Echoes of Tamburlaine in Shakespeare’s Henry V have frequently been noted by scholars, but without a careful probing of their significance. It has been remarked, for instance, that in Henry’s summons to Harfleur ‘we seem to hear the voice of Tamburlaine himself’, and that the play’s opening prologue seems to conjure up a hero sprung from ‘the Marlovian sphere’. If so, what was Shakespeare trying to do? Was he merely taking advantage of Elizabethan popular taste for Conqueror plays and borrowing haphazardly from well-known prototypes? Or was he intending, rather, some comparison or contrast? In G. Wilson Knight’s view, Shakespeare was here attempting to ‘Christianize military conquest’ by offering an epic blend of Christian virtue with martial prowess; he was holding up an ideal king ‘in opposition to a Tamburlaine or to Hitler’s tyranny’. And a similar explanation has been given by Irving Ribner: ‘Henry V may well be called Shakespeare’s Christian Tamburlaine, noteworthy for his mercy rather than cruelty, and for his submission to the will of God rather than rebellion against it.’ Superficially, perhaps so, for on Henry’s part there is no overt blasphemy, no threatening to storm heaven such as we see in 2 Tamburlaine. But whether Henry is noteworthy for mercy seems to me questionable, as is likewise the genuineness of his submission to God. Is the ethic we see practiced by Henry really Christian, or is it so only by an invalid claim? After all, Tamburlaine too talked a good deal about obeying God.