Shrewsbury, the failed Epiphany Rising plot (1399–1400) against Henry’s father showed that a living Richard II would always present a threat. On February 14, 1400, the latter died a mysterious death in Pontefract Castle. Neither Henry of Bolingbroke nor Henry V were ever implicated in Richard’s death, but the consequences were clear: Richard’s death removed the possibility of his supporters initiating more uprisings on his behalf.

Henry V looks at France’s intransigence as a rebellion of sorts. In making preparations to sail for France, he tells his advisers that his actions are within “the will of God” and that his hands are stretched forth in a “well-hallow’d cause.” He is, after all, a “Christian king” who won't go to war unless his chief advisers “justly and religiously unfold” the reasons for it. Henry’s religious language would have appealed to the sensibilities of an Elizabethan audience familiar with the history of English kings leading holy wars (Crusades) in the Middle East. 

In the play, Shakespeare also shows Henry V to be a skilled military tactician. Having honed his skills in his father’s army, Henry decides to take Harfleur first. The French have long used the port city, situated at the mouth of the Seine, to send troops north in support of uprisings in Wales and the northern regions of England. Therefore, the siege of Harfleur is part of Henry’s calculated plan to choke off provisions to the Welsh and Scottish rebels as well as secure a base from which to launch military campaigns against the French. 

It is also in Harfleur that Henry uses his famous cannons against the French, thus fulfilling his promise to the Dauphin that he would turn the latter’s tennis balls into “gunstones” to wreak a “wasteful vengeance” that would “mock mothers from their sons” and “mock castles down.” Henry’s mention of castles isn’t accidental. In France, he focuses on capturing strategic castles located along the banks of rivers. In turn, these castles are used to facilitate the shipping of provisions and weapons to English troops and to hinder the advance of French troops. It is a clever calculation on Henry’s part.

The key highlight of the play is, of course, the Battle of Agincourt. Historians tell us that the French likely had twenty thousand soldiers at Agincourt, compared to the six thousand under Henry’s command. Not only were they outnumbered, Henry’s soldiers were war-sick and hungry, and many had been stricken with dysentery. In prologue of act 4, the Chorus describes the sense of doom in Henry’s camp:

The poor condemnèd English,
Like sacrifices, by their watchful fires
Sit patiently and inly ruminate
The morning’s danger; and their gesture sad,
Investing lank-lean cheeks and war-worn coats,
Presenteth them unto the gazing moon
So many horrid ghosts.

By all indications, the English should never have won in Agincourt. But, they did, arguably thanks to Henry’s impeccable instincts. As French troops advanced, he ordered his archers to launch a volley of arrows at the enemy, at that point two hundred yards away. The arrows threw the French cavalry into disarray. The wounded horses panicked and screamed in pain. Any that managed to avoid the arrows ran straight ahead, only to be impaled upon the sharp stakes the English had positioned on the front lines.

The French cavalry attempted to backtrack, running straight into their advancing peers on foot. The ground, muddy from the previous night’s rain, also impeded the efficient movement of French troops in their full armor. Henry’s calculations carried the day, despite the odds. 

In his portrayal of Henry V, Shakespeare’s emphasis on heroism is juxtaposed against the backdrop of history. It is a move designed to immortalize Henry V in the eyes of the Elizabethan audience and highlight England’s vital role on the world stage in the Hundred Years’ War. 

Shakespeare’s Henry V, first performed in 1599, also premiered during a momentous time in England’s history. The country was at war on two fronts and its aging queen was focused on solidifying Huguenot control of the French throne. Fiercely Protestant Elizabeth I also faced Catholic rebellions at home. In addition, an Irish uprising was draining the royal coffers. Tyrone’s Rebellion, also known as the Nine Years’ War, took more than eighteen thousand English soldiers to defeat. Meanwhile, Europe was struggling with famine (1590-1598), and English towns were devastated by a bubonic plague (1592-1598). 

In light of this, Henry V served as a needed diversion for a beleaguered populace. It retold the story of a powerful king who prevailed against all odds to achieve victory for England. With Henry V, Shakespeare highlights a king’s power to secure their nation’s relevance in the midst of political, social, and economic uncertainty—a fitting reminder for an England in turmoil.

When Shakespeare began writing plays, the English stage was still in its infancy. Because of strong religious attitudes, for centuries the only types of drama allowed were allegories, such as Everyman, which preached moral lessons in a highly formalized fashion. In England, however, things began to change during the early 1500s, under the very secular King Henry VIII. For the first time, plays, such as Ralph Roister Doister and Gammer Gurton’s Needle began showing real people in real-life situations. Still, their plots and characterizations were relatively primitive. It is astonishing to realize that only a few decades later, Shakespeare and his contemporaries would raise staged drama to the heights of artistic excellence and sophistication.

Only a handful of theaters existed in Shakespeare’s time, and the one with which he was most associated was the Globe. Circular in shape (a reference by Chorus in Henry V calls it “this wooden O”), it had a small stage that protruded onto an open courtyard. In box seats overlooking this space sat the nobles, merchants, and other people of wealth. On the bare earth were the common folk (“groundlings”), who paid a few pennies for admission and stood for the entire performance.

Except for a balcony, a few trapdoors, and tapestry curtains, the Elizabethan stage presented little in the way of theatrical illusion. Nor did the audience demand it. Unlike theatergoers of today, who look for constant action, they were more interested in opulent costumes and long, poetic speeches. They were also accustomed to imagining much of the action, which was typically suggested by the dialogue or conveyed by offstage sound effects. In Henry V, for example, whose setting switches from England to France and whose climax is a battle, Shakespeare uses a player called Chorus to “set the scene” in the minds of the audience. This man narrates the story and gives key bits of information, such as the fact that three of Henry’s trusted advisors are traitors, and describes vividly large-scale locales, such as the battlefield.

Like Shakespeare’s other history dramas, Henry V takes a number of liberties with the truth. At the actual Battle of Agincourt, for example, the English army was outmanned 3 to 1—not 5 to 1, as in the play. Nor was the battle the decisive one of the war; in fact, it took Henry three more years to conquer France, and the final conflict occurred at Normandy.

Even more interestingly, Shakespeare willfully ignores the real hero of the battle—the English archer. What won the day in 1415 was the use of a new weapon, the longbow, which could send —armor-piercing arrows from a great distance and with deadly accuracy. Each time the heavily encumbered French knights tried to charge, their horses were stopped by long, sharpened stakes that the English had embedded in the earth. As the attack bogged down, the longbowmen instantly rained thousands upon thousands of arrows upon them. The result was a frightful slaughter of the mounted troops, but virtually no British losses. So effective was the longbow, in fact, that it ended the use of an armored cavalry forever.

Shakespeare slights this aspect of the story because his real subject is not the common soldier, but Henry himself. Throughout the play, the focus is on Henry—his heroic exploits, his stirring oratory, even his faults and failings. In the end, we have not only a tapestry of war, but also a portrait of a complex, magnetic, larger-than-life character, the complete Shakespearean hero.

For Further Reading

Barnet, Sylvan. "The English History Plays." In A Short Guide to Shakespeare, pp. 113-37. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1972.

This work examines the character of Henry V within the tetralogy {Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V}. Barnet also contrasts the structure and language of Henry V with the other three plays.

Battenhouse, Roy W. "Henry V as Heroic Comedy." In Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama, in Honor of Hardin Craig, edited by Richard Hosley, pp. 163-82. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1962.

Battenhouse describes Henry V as a "heroic comedy," suggesting that Shakespeare presents a deeply ironic view of history by portraying the king both as a national hero and as a man driven by greed.

Berman, Ronald, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry V: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968, 120 p.

This collection features critical essays by scholars including William Butler Yeats, E. M. W. Tillyard, and Una Ellis-Fermor.

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York: Roundtable Press, Inc., 1990.

Brennan, Anthony S. "That Within Which Passes Show: The Function of the Chorus in Henry V." Philological Quarterly 58, No. 1 (Winter 1979): 40-52.

Brennan discusses the role of the Chorus and contrasts the prologues with the contents of each act.

Brooke, Stopford A. "Henry V." In Ten More Plays of Shakespeare, pp. 294-313. London: Constable and Co., 1913.

Brooke argues that in Henry V, Shakespeare provides a balanced depiction of war and patriotism.

Cook, Dorothy. "Henry V: Maturing of Man and Majesty." Studies in Literary Imagination 5, No. 1 (April 1972): 111-28.

Cook explores the theme of personal maturity, illustrating the king's growing recognition of his duties to his subjects and the importance of humbly relying on God.

Coursen, Herbert R., Jr. "Henry V and the Nature of Kingship." Discourse: A Review of the Liberal Arts XIII, No. 3 (Summer 1970): 279-305.

Coursen argues that Henry V is a shrewd politician who, in his rise to power, has lost his ability to relate to common citizens.

Danson, Lawrence. "Henry V: King, Chorus, and Critics." Shakespeare Quarterly 34, No. 1 (Spring 1983): 27-43.

Danson defends the Chorus against various critical controversies.

Dean, Paul. "Chronicle and Romance Modes in Henry V." Shakespeare Quarterly 32, No. 1 (Spring 1981): 18-27.

Dean analyzes Henry V as both a "chronicle" and "romance" history, studying the interplay between the Chorus and the king.

Fleissner, Robert F. "Falstaff's Green Sickness Unto Death." Shakespeare Quarterly XII, No. 1 (Winter 1961): 47-55.

Fleissner comments on the appearance of Falstaff before his death.

Goldman, Michael. "Henry V: The Strain of Rule." In Shakespeare and the Energies of Drama, pp. 58-73. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Goldman examines the powerful speeches of the Chorus and Henry, noting the relationship they foster between the actors and the audience, and argues that the play's theme is about overcoming limitations through supreme effort.

Halliday, F. E. A Shakespeare Companion. New York: Shocken Books, 1964.

Ludowyk, E. F. C. Understanding Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

Ornstein, Robert. "Henry V." In A Kingdom For A Stage: The Achievement of Shakespeare's History Plays, pp. 175-202. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Argues that despite references to justice and mercy throughout Henry V, Shakespeare portrays war as inherently brutal and dehumanizing.

Phialas, Peter G. "Shakespeare's Henry V and the Second Tetralogy." Studies in Philology LXII, No. 2 (April 1965): 155-75.

Explores the nature of kingship and the ideal relationship between a ruler and his subjects as the central themes in Henry V.

Platt, Michael. "Falstaff in the Valley of the Shadow of Death." Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 8, No. 1 (January 1979): 5-29.

Claims that Falstaff's death is a pivotal event in Henry V. The critic observes that among the three instances of men facing death, Henry is absent only at Falstaff's demise. Platt examines Falstaff's final words and analyzes Mistress Quickly's account of his death.

Quinn, Michael, ed. Shakespeare: Henry V, A Casebook. London: Macmillan and Co., 1969, 252 p.

Features excerpts of criticism by Samuel Johnson and George Bernard Shaw, along with full-length essays by E. E. Stoll and others.

Rabkin, Norman. "The Polity." In Shakespeare and the Common Understanding, pp. 80-149. New York: The Free Press, 1967.

Maintains that the idealized portrayal of Henry is more fantastical than realistic, asserting that although Henry is depicted as a wise and fortunate ruler, he is not without flaws.

Reese, M. M. "Shakespeare's England: Henry V." In The Cease of Majesty: A Study of Shakespeare's History Plays, pp. 317-32. London: Edward Arnold, 1961.

Argues that to fully appreciate Henry V, one must judge him by Elizabethan standards rather than modern ones.

Richmond, H. M. "Henry V." In Shakespeare's Political Plays, pp. 175-200. New York: Random House, 1967. Chronicles the king's evolution from deceit and hypocrisy in the early scenes to responsibility and humility by the end.

Rossiter, A. P. "Ambivalence: The Dialectic of the Histories." In Angel with Horns and Other Shakespeare Lectures, edited by Graham Storey, pp. 40-64. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1961.

Examines the interplay between serious and comic elements in Shakespeare's history plays.

Shakespeare, William. Henry V, ed. Barbara A. Mowat. The Folger Shakespeare Library. New York: Pocket Books, 1995.

Shalvi, Alice. "Studies in Kingship: Henry VI, Richard III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V." In The World and Art of Shakespeare, edited by A. A. Mendilow and Alice Shalvi, pp. 89-118. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1967. Argues that Henry is portrayed as an ideal king, resulting in a lack of tension or character development in the play.

Smith, Gordon Ross. "Shakespeare's Henry V: Another Part of the Critical Forest." Journal of the History of Ideas XXXVII, No. 1 (January-March 1976): 3-27.

Contends that the speeches and characters in Henry V reflect the diverse spectrum of political thought during the Renaissance rather than a narrow Tudor orthodoxy.

Snyder, Karl E. "Kings and Kingship in Four of Shakespeare's History Plays." In Shakespeare 1964, edited by Jim W. Corder, pp. 43-58. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1965.

Analyzes the nature of kings and the concept of kingship in Richard II, Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V.

Soellner, Rolf. "Henry V: Patterning after Perfection." In Shakespeare's Patterns of Self-Knowledge, pp. 113-28. Ohio State University Press, 1972.

Claims that Henry V embodies the four cardinal virtues—fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance—that Renaissance Christian humanists considered essential for a virtuous man.

Walter, J. H. "Introduction to Henry V." In Shakespeare: The Histories, A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 152-67. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

Explores the epic qualities of Henry V, focusing on Shakespeare's depiction of the king as an ideal hero.

Watt, Homer A., Karl J. Holzknecht, Raymond Ross, Outlines of Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Harper Collins, 1970.

Wentersdorf, Karl P. "The Conspiracy of Silence in Henry V." Shakespeare Quarterly 27, No. 3 (Summer 1976): 264-87.

Concentrates on Henry's uncovering of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey's plot to claim the throne for Edmund Mortimer.

Williams, Charles. "Henry V." In Shakespeare Criticism: 1919-1935, edited by Anne Ridler, pp. 180-88. London: Oxford University Press, 1936.

Asserts that Act IV marks the first time Henry fully embraces the challenges before him, achieving a heightened sense of honor.

Williamson, Marilyn L. "The Courtship of Katherine and the Second Tetralogy." Criticism XVII, No. 4 (Fall 1975): 326-34.

Maintains that Henry's courtship of Katherine aligns with his behavior earlier in Henry V and reflects a consistent pattern of conduct shown throughout this play and the Henry IV plays.

London

*London. Capital of England and the site of Henry’s royal court, London serves as the setting for the opening scenes of the play. By the fifteenth century, the time in which Shakespeare sets his play, London is the economic, political, and religious seat of power in England. Such concentration of power is underscored by the opening scene in which the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely plot to counter a bill before Parliament that would take away half of the Church’s lands. The clerics propose to fund an English military campaign against the French, if Henry will overlook their taxes. Consequently, the churchmen devise an argument that Henry has clear title to the French throne, territory that the English held in earlier times. Thus, Shakespeare locates in London the imperial power, the political machinations, and the religious finances to support the conquest Henry wishes to undertake.

London also serves as the location of the opening scenes of the second act, when Shakespeare transports playgoers to a common street outside a boardinghouse. There, Bardolph, Nym, and Pistol, former companions of the King in wilder days, decide to follow Henry to France as common soldiers. Again, Shakespeare uses the setting of London to juxtapose the bawdy and common folk with the high royalty of the King. Henry’s actions have consequences from the top to the bottom of society.

Southampton

*Southampton. Seaport on England’s southern coast from which Henry’s army embarks for France. Southampton is a place of transition: by crossing the water, Henry will leave the land of his own sovereignty to put himself and his men in harm’s way in order to conquer France. Tellingly, it is in Southampton where Bedford and Exeter uncover a treasonous plot against the King. The traitors, according to Henry, have conspired and “sworn unto the practices of France/ to kill us here in Hampton.” Finding traitors on British soil, just at the moment of departure indicated by the setting at Southampton, forewarns the King of the dangers ahead.

Harfleur

*Harfleur (hah-FLUR). Walled city in France under siege by Henry and his army. The third act opens with Henry’s famous “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;/ Or close the wall up with our English dead.” In this scene, Shakespeare does as the opening chorus says he will; through words and imagination, he is able to transform a small stage into the site of a great siege. The siege at Harfleur allows audiences to experience all levels of the attack, from Henry’s exhortations to his men, to Bardolph, Nym, and Pistol’s cowardice, to the Welshman Fluellen’s close attention to the rules of war. It also provides Henry’s first victory on French soil.

Rouen

*Rouen (rew-AN). City in Normandy that is the site of the royal court of France during the time in which the play is set. Shakespeare shifts his scene immediately from the fray and bloodshed of Harfleur to the Rouen bedroom of Princess Katharine of France, where she is teasing her old serving woman for English lessons. Their light-hearted exchange—entirely in French—contrasts markedly with the discussion that follows among the French king, the Dauphin, and the lord constable about the English king Henry’s sweep through France.

Agincourt

*Agincourt (AH-zheen-kohr). Village in northern France that is the site of perhaps the greatest military victory ever enjoyed by the English. Without question, playgoers of Shakespeare’s day would have known the history and significance of Agincourt. The setting, then, is at the core of this historical drama whose purpose is one of nationalism, patriotism, and imperialism. Using the words supplied by Shakespeare and their own imaginations, playgoers could once again relive the glory of being English. Indeed, the celebration of “Englishness” is one of the hallmarks of the Elizabethan Age. Shakespeare’s choice of Agincourt as the crucial setting for his play reflects his desire to connect the late sixteenth century reign of Queen Elizabeth I with the heroic deeds of early sixteenth century King Henry V.

Kingship

Henry secures his claim to kingship by embodying the essential traits of a true king in various ways. He not only ensures his right to the English crown but also seeks to capture the French throne. Following his father's advice at the end of Henry IV, Part Two to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels," he wages war on France and asserts his claim to the French throne. This claim was denied to his great-great-grandmother due to the Salic law, which prohibited succession through the female line. By discrediting the Salic law and defeating the French army, Henry establishes both his legal and moral right to the throne. His acceptance of responsibility and concern for his subjects further solidify his ethical claim to kingship.

Throughout the play, Henry's moral development and acceptance of his kingly role are evident. Key aspects of kingship include the king's relationship with his advisors, his divine right, his legitimate succession, and the burdens of leadership. As king, Henry bridges personal order and political unity, requiring complete dedication to his duties. He must not let selfishness or weakness interfere with his responsibilities. Most critics agree that, despite Henry's struggle to balance the demands of the crown with his personal desires, by the end of the play, he embraces his role and learns to integrate his humanity.

Language and Imagery

Analysis of the language in Henry V has produced various critical interpretations, with most scholars agreeing that the type of rhetoric used significantly contributes to the play's theme, tone, and meaning. Some critics highlight the effortful nature of the language for both the speaker and the audience, relating this to the play's active atmosphere. Others focus on the disputative tone of the language, paralleling the dominant theme of war. This rhetorical style is evident throughout the play, beginning with a tone of agreement (choric appeal to English nationalism, cooperation between performer and audience, and initial scenes of church and state unity), moving into conflict and war, and concluding with a return to peace. Criticism of the imagery in Henry V often centers on the transition to war, particularly through Shakespeare's use of death imagery.

There has been considerable debate among critics about whether the language in Henry V matches the quality found in the first three plays of the tetralogy. Some scholars argue that the language is flatter and less powerful than in the earlier plays. However, others believe that the natural and deceptively simple prose demonstrates a depth and artistry that is just as sophisticated as the more prominent speeches in the previous plays.

Epic Elements

Shakespeare's incorporation of epic elements in Henry V has garnered significant critical attention. As the most expansive of his works, Henry V portrays an epic theme and celebrates a legendary hero. Scholars argue that the play meets many of the classical epic's formal criteria: its hero is of national importance, it highlights destiny and divine will, its action is grand in scale and revolves around war, and it features a narrator, an invocation to the Muse, numerous warriors, battle taunts, and other traditional epic motifs. Most critics agree that Shakespeare's use of these epic elements greatly enhances the play's success, asserting that an epic drama was the only appropriate way to honor the noble deeds of Henry V.

Academics often concentrate on the Chorus's role in highlighting the limitations of the Elizabethan stage. Many critics note that the Chorus serves to apologize for the stage's inadequacy in depicting the grandeur of an epic. However, some commentators argue that Shakespeare's audience would not have expected the kind of cinematic "realism" that the Chorus apologizes for lacking. While the Chorus serves several roles as narrator—creating atmosphere, explaining time lapses and location changes, and apologizing for the theater's limitations—its most crucial function is to evoke an epic mood. Additionally, the Chorus provides structural unity within the play by connecting the five acts. The eloquence and contribution of the choric prologues to the epic tone of the play have also received critical acclaim.

Patriotism and War

Many twentieth-century critics have delved into the themes of war and patriotism in Henry V. Some argue that the play primarily addresses the cost of patriotism, suggesting that Henry ultimately becomes dominated by the role he has assumed. The interplay between structure and theme is evident in Shakespeare's progression through the three central plot movements: preparation for war, the combat itself, and the resolution of peace. Furthermore, scholars have commended Shakespeare's accurate depiction of Renaissance warfare, highlighting specific details such as the slaughter of prisoners and threats of plundering, sacking, and burning.

Henry V is the concluding play in a historical series that includes Richard II, Henry IV, Part One, and Henry IV, Part Two. Although these three plays offer valuable background on Henry's predecessors and his life as a prince, Henry V can be appreciated and understood on its own.

A key theme in Henry V is King Henry's journey to maturity. Henry ascends to the throne in Henry IV, Part Two following his father's death in Act V. Throughout Henry IV, Part One and Part Two, Henry, known as Prince Hal, is seen by many as a reckless young man who associates with drunks and criminals. Upon becoming king, he begins to distance himself from his past associates to reform his image, but he still needs to demonstrate his ability to be a responsible monarch. Critics are divided on whether Shakespeare's King Henry V is a just and heroic leader, "the mirror of all Christian kings" (Ch.II.6), or a Machiavellian figure who manipulates people and events to achieve his goals. (A Machiavellian is someone who believes politics is amoral and that deceitful methods are acceptable to gain and maintain power.) Regardless of whether he is seen as genuine and heroic or ruthless and ambitious, Henry successfully leads his troops to victory and unites England and France.

Similarly, in contemporary times, many individuals find themselves needing to prove that they have matured and are ready for new responsibilities, regardless of their past actions. This is a common experience for teenagers who must show they are ready for a car, a job, or eventually, to move out of their parents' house. It also applies to political leaders who must demonstrate that, despite their own questionable pasts, they are capable and qualified to represent and lead their communities, states, or countries. Like King Henry, modern political figures may be viewed either positively, as competent leaders, or negatively, as individuals who prioritize their personal ambitions over the needs of their constituents.

Henry V is a play with a global perspective, exploring not only the conflict between England and France but also the interactions among the different nationalities on the British Isles. In Act III, Scene ii, for instance, there is a conversation between the Englishman Gower, the Welshman Fluellen, the Scotsman Jamy, and the Irishman Macmorris. Critics have noted that this gathering of four soldiers on the same side symbolizes King Henry's success in uniting all of Britain against a common adversary. However, of the four, only the Englishman, Gower, speaks without an accent. The Scotsman says ''gud'' instead of ''good,'' the Welshman replaces b's with p's and has a verbal tic ("look you"), and the very emotional Irishman slurs his s's. Such stereotyping might be considered offensive by many modern readers and could be seen as a mocking portrayal of the three men, if not for the fact that Henry V himself is proud of his Welsh heritage (IV.vii. 104-05). Additionally, Gower reprimands Pistol for being rude to Captain Fluellen just because he doesn't "speak English in the native garb" (V.i.75-76). Furthermore, there is Katherine's humorously muddled English lesson in III.iv and the mess King Henry makes of French while courting Katherine in V.ii. Any student who has struggled to learn a new language can relate to the mistakes made by both Katherine and Henry as they navigate the early stages of a foreign language.

Henry V. J. Arthur Rank, 1944.
A classic rendition of Shakespeare's play, notable for Laurence Olivier's innovative approach: starting the story as a 16th-century performance at the Globe Theatre and gradually shifting to realistic historical scenes. Olivier stars as Henry. Distributed by Paramount Home Video and Home Vision Cinema. Runtime: 136 minutes.

Henry V. Cedric Messina; Dr. Jonathan Miller; BBC, 1980.
This version is part of the "Shakespeare Plays" series. Distributed by Ambrose Video Publishing, Inc. Runtime: 163 minutes.

Henry V. Samuel Goldwyn, 1989.
Unrated. A powerful and expansive retelling that emphasizes the heavy toll of war, highlighting the ego, doubts, and deceit that drive conflicts. Featuring Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, Alec McCowen, Paul Scofield, and Emma Thompson. Distributed by CBS/Fox Video, Signals, and The Video Catalog. Runtime: 138 minutes.