In Shakespeare's Henry IV, are the characters Hotspur and Falstaff two sides of the same coin?

While Falstaff and Hotspur share certain traits, such as an inflated sense of self, that might make them appear to be "two sides of the same coin," they are in fact antitheses of each other in fundamental ways. Hotspur is primarily defined in terms of battlefield valor and the pursuit of honor; indeed, King Henry refers to him as the "theme of Honor's tongue" (I.i.). In contrast, Falstaff is cowardly and totally dishonest and disreputable,...

While Falstaff and Hotspur share certain traits, such as an inflated sense of self, that might make them appear to be "two sides of the same coin," they are in fact antitheses of each other in fundamental ways. Hotspur is primarily defined in terms of battlefield valor and the pursuit of honor; indeed, King Henry refers to him as the "theme of Honor's tongue" (I.i.). In contrast, Falstaff is cowardly and totally dishonest and disreputable, lying at every opportunity for his own benefit. In a brief appraisal, it might be easy to perceive Hotspur as the more likable character because he is a man of his word and responds predictably in every situation. Yet it is precisely his myopic obsession with honor that causes his death; in the final scenes of the play, before the battle at Shrewsbury, Hotspur falls for Worcester's manipulations in his impetuous zeal to defend his honor and prove himself in battle. His rashness makes it difficult to admire his ambitions because he never sees the forest for the trees; his singular focus on one ideal limits his self-awareness and his vision of human nature. In direct opposition, Falstaff's constant deceit and selfish agendas stem from a broader, more worldly understanding of human weakness and how to capitalize on it for his own gain. In this sense, Falstaff is an accessible character because his perceptiveness enables him to accurately gauge why others act a certain way and to determine how he can benefit. Before the final battle, Falstaff derides honor -- and by association, Hotspur -- because it serves no useful purpose: "Honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honor set to a leg? no. Or an arm? no. Or take away the grief of a wound? No....Honor is a mere scutcheon." (Act 5, sc.1) By dismissing honor, Falstaff underscores the impracticality of living solely according to ideals and foreshadows Hotspur's demise in his blind quest for honor.