![]() ![]() Success, however, promised an infusion of supply bounty that would enable a continuation of their advances against the enemy in the field. Failure to neutralize the former risked the latter – and threatened the objectives of their respective campaigns. ![]() Both Caesar and Rommel had to contend with robust enemy-held strongpoints astride their lines of supply while ensuring their own tenuous supply lines. And curiously, although living almost 2,000 years apart, these paragons of military prowess found themselves in parallel situations: operating at the very end of the supply line, they had to juggle the competing demands of facing an enemy army in the field, reducing an intervening enemy strongpoint while staving off logistical deprivation in a harsh and barren operating environment.Ī comparison of Caesar at Avaricum and Rommel at Tobruk reveals common operational complexities and comparable supply lines challenges. Each balanced the requirements for supply and logistical support with the need for maneuver and combat to achieve operational success. Historians, students, and practitioners alike endlessly study their military exploits and contributions to tactics and the operational art of war. GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel are firmly immortalized in the annals of warfare. ![]() (Image source: Pikrepo and WikiMedia Commons) “Both had a bias for aggressive action as represented in their pursuits against formidable enemies despite inhospitable environments, choked supply lines, and operational gambits that threatened ruin.” Julius Caesar and Erwin Rommel were separated by the ages, but fought strikingly similar campaigns. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |