Eh, eh...I wouldn't be so sure. Dumas loved "le fantastique", magic, supernatural etc. He's managed to put some of that in many of his historical novels (and has written quite a few "fantastique" tales and novellas, with ghosts, creatures, magical and cursed stuff). For eg: he milked that aspect of Cagliostro for all it was worth. In Joseph Balsamo, Cagliostro uses mesmerism/hypnosis to magically compel Andrée in the direction he wants, a plot device very little different from Jordan's "compulsion". A great deal of the OP effects and the tricks and pet habits of the Forsaken have equivalent in 19th serial fiction like Dumas... from masked meetings in abandonned fortress to dead ringers and false identities, etc.

IMHO, it's quite possible Dumas would have "committed" some Fantasy if he lived in the post-Tolkien decades. He loved stuff like Robin Hood, Ivanhoé etc.

Dumas also loved many of Jordan's "pet" obsessions and devices. Like Jordan he wasn't a psychological writer, but he was highly enamoured of long descriptions of locales, clothing, food and in general the details of daily life (and Dumas like Jordan was accused of padding when he did that). Dumas could spend 5 pages telling the back story of an inn's sign and name, when it's only connection to the plot is that one of the character resides there. His characters visit inns about as often as Jordan's, with page-long descriptions of the food served each time (a lot of that gets cut in English translation - the original ones anyway. The serials' translator had no time or budget for research on French cuisine or fashion. A two paragraphs truculent description of a meal in French becomes "three wonderful pâtés and a few bottles of an excellent Bordeaux" in English and so on.)

Jordan also has love of the "joys of life" typical of Dumas. Women, drinks, food, gambling etc.

Dumas's books are full of schemers, secret societies, side-plots, separated friends and siblings, "dead ringers" (merely the 19th century version of the Mask of Mirrors in Jordan), moles, traitors etc. He loves to use miscommunication the way Jordan does too.

Dumas really loved to show the big picture from the fringes, through side characters of very little "historical" relevance, but whose side stories helped him depict the times the story was set in, much like Jordan saw WOT as the fictional history of the end of an Age rather than purely an epic. Characters like Marie-Antoinette, Louis XIV, Richelieu all appear, but Dumas rather loved to give the center stage to maids and manservants, obscure figures like D'Artagnan, young apprentices etc.

As for the writing being comparable to Jordan's... Not quite (perhaps this is where Camilla finds the comparison offensive)

Their respective prose are massively different. Jordan is a good storyteller (to my taste, anyway), but a very average writer, his English is just serviceable. The scope of his story is a bit over his writing skills, he's lost control of a few things along the way (he either created too much story for some storylines, or the opposite, he didn't have enough plot in some storylines for what he had planned in the others... as they all came together down the line, that created big pacing issues).

Dumas' French is elegant and musical truculent in places, and flawless in the 19th century fashion (he gets quoted in grammars for kids for good reasons). It's "serviceable" only in the sense that it's classical and "comfortable" in a way the really great writers of his time, who innovated with their prose and the forms of the novel itself, weren't (they considered his French to very ordinary and uninspired). Dumas sure doesn't have the personal style of a Victor Hugo, Flaubert - though he had the same wide classical culture, and was extremely well-travelled and curious of everything etc. For all that, language wise, Dumas offered a massively superior output of popular literature than what the masses are offered today.