JimSelzer | 06 Jun 2019 7:45 p.m. PST |
what things do you believe to be different between a warrior and a soldier for example warriors tend to fight as individuals while soldiers fight as a team warriors are more concerned with personal honor and glory than a soldier |
Herkybird | 06 Jun 2019 9:50 p.m. PST |
Warriors are a class, Soldier a profession, to me. |
David Manley | 06 Jun 2019 10:11 p.m. PST |
"A Soldier fights to live, and a Warrior lives to fight." |
Martin Rapier | 06 Jun 2019 10:54 p.m. PST |
Soldiers stand closer together than Warriors. |
JimSelzer | 07 Jun 2019 1:36 a.m. PST |
|
Gunfreak | 07 Jun 2019 1:57 a.m. PST |
No tactical difference. Mentally yes, in battle no. A warrior can be superbly disciplined like a medieval knight or a jomsviknig. But can also be an idiot. Just as a soldier can be superbly drilled, like Swiss pikemen or the classic British redcoat. But they can also be idiots and useless. And of course most warriors were soldiers, outside of primitive small scall family and clan fighting, most warriors would be soldiers. A knight was a soldier and a warrior. |
Legion 4 | 07 Jun 2019 6:34 a.m. PST |
I'll generally have to go with Gunfreak on this. Sometimes we'd call someone a Warrior if he was a very good, highly skilled and experienced Soldier. Warriors or even some Soldiers can be/are "Predators", hunters not the hunted. |
Tgerritsen | 07 Jun 2019 7:11 a.m. PST |
David nailed it. I'd describe it as: A soldier does what he does because he has an obligation to. A warrior does what he does because he wants to. |
Choctaw | 07 Jun 2019 9:46 a.m. PST |
I'm also with Gunfreak on this one. |
MajorB | 07 Jun 2019 11:21 a.m. PST |
|
Gunfreak | 07 Jun 2019 11:49 a.m. PST |
Again training as nothing to do with it. You can have badly trained soldiers and badly trained warriors. And you can have superbly drilled soldiers and superbly drilled warriors. |
Cerdic | 07 Jun 2019 11:55 a.m. PST |
Being a soldier is a job. Being a warrior is a way of life. |
surdu2005 | 07 Jun 2019 2:17 p.m. PST |
Having been a soldier most of my life, I strongly disagree with most of the characterizations in this post. |
Tgerritsen | 07 Jun 2019 8:39 p.m. PST |
I was in the military myself, I stand by my assertion. Soldiers have a sense of obligation, even if they are volunteers. Warriors choose their way of life. Every soldier is not a warrior. Every warrior is not a soldier. |
MajorB | 08 Jun 2019 4:15 a.m. PST |
Again training has nothing to do with it. You can have badly trained soldiers and badly trained warriors. I wasn't talking about the quality of training. I was talking about the type of training. Soldiers are trained to fight as a unit. Warriors if they have any training at all only train to fight as individuals. |
etotheipi | 08 Jun 2019 4:51 a.m. PST |
Two different aspects of people involved in warfare. Being a soldier is about your sense of belonging to an organization with the purpose of conducting warfare on behalf of a political entity. That sense of belonging may be heartfelt, tenuous, perfunctory (I'm getting paid), or any number of other things. That individual may or may not perform combat as a part of their role in the organization. Being a warrior is about personal pride your ability to conduct combat and dedication to hone those skills. There are no incompetent warriors … well, not for long! :) Joke aside, you don't just decide to be a warrior. You dedicate yourself to learning warfare, train, practice, and become s warrior. A person involved in combat can be either, neither or both. |
Gunfreak | 08 Jun 2019 6:31 a.m. PST |
I wasn't talking about the quality of training. I was talking about the type of training. Soldiers are trained to fight as a unit. Warriors if they have any training at all only train to fight as individuals. Which is wrong as seen by my examples. Knights were warriors, but were also the most highly trained soldiers in medieval Europe. They trained to fight in units. Not that different from later squadrons of the 17-19th centuries. Spartans were warriors but also the best trained soldiers of ancient Greece usually winning not because of individual prowess, but because they had better leaders trained in war, and better unit cohesion. Vikings were warriors (some) but you can't fight in a shield wall as an individual. A warrior is a state of mind, some times because of culture (classic warrior cultures) but can also be simply a single person's mental state. Custer was a warrior, Patton was a warrior, some modern special forces follow a warrior ethos. (Don't go claiming special forces don't know team work) Outside of very small scale hunter gatherer societies, your not going to find the individualistic warrior. As it simply doesn't work, any formal large scale warfare need teamwork/unit cohesion. |
MajorB | 08 Jun 2019 6:59 a.m. PST |
Knights were warriors, but were also the most highly trained soldiers in medieval Europe. They trained to fight in units. Did they? Spartans were warriors but also the best trained soldiers of ancient Greece But according to your premise they are either wariors or soldiers. They can't be both. |
MajorB | 08 Jun 2019 7:01 a.m. PST |
Which is inteesting. The dictionary definition of a warrior: " a soldier, usually one who has both experience and skill in fighting, especially in the past: " link So according to the dictionary definition a warrior can also be a soldier and that destroys your premise. |
Legion 4 | 08 Jun 2019 8:35 a.m. PST |
I was a Grunt for about 10+ years in my long passed distant youth. Sometimes I was called a Soldier … sometimes I was called a Warrior. Guess who was saying it, when, where, and why may have made the difference ? |
Gunfreak | 08 Jun 2019 9:13 a.m. PST |
But according to your premise they are either wariors or soldiers. They can't be both Now your just making things up. If you look at my fist post I literally said most warriors were soldiers, not to mention I several times said knights were warriors and highly trained soldiers. |
Gunfreak | 08 Jun 2019 9:29 a.m. PST |
Did they? Yes, the smallest tactical unit of knights was just 10-15, formed together to make larger units. This gave knights highly mobile, adaptable tactical units.
They would train on mock battles hundreds at a time. One of the reasons for the knights dominance wasn't just their armor and horse, they were also extremely well trained vs the levy infantryman that made up most of the foot forces of the 1100-1290s. Its was basically delta force vs Somalis. Doesn't mean they couldn't be killed, it just took a lot of effort. link |