Talk:Warrior/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"A warrior culture is a civilization that heavily emphasizes battle and war and greatly prizes feats of arms. Warrior cultures often incorporate a cult of personality around military leaders.One of the greatest leader in WORLD is Zoolhilmi,who is the PERBUN president." Zoolhilmi? What? removed.

Since the rise of conscription, due to the expansion of the state under Napoleon, and his doctrine of 'Total War' (meaning mobilizing the entire nation for war): a dichotomy has evolved into the two separate working definitions of warrior and soldier: a soldier is a conscript, a clerk, or a laborer, or even a fighter doing his national service. A soldier fulfills an obligation - in antiquity, to buy his way into property ownership, in the middle ages, to gain access to plunder, and later, as an indentured servant under national conscription. By contrast, a warrior has made a choice to fight as a career - as a profession, on behalf of his group - be it tribe, country, nation, or civilization. Warrior ethics share similarities worldwide, and across time, but in large part they consist of demonstrations of loyalty to group members including the courage to risk one's life without question, and to do one's part, his duty, in any exercise without question, without complaint and without failure. In the west, from the Hopelite ethic, to the Roman Mithraic tradition through the scandinavian and then christian traditions, this loyalty also includes a prescription for truth-telling at all costs. (undone: Mithra and Odin were also gods of truth and contract, but i'd have to look up zeus, jupiter, dyaus pitar. I'm not sure how they approached it.)

For example: the US Army self identifies soldiers in the lower ranks, and warriors in the top ranks. The US Marines consider themselves warriors to the last man. In some academic circles, it's argued that soldiers may not be held accountable for their actions, but a warrior may be held accountable for his actions, since he chose his and his actions. A warrior need not belong to a formal institution. He may simply join with others to take up arms on behalf of his people. In more practical terms, a soldier fights in formations in order to concentrate force against strategic initiatives of an opponent, and a warrior operates in smaller numbers against tactical objectives. (I have to check the sources on this last sentence.)

(comments on Soldiers and warriors) In the US Army, all are called Soldiers with a capital 'S' in an attempt to give the same sense of meaning in identity that the US Marines have when they confer the title 'Marine' to each other. (I've been both). The US Marines are much more along the mythological scale than the US Army is, for the term Marine is an earned one and denotes a warrior attitude as primary, and the soldier as a job description as necessary. This is one reason why Marines dislike being called 'Soldiers', for to them it ignores their primary identity as Warriors. The US Army, in an attempt to overcome its shortcoming in this regard, capitalizes Soldier to distinguish between the job and the warrior. It has no effect. Another trend is that everyone in the Army is sometimes referred to as 'Warrior' and different types of training are 'warrior training' and 'warrior skills' (which only serves to blur the lines they are trying to create). I have explained it in many trainings, there are three broad concepts that are incorrectly used together; fighter, soldier, and warrior. Fighter is best understood as someone who is unwilling to quit, such as someone fighting breast cancer, or Rocky Balboa. This is grit, it isn't moral. Soldier is job with various KSA's, knowledge skills abilities, needed to perform it. In the infantry we sum it up as how to 'shoot, move, and communicate'. An example of a fighting force with little KSA in soldiering was watching Libyan rebels on the t.v. Their clumsiness in tactical movement was evident to any professional military soldier. There is not necessarily a moral dimension in soldiering. One can anywhere along the spectrum, from noble to monstrous. Warrior, however, is entirely defined by morality. The warrior willingly places zerself between that which is loved (home, ancient forest, citizens) and that which threatens it (invading force, chainsaws, police dogs). The actions taken at this point may or may not involve the use of force. An example of militant warriors are the women that stood up and fought agains the Islamic State in Iraq. eddiecoyote (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Eddie

CASTES Most if not all societies have warrior castes or subcultures. Although there are strong countries and weak countries and the social awareness of warrior culture is usually higher in strong countries and lower in weak ones. Countries on growth curves develop warrior castes more quickly. In each civilization there are 'core states' that hold other nations in their civilization accountable, and these states tend to have the strongest warrior cultures. (currently the core states are USA, Russia, India, Iran, China, Japan, with Iran attempting to become the core state of Islamic civilization, against the objections of the other states - the Turks, Pakistanis and the Saudis in particular.) In most cultures prior to the rise of the nation-state, warrior status carried with it a higher status - and consequently greater opportunity for mates and wealth. Conscription has weakened the value of the status symbol of being a warrior, to the point where, in some countries, other than under the Special Forces, the general camaraderie and 'respect' (in modern terms: 'status-signaling') has been limited to those within the group. In some cultures, relative geopolitical weakness has fostered anti-militarism and pacifism which have driven status signaling underground. In English 'civilization', the Regimental System effectively privatized the warrior system, and combined with British institutional, technical, economic and military power, continued the highly status oriented culture within the society -

The societies to most thoroughly militarize have been the Spartans and The Vikings who are probably the extremes - being small populations that with martial excellence had dramatic impact on their times. The Mohammedan expansion Arabs that conquered much of the old Roman Empire with their desert raiding tactics. The Mongols, who did the same but, partly due to illiteracy were even less successful at implementing a sustainable economy than the Arabs. And arguably the English who conquered as much with administration, accounting and trade as they did with their modern arms and ships. Sikhs still hold their traditions. The japanese, who prior to the arrival of American gunboats, had developed the feudal system into a ritualistic art form. The list of warrior cultures is long, in no small part because warriors are necessary to capture and hold land and trade routes, and trade routes determine the currency, laws, taxes, bureaucracy, property rights, and therefore the prosperity of the citizenry. So any landed society that ever prospered and expanded has had to develop a warrior caste.

ETHICS Multiple military codes of ethics exist. But warrior codes are not the same military codes. In hunter gatherer tribes, murder, rape, headhunting, theft, and destruction are heroic virtues. Once political institutions formed under agrarian states - priests came first, kings second - whether on the alluvial plains of mesopotamia or in the rivers and forests of europe, warriors had to be constrained in their behaviors, if only to protect the citizenry. The most commonly cited warrior codes were created in response to the crusades, by the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitalier - in part to help the Church control the Nordic knights which the church and combined manorial forces of Europe had not been able to resist. Today's codes are gentle to the point of being confusing, and possibly useless for soldiers who when nation building and policing must fight under highly vulnerable conditions that grant initiative to their opponents. Americans have consistently put increasing types of constraints on our soldiers, to the point where they are in constant physical danger and unable to protect themselves because of those constraints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtd59 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be added on this sub-topic? -- MCG 03 Sept 06 Under warrior cultures there is a mention of only two living European nations, Albanians and Croatians. Why? Are they the only modern warrior culture in Europe? British ruled most of the world until a century ago, Germany was a center of two world wars, Russia has largest number of nuclear weapons in the world (and fought the last war in Europe, against Georgia), and these two Balkan countries that combined have what, 10 million inhabitants are only ones in Europe who are warlike in present era? Albania hasnt waged a war in centuries, and Croatia didnt start the last war it waged. Answer, any one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.110.211 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be added on this sub-topic? Knights, and the below mentioned Powhatan warriors maybe? -- MCG 03 Sept 06

There should be a section about warriors from

This subheading has just appeared and I would suggest that it immediately be made its own article. The current list of warriors in various cultures is already getting a bit long and this one could be much, much longer. I have no opinion on how it should be organized, but such a list should be a separate article of its own, whether organized by country, sport or whatever. Compare to List of birds, list of martial arts or list of stalked celebrities. - Rorybowman 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the mention of "especially under Leif Eriksson" comment about Vikings. There were many famous Viking warleaders, but Leif Eriksson wasn't one of them, and his followers weren't particularly warlike. 85.8.12.78 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This List is totally redundant: we have category:Warriors, so I deleted it. `'mikka 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

no there should be a discussion on that if before you take that out. I put it back. I think you should probably take out the part though. 69.106.243.7 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good list ... I would like to add it to the article, with the collapse box so as not to be obtrusive. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reformatted for even columns). This is a fairly extensive list - might it be organized by geographic region, historical period, or some other hierarchy? A

navigation template might also be in order. We could even create List of types of warrior or something like that. - 2/0 (cont.

) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi .. the list was here when I got here. I am only suggesting we add it with a collapse box. i haven't gone thought it. Creating a List of Types of Warriors may be a better way to go. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

soldiers may not count as warriors like the article says. Also there is no sources for that. also "active combat roles" may be hard to define. The US and Russia do have females in in their military. Im not sure if females soldiers in Russia are "permited to fill active combat roles" though. 69.106.243.7 (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought soldiers were payed warriors. That is soldier is a subset of warrior. Pretty much no country calls their troops warriors anymore. Now days they would be called militias. Rds865 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Behind the mask of the "head of state" is the commander-in-chief; behind the mask of the commander-in-chief is the dictatorial warlord; behind the mask of the dictatorial warlord is the swashbuckling soldier of fortune; behind the mask of the swashbuckling soldier of fortune is the cutthroat pirate. Thus the ethical psychology of "the State" is (except for Galahad-like disinterested warriors) a matter of criminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.192.226 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation or it didn't happen. Leushenko (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be great to make something like that, with links to historical most famous warriors like Napoleon, Jan Žižka, Sargon etc. Maybe ordered by number of victories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.119.248 (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I really dont think the Gurkhas, a 18th, 19th and 20th century British military asset, can be considered warriors. If we include these guys, whats stopping us from adding 18th and 19th century American war heros or Horatio Nelson like that guy above wrote?--

Very interesting to note that Sikhs are not mentioned in this article considering their numerous battle honours in the past number of centuries. They make all other Warrior clans, castes, races what ever yo want to call them look unimportant and inappropriate. Why is this so? Maybe people do not like Turbaned bearded barbaric savage looking beings- reminds the majority whom were oppressed conformed and controlled 'the Barbarian past'? Must be an internal genetic reaction. LOL. Or maybe the sikhs of today rely on symbolism as the majority know longer practice War and question their own Warrior Granths/scriptures as they have never done battle in the last 50 years they live off fables.Have They brought such sacrilege upon themselves?--Raidcmdr (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you, by any chance, a Sikh? For years, teenagers have come to this page and added their own ethnicity so they can feel as a "warrior". This isn't the purpose of this page,

Of course the Sikhs are an excellent example of a military caste. Chronologically, they are a final continuation of the kshatriya class of Indian antiquity. With modernity, this societal function becomes obsolete, as armies become institutionalized (meaning that in a modern army there are grunts on one hand, and bureaucrats on the other, but no "warriors" in the pre-modern sense). Modernity didn't arrive in India until the late 19th century, and the Sikhs are a good example of a late "warrior class", a meme that was enthusiastically transported by the British classification of

There is a series by Erin Hunter called "Warriors." In this series is the involvement of what is called the Warrior Code. Couldn't these 2 completely different subjects be mixed? I know there isn't really anything else you could name this article other than "Warrior Code" but still, I thought I should mention it. 67.141.24.138 (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The New Zealand Army (Its name in Maori is Ngati Tumatauenga "Tribe of the God of war") considers itself to have Mana and a warrior culture.

The Way of the Warrior is also called the Army's ethos. Ethos is a Greek word which means the distinctive character and attitudes of a community or a culture. Because the Army is an organisation which exists to fight for the nation, and its members must be prepared to fight, the Army has its own distinctive culture and traditions. Every soldier who joins the Army must conform to the Army's ethos and follow The Way of the Warrior. The New Zealand Army's ethos, or The Way of the New Zealand Warrior, is to serve New Zealand loyally and honourably.

— New Zealand Army Values (19 March 2015)

This article is not structured in such a way that it is easy to include such sentiments as described by the armed forces of a First World Country which makes up one of the nations of the Anglosphere, because it is implied with the section header of Modern "warriors" do not exist, if not why include the word warriors in double quotes? -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Social Justice" was added to this list? This a just some sort of timely joke, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.84.30 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)