct themselves while fighting an international war.
Considering this new concept of international codes of arms, Henry appears to encroach on hypocrisy as the play progresses. After the battle of Harfleur, during the campaign through France, a Welsh captain named Fleullen informs Henry that the king’s old friend, Bardolph, is “to be executed for robbing a church” (III.vi.10390). Henry offers a moralistic response, “we would have all such offenders so cut off” (III.vi.95109-110). Henry seems to be taking a firm stance on this issue, declaring, “nothing taken but paid for, none of the French upbraided or abused in disdainful language” (III.vi.112-11495). Only three scenes earlier, however, Henry had employed severe, disdainful language against the Governor of Harfleur as a negotiation tactic. He threatens to unleash his soldiers, and to allow them to mow “down like grass / your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants” (III.iii.13-14). Given this scene, is Henry not also such an offender like Bardolph, who deserves to be “cut off?"
Henry’s threatening language is not nearly his worst crime in this play. On two separate occasions, Henry executes French captives. The first execution occurs in Act II, Scene Two. Henry discovers that three Englishmen, Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey, have taken money from the French government and become traitors, plotting to assassinate him. Cambridge pleads for his life, but Henry still orders the men to be imprisoned and then executed. Later on, at the battle of Agincourt in Act V, Henry orders the execution of numerous French captives when he is unsure if the French army has officially surrendered. Both of these instances present Henry as rational military commander, but also a brutally unmerciful one.
According to historical scholarship, the real Henry V did indeed fit into Shakespeare’s presentation of him in this regard. Henry put forth Ordinance’s of War, outlining how soldiers should conduct themselves during wartime. In Medieval and Renaissance Ordinances of War: Codifying Discipline and Humanity, Theodor Meron writes, “Henry’s Mantes Ordinances drew on those of Richard II, especially in the provisions protecting women from rape, and unarmed women and unarmed persons belonging to the Church from capture” (2). These ordinances also specifically prohibited pillaging of churches, which is exactly the crime for which Bardolph is hanged in the play. These ordinances were as pragmatic as they were humanitarian, “on grounds of effectiveness rather than abstract humanity” (13). Henry, the real historical figure, seems to have followed the notion that discipline leads to success in a war campaign, but, like Shakespeare’s portrayal, he did commit heinous, even hypocritical, crimes throughout the war. Meron asserts, “despite those constraints, which had called for a modicum of humane conduct, this war was both cruel and bloody” (14). In both the play and its historical context, we see Henry V proscribing certain modes of conduct for his soldiers, and then not following them himself. Of course, the English side ends up winning the battle of Agincourt, so Henry’s means, if morally questionable, do produce his intended end. In terms of wartime conduct, then, he is a pragmatic hypocrite.
Considering this new concept of international codes of arms, Henry appears to encroach on hypocrisy as the play progresses. After the battle of Harfleur, during the campaign through France, a Welsh captain named Fleullen informs Henry that the king’s old friend, Bardolph, is “to be executed for robbing a church” (III.vi.10390). Henry offers a moralistic response, “we would have all such offenders so cut off” (III.vi.95109-110). Henry seems to be taking a firm stance on this issue, declaring, “nothing taken but paid for, none of the French upbraided or abused in disdainful language” (III.vi.112-11495). Only three scenes earlier, however, Henry had employed severe, disdainful language against the Governor of Harfleur as a negotiation tactic. He threatens to unleash his soldiers, and to allow them to mow “down like grass / your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants” (III.iii.13-14). Given this scene, is Henry not also such an offender like Bardolph, who deserves to be “cut off?"
Henry’s threatening language is not nearly his worst crime in this play. On two separate occasions, Henry executes French captives. The first execution occurs in Act II, Scene Two. Henry discovers that three Englishmen, Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey, have taken money from the French government and become traitors, plotting to assassinate him. Cambridge pleads for his life, but Henry still orders the men to be imprisoned and then executed. Later on, at the battle of Agincourt in Act V, Henry orders the execution of numerous French captives when he is unsure if the French army has officially surrendered. Both of these instances present Henry as rational military commander, but also a brutally unmerciful one.
According to historical scholarship, the real Henry V did indeed fit into Shakespeare’s presentation of him in this regard. Henry put forth Ordinance’s of War, outlining how soldiers should conduct themselves during wartime. In Medieval and Renaissance Ordinances of War: Codifying Discipline and Humanity, Theodor Meron writes, “Henry’s Mantes Ordinances drew on those of Richard II, especially in the provisions protecting women from rape, and unarmed women and unarmed persons belonging to the Church from capture” (2). These ordinances also specifically prohibited pillaging of churches, which is exactly the crime for which Bardolph is hanged in the play. These ordinances were as pragmatic as they were humanitarian, “on grounds of effectiveness rather than abstract humanity” (13). Henry, the real historical figure, seems to have followed the notion that discipline leads to success in a war campaign, but, like Shakespeare’s portrayal, he did commit heinous, even hypocritical, crimes throughout the war. Meron asserts, “despite those constraints, which had called for a modicum of humane conduct, this war was both cruel and bloody” (14). In both the play and its historical context, we see Henry V proscribing certain modes of conduct for his soldiers, and then not following them himself. Of course, the English side ends up winning the battle of Agincourt, so Henry’s means, if morally questionable, do produce his intended end. In terms of wartime conduct, then, he is a pragmatic hypocrite.
