Soldier, warriors

[JeffSinger]

Well i suppose he could be, there are warriors and there are warriors. You can say any combatant is a warrior sure but i am going for something deeper. I am trying to attach a meaning and romanticism to it. When i say Warrior i am referring to a way or a mentality.


war·ri·or
[wawr-ee-er, wawr-yer, wor-ee-er, wor-yer]
noun
1.
a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.
2.
a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.

according to the dictionary a warrior and a soldier are the same if you go by the first definition but when i and many others use the word warrior we are referring to the second.

Its all about how one chooses to look at it.

To me Warrior is a mentality as opposed to a thing if that makes any sense?

[Bathilde]

I am trying to attach a meaning and romanticism to it.

Which brings us to one of my earlier questions.

And why do many heathens idealize warrior status?

[JeffSinger]

I think idealizing a warrior mentality gives people a sense of strength and self reliance.

[Bathilde]

Does it idealize violence as well?

[Glemt]

Very good points there, JeffSinger. I never thought of it that way; A warrior as someone fighting for what they believe in, a soldier being someone who fights because it is their job. But I tend hope that those who become militants also fight for my rights, or defend them. But that's a completely different topic!

[schwarzesonne]

I think it's important in a conversation such as this one to consider, too, that the reason(s) a soldier fights are often very different from the reason(s) that the leaders chose to go to war. An outstanding study of this phenominon may be found in a book called What They Fought For 1861-1865 by Pulitzer Prize-winning author James M McPherson, as he describes average soldiers during the War Between the States. Anyone who has ever read the arguments made by the politicians of the day knows that the Union believed that they were fighting to keep America whole (including all those natural resources from the South that Northern industries relied on); while Southron politicians believed they were legally seceding from an empire that had forgotten about its own Constitution, and that the empire only wanted war to prevent Southroners from enjoying their Natural Rights. But why did the soldiers fight? Most Union soldiers fought for revenge against “traitors” intending to dissolve the Union. Most Confederate soldiers were fighting to defend their homes, farms, and women from "barbarous" attackers. Very few of the soldiers on either side cared much about what the politicians were saying. Even when Delaware and Mississippi were on the verge of joining the Confederacy and were prevented from doing so by the Lincoln administration holding both states under martial law most of the soldiers on the two sides turned a blind eye.

Where in such a scenario, does one look for a warrior? Warriors could be found on both sides—but in neither case did it have anything to do with the politics of the war.

[Bathilde]

That's an interesting perspective on the civil war. I maintain that the southern states were all traitorous nithings and their bad luck and subsequent failure was due to their choice(their deeds) to uphold horrible things like slavery, and elected leaders who represented their interests to uphold slavery.

But I digress, I do agree that soldiers don't always fight for what politicians are claiming.

[schwarzesonne]

Suggesting that the Confederate States of America lost the war because they allowed institutions such as slavery sounds to me like the claim certain christian groups made that Hurricane Katrina wiped out much of the Gulf region because they allowed gays to move there. Personally I don't believe that Garma works that way. If that were the case than the United States would have lost the Revolution because Boston and New Haven were still sponsoring slave ships after England had banned the practice.
...And by the way, America never had a civil war. The term was only developed by Union apologists 50 years after the War Between the States (or “War of Northern Aggression” depending on which side you were on). A civil war occurs when two sides in the same country fight over control of the central government like what we are currently seeing in a few Middle Eastern countries. That has never happened here.

But back to topic, my point was that soldiers rarely fight for the same reasons that politicians or even military leaders use to justify battles, wars and skirmishes. None of this really applies, though, when describing a warrior. A warrior fights because his lord demands it—no justification required.
If a soldier dies in battle (and this applies to members of other military branches as well) he is remembered and honoured by certain patriotic/nationalistic rituals such as draping a flag over a casket and a 21-gun salute. If a warrior dies in battle he is remembered by family and, if really good, remembered by a minnasinger, bard, or other cultural equivalent. A warrior's death is rarely associated with one's nation, although there have been a few notable exceptions in history (e.g. Shaka Zulu; Crazy Horse; Leif the Lucky).

[Bathilde]

Suggesting that the Confederate States of America lost the war because they allowed institutions such as slavery sounds to me like the claim certain christian groups made that Hurricane Katrina wiped out much of the Gulf region because they allowed gays to move there.

except wrathful god retribution and wyrd ways are not the same.

so, sounds like, but isn't like. at all.

If you dont think the choices you make and the deeds you perform have no bearing on your luck, then feel free to start that discussion.

[Steve]

The thought that a warrior is just someone who fights in wars is reductionism gone mad. Iha e never ever met anyone in the armed forces,and here I exclude the naval and airforces wh fight at a distance from their targets, who just happened to be there. It is a mistake to try and anthrocategorize the vast array of motivations that make soldiers fight. However my experience is that many soldiers are not warriors, the soldiers of modern armies are as diverse as the populates they come from, their motivations range from belonging and acceptance to the need for regular pay, certainty and order, sure there are some who want to fight but they are few. Modern armies are not warriors in my view, they may be effective fighters but not warriors in most cases, a the distinction lies in the personal moral code that is compromised by giving an oath to someone who gives no loyalty back.

I think the reason warrior attitudes at so attractive to heathens is that they embody clear devotion and sacrifice, something that is not tainted by personal corruption. Sure the ringiver rewarded those who protected his household but the service was often virtuous and through oaths that laid duties on both parties. Warfare has shaped our lives, produced our borders and given us our most powerful stories, like it or not these were fought by warrriors and soldiers, the ealdorman and the fyrd if you like. When I think of warriors I think of the huscarls who stood by Harold at Senlak and died to a man around him. This is different in kind to the button pushing drone operator sat in an air conditioned bunker hundreds of miles away from danger following orders from a corrupt government that actively betrays the nation.