FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ratzel

We discussed this point in an "Anthropology of Warfare" class that I took. Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit. Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value. Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be. Warriors usually supply their own weapons.

---

Hi Ratzel. I'm drawing many of my observations here from Western European warrior cultures that I am familiar with, both from my own heritage and also from Beowulf (the saga, not that pitiful excuse for a 'movie'). My study of such cultures indicates that warriors tend to gravitate around headmen, thanes or warchiefs, warriors of renown who have earned a prestigious place in society from a mix of combat, boasting, drinking prowess, feats of strength and (sometimes) non-violent competition with other warriors as you describe. A loss of a leader's prestige in front of his warband or group may convince his followers that he is no longer worthy of allegiance and lead them to forsake him. Soldiers don't get to pick and choose their leaders (unless you're Xenophon or in the State Militia c. 1812), and they certainly don't get the right to up and quit whenever they've had enough or things seem to be getting too hard (unless you're in the State Militia c. 1812). While a warrior is committed to a chief or conflict for reasons of personal honour or enrichment, you and others have hit the nail right on the head when you say that soldiers should be about commitment, not only to their organization but also the ideals it embodies and the society that it is intended to protect. Soldiers commit to sacrifice because if they don't no one else will, whereas Warriors do battle for glory and booty because if they don't someone else will.

Warchiefs rule their bands or groups by swordright, so unless he is killed by a usurper, anytime a chief dies, new internal conflict will likely result either in duels to the death or a division into new, smaller bands. One of the benefits of a military hierarchy is that there are clear chains of command and succession should a commander being killed or otherwise incapacitated. While a disciplined fighting force of soldiers can survive the loss of a leader, even a charismatic and rallying one, if you can find out who the warchiefs in a particular society are you stand a greater chance of splintering or neutralizing his fighting force if you can kill, convert or otherwise neutralize him than you would with a force of soldiers.

Furthermore, while warriors do provide their own arms, in exchange for allegiance and adding one's glory to a warchief's, they tend to expect a proportionate reward appropriate to the level of fighting that they undertake. This can take the form of wargear, special distinction or honour bestowed by their chief or a larger share of any booty. While there are rewards such as promotion in a military hierarchy they also come with an increase in responsibility that extends upwards to those who command and downwards to those who follow and have no material benefit except a rise in pay that reflects new responsibility. Special distinctions and commendations are also non-material and usually contribute to advancement and respect within the ranks as opposed to leading to first dibs on booty and having your name added into the saga.

Needless to say, I'd take 1 soldier over 5 warriors any day of the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Ruffian

While a disciplined fighting force of soldiers can survive the loss of a leader, even a charismatic and rallying one, if you can find out who the warchiefs in a particular society are you stand a greater chance of splintering or neutralizing his fighting force if you can kill, convert or otherwise neutralize him

---

A point powerfully illustrated by Korben Dallas in Luc Besson's 1997 masterwork, "The Fifth Element".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR6

A point powerfully illustrated by Korben Dallas in Luc Besson's 1997 masterwork, "The Fifth Element".

---

CR6, If you don't mind me asking, who's the guy on the left side of that picture? He looks exactly like my old Company Commander. If you want to PM me please do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ratzel

- Warriors also fight for personal glory and tend to view themselves as individuals, as opposed to soldiers, who see themselves as a member of a unit.

- Warfare is a way of life for the warrior, for which he is socialized to value.

- Within the warrior society, prestige is found in acts of warlike behavior and ones' social standing can depend heavily on how brave someone is perceived to be.

-Warriors usually supply their own weapons.

---

So, by the definitions given here were colonial era hunters like Boone warriors or soldiers?

They seem to have had all the characteristics of warriors in most of their hunting activity. Read the list substituting hunter for warrior and hunting for warfare and it all fits.

But hunters like Boone sometimes formed militias for punitive expeditions or banded together to defend forts and settlements against attack. When they did this they were not fighting as individuals or for personal glory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, by the definitions given here were colonial era hunters like Boone warriors or soldiers?

They seem to have had all the characteristics of warriors in most of their hunting activity. Read the list substituting hunter for warrior and hunting for warfare and it all fits.

But hunters like Boone sometimes formed militias for punitive expeditions or banded together to defend forts and settlements against attack. When they did this they were not fighting as individuals or for personal glory.

---

I see men like Boone as "adventurers." People like this probably can't exist today. Warriors fight for prestage, social standing, even spiritual reasons, and are socialized to do so. Men like Boone were like the European adventures in the time of colonization. They mainly did it for economic reasons or just for excitement. They liked adventure, but usually had big dreams of riches too. I would be hard pressed to say that Boone's actions were for love of country or for sense of duty. So I say Boone was a Frontier adventure.

Ratzel,

Thanks, It really doesn't matter, I suppose, but I just thougtht it was an interesting question. Frontier hunters don't seem to have been warriors or soldiers by the definitions used by most people here, yet most did at least some fighting and a few had numerous battles.

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I doubt "warriors" would use buzz-words, much less a crappy one like "ethos". It pisses me off at a very basic level to hear some deployment-avoiding, smooth-talking and polished staff officer or NCO using words like "warrior." A real warrior would shoot them in the face, just on principle.

The real "warriors" that I know crave conflict on the same level as most crave sex. Perhaps even more so.

Does being a "warrior" mean you get to decapitate that 40 hours a week shamming PAC clerk who just screwed up your pay, because they were too lazy to do it right?

If so, I might reconsider adopting a Warrior "ethos", Army-wide.

---

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germ

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos. The effort not only rebutted Lister's comments, it furthered an internal effort to get Marines back on the track away from forgetting everything at the end of the day and doing stupid things with cars, alcohol and drugs. Finally, it contributed to a time proven ability for Marine units to prevent disaster by employing non-infantry MOS Marines as provisional line companies in pinches. The technique worked well for them in November of 1950, and lent to the motto, "Every Marine a rifleman," which may lack total fidelity, but served Marine truck drivers better at An Nasaryah than Jessica Lynch's unit was served by their lack of preparation for small unit action.
So it's too late for a short answer, but I think you're missing the point. At the same time you complain that support MOS's don't have a clear vision of what you do and how to support you, you decry Army efforts to unify the force. Which do you want -- a better complaint or a better Army?

---

The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline. Having lived through OIF 0/1/2, (as a TC Officer, obtw) we (transporters) invaded with an indisciplined mob of born victims, (but we left all our ring mounts and crew-serveds in Germany/The US, sir!!!) and progressed through to an indisciplined mob of born victims who sprayed gunfire willy-nilly at everything that moved. (God dammit, when you get an ambush, I want you to SHOOT somebody! - BG Fletcher 3d COSCOM Commander, July 2003) We have hopefully achieved a disciplined force who will fight through ambushes when necessary.

Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

Hi Guys,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germ

Those who regard "warrior ethos" as a buzzword should pull the thread on it, back to the 90's. The Marines adopted it right about the time Sarah Lister proudly claimed that soldiers were better normed with society than Marines. The Marine reply was "she's right and we're glad." They turned her slight into a brag, going even further by claiming a 24/7 characteristic and attitude held by all Marines, a (you guessed it) warrior ethos.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

The problem is that the "buzz-word" has replaced developing soldiers, with discipline. You cannot turn a soldier who is naturally a born-victim into a warrior, and frankly, you don't want to. But you CAN make born victims into soldiers, and you CAN enforce discipline.

---

Hmmm. 120, have you noticed that the Marines have what amounts to a "regimental consciousness" (Corps wide)? Adopting a "warrior" label, while certainly incorrect terminology, does fit in with group symbolic protection - i.e. the symbolic "walls" a group builds around itself to define us-them boundaries. The real problem is the secondary loops set up - the semantic associations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Enforcing discipline, throughout the Army, has nothing to do with renaming everything "Warrior". The "Warrior Ethos" is nothing less than a slick internal marketing ploy by the "Brylcreem Boys" who value career over leadership. The Army isn't "better" because I eat at a "Warrior Cafe" instead of a "Mess Hall". And the Army Reserve is no more "battle ready" because we burn 48 UTAs a year doing B.S. mandatory sex harassment/EO classes in a "Battle Assembly" instead of a "drill."

---

Honestly, "Warrior Cafe"?!? I'm getting images of Vercingetorix ordering a half goat, half sheep mocha latte!

Anyway, it's all part of the semantic drift when you associate a new label with a core component of identity. One of the things I've noticed about marketing, and I'll be intrigued to see what RA thinks, is that while there is a tremendous amount of expertise at manipulating symbols, there is a very short time horizon on the effects of such a manipulation.

As an example, "warrior" is, at the deep cultural symbol level, a class or caste in western cultures. Furthermore, it is extremely individualistic and/or blood line oriented. It is a group that is set apart by inherent differences. This is totally different from the concept of "soldier" and, especially, of "citizen-soldier" which carries with it the concept of combat as a civic duty and a function of citizenship (not blood line). Entry is via training processes that are available to all citizens and involves the imposition/acceptance of discipline, as compared to the concept of a warriors inherent "ability".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

What is most frustrating, is that there are a bunch of people who are not mentally equipped to notice the difference between the so-called building of "Warriors" and actually developing and enforcing "Disciplined Soldiers".

I guess my poor attitude means I haven't "transformed" enough to truly generate "synergistic" effects through "bootstrapping new paradigms."

It's Bull####, in other words.

---

LOLOL - Yup, but it is high quality Bravo Sierra :D. Possibly more importantly, it actually fits in with the current models of games played by many kids as they are growing up - complete with the disregard for any civic duties. This means that it is attractive to a lot of the kids ("Hot Damn! Wi II wants to play!").

Marc

It goes hand in hand with the AF claiming that "every Airman is a warrior" but at the same time requiring six pages of waivers and memos before cadets can use an indoor climbing wall. And forget about any sort of obstacle course....someone might get HURT on it. (and no, I'm not kidding with either example)

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...

I always liked the Viking model...

You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...

Drunkeness is career enhancing...

You are expected to create mayhem and break things...

There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...

Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...

I mean what's not to like? :wry:

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...
I always liked the Viking model...
You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...
Drunkeness is career enhancing...
You are expected to create mayhem and break things...
There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...
Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...
I mean what's not to like? :wry:
Tom

---

And if'n you ended up with a square fight you get in your boats and go get more vikings. No whiners allowed. Skills with battle axe and broad sword suggested.

All valid points (I think I served with some Vikings once -- great guys, questionable hygiene!) I don't doubt the ill effects of the effort; I've seen more than a few myself.

So the Army gets a "D" or an "F" on Warrior Ethos in many people's estimate. That's a reasonable critique of the Army answer to a problem. The problem (I paraphrase 120mm) is an Army whose soldiers are not all as oriented towards the mission as they should be.

Imagine being at the head of an organization of 1,000,000 people. By virtue of its size, it is change resistant, like a big ship with a little rudder and lots of inertia. With the countless echelons of command, you will be hard pressed to say "discipline" and have it take effect at the company level soon, if at all. Instead, you will probably resort to a few carefully-chosen metaphors that you'll use to take people from a current way of thinking to your desired way of thinking.

Acknowledging the difficulty of changing 1,000,000 attitudes in a somewhat compartmented multi-echelon organization, I say the FM looks like a reasonable attempt to spread a valid orienting idea. What it requires, however, is a body of officers and NCO's who read doctrine, understand the intent, and do their best to lead soldiers towards the desired end state of a 24/7 force whose soldiers behave as though they're all there to fight and win wars.

Making Marines, circa 1780's

“The first thing to be taken care of in the disciplining of men, is to dress them, to teach them the air of a soldier, and to drive out the clown”
Lt. J. MacIntire, HMRM 1784
Military Treatise on the Discipline of the Marine Forces When at Sea

Been there. Done that. Both sides.

JHR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

OK enough generic "warrior" stuff...

I always liked the Viking model...

You get to eat with your hands and neatness is frowned on...

Drunkeness is career enhancing...

You are expected to create mayhem and break things...

There is no "square bashing", only people bashing...

Uniforms are pretty much to individual taste...

I mean what's not to like? :wry:

Tom

---

...well you would have liked being in A Company, 1st Battalion Royal Green Jackets!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germ

All valid points (I think I served with some Vikings once -- great guys, questionable hygiene!) I don't doubt the ill effects of the effort; I've seen more than a few myself.

So the Army gets a "D" or an "F" on Warrior Ethos in many people's estimate. That's a reasonable critique of the Army answer to a problem. The problem (I paraphrase 120mm) is an Army whose soldiers are not all as oriented towards the mission as they should be.

Imagine being at the head of an organization of 1,000,000 people. By virtue of its size, it is change resistant, like a big ship with a little rudder and lots of inertia. With the countless echelons of command, you will be hard pressed to say "discipline" and have it take effect at the company level soon, if at all. Instead, you will probably resort to a few carefully-chosen metaphors that you'll use to take people from a current way of thinking to your desired way of thinking.

Acknowledging the difficulty of changing 1,000,000 attitudes in a somewhat compartmented multi-echelon organization, I say the FM looks like a reasonable attempt to spread a valid orienting idea. What it requires, however, is a body of officers and NCO's who read doctrine, understand the intent, and do their best to lead soldiers towards the desired end state of a 24/7 force whose soldiers behave as though they're all there to fight and win wars.

---

Well, one way to start is by brutally and publicly firing some very high ranking people, ensuring that you accompany their firing with UCMJ charges and lots of humiliation. Prison time for some 3 or 4 star Generals would probably make a few people take notice.

But, instead, the Army has chosen to promote them. And then pay big bucks for a PR campaign to paper over the fact that you aren't enforcing "discipline".

Discipline isn't something you "sell". It's something you "do". And too many of the people running things are concentrating on "selling" and have no idea what "doing" means.

I have a proposal, should someone choose to do the research. Find a "Warrior culture" that has not been stomped into the dirt of history by a rationalization of effort, "soldier" culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JHR

Making Marines, circa 1780's

“The first thing to be taken care of in the disciplining of men, is to dress them, to teach them the air of a soldier, and to drive out the clown”
Lt. J. MacIntire, HMRM 1784
Military Treatise on the Discipline of the Marine Forces When at Sea

Been there. Done that. Both sides.

JHR

---

That, sir, is going on my wall.

I guess part of the source of my frustration with the "Warrior Ethos" is how they have hijacked a perfectly good term that used to mean something.

"Warrior" for me, used to be a term that applied AFTER you did something to deserve the monicker. It also used to mean "someone for whom War is there reason for existance."

Kind of like when the food language Nazis hijacked the term "Organic". Like there was ever any food that was "Inorganic." Jerks.

Hi 120,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Discipline isn't something you "sell". It's something you "do". And too many of the people running things are concentrating on "selling" and have no idea what "doing" means.

---

LOLOL I have a suspicion that a large amount of this stems from an over-emphasis in civic cultures that are skewed towards a rhetoric of "Rights" without a corresponding set of "Duties". Partly, this has come about as a result of the over-commercialization of life, e.g. "I can buy X, so I have the Right to X and all it costs me is money". Partly, it has come about as a result of what I consider to be fairly inevitable problems with democracies, i.e. he fairly well know and documented fact that they collapse once the electorate discovers it can vote itself Bread and Circuses :wry:. Rome, Athens, post WW II Britain, and France are all examples of democracies that have shifted form to become more authoritarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I have a proposal, should someone choose to do the research. Find a "Warrior culture" that has not been stomped into the dirt of history by a rationalization of effort, "soldier" culture.

---

Iceland :p.

Seriously, though, this can be turned on its head as well. Can anyone come up with a "soldier culture" that hasn't been stomped into the dust of history by a warrior culture one the civic virtue (in the Roman sense) that built it died? Cases: Rome, Byzantium, Egypt, the Hittites, Minoan Crete, China (many dynasties), Athens, Sparta, the French ancien regime, etc.