FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Rifleman]

Warrior -- a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict.

Soldier -- a: one engaged in military service and especially in the army b: an enlisted man or woman c: a skilled warrior.

Simply, a warrior is anyone who fights, a soldier (or Marine) is one who is trained, disciplined and, hopefully, skilled in fighting. Thus he's more than a warrior. Much more, IMO.

Basically, warriors aren't professional, soldiers are.

A good pro can whip a good amateur any day of the week.

Good one, Ken. What you said reminds me of the opening scene in Gladiator. The Germanic tribes may have been "warriors" but at the end of the fight the field was in the hands of disciplined, skilled Roman soldiers.

[Gian P Gentile]

Ken:

You are spot-on with the "warrior" as title critique.

There was an oped in the Washington Post (I think) last year by a serving soldier who pointed out that the term "warrior" contributed to the divide in America between the civilian and the military in that it had an elitist almost intentionally separatist connotation.

Like you I am probably old fashioned and simple minded about such things. If i was at a dinner party at my sister's house in El Cerrito California (right next to Berkeley) I would be proud and comfortable to tell people I am a soldier; saying I am a "warrior" however would make me squeamish and uncomfortable.

So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

[marct]

Hi Gian,

So why then does our army continue to use such a misguided word? I don’t think the marines call themselves warriors, "just" marines. So why can’t we be just "soldiers?"

I suspect that it has to do with cultural valorization. For the past 30-40 years in the US, we have seen an upsurge in "wars" - the "war" on poverty, the "war" on drugs, etc. We have also seen a growing spread of what could be called neo-tribalization - think of the rise and spread of street gangs as an example.

There's another problem as well, and that is that here is another category of "fighter", outside of "warrior" and "soldier"; and I don't mean "mercenary" . Warriors are, historically, embedded in their tribes while "soldiers" as a group should be split into two separate terms; maybe "citizen-soldier" and "soldier". The difference is in a) motivations and b) attachment to the society. Citizen soldiers serve because it is their duty as citizens to do so - they are strongly attached to their society and, in general, the reverse is true - their identity is based around being citizens. The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole.

Historically, democracies and republics have tended to start with citizen soldiers and gradually move towards the second form as citizens figure out that they can use their votes to escape from social responsibility (look at Rome as an excellent example of this). Obviously, it's not an absolute either-or situation - more of a frequency distribution. One other point; the final tipping point in a society is when the formal social organization of the society uses the second form of soldier to control the first, usually via an entrenched bureaucracy (e.g. Byzantium post-Basil II).

Back to "warriors" for a second - the term is often used as a recruiting device for the second type of "soldier" (e.g. Byzantium) since it relies on a "romantic" view held by neo-tribal organizations within the society that have little strong attachment to that society. Check out Michael Psellus' Fourteen Byzantine Rulers (Chronographia) for an example of this dynamic.

[slapout9]

The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!)

Paratroopers!!!!

[Ken White]

"...The other category of "Soldiers" (and if anyone can come up with a better term please do!) tend not to be attached to their society and derive their identity much more from being part of a military organization rather than from their society as a whole."

Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization...

[marct]

Because most of 'em consider the Army as a society and themselves as being different and in a military organization...

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

[J Wolfsberger]

Too true. My only worry is when the detachment becomes "normal". When citizenship no longer requires defense of the society and the defense of that society is in the hands of people who have no vested interest in that society...

For example, if the Armed Forces of France consisted solely of the Foreign Legion. (Let's all refrain from the too obvious comments.)

The problem of (Marc, I hope I phrase this properly) lack of aggregation of the military with society at large goes back to the earliest days of the United States. It has become an immense issue in recent years, I think largely because of the undue influence of academic "intelligencia," with it contempt for the mililtary (and the United States). For example, can anyone imagine an elite university in this country offering John Keegan any sort of position?

"Warriors fight, soldiers fight together." In either case, they are either products of the society they fight for, or that society is in trouble.