This has some historical justification, too!
In both contemporary and historical eyes, we tend to think of Ancient Sparta as this badass, unbeatable army, when actually they won about 55% of their battles, just barely above even.
I recommend "A Catalog of Unmitigated Pedantry" and their essay about Sparta for more details, but basically this seems to be because the Spartans focused on military power above all else. They had good soldiers, but none of the other things needed to support them. So whenever they fought someone with, say, good soldiers and a bunch of ships to carry them on, or good soldiers and good strategists to put them in the best places, or good soldiers and superior supply lines to let them fight longer and better, the Spartans took a beating.
The Spartans relied pretty heavily on their reputation as badasses. Often their enemies would surrender without a fight, but if they actually pushed through and fought back with a little cleverness or technology, beating the Spartans wasn't too hard.
There's a general rule of thumb that for every soldier, you need at least nine non-soldiers supporting them. This includes cooks, medics, whoever's making the weapons, clothes, and armor, whoever's moving it around, whoever's looking after the animals or vehicles, sanitation, communications, etc.. When you try to mobilize more than 10% of a population, your soldiers are going to be hungry, unequipped, poorly informed, injured, and sick.
Back to Klingons. I suspect that like the Spartans, they've become too blinded by their own reputations. Why wait to make a plan or approach strategically? Klingons are badasses, they can handle it!
From a Watsonian perspective, at least. The Doylest perspective I think has been more thoroughly explored, but keeping in mind popular views of one of history's most famous "warrior cultures" can help us consider how it might have gotten that way.
snowghoul
kaledo-art
stormborns
discoholicmusic
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
