Main > The Round Table

Why Sir Lancelot and not Sir Galahad? on AA

(1/4) > >>

Sir Wolf:
hmmmmmmmmmmm whatya think?

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=133773

Sir William:
I think Glaukos hit the nail on the head- most of us can identify w/Lancelot (or in my case, just want to have his great prowess) because he's flawed and human, like us. Galahad is more like an angel than a man- pure, unsullied, unassailable, really.

If you look at mythology as a whole, the most revered hero is the flawed hero- possessed of great power/ability but also the traits that even the lowest of the low can identify with.  Their story is almost always one of tragedy- nothing ever really goes right for the hero but he still perseveres.

I aspire to such tenacity...but I do not always win.

Sir James A:
Lancelot is almost always referred to as King Arthur's (in my experience), and it is rare to even see Galahad mentioned. Knights of the Round for SNES had Arthur, Lancelot and Percival - but no Galahad. Almost anything from Hollywood with have Arthur & Lancelot as stars (Excalibur, First Knight) and Galahad is, at best, a passing character seen during a meal, or often not even mentioned. I think a large majority of people, particularly outside the medieval history / rennfest group, form their opinions based on that. In the end, Arthur dies, Lancelot gets the kingdom and the queen - and everyone loves a winner, right?

I would wager a good portion of the people who respond to the question of "Who is the most chivalrous knight of the round table?" would say "Gala-who?" if Galahad was mentioned.

Sir Edward:

Sadly, its all true. I think Galahad was overlooked initially because Lancelot makes for a more compelling story, with his combination of prowess and human flaws. Then a whole generation of Hollywood fans grew up thinking that was all there was to the Arthurian legends. I think if a movie came out that extolled Galahad's traits, and somehow it became hugely popular (like Star Wars for instance), then people's understanding of it would change. But short of that, he's relegated to a little side-note left for serious Arthurian fans.

That really is a great thread going on over there.

Sir William:
I doubt it would though...the young man, or boy according to Malory was but 15 when he took up arms, all in white to show he was unblooded as of then and he proceeded to unseat every knight he came across.  I mean, the action sequences would be top notch given the advances in CGI but this man has no human qualities.  He is pious (holier than thou a cynic would say), unsullied (virgin), a most puissant knight with no flaws and no vices.

Even Superman has human qualities, if only as his alter ego Clark Kent but still...Galahad does not suffer and that would be the undoing of any movie they made about him should they decide to stay true.  If they made him a wining and wenching type of guy like Gawaine, well, he'd be very popular, but a farce to the likes of us who know better.  Or have read otherwise, I should say.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page