Why Sir Lancelot and not Sir Galahad? on AA

[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.

[Sir Wolf]

see i have always liked everyone BUT Lancelot. he has never appealed to me. dunno why, maybe cause he was first rumored to be french (HEHEHEHE) i have always looked after other knights just because they were not him.

[Sir Edward]

Yeah, I agree. Lancelot is usually arrogant, reckless, and of course there's his betrayal. The fact that he's nearly unbeatable makes him a great asset, but not directly someone to be admired or exemplified. I just think his popularity is mostly due to the attention that Hollywood gives him, and Hollywood's love affair with him comes from his flaws making for a juicy story, and not much else.

[Sir William]

Well, T.H. White put a different spin on Lancelot- he had all of the prowess that Malory gave him, but he is also ugly as sin.  I mean the description made me think of simian-like features, thick lips, wide set eyes- but also well-muscled and incredibly gifted in the arts of war.  I kind of liked that interpretation because it made him more human...most people have experienced ridicule at some point in their lives, he dealt with it daily, even amongst his peers (though very few would poke fun at him in earshot or eyesight).

The betrayal...some could argue that the original betrayal was perpetrated by Lancelot and Guinevere, upon themselves as they should not have fallen in love, or rather, that they should have professed their love for one another before Arthur married Guinevere.  I may be getting my stories mixed up now that I think of it.

Did they in fact meet and fall in love before she ever made it to the wedding?  I recall that being the case...but maybe that was in Excalibur or Avalon.  I've seen and read too many Arthurian stories it seems.  lol

[Sir Wolf]

ya there are so many versions and stories they all sorta fall together ater a while

[Sir James A]

Did they in fact meet and fall in love before she ever made it to the wedding?  I recall that being the case...but maybe that was in Excalibur or Avalon.  I've seen and read too many Arthurian stories it seems.  lol

Excalibur, I believe. Also First Knight. The two that I've seen/heard most frequently are that Lancelot is sent along with a group to escort Guinevere to Camelot for the wedding, or that Lancelot is within convenient range when Guinevere's carriage is en route to Camelot. I can't think of any versions off the top of my head in which they meet after she is married.

[Thorsteinn]

I posed what I did on that discussion as a kind of synopsis of what one should be. That neither Galahad not lancelot were who to follow but perhaps a blending of the two. The relevant bit for me was:

"It was as if a flicker of Tomanâk was inextricably bound up with Bahzell's soul, an indivisible part of him, muted and filtered through the hradani into something mere mortals could trust and follow. Someone in whom they could see a standard to which they might actually aspire, a mirror and an inspiration which shared their own mortality. And that, Vaijon realized suddenly, was what truly made a champion. The dauntless will and stubborn determination which stopped short of his own shallow arrogance—which was almost humble in admitting its limitations yet had the tempered-steel courage of its convictions within those limitations—and the strength to endure an intimacy with the power of godhood few mortals could even imagine. It wasn't anything Bahzell did; it was who and what he was."

-Ivan

[Joshua Santana]

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.

I see this in two paradigms.  The first is that people tend to find fictional characters in which they can relate to base on their views or opinions of what "being human" is.  This varies in terms of Humility to "He's human because of the mistakes he had even though he really didn't intend on making those mistakes."  This is ok to degree if the individual doesn't make the wrong comparisons or confuse the Value of Humility with "being human means making mistakes."  

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 have seen the film (good film, good adaptation, terrible swordplay) and I see why the make mentions of Galahad but never show the Knight himself.  At times, Hollywood likes to make these changes to introduce mainstream audiences to old and various stories with a different form of representation.  The film does show Lancelot actually facing the consequences of his choices and accepting those consequences.  That in my opinion is a better if not more chivalric representation in Lancelot

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.

One can argue that Lancelot's tale is more compelling and more in tune with everyone's view of Humanity than Galahad's tale.  But this to em is a one sided view and overlooks the Value if not the Moral Message in Galahad's tale. Anyone who reads Galahad's tale can learn the Value of Moral (or Spiritual) Purity and how that Purity can be used to help those in need.  

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.

Correct on the Malory reference, and a good idea on how Galahad should be represented in Film media.  Pious is more Spiritual than "perfect since birth."  

T.H. White put a different spin on Lancelot- he had all of the prowess that Malory gave him, but he is also ugly as sin.  I mean the description made me think of simian-like features, thick lips, wide set eyes- but also well-muscled and incredibly gifted in the arts of war.  I kind of liked that interpretation because it made him more human...most people have experienced ridicule at some point in their lives, he dealt with it daily, even amongst his peers (though very few would poke fun at him in earshot or eyesight).

The betrayal...some could argue that the original betrayal was perpetrated by Lancelot and Guinevere, upon themselves as they should not have fallen in love, or rather, that they should have professed their love for one another before Arthur married Guinevere.

I always felt that the Betrayal was more of a set up rather than an affair caught in the act.  I have seen this in "Knights of The Round Table" and to a degree in Malory.  But this is my opinion.  

[Sir Wolf]

[Sir William]

You mean, for jealousy's sake, Sir Joshua?  I do recall that...especially in White's as well as Malory's take on the legend...in White's version, Gawaine and some others (more specifically, Gawaine) went out of their way to contrive to catch the lovers in the act.  I was always of the mind that Lancelot, for his part, did his best to ignore the temptation but he is only human, only a man when it is all said and done.

Galahad was/is the author's medieval interpretation of what Christ would've been like in the medieval age...I do not recall ever reading of Galahad joining in the usual japes and boasts of the other knights, preferring to keep to himself and let his deeds speak for themselves.  Not to mention he went and sat in the Siege Perilous because he knew it had been placed there for him- with the exception of the occasional soothsayer or spot-on fortune teller, no man may know his destiny in such a manner.

[Joshua Santana]

Sir William:  I didn't mean it for "jealousy's sake."  My intention were to give my take on this thread and explain my viewpoints.  I apologize for any confusion.