his visit Gircon, the chief of the Alanos, entered the palace, and at the behest, or at least with the consent, of Xor Miqueli, put a tragic end to the heroic career of Roger de Flor, Caesar of the Empire.
Now let us see what striking resemblances we can discover in comparing the careers of Tirant lo Blanch and Roger de Flor. The points of similarity that stand out prominently in the comparison of these heroes are the following: Tirant, like Roger de Flor, came from Sicily to the aid of the ill-faring empire; both were immediately placed in command of the imperial forces, Tirant with the title of Capita Major and Roger de Flor with that of Magaduch; both were always victorious on the field of battle, and recovered the territory that had been conquered by the Turks; both were made Caesar of the Empire for their distinguished services; Roger was assassinated at Adrianople, and in that same city Tirant's fatal malady seized him.
The historical basis of Tirant's career at Constantinople is evidently furnished by the Chronica, but Martorell's hero differs very much from the Catalan hero. The author evidently had the latter in mind to some extent, but apparently he did not wish to portray him in such manner that one would recognize him. While we still have Guy of Warwick's career at Constantinople fresh in mind, do not the details of Tirant's career seem to be more in accord with the English hero's than with those of Roger de Flor? Did we not expect more of a resemblance, when we were told that Tirant represents the latter? In short, is that judgment not misleading? If it had been Martorell's intention to make this part a kind of historical novel in which Roger de Flor was to be the central figure, would he not have adhered to the facts more closely, and elaborated them at his own free will and pleasure?
