Knights of the Round Table

Depends upon how you intend to use them. If you're writing a story, there's no need to give the name for each and every one of them. If you do, then the reader will expect each one to do or say something. Sometimes, it's easier to name only the ones you need for the important scenes or who have dialogue or some important action.

yep, lots and lots of name variations. tristram/tristan is yet another. my american eyes used to get a bit blurred over some of the 'isolde' variations. it just all depends on which version and who translated it, i guess. some versions vary on some pretty minour but important side-bits, like who actually threw the sword into the battle on arthur's request. arthur's own sexual shenanigans vary often, too. a lot of time, gen. and lance's affair is the worst secret of the realm that even arthur knew about pretty early on. indeed, mallory's version has very little to do with arthur and it does lancelot (which would, i think, be the french influence) and tristram (which, afair, takes up about half the text).

assuming you find a comprehensive list of round table knights and you're writing in a dry, detailed way, offering that list may be appropriate. to be honest, i wouldn't think piecing together such a list would be terribly difficult, but that all depends on your version, too. is he a romanticized knights-in-shining-armour type of guy living in a silver castle or arturo, ex-roman centurian sitting on a rough-hewn throne with a set of antlers over his seat of power? is mordred a part of arthur's court or a shunned child living with mum in the forest, biding his time? is it trying to acknowledge all the various cultural filters that change the names and nationalities? i think your list of names will depend on the kind of story you're wanting to write.

(as an aside, i just saw a commercial on the tv in the background for a movie called 'kingdom of heaven' which looks pretty interesting, about the crusades. might want to check that out. )

Original Arthurian myths are recorded from Scotland too - but in at least some of the Scottish tales Mordred was the hero and rightful heir, and Arthur the usurper.

safe to say the popular modern version of arthur is pretty bastardized to fit modern storytelling, which is fine up until the universal themes of the original are sacrificed. there are several ways to interpret the meaning of excalibur, camelot, and the grail which a lot of writers don't give any consideration to, using them merely as objects for their plot. you could spend a lifetime studying the arthur legend in all its guises and the history, but to have no concept of these things even on a personal level is just capitalizing on a name to cover the fact the author isn't worth their salt, imo. in other words, once you debase the ideals and morals of the story (which is why it's so important to begin with), you're not writing arthur, just stealing his name to cover a lack of imagination (which, ironically, is built into the story to begin with).

RK, if you want twenty or so knights to fill your table with, i'll see what i can come up with.

Kyng Arthur King Arthur
Sir Galahallt Sir Galahad
Sir Launcelot Deulake Sir Lancelot du Lac
Sir Gauen Sir Gawain
Sir Percyvale Sir Percivale
Sir Lyonell Sir Lionell
Sir Trystram Delyens Sir Tristram de Lyones
Sir Garethe Sir Gareth
Sir Bedwere Sir Bedivere
Sir Blubrys Sir Bleoberis
Sir Lacotemale Tayle La Cote Male Taile
Sir Lucane Sir Lucan
Sir Plomyde Sir Palomedes
Sir Lamorak Sir Lamorak
Sir Bors De Ganys Sir Bors de Ganis
Sir Safer Sir Safer
Sir Pelleus Sir Pelleas
Sir Kay Sir Kay
Sir Ectorde Marys Sir Ector de Maris
Sir Dagonet Sir Dagonet
Sir Degore Sir Degore
Sir Brumear Sir Brunor le Noir
Sir Lybyus Dysconyus Le Bel Desconneu
Sir Alynore Sir Alymere
Sir Mordrede Sir Mordred



hm, okay, that wasn't too difficult. i got them here:

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/knights.html

there's an interesting passage there that reads:

'Lesser Orders of Chivalry established by King Arthur apparently included the Queen's Knights, the Knights of the Watch, the Table of Errant Companions and the, unfortunately named, Table of Less-Valued Knights. Perhaps these additional orders led to the confusion which exists over the the number of knights admitted to the Round Table. This varies dramatically, depending one which literary source one examines:

'13 in the "Didot-Perceval" (c.1225)
'50 in Robert De Boron's "Merlin" (c.1195)
'60 in Jean D'Ouremeuse's "Ly Myreur des Histors" (c.1350)
'130 in the English ballad, "The Legend of King Arthur" (16th century)
'140 in Hartmann Von Aue's "Erec" and "Iwein" (late 12th century)
'150 in the Vulgate "Lancelot" (c.1220)
'250 in the Vulgate "Merlin" (c.1225)
'1,600 in Layamon's "Brut" (late 12th century)'

just don't ask for names of those 1,600 knights, k? lol.

btw, those names are derived from the winchester round table, ca. 1270. personally, i think that's a pretty damn good source for the names, eh?

I didn't see Agravain on that list tho.

They are right. It's impossible to get an accurate list. Too many legends in too many different cultures.

The popular ones:

Lancelot
Mordred
Percival
Kay
Bedivere
Tristan
Galahad

Son's of Lot and Morgause:
Gawain
Gareth
Agravain
Geraint

I'd either pick a handful of important characters or focus on a couple of lesser known ones (which would require a bit more research).

Good luck! Arthurian is one of my favorites.