I've watched your videos for a while and they're really good! One suggestion is to do more bird's-eye view of the whole battlefield and hold the shot longer that way we can get a better sense of how the battle is progressing instead of just up close because it feels kind of claustrophobic and don't know who's winning or the swing of the battle 😃
Should be a pretty even fight. The Crusaders have a little better Armor, but it's not overwelming, and the Romans lighter Armor may give them better mobility. Knights also have longer swords. So that might be a factor too. My guess would be Knights, but this one could go either way.
Crusader has more advantage in 80% armor to resist arrow and close combat weapon but weak in rock throwing that why they won, no big deal while the roman has many critical spot to aim.. Shield can only protect them max 30%.
Absolutely unrealistic battle. The real result would be far from the truth. The Roman army never attacked in disarray. He would fight in formations, guarded by shields on all sides, including arrows. Without disturbing the formation. The Crusaders would have no chance with these simple long swords. In the Middle Ages, the Bulgarian king Kaloyan defeated the great knights of Baldwin of Flanders from the Fourth Crusade only with good tactics, light cavalry and archers, and a little cunning - with special hooks removed the knights from the horses. There is nothing more pathetic and defenseless than a heavy knight on earth. So, this battle did not end even close to reality.
Pal , I am bulgarian. And I am going to ask you one question . ,,ARE SERIOUSLY COMPEARING THE GREAT BULGARIANS TO SOME ROMAN SHOULDERS ". The romans are great tacticians yeah . But still the crusaders are far more advanced society then them . The crusaders have far better armours and weapons then them and far better than the roman once . And also the crusaders use tactics as well . The romans may be great at tactics ,but still with there primetive weaponary and small weak armour, it would be extremely hard for them to harm the crusaders .
@@alexyordanov6250 lol the crusaders weren't just Bulgarian, plus the roman empire was a much better place to live in than medieval Europe, roman armor was very good for mass production, the problem here is that the numbers are unrealistic, as you said the crusaders had more armor which would require more material which would cost more therefore resulting in less manpower, so in a more realistic encounter the crusaders would have lost, also the romans had much harder training compared to the crusaders, making them much more effective in battle
Bulgarians rarely faced more than a few hundred knights at a time. knights were always a minority contingent of a European army simply due to the cost associated with fielding them. The Bulgarians won nearly every battle in their conflict with the Latin empire but pretending like they rode around slaughting thousands of knights is delusional. I'd even argue that the Bulgarians having to use special tactics to defeat a couple hundred knights in an army of thousands actually speaks to how threatening they were.
I've watched your videos for a while and they're really good! One suggestion is to do more bird's-eye view of the whole battlefield and hold the shot longer that way we can get a better sense of how the battle is progressing instead of just up close because it feels kind of claustrophobic and don't know who's winning or the swing of the battle 😃
Watching the end of the Crusaders slicing up the last few archers was epic.
Thanks for ruining the video
Very thanks for the unrequiseted spoiler.
@@Wonderwhoopin why do morons go to comments BEFORE watching the video?
The world will never know.
Nice
you shouldve said spoiler alert 💀
Should be a pretty even fight. The Crusaders have a little better Armor, but it's not overwelming, and the Romans lighter Armor may give them better mobility. Knights also have longer swords. So that might be a factor too. My guess would be Knights, but this one could go either way.
I noticed that sometimes the Knights survive a shot from the Catapult. Tough dudes.
Bro your camera work is impeccable! The closing to the fight and the zoom in on the knight that did the last kill... very nicely done sir! 💯👌🏼
I try my best 😅
You should take control of the last unit and see if you can make him survive. Make him run lol.
Crusader has more advantage in 80% armor to resist arrow and close combat weapon but weak in rock throwing that why they won, no big deal while the roman has many critical spot to aim.. Shield can only protect them max 30%.
I would say the Romans could deflect more arrows but the Crusaders had better tactcs by killing their archers first
Wow, that was good.
Tentara kristus memang hebat
I guess all things through Christ are indeed possible?!
yeah mate
The Crusaders had God on their side.
its like two massive ant colonies fighting
Wooooow 😃😃😃
It would be so cool if they added horsemen, then we'll see something epic like riders of Rohan.
Cavalry will be added in future updates.
@@CaptainCigar That is freakin' amazing!
I thought the scutums would have slowed down the claymores enough but I guess that shows you how ineffective the gladius was
สุดยอดความยิ่งใหญ่
Niiiiiccee
Romans are ot fighting in their usual legion formation.
12:17 superman?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How come Romans had more kills but lost?
It doesn’t count the falling kills from the catapults.
Жёсткий замес
Roman legion Will destroy knight templar in real fight
seems to be some bug in the crusaders kill count, figures dont add up to million
When hit by a catapult, it's often the fall that kills them, so the kill isn't added to the tally
投石機強いな〜
Aren't there any more maps?
Archer vs kavaleri ?
@tengkorak is skeleton artileri vs infanteri
The romans: Turn christianity into a religion of millions.
Comments under this video: The crusaders won because of God.
What kind of pc are you using? You must be at least have a RTX and a i7 32 gig ram to handle all this…
Привет из России🇷🇺
What's with the Z in blood in the thumbnail on the battlefield .....
Random blood... Or something far more sinister.
@@pabloagusti5104 I'm sure it just came out that way randomly
Absolutely unrealistic battle. The real result would be far from the truth. The Roman army never attacked in disarray. He would fight in formations, guarded by shields on all sides, including arrows. Without disturbing the formation. The Crusaders would have no chance with these simple long swords. In the Middle Ages, the Bulgarian king Kaloyan defeated the great knights of Baldwin of Flanders from the Fourth Crusade only with good tactics, light cavalry and archers, and a little cunning - with special hooks removed the knights from the horses. There is nothing more pathetic and defenseless than a heavy knight on earth. So, this battle did not end even close to reality.
Pal , I am bulgarian.
And I am going to ask you one question .
,,ARE SERIOUSLY COMPEARING THE GREAT BULGARIANS TO SOME ROMAN SHOULDERS ".
The romans are great tacticians yeah .
But still the crusaders are far more advanced society then them .
The crusaders have far better armours and weapons then them and far better than the roman once .
And also the crusaders use tactics as well .
The romans may be great at tactics ,but still with there primetive weaponary and small weak armour, it would be extremely hard for them to harm the crusaders .
The guys who made these games aren't historians nor know anything about history or military tactics
It's an early acces game
@@alexyordanov6250 lol the crusaders weren't just Bulgarian, plus the roman empire was a much better place to live in than medieval Europe, roman armor was very good for mass production, the problem here is that the numbers are unrealistic, as you said the crusaders had more armor which would require more material which would cost more therefore resulting in less manpower, so in a more realistic encounter the crusaders would have lost, also the romans had much harder training compared to the crusaders, making them much more effective in battle
Bulgarians rarely faced more than a few hundred knights at a time.
knights were always a minority contingent of a European army simply due to the cost associated with fielding them.
The Bulgarians won nearly every battle in their conflict with the Latin empire but pretending like they rode around slaughting thousands of knights is delusional. I'd even argue that the Bulgarians having to use special tactics to defeat a couple hundred knights in an army of thousands actually speaks to how threatening they were.