Warriors Vs. Soldiers

[Domoviyr]

Which is better to have on the field, a warrior or a soldier?

Warrior: One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.


Soldier: One who serves in an army.
An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

[Seiichiro]

Better for what?

[Bushi]

This is highly ambiguous. What would be the use for the hypothetical combatant. Warriors are good as a commander's champion. Soldiers are good for battle, for they have trained with their army, and know what they are to do.

[Domoviyr]

I mean, each have their advantages and disadvantages, which is the discussion I'm attempting to provoke. For instance, I think warriors are better all around because of their ferocity, yet archers seem to love warriors because every person I see trying to play hero gets shanked by one of those long reaching mo foes, while the common soldier sits there in the shield wall not being a big target. See?

[Seiichiro]

So, we're talking about grandstanders and team players?

[Domoviyr]

Yes, I suppose you could define them that way.

[savetuba]

Warrior: Ment to become the champion and/or hero.


Soldier: Ment to follow orders and die for the leader/cause.

[vek]

both are vital, but i would prefer soldiers to warriors, cause when the **** hits the fan i would rather have a unit that can stand together than a bunch of heros that break and look for individual glory. down side, numbers dwindle as do there strength. what i woudl love is to train my soldiers to become warriors when the lines break, you know to fight as an unit but to be able to hold their own at the the same time. thats just me, if any clarification needed, soldiers. definetly.

[vek]

both are vital, but i would prefer soldiers to warriors, cause when the **** hits the fan i would rather have a unit that can stand together than a bunch of heros that break and look for individual glory. down side, numbers dwindle as do there strength. what i woudl love is to train my soldiers to become warriors when the lines break, you know to fight as an unit but to be able to hold their own at the the same time. thats just me, if any clarification needed, soldiers. definetly.

[vek]

both are vital, but i would prefer soldiers to warriors, cause when the **** hits the fan i would rather have a unit that can stand together than a bunch of heros that break and look for individual glory. down side, numbers dwindle as do there strength. what i woudl love is to train my soldiers to become warriors when the lines break, you know to fight as an unit but to be able to hold their own at the the same time. thats just me, if any clarification needed, soldiers. definetly.

[vek]

sorry for the triple thread, computers being dumb

[Nix]

The some of the best soldiers in history started out as warriors. For example, the British Highland Regiments, who in the'45 as pro-Stuart rebels were routed by a smaller disciplined English army , took amnesty, and were intrustmental in Wolfe's victory on the plains of Abraham. The Scots grew up cattle raiding and poaching, good warrior training. Strict British training turned them into great soldiers.

There is a spectrum of fighters from people who put the unit about all their needs to a free spirit who is happiest fighting independent. Units are the same way. The strictest unit the Dag Romans limit fighters to arching, spear, or sword and board with standardised size for all weapons.

The unit that someone joins or transfers to should fit your personality. The Midwest Uruks are towards the soldierly side of the spectum. Many a former Uruk has left the unit to suit one that for one that fits them better. We had the majority of of best fighters leave two years ago to form the Dark Guard, at least one join Hellhammer, one Hiedorin, two that have went independent because they did not like the way the unit was run. And we have two come back. at least temporarily. I fight with the Uruk-Hai because I am a tall ,strong, and slow Glaiveman and I have at least a dozen sword and board fighter that I can count on to hold the line and keep me safe and archers that will take out opposing poll arms. If I was quick, skilled stud of a sword and board fighter, I might try to join Dark Guard, it is quality unit. There are a lot of quality units out there in the West and East, I have never heard of. -Nix

[Domoviyr]

So what you're saying is that both have their place. Warriors are far better at individual fighting, but an army of soldiers would function better on the field. Perhaps it is not best to specialize in one aspect or the other but to be versatile, a soldier when needed and warrior when needed. Take the Gothic Tribes for example. Great warriors, great soldiers (they did beat Rome after all). Diversification...yessss.....

[Oisin]

When they beat Rome it was weak and innefective. The legions were so riddled with desertion and incompetance, not to mention that their training and discipline had been sorely neglected since earlier times, that their defeat was not some great miracle. Rome surviving would have been the miracle.

Anyway, though, Caesar's armies are one of the best examples in history of the ability of a relatively small amount of soldiers to defeat a large number of warriors. They beat the Gauls time and time again, despite being outnumbered drastically. This is partly due to Caesar's military genius, of course, but more so to the differences between how the Gauls faught and how the Romans faught.

[V-Hil]

I have to agree with Oison about the fall of Rome. What made Republican Rome strong and early Roman Empire strong was her disciplined armies, able commanders AND it's administration system. I mean, even when several WHOLE armies iwere anihilated n the Second Punic War, they were able to build complete new ones due to the army building system in place.

When Rome fell, that system was almost completely gone. The well armoured, disciplined rank and file had been replaced with the people of whom they conquered, many of which weren't of the old school Roman soldierly type.

Their are many other reasons why Rome fell, but bad luck, lack of manpower (used up during all the wars it waged), corrupt government and a poor system of army building are key reasons IMHO.

AS it related to Belegarth, the warrior will typically win out due to the size of the fields we play on. The warriors will run away until the time is right to strike. The soldiers will typically lose because there just aren't enough out there to work together and the fact that everyone volunteers to play this sport aren't typically up for heavy drilling to work together.

A great example was given to me by my Military History Professor many years ago. Take a French cavalry soldier of the Napoleanic era and pit him against a Mounted Mamluk Turkish Warrior, the warrior will win nearly every time. Ten French Cavalry soldiers vs Ten Mamluks... the victory will go back and forth. 100 French Cav. vs 100 Mamluks... the French. The discipline and training the Napoleanic French recieved was superb in team environments while the training the Mamluks received (from a very young age) was superb for the individual.

Anyway.....

[Kyrian]

V'hill,

Was that the "War and Military Institutions", Hist 281/282, class with Professor Lynn at U of I?

That was a * good class!

Kyrian

[Borric]

It was Kyrian, it was an excellent class. Both V'hil, myself, and a couple others took the class during the same semester.

[debuenzo]

a class not offered this spring.....

dammit

back to the question...very unspecific....

being a badass warrior myself... ...i pick warriors

but seriously....i think that battlefield awareness and teamwork win battles.....but being a great fighter doesnt hurt...

[Domoviyr]

What entails being a great warrior? Is it just fighting finesse, or is it something more? And what would be the benefits of being just a soldier?

[vek]

i think to be great warrior you require something more than just fighting finesse, it needs character, charisma, and bravery. i don't know, i think that the greatest of warriors were the ones that would lead his men, train them, help them, not merely by being the best fighter, but being able to know when to inspire and motivate. True watching your commander kick * is insperational and motivating, but if that guys a * off the field, it really ruins it. The benefits of being a soldier, last longer in team battles, know how to manuever better with a group, avoid hurting your own troops,and taking orders. many a battle has been lost by guys that wouldn't listen to the commands. But I've lost many a battle because i didn't listen either.

[Domoviyr]

I know this is going to sound a little malshovenistic, but how effective are women as leaders/warriors? I pose this question not because I think they are inferior (they're not, I know, not only have I had my * handed to me by a number of excellent female fighters but I come from a matriarchial family) but because alot of men don't give them alot of credit. They somehow think that women are weaker or something, and often are less likely to follow a women. How do warrior women deal with this outrageous sterotype on the field, especially from their own comrades?

[vek]

this stereotype is a mental thing, the whole gentel female that should stay at home crap. the best way to deal with it is to show us (men) that it simply isn't true, in other words beat the crap out of us for talking smack or showing how tactical they are, then again the best of us shouldn't discriminate in the first place. But your best response will probably come from a womans experience.

[Domoviyr]

In all the stories (Troy, King Arthur, Some Lord of the Rings) the hero will wade through the enemy to get to a specific opponent with whom he has a personal vendetta. Are such vendettas practical in Belegarth, or should one stick to just fighting and winning against the total opponent. What would a Warrior do?

[Dr. Kazi]

I got soul but I'm not a soldier.

[Domoviyr]

Another thing is that most of the great warriors of old embraced a truely spiritual outlook on combat and swordplay. The battlefield was like their church, their weapon their holy artifact. I share this outlook of a spiritual strengthening that goes with the body, but the vast majority of the world today sees this sport as a bunch of fools whacking one another with foam sticks. I think the differance between a stick swinger and an artist is the way he views the act, as a game or art, and what it means to them. The true warrior, in my mind, is one who fights with his spirit, not just with his arms.

[Domoviyr]

Which do you define yourselves as and why?

[graavish]

i've got to go with warrior not because i am that great but just my mentality and fighting style i carry my mentality over from football and wrestling i love to compete and i love the thrill of victory while showing out also while i'm trying to improve i still have trouble seeing the whole field so when i fight i'm good enough to fight anyone maybe not when but at least take their attention and i try to do this with the best fighter that i can find that takes them out of the game while the rest of my team clears up theirs then i kill them or if they kill me then the rest of my team will kill them so i think im more of a warrior

[Izanaki]

both. The reason is because if there is an appropriate mix, then that would make for a great fighter. My opinions, since im not too historically educated, nor have i studied things like this like some of you probably have, are probably wrong.
Soldiers generally have:
An ability to function within a team, to follow commands, and to be able to fight along side others for a common goal. This is good to have, because everyone should have team work skills. a million men fighting for themselves and caring nothing for helping the person next to them, probably wouldnt win against an army of a million soldiers.

Warriors generally have:
An ability to function outside of a team, and therefore must be confident in their own skills to step onto the battle field, not in a way that a soldier generally would. This is good because everyone should have confidence in their own fighting abilities, and to been able to have refined their skills to the point that they are confident enough to fight against unknown opponants without a large amount of support that soldiers that stay in lines, normally would have.

[Vokor]

Imho Warriors lead Soldiers.

[moondog]

i agree with that...and a single warrior can re route an entire unit of soldiers if he's smart and skilled enough, or hold them at bay single handed. I'm a soldier in a unit comprised entirely of warriors... when we're all fighting together each warrior becomes a soldier looking out for each others well being. that's the advantage of a smaller unit of skilled & diverse fighters

[Teej]

In belegarth... I'd say soldier. Comradery/teamwork, and knowing you men's weaknesses make you able to compensate for them, making your unit more combat efficient. While warriors are effective, and most often elite, that too is their downfall... and I'd prefer to be in an organized unit rather than a cluster-f*** zerging from one person to the next.

In real life though... Its more a matter of definition to me... There is an ongoing soft-spot in the Marine Corps about this. Marines are taught from boot camp that they are warriors not soldiers. To call a Marine a soldier is a common, but insulting misstake. Soldiers are much like mercenaries but of course more disciplined and loyal to one central authority. You can be a soldier for your 4 year term then you're a civilian again. But warriors have a warrior lifestyle, you are always a warrior, because every aspect of your life is approached with military professionalism and bearing. As they say "Once a Marine, always a Marine."

[moondog]

yup once government property always government property

[Teej]

yup once government property always government property

Pretty much, I had a buddy of mine called up a year after getting out. Married and a kid now. Sent to a grunt unit, although he was quite *, the SOB lost 53 lbs and got promoted to SGT (E-5) in 3 months.

[graavish]

dude if you don't like cluster **** and zerging stay away from the horde thats all i'm goin to tell ya we have turned that INTO a tactic

[Vokor]

If you are confused by how we fight, we have done well, then by the time you figure it out you will aready be dead.

[Teej]

dude if you don't like cluster **** and zerging stay away from the horde thats all i'm goin to tell ya we have turned that INTO a tactic

lmao, very true, * and zerging really does have "horde" written all over it. I would expect that of people who have monsterous and/or greenskin (orc, troll, goblin) personas. Those who would leave tactics to the "pretty" knights in shiny armor groups...

And as much as I hate disorganization im probably going to end up doing the same, as I plan to base my unit off a horde myself.

[Kaegan]

Soldiers win. Warriors only prevail in this sport because not many people can play the "capable" soldier. it's much more difficult to be a soldier, you have to know much more than just how to swing a sword.

[Digoza]

If you are confused by how we fight, we have done well, then by the time you figure it out you will aready be dead.

Krikit's actually been trying to master a pretty interesting fient technique; hell, I only fully realized that what he was doing was intentionaly AFTER we fought when I said "hey, krikit; did you intentionally miss, or did you miss and realize 'hey, I can bring mysword back in an attempt to hit you'" Well, as I had assumed, it was the former.

[Grim Warhawk AlRitte]

I love the backswing in close combat. Nobody ever uses the other side of their sword.

[moondog]

maybe not in wi...

[Domoviyr]

One of the techniques I've been working on that I love so much is the light jabs with sword and board. So many people think that big swings are a nessicary part of swordplay, personally, I like the simple small movements...CAUSE NOBODY EXPECTS THEM!!!! It seems everyone expects big movement, so minimize your movement and decieve your opponent.

[div]

True, warriors lead soldiers. Gorlock(warrior extraordinare), for example, got people going in the Old vs. New battles at Opener just by yelling at them and pushing them forward. It was like magic ::poofsparklesparkle::

[V-Hil]

Soldiers lead soldiers as well. Who better to know how to motivate, inspire and lead EFFECTIVELY than a person who was once a lowly private type. An experienced leader has gained the skills necessary to fight in a team and as an individual.
Categorizing warriors as leaders of soldiers isn't completely correct either. Way back when organized armies weren't, relying on your individual skill was extremely important for survival in daily life as well as the battlefield. But, when groups start getting organized, the strong, charismatic personalities typically took the lead, they typically had the instincts a warrior would have with soldierly skills they learned while being a grunt.
So, my point is Warriors don't lead soldiers. Leaders lead soldiers. Some leaders have the warrior traits. Some have the trained soldierly abilities. Both can be effective although the soldier will tend to have more experience if he/she is a true soldier because that's what soldiers do: train as a team. Warriors can do the same, but it is much more instinctual and individualistic. If it isn't, then they aren't warriors, but soldiers.

[Grim Warhawk AlRitte]

As quoted from the NCODP course I attended recently, "Anyone can command (ie Give orders), but only Leaders can lead (ie make the troops do it while maintaining morale)."

[graavish]

basic difference as i see given the right attitude anyone can be a soldier as shown by todays military i mean they throw out all of that army of one stuff yadd yadda but if you have the right attitude then they will train you warriors are born with the innate rage aggression strength and intelligents to be the best at the art of war and to stand alone

[Killian of Andor]

I personally would go with soldiers, but warriors can do a lot. For example, Kaisers unit decided to fight the rest of us and would have run us over, except that Vash, by himself, kept their whole right flank at bay. (we won that one)

[V-Hil]

How many people are you talking about when you say "flank?"

[Killian of Andor]

10 or so

my realm isn't that big

[Underhill]

What I generally associate with beig a soldier is strictly obeying orders and a lack of creativity, due to it being stamped out by the bigwigs.

On the other hand, warriors can take a half-dozen soldiers, but will fall against formations.

On the gripping hand, a warrior's independence and ingenuity combined with the soldier's ability to work with others will pwn all.

In conclusion, I have to say neither is better, but just being one or the other will probably get you nowhere quickly.