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
The premise is not really true. One of the most famous examples in history is Napoleon’s catastrophic invasion of Russia, and not far behind is Russia’s.
Going further back and probably less well known is Henry V’s campaign in France that culminated in the Battle of Agincourt. The expeditionary force that Henry led into France had dwindled significantly due to losses in battle and to sickness, which is why its victory at Agincourt was so remarkable.
On the other side of the ledger you have things like Genghis Khan’s conquests. One of the keys to his success was that he did not alienate or suppress the territories he conquered, but instead integrated them. His message to his enemies was “If you join with us, you can keep your way of life and your religion and your languages and customs (and actually, we’ll borrow the best bits), the only difference will be that we’re going to kill your ruling elite and you’ll taxes to me. By the way, we’re going to kill your ruling elite either way. You’re welcome.” Consequently, his army continued to refresh itself as his empire expanded.
Latest Answers