Over the centuries there have been many great kings, many great soldiers, and many great men. One of the greatest of all was Henry V.

As a king, Henry V was one of the most-renowned to rule England and France. Although he reigned only nine years, he accomplished much in England. Henry was loved by his people. He was one of the Plantagenets, the family that ruled England before the Tutors. Henry was a very religious man. He was simple, and not extravagant like the other Plantagenets (Costain, p. 262). Henry was a very honorable man. If he had not died at 35, he could have done even more for England.

Henry was an excellent soldier and leader. It was his leadership that allowed the English to win the battle of Agincourt and his strategy that let them be successful in their conquest of France. Once Henry V had conquered France, the English remained there 30 years after he died. England's control of France ended with Henry V's death (Dupuy and Dupuy, p. 25).

Around 1419, Henry married Katherine, the French king's youngest daughter. Fair Kate, as she is known, was mother to Henry's successor, Henry VI. Henry VI became king when he was nine months old, after his father died ( Seymour, p. 415.)

In Shakespeare

Shakespeare immortalized Henry V in his play of the same title. Shakespeare also included him as a character in the play about Henry IV, his father. Shakespeare apparently intended Henry V for people who had seen or read Henry IV because it seemed to be a continuation of the latter. Shakespeare introduced most of the characters of Henry V and their relationships in Henry IV. In Henry IV, Henry V was a prince and he associated with thieves and old soldiers (Evans, p. 863).

Shakespeare wrote many plays about people and their relationships with others. He wrote Henry V this same way. When the two plays, Henry IV and Henry V, are put together, changes in Henry's relationships with the same characters can be seen. Shakespeare portrayed Henry as a great king and soldier, loved by his people. In his play, he decided to not only tell about what Henry accomplished, but also how he was as a person.

Friends of Association

One of the themes of Henry V was that the ceremony that Henry went through to become king made him different than the common men. Nothing else did. Once Henry became king, he was different and could no longer associate with his old friends, the thieves. He could no longer treat them differently and let them get away with things. He had to punish them for things they did wrong because he was king and chief judge(Evans, p. 953).

In Henry IV, as a prince, Henry V lies to a sheriff to protect his friend, Sir Falstaff, who had just robbed someone. In Henry V, Bardolph, an old friend of Henry, is brought to him and is accused of robbing a church. Although reluctant to do so, Henry has him hanged. Henry realized that he could no longer treat his friends differently than he treated his other subjects. He used Bardolph as an example to the other soldiers of what would become of thieves.

Also in the play, two soldiers were speaking of Henry and comparing him to Alexander the Great. One starts by comparing the towns they were born in and finds they are similar. Eventually, he says that Alexander killed his best friend. The other soldier argues that Henry never killed any of his friends. The first soldier replies that Henry killed, or as he said, turned away from his friend, Sir Falstaff (Evans, p. 963). Shakespeare must have thought that this idea that Henry deserted his friends was important, for he mentions it more than once.

When Falstaff had become ill, Shakespeare writes that Henry's old friends, Nym, Bardolph, Pistol, Mistress Quickly, and the Boy and they talk about Falstaff. Mistress Quickly says plainly that the king has killed his heart... " (Evans, p. 942).

Nym, Bardolph, and Pistol were created to show the kind of people Henry associated with as a prince. The Boy was created to show how the other characters really were and to reveal their weaknesses. Henry never decided not to associate with the thieves; his position did not allow him to do so.

I have expressed what I believe to be the theme of Shakespeare's Henry V, of course, there are other opinions Although Shakespeare mentioned only two battles, at Harfleur and at Agincourt, some believe he wrote to remind people "... that kings and their councils plan wars but ordinary men fight and die in them" (Wadsworth, p. 296). I disagree with this idea be use, first of all, I believe Shakespeare wrote about people. Second, yes, Henry and other kings and their councils plan wars, but the kings, their councils and many other, far from ordinary men, fight and die in them.

Shakespeare and Accuracy

Apparently, Shakespeare based his play on The Chronicles by Raphael Holinshed and The Famous Victories of Henry V, which was a play by an unknown author (Wadsworth, p. 296).

Shakespeare was fairly accurate in what he wrote in this play. He created the characters Nym, Bardolph, Pistol, Mistress Quickly, and the Boy to express a point; most of the other characters were actual people. A good number of the inaccuracies of the play dealt with people who were not present at Agincourt. Shakespeare mentioned that Westmorland, Bedford, Warwick, and the Dauphin were at Agincourt. They were not. Another inaccuracy was that the Duke of Exeter was not a duke until after the Battle of Agincourt. Along with these mistakes, Shakespeare used several anachronisms. Agincourt

One way to discuss the accuracy of the play is to compare Shakespeare's account of the Battle of Agincourt with historical accounts of the battle. I chose to compare the calculated losses of both the English and the French, the recorded noblemen dead, and Henry's order to have the prisoners executed.

The Battle of Agincourt took place in France in a field by Agincourt, on the day of the Saints Crispin and Crispian, October 25, 1415. There were at least 50,000 French and fewer than 10,000 English at Agincourt.

I found many different numbers of casualties at Agincourt. Every source agreed that the French truly suffered a tremendously greater number of losses than the English, even proportionally.

Shakespeare said that the French had 10,000 men killed and the English almost 30, not including common men. He also said the English took 1,500 French nobles prisoner. I do not know if Shakespeare included in the number of dead the English lackeys that were killed and the captured French that were executed. It is most likely that he did not. Other sources mentioned numbers anywhere from 130 to 1,600 English killed and 5,000 to 11,000 French killed. Each one stated the losses were probably greater.

Shakespeare most likely chose the numbers he did to please the monarchy, for they were fond of Henry V, or to exaggerate the English victory. The records kept at this time were not very precise, so not even a close number of French and English loses can be found.

Shakespeare had a long list of noblemen that died at Agincourt. He mentioned four English nobles of which only the Duke of York was mentioned elsewhere. Shakespeare mentioned 15 French nobles, six of which were not mentioned elsewhere. One of the six, the Dauphin, was not even at Agincourt. There were three French nobles not mentioned by Shakespeare that died at Agincourt.

Prisoner Execution

Lastly, I would like to compare Shakespeare's account of Henry's order to have the prisoners executed with historical accounts. Shakespeare described the motive behind the order to be the fact that the French had looted and burned Henry's camp and had killed the lackeys. Killing the lackeys left to guard the luggage was "... against the laws of arms..." according to Shakespeare (Evans, p. 963).

All other sources gave a different motive behind this order. The, reason most commonly given was that Henry saw the French knights preparing to attack his rear and he became frightened. He ordered his men to execute the prisoners so that the English would be more able to face the enemy. Henry did not have enough men to guard the prisoners and fight the French at the same time.

After all, he was outnumbered five to one. The archers were first told to carry out this order. It eventually fell on Henry's bodyguard because many of the solders were more interested in collecting a ransom. For this reason, many of the nobler prisoners were saved; the others were beheaded. Henry stopped the execution of the prisoners when he saw the French knights start to leave the field.

Shakespeare may have changed the motive behind the order to please the monarchy. Revenge also sounds more noble than the military requirements of the moment.

Shakespeare wrote for entertainment, not historical accuracy; his play was meant for enjoyment, not to teach history. Although Henry V is one of Shakespeare's "histories", everything in it should not be taken as historical fact. The monarchy definitely influenced how and what Shakespeare wrote. Shakespeare wrote more about Henry as a person than what he accomplished. Henry V was definitely worthy of a play, but that play should not be taken as truth. Shakespeare never claimed it as such.

The play and the histories around Henry and the battle of Agincourt have some insight to the nature of man and men in combat. The English were faced with a desperate situation, they were without supply and without means of escape from a force that out-numbered them by more than five to one. Shakespeare doesn't mention it but the majority of the English were suffering from dysentery as well.

Wargaming

As wargamers how can we incorporate the desperation of the common English soldiers and their aristocratic leaders in our table top battles. Obviously, we can not inspire our metal miniatures by our great oratory skills as did Henry V before the battle. Shakespeare's account of this speech is one of the most stirring in all literature. But it was not so much the speech itself as the man behind the words. Henry had established himself already as a great leader. His soldiers and nobles appreciated his intelligence and charisma and looked to him for leadership. Perhaps we should consider the effects of such a man on the wargame battlefield.

Here are a couple of suggestions for great leaders in Wargames Research Group 7th Edition (WRG7) . First, on the army list he great leader should cost 300 points rather than one hundred. Secondly, in battle he should influence every unit within 240 paces of his element in the following ways: he should eliminate all causes of unease for those units, he should add one to all positive (green D5) die rolls for close combat, he should add one to all D6 rolls for waver tests on all units within 240 paces. If he attaches to a unit he will double all the above effects but risks the chance of death in combat. Any time the unit to which he is attached receives two or more CPF from missile fire or close combat, roll two averaging die. If the roll comes up double fives or double twos the great leader is struck down. Role a waver check for the unit to which he was attached subtracting two, if it fails the waver test then make a waver test for all other units within 240 paces. If the first test is an unmodified D6 role of six, then the unit ignores the leader's death and goes into a frenzy behaving as if he were still alive. The rest of the army follows its lead.

Great leaders can be anyone from Alexander to David to Caesar to Attila to William I to Henry V. Not every army or nation has produced a great leader but there are many such men that could add a few new twists to our WRG games. Perhaps we could consider a great-man tournament at one of our shows. The influence of leaders on the battle field is another intangible that through our folklore, theater, and romantic histories plays a major role in our understanding of combat.

Bibliography

Barker, Phil. War Games Rules 3000 BC to 1485 AD. 7th edition. London: Wargames Research Group, amended 1987.
Costain, Thomas B. The Last Plantagenets. New York: Popular Library, 1962.
Dupuy, Ernest R. and Dupuy, Trevor N. The Encyclopedia of Military History: from 3500 B.C. to the Present. 2nd edition. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1977.
Evans, Blakemore, G. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974.
Jacob, E. F. Henry V and the Invasion of France. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1947.
Niderost, Eric. "Sky Dark with Arrows" Military History, October 1986, pp. 20-25.
Roberts, James L., Ph.D., Cliffnotes on Shakespeare's Henry V. Lincoln, Nebraska: Cliff's Notes Incorporated, 1961.
Seymour, William. Be-Your Own Napoleon. New York: Bramhall House, 1988.
World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed., S.V. "William Shakespeare" by Frank W. Wadsworth.