Part one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, though a history of the battle between England and France over the town of Orleans, was underwhelming. A lot happened in the first instalment of the Henry VI trilogy however it all felt as if it had little meaning because every single character felt indistinguishable and undeveloped, completely unlike works of Shakespeare I have previously read. I do however recognise this could be due to accumulation of three reasons: Henry VI being regarded as Shakespeare’s first play therefore his craft not yet being perfected, it being a first part therefore the characters still having time to develop, and that it is really meant to be performed and not read. For that I can forgive it. There were merits too however, where you begin to see how Shakespeare’s craft will flourish, especially in the speech and dynamic between Lord Talbot and his son, though the only notable relationship among all the monotonous lords and dukes of England was given far too little stage time. It also explored the war from many perspectives aside from the English, Shakespeare granting an equal amount of time to Henry’s court and the French court of Charles. Joan of Arc was granted a leading, defiant and heroic role that could be celebrated by those with sympathies toward the French, as opposed to her importance in the battle of Orleans being brushed over due to gender, as many accounts from the time will have likely done. Henry VI pt 1 showed Shakespeare’s potential, though is also evidence that the bard had a long way to go in mastering his craft.