The idea of a hero has fascinated readers for as long as time could document. That an average human could selflessly risk their life in order to protect the so-called “little people”, all whilst adventuring onto treacherous and mystical lands, battling mythological monsters, fighting ruthless villains, and even finding love along the way has kept readers on the edge of their seats for centuries. But as time passes, so does the outlook of the typical person, causing the ideology of what creates the perfect (or in some cases, imperfect) hero to alter with the ever-changing views. So is the case with the gallant King Arthur and the valiant Beowulf. These two are considered legendary persona, but both are quite different in their character. Readers sought chivalry and courtliness from King Arthur, but strength and super humanity from Beowulf. The theory that the heroic ideal has changed drastically in the…show more content… Somewhat of a romantic hero, he was quite identifiable with the ordinary human. Unlike Beowulf, Arthur did not possess any superhuman strength, nor could Arthur defeat his enemies unaccompanied and barehanded. He had to rely on arms, knights, and Merlin’s magic to succor him with his adventures. Additionally, King Arthur was a humble, noble man who fought his battles only to better the good of his people. Feeling he had a responsibility to protect the townsfolk, Arthur fought his battles not for fame, but for the rightness of it all. Selfless, he only sought to preserve an aura of happiness and peace throughout his empire. Also, the significance of the well-known Round Table was so that no knight would sit at the head of the table and command superiority; that all who sit around in the circular table were equal and lived under the same Code of Chivalry. This completely defies the logic of Beowulf, whose tale followed one man’s attempt at fame by becoming the beloved hero of the