Rama was most likely a tribal hero or chieftain who was very popular among the non-vedic (non-aryan, if that usage is permissible) people of the north India. When the aryans with their caste (varna) system of society came to realize first that the sub-continent extended southwards beyond their imagined "AryAvarta", beyond the Vindhyas, and that people looking very different from themselves (the Aryans) lived there as comfortably as they themselves were doing, there must have been sufficient impetus to spread and conquer those southern areas. In order to give sufficient impetus and moral courage (like what the cheerleaders probably do today in football games) somebody composed the Ramayana to show that the Aryan kshatriya Rama could trounce the great Ravan (who, again, was yet another highly respected persona of those hoary days) who, probably was from the non-Aryan populace.
The relevance of Ravan worship even today may be seen from:
Ravana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hence, Ramayana betrays an Aryan—non-Aryan divide, imho, as Bishop Caldwell probably guessed correctly.
Mahabharata (MB) on the other hand is a product of the imagination of many authors and its main theme is a huge fratricidal war. I have read that this was composed when a certain king was being troubled by his own relative rulers of adjacent territories but thought that to wage war with his own paternal cousins would be a sin. In order to convince him that there is no wrong in such a war and, further, that this has the express sanction of the Supreme Godhead itself, BG was included in it in a abridged form.
To read management theories from Ramayana and MB has to be taken on the same way as reading forecasts from the Raamasalaaka alphabetic columns by people who are devotees of "Ram Charit Manas". A harmless pastime as long as it does not make the believer into a pauper!