“Yes, madness can be sustained. That doesn’t mean it isn’t madness, but unless it is actually got some sort of self destructive feed back action going on that must end badly(like federal spending, for example) it might even be sustained for a long while.”
That’s all true, but in this case the mathematics of procreation provides the feedback.
Until a population reaches a certain size, it is at risk of extinction. The loss of ten men is a disaster, but the loss of ten women can spell the end of the tribe.
What happens to the population if 20 babies aren’t born for ten consecutive years? Only a large population could endure that kind of hit, particularly in the days before modern medicine.
I don’t think size matters so much as percentage. The US population is huge but without immigration we’d be unable to ensure the population of the country from Citizens given how we are murdering the unborn.
About troops, ironically, it’s arguable that being sensitive to losses is what inspired the development of things like heavy infantry or light “mobile” forces. Both maximize the use of (and even help preserve) scarce human resources even though they may be fairly economically or time-investment expensive on an individual basis.
I personally find it interesting, just now in light of this exchange, that the warlike activity of the Amazons was raiding rather than conquest. There is a big difference between what is required for one vs the other. Having only light troops would be ‘good’ for the former only when soldiers are considered expendable (unless the other guy only has light troops). They actually excel at the latter.