Are impetuous Templars another medieval myth?

[Erpingham]

That is certainly the argument of Prof. Nicholas Morton in this article.  Impetuosity has always sat awkwardly alongside the professional discipline of the Templar rule, I feel.  But I'm no Crusades scholar.

[Nick Harbud]

Yeah, a lot of modern stuff about the Crusader states and the military orders is very slanted against bone-headed knights, a sort of medieval 'lions led by donkeys' approach that may have its origins in British Army performance of the 20^th century.  I mean, everyone focuses on Cresson rather than Montgisard that took place 10 years earlier.  In this battle a similarly bold attack by Gerard de Ridefort and Reynald de Châtillon led to the destruction of 90% of Saladin's army.

For a more robust view of this period, one could read Jeffrey Lee's book God's Wolf.

[Cantabrigian]

Yeah, a lot of modern stuff about the Crusader states and the military orders is very slanted against bone-headed knights, a sort of medieval 'lions led by donkeys' approach that may have its origins in British Army performance of the 20^th century.

I don't think that it's even a very helpful approach to understanding the First World War.  It's really just the corollary of the "Great Man" theory of history.

[Erpingham]

I think the author of the article is attempting to move us beyond the cliche of "bone-headed knights".  The Master of one of the military orders wasn't some dashing glory seeking paladin.  He wasn't just a soldier, he was an experienced administrator, politician and diplomat. His qualities in these other roles may have been more important in his selection.  The idea that Ridefort was an experienced but conventional commander who made errors of judgement leading to disaster, rather than a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic, is an interesting perspective, I feel.