Why are pros so dang hesitant to create militia-line units when militia would clearly be a winning play?

I'm a low elo scrub, so feel free to ignore my post/call me a noob. However, there's one aspect of the game which pro players seem to ignore, and that is late game militia spam. The fact that they don't use this strategy more often is mind-boggling to me.

They seem to absolutely avoid creating the militia line at all costs, often choosing to go for a mixture of trash units and siege, which they then promptly lose in a fight anyway.

One of the more egregious examples of this is the recent TTL Platinum match, TaToH vs Viper, the first match where they played Hideout. Tatoh was Malay while the Viper was Portugese. For those who are interested, this is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVXxGO6zGs&t=0s

To briefly summarize the video, TaToh and viper were playing a hideout game where they both were primarily creating trash units backed up by a lot of bombard cannons and trebuchets when gold was running low. Tatoh was basically creating only skirms, halbs and karambits who were promptly being killed by defensive castles. I'm pretty sure that if he just researched Forced Levy and spammed two handed swordsmen, Viper would have no answer to them, because they can only be countered by gold units, which were in short supply. Instead, he made shitty units that just died to Viper's trash army, so he just resigned.

This brings me to the crux of my unhinged rant: WHY are pro players so allergic to making militia, especially when the militia line is so hard to counter without gold units? It feels like they are so paranoid to take 'bad trades' and hence they may lose a few militia line units to microed arbalests, creating a 'missing the forest for the trees' type situation.

I'd love to see a top 50 player experiment with militia line beyond early feudal age and actually give them a fair chance and play against other top players in the ladder.