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 era really impacts the answer to this question. That said historically most people were poor and spent most of their time farming. Most places didn’t have full time armies and instead armies are were made up of levies who were in some cases those farmers and varied in their experience with many being untrained.
During the campaigning season assuming neither side has a standing army the invader might raise an army and invade with them, the defender would have to do the same in defense.
Contrary to the cataclysmic numbers of some of the more famous battles, not every fight was a bloodbath and the bulk of the loses frequently are on the losing side. This allows the winning side to gain experience from the battle. It also weakens the losing side who may now need to levy even more people to plug the holes.
As for supply lines and leaving troops behind. Most armies didn’t have the complex supply lines we see today. The campaign season was during the summer offer opportunities to forage food or the could simply pillaged the areas they invaded. You weren’t leaving troops just anywhere either while you might need to garrison a city or town you’d be leaving as little to 50-100 men behind there to do so.
Latest Answers