War and Its Human Element in Two Shakespeare Plays
The lead up to, and the beginning of, the current military conflict in Iraq coincided with my junior and senior years of high school. The justifications used to go to war never seemed right to me. I did not fully trust the Bush Administration and their reasoning for going to war. However, many of my classmates disagreed with my viewpoint. They saw a war with Iraq to be fully justified, something that had to be done. This demonstrated to me that war is in itself a very complex act. There are multiple sides to the multiple arguments about war. There is, as many have found over the past decade, no clear cut, right or wrong answer to questions of war. Some will find war to be unjustifiable in any case. Others will argue that it is better to take preemptive strikes against a dangerous enemy, before they can do harm to you. Seeing how complex war can be, I was interested to see what William Shakespeare’s plays said on the topic. While I could have selected any one of his histories, I settled on Henry V for a play to analyze how Shakespeare dealt with war. The play centers on Henry V’s conquest of France, from its beginnings to its improbably victory. In doing so, Shakespeare both glorifies the actions of war heroes, but also describes the horrors of war.
As I said earlier, many of my classmates were in favor of going to war in Iraq. A select few enlisted in the military. I know that two of my classmates died in Iraq. As I reflected back upon the ten-year anniversary of the beginning of the war, I thought about how our nation’s leaders stirred the patriotism of its youth and played on their desires to prove themselves in order to get people to enlist. While Henry V deals with this subject to a degree, I found it to be very prevalent in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida. In that play, Greek and Trojan generals alike play on the emotions of their troops and countrymen to gain their desired result.
The aim of this particular paper then is to examine how war is portrayed in these two Shakespearian plays, from justifications, to recruitment, and to execution, and compare it to the current military conflict in Iraq. War is now, as it was in Shakespeare’s time, a complex happening with many sides to the issue. It would not be fair to say Shakespeare is pro-war or anti-war, and indeed one can find arguments for both sides in a singular play. However, as Shakespeare does with most topics, the playwright sees war as an issue with multiple sides, including a very human element. The goal of writing this paper then is not to turn to Shakespeare for guidance on a political issue, but to look to Shakespeare for his unique perspectives on the morality of war and the impact that it has on people.
Henry V offers a look at the justifications for war. Henry decides to invade France, because he believes that he is the rightful king there as well. From King Henry’s perspective, his war on France is something that is justified through God. Henry tells the French ambassador, “We are no tyrant, but a Christian king, unto whose grace our passion is as subject as is our wretches fett‘red in our prisons” (Henry V, location 1,467). Henry has received permission from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who claims, “There is no bar to make against your Highness’ claim to France,” (Location 1313). Further more, he adds that the French should willingly accept Henry as their king, arguing, “Howbeit they would hold up this Salique Law To bar your Highness claiming from the female, And rather choose to hide them in a net Than amply to imbar their crooked titles Usurped from you and your progenitors.” ( Locations 1345-1347). The Archbishop makes an argument based on an older, and somewhat confusing law. But, his support for the war gives Henry something crucial. It gives him permission from the religious community to move forward with his war, as he is told that God would be on his side. Henry sought out approval from the Church for his war, asking the Archbishop and the Bishop of Ely, “We charge you in the name of God, take heed; For never two such kingdoms did contend Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops Are every one a woe, a sore complaint ‘Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords That makes such waste in brief mortality,” (Locations 1307-1309).
In addition to the religious permission for the war, the Archbishop calls on Henry’s lineage, as well as his patriotism in order to deem the war just. He tells Henry,
Stand for your own, unwind your bloody flag, Look back into your mighty ancestors; Go, my dread lord, to your great-grandsire‘s tomb, From whom you claim; invoke his warlike spirit, And your great-uncle’s, Edward the Black Prince, Who on the French ground played a tragedy, Making defeat on the full power of France, Whiles his most mighty father on a hill Stood smiling, to behold his lion’s whelp Forage in blood of French nobility. O noble English, that could entertain With half their forces the full pride of France, And let another half stand laughing by, All out of work, and cold for action! (Locations 1351-1356.
Having made their passionate case, the Archbishop and Bishop have convinced Henry to go through with the war, despite the possibility of leaving England open to invasion by Scotland. However, Jon Mebane, writing in “Studies of Philology notes that going to war undermines Judeo-Christian preaching of pacifism. “The deep ambivalence of Henry V concerning the rationale for the invasion of France serves not simply to remove the text from any political stance but rather to raise subversive questions concerning the warrior-class ethos that was widely affirmed in Shakespeare's culture,” (Mebane, 254). Henry wanted to go to war, was always going to go to war, and just wanted a final approval from his religious advisors, who were more than willing to give that approval, appealing to Henry on religious and nationalistic grounds.
It is interesting then to look at why the Archbishop and the Bishop may give approval to the war. The play opens with the two discussing a bill that if passed, could have damaging impacts on the Church. The Archbishop notes that half of the Church’s land could be taken away. However, with Henry V being recently crowned, they see an opportunity. They (rightfully) believe that Henry will be eager to prove himself worthy of the crown. The Archbishop feels that a war would be something to solidify Henry’s claim, as well as buy into the new king’s desire for war. He notes, “List his discourse of war, and you shall hear a fearful battle rend‘red you in music,” (Locations 1225-1226). This solidifies the belief that Henry was eager to go to war. The religious figures, hoping to disrupt the passage of the bill, urge Henry to go to war, playing his strong love of God and country in order to accomplish their means.
Similarly, the reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq are numerous and complex. Richard Miller cites three main reasons that were used to justify the invasion: self-defense, international law enforcement, and to rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein (Miller, Justifications for Iraq War Examined) Indeed, quotes from world leaders leading up to the war would seem to follow those justifications. Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made the case for taking a pre-emptive action against Iraq by saying, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” (Blitzer, 2003). President George Bush made the case for international policing in his 2003 State of the Union address by stating, “Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder… The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving,” (BBC, 2003). British Prime Minister Tony Blair made the case for rescuing the Iraqi people, saying in February 2003 that Britain would have to weigh the risk to its own people in a war with Iraq, but adds, “the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year,” (BBC, 2003).
However, some believe that similar to the Church giving approval to Henry for a war with France, there may have been ulterior motives to the Iraq war. Many critics of the war believed it to be more about oil than any real security threat. The former head of the U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, John Abizaid said in 2007,” "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,” (Juhasz, 2013) The former CEO of Chevron Kenneth Derr said in 1998, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." When the 2000 election came around, Big Oil, companies such as Exxon and Shell, spent large amount of money to help Bush defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore (Juhasz, 2013) Oilfield services company Halliburton, which former Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of, was given a multi-billion dollar contract to help rebuild Iraq. Several people within the Bush administration went on to work at oil firms that were working in Iraq. This has led some to believe that the war with Iraq was financially motivated, such as Norman Mailer, who said, “Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction. War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base - not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers - to build a world empire,” (Loperto and O’Connor, 2013).
The reasons the Bush administration officially put forward may be seen as a reasonable justification for war with Iraq, even though later investigations would undermine the credibility of their statements. However, it is worth noting that there were other background players that may have had an influence on the decisions of the nation’s political leaders.
As war is a morally grey exercise, there were, of course, critics of the war from the early going. Richard Falk, a professor at Princeton University said,
“This war against Iraq is very questionable constitutionally, as well as dubious under international law. There was no urgency from the perspective of American national security that might have justified a defensive recourse to a non-UN war, which is further suspect because the war was initiated without a formal and proper authorization from Congress,” (Loperto and O’Connor, 2013).
The morality of war questions not only whether or not is justifiable to begin a war, but also if a war should continue. This is the discussion that the Trojans find themselves happening in Troilus and Cressida. When the play opens, the Trojan War is into its seventh year. None would disagree that the Trojans have the right to enter the conflict, as the Greeks have attacked them. However, they are in a position to end the war very easily. As Priam, king of the Trojans notes, the Trojans only have to, “‘Deliver Helen, and all damage else — As honour, loss of time, travail, expense, Wounds, friends, and what else dear that is consumed In hot digestion of this cormorant war — Shall be struck off.’ (Troilus and Cressida, Kindle Locations 581-583). The Trojan King is delivering Nestor’s message. The Greeks have an idea of the negative impact that the war is having on the Trojans and are reminding them of the simple way they could put an end to it.
“Let Helen go: Since the first sword was drawn about this question, Every tithe soul, ’mongst many thousand dismes, Hath been as dear as Helen; I mean, of ours: If we have lost so many tenths of ours, To guard a thing not ours nor worth to us, Had it our name, the value of one ten, What merit’s in that reason which denies The yielding of her up? “ (Locations 586-589).
Hector reminds the audience that Helen is not a Trojan native, and that, even though “no one fears the Greeks less” than he does, he sees a value to Trojan society for returning Helen to the Greeks. He almost seems to put a monetary value on Helen, considering her value to be about a tenth of a Trojan woman.
It is interesting that Hector would use an economic argument for ending the war early. One of the major criticisms of the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is their massive costs. A Harvard study puts the final price tag somewhere between $4 and $6 trillion. The study adds, “As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives…The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come,” (Bilmes, 2013). Some may argue that in light of the costs of the wars, they were not worth it. Given how much money will have to be allocated for the war and the treatment of veterans, some may argue that it negatively impacts Americans, as the federal government will be hampered in its ability to invest in domestic programs.
Not all are buying into Hector’s argument, even from an economical standpoint. Troilus counters that Helen is not comparable to the common person, arguing, “Weigh you the worth and honour of a king so great as our dread father in a scale of common ounces? Will you with counters sum the past proportion of his infinite?” (Locations 590-591). Troilus further argues that Helen is worth the price of the war, saying, “Why keep we her? The Grecians keep our aunt: Is she worth keeping? Why, she is a pearl, whose price hath launch’d above a thousand ships, and turn’d crown’d kings to merchants,” (Kindle Locations 610-612). For Troilus, the very fact that the Greeks have launched a war to get Helen back proves that she is worth the continual conflict.
However, the value of the battle may not be limited to Helen’s worth. Hector alludes to the impact that the war has on Troy’s populace. He is aided by Cassandra, the prophet who gives a warning of what lies in store for Troy if they do not end the conflict:
“Virgins and boys, mid-age and wrinkled eld, Soft infancy, that nothing canst but cry, Add to my clamours! Let us pay betimes a moiety of that mass of moan to come. Cry, Trojans, cry! Practice your eyes with tears! Troy must not be, nor goodly Ilion stand; Our firebrand brother, Paris, burns us all. Cry, Trojans, cry! A Helen and a woe: Cry, cry! Troy burns, or else let Helen go,”(Locations 623-626).
Cassandra’s vision of how the Trojan War will end is dismissed by the Trojans in the play, referred to by Troilus as one of Cassandra’s “brain-sick ravages”. However, it underscores another aspect of Shakespeare’s take on war. Even in a work that could be seen as glorifying war, such as Henry V, Shakespeare does not shy away from its horrors. Shortly after the English begin their invasion of France, they capture the town of Harfleur. Henry, having the number advantage on the town, urges the Governor to yield the town, stating what will happen if he does not comply:
“Your fathers taken by the silver beards, And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls; Your naked infants spitted upon pikes, Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen. What say you? Will you yield, and this avoid? Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed? “ (Henry V, Kindle Locations 2216-2219).
It is interesting, because the Governor finds himself in a similar situation to what Henry will find himself in later on in the play: he is greatly outnumbered. Whereas Henry rallies the troops and presses forward, the Governor decides for the betterment of his community that it is best to surrender to the English. Henry is seemingly pushed onward by the glory to be found in war. When the French messenger Montjoy offers Henry a surrender proposal, the King responds, “We would not seek a battle as we are, nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it,” (Kindle Locations 2476-2477).
Henry’s insistence on continuing the conflict raises the question as to just who is responsible for the death toll to be experienced in the battle ahead. Soldier John Bates seems to have reservations about the justifications about the war, and he asks a disguised Henry how the king would feel, should the English lose the war.
But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, “We died at such a place,” some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey, were against all proportion of subjection,” (Locations 2746-2750
Bates asks how moral it is to send men to their deaths, for what may be seen as a dubious cause. These are men with families and potential back home. Bates poses the question, as much to Henry as he does to the audience, of what should be made out of their deaths. Henry skirts around the question somewhat, taking a somewhat theological approach, saying, “The king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant; for they purpose not their death when they purpose their services,” (Locations 2754-2755). Henry seems to confuse the question in order to deflect criticism of his war. He believes that Bates has asked how Henry will feel if his men will die as sinners, to which Henry emphatically states he is not responsible for:
Then if they die unprovided, no more is the King guilty of their damnation than he was before guilty of those impieties for which they are now visited. Every subject’s duty is the King‘s, but every subject’s soul is his own,” (Locations 2766-2768).
Similarly, one could ask how much Troilus and Priam are responsible for the Trojan’s eventual demise. Troilus argues for the continuation of the war, and as king, Priam would seem to go along with that decision. The Trojans had the power to end the war and make peace with the Greeks, but their decision prolongs the conflict. It ironically also claims the life of Hector, who had argued for giving up Helen for the sake of peace. An unarmed Hector is killed by Achilles near the end of the play.
Though Henry skirts the question, he does raise an interesting parallel between himself and President Bush in this regard. In 2005, Bush took responsibility for the war, saying, “As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities." Bush acknowledges the problems with intelligence that led to the Iraq War, but he adds that the war was still just. "Given Saddam's history, and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," Bush said in the 2005 address (USA Today, 2005). This is of note, because while Bush admits that his reasons for going to war may have been faulty, it was still ultimately the proper course of action.
American politics throws a unique wrinkle into this. Due to term limits, Bush could not run for a third Presidential term, which may have allowed him time to plan an end to the Iraq War. Instead, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected as Commander-in-Chief. Part of Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy was promoting a “responsible end” to the Iraq War. In a July 2008 speech, Obama said, "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. ... By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe." Here Obama touches on the economic impacts the war has had. He emphasizes that point, and discusses the human toll the war has taken by saying, “We have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,” (Obama, 2008). Obama’s campaign rhetoric, as well as his title, suggests that he has been responsible for the execution of the Iraq War since his 2008 election. However, one could argue that had Bush not gone to war (or had handled the war better, as he and his administration have been roundly criticized for they handled the war), than Obama would not be responsible for the war effort, thus putting Obama’s responsibility for the war in a morally grey area.
To this point, the paper has focused on the leadership aspects of war. However, war is fought with soldiers, often young men. The wars in the two plays are no exceptions. John Bates alludes to the youth of the men during his speech with Henry. Likewise, the war in Iraq is fought with young men and women. Spurred on by patriotism and a desire to fight for their country, these young people have enlisted in the military. With that in mind, it is important to look at how the commanders in Shakespeare’s plays have gotten their men to fight.
The most notable call to arms in these two plays is Henry’s impassioned speech to his men as they are set to take Harfleur.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead! In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility; But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger: Stiffen the sinews, conjure up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect: Let it pry through the portage of the head, like the brass cannon; let the brow o‘erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a gallèd rock O’erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swilled with the wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth, and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit to his full height! On, on, you noble English, Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof; Fathers that like so many Alexanders Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument. Dishonor not your mothers; now attest that those whom you called fathers did beget you! Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!” (Locations 2070-2084).
The speech plays on many emotions for the men. Interestingly, Henry tells his men to act like tigers during the attack. In a discussion with Frederick Turner, he talked to me about the animalistic aspect of battle. He says that battle, “is the meeting of the human with the animal within.” Henry certainly plays to that here. He also calls on his men to fight for their national pride, calling them “noble English”, while referring to the French as men with “grosser blood”. He calls on them to fight for their families, telling the men “Dishonor not your mothers.” In one speech, Henry calls on the men to fight for their own personal pride, the pride of their country, and the pride of their families. Later on in the play, just before the main battle with the French army, Henry plays up promises of eternal glory to encourage his men, saying
” From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be rememberèd— We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne‘er so vile, This day shall gentle his conditlon. And gentlemen in England, now abed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day. (Locations 2963-2967)
The Greek generals in Troilus and Cressida use similar tactics when trying to convince Ajax that he should face Hector in a one-on-one battle. Agamemnon tells his, “noble Ajax; you are as strong, as valiant, as wise, no less noble, much more gentle, and altogether more tractable.” When Ajax objects, Agamemnon continues, saying, “Your mind is the clearer, Ajax, and your virtues the fairer. He that is proud eats up himself: pride is his own glass, his own trumpet, his own chronicle; and whatever praises itself but in the deed, devours the deed in the praise,” (Kindle Locations 736-738). Here Agamemnon uses flattery to get Ajax into the battle. Though it comes earlier in the play, Ajax’s servant Thersites explains that for all the glory and personal achievement that could be won in battle, Ajax is here for one reason. “Thou art here but to thrash Trojans; and thou art bought and sold among those of any wit, like a barbarian slave,” (Locations 528-529). When Ajax threatens to cut out his tongue for saying so, Thersites simply responds that he’ll still say it as much afterward, implying that even though Ajax does not want to admit it, he is a slave to the battlefield and his commanders.
The U.S. Military is a volunteer organization. Thus, it must rely on recruitment to fill its ranks. Fighting a controversial war has forced the military to rethink its efforts, notes Beth Baily. She writes in “The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force”, “In mid-March 2003….the U.S. Army replaced its “An Army of One” television recruiting ads with commercials evoking a tradition of heroism and sacrifice,” (Baily, 47). The ads were a departure from the Army’s traditional pitch of offering money for college, gaining skills, and fulfilling a sense of adventure. She writes, “In the first moments of a controversial war, many of those promises sounded inappropriate, if not absurd,” (Baily, 47). The new ads appealed to young people’s patriotism and sense of honor, much like Henry and Agamemnon did in their pitches to young soldiers to fight their wars. Combine this with the Bush Administration’s rhetoric about a war in Iraq being justified to protect America’s national security, as well as to spread democracy to the Middle East, the recruiting pitches were aimed at young people eager to prove themselves and prove their patriotism.
War is a very complex act, with many sides to consider. There are the justifications for the war, the execution of the war, the continuance of the war, the cost of the war (both economical and human), and of course the soldiers themselves to consider. With so many different aspects of war, there can never be a clear-cut yes or no decision on all matters. Shakespeare understood this. His plays both glorify war, while underscoring its darker elements. Because of this, it is not appropriate to look towards Shakespeare’s works as a guide of how to think about war. Rather, his plays can give us an appreciation of the complexities of war and the moral quandaries that inevitably come with it. By juxtaposing his works with the Iraq War, I hope I have managed to demonstrate that those same moral quandaries are very much alive today, in everything from justifications of wars, to the recruitment that is undertaken for the military to fill its ranks.
Works cited:
Baily, Beth. "The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force." The Journal of American History 94.1 (2007): 47-74. Online.
Bilmes, Linda F. "HKS Research Administration Office." HKS Research Administration Office. Harvard Kennedy School, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Blitzer, Wolf. "Search for the 'smoking Gun'" CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Jan. 2003. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.
"In Quotes: Reasons for the Iraq War." BBC News. BBC, 29 May 2003. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.
Jackson, David. "Bush: Saddam Ouster Was Correct, despite Bad Info."USATODAY.com. USA Today, 14 Dec. 2005. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Juhasz, Antonia. "Why the War in Iraq Was Fought for Big Oil." CNN. Cable News Network, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.
Lopreto, Daniel, and Brendan O'Connor. "Criticism of the Iraq War - Then and Now | Nation Institute." Criticism of the Iraq War - Then and Now | Nation Institute. The Nation Institute, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.
Mebane, John S. ""Impious War": Religion and the Ideology of Warfare in "Henry V" "Studies in Philology 104.2 (2007): 250-66. Online.
Miller, Richard. "Justifications of the Iraq War Examined." Ethics and International Affairs 22.1 (2008): 43-67. Online.
Obama, Barack. "Obama’s Remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan." New York Times. New York Times, 15 July 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Shakespeare, William. Henry V. New York: Signet Classics, 1998. Kindle. *
Shakespeare, William, and Mark C. Garde. Troilus and Cressida. N.p.: Digipublished, 2012. Kindle. *
Turner, Frederick. Personal Interview. 5 April 2013.
*Both of Shakespeare’s plays that I cited were downloaded onto my Kindle. The in-text citations refer to “locations” in the text, not page numbers.
