The picture of war we get from Shakespeare's King John isn't all that different from what we find in a lot of other works of literature. We hear a lot about the horror of war (especially in Act 2, Scene 1). But interestingly enough, even though the characters in the play all seem aware of the horrors of war, many of them seem eager to rush into war at the slightest opportunity.
For example, Austria and King Philip almost destroy Angers without waiting for Châtillon to report back from King John; it's only when Constance wisely reminds them that it would be a senseless act of violence for them to do this that they give it up. It's sort of as if none of these characters really understands the horrors of war until they hit close to home—like when the Bastard reflects on the civil war that is tearing England apart in Act IV. It's easy to be all gung-ho about war when it's happening to other people far away.
Moral issues aside, King John also shows us that chance plays a huge role in the outcome of warfare. This makes it impossible for any single commander to take full responsibility for how things turn out because the events that determine winners and losers are so random.
Questions About Warfare
- Would it be possible to describe Shakespeare's King John as an anti-war play?
- Is there any character in the play who could be described as a pacifist?
- Do the women characters have a different outlook on warfare than the men?
- Why do you think Shakespeare portrays both armies getting wiped out by the sea? What does all this suggest about the role of chance when it comes to the outcome of warfare?
Chew on This
Because it portrays war as something necessary to resist foreign invaders, King John is not an anti-war play.
King John portrays war as something that achieves little and as usually inconclusive.