It only makes sense if one has secured the land strategically, not just tactically. Or at least one is very confident to maintain such a position. We call that "conquered territory".
- that may even be true, provided the territory firmly under their control was really confidently expected to remain in that state for a very long time
that may even be true, provided the territory firmly under their control was really confidently expected to remain in that state for a very long time
- but such accounts from that time tend to be not overly reliable, using statements like the one we read also as a tool of propaganda to emphasize how much supply they had piled up, how long-term their strategic outlook was, in short, 'what great and noble leaders' these troops had
but such accounts from that time tend to be not overly reliable, using statements like the one we read also as a tool of propaganda to emphasize how much supply they had piled up, how long-term their strategic outlook was, in short, 'what great and noble leaders' these troops had — even if the explanation is purely post-hoc, and if true materially, at best nothing more than: 'food supply was so plentiful, they didn't eat it all, but then went on and used the remainder to re-sow previously devastated fields'
