FM 3-27.75 The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills

[Ken White]

Ken,
Interested in to why you dislike the "warrior" moniker so much, though I agree we are stuck with it, for better or worse.
...
Matt

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.

[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...

[Ratzel]

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.

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.

So when we think of the warrior in this way, we can see that being a soldier is much different. At no time while serving in the Army did I fight for personal glory. From the minute you get to basic training, you're socialized to have a "buddy" and the idea of doing something as an individual was frowned upon greatly. Warfare really wasn't a "way of life" either. After training was over, I didn't carry my M16A4 around and decorate it. Besides playing with toy guns and watching Red Dawn, I can't really say that I was socialized to be a warrior either. I guess there can be some debate whether social prestige comes with being a soldier but certainly not in Berkley California. My social standing hasn't really improved as a result of being a soldier but, the values I learned in the military have made me a more successful person. Obviously this isn't the same thing as say, being made the town supervisor due to my military service, so I think this is different too. Last despite wanting to bring my own sidearm to Iraq, I never supplied my own weapons.

So being a soldier is much different than being a warrior. About the only thing they have in common is that they both fight in armed combat. But so do Mercenaries, guerrilla's and insurgents, and we could define these differently as well. It would seem that different people go to war for different reasons and in different fighting roles. I don't think I'd even want to go to war with a "warrior." There was one Indian tribe (Forgot which one) in which the warrior would ride his horse and try to get close enough to the enemy to touch his horse. The purpose was not to kill, but to impress the tribe with the warriors bravery. Maybe today's equivalent would be driving a HUMVEE just close enough to slap a VBIED and then drive away? Anyway, I would rather go to war with soldiers any day.

So instead of the "Everyone a Warrior" concept that came about due the Jessica Lynch ordeal, why not "Everyone a Soldier?" The Marines say "Everyone a Marine" first, so why not the Army too? What "Everyone a Warrior" implies to me is that we had soldiers who thought of themselves as non-combatants.

[Billy Ruffian]

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.

[CR6]

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".

[Ratzel]

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.

[Rifleman]

- 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.

[Ratzel]

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.

[Rifleman]

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.