Between attrition (lost in battle), needing to leave troops behind to control conquered territory, and longer supply lines, shouldn’t the armies have gotten significantly thinner and weaker.
In: 247
Survivor’s bias and confirmation bias. The armies that weren’t strong enough weren’t conquering lands to begin with – you’d expect the ones to go further to be stronger and vice versa. And you also will define “stronger” as “conquered more” and “weaker” as “conquered less”, leading to a rephrasing of your question being: “Why did invading armies seem to conquer more as they conquered more?”.
Latest Answers