The round table, made up of many lords and knights, was lead by Arthur. In this time, it was dedicated to the search for the holy grail. What is the significance of the round table in medieval times? WHY was it created, and what other events happened including the round table? Thanks, Mike MWAHAHHA
The round table was a regular rectangular table not round. It's a common myth that he sat his knights on a round table.
Ok, well that doesnt show the significance of the round table in medieval times... what was the significance??
Ok, maybe you should quit posting random crap that is of NO SIGNIFICANCE and actually try to answer something... i see you are posting as many posts as you can without actually thinking of anything. Please answer the questions or quit spamming what people dont want to see... thank you.
I did answer your question and i thought about it too. I'm saying that the "round table" is where King arthur and his knights sat and talked about their next adventues or what not. I'm wondering What KIND of signifigance you want out of a TABLE. I am sorry for my apparent thoughtlessness, But it is very hard to run with signifigance for a Table.
Nevermind reading wrong ^_^ You mean round table as in a group not as an object. -.- Man am I dumb. Nevermind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A few things. Firstly, Arthur existed (if at all) long before mediaeval times. Common belief at this point in time is that he might have been either a warrior or king living some time after the Roman retreat from Britain and during the Germanic invasion, which would place him vaguely around 400AD. This cannot be taken as fact though due to there being very few surviving works mentioning him at all, and certainly none which can be construed as a reliable historical account. It is interesting that neither Bede nor Gildas mention him being present at the Battle of Mount Badon, at which the Saxon advance into Britain was checked for nearly 30 years. One would imagine that if he was indeed the famous Arthur and commanding the Britons at this battle, he would have rated a mention. It is only later "historians" who place him there. The tale of King Arthur stems originally (as far as history is aware) from Gildas and Bede, two monks writing in the sixth and eighth centuries respectively. Gildas is the closest to what might be considered a contemporary account. Neither can be considered an "historian" as we know them, but did write of events of the period. Neither mentioned Arthur by name, but did shed some light on events following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain and the incursion of the Germanic peoples into Britain. From these sprang more authors over time, including Nennius who was the first to mention Arthur by name as far as I'm aware, until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regnum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) in the 12th century. this work is generally acknowledged as being that from which the legend became closer to what they are today. Getting to the round table, it was first mentioned by Wace in the Roman de Brut, again written in the 12th century. Thus, it is highly probable that the table itself was a simple work of fiction designed to romanticize previous accounts. Round or rectangular. Therefore its significance in terms of being linked to the Arthurian legend should be discounted. We can assume the linking of the grail legend to Arthur is of a similar nature, since early accounts of Arthur never mentioned anything other than him being some sort of war leader, not a mythical king in search of holy artifacts. Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur (15th century) was the work in which the Arthurian legend appears in the form we know today, with Merlin, the grail, the round table and Camelot all thrown in. All of these things were taken from a comglomeration of previous works, including those mentioned above and many others. A rather romantic flight of fancy, in other words. So... if you're doing a school project or something on Arthur, I'd suggest you take the time to research your subject a little more thoroughly. Arthur the mythical King of legend is a completely separate entity to Arthur the historical figure, of whom we know next to nothing at all.
In various fictional accounts- which is where you'll find the round table- it is important because it goes against the natursl- to mediaeval people- order of precedence. At an oblong table the host sat at the top. The more important people were, the nearer to him they sat. Everyone in the household had a fixed place. At a round table there was no order of precedence: people turned up and sat as they pleased as equals.
No person on the round table was known as more important than another. The round table eliminated ranks as they sat. Everyone, while sitting at the round table, was equal.
..well the signifigance was that people would sit at the table as a group with no 1 leader...every1 knew arthur was the greatest but they sat and all felt like they were the leader..that was the thing with the picture of the last supper...Jesus was at the center because he was the leader...the round table had no leader...instead they had the group leader
Alright... hands up all here who think "Braveheart" was an accurate portrayal of the life of William Wallace. Don't be shy now.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Butt...butt...butt...how is a 'group leader' not a 'leader'?
Braveheart? Go wash your mouth out with soap. And if I remember correctly, the point about the round table, as said above, is that everyone is seen as of equal rank. That is, rank according to nobility etc, but generally not earthly nobility, ie they were all lords, but of a more spiritual kind. The search for the holy grail is generally seen as a spiritual and personal purification kind of journey.
Guthrie: Except that they're both myths (perhaps the Grail isn't, but that's a whole new topic). They mean nothing in connection with Arthur. Remember that christianity had pretty much taken hold of England by the 12th century, so the search for the grail and the round table are both merely symbols for christian values. Bede, Gildas and Nennius were all christian monks, stamping their own values on a conveniently dead subject. Nennius even apologised for not knowing what he was talking about (in a sense) as a preface to his history - Have a look at this : "Here begins the apology of Nennius, the historiographer of the Britons, of the race of the Britons. I, Nennius, disciple of St. Elbotus, have endeavoured to write some extracts which the dulness of the British nation had cast away, because teachers had no knowledge, nor gave any information in their books about this island of Britain. But I have got together all that I could find as well from the annals of the Romans as from the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Hieronymus, Eusebius, Isidorus, Prosper, and from the annals of the Scots and Saxons, and from our ancient traditions. Many teachers and scribes have attempted to write this, but somehow or other have abandoned it from its difficulty, wither on account of frequent deaths, or the often recurring calamities of war. I pray that every reader who shall read this book, may pardon me, for having attempted, like a chattering jay, or like some weak witness, to write these things, after they had failed. I yield to him who knows more of these things than I do."
Ahhh, ok. I dont know much about it, but the evolution of the myths and legends and their accretions are very interesting, and of course, fairly useless. I am fairly certain that Christianity in its Roman Catholic form had taken root in england in about the 7th century, the saxons and what britons remained (now thats a whole 'nother thread, and an interesting one too.) being converted by a variety of people, i forget whom. Just a minor quibble. Anyway, your right. So the round table thing is a later accretion, and not much use considering the historical arthur. If there was such a person. Do you know theres a fim called "arthur" set when the Romans are leaving, its just been filmed, will be out this year? The difference is that its as historically accurate in terms of kit and fighting and stuff as possible. I've met the guy who made the swords used. So its going to be a small, messy film, none of this arthur, king of the britons stuff.
If there is such a film, I'll have to see it. Of course, if I see just one reference to Arthur and his men advancing on Mount Badon with christian crosses emblazoned on their shields, I'll leave in disgust. Still, it'll be a pleasant change from "First Knight", "Excalibur" et al. won't it? As for your minor quibble, I didn't mean to imply that the 12th century was when Roman catholicism "first" took hold, only that it was entrenched by then. The black robed vultures were around centuries before that. Hm... how to expand all this into other threads.
You could start with the different varieties of Christianity about, and how Roman Catholicism conquered them all one by one. It took until the 6th century before it ruled in England, and the Celtic church in Scotland lasted until the 11th century, when Queen margaret, sister to edgar atheling I think, married the king and got the catholics in. Or else, hhhhmm, theres the problems in the UK after the romans left. How much of the saxon invasion was simply settlement, how much pillage and murder? the answer appears to be, both. But the land use patterns survived, which suggests in itself that things werent that bad. Then theres the grail myths etc. Let alone how to fight with spear, sword and shield. Od the NOrman invasion, and the effects the spread of knightly chivalry etc had on things, since for example, many celtic legends in "teh mabinogion" written down about 800 years ago I think, show many signs of being altered to suit the newer culture, despite the main parts of the story being the same. Actually, I havnt seen first knight or excalibur. I dont watch many films, and for some reason arthur hasnt interested me very much. though I have seen Monty pythons version. As for Braveheart, I leave you with a link to the good folk at Gaddgedlar, who have a small article eviscerating "braveheart". They are a reenacting group mainly concerned with the 13th and 14th century, and will chase anyone wearing tartan and plaids off the field. http://www.gaddgedlar.com/Braveheart.htm
