WoT Generals to Real life Generals.

[Seoirse]

Hello everyone. I have been thinking about the 5 great generals in the Wheel of Time series. Davram Bashere, Pedron Niall, Ronan Ituralde, Agelmar and Gareth Bryne. Do you think these could relate to, or be written after the 5 great generals: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Robert E. Lee? Tell me what you think!

[Naked~Frog]

Yes, I have noticed that a lot of the culture, characters and such have some reference to real events which adds a great deal to the essence of the tale.

[Seoirse]

Thank you for your post. I have heard that Mat is based off of Odin.

[Callern]

Another parallel might be (just guessing wildly here): Madoc Comadrin and he's book Fog and Steel which Mat used to refer to, might be Sun Tzu's the Art of War.

[Elend]

Bryne is most certainly somewhat based off of Lee.

[JenniferL]

Bryne wears a gray coat, rides a horse named Traveler and leads a rebel army. Yup, he's Lee.

[NetSlider]

Ronan Ituralde is probably somewhat of a Napoleon (the size at least)

[jdbond]

Lee! I would put Genghis Khan up there. His probably achieved more than anyone in that list.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Ronan Ituralde is probably somewhat of a Napoleon (the size at least)

 

Each of our Great Captains is likely to be an amalgam of several real world generals.

 

Hawkwing would probably come closest to matching well with Alexander and Caesar.

 

Bryne certainly matches up well with Lee.

 

Mat may actually come closest to Napolean. Napoleon owed much of his success to artillery. But, Mat also has elements of Guderian and Rommel in his very creative use of maneuver. Or maybe Hannibal would be even closer.

 

Pedron Niall died before we ever got to see him fight, so we have no basis for deciding who he resembles.

 

We've seen something of how Ituralde and Bashere fight, but not enough for me to draw any clear parallels.

 

Agelmar is another that we've never seen in action. Given his geographical positioning, maybe Leonidas.

 

To me, the Seanchan as a whole, or maybe Galgan would come closest to the Khans, both Genghis and Kublai.

[NetSlider]

Mat reminds me of Alexander Suvorov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov

[Jon Paul]

We've seen something of how Ituralde and Bashere fight, but not enough for me to draw any clear parallels.

 

For some reason, Ituralde really gives me a sense of the Desert Fox around him.

 

To me, the Seanchan as a whole, or maybe Galgan would come closest to the Khans, both Genghis and Kublai.

 

I don't see that one. The Seanchan for me are much more Imperial China than the barbarian Khans.

[Bob T Dwarf]

I don't see that one. The Seanchan for me are much more Imperial China than the barbarian Khans.

 

Seems like both to me. Yes, there's all the entrenched, rigid, ritual and ceremony of Imperial China, but there's also the expansionism of the Mongols.

[Dunedain Fal]

Hello everyone. I have been thinking about the 5 great generals in the Wheel of Time series. Davram Bashere, Pedron Niall, Ronan Ituralde, Agelmar and Gareth Bryne. Do you think these could relate to, or be written after the 5 great generals: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Robert E. Lee? Tell me what you think!

 

Robert E. Lee was not a great general. That was just a Lost Cause myth. Ulysess Grant was a far better general than Robert Lee. Napoleon got his ass handed to him by Wellington and didn't learn from his mistakes in the early war in which he lost. Hannibal was a great general but got beaten by Scipio who learned from Hannibal and used Hannibal's tactics and adjusted for it and defeated him at the Battle of Zama. If anything to go by, Scipio should be on the list not Hannibal.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Ahhh, but everybody remembers Hannibal. Only military wonks remember Scipio. Given Scipio's ( Rome's ) strategic and logistical depth, Hannibal was doomed despite his tactical genius. He made Rome bleed for it, though.

 

It's called Coke, not cola. They're called Kleenex not tissues. He who originates is the genius.

 

Without Lee the South probably wouldn't have lasted beyond 1862. He was the only one with the knowledge and experience to keep his forces together and effective despite their hopeless logistical situation.

 

Don't confuse success for brilliance. Logistics is the name of the game when it comes to ultimate success.

[Elend]

Ronan Ituralde is probably somewhat of a Napoleon (the size at least)

 

Each of our Great Captains is likely to be an amalgam of several real world generals.

 

Hawkwing would probably come closest to matching well with Alexander and Caesar.

 

 

To me, the Seanchan as a whole, or maybe Galgan would come closest to the Khans, both Genghis and Kublai.

 

 

I'd say Charlemegne is a better match than Caesar for Hawkwing.

 

I'd not say the Seanchan are that Khan-like beyond building a massive empire quickly.

 

Hello everyone. I have been thinking about the 5 great generals in the Wheel of Time series. Davram Bashere, Pedron Niall, Ronan Ituralde, Agelmar and Gareth Bryne. Do you think these could relate to, or be written after the 5 great generals: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Robert E. Lee? Tell me what you think!

 

Robert E. Lee was not a great general. That was just a Lost Cause myth. Ulysess Grant was a far better general than Robert Lee.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with Grant being better than Lee, though Lee's abilities are exaggerated and Grant's often overlooked.

[Guest]

I think Davram Bashere resembles Genghis khan in that his forces are more horse oriented

 

Rodel Ituralde is indeed Napoleon in terms of size, but contrary to him, he does not have a larger army (than the enemy) and resorts to better tactics, in that way he is more Sun Tzu.

 

Bryne as Lee could be plausible, though i hope not, seeing as Lee destroyed his rep in that fatal error at the battle of gettysburg and i dont wish for Bryne to do the same.

 

Agelmar as Leonidas could work, since the borderlands are supposed to be the shields against the blight

[Guest]

Ronan Ituralde is probably somewhat of a Napoleon (the size at least)

 

Each of our Great Captains is likely to be an amalgam of several real world generals.

 

Hawkwing would probably come closest to matching well with Alexander and Caesar.

 

 

To me, the Seanchan as a whole, or maybe Galgan would come closest to the Khans, both Genghis and Kublai.

 

 

I'd say Charlemegne is a better match than Caesar for Hawking.

 

I'd not say the Seanchan are that Khan-like beyond building a massive empire quickly.

 

i agree, and as with Charlemagne, the second he dies his empire is split into rival factions (his 3 sons)

[Jon Paul]

I'd not say the Seanchan are that Khan-like beyond building a massive empire quickly.

 

But, did they build their empire quickly? It's not like they just dropped anchor and started destroying everything left and right. I think I recall from the monologue of one of the Seanchan characters the Unification only happened about 200 odd years before the invasion of Randland?

[didymos]

i agree, and as with Charlemagne, the second he dies his empire is split into rival factions (his 3 sons)

 

As mentioned, and aside from his youth, Alexander is actually a better match in many ways, especially in leaving no clear heir (Luthair doesn't really count, as he was long gone), having planned to launch a grand campaign to conquer Arabia, his aborted conquest of India, and having his empire dissolve in civil wars amongst his former generals in fairly short order. He also is supposed to have grown (even more) grandiose and unstable towards the end of his life.

 

Of course, there is no one personage who was the model for Hawkwing:

 

Compuserve Chat 19 October 1994

 

 

Q: Hi Mr. Jordan & everyone I was wondering about Artur Hawkwing I notice parallels to the King Arthur legends in particular... But what other stories inspired this?

 

RJ: Too many to go into -- truly too many.

[Elend]

I'd not say the Seanchan are that Khan-like beyond building a massive empire quickly.

 

But, did they build their empire quickly? It's not like they just dropped anchor and started destroying everything left and right. I think I recall from the monologue of one of the Seanchan characters the Unification only happened about 200 odd years before the invasion of Randland?

 

They built their Empire in the Westlands quickly, even if not in Seanchan.

[AuldGoldBeard]

Lee was most certainly a great general, and a far better tactician than Grant, who was in turn a much better strategist. I would probably take Lee since he had generally smooth relations with both his subordinates and the very prickly Davis administration, whereas Grant ran into a number of problems with his fellow generals, most notably McClernand and Thomas. Bob is correct; McClellan would have captured Richmond in the Peninsula Campaign had Johnston not been wounded and Lee assigned to the ANV. Anyone who says either of the two isn't a great general doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

 

I like the Ituralde to Napoleon comparison from earlier. Niall's political power and religious fervor makes me think of Barbarossa more than anyone else. I'm sure they're all composites to some degree.

[WhiskyJack]

Hello everyone. I have been thinking about the 5 great generals in the Wheel of Time series. Davram Bashere, Pedron Niall, Ronan Ituralde, Agelmar and Gareth Bryne. Do you think these could relate to, or be written after the 5 great generals: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Robert E. Lee? Tell me what you think!

 

Robert E. Lee was not a great general. That was just a Lost Cause myth. Ulysess Grant was a far better general than Robert Lee. Napoleon got his ass handed to him by Wellington and didn't learn from his mistakes in the early war in which he lost. Hannibal was a great general but got beaten by Scipio who learned from Hannibal and used Hannibal's tactics and adjusted for it and defeated him at the Battle of Zama. If anything to go by, Scipio should be on the list not Hannibal.

 

 

Hannibal lost the war because his own people abandoned him.

[Baletickle_to_da_face!]

Lee was most certainly a great general, and a far better tactician than Grant, who was in turn a much better strategist. I would probably take Lee since he had generally smooth relations with both his subordinates and the very prickly Davis administration, whereas Grant ran into a number of problems with his fellow generals, most notably McClernand and Thomas. Bob is correct; McClellan would have captured Richmond in the Peninsula Campaign had Johnston not been wounded and Lee assigned to the ANV. Anyone who says either of the two isn't a great general doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

 

Ah, but that's exactly why Grant was just as vital to the North as Lee was to the South. Even if McClellan had captured Richmond in 1862 what would it have really accomplished? The North was not going to win until the ANV was crushed. McClellan wasn't going to do that. Not if Lincoln let him run the show for 10 years. As good as Lee was, I think we have better proof of just why Grant was so great. Simply because there's four other guys who tried to do what Grant ultimately did. All with at least somewhat different approaches, and they all failed.

 

As for the opening post....I find it really hard to compare generals. Besides Mat and Perrin(who kind of remind me of Lee and Grant respectively, actually) we haven't gotten to see any general in the series fight more then one battle. As good as WoT is at depth, that aspect is still a little one dimensional at this point. How to compare them to guys like Grant and Lee who each had to fight many battles under many different circumstances.

[AuldGoldBeard]

I disagree. If Richmond had fallen, with Johnston still in command, morale would have dropped so far, desertion would have risen so much, and border regions would have tilted so far pro-Union that the war would have been, for all intents and purposes, over.

 

I do agree that Grant was an ideal fit for the North, much as Lee was for the South, and if they had switched positions, neither would have been as effective. In fighting a primarily defensive war, tactics are more important. When invading and conquering another country (or another section of the same country), strategy is more important.

[Mr Ares]

In fighting a primarily defensive war, tactics are more important. When invading and conquering another country (or another section of the same country), strategy is more important.

Strategy is always more important. Good tacticians win battles, good strategists win wars. Fighting a primarily defensive war against a numerically superior opponent with better logistics and industry is not a brilliant idea. The South couldn't afford to sit around and wait out the North, the longer the war went on the more it would hurt them. They needed a quick finish more than the Union did, so failing to press the attack is suicide. A Confederate victory would be very tough to achieve. Getting hammered for a while and then eventually losing? Any general could do that, it is hardly a sign of brilliance.