Shakespeares Henry the Fifth :: William Shakespeare Plays Literature Essays

Never, in all the years since the introduction of the art known as theatre, have the dramatic works of a single person achieved the popularity and cultural transcendency that is so characteristic of the plays by William Shakespeare. The monumental popularity that has led to countless productions of all his plays, on stage and, more recently, on film, nearly all has led to a collection of interpretations on Shakespeare’s work by men and women that have been influenced by almost half a millennia of tumultuous history. Perhaps the most influential event that can affect all aspects of society, including the artistic community, is war. William Shakespeare’s Henry V, itself written in a war-plagued time of English history, with the Earl Of Essex’s impending invasion of Ireland (Maus, 717), revolves around an earlier event of war, the legendary victory of England’s warrior-king, Henry V, over the French forces in the Battle of Agincourt. The play, written in a time of war, about a time of war, has seen many interpretations, one of the more popular of which Laurence Olivier’s 1944 film adaptation was written at the height of World War II. A new production is now underway, continuing with theme of real world events influencing the presentation of the play, the most notable feature being the novel setting of the play: Vietnam, in the late 1960’s. As opposed to many previous productions of the play, which preserved the 15th century time setting, this production is set in the 1960’s, with a-play-within-a-play motif throughout the performance, as American soldiers perform the play in front of other American soldiers as part of some recreational pause from the madness of war, which is in turn played in front of the true, contemporary audience. The presentation of Henry V in such a unique manner allows deeper analysis of the war-time motivations of the characters in the play, the real audience being fully aware of any comparisons between the English campaign and the American campaign, made more poignant by the constant presence of the pseudo-audience, men involved directly in the latter. We can also observ e different aspects of the play’s protagonist, King Henry, that would be absent in more traditional presentations of Henry V. Some justification for this unorthodox method of presenting a Shakespearean play seems to be in order. Although immensely rich in his language and showing painstaking attention to his characters, Shakespeare’s stage direction is decidedly spartan, usually only a simple indication of when a character enters and exits.

Germany in Ww Essay

History Department Year 10 World War 1 – World War 2 Written Research Assignment The weaknesses of Germany’s opponents were equally responsible for Hitler’s military successes as his Blitzkrieg tactics between 1939-1941. The Blitzkrieg tactics were very effective during the Second World War but this was also partly due to the fact that the Allied generals and tacticians were so incompetent. The fact that Blitzkrieg and the incompetency of opposition generals were equally responsible for Hitler’s military successes is best shown in his campaigns in Poland, France and Russia. In these conflicts the largest deciding factors were the Blitzkrieg tactics and the incompetency of the opposition generals. Blitzkrieg won the day in all of these conflicts but, as was shown in the later years of the war, once the Allies had competent generals the Blitzkrieg tactics were defeated. One of Hitler’s largest military successes between 1939 and 1941 was the campaign in Poland. The Campaign in Poland was an immensely easy victory for the Germany War machine. The Polish Army was large and well trained, but it was immensely outdated. They still had a large amount of cavalry regiments in there army which were completely destroyed by German tanks. They had very few tanks of their own and those that they did have were nothing compared to the strength of the German Panzers. They had quite a large well trained infantry but many of them still used swords and their guns were completely outclassed by the German assault rifles. They also had a small and rather average air force but this was made obsolete by the larger and better German air force. Also Poland is a flat country and it had few natural obstacles making it ‘ideal tank country’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ]and therefore the perfect target for Blitzkrieg. As well as the actual Polish army, the tactics and generals of the Polish were also very outdated. When the time came for battle The Polish Generals arranged their army into the Standard and age old line formation. When the Armies met the Blitzkrieg tactics worked perfectly due to this arrangement and the Polish were defeated with ease. As shown here the Blitzkrieg tactics and fail Polish generals result were equally responsible for Germany’s success. As Peter Crisp said in his book, Blitzkrieg, ‘Geographically and strategically, Poland was the perfect target for a Blitzkrieg attack. ’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ] The Blitzkrieg tactics were responsible for the actual win but if Poland had had more competent generals they had made better defences for the Blitzkrieg style of attack and had ditched the cavalry and upgraded and enlarged their tank and air forces they would have been able to repel the Germans and their Blitzkrieg. That is why the Blitzkrieg tactics and weak opponents were equally responsible for Hitler’s military success. Another of Hitler’s early military success was his campaign in France, also known as operation Sicklecut. This is due to the way the main force was supposed to punch through a hole in French defences and cut around like the cut of a sickle to attack the French forces from the rear. The main French forces were supposed to be distracted be a diversionary German force. This plan worked perfectly and the main German for Force smashed into the rear of the French force where together they pushed the French and supporting British armies into the coast in a thorough defeat. The Germans then pushed through to Paris where after a mass evacuation of the crumbling French forces Germany took control of Paris. This is a great example of the fact that Hitler’s military success was due equally due to the Blitzkrieg tactics as the incompetency of his opposition. In the campaign in France the Blitzkrieg tactics were very effective, not just beating the French army but spreading panic throughout the country and forcing the chain of command to crumble, but it could have and would have been defeated if it wasn’t for the useless generals of the French army. The Panic caused by the Blitzkrieg tactics was a very effective weapon for the Germans, one unknown French soldier even recounted in his diaries that his saw own comrades running ‘with their hands over their heads not bothering to even return fire’ [ (Trueman, 2000) ]. The French had the capabilities to defeat the Germans and their Blitzkrieg tactics but they stuffed it up. Most of the Generals were veterans of the First World War and they were using the same tactics as they did then. Towards the end of his life Marshal Petain, the commander-in-chief of the French armies, said ‘After the war of 1914-1919, it was finished for me. My military mind was closed. When I saw the introduction of other tools and other methods I must say they didn’t interest me,’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ] showing exactly the attitude of the French military leadership at the start of the War. This allowed the Germans to defeat them with ease. They believed that the Germans would use the same plan that they used in the First World War and easily were defeated by the superior tactics of the Germans and when the Germans continued their advance through France and were bearing upon Paris in a matter of the days the French Leadership started to breakdown. If the French generals had been more competent they could have used their own tanks and air force more effectively and then the Germans would have been defeated and the French would have been successful. The Campaign in Russia, also known as Operation Barbarossa, named after the twelfth century Prussian King who was prophesied to rise from his grave and restore Germany to world power, is another great example of the fact that Hitler’s military successes were equally due to his Blitzkrieg tactics and the ineptitude of his opposition. The Campaign in Russia started out as what seemed to be a complete annihilation. ’ When Operation Barbarossa opened, on 22 June 1941, the Soviets were taken completely by surprise. ’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ] The German army was rapidly advancing and defeating the Red Army with ease. The Red Army had huge numbers of men and many tanks and aircraft but most of these tanks were obsolete and the Air force was built mainly for tactical air support, not for air superiority. The main problem for the Red Army was the leader of Russia, Josef Stalin. After Stalin and his brutal Communist regime’s murder of all of the senior officers for political reasons and the strict constrictions placed on the remaining young and inexperienced officers which meant there was no room innovation during the heat of battle leaving the Red Army incredibly handicapped. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa ‘Stalin refused to believe the invasion was really happening. He thought the attack was a provocation by a German commander acting independently of Hitler, and ordered his frontline soldiers not to fire back’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ]. The fact that Hitler’s military success required both a weakness of Hitler’s opposition and the Blitzkrieg tactics is best shown in the next part of the campaign in Russia. Once Stalin finally allowed his officers some flexibility and the winter allowed them to build many more of their new T-34 model tanks the Russians started to come back. After a period of intense fighting, particularly around Stalingrad, the Germans were defeated and forced to retreat and as General Mellenthin of the Germans wrote ‘with the failure of our supreme effort, the strategic initiative passed to the Russians. ’ [ (Crisp, 1990) ] This shows how necessary the weakness of Hitler’s enemies for his military success due to the fact that the second one of his enemies obtained good weapons, like the T-34, and successful leaders the Germans Blitzkrieg tactics were neutralised and they were defeated. The Blitzkrieg tactics and the weakness of Hitler’s opposition were equally responsible for Hitler’s military success between 1939 and 1941 during the Second World War. Without the Blitzkrieg tactics the German Army simply would not have been able to defeat the Allied forces and without weaknesses of Germany’s opposition the Blitzkrieg tactics would have been defeated by the superior enemy forces. The areas of the war which best show this are the campaigns in Poland, France and Russia. In all of these operations Blitzkrieg and inferior opposition played a major part. This is why the Blitzkrieg tactics and weak opposition were equally responsible for Hitler’s Military success. Bibliography Crisp, P. (1990). Blitzkrieg. Wayland publishing. A very good source. Lots of good information and quotes on all necessary areas. Deighton, L. (1979). Blitzkrieg. Pluriform Publishing. An alright source. Some good info but no quotes Trueman, C. (2000). Blitzkrieg. Retrieved May 2010, from History Learning Site: http://www. historylearningsite. co. uk/blitzkrieg. htm A good source. Not a lot of information but some good quotes Unknown Author/Date. Barbarossa. Retrieved May 2010, from World War 2 Database: http://worldwar2database. com/html/barbarossa. htm A good source. Not many quotes but a good source of info Unknown Author/Date. France. Retrieved May 2010, from World War 2 Database: http://worldwar2database. com/html/france_40. htm A good source. Not many quotes but a good source of info Unknown Author/Date. Blitzkrieg. Retrieved May 2010, from World War 2 Database: http://www. 2worldwar2. com/blitzkrieg. htm A alright source. Not many quotes and an alright source of info W

Edward and Sarah Bishop of the Salem Witch Trials

Edward Bishop and Sarah Bishop were tavern keepers that were arrested, examined, and imprisoned as part of the Salem witch trials of 1692. At the time, Edward was about 44 years old and Sarah Wildes Bishop was about 41 years old. There were three or four Edward Bishops living in the area at that time. This Edward Bishop seems to be the one who was born on April 23, 1648.  However, Sarah Bishops year of birth is not known. Note: Bishop is sometimes spelled Bushop or Besop in the records. Edward is sometimes identified as Edward Bishop Jr. Sarah Wildes Bishop was the stepdaughter of Sarah Averill Wildes who was named as a witch by Deliverance Hobbs and executed on July 19, 1692. Bridget Bishop is usually credited with running a tavern that was something of a town scandal, but it was more likely Sarah and Edward Bishop who ran it out of their home. The Background of Edward and Sarah Edward Bishop may have been the son of Edward Bishop, the husband of Bridget Bishop. Sarah and Edward Bishop were the  parents of twelve children. At the time of the Salem witch trials, an older Edward Bishop also lived in Salem. He and his wife Hannah signed a petition protesting the accusations against Rebecca Nurse.  This Edward Bishop seems to have been the father of the Edward Bishop married to Bridget Bishop, and thus the grandfather of the Edward Bishop married to Sarah Wildes Bishop. Victims of the Salem Witch Trials Edward Bishop and Sarah Bishop were arrested on April 21 of 1692 with Sarahs stepmother Sarah Wildes, William and Deliverance Hobbs, Nehemiah Abbott Jr., Mary Easty, Mary Black and Mary English. Edward and Sarah Bishop were examined on April 22 by magistrates Jonathan Corwin and John Hathorne, on the same day as Sarah Wildes, Mary Easty, Nehemiah Abbott Jr., William and Deliverance Hobbs, Mary Black, and Mary English. Among those who testified against Sarah Bishop was the Rev. John Hale of Beverly. He outlined accusations from a neighbor of the Bishops that she did entertain people in her house at unseasonable hours in the night to keep drinking and playing at shovel-board whereby discord did arise in other families and young people were in danger to be corrupted. The neighbor, Christian Trask, wife of John Trask, had attempted to reprove Sarah Bishop but received no satisfaction from her about it.  Hale stated that Edward Bishops would have been a house if great profaneness and iniquity if the behavior had not been stopped. Edward and Sarah Bishop were found to have committed witchcraft against Ann Putnam Jr., Mercy Lewis, and Abigail Williams. Elizabeth Balch, wife of Benjamin Balch Jr., and her sister, Abigail Walden, also testified against Sarah Bishop, claiming they heard Edward accuse Elizabeth of entertaining Satan at night. Edward and Sarah were jailed in Salem and then in Boston, and their property was seized. They escaped from the Boston jail for a short time. After the Trials After their trial their son, Samuel Bishop recovered their property. In a 1710 affidavit attempting to gain recompense for the damages theyd suffered and to clear their names, Edward Bishop said they were prisnors for thirtiey seven wekes and required to pay ten shillings pur weeake for our bord plus five pounds. The son of Sarah and Edward Bishop Jr., Edward Bishop III, married Susannah Putnam, part of the family who had leveled many of the accusations of witchcraft in 1692. In 1975 David Greene suggested that the Edward Bishop accused — with his wife Sarah — was not related to Bridget Bishop and her husband, Edward Bishop the sawyer, but was the son of another Edward Bishop in town.