[ajbrose123]

By stone-age I mean people who had chain armors, and swords, and went to wars against other kingdoms or countries.

I was going to ask is:

When they went to war did they send in all of their soldiers/troops out to that specific country to raid or attack?

Because I don't know what the risk would be if they'd sent all the soldiers to fight, and leave their kingdom without protection, or did they leave some of the soldiers to protect the kingdom for rebels?

I watched movies and tv-shows where all the soldiers get to war, but they leave their kingdom without any soldiers to protect just with their citizen, how does that work, and can people take it over easily?

[Pre-eminent]

They most likely only sent half of their soldiers to war and kept the rest within the kingdom to protect their king & queen.

[Xerotic]

I’m sure they keep a guard at home at all times. It would seem negligent otherwise.

[Theocritus]

the vikings for example sent most of their fighting men to other lands, ie england and such on raids that would last months. with nothing much at all left at home

[Toph]

Things were more disorganized back then. If you watch Vikings it’s interesting to see them sending everyone.

[Theocritus]

Things were more disorganized back then. If you watch Vikings it’s interesting to see them sending everyone.

i mean vikings though it is not completely accurate of course, is a good overall view of how they did things

[SysAdmin]

It would probably be pointless, since then you'd have absolutely nobody to defend home. But some civilizations did it.

[Ninja]

I would assume they had some sort of defence as it would be kind of stupid to not.

[Xerotic]

I would assume they had some sort of defence as it would be kind of stupid to not.

I guess you have to consider this: if the King and all the resources travel during the war, what is left at home that is as important?

[Toph]

I would assume they had some sort of defence as it would be kind of stupid to not.

War is dangerous because if you didn’t bring enough you could lose.

[Ninja]

I guess you have to consider this: if the King and all the resources travel during the war, what is left at home that is as important?

That is true, I did not think of it that way.

War is dangerous because if you didn’t bring enough you could lose.

I guess it would really depend how many fighters they had. If they could manage a defence, then that would be more beneficial. Only if there were people or things you have to defend.

[Toph]

That is true, I did not think of it that way.

I guess it would really depend how many fighters they had. If they could manage a defence, then that would be more beneficial. Only if there were people or things you have to defend.

It would be tactically smart to attack the home of a country with little troops defending if valuables were left behind.

[CyberStrike]

By stone-age I mean people who had chain armors, and swords, and went to wars against other kingdoms or countries.

I was going to ask is:

When they went to war did they send in all of their soldiers/troops out to that specific country to raid or attack?

Because I don't know what the risk would be if they'd sent all the soldiers to fight, and leave their kingdom without protection, or did they leave some of the soldiers to protect the kingdom for rebels?

I watched movies and tv-shows where all the soldiers get to war, but they leave their kingdom without any soldiers to protect just with their citizen, how does that work, and can people take it over easily?

Depends I guess.. if you look at the wars such as the Punic Wars in the second Punic War Hannibal attacked Italy for like 9 years or something. That shouldn't have happened unless they deployed far too many of their legions. So yeah it happens Rome sent it's army in return to Cartage and Hannible had to run back home with just a small fraction of his troops. So in both cases they went all out. Let's see the Battle of Kadesh between Ramses II and the Hittites pretty much he had all his chariots and so did the Hittites where they engaged far away from both their non cavalry forces and that decided the battle. From these two examples we can surmise that a large portion of the military went out to battle and maybe very few stayed behind.. That said the Romans had a huge number of men and Hannibal would be outnumbered 3:1 and by the afternoon they finished killing 90,000 Romans. China also those guys had million man armies that would clash when so one has to figure costs and all that there can't be another half million troops guarding the homeland you know.

Is this part of a history project or something?

[Toph]

Depends I guess.. if you look at the wars such as the Punic Wars in the second Punic War Hannibal attacked Italy for like 9 years or something.  That shouldn't have happened unless they deployed far too many of their legions. So yeah it happens Rome sent it's army in return to Cartage and Hannible had to run back home with just a small fraction of his troops.  So in both cases they went all out. Let's see the Battle of Kadesh between Ramses II and the Hittites pretty much he had all his chariots and so did the Hittites where they engaged far away from both their non cavalry forces and that decided the battle.  From these two examples we can surmise that a large portion of the military went out to battle and maybe very few stayed behind.. That said the Romans had a huge number of men and Hannibal would be outnumbered 3:1 and by the afternoon they finished killing 90,000 Romans.  China also those guys had million man armies that would clash when so one has to figure costs and all that there can't be another half million troops guarding the homeland you know.

Is this part of a history project or something?

Romans were quite large they had the option of sending troops and keeping a ton at home to protect.