What is the difference between a soldier and a warrior?
What is the difference between a soldier and a warrior?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The soldier is usually a jobber, warriors are rarely soldiers
The warrior fights for "muh tradition." He kills everything because that is what his "glorious tradition" tells him to do.
The soldier by contrast is a professional. He does not seek to kill everything because his objective is ultimately political.
warrior fights for varios reasons tradition can be one of them.Soldier fights because thats an order.Warrior is like an animal in the wild he thinks before he atacks anyone and doesnt do it for no reason.Soldier is like a trained dog will attack an elefant and die if ordered will stand groud even if another dog is eating his leg if ordered.
Soldier perceives a solde: he is a warrior on a payroll, be it of a regular professional army, or as a levy.
Soldiers fight just to make a living or gain some sort of personal benefit. Warriors fight because they believe fighting is a virtue and a reward in and of itself.
A warrior does what he wants, a soldier does what he must.
Soldiers are primarily motivated by salary, warriors fight for matters that personally matter to them, whether it be patriotism, revenge, tradition, morality, or looting.
Warriors fight with swords, soldiers fight with guns
Soldiers are mercenaries, warriors are knights.
This lays it out very well, but the tl:dr version is that primary distinction is one of social role and the permanence of fighting to their social identity.
>So here is the difference: a warrior is an individual who wars, because it is their foundational vocation, an irremovable part of their identity and social position, pursued for those private ends (status, wealth, place in society). So the core of what it is to be a warrior is that it is an element of personal identity and also fundamentally individualistic (in motivation, to be clear, not in fighting style – many warriors fought with collective tactics, although I think it fair to say that operation in units is much more central to soldiering than the role of a warrior, who may well fight alone). A warrior remains a warrior when the war ends. A warrior remains a warrior whether fighting alone or for themselves
>By contrast, a soldier is an individual who soldiers (notably a different verb, which includes a sense of drudgery in war-related jobs that aren’t warring per se) as a job which they may one day leave behind, under the authority of and pursued for a larger community which directs their actions, typically through a system of regular discipline. So the core of what it is to be a soldier is that it is a not-necessarily-permanent employment and fundamentally about being both in and in service to a group. A soldier, when the war or their term of service ends, becomes a civilian (something a warrior generally does not do!). A soldier without a community stops being a soldier and starts being a mercenary.
warriors are born
soldiers are made
soldier is a grindset
warrior is a mindset
A warrior is someone who has attained remarkable self-discipline without the need for an audience's praise. A soldier is a hired killer.
"A soldier follows orders but a warrior follows his heart."
A soldier follows orders, a warrior follows his heart.
One is on Marley's side and the other is on Eldia's side
>“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
Soldering is a profession, temporary or permanent in support of a state and leader.
Warriors our individuals of a secondary pastime, who fight for an individual, personal cause.
Warriors have souls
Soldiers have chains
There’s a lot of dumb answers in this thread, though most of them are merely jokes. I’m not sure I know for sure what the definitions are, but I would say something like a warrior is someone who does violence for a reason, often as part of a group of like minded warriors, but not necessarily. The role of a soldier I think really boils down to being occupational, soldiers are paid to fight as part of an organized formation of men whose purpose is to fight as a unit to accomplish a common goal or whatever. An example of a warrior that comes to mind might be a Danish Viking, who may even be a farmer for most of the year but goes raiding in the summer. But he doesn’t take a wage and the organization is more of a social hierarchy rather than a rigid institutionalized system. Idk man this makes sense in my head
agree soldiers are bugpoeple also capable of much greater destruction.Soldier bugman will kill the whole enemy villages of women and children even if that means his family will get the same treatment because thats an order.Warrior wont do such a thing at least for his own benefit.
Soldiers are mass produced and fight under echelons in an army.
Warriors generally fight for themselves characteristically
for the soldier it's a job while for the warrior it's a lifestyle
warrior, a way of life (e.g. mercenary)
soldier, assigned occupation (e.g. conscripts)
For a soldier, war is his profession.
For a warrior, war is his way of life.
A good illustration of the stark differences between the two mindsets would be the War in Afghanistan.
Americans are a soldier society. The burden of making war is primarily shouldered by an ever-shrinking number of trained specialists. These specialists are expected to be as efficient in their craft as possible. As a result the American soldier is on an individual level, a vastly superior fighter to his Taliban counterpart, being outfitted with the best equipment and training that money can buy.
Afghans, most especially the Taliban, are a warrior society. Since 1979 (long enough for multiple generations to be born into it), Afghanistan has been gripped by perpetual civil war and in centuries prior, had to fight off a myriad of external enemies. As a result, the burden of making war is more evenly distributed. Every Afghan boy who is old enough to carry a gun is expected to fight in the defense of his faith, his clan, or even just his village. Naturally this comes with a tradeoff, the Afghan warrior is not particularly well-trained and certainly not well-equipped. He isn't the best shot, his rations are irregular, and his equipment is at best shit that was considered obsolete from the last war. But his mentality is far more conducive to fighting a long grinding war of spiritual attrition. His will to fight outlasts that of the American soldier, who is expected to achieve rapid and visible results, and go home. If the American soldier fails in this, the American public is quick to turn against the war and even against him.
It's kind of like a corporate employee and an entrepreneur where one makes gain in a more personal way.
soldiers get paid, in theory