what about it?
In Henry IV, Part 1 and Henry IV, Part 2, Prince Harry, or "Hal", was a happy-go-lucky, fun-loving layabout who wasted away his time as a prince fooling around, hanging out with his loutish friend Sir John Falstaff, and otherwise being the exact picture of an irresponsible prince who didn't know what the hell he was doing. But there was character development! Late in the first play, Hal mans up and serves in the army fighting against the rebellion of Sir Henry Percy. He continues to take more and more responsibility over the course of the second play, until he finally becomes king. By Henry V, he has become an inspiring leader of men and an able general, responsible for some of the most memorable lines in any of Shakespeare's works (the St. Crispin's Day speech). Hal leads his army to victory over the Valois at Agincourt, and ultimately is crowned king not only of England but of France.
Shakespeare's depiction of Henry as having a 'riotous youth' doesn't necessarily square that well with the king's historical biography. That doesn't make it any less believable or effective as a story trope. If you're complaining that BioWare made Alistair's character development into a more or less competent monarch unrealistic and unbelievable, you are applying that same criticism to the greatest writer in the history of the English language for a device he employed in some of his best plays.
What about Alistair's conduct, precisely, makes it so hard to believe that he would be a good king, anyway?





Retour en haut





