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 question seems flawed. But it can happen.
For example if we look at Alexanders army his commanders became more experienced and confident, his troops had a morale boost since they seemed to go from victory to victory and he picked up lots of mercenaries (like persian archers) on his way.
But then Alexanders campaign was studied for 2000 years due to how well it was planned in terms of logistics (taking a rather convoluted path so that it never overextended its logistical train).
Before modern times times there was also the limitation that you can’t let an army sit in your own territory for long or grow too big. They’ll eat up all your stockpiles of food! Then when the army is in hostile territory (and having outriders that loot and pillage all of **their** resources and bringing it to your troops) you suddenly have a lessening of pressure on your own resources, so as more food is stockpiled from your own territories you’re free to gather and train up replacement troops and send them in reinforcement columns to support the main army. And that frontline army will have now fought battles and skirmishes and gained battlefield experience.
Latest Answers