Compare and contrast Hal and Hotspur. Note their similarities and differences.

However, Hotspur does seem to be a preferable leader to Hal. Further on in the play, Prince Hal partakes in a highway robbery. Falstaff orchestrates and carries out a robbery at Gad's Hill, and then Hal proceeds to rob Falstaff following this. This incident fails to blemish Hal's character. It does, however, show his reckless and genuinely base behaviour. He recognises this when he proclaims that 'I have sounded the very base-string of humility" (2.4.5-6).

Hal undergoes a dramatic change in Act three scene two. During this difficult interview with his father, he shows himself to be contrite in admitting his faults. The King compares Hal with Hotspur, whom he claims has more right to rule the country than Hal because of his many 'high deeds' (3.2.107) in battle. This would have motivated Hal to reform since he would not take kindly to this insult. Hal promises to reform and to "be more myself" (3.2.93), indicating his previous persona was a false façade masking the true Hal. In the sense that both Hal and Hotspur will strive to pursue their goals. In contrast to the fact that Hotspur's temper would deem him an unsuitable ruler, Hal possesses admirable diplomacy. For instance, in this Act he performed a diplomatic concealment of his true intentions regarding the Gad's Hill incident, and an awareness of the public 'effect' he has to achieve as a responsible Prince of Wales following the interview with his father.

Further on in the play, we learn that Hotspur is very keen to fight. For instance, the first line in Act four scene three is by Hotspur that "We'll fight him (Hal) tonight". This trait is not desirable in a king. In contrast, in Act five scene one, Hal offers to fight Hotspur in single combat. This brave and valiant statement was not said in earnest for a fight, but a noble gesture rather than risking the lives of thousands of men. This shows that Hal has matured. In contrast to Hal's character at the start of the play, he is very much more sensible. The audience see Hal here as a skilled politician, like his father, offering a sensible solution to the grave problem of civil war that plagued the country.

To conclude, at the start of the play, I would have deemed Hal to be a most unsuitable King, and Hotspur as one to whom the title would be most suited. However, during the course of the play, Shakespeare constructs a complex character development for both Hal and Hotspur. At the end of the play, after Hal's triumphant reformation, I would argue that he is by far a more appropriate leader. He possesses all the necessary qualities, diplomacy, courage and honour to name but a few. Hotspur is impulsive, albeit brave, undiplomatic and tactless. To have Hal fighting with him instead of in opposition to him only strengthens Henry's position regarding his previously uncertain title to the throne.