Five greatest Arthurian Knights?

[Sir Wolf]

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120344&highlight=

Who are, in your opinion, the five greatest knights of the Round Table?

whatya think?

[Sir Edward]

Interesting discussion. It's hard to say, they've raised some good points. In many of the stories, for instance, Lancelot is meant to be a "perfect" knight except for his one fatal flaw. Others have him nearly suicidal in his zeal for combat, needing to be saved from himself by his fellow knights.

It's making me want to sit down and read Mallory or some of the other sources.

[Sir Wolf]

ya me too

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120423&highlight= here's another post asking if Arthur was a good king or not

[Sir Brian]

I must confess I am unfamiliar with almost all of the Arthurian legends. I got the basic gist of it and the primary participants as related through scores of movies and such but nothing of the literary genre. Can anyone suggest some good reference book titles for me to remedy my lapse of education? 

[Sir Edward]

Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is a great starting point since it's a period work, and it was a consolidation of many of the existing Arthurian romances into one large collection. However, it differs from many of the sources it was based on, so there are even earlier renditions that you can look for too, but they may not be as well translated.

Beyond that, I'm not sure. It's a good question.

I did get a copy of Malory so I could start reading up on it too, but as with most books, they end up on my shelf or nightstand and collect dust.

[Sir Edward]

This looks interesting:

http://amzn.com/1852306475

One of the user reviews looks interesting-- it mentions that the book treats everything before Malory as canon, and anything after as "modern" and is thus omitted. Not really for the beginner, but it could be a good resource to have alongside other books.

This is an A-Z encyclopedia of the people, places, events, and artifacts pertaining to the various derivations of the Arthurian legends. It is lavishly illustrated with artwork and is an exhaustive reference source. The author states upfront that, for purposes of study, he considers any literature written before the time of Thomas Malory's LE MORTE D'ARTHUR to be fair game and part of "authentic" Arthurian lore. Anything after Malory is either a modernization or a retelling of the original legends. Therefore, references to works such as Tennyson's IDYLLS OF THE KING and White's ONCE AND FUTURE KING are omitted.

This book is wonderful reference material. It alludes to many obscure source materials and attempts to explain the origin of many elements of the stories of Arthur and the Round Table. However, I would not recommend it for novice fans. Coghlan takes it for granted that most of the stories are familiar, and he spends most of his time explaining how the stories originated, how they were altered over time, and why inconsistencies exist. The format of the book makes it useful for looking up a particular name but not for browsing through a chronology of the tales.

This book is for the scholars and historians, not necessarily the readers and dreamers.

[Sir Wolf]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815323034/ref=oss_product i bought my brother this book in 99 BUT IT DIDN'T COST THIS MUCH!! hehehe here are a few others to ponder over as well: http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Arthurian-Literature-Paperback-Reference/dp/019921509X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b and http://www.amazon.com/Arthurian-Handbook-Second-Norris-Lacy/dp/0815320817/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c  now these are just handbooks like encyclopedia and not "reading" books

[Sir Edward]

Also, Chrétien de Troyes is another period author, predating Malory by a few centuries.

[Sir Edward]

These are the ones I have:

The Complete Romances of Chrétien de Troyes: http://amzn.com/0253207878

Le Morte D'Arthur: Complete, Unabridged, Illustrated Edition (except I have the hardcover): http://amzn.com/1844030016

[Sir Brian]

Thanks! Some of them look like good candidates for the Christmas list!

[Sir Matthew]

I'm going to have to look for at least one of those two, Sir Edward.  I have read several versions of the Robin Hood myths and even attempted to wade through The Illiad, but I have read only bits and pieces of the Aurthurian legends.  I really need to make a concerted effort to fill in the literary gaps I have.

[Sir Edward]

The Complete Romances of Chrétien de Troyes: http://amzn.com/0253207878

I've started reading the introduction on this one (yeah, it'll take me ages to read the whole book, since I'm just slow that way). It has some interesting background. Chretien's is one of the more influential of the earlier works, the first of the "romances". It originates the story of Lancelot's involvement with Guinevere, which gets further solidified by Malory a few centuries later, where it became entrenched in every retelling since. He also was the one that first developed the stories around the knights, rather than making the stories centered on Arthur himself, and also first to associate it with a grail story, though it's not clear in his story whether it's meant to be the grail or just a grail (with the term applying to large serving bowls). Interesting.

[Sir Edward]

Oh, I just have to share this. The second paragraph of Chretien's first romance, "Erec And Enide", is quite amusing. Very sure of himself, and not too fond of his colleagues, apparently.

"This is the tale of Erec, son of Lac, which those who wish to make their living by storytelling in the presence of counts and kings usually mutilate and spoil. Now I am going to begin the story that henceforth will be remembered so long as Christianity endures. This is Chretien's boast."

Hah!

[Sir Edward]

I'm about a third of the way through Chretien's first romance, "Erec and Enide". Speaking to the original question of who was the greatest knight, I'd say it changed from story to story. In this particular romance, Chretien ranks them within the story, putting Gawain first, Erec second, and Lancelot third. Of course, during the story, Erec goes back to his own kingdom and becomes king, and does not remain as one of Arthur's knights.

The story doesn't follow the normal "beginning, middle/climax, end" sequence of modern stories. What seems to be the main plot, at first, gets wrapped up pretty quickly. Then it goes on with pages and pages of describing the tournaments, celebrations, wedding, and so on that follows it... and I'm only on page 30 out of 86.

But I'm already seeing something very cool, that these stories are well known for. The knightly honor that is portrayed. When Erec defeats another knight, he takes him prisoner by commanding him to go on his own back to queen Guinevere to surrender himself, while Erec stays behind to finish business. Even when in the wrong, the other knight is trusted to do the honorable thing.

It also describes the tournament. Between the story and what I read elsewhere about medieval tournaments, it helps to frame the mindset of the knights of the time. The 12th century tournament wasn't a game or competition in the same sense we'd think today. It was practically a full-blown battle. Knights would divide up into teams on a field. The fighting could last all day, with specific areas set aside for resting safely. But they would joust in large groups, and continue fighting on foot with sword or mace... using their sharp weapons, and mail hauberks and shields (remember, no plate cuirass in 12th century). They tried not to kill each other, but it would still happen of course, and there are accounts of severe wounds, including head injuries that left people incapable of managing their lands anymore. Knights would permanently capture horses from each other, and if they captured the other knight, there would be an actual ransom, which may or may not include their sword and armor. Pretty serious!  

This comes up in the context of describing Sir Erec, as he is described in being so perfect in his knightly behavior that he doesn't bother to take horses or ransom from the knights he defeats, and instead focuses on continuing to fight to win.

[Das Bill]

Its been years since I've read the Chretien du Troyes romances, but I always recalled in the tale of Perceval that he'd defeated a knight in red armor. I always wondered what that meant in the age of mail. Was the mail painted red? (that seems unlikely, since the paint would just rub off from wearing it) Was the helmet alone painted red, with a red tabard of some kind? Maybe the helmet and shield?