cool guy or something :
here for all people that post "7 losses" and stuff like that First, in terms of actual documented field battles, the Crusaders won roughly 60% to 65% of the engagements. Tactically, the Knights Templar and other orders were absolute powerhouses on the battlefield.Second, they didn't lose the war because of a "skill issue." They lost because of logistics and geography. The Crusaders were a tiny, isolated coastal population standing against the combined manpower and endless resources of Egypt, Syria, and the entire Middle East.Third, they had a massive replacement problem. If a Muslim army lost 10,000 men, they could recruit 10,000 more almost immediately. If the Crusaders lost 1,000 knights, it took years for ships from Europe to replace them. They literally ran out of people.Finally, look at how their enemies viewed them. If the Templars were "clowns" who didn't win anything, why did Saladin order the immediate execution of every captured Templar after the Battle of Hattin? He openly admitted he killed them because they were too dangerous to ever let back onto a battlefield.Losing a 200-year war of attrition against an empire 10 times your size doesn't make you incompetent. Surviving against those impossible odds for TWO CENTURIES while maintaining a 60%+ battlefield victory record is actually a ridiculous military achievement. Read a book.
2026-10-07 12:33:28