Sir Gawain Vs. Knight

Time for Round 2! In one corner, we have Sir Gawain, knight of the Round Table, one of Arthur's favourite knights, and in the other corner, we have the Knight from Chaucer's frame story Canterbury Tales, one of the only brave and noble characters, and the highest ranking person in the entire book. Lets start it off by saying that they are both knights, good and honourable (well, mostly, Gawain DID have a certain thing for other lords' wives) and both followed the chivalric code. Which means, that they have to be, like, super nice and stuff off the battlefield, but turn into war-crazed maniacs when fighting their enemy (multiple personality syndrome, anyone?) So lets talk about their battles. Sir Gawain faced off with the Green Knight (Ooooo scary...) a mystical, immortal knight, who doesn't even die when Gawain chops off his head. So Gawain fufills his end of their bargain when he goes to meet the Green Knight a year after their "duel", doesn't have the guts to accept his fate ( his head being chopped off in return), has an affair with a married women, takes a magic girdle, and well long story short, everything ends up just fine. WHAT! Their isn't even an epic battle! He ends up with a shoulder wound, a magic girdle, and his debt repaid! He should be a negotiator for the UN...And then there is the Knight. Portrayed as a 30-something guy, with a good heart, and a useless son, this dude really knows how to slaughter some people, an definite advantage. He went through the CRUSADES, people. Do you know what happened in the Crusades? Let's just say, an army of children, that's right, children went into the Crusades, and even they got slaughtered. The guys fighting in the Crusades were heartless, clearly. And the Knight made it through that, and lived to tell his tale? Guy must be one tough SOB. And there is no indication he has ever done anything unsavoury...
And the winner is......
The Knight
Do I need to explain myself?

Knight vs. Ulysses

Two very noble men, two very important people of their time, 2 men with not enough respect or time for their sons, two warriors. The knight of the Canterbury Tales and Ulysses of the same-named dramatic monologue have more in common than meets the eye. So similar, in fact that how am I to decide between the pair? Lets start with basics, like how the knight is of a much lower standing than the King of Ithaca. But the knight appears to have a higher power on his side, having been said to be very pious and follow the laws of chivalry, where as the ancient Greek gods seems to always be squabbling as to whether Ulysses is a decent guy, it took 10 years for them to let him come home, and the knight could take advantage of that pretty quick. Besides who want to watch a fight that takes 10 years to resolve? ( But isn't that the plot of the Illiad?) Still Ulysses has an army of questionable size (size of Ithaca still undetermined), while the knight might be able to round up some soldiers of dubious ability and that would be it. Both men are determined, however, to make something of the rest of their short lifespans before they bite the dust, especially Ulysses, who is bored of his life in Ithaca. ( God it must be soooo boring to be a king and have everything done for you, I feel so bad...) But in the end only one will stand tall and be proclaimed winner.

And the winner is.....
Ulysses

While he might be a bit whiny about his first world problems, Ulysses does have the power and prestige to wipe out the knight. But, in fairness to the knight, he would give it his best shot and deny, even on his death bed,that he had ever been beaten, that it was "just a scratch". Hmm that reminds me of another knight, wonder who that could be?