If the three conspirators/traitors were indeed the very closest of friends (as Henry's speech in 2.3 suggests that they were) and if he were as emotionally hurt as he describes, isn't it rather odd that he could condemn them to death without any lingering emotional effect?
As always, you must respond to two others' posts to exceed expectations. I'm also looking for "beyond the obvious" answers and responses. You must also cite the play up through Act II to support your argument.
Not necessarily. Henry was able to leave his Falstaff without much emotional conflict. Considering that Falstaff never betrayed Henry like Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey did, having them sentenced to death may have actually been easy for him.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility could be that Henry's regret for sending the three traitors to their death may come later on. His choice was made in the heat of the moment when Henry was discusted by Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey.
Also, Henry believes that the traitors chose themselves to be sent to death, that it was their own arguments that got them killed. By believing that it was their choice, not his, Henry could have been able keep from getting emotional
-FORREST PARKER
Yeah, Falstaff was an afterthought after Henry became king.
DeleteI agree with your first statement. Henry shows zero emotional conflict after cutting ties with Falstaff, and Henry and Falstaff were much closer than Henry and the traitors. If he was able to leave his true friend Falstaff so easily, than there's nothing preventing Henry from sentencing Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey to death.
DeleteYou make a good point that he didn't have any emotional tie to Falstaff in Henry IV part 2.
DeleteNice observation, Forrest. I think his lack of reaction to Falstaff shows that he really didn't care about these three men, but was rather taking advantage of the situation to gain some sympathy.
DeleteHe's a king. He can make new friends and he must maintain the throne. Doing something requires consequences and Scoop, Cambridge, Greay were all doing traitorous things against the throne
ReplyDeleteI agree. King Henry had a responsibility to uphold the law of England. He had the right to kill these three men, so he shouldn't feel bad about doing so. As a king, he had to maintain a certain image in his kingdom.
DeleteI agree. He's accepted the responsibilities of being king and he responded appropriately to the traitorous actions. Throne above all
DeleteExactly. Throne above all
DeleteI don't think Henry's actions are odd, because, as evidenced in Henry IV Part II, Henry has no remorse when it comes to cutting ties with his "friends" (the traitors aren't even his real friends). Although he didn't actually put Falstaff to death, Henry's ability to deny Falstaff his friendship left him heartbroken. Henry is brutal and concise in his thinking, and has no true friends. This makes it very easy for him to make decisions based upon what is in his own best interest. Also, when people insult Henry's intelligence, the consequences are tremendous. For example, after Henry is mocked by the Dauphin, Henry swears to make all the wives in France widows, as well as pillage and destroy their country. This is also the case in Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey's instance. These traitors are making a mockery of Henry, and therefore they should be shown no mercy. In Henry's eyes, if these three men think that a simple drunkard should be punished, than why shouldn't they be killed? Henry doesn't have show any emotional effects of his actions because he is a coldblooded, efficient ruler.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up good points in your argument. I agree that Henry's actions aren't odd.
DeleteI agree. Henry hates it when people act against him. I agree that because of Henry's hatred towards these three men, he feels like they should be shown no mercy. I also agree with your point about his ability to turn his back on those close to him. It makes me believe that he has no true friends, including Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey. Therefore, he should have no reason to feel bad about killing them.
DeleteI agree as well, I think that the way he was an effective leader was through how tough he was.
DeleteI think Henry was putting on a show for his audience. He wanted to be emotional when talking about the betrayal and I don't think he was actually seriously hurt by them. Henry conveyed his emotions so others around him to be sympathetic towards him and in turn would't question his ruling. They did betray him after all. It's not strange that Henry was firm with his ruling because after all it seems like he is still the Machiavel. As a leader he has to make firm decisions or he'll be ridiculed as too emotional.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Henry was probably acting from the beginning of the scene. We never really know which of his relationships are sincere, and it seems unlikely that he has any affection for nobles who might take his power.
DeleteI agree with you gals. He is concerned about only himself and what he can do for his kingdom. Why would he ever be sad about a threat? He would simply want to eradicate it.
DeleteHe probably remembers King Richard II, who was always emotional about everything, and Richard had no respect at all. Henry's just doing what needs to get done.
DeleteI agree that it really is a big deal for someone to betray their king, and that should be handled as it was. But the idea of Henry putting on a show seems a bit far fetched. It could be true but it seems more logical that Henry is just angry that his "friends" would betray him as they did.
DeleteNo, Henry's lack of emotion is not odd. After all, in Act II of Henry V, Henry expresses his knowledge of Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey committing treason. He has the responsibility to kill these men to uphold the law of England. Therefore, he shouldn't feel about killing them. Also, Henry does not care very much about his friends. In Henry IV Part II, Hal callously rids himself of his closest friend, Falstaff. After this action, Hal showed no emotional reaction. Therefore, Henry did not truly care about his relationship with Falstaff, or Falstaff himself. Falstaff was a father figure to Henry. Henry would not like three traitors more than a man he considered to be his father. Therefore, he does not care about Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey. Because Henry V does not care about these men, I believe Henry pretended to be disappointed at them to cover up his intense anger. He did this to save face with the nobleman around him. In truth, anger was his only emotional response to the situation. Henry's anger is also displayed in Act I Scene II of Henry V. In that scene, He receives tennis balls from the Dauphin of France. This enrages Henry, and he suppresses his anger with the action of declaring war with France. In Act II of Henry V, Henry quickly suppresses his anger by ordering Scrope, Grey, and Cambridge to be executed. Henry experienced no long lasting emotional effects from this situation because of his ability to eliminate the only emotion he experienced.
ReplyDeleteExcellent argument Mark. These men were not Henry's friends, and even if they are, Henry would not feel badly about killing them. As you mentioned, when Henry becomes angry, he quickly acts. This happens in both the case of the Dauphin, and in the case of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey.
DeleteOf course he was emotionally impacted, but he is the king, and with that comes certain responsibilities. He was betrayed, and whether the betrayers were his best friends or acquaintances, he had to condemn them to death for principle and to uphold his position and respect. It's clear from what we've seen of Hal in Henry IV Part II, through his ability to essentially drop Falstaff with ease, that he doesn't struggle in letting people go. Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey were just three more people that he had to let go of to maintain respect as king.
ReplyDeleteI agree- it's the responsibility of the king to be emotionally detached when making these decisions. He knows that if his power isn't secure, he has nothing.
DeleteYes, one of the necessary character traits of a good leader is being detached. Being detached allows a leader to make the right choices for his people.
DeleteYeah I think so too. To Henry it's all about keeping people around until they aren't politically useful anymore, then he casts them away.
DeleteHis behavior isn't odd. Although Henry is good friends with Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey, Henry's name now represents the strength of England. As we saw with the tennis ball incident, France and potentially the nobility in Henry's own kingdom are dubious that Henry has the maturity to run a kingdom successfully. If Henry had given his friends an exception, he would have appeared to have no backbone. The way he handled it instead-- expressing that the treason had affected him emotionally, then immediately recovering-- demonstrated he is a resilient and strong king. Also, getting rid of these traitors allows Henry to move to war more quickly and sends a strong message that the war is more important for his kingdom than anything else, even relations among nobility.
ReplyDeleteI like that you mention that he did react to the betrayal but then quickly but his emotions aside in order to keep his appearance.
DeleteI completely agree. Though he's been an impressive king so far, because of his previous behavior he is still constantly working to prove himself. Every action he took to handle the traitors shows strength-it shows he is a worthy king.
DeleteChloe, I really like your last point about how it sends a message that war is more important than anything else. Even if it's emotionally difficult, he still is working to prove himself worthy and to be able to make difficult decisions as a king
DeleteI agree that Henry now have a political obligation to act rationally but I still believe that he could show some emotion in these circumstances. I don't think showing his really emotions will have people looking down on him but instead make him more relatable.
DeleteI think that it would be weird for anyone else to have no emotional attachments when executing their friends, but Henry seems to be different. As seen in the past, he seems to be able to detach himself rather easily from situations. He was able to leave Falstaff when he was dying without being emotional. And Falstaff didn’t betray Henry. Cambirdge, Scroop, and Grey were once his friends but then betrayed him, that would give him even more reason to kill them. The most important thing to him is to keep his power, and if killing his ex- friends will do that, then he is willing to kill them with no sympathy. These men were once his close confidants, and when they betray him he doesn’t care how they feel, they hurt him and they must be gotten rid of. In his speech in scene 2 of act 2 he says about Scroop “Thou that didst bear the key of all my counsels,/ that knew’st the very bottom of my soul,/that almost mightst have coined me into gold,/ wouldst thou have practiced on me for thy use.” He was hurt by his closest friends and he feels cheated. This quote shows that he was hurt, but he couldn’t show his emotions. As a ruler, his strength is in being cold hearted, due to the fact that he shows no emotion during times like this, he can maintain his power.
ReplyDeleteMaya I agree with you when you say that the most important thing to Hal is to keep his power, as he is a machiavel.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe he was emotionally impacted; yet he had to deal with the situation as a king. Although he claims that they were friends, Hal wouldn’t be the person to excuse them from their actions. They were plotting to kill him, and as King he will punish anyone who tries to compromise his life. Though he may have been showing his real feelings at first, he quickly covered those up and realized that he needs to act as king, and not show mercy to supposed friends. Allowing these three to live wouldn’t be the right choice even if it was difficult for him emotionally to order for them to be executed.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is odd that Henry experienced no lingering emotional effects after ordering the death of his three traitor “friends” because Henry is a Machiavel, just like his father. Henry’s speech was simply an attempt to take advantage of the dramatic situation and try to draw as much sympathy as possible from others. So far, every challenge he has faced as King, he has not backed down or showed weakness in his decision. He deals with Falstaff’s death and the tennis balls from the Dauphin in the same way. He shows emotions, which sometimes appears as a vice, but still makes a strong decision. I think that Henry allows his emotional reactions to appear as a vice, as a Machiavel, to make himself look more vulnerable and relatable. Overall, Henry is extremely powerful because he is in control of all aspects of his character and kingdom, and knows how to take advantage of all aspects of a situation for his Kingdom’s gain.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting Meg. He did go about handling this situation in a dramatic manner. He wasn't emotional after sentencing them to death possibly because he exhausted himself in the drama of the actual sentencing.
Delete-FORREST PARKER
I think that Henry V is still the same Machiavel that he was as Prince Hal, and Machiavels will do whatever it takes to gain political power. He is two faced, because he is just becoming whatever the situation calls for. In that situation he was trying to become hurt and doublecrossed, but he was still able to exert his power and become a harsh and just king because it was his best political option.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if he was just a Machiavel or if he actually cares about his kingdom or wanting to impress his father. I think it's his time to make a come back and he's doing it through taking his time to make decisions.
DeleteI agree. Henry is really exercising his Machiavell ideals. He is just doing whatever he can to protect his throne and if executing his friends will help him secure power than Henry should have no trouble doing this.
DeleteThroughout the play so far we have questioned whether Henry's actions were real or whether they were to impress his political followers. Earlier in the play Henry gets really angry when the Dauphin sends Henry tennis balls as an insult to his past. Henry responds "tell the Dauphin his jest will savor but of shallow wit when thousands weep more than did laugh at it" (Act 1. sc. 2). It is unclear whether Henry is actually pissed off of his just saying this speech to seem politically powerful.
ReplyDeleteWhen Henry discovers that Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey had committed treachery he decides to send them to their death. When they grovel for mercy Henry responds, " The mercy that was quick in us but late by your own counsel is suppressed and killed. You must not dare for shame, to talk of mercy" (Act 2. Sc. 2). He acts very political showing hardly any emotion even when his best friends have betrayed him. Again it is unclear if Henry is really hurt or if he is just masking his emotions to not show weakness to his followers. Then again he did leave Falstaff who was a father figure to him with out a second glance.
I agree that the play has been focused a lot on what decisions Henry is making and for whom their made. I would agree that he chooses not to share his emotional side with his political life. If they mix, the kingdom and his people might think he is weak and not ready for the thrown. But also he show's some mercy and restraint when it comes to making decisions. I think he has learned to finally grow up.
DeleteI don't think it is odd that king Henry would cut his ties the way he did with his close friends. from the beginning of the play, we are clearly shown that king Henry is, or at least is showing, he is no longer the playful young prince he use to be. His new title means that he is the face of England, and thus, he feels the need to uphold that title as much as possible. For example, looking back at act I when Dauphin of France gives him the tennis balls as a means to insult Henry, Henry swears to widow the wives of France and makes a great scene about it in front of his peers. He did this because he knew that people were watching him now and he had to make the impression they wanted, not the way he felt. the situation is similar between him and his decision with his friends. even though he doesn't feel as strongly about the decision, its the decision he needs to make as king, regardless of personal feelings.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talk about how Henry is "the face of England" and he therefore needs to portray a strong leader. I like how you also say it's the kings decisions not Henry's.
DeleteKing Henry V is in a position of power, and due to his history, he can’t take risks to lose his thrown and disappoint his father. Unlike his father, he is slower to make decisions and he is cautious about the actions he takes. He wants to maintain his power and to do so he needs to impress the people and get rid of the traitors, even if they are his greatest friends at the time.
ReplyDeleteHenry V likes to test people. In the case of his traitor friends, he goes through a case about another person. His friends are quick to sentence him to punishment. Henry starts by saying, “And you, my gentle knight, give me your thoughts. Think you not that the powers we bear with us will cut their passage through the force of France doing the execution and the act for which we have in head assembled them?” (Act 2, Scene 2). Henry is prodding his friends, asking them what they should do for their actions will lie on this man forever. And through this process his friends praise the King. Cambridge says “Never was monarch better feared or loved than is your Majesty. There’s not, I think, a subject that sits in heart-grief and uneasiness under the sweet shade of your government” (Act 2, Scene 2). If Henry knows all along that his friends are traitors and yet here they are continuing to praise him, then they are digging their whole deeper. Not only are they going against the king, but they are consistently lying for their own protection.
King Henry says, “We judge no less—Uncle of Exter, enlarge the man committed yesterday that railed against our person. We consider it was excess of wine that set him on, and on his more advice we pardon him” (Act 2, Scent 2). Here the king pardons the man. I think by doing this, he would show that he has a decent side to the common people. His move was well calculated and smart. However his friend Scroop jumps in to say, “That’s mercy, but too much security. Let him be punished, sovereign, letst example breed, by his sufferance, more of such a kind” (Act 2, Scene 2). Little did his friends know at the time, but by encouraging the King to punish this man, the more encouraged he was to condemn them. Scroop was telling him to make that man into an example for the people, why would King Henry want to make an example to the people about them then and how they can’t betray the king.
In the end Henry’s reaction to the treason was reasonable and his lack of emotions for their death is reasonable. His best friends betrayed him and as he was testing them in Act 2, Scene 2 they began to show their true colors. They wanted no mercy for that man and they made their point clear. I think that King Henry had already accepted the fact that they deserved death for what they had done, because in the end they weren’t his true friends. He needed to focus on his kingdom and on the upcoming war.
I think that it is interesting how you talk about how he asks his friends for advice, and they still just simply praise him. It's interesting because this makes him angry, the exact opposite reaction Richard II would have.
DeleteThe three conspirators' execution, though Henry claimed it was emotionally impacting, is different than simply killing your best friend. Henry had set up the situation with the drunk to give them a chance and see how they would react to it knowing that they were planning on killing him. Once he saw for himself that they would not show any mercy to a man who spoke sedition under the influence, then what mercy would they show him in this case? Most likely he contemplated his choice and had his private emotional engagement prior to this event, and when events unfolded he simply carried out what he knew he had to carry out, which in this case was the execution of three friends who wanted him dead. This, combined with the fact that all his actions and brutality are from a reaction to events, not an immediate aggression. Henry, though already planning on it, is going to invade France based off an insult. This looks more like the reaction of a king to an injustice rather than an aggressive jackass out to prove to the world that his kingdom is worth something
ReplyDeleteIf Henry is still considered a machiavel, it really is not odd at all to see Henry send the traitors to death. Even if these "Traitors" used to be his best friends, he is still a machiavel. The definition of a machiavel is someone who does whatever is possible to retain or achieve power and this is exactly what henry is doing. When Henry cut off Falstaff completely he didn't seem to have any emotional reaction. Falstaff was considered one of Henry's best accomplices and he now does not make contact with him at all. The lack of emotion shows that Henry really does not care about the people he may injure or kill, all he wants is power.
ReplyDeleteSamuel, i don't think that his lack of a reaction means he doesn't care, it means that he is unwilling to show that he cares. It's very probable that Henry felt bad about Falstaff and the three men at some point, but if he show he was sad it would have looked bad for Henry.
DeleteWhile it might immoral for Henry to not have any emotions associated with condemning traitors who were previously his friends to death, it also is understandable due to the fact that Henry is acting as a Machiavel. The fact that Henry has decided to invade France for no reason (however he claims it is his birthright) shows that Henry will pillage, rape and cause destruction if it means that he gains power. Even though Henry is thought to have an emotional side to him because of his upbringing, he knows his responsibility and will not allow traitors who were previously friends get in the way of them.
ReplyDeleteThis is true, Henry just wants to have power, by showing a emotional reaction to the executions, he might jeopardize that power because other might think he is not tough enough to be king.
DeleteIt isn't strange that Henry would show little to no emotional effect after sentencing the three men to death. After all, we have to remember that people are still watching Henry seeing that he is a new king. They still want to know how he will react to situations. Just like the scene with the tennis balls, Henry tells the messenger that he will make thousands of widows in France. The same scenario is in play here, if he reacts wrongly in the situation, people might think he is to emotional and not fit for the throne. He wants to show that he is a stern and mighty king that does not dwell on his decisions. By showing no reaction to executing the three men, Henry further showed that he was tough and powerful. So no, it is not that strange.
ReplyDelete