Warriors and Soldiers

hmm, no thoughts at all

i still think so and nothing will change that

you will find in every period of history a part where ppl turned "evil" ... yes lets call it this way
but that does not mean that in all periods it was this way... it does not mean that in every country it was this way

and a warrior will always be a symbol for someone who fought for something with all he had because he did believe in it
and soldiers mainly do their orders because that is the task of every soldier
a soldier can turn into a warrior doing both - good or bad

i personally prefer to fight for or against something because i believe in it ... not because i got the order to do so

if you say different ... fine but that will not change my definition of warriors and it wont change me believing into one of the old warrior codex's

I really don't like how bad it looks for my opinion to always conflict with somebody else's, but I'm not going to lie. I respect and trust your insight into your own family's past and therefore assume that everything you've said on the matter holds a good deal of truth.

I don't know anything about warriors, but I've always thought of a soldier as a person who fights to defend his/her interests (which are common with those of a people)... The opposing arguement's definition of a soldier as one who runs away like a coward would offend veterans I'd assume. Such a person is not a soldier, that person is refered to as a "deserter" Soldiers never run; they pull back as part of a strategy in hopes of following up with victory of some sort.

well yeah... just a tactical retreat
whatever i didnt meant to say that they always run away

Well Rome had soldiers, the nations that rome conquerd had most of the times warriors.

I have ever seen the soldiers more as opressors then warriors.

In Lusitania the last of the Iberian nations to fall uppon the Roman impire, we had a great leader called Viriato, he was a shepard before been a warrior, but he have never been a soldier.

American indians were always warriors.

I see a warrior as the person that fights when is needed, even if his own ocupation is anything else.

Perhaps warriors fight when they feel that it is needed, and in certain cases honor was considered a need. All people hold certain, unique convictions and are willing to fight and die for them. People often fight for the wrong things (which in a soldier's case can lead to oppressing enemies of his/her nation)... In this case the warrior still exists. He is not a person who kills as much as debates. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and perhaps the warrior can now be found in the vocal politician, the wealthy yet ambitious CEO, the activist, and the lawyer. It seems the only warriors who still fight with arms are called "terrorists"... a fitting name for such a person, obviously . Just some more thoughts :] .

the old germania had warriors and romes soldiers were not able to set their feet on that "german" ground ^^´

btw. what is "blatent"... does that word exist?

Well, there are good soldiers and bad ones. Good soldiers do their job, suceed in the defense of their interests, and then show mercy to their one-time enemies and act civil about the whole process. Bad soldiers win the cause and rape, pillage, and plunder while they do it . Oppression is a side-effect of corruption.

@Fox...the ass-kicking is very complex. I would like to point out that the soldiers not so much as the warriors push little red buttons that leave cities in ruins (of course, a person to do such a thing wouldn't be a soldier as much as a monster).

(blatent means frankly, or crudely/loudly stated as best I can describe ^^)

(EDIT: my apologies, I post my ideas and then edit 3-10 times to get what I wanted to say down right. In an active thread this might lead to confusion when I add more to my post :D)

Rome at the height of it's Empire was also one of the most technologically advanced nations, along with the Egyptians....both time frames did span several centuries.

During WW2, contrary to history's belief, Japan did not quite sneak attack the U.S., since the U.S. and other nations laid embargos on Japan for invading China and spreading their imperialism at the time.

I dont think (IMO) the Japanese were left behind in the world, since at the time, they were also excellent engineers (still are) and they did not lose the war to culture, they lost the Pacific to bad tactical decisions. 3 Front wars suck.

When we dropped the Atomic Bombs, it did the world a huge favor by showing how destructive mankind can be, so we all lost there. Nobody won in that scenario.

The Bombs did us another favor. It's obviously bad that we could annihilate ourselves with some button-pushing, but at least for the last 60 or so years world powers have been too terrified of that to have another world war (think about every conflict that's taken place in the last half century and realize how many would have escalated if there hadn't been nuclear devices standing by 8o). WMD are despicable and vile, but they seem to be the ultimate safeguard against a greater evil: large-scale conflicts.

In my opinion there is a huge difference between soldiers and warriors.

Soldiers are like mercenarys they act on orders. Well, Soldiers fight for their fatherland... mercenarys fight for money but they both don't act on their own behavior.

A real Warrior is a one man fighter that won't get allong in any group and fights for what he thinks is right and honorable. Maybe the Warrior fights for his fatherland like the soldier does but the warrior will have his own tactics and his own objectives.

The Soldier get's his tactics and objectives in the mission briefing...

Though soldiers can morph into warriors when they are dropped of their group or their hole grp is dead. Then they mostly act on theirselves and fight like a warrior would do.

But i have one problem, i can't imgaine a warrior with modern weapons like H&K G36 or the MG3 on his back *lol
A Warrior must have swords or axe or blunt...whatever...but no modern weapons
well, in my opinion.

Greetz
CyB

Well, allmost all the south europe was conquered by Rome, that as nothing to do.

What I want to say is that to be a warrior is more a state of spirit then a matter of good or evil.

Some ppl only find that state of spirit some times in life, other's live all they're life with it.

Sometimes we found warriors in ppl that can't even hold a weapon.

the weapons does not matter in my oppinion
the only thing that does matter is the faith in a warriors heart
and i can imagine to call somebody a warrior which use words as his weapon ... if he is fighting for what he believes in

so the point is a warrior fights for what he in his own heart believes in.

And a soldier fights for what he was told to. The soldier can believe in his orders and really think that it is the one and only way but he's still doing what the orders say.
The orders describe his way.

For the warrior his heart describes his way