In Shakespeare's King Henry IV, the people in positions of power manipulate common citizens for their own gain. In the wartime environment, basic common sense is sacrificed for the benefit and personal gain of those in power. Major Cathcart continually pursues his desperate but futile goal of promotion, to the detriment of the men of his squadron, ordinary civilians, and even the progress of the war effort. Heller provides a cynical portrait of war, in which the arbitrary nature of leadership positions is exploited, becoming the ultimate goal of the powerful instead of the good of soldiers and civilians. In Shakespeare's play Henry IV Part 1, the king is portrayed as a Machiavellian leader, while the prince's bond with the people shows a more empathetic and inclusive leadership style, although it is revealed to be part of a ploy to manipulate others to to become a better leader. Even Prince Hal, it seems, is unable to rule innocently, and in this play, Shakespeare challenges the idea of ​​a divine right to leadership. establishes the dramatic irony of Harry's character, known to no one except the audience and the prince himself. It also exposes the complexities and ambiguities of Harry's mind, showing a seemingly virtuous young man who can manipulate and lie to others to achieve his somewhat selfish, if important, goals. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Yossarian and Falstaff are both antiheroes who challenge the manipulation of ordinary people by leaders who exploit their power for selfish gain. The very nature of Catch-22 embodies the inefficiency of government and the fact that people are no longer treated as individuals. Capture is ultimately revealed to be the justification for any action taken by men in positions of power, without fear of punishment, since "they have the right to do whatever we cannot prevent them from doing." In his refusal to undertake further combat missions, Yossarian is "rocking the boat," denouncing the manipulation of leaders and the injustice of war, and regaining some semblance of independence. Therefore his actions are ultimately one of independence and courage rather than cowardice, as portrayed by the military who have no patience for people who don't do what is expected. The ridiculousness and inefficiency of the military in protecting justice and its citizens is further exemplified in the futile mission to bomb a civilian village to create a checkpoint, which will ultimately make little difference to the war effort but destroy the lives of many innocents. . The absurdity of this situation is further highlighted by the colonel's insistence on an accurate bomb pattern; a completely invented idea that only serves to highlight the absolute power of General Peckam, who enjoys exploiting his power for personal gain and enjoyment. Heller once again satirizes military logic, this time regarding a raid on a small Italian village to set up a checkpoint. The villagers pose no threat and are all civilians, but the village will be reduced to rubble which will still be cleared within a couple of days. The raid would be more effective if the bombs were scattered along the hills, away from the village, blocking more of the road; but this is not good. Colonel Cathcart, always trying to impress General Peckem, calls for a tight bombing scheme "for me, for your country, for God and for that great American, General P.P. Peckem."In Shakespeare's King Henry IV, an antiquated system of government and ideals of nobility are challenged by criticizing the effectiveness of Machiavellian-style leadership in the chaotic context of rebellion. The Commonwealth's disillusionment with the current manipulative monarchical system is made clear in Falstaff's diatribe on honor, which points out that the idea of ​​honor only benefits people in positions of power. The “honor stings me” metaphor creates a violent image that highlights the harmful implications of relying on such an outdated concept. The personification of honor, which "stings" him, creates an imagery of violence that perfectly reflects Falstaff's pragmatic view that honor often forces people to do more harm than good. Falstaff then concludes that the honor is worthless, “a mere coat of arms,” and that he wants nothing to do with it. In a play obsessed with the idea of ​​honor, this speech comes out of nowhere to question the entire set of moral values ​​on which most of the characters base their lives. One of the notable aspects of Falstaff's character is that he is able to live so outside of the normal customs and expectations of his society; this speech embodies Falstaff's independent streak. And it highlights the inadequacy of monarchy, which relies on the concept of honor to justify the morality of its actions. This is supported when it becomes apparent that everyone, even Hal, is plotting for power. Even those who are reluctant to power must scheme to become a leader. Honor is simply a disguise, created to justify the scheming actions of leaders while claiming that it benefits everyone. This is reflected very well in Yossarian's belief in the futility of war and the injustice of a country that does not care for its individuals; the wartime equivalent of honor, that war benefits everyone, is harmful to individuals. Falstaff is not simply a shameful opportunist, but a pragmatist with strangely recognizable truths. Hal's meeting with his father in the setting of the cold and austere court, in dramatic contrast to the warmth and vitality of the tavern, highlights how Machiavellian notions of power and ambition can conflict with morality. Shakespeare provides an incisive insight into conflicting notions of power; Hal's leadership ideal is a man who understands and empathizes with ordinary people, contrasted with Henry's belief that by minimizing contact with ordinary people he can maintain his carefully constructed aura of respect and mystery. Continuing the celestial motif in “Solar Majesty, when seldom before the eyes of the admired,” Henry points out that an air of mystery is essential to gain the respect a king demands. He describes Richard II's constant presence as "soon kindled and soon burned," a metaphor that serves powerfully as a reminder that Hal is the direct antithesis of the king's ideal of leadership. Initially the king acted in the collective interest as he thought he would be better able to lead England, but he gradually lost sight of his duty to his people as he became blinded by power. The audience is offered a glimpse into the king's private sphere and an insight into the tense relationship between the king and the prince, which highlights the king's insecurities about the legitimacy of his rule, which he typically keeps hidden from the rest of the court through a 'carefully constructed image that manipulates. Through his portrayal of Hal as a man who initially lost his father's respect and fell from grace, though ultimately redeemed himself through his actions, Shakespeare comments that a leader's merit and virtues are morepowerful with the idea of ​​a divine chain of being. However, even Prince Hal is not immune to the selfish intrigues and manipulations necessary to succeed at court. In his soliloquy Hal reveals his clandestine manipulation of the Commonwealth in order to improve his image and gain respect when he finally succeeds his father. «And yet here I will imitate the sun // which allows the low contagious clouds // breaking through the repulsive and horrible mists // Of the vapors that seemed to strangle him. Hal never wanted to become king and "pay the debt I never promised", but he still realizes the importance of manipulation to secure power, which highlights the unfair treatment of the Commonwealth, who are just expendable pawns.in a much bigger game. The recurring motif of the robes symbolizes leadership as something that can be thrown away or worn: links between appearance and reality. Hal's transformation from wastrel to "such a sweet hope" for England revolves around his acceptance of royal duties and contact with the common people of the tavern. In Machiavellian fashion, Hal realizes that future kings will need the support of the populace, who believe in the humanity of their leaders rather than a divine right to rule. Shakespeare explores this to emphasize the changing political dynamics of the Elizabethan era and new ideas about power and the divine right to rule. Both Hal and his father realize that they must challenge existing paradigms of leadership expectations to develop a relationship with the people who will support them as king. Hal does not reject his father's ideology or refuse to engage with him, but schemes in his own way. In humanity's never-ending power struggle, the motivations of some individuals may be unclear as they attempt to manipulate people for political advantage. What is clear, however, is that control and lasting influence are the ultimate goals in the dangerous game of politics. Exploring the tension between individual and collective self-interest, Keller critiques the purpose of war and the consequences of selfish leadership in Catch 22. Through a recurring theme of irrational logic, when considering only the actions of the public sphere, the sacrifices and individual consequences seem irrelevant if they ultimately benefit the collective. “Imagine a man his age risking what little life he has left for something as absurd as a country!” This rhetorical question from the Old Man of Nately, although it initially seems outlandish, is ultimately full of truth and criticizes the irrationality of war. His assertion of his rights as an individual highlights the ridiculous forced subjugation considering the individual's perspective, showing how both soldiers and civilians suffer from society's forced imposition of war for the "supposed" greater good. By juxtaposing the benefits and consequences of war from both a collective and individual perspective, Keller challenges society's failure to recognize individuality while still making collective decisions that will benefit society as a whole, suggesting the political implications of nationalism coexisting with democracy. Yossarian, symbolizing the pragmatic self-preserver, vows to survive at all costs, seeing the extreme fragility of life exposed by the war. “It doesn't make the slightest difference who wins the war for someone who's dead.” However, Clevinger, an idealist who cares only about victory, explores the institutional view that people give up their identity and duty to their own survival when they become soldiers, repeatedly insisting that they have "no right to put in.