Henry V is victorious leader of an English invasion of France during the Hundred Years War. (The same individual appears as Prince Hal in 1 and 2 Henry IV.) Henry may be seen in two very different ways, in accordance with the play's essential ambivalence. The play may be taken either as an epic patriotic drama or as a satirical exposure of vicious hypocrisy, depending on one's interpretation of its protagonist; many episodes support both points of view. Henry has two dramatic functions: he is a hero whose exuberant leadership carries England to triumph over a traditional foe, yet he is also a coldly Machiavellian politician who is indifferent to the human costs of war. 

Henry's stature as a model of kingship is evident from the outset. In 1.1 the Archbishop of Canterbury extols Henry as a thoughtful and devout ruler, praising his understanding of religious, military, and political matters. The king's statesmanship is demonstrated in 2.1, when he solemnly warns of the grave consequences of war. Once agreed that honor requires him to invade France, his inflammatory response to the French Ambassador displays an invincible martial spirit. Henry's rule is secure within his realm, and he easily foils the assassination plot of Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey in 2.2 and sentences the conspirators to death. The skill with which he manipulates them demonstrates his ability to handle men, while his clemency to the drunken soldier, described in 2.2.39-43, mitigates his severity. On the eve of the invasion of France, we are told, 'all the youth of England are on fire ... following the mirror of all Christian kings' (2.Chorus.l-6). Henry inspires his forces with one of the most famous patriotic speeches in English literature (3.1.1-34). His chivalric behavior stands out especially by comparison with his boastful opponents, the vain and foolish French. His anger at the mocking delivery of tennis balls from the Dauphin in 1.2 is proportionate to the foolishness of the gift. On the battlefield Henry's dignified refusal to avoid conflict in 3.6 is followed immediately by the prattle of the cocky French nobility. 

At Agincourt, in Act 4, we see the King at his most heroic. Henry shares the anxieties of the common soldiers in 4.1, and his triumphant courage and high spirits are reflected in his officers, particularly after another famous morale-raiser, the 'St Crispin's Day' speech (4.3.18-67). His weeping response to the deaths of York and Suffolk in 4.6 belongs to an ancient tradition of vignettes in which great heroes grieve for their slain companions. Displaying the decisiveness of a great general, he reacts harshly in a moment of danger, ordering death for the French prisoners in 4.6.37, but this action is associated in the next two scenes with revenge for a French atrocity. In 4.7 Henry's righteous anger and the approval of Gower and Fluellen reflect the opinion of both Shakespeare's sources and 16th-century military theory that Henry's act was praiseworthy. 

Following the battle, Henry is betrothed to Princess Katarineof France. This completes the portrait of an epic hero, who, especially if he is a king, must produce offspring to carry on his line. Henry predicts that their son shall be a great Christian hero, rescuing Constantinople from the Turks. Further, by a dramatic convention of the day, the marriage signifies a happy ending: the war has been resolved, and a bright future is promised. 

Most important to Henry's stature as an epic hero, God is on his side. His battle cry asserts, 'God for Harry . . .' (3.1.34), and the traitors acknowledge God's hand in their downfall (2.2.151, 158). Henry utters frequent prayers and assertions that earthly affairs are controlled by God. He is particularly concerned about his relations with heaven in view of his father's sins of usurpation and murder, as he reveals in his prayer for victory on the eve of Agincourt (4.1. 295-311). He refuses credit for the subsequent victory, saying, 'Praised be God, and not our strength, for it!' (4.7.89) and orders that psalms of thanksgiving be sung. 

Henry seems a proper epic hero, but a contrary view is also suggested from the first. The sincerity of Canterbury's praise in 1.1 is dubious, for the archbishop frankly wants to win the king's support against Parliament. The sentimental 2.1 and 2.3, in which Falstaff’s followers regret his illness and then mourn his passing, place the king in a moral shadow, for the knight's death is expressly attributed to Henry—'The king hath killed his heart' (2.1.88), the Hostess says, referring to Falstaff’s rejection in 2 Henry IV. For many, this act is a coldly ungrateful example of personal betrayal, however appropriate in terms of public policy; a germ of disapproval towards Henry is thus planted before he even appears. 

Henry often seems sanctimonious rather than genuinely religious. He chiefly calls on God to justify his own intentions, and he turns ostensibly religious sentiment into a casual anti-French slur in 3.6.166-167. More significantly, Henry's prayer for victory in 4.1. 295-311 may be seen as a crass material bargain with God, an invoice, as it were, for the charitable works he has paid for since becoming King. Henry's prayer follows a long passage on the difficulties of kingship, during which it did not occur to him to seek divine assistance. Had Shakespeare intended his hero as a seriously religious person, that would have been a telling and touching moment to have him turn to God. This omission is not in itself very important, but it contributes to a sense that Henry does not truly possess the Christian spirit that he projects. 

These suspicions of hypocrisy are supported by the impression that Henry is that most un-Christian figure, the ruthless militarist. The morality of Henry's war is sharply questioned. In 1.1 the play's only formal representatives of Christianity plot to foment a war to protect church property, and we must doubt the propriety of Henry's cause. In Henry's angry speech to the French Ambassadors he justifies himself as an instrument of God's will, but he brandishes ugly threats that are far from Christian in spirit. His God seems to offer an all too convenient excuse to do what he already wants to do—that is, conquer France. At this point we may recall the advice that Henry received from his dying father in 2 Henry IV— namely, to fight a foreign war to distract potential rivals at home.  

The apparent dishonesty of the archbishop's justification for war, noted above, is striking; that it is the archbishop and not Henry who makes the argument is equally telling. Henry has placed the onus on the prelate, having cautioned him, in 1.2.13-28, that the making of war is a mighty responsibility that he refuses to accept himself. This evasion recurs when the soldier Williams makes a similar point in 4.1. Henry responds with a lecture on the sinfulness of all the soldiers (4.1.150-192), cleverly deflecting moral responsibility away from himself.  

Henry's military heroism has a negative side as well, for he repeatedly reveals a nasty viciousness. His spirited reply to the French Ambassadors is also brutally violent, threatening death to 'many a thousand' and grief for those 'yet ungotten and unborn' (1.2.284, 287) as vengeance for a petty insult. His handling of the traitors in 2.2 is effective, but it also suggests a catlike delight in cruelty as Henry toys with his prey. The king's threats to Harfleur, though not carried out—the town surrenders and spares him the trouble—are extreme, promising a list of horrors including 'naked infants spitted upon pikes' (3.3.38). The references to his killing of prisoners (4.6.37,4.7.9-10, 4.7.65), while justifying the act, are all seemingly insistent on the image of the king as executioner. And lastly his cool response to Burgandy’s plea for peace in 5.2—'... you must buy that peace' (5.2.70)—is quite chilling when viewed in light of Henry's demonstrated brutality on the battlefield. 

In less political contexts Henry also seems unfeeling. As we have seen, the death of Falstaff raises this point in Act 2, and the fat knight's rejection is referred to again in 4.7.47-53, where it is associated with Alexander the Great's murder of a friend. Moreover, in 3.6.110 Henry lets Bardolph die for a petty offence in the name of discipline. The king's cold, Machiavellian nature is thus illustrated several times, contributing to the portrait, alongside that of the epic hero, of a cynical politician. 

Henry's aggressive courtship of Princess Katharine, while possessing a certain bluff charm, may also seem repellent. Not only is the king falsely humble, claiming to be a 'plain soldier', (5.2.153) but he is clearly aware that she is already properly his as a trophy of war. This scene harbors the crowning irony of the play: as Henry crows over the prospective greatness of his and Katharine's future child, we know that this son is to be the hopelessly ineffective Henry VI, who will lose the conquests Henry is presently celebrating. This is bluntly stated in the Epilogue, ending the play on a note of resignation and loss that flatly oppose the idea of Henry as an epic hero. 

Nonetheless, Henry V was undeniably a monumental figure in the eyes of Elizabethan England, universally accepted as a great king, and Shakespeare took this status as a given. The king is the major figure in the play in either interpretation, and the playwright took pains to emphasize his importance. It appears that Falstaff was removed from the play after it was written, presumably in order to avoid impinging on Henry's significance. Further, Shakespeare altered the historical reality of Henry's reign to the same purpose. The battle ofAgincourt, fought in 1415, is the central event of the play and appears to lead directly to the surrender of France. But the decisive campaign in Normandy in 1417-1419, and the importance of naval warfare in its success, is not mentioned; nor is the English alliance with Burgundy, which made Henry's final victory possible five years after Agincourt. In the battle itself the king's role is overstated by the striking omission of a crucial and well-known element, the devastation wrought by the English longbowmen. This aspect of the English victory was already legendary in Shakespeare's time, but it was not suited to the playwright's focus on Henry. 

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (1390-1447) is the youngest son of King Henry IV and the brother of King Henry V and the dukes of Clarence and Lancaster. He is an important figure in the aristocratic disputes of the Henry VI plays, presented as the chief cause of the English loss to France in the Hundred Years War. In the later works, where he is a younger man, he is a minor character. 

In the Henry VI plays Gloucester engages in a running dispute with his uncle the Bishop of Wincester. He is depicted as a valorous defender of England's honor, whereas Winchester is an opportunistic politician. Their feud rages through 3.1 of Part 1, after which it is replaced in importance by that between York and Somerset. In Part 2 Gloucester's wife, the Duchess of Gloucester, is convicted on charges of witchcraft and banished. Then, in 3.1, Gloucester himself is arrested at Bury ST. Edmunds, falsely charged with treason, and killed. Hired murderers fjee the scene of the crime at the beginning of 3.2; the Second Murderer regrets the deed because the duke's death had been marked by religious penitence. 

After Gloucester's death the country slides into civil war, and we are meant to see him as having been the guardian against such an event. In order to magnify the duke's virtues, two otherwise irrelevant anecdotes are inserted into the story. In 2.1 Gloucester demonstrates his perceptiveness by exposing the imposter Simpcox, and in 3.1 he wisely postpones a potentially explosive issue, York's appointment as regent in France, until a marginally related dispute can be resolved. These incidents demonstrate the qualities of prudence and judgment that are shortly to be denied the country by the duke's murder. 

The historical Gloucester was very different from the 'good Duke Humphrey' (2 Henry VI, 3.2.322) of these plays. Shakespeare, following his sources and the established opinion of his own time, was opposed to the political position of Gloucester's enemies and he thus depicted Humphrey as a patriot. Winchester headed a 'peace party' that advocated a withdrawal from a war virtually lost. Gloucester and the 'hawks' of the day, however, insisted that the war go on. In the History Plays Shakespeare presents the view that the French were able to drive the English from France only because of English disunity, and Gloucester's insistence on continuing the war was taken to demonstrate a patriotic faith in English arms that the 'peace party' lacked. 

Gloucester was in fact selfishly ambitious, quite willing to pursue his own interests at the expense of the country's, once the restraining influence of Henry V was gone. After Henry's death Gloucester's power was restricted by a council of nobles who recognized his headstrong selfishness. He rebelled; the dispute with Winchester at the Tower of London (1 Henry VI, 1.3) reflects Gloucester's actual coup attempt of 1425. A year later, he eloped with the wife of a close friend of the Duke of Burgandy, England's most important ally, and then recruited an army to support his new wife's claims. A duel with Burgundy was avoided only by the annulment of the marriage. This affair was among the grievances that Burgundy cited when he eventually defected from the English alliance against France. Later Gloucester scandalously married his mistress, Eleanor Cobham, who, as Duchess of Gloucester, was found guilty of treason and witchcraft. No evidence has ever been offered to support the belief that Gloucester was murdered. Although he died while in Suffolk's custody, historians generally believe that his death was natural. No question of murder arose at the time, and Suffolk's banishment only occurred some years later, for different reasons. 

John Plantagenet, Duke of Bedford (1389-1435) is the younger brother of King Henry V and uncle of Henry VI. (The same individual appears as Prince John of Lancaster, in 1 and 2 Henry IV.) In 1 Henry VI Bedford is a regent, ruling France for the infant King Henry. Bedford opens the play memorably, mourning the deceased Henry V in portentous terms: 'Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night!' (1.1.1). In Act 2 Bedford proves himself a capable warrior when Orleans is captured, but in Act 3 he is an aged invalid, confined to a chair, whom Joan La Pucelle taunts as 'good grey-beard' (3.2.50). He dies happily after witnessing the English victory at Rouen. 

The historical Bedford did die in Rouen, though at the age of 45 or 46, while the city was under English rule; the battle scene in the play is fictitious. He outlived Joan of Arc by several years. In fact, he played a major role in Joan's capture and trial, but Shakespeare transferred this important aspect of his career to York in order to lend importance to the character who was to be a leading figure in the civil wars to come.

Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter (1337-1427) is the illegitimate son of John of Gaunt and younger brother of the Bishop of Winchester. In 1 Henry VI Exeter speaks of his position as the 'special governor' (1.1.171) of the infant King Henry VI, which reflects his historical appointment, under the will of Henry V, as the new King's tutor. Although the historical Exeter died a few years thereafter, before most of the events of the play, Shakespeare kept him alive to function as a periodic commentator on the action, like a Greek Chorus, predicting disaster for the feuding English. For instance, he closes 3.1 with a grim forecast of the Wars of the Roses, hoping that his own 'days may finish ere that hapless time' (3.1.189-201). 

In Henry V, set a decade earlier, Exeter is a valued follower of his nephew the King, but he has no distinctive personality. He bears a boldly defiant message from Henry to the French King and the Dauphin in 2.4, and in 4.6 he recounts the death of the Duke of York at Agincourt, in tones reminiscent of courtly epic poetry. Thus Exeter's formulaic speeches help to maintain a distinctive tone in both plays. 

Edward, Duke of York (c. 1373-1415) (The same figure appears as the Duke of Aumerle in Richard II.) In 4.3 York asks King Henry V for permission to lead the vanguard at the battle of Agincourt, offering an instance of English valor. His brave death in combat is touchingly reported by the Duke of Exeter in 4.6.  7-32, a passage that helps to maintain the epic tone of the play's presentation of the battle.

Thomas Montague Salisbury (Montacute), Earl of (1388-1428) Historical figure and minor character in 1 Henry VI and Henry V, an English general. In 1 Henry VI Salisbury appears only in 1.4, to be killed by a cannon-ball fired from the walls of Orleans, dying in the arms of Talbot. The incident emphasizes the increasing revival of French fortunes in the Hundred Years War. In his even briefer appearance in Henry V, set 13 years earlier, Salisbury adds a note of epic valour to the victory of the badly outnumbered English at Agincourt, saying, just before the battle, If we no more meet till we meet in heaven, then, joyfully, . . . adieu!' (3.3.7-10). 

Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland (1364-1425) In 1 and 2 Henry IV, Westmoreland is a loyal adviser to King Henry IV, though he is rather faceless. In 1.1 of 1 Henry IV he brings grave news of military setbacks, introducing the unrest that besets Henry's reign. He later appears briefly at the battle of Shrewsbury. In 2 Henry IV Westmoreland is again a solid supporter of the king, defending Henry against the rebellious noblemen's claims of mistreatment. In 4.2 he seconds Prince John of Lancaster in his fraudulent offer of a truce to the rebels at Gaultree Forest, and he arrests the leaders after they have unsuspectingly sent their troops home. In 4 4 he brings news of the final defeat of the rebels, closing the history of revolts against Henry.  

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick (1382-1439) Historical figure and character in 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V. In 1 Henry VI Warwick declares for Plantagenet in 2.4, and in 3.1 he presents King Henry VI with a petition in favor of Plantagenet's restoration as Duke of York. He is present but unimportant in later scenes. In 2 Henry IV and Henry V we see Warwick as a younger man. In 2 Henry IV he is an adviser to King Henry IV. He soothes the king's melancholy and rouses him to action in 3.1, and he defends Prince Hal in 4.5, asserting that his debauchery is instructing the young man in the ways of evil, from which he will reform himself. This passage is intended to confirm the essential nobility of the future King Henry V. In Henry V Warwick speaks only one line as a member of the King's court. 

The historical Warwick was much more important in the affairs of his time than the character is in the plays. As a young man, under Henry IV, he distinguished himself in the army, serving against Glendower’s Welsh rebellion and at the battle of Shrewsbury. He was a highly successful general under Henry V and governed the occupied towns of Calais and Rouen at various times. Upon the king's death, the infant Henry VI was placed in Warwick's care. In 1Henry VI Warwick is overshadowed by York, whom Shakespeare wished to emphasize, although the earl was actually a more successful and prominent figure. When he died, Warwick was governing occupied France as regent for Henry VI. 

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, (1362-1443) who gives King Henry V a rationale for going to war with France. In 1.1 Canterbury, speaking with the Bishop of Ely, expresses his hope that a state of war—especially when supported by the large donation he has offered the King—will divert the introduction of legislation requiring a vast state seizure of church property. In 1.2 he presents the King with a long, legalistic argument in support of his hereditary claim to the French crown, and he joins others in encouraging a conquest of France. 

Richard York, Earl of Cambridge (1376-1415) Historical figure and character in Henry V, a traitor who plans to assassinate King Henry V but is foiled and condemned to death. In 2.2 Henry, who knows of the intended treason, asks Cambridge and his co-conspirators, Lord Scroop and Sir Thomas Grey, how to deal with a drunken soldier who has spoken against him. They all insist that Henry be firm against any hint of disloyalty. Then Henry reveals his knowledge of their treason and applies their own advice, denying them clemency and sentencing them to death.  Cambridge, who has no distinctive personality, welcomes death with conventional remorse, as do the others, in a passage intended to emphasize Henry's godlike majesty.  

Henry Scroop (c.1376-1415) a traitor who plans to assassinate King Henry V but fails and is sentenced to death. Scroop and his fellow conspirators, the Earl of Cambridge and Sir Thomas Grey, are asked by Henry to advise him on punishing a drunken soldier who has defamed him. They all recommend severity. Then the king reveals his knowledge of their plot and applies their own rule to them, refusing them mercy. They each thank God for preventing their success, in conventional speeches intended to emphasize Henry's own majesty. 

Henry judges Cambridge and Grey in a few words, but he chastises Scroop at great length (2.2.93-142).'Scroop's treason is deemed particularly heinous, for he has been Henry's close friend and confidant for many years. Henry goes so far as to call Scroop's offence 'another fall of man' (2.2.142). The combination of Henry's grief at his friend's betrayal and his unswerving sternness demonstrates both the humanity and the maturity of the king. 

Fluellen is a Welsh officer in the army of King Henry V. Fluellen, although hot-tempered, rather humorless, and pedantic, is open, honest, and courageous as well. He is further distinguished by a comically extravagant Welsh accent. His prickly insistence on military traditions leads him to speak sharply to Captain Macmorris in 3.2, Pistol in 3.6, Williams in 4.8, and Gower at several points. Irked by Pistol's anti-Welsh mockery, Fluellen forces him to eat a leek, the Welsh national emblem, in 5.1. The king remarks that Fluellen is 'touch'd with choler, hot as gunpowder' (4.7.185). 

Fluellen's bravery and sense of military honor mark him as a fine soldier, and his enthusiasm for Henry—especially in his humorous comparison of the king and Alexander the Great (4.7.12-55)—supports the play's presentation of the king as an epic hero. On the other hand, his fiery irrationality and suffocating self-confidence are also to be associated with the king and thus color the alternative view that Henry is a vicious militarist and the play a satirical picture of war and political power. Shakespeare intended both aspects of the play to be felt, and Fluellen, in his small way, contributes to this effect.

Jamy Character in Henry V, a Scottish officer in the army of King Henry V. Jamy appears only in the 'international' scene, 3.2, with the Welsh Fluellen, the English Gower, and the Irish Macmorris. The episode emphasizes the diversity of British subjects serving together under Henry. Although Fluellen speaks of him as a fine soldier, Jamy merely lends color, uttering commonplaces in an almost impenetrable brogue.

Alexander Court is a soldier who meets the incognito King Henry V on the eve of the battle of Agincourt. His companions, Bates and Williams, converse with the king, but Court speaks only one line.

Michael Williams is a soldier who unknowingly disputes with King Henry V, who is disguised as a common soldier, in 4.1. Henry finds that Williams doubts the virtue of the English invasion of France and asserts that, if Henry's cause is not righteous, the king must accept responsibility before God for the sin of unjustifiable killing committed by his men. Henry argues irrelevantly that the king cannot be held accountable for the soldiers' sins committed before the battle, and Williams concedes the point but doubts the king's reputed promise to fight to the death rather than be ransomed. The two men exchange gloves, to be worn on their hats as identification, and each agrees to challenge the other to a fight if he sees him after the forthcoming battle of Agincourt. However, when Henry, undisguised, sees Williams in 4.7, he does not acknowledge their prior meeting but sends the soldier on an errand. He then gives the glove that he holds to Fluellen and sends him to the same place as Williams, ensuring an encounter. When the two meet in 4.8, they prepare to fight; Henry appears and explains matters but demands a defense from Williams for having dared to abuse the monarch.  Williams makes the obvious explanation—that he could not have known the king—and Henry returns him his glove, filled with money. Williams sharply rejects Fluellen's offer of a further, gratuity.

Pistol appears in Henry IV, Part 2, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry V and is a braggart soldier and follower of Falstaff. The comical Pistol serves as Falstaff’s aide in King Henry IV's campaign against the rebels in Henry IV, Part 2. He first appears at Falstaff s dinner party at the Boar’s Heard Tavern in 2.4, and he offends everyone present with grandiose insults while asserting his chivalric honor with distorted snatches of rhetoric from Elizabethan drama and literature. This vigorous mode of address is Pistol's principal attribute in all of his appearances. To some extent. Pistol satirizes military pretensions, but his rhetoric is more pointedly a literary parody; Shakespeare exaggerates the florid language of Marlowe and his followers. Pistol is called an ancient; ancient, or ensign (standard-bearer), is a military rank, the equivalent of lieutenant, which Bardolph calls Pistol in Henry V, 2.1.38.  Pistol may actually be an ancient, or he may have simply appropriated the title, for part of his absurdity is his singular unsuitability for command.

Like the 16th-century sidearm for which he is named. Pistol is violently loud but incapable of serious damage. Also, the pistol was commonly associated, in Elizabethan humor, with the penis; much is made of this in Henry IV, Part 2 2.4.109-135.  When the Quarto edition of Henry IV, Part 2 was published in 1600, its subtitle made particular reference to Pistol, whose appeal was already recognized, and he has been among Shakespeare's most popular characters ever since. His extravagant rhetoric makes him hilarious even to audiences for whom the original parodies are meaningless.

In The Merry Wives Pistol is again in Falstaff’s entourage (apparently as a civilian), but he refuses to deliver his master's love letters, rejecting the task as unsoldierly, and Falstaff fires him. He and Nym seek revenge, and they inform Ford and Page that Falstaff has designs on their wives, thereby triggering the principal sub-plot of Ford's jealousy. Pistol is insignificant thereafter, although he does appear in the final Masque like scene, disguised as a fairy. This may simply reflect the employment of the actor who played Pistol in another role, but Pistol's appearance in character might have been taken by 16th-century audiences as a clue to the ceremonial nature of the scene, in which personality is wiped out.

In Henry V, Pistol mourns the passing of Falstaff with his new wife, the Hostess, whom he has presumably dazzled with his extravagant braggadoccio.  Once on campaign in France, he proves himself a coward in 3.2; following this episode, the Boy remarks on the villainy of Pistol, Nym, and Bardolph.  In 3.6 Pistol pleads unsuccessfully for Fluellen’s intercession on behalf of Bardolph, who has been sentenced to death for looting; in 4.1 he is one of the soldiers whom the incognito King Henry V encounters the night before the battle of Agincourt, though he has little to say, merely making a nasty remark about Fluellen.

In 4.4 Pistol captures a French Soldier and demands ransom of him, threatening to kill him otherwise. Since he speaks no French and the soldier no English, the scene is comical, but Pistol is unquestionably an unpleasant character, vicious and overbearing.The Boy acts as interpreter, saving the soldier's life, and he remarks afterwards of Pistol, 'I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart' (4.4.69-70).  Pistol is last seen in 5.1, where Fluellen forces him to eat a leek. The last survivor of FalstafFs followers, Pistol in Henry V serves to show that the anarchic element represented by Falstaff is finally rendered both harmless and completely disreputable. On the other hand. Pistol may also be seen as a symbolic parallel to King Henry's militarism: he satirizes notions of military honor, while most of the combat actually presented involves Pistol at his most degenerate. Most strikingly, his threat to kill his prisoner in 4.4 foreshadows Henry's own order that 'every soldier kill his prisoner' (4.6.37).

Nym appears in The Merry Wives of Windsor and Henry V and is a follower of Falstaff. In The Merry Wives Nym is a minor figure, being dismissed by his master early in the play for refusing to deliver love letters. But in three brief scenes he is memorably established as an eccentric character, using the word 'humour' in almost every speech, applying it in every imaginable way, to the point where it ceases to have meaning. This word was a fashionable and widely parodied term in late 16th-century London (see ‘Comedy of Humours’; in fact, a character in a play of 1596, George Chapman’s The Blinding Beggar of Alexandria, had the same verbal habit and clearly seems to have influenced Shakespeare's creation of Nym.

Bardolph is a Character in 1 and 2 Henry IV, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry V, a follower of Falstaff. In 1 Henry IV Bardolph participates in the highway robbery of 2.2, and in 2 Henry IV he assists the fat knight in his illicit recruiting efforts in 3.2, collecting bribes from men who wish to avoid service. When Falstaff is rejected by Prince Hal in 5.5, Bardolph goes to prison with him. In The Merry Wives Bardolph is only a minor figure who occasionally delivers messages to Falstaff. In Henry V he is a soldier in the army of King Henry V. In 2.1 he defuses the feud between Pistol and Nym. In 3.2.28-57 the Boy convincingly describes him as a coward and thief. In 3.6 we learn that Bardolph is to be executed for having stolen a sacramental vessel from a French church, and in 4.4 the Boy reports that Bardolph has indeed been hung.  

Despite his swaggering, he has little distinctive personality. His peacemaking role in Henry V ironically counters King Henry V's bellicosity in an anti-war reading of the play, but if one interprets Henry as a epic hero, then Bardolph remains a comic soldier, a petty villain whose end helps to demonstrate the King's dedication to justice. Bardolph's most prominent characteristic is his diseased facial complexion, florid and fiery, 'all bubukles, and whelks, and knobs, and Hames o' fire' (Henry V, 3.6.105-106). He is teased mercilessly about his skin disorder by Falstaff and other characters, finding himself compared to lamps, torches, blushing maids, red wine, red petticoats, hellfire, and even 'Lucifer's privy kitchen' (2 Henry IV, 2.4.330).  

In Henry V he accompanies his late master's cronies to France as part of King Henry V’s army. In 3.2.28-57 he elicits our sympathy by regretting his association with such cowardly thieves. At the battle of Agincourt he acts as an interpreter between Pistol and the captive French Solider in 4.4, and after this sorry episode he again bemoans his continued connection with Pistol; he also reveals that Bardolph and Nym have been hung. In this speech (4.4.69-80) he remarks that only he and other boys guard the English baggage train, which would thus make a good target for the French, if only they knew the situation. With this observation the Boy grimly heralds his own death, for in 4.7.5 Gower reports the French massacre of all these youngsters.

French King (Charles VI of France, 1368-1422) is the opponent of King Henry V. The French King plays an inconsequential role. He presents a brief history of earlier English conquests in France in 2.4.48-64; he encourages his noblemen before the battle of Agincourt in 3.5; and in 5.2 he accepts the terms of the treaty of Troyes, surrendering to Henry the inheritance of his crown, as well as the hand of his daughter, Princess Katharine. The ineffectual French King complements another model of French inadequacy, the caricature of foolish bravado that is his son the Dauphin. 

This perfunctory portrait omits the most important fact about the historical Charles VI: he was intermittently insane. His illness—later to surface in his grandson King Henry VI of England—was known to Shakespeare, but the playwright, who had not touched on madness in the Henry VI plays either, may have disliked pointing out defects in the ancestral line of his own ruler. Queen Elizabeth. Also, focusing on Henry V's greatness, he probably did not wish to elaborate on France's weakness. For in failing to mention Charles' lunacy, Shakespeare also omitted its most important consequence—a state of virtual civil war in France that made the English conquest much easier. 

Philip, Duke of Burgundy (1396-1467) is an ally of the English in the Hundred Years War who defects to the side of France. Early in 1 Henry VI Burgundy assists the English at Orleans and Rouen; then in 3.3 Joan La Pucelle persuades him to align himself with France. In Henry V, set some years earlier, a younger Burgundy encourages Henry V and the French King to make peace in 5.2.23-67. He speaks at length on the horrors of war, in a passage that contributes much to the play's modern reception as an anti-war work. Burgundy then attends the French King in the final negotiations of the treaty of Troyes, which occur off stage while Henry courts Katharine. Upon returning, Burgundy jests lewdly with Henry about his forthcoming marriage.

Two characters that deliver the Dauphin's message to King Henry in 1.1 with the Tennis Balls.  The message sent to covey that the king should reserve himself to more effeminate pastimes more suited to his character.  Instead it is the final insult that launches the king to invade Harfleur.

Hostess Character in 1 and 2 Henry IV and Henry V, the proprietress of the Boar’s Head Tavern in Eastcheap. The Hostess, a good-hearted woman whose affection for Falstaff withstands his exploitation of her purse, is comically loquacious. Aspiring to conversational brilliance, she displays a considerable vocabulary, but she unfortunately misplaces one word for another, in an ancient comedy routine, going so far, in a state of great excitement, as to confuse 'honeyseed' and 'honeysuckle' for 'homicide' and 'homicidal' (2 Henry IV, 2.1.49-51). She is a denizen of the quasicriminal underworld of London (she associates with highwaymen and harlots and is arrested when a murder is said to have occurred in her tavern), but no crimes are explicitly attributed to her. Indeed, her amiable and forgiving nature contains no hint of villainy.  

The Hostess' role in 1 Henry IV is very minor. In 2.4 she is an amused spectator of the mock drama played by Prince Hal and Falstaff, and in 3.3 she disputes with Falstaff over his debt to her. He mocks her, and his insults spark her honest indgination. 

In 2 Henry IV the Hostess is a somewhat more substantial character. She escalates her dispute with Falstaff by summoning two officers, Fang and Snare, to arrest the fat knight for debt. She elaborates on her complaint, remembering at length (2.1.83-101) that he had promised to marry her in order to borrow money. However, Falstaff not only talks her into calling off her legal action but also into lending him more money. She weeps, but she agrees, showing the gullibility and kindness that mark her relationship with him. In 2.4, when Falstaff is called to join the armies assembling to oppose the rebels against Henry IV, the Hostess displays her sentimental attachment to him, weeping and saying, 'Well, fare thee well. I have known thee these twenty-nine years, come peascodtime, but an honester and true-hearted man—Well, fare thee well' (2.4.379-382). Even the Hostess' credulousness does not extend to a belief in Falstaff’s honesty; she is merely expressing her love with conventional sayings that come first to her mind. The Hostess' tolerance and affection for Falstaff are important in Shakespeare's presentation of the fat rogue as an humane, though flawed, person. It comes as a shock when the Hostess and her friend Dolltearsheet are arrested in 5.4, in a demonstration of the rigorous law enforcement of the new regime, anticipating Prince Hal's rejection of Falstaff in 5.5. In Henry V the Hostess (now married to Pistol) has a small but striking role, as she describes her attendance at Falstaff’s death-bed, in a speech (2.3.9-27) that is one of the masterpieces of English comic literature, being simultaneously extremely funny, even bawdy, and touchingly tender. Her efforts to comfort a dying and conscience-stricken sinner reflect Shakespeare's own forgiving humanity. 

Chorus is an allegorical figure in Henry V, speaker of the Prologue(where he is identified in a, stage direction as the Prologue), an introduction to each act, and the Epilogue. The Chorus apologizes for the inadequacy of the theatre to present historical events in a sufficiently grand manner, and he therefore offers a supplementary account of the events dramatized. He uses a stylized and artificial diction that is in marked contrast with the realism of the dramatic scenes, and the Chorus' grand rhetoric contributes to the epic quality so important to the play. However, if Henry V is considered as an acid satire on politics, then the Chorus' epic voice has an ironic quality, sardonically at odds with the cynical waging of an unnecessary war by an hypocritically religious King. In the Epilogue—a formally correct Sonnet—the Chorus again remarks on the inadequacy of historical drama, and he praises the accomplishments of Henry V anew. Then he goes on to observe that all of Henry's gains in France were almost immediately lost under Henry VI, closing with a reference to Shakespeare's well-known Henry VI plays, which depict this loss.