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
My understanding is that there are two parts.
Back in the ancient times nations could usually only muster 1 army for 1 punch at the “other guy”. So both nations threw their biggest punch at each other into 1 big battle.
The side that loses is now crippled. Any follow up engagements is with one side having a punch but a little tired (winner) and the other throwing a punch with a broken hand (loser). It seems like the winner is now way stronger. It’s largely the loser is so weak.
The second is food. An army marches on their stomach. At the start both sides run off of supplies from their side. If you get into enemy territory you get to steal/forage for food from their supply. That feeds you and denies them supplies which makes their life harder.
Afterward when winning side leaves the losing side is down treasure from the pillaging, down population from all the pillaging and the land needs time to recover from the pillaging.
But I am no historian and this is how I learned it from podcast and hs.
Latest Answers