Warriors vs Soldiers?

Tuthmosis III · Jul 12, 2012

"When Wu Ch'i fought against Ch'in, there was an officer who before battle was joined was unable to control his ardor. He advanced and took a pair of heads and returned. Wu Ch'i ordered him beheaded.
"The Army Commissioner admonished him, saying: 'This is a talented officer; you should not behead him.' Wu Ch'i replied: 'I am confident he is an officer of talent, but he is disobedient.'"

from #18, Chapter VII "Maneuver", Sun Tzu's Art of War (Samuel B. Griffith ed., 1963); p. 107

Not that this is the only or even the most important distinction, but obedience is a factor turning a warrior into a soldier.

Belloc · Jul 12, 2012

Some pretty good answers. I would agree with the distinction that a soldier is a profession whilst warrior is a vocation. We often confuse the two, but a vocation involves something more than a mere profession or career - it involves one's full "soul" is best I can describe it at the current moment; as opposed to task(s) done for pay. Warriors often worked as administrators or even farmers most of the time(knights/samurai, Scottish highlanders, hoplites, etc.). So war was not necessarily a full-time job for them as it would be for soldiers. Soldiers are trained to obey orders; whilst warriors obey too but it's bound up more with fellowship with other warriors under a code of honour. Soldiers are more institutionalized as well; whilst warrior bands are not.

A few thoughts on my end. A comparison of actual historical examples of such may help further illustrate the differences:

Warrior - Samurai
Soldier - Japanese Imperial Army

Warrior - Scottish Highlander
Soldier - British Redcoat

Warrior - early hoplites
Soldier - Roman legionary

Kraken · Jul 12, 2012

Warriors also seem more individualistic both in terms of loyalty and tactic.

Cavanboy · Jul 13, 2012

why do people like to think warriors or lone wolfs or some sort of rogues or renegades? they are people who embrace fighting and like combat, but this doesnt mean they dont consider others or obey orders or have loyalties.

You might like to fire guns at the range but it doesnt mean your going to go out and shoot somebody in the street ?

AlpinLuke · Jul 13, 2012

Cavanboy said:
why do people like to think warriors or lone wolfs or some sort of rogues or renegades? they are people who embrace fighting and like combat, but this doesnt mean they dont consider others or obey orders or have loyalties.

You might like to fire guns at the range but it doesnt mean your going to go out and shoot somebody in the street ?

Those are the worse mercenaries or warriors who have lost their honor ...

Cavanboy · Jul 13, 2012

whats wrong with mercenaries?

caldrail · Jul 13, 2012

Belloc said:
What's the distinction between the two in your view?

Almost none - it's a question of definition and perspective, and open to interpretation. In general the word 'soldier' implies a professional fighter whilst 'warrior' infers fighting as a lifestyle.

Interestingly Roman legionaries were always referred to as 'Brothers' until the reign of Augustus, who began calling them 'soldiers' as a deliberate policy. Whereas the legions of old were a citizen militia, even the post-marian professional legion continued the same fraternal view of citizen participation, although from the records it does appears that standards fell initially. Augustus was clearly trying to make the legions his personal preserve, thus we see the imperial cult aimed at inducing loyalty to the Caesars. Furthermore, the Romans seem reluctant to name their troops as 'warriors' because it inferred a less civilised image, yet warrior bands raiding neighbouring villages were part of Rome's origins.

Cavanboy · Jul 13, 2012

alrite time to put that "Warriors are undisciplined" myth to rest, lets look at the most basic and pratical thing to answer this question, the definition of the word, not someones interpretation.

Warrior: Noun- (esp. in former times) A brave or experienced soldier or fighter.
Synonyms- fighter - soldier - combatant

Soldier: Noun: A person who serves in an army.
Verb: Serve as a soldier.
Synonyms: serviceman - warrior - man

There ya go folks, straight from oxford itself.

AlpinLuke · Jul 13, 2012

Cavanboy said:
whats wrong with mercenaries?

I see I haven't been clear.

Generally nothing. I was not making reference to all mercenaries [warriors can be mercenaries as well], I've said the "worse mercenaries". The ones which put money before of all the rest.

Cavanboy · Jul 13, 2012

I dont really have a problem with someone who takes up arms for money?

The Imperial · Jul 13, 2012

Cavanboy said:
I dont really have a problem with someone who takes up arms for money?

Professional soldiers are 'mercs' too in a way.... anyway, I do agree. I dont have a problem with someone who takes up arms for money.

Basically every work we do is for money. So if some guys are talented at combat and love it, whats wrong in putting themselves on the market?

Patrick Mullins · Jul 14, 2012

i think the Imperial nailed it:

Knights were warriors, not soldiers
Romans were soldiers, not warriors

Warrior gives the impression of an undisciplined guy who is there only looking for a fight. A soldier is much more than that. He's there because it's his duty, not for the passion to fight.

Warriors were excellent single unit combatants
Soldiers are part of a bigger unit and fight as a whole, not as an individual

Teamwork is the whole issue.

One-on-one a German warrior would take a Roman Legionary
A highlander would take a redcoat

Put them in a group as a unit and it's a different story.

Tuthmosis III · Jul 14, 2012

Another important factor (to correct and clarify my earlier post here) is this:
Warriors are everywhere; you cannot truly have a soldier without some concept of a state...

Cavanboy · Jul 14, 2012

Patrick Mullins said:
i think the Imperial nailed it:

Teamwork is the whole issue.

One-on-one a German warrior would take a Roman Legionary
A highlander would take a redcoat

Put them in a group as a unit and it's a different story.

dude look at my earlier post about the definition of the words, not the personal interpretations on myths.

Belloc · Jul 15, 2012

Tuthmosis III said:
Another important factor (to correct and clarify my earlier post here) is this:
Warriors are everywhere; you cannot truly have a soldier without some concept of a state...

That's true, and Siniša Malešević makes this point aplenty about how soldiers are part of the bureaucratic infastructure of the state(particularly the modern state, but could also apply to Roman legions).

Here's his description of the development of the modern military ethos in the 19th century, which has relevance here:

"The new military wanted to discard extravagant and mostly ritualistic features of warfare such as brightly coloured clothing, the individual warrior ethos, personal displays of heroism and character of traditional battle with it duels, all of which operated at the expense of martial efficiency and bureaucratic discipline. Instead of triumphant individual acts of bravery and fraternisation with the crowd, the focus moved to the anonymity of uniformed soldiers who are stationed in the barracks far away from civilians...In other words the modern military is the epitome of Weberian bureaucracy."

pg. 126;127

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sociology-Violence-Sinisa-Malesevic/dp/052151651X"]Amazon.com: The Sociology of War and Violence (9780521516518): Sinisa Malesevic: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jjchQvlcL.@@AMEPARAM@@51jjchQvlcL[/ame]

So yes warriors do tend to be more individualistic in ethos; whilst soldiers are more collectivist by nature. The cohesion of warrior bands is more loose and informal than that of a standing army.

Belgarion · Jul 15, 2012

'Warrior' is a term that best describes the majority of males of hunter gatherer and clan/tribal based civilisations who would drop what they were doing and fight for the clan/tribe as required. They needed to maintain a certain level of skill at arms but were not the professional soldiers of more advanced civilisations.

Today the term warrior is used in a rather ****y way to describe soldiers who are presumed to have some mystical martial calling and ability beyond that of their peers.

caldrail · Jul 16, 2012

Or more to the point, to give fighters some kind of social status - the idea of fighters as pre-eminent members of the tribe isn't new and is an outward expression of the human psyche.

dagul · Jul 16, 2012

Warrior today sounds like fighting for free damn. Soldiers on the other hand sounds like they sold theirs.

Tuthmosis III · Jul 16, 2012

Belloc said:
That's true, and Siniša Malešević makes this point aplenty about how soldiers are part of the bureaucratic infastructure of the state(particularly the modern state, but could also apply to Roman legions).

(Hey there, my friend.)

Yet another book to add to the never-diminishing list, I see...

Belloc · Jul 16, 2012

Tuthmosis III said:
Yet another book to add to the never-diminishing list, I see...

A very good, if at times dense, book. It's historical overviews of warfare are excellent. I'm looking forward to his analysis of current and possible future warfare.

Search

Search

Warriors vs Soldiers?

Tuthmosis III

Belloc

Kraken

Cavanboy

AlpinLuke

Cavanboy

caldrail

Cavanboy

AlpinLuke

Cavanboy

The Imperial

Patrick Mullins

Tuthmosis III

Cavanboy

Belloc

Belgarion

caldrail

dagul

Tuthmosis III

Belloc

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions