I know one of napoleons great advantages over his opponents was his ability to have a very large army bc he used civilians. Similarly I’ve heard it said that the side with the most soldiers usually won the battle in ancient warfare. Obviously there are lots of famous examples of when that isn’t true such as Julius Caesar, Hannibal at canae, the Greeks vs the Persians, etc, but are they just famous because of how out of the ordinary they are? How accurate would it be to say that the side with with most men won more often than not? If that’s not the biggest predictor, is there something else like maybe how far stretched your supply lines are, wealth of the civilization, having profession soldiers vs farmers, specific weaponry / tactics or Calvary that you would consider a larger factor than sheer man power?
Like if you were an ancient ruler and maybe your considering raiding your neighbors. Would you feel confident going into battle simply knowing you got more guys and so you’re odds are pretty good?
Did population continue to be a main contributor for medieval (pre gunpowder) era warfare?
Superior numbers is a major advantage but it is not the only advantage, troop quality, army composition, terrain, the quality of officers ect can all play a part also. Consider that additional numbers gives more than simply give an advantage it gives you options. With superior numbers its easier to hold an enemy in place while you flank them. You can engage an enemy and afford to swap your troops around to allow fresh troops to fight part way through a battle while your enemy has to keep fighting with tired troops. In any given situation you'd half to carefully weigh up each factor to be able to get a rough prediction and even then there is always an element of chance, the possibility that your enemy might do something you did not predict and defeat you.