Argument: Templar vs Teutonic Knight

[Aiden of Oreland]

So me and my brother are having an argument about who would win in a fight, Teutonic knights or Templars. Both one on one and army against army. Personally, I'm sorta in the middle and think both are practically evenly matched. But I don't think the Templars could beat the Teutonics. Who do you think would win?

[Sir Wolf]

hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose

[Sir Douglas]

hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose

Plus, they wore black wool in the Middle Eastern sun. That takes some serious stones there.

[Aiden of Oreland]

Oh why hospitallers yes but this is between the red cross templars and the black cross teutonics

[Sir Nate]

Im going to answer this with my long understanding and study of crusading religious orders. without sarcasm.
1. Templars
2. Hospitallers
3. Teutonics
4. Other

[Stanislaw]

Depends, really. The Templars existed as an order only into the early 14th century, while the Teutonic Knights technically still exist as a Catholic order. If you pit late 14th century Templars against Teutonic Knights wearing kits of the Grunwald era, (early 15th century) a clear advantage could be seen from the latter.

[Aiden of Oreland]

Well, lets just say when they coincided, before the fall of the templars. I don't want to take out of time period people and make them go at it. This isn't Deadliest Warriors.

[Sir Nate]

Lets say 1240?
Teutonics have been around 50 years templars still have over 60 years left.

[Aiden of Oreland]

Don't pick a time in your favour!

[Sir Nate]

all the time Templars existed was in their favor. Until 1306, look In open war it would be Templar, if in 1 on 1 a hospitaller could(and I mean could not guaranteed)  teutonics are extremely skilled warriors. But the Templars were the best. One Templar knight could lead a charge of forty knights and win them the fight. But not only on horse but ground 1 on 1 as well.
They had more wealth and were larger giving them the ability to become the best.

[Sir Nate]

William Marshall was a Templar.

[Aiden of Oreland]

For one thing they both were equally trained. Templars did have the wealth, but teutonics had more variety in there army. Salah ad-Din said that they were practically identical. Teutonics have been known also to defeat forces much larger than their own.

[Sir Edward]

William Marshall was a Templar.

Only at the end of his life.

[Lord Dane]

hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose

Plus, they wore black wool in the Middle Eastern sun. That takes some serious stones there.

I wear both kits in this fight. However, I agree with this whole-heartedly. Hospitalliers take it. Not sure why I don't wear theirs. 

[Sir James A]

Who would win? The better one. The luckier one. The one with tactical advantage. The one who got more sleep. The one with his back to the sun. The one with more purpose. The one with no purpose. There's no real answer, except "anyone".

The best I've seen is a quote from martial arts, and that is "The best has their betters". There is a reason that the World Champion at any given thing tends to change frequently (assuming competition). Even the best can be beaten, and by some "not as good".

Even trained exactly the same, same resources, same gear, there are more variables than you could ever figure out with repeated reliability and the exact same outcome every time. If you throw it to army vs army battle, the "superior" army wouldn't lose a single person. Doesn't happen.

So, Templar, Teutonic, Hospitaler, Saracen, Mongol, Samurai, Viking, Pirate, Ninja, Aztec... any one can beat the other on any given day. It's half skill, half chance. Lack of skill will get you killed just as easily as overconfidence in your skills.