Soldier, warriors

[Bathilde]

Are those in the modern militaries of the world considered warriors? How do you define warrior? And why do many heathens idealize warrior status?

[Glemt]

I define a warrior as someone who fights/endures for what they believe in. That being said I think our brothers and sisters in the military are indeed warriors. However I also consider many other folk warriors. Those that are under scrutiny and those barely making it in life, etc.

As for why we idealize the warrior status, I personally think it's noble. It's noble to fight for your land and people, regardless if you agree or disagree with the cause. We're here on this planet for a very short time. We might as well go out fighting.

[Bathilde]

I disagree because that would mean the enemy soldiers are also noble(I can think of many enemies who are despicable in fact). And soldiers sometimes fight for things like greed and power and exploitation.

[schwarzesonne]

Tsunetomo Yamamoto wrote in The Hagakure, "I have found the essance of the Warrior's Way: to die"! He goes on to explain that, since the warrior's sole funtion is to die for his lord, that he must live every day as if it would be his last. That does not mean to party all night or to make all one's dreams come true; but to live honourably so that he will be well remembered and so his family will not be left wanting. Yes, Tsunetomo Yamamoto was a samuri, but I do not believe that anything he said contradicts the thoughts of warriors anywhere in the world--including the Germanys.

Do soldiers fit this description? No. Soldiers may certainly be worthy of a certain respect. And yes, they may put their lives at risk. But they do not believe that their mission in life is to die (especially for any lord). I belive we are talking about a very different kind of fighter when talking about a soldier, sailor or airman.

[Glemt]

I disagree because that would mean the enemy soldiers are also noble(I can think of many enemies who are despicable in fact). And soldiers sometimes fight for things like greed and power and exploitation.

Personally I think that this enemy soldier or "warrior" in this case is usually someone just following orders. Whether they die for their king, cause or greed. There might be those that fight for something unjust. And there might be those that are just bad people. But I would never treat an enemy worse than they would treat me.

A great example is the American Civil War. Many people fought and died for what they believed in. Some-from both the Union and Confederacy-did heinous things towards another. But lets take a look at one of the first battles that took place. It's something that's often overlooked. I'll shorten it up.

The attack on Fort Sumter elevated and ended honorably. The generals of both sides had great respect for eachother. When the banner they fought under was destroyed, the Confederates stopped firing. Another banner was brought to them safely and the attack was continued. Though the Union surrendered, chivalry remained.

Even when two sides disagreed they still had respect for one another. That's what I consider noble and honorable.

[JeffSinger]

A soldier can be a warrior but not all warriors are soldiers. Soldiers are professional fighters, warriors are those who embrace that identity, someone who runs toward chaos, or is willing to defend with blood that which he holds dear.

I think that a warrior is defined by what virtues he cherishes and how he upholds them, warrior is a mentality, soldier is a job. One does not need to be in a proffesional army to be a warrior, ones does not have to fight in a war to be a warrior. The way one conducts themselves determines whether or not one is a warrior. I am in no proffesional army but I have skill in martial arts and melee weapons to a degree and I am proficient with fire arms and I am willing to defend what is mine and protect those who need it.

The difference between a warrior and a soldier: One is born a warrior or molded into a warrior, a soldier is one who makes a conscious decisions to volunteer for military service and recieves proffesional training and payment for his service, some soldiers are warriors but not all warriors are soldiers.

[JeffSinger]

@Bathilde

Even the enemy can be noble and be worthy of respect. Take some Taliban asshole for example, sure he's a cad who stands for tyranny but on a battlefield (never been on one but this makes sense to me) even he can be noble, what if throws himself on a grenade or stays behind to man an MG while his buddies get away? What If he fights fearlessly and truly believes in his cause?

Just because one is the enemy or adheres to a world view we agree is evil does not mean his battle prowess and bravery shouldn't be recognized and respected.

[Bathilde]

I don't doubt the existence or possibility of noble enemies. But not all enemies are noble. The fact remains that soldiers fight for varied reasons, not just noble ones. And their performance on the battlefield isn't always brave, or fearless, or worthy of anything.

[JeffSinger]

Agreed 100%. This is, IMO, the difference between a warrior and a soldier, soldiers fight where they are ordered to fight and may not even believe in the cause, for sme it's a job or an alternative to a civilian life, just because they fight doesn't mean they fight for good reason and their reason may be a pay check. Warriors fight because they believe or because they are conciously defending their home or for a worthy (in their eyes) cause. They fight because they may feel that combat is honorable and filled with glory (Many people will say there is no glory in war, I can hardly speak on the matter but it's about worldview, some people may see combat, whether it is a brawl or a full on firefight, as a chance to win for themselves glory). Warriors are IMO, born and not made. A soldier and a warrior may fight for the same cause but their reasons for doing so might be different. I guess I would cite Marine infantry when mentioning warriors, highly motivated, pumped up and apart of a hardcore team who's cause isn't freedom or democracy but victory and knowing they are number one. I might cite a paladin as a warrior, someone on a crusade who doesn't fight because he wants to but because he feels he HAS to, maybe to protect the weak or uphold the values of his faith and order. A Samurai is a warrior, a Viking or German raider is a warrior (We both know, educated and awsome heathens that we are that to them it wasn't only about gold.). I would cite a mercenary just in it for the money and not the lifestyle as a soldier. A pirate is a soldier or a conscripted spearman. A good example of a soldier might be a house hold gaurd in the old days. These are people not in it because they view war and combat as an experience from which one grows and wins praise but merely a way to put bread on the table or because their lord or government drafted them. They fight for superficial reasons like wealth and gain, they don't believe in the cause, they are just following orders.

I suppose in the end I would say the difference between a warrior and a soldier is that a warrior believes and feels alive during a fight, feels like he belongs (This can be a UFC fighter or a fighter pilot or a Navy SEAL.). A soldier is only there and he only follows orders and doesn't really put things like glory or the exhilaration that comes with victory or the solemn sense of pride one would feel defending the weak or their homes at the forefront of their service, their paramount concern is survival and gain.

This is how I see it. Any thoughts?

[Bathilde]

Why is a warrior egalitarian? Why isn't he just someone who fights in wars?