Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Rodel Ituralde and Robert E. Lee - Am I The First To Notice The Many Striking Similarities?


Recommended Posts

I doubt that I am the first to notice, and I apologize if its been discussed here before but I don't remember seeing it.

 

I just cant get over the parallels between the two. A Question:

 

Do you think Rodel was INTENTIONALLY modeled after Lee?

 

Robert Jordan was a Southron man, a military man and a fierce student of history.

 

I met Mr Jordan and Ive been with WOT since Day One. If you wanted my own personal opinion, Id have to say...yes.

 

One or two traits in common could be chalked up to coincidence, but Ituralde and Lee just share waaaaaaay too many very specific qualities to not be deliberate on Jordan's part.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

Fish

Edited by The Fisher King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you will have to elaborate if you want other people to weigh in on this, you have not mentioned any of those similarities, and are assuming that people know the history.

 

personally i like ituralde, and consider him a very competent general

 

personally i hate e. lee, and consider him a very competent general

 

i don't know much about e. lee, and my hate of him comes purely from him being on the wrong side of a war (i honestly don't hate him, i don't know anything about him, but i hate the side he fought for.)

 

i'm just trying to say, explain your position please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you will have to elaborate if you want other people to weigh in on this, you have not mentioned any of those similarities, and are assuming that people know the history.

 

personally i like ituralde, and consider him a very competent general

 

personally i hate e. lee, and consider him a very competent general

 

i don't know much about e. lee, and my hate of him comes purely from him being on the wrong side of a war (i honestly don't hate him, i don't know anything about him, but i hate the side he fought for.)

 

i'm just trying to say, explain your position please.

 

agreed, cant elaborate on your point without knowing these similarities otherwise i would say he is closer to being similar to revolutionary war commanders and the implementation of guerilla warfare and ambushes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both were notably short in stature...both fought causes that were ultimately doomed but fought those causes brilliantly. Both had a number of pyrrhic victories. Both Generals also found themselves in encircled, almost siege-like situations...both beloved by their men...both greatly respected by their opponents...

 

And all that's just for STARTERS, lol.

 

 

Fish

Edited by The Fisher King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure have to do more of a read with Lee.

 

But Napoloean also fought in a revolution - he was good at espionage and deception and could win battles by concealment of troop deployments

 

He was also loved by the French People - Respected outside by other Generals, people and armies still follow what he created (In Europe and America mostly) - he was considered a great military commander and a genius in the opeartional art of war. One way that changed war was out right invasion and destruction of the enemy in a battle.

He believed in merits not noble born in army promotions even though he was a minor noble.

 

He also loved his first wife Josephine - who wrote love letters to while on campaigns etc

 

oh I agree there is alot of things that were different; example he made France bankrupt through his years of war :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wanted to say that the the multibook arc (COT-TOM) of Ituralde Vs The Seanchan is (to me at least) remarkably similar to the famous "Overland Campaign" between Lee and Grant and Lee getting pinned in at Maradon reminds me so very much of when Lee found himself pinned at Richmond before his surrender at Appomattox.

 

 

Fish

Edited by The Fisher King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! To be honest, I fell inlove with Ituralde instantly when he first appeared (when? In 2000? COT?) but it has only been because of some recent reading on the American Civil War (a lifelong subject of interest to me) that I really started to feel beat over the head with the similarities.

 

 

Fish

Edited by The Fisher King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also thought at times that Rodel resembles Nazi's Rommel "the Desert Fox", in his use of somewhat unconventional tactics to great effect, including misleading of scouts, etc. Plus "Little Fox" and "Desert Fox".

 

Of course, I also like his comparisons to Lee and Napolean. I've loved Rodel's character from the get-go. More so than any of the other "Great Captains", I think he may come the closest to Mat's tactical/strategic abilities. Although we haven't seen much, if anything from Shienar's Agelmar yet, I still tend to give the nod to Ituralde.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you will have to elaborate if you want other people to weigh in on this, you have not mentioned any of those similarities, and are assuming that people know the history.

 

personally i like ituralde, and consider him a very competent general

 

personally i hate e. lee, and consider him a very competent general

 

i don't know much about e. lee, and my hate of him comes purely from him being on the wrong side of a war (i honestly don't hate him, i don't know anything about him, but i hate the side he fought for.)

 

i'm just trying to say, explain your position please.

 

I've found that most people who consider the Confederacy to be "wrong" and "evil" have formed that opinion out of ignorance, or due to the rewritten history that they teach. These people tend to mistakenly believe that the US Civil War was about slaves, and that Lincoln was The Great Emancipator. As they say, history is written by the victor. Had Britain won our revolution, it would be known as the British Civil War, and we colonials would be the evil tax-evaders. Had the Confederates won our Civil War, it would be known as the Confederate Revolution or the 2nd American Revolution or some such, and they would be viewed as courageous heroes who overthrew the tyranny of a power hungry, law breaking, constitution destroying Lincoln(which is closer to the truth than is taught in public schools). The fact of the matter is that Lincoln didn't believe blacks and whites could coexist, and he wanted to ship the blacks back to Africa or to South America, but that experiment failed. The Confederacy wanted the federal government to stick to what the constitution said it could do, and let the states do what they were supposed to do. THAT was the issue. Slavery was just one of the topics of discussion, and people have latched onto it in order to give the North some moral superiority. The war accelerated its abolition, but it was on its way out either way.

Edited by TommyRocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English already have a civil war, they lost colonies in the empire besides from the Americas as well, please don't try to make your own history into the history of the world. And trying to say that a major cause of the American civil war wasn't the exploitation of slaves for economic profit is just buying into propagander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you will have to elaborate if you want other people to weigh in on this, you have not mentioned any of those similarities, and are assuming that people know the history.

 

personally i like ituralde, and consider him a very competent general

 

personally i hate e. lee, and consider him a very competent general

 

i don't know much about e. lee, and my hate of him comes purely from him being on the wrong side of a war (i honestly don't hate him, i don't know anything about him, but i hate the side he fought for.)

 

i'm just trying to say, explain your position please.

 

I've found that most people who consider the Confederacy to be "wrong" and "evil" have formed that opinion out of ignorance, or due to the rewritten history that they teach. These people tend to mistakenly believe that the US Civil War was about slaves, and that Lincoln was The Great Emancipator. As they say, history is written by the victor. Had Britain won our revolution, it would be known as the British Civil War, and we colonials would be the evil tax-evaders. Had the Confederates won our Civil War, it would be known as the Confederate Revolution or the 2nd American Revolution or some such, and they would be viewed as courageous heroes who overthrew the tyranny of a power hungry, law breaking, constitution destroying Lincoln(which is closer to the truth than is taught in public schools). The fact of the matter is that Lincoln didn't believe blacks and whites could coexist, and he wanted to ship the blacks back to Africa or to South America, but that experiment failed. The Confederacy wanted the federal government to stick to what the constitution said it could do, and let the states do what they were supposed to do. THAT was the issue. Slavery was just one of the topics of discussion, and people have latched onto it in order to give the North some moral superiority. The war accelerated its abolition, but it was on its way out either way.

 

State v Fed rights was certainly a major issue but to pretend slavery and the economic concerns surrounding it was not up there as well is just absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys...I'm from the South and a student of History, and all I can say is that some of the "statements" Ive seen seen by multiple posters above about both the North AND the South during the war are beyond ludicrous. This is a subject that could easily get "heated" and this isn't the place for THAT discussion.

 

 

Lets pleeeease stay on topic to Rodel Ituralde and Robert E. Lee parallels here. Please? :)

 

 

Fish

Edited by The Fisher King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whole siege of Maradon was similar to the siege of Armengar? in one of the Feist novels. Which would make Ituralde somethingoranother (Guy? Gys?) de Bas-Tyra.

 

The fight with the Seanchan reminds me more of, say, von Manstein on the eastern front; great tactics and strategy, serious losses to his opponents, but there's still too many to beat and the enemy are picking up all the tricks.To me he just seems based on generic 'doomed cause but does he ever take a lot with him on the way down', given yet another character.

 

Plus, his enemies are the ones with slaves/are the more obviously evil ones. With the Seanchan, as with the CSA, there's some good in between the bad, but the Union wasn't the obviously doomed cause so I'd say the parallels aren't too strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think General Lee was definitely an inspiration for Ituralde, especially the Little Wolf and Little General nicknames. Another general that comes to mind, is Pancho Villa. Ituralde's campaign against the Seanchan was basically a running chase, this could be a nod to General Pershing chasing Pancho. The U.S army employed the use of air planes (raken) for the first time while hunting Pancho. Pancho used the exact tactic of disguising himself and his troops to look like farmers and common men to elude them in plain sight. Pershing never caught up to Pancho (recalled for WW1) and there was no climactic battle. Other generals that came to mind while readin Itrualde were Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, this general never lost a battle and he alwasy had the smaller force to work with. Another is Frederick II the King of Prussia. Frederick also almost always fought superior forces but always kept his ground, his army almost always seemed to about to be defeated but some how pulled through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think General Lee was definitely an inspiration for Ituralde, especially the Little Wolf and Little General nicknames. Another general that comes to mind, is Pancho Villa. Ituralde's campaign against the Seanchan was basically a running chase, this could be a nod to General Pershing chasing Pancho. The U.S army employed the use of air planes (raken) for the first time while hunting Pancho. Pancho used the exact tactic of disguising himself and his troops to look like farmers and common men to elude them in plain sight. Pershing never caught up to Pancho (recalled for WW1) and there was no climactic battle. Other generals that came to mind while readin Itrualde were Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, this general never lost a battle and he alwasy had the smaller force to work with. Another is Frederick II the King of Prussia. Frederick also almost always fought superior forces but always kept his ground, his army almost always seemed to about to be defeated but some how pulled through.

 

And Rand is the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg? It is a nice fit indeed, I'd say, in that sense :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...