Whats the difference between a warrior and a soldier?
I think the romans were soldiers because they were a disciplined military, but so were the Spartans and they were warriors.
Whats the difference between a warrior and a soldier?
I think the romans were soldiers because they were a disciplined military, but so were the Spartans and they were warriors.
Aristocrat vs non-aristocrat? This might be one of those bullshit purely connotative distinctions.
Soldiers fight for a living.
Warriors live for the fight
a warrior is someone who fights, a soldier is someone who makes it their lifestyle
basically
Being a soldier is a profession, a vocation. When they retire they are no longer soldiers.
Warriors are a social class or a lifestyle if there is no such widely accepted class in their society, for them it is an avocation. In sickness or in health, old or young, they will always be warriors.
It is possible to be both a soldier and a warrior. Lots of men imagine themselves as warriors but lack the discipline and commitment to be remotely considered as such. The warrior spirit is neither good or bad, though it can help someone greatly in accomplishing their goal, whether it is good or bad.
So soldiers are warrior?
Soldiers operate as a collective, warriors are individuals
...
...
soldier is a job. warrior is a person whose fought in a war on the field and won
...
...
...
warrior implies someone who can fight as an individual rather than as a member of a cohesive unit. Obviously that means there is a lot of crossover.
Being a soldier is simply a job like a carpenter.
Warriors attack and conquer. They – they prey on the weak. Soldiers defend and protect the innocent – mostly from warriors.
"Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are nothing but targets,
Nine are real fighters...
We are lucky to have them...They make the battle,
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...
and He will bring the others back."
- Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
Warriors fight to fight.
Soldiers fight to not have to fight in the future.
The Spartans weren't soldiers. They were a mix between a landed gentry and a militia. They didn't make soldering a profession and it was a civic duty.
Napoleon or some other military leader said that a warrior can easy defeat two or three soldiers but a hundred of well drilled soldiers can easy defeat hundreds of warriors.
The difference is the discipline, warrior cultures were more about personal honor than taking orders.
For example when the armies of Roman empire became less disciplined they became a more easy target for warrior barbarian tribes
>this again
the roman empire's armies won battles well up until the fall of the WRE, they did spectacularly given the internal instability that plagued their government.
Romans considered themselves both.
Carth is awesome
I wish wars still had epic sword duels between heroes. Now it's just point and shoot or drop bombs.
>they did spectacularly given the (((internal instability))) that plagued their government