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
Do you have any examples of this you’re particularly interested in?
There are a range of reasons why it can happen. For example, they may gain experience, or be augmented by forces or resources from conquered areas. Often in history “changing sides” isn’t that much of an issue for soldiers or their leaders (indeed, it’s probably a good strategy to invade the most sympathetic areas first – they might even welcome you). On the flipside, their opponents are likely to suffer the opposite effects, becoming demoralised, disorganised, losing resources, etc..
However there are plenty of factors that work in the opposite direction so I don’t believe there’s a general rule here.
It may be a kind of selection bias you’re seeing, because conquests tend to stop once armies start losing battles. Actually gauging the strength of an invading army is tricky – are they winning battles against stronger opponents? Are they winning battles more easily against opponents of the same strength?
Latest Answers