What is the difference between soldiers and warriors?
>>397594
Nothing.
>>397594
Literally synonyms
>>397594
soldier is a profession, warrior is a more romantic idealistic based fighter. Not someone just doing it for the pay
>>397594
Minimal during wartime, but more marked when you have a standing army that are paid during peacetime.
>http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/37776/difference-between-warrior-and-soldier
>>397599
Beat me to it.
It's the same difference as between "politician" and "statesman" I guess.
warrior sounds cooler and more romantic
>>397594
Soldiers are typically trained average citizens. Warriors tended to be derived from a culture sect. They were trained by experience and the world they lived in. Whereas a soldier could be made from anyone, you can't train someone to be a warrior. Some soldiers are warriors but most are just soldiers.
>>397594
Technically there's no difference, they are interchangeable.
However when people refer to the term warrior, they're speaking about someone who's been raised since childhood, apart of a military family or clan instead of a government-designated system, solely trained for frontline combat, etc.
When people speak of soldiers, they're usually referring to someone who chose the profession as an adult, trained by the government or similar administrative institution, and belong to a government or similar administrative institution instead of a military clan or family, and they are trained for multi-purpose roles which mainly focus on combat but not limited to combat.
>>397594
>>397599
>>397604
Nothing.
A roman would call himself both milites and bellator, and implying he wasn't one would likely get you beaten or killed.
And yes, they were know for going berserk in fights, ignoring battle-plane, attacking unordered, panic...
And the orderly construction of incredible siege works, and disciplined marches in any conditions at any time.
It's all the same shit.
>>397594
Warriors have their own position in society, like nobles or priests.
You had people receiving a salary, and people whose pay came entirely from looting.
Soldier refers solely to the former.
![the-warriors-luther[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CDiwkbz.jpg "the-warriors-luther[1].jpg")
Soldiers don't come out to play
>>398109
>>397594
Warriors fight in wars. Soldiers are professionals within a military group. Not all soldiers fight.
warrior is individual, soldier is just part of a machine
Warrior seems to be more about physical combat
I wouldn't call a modern soldier with a gun a warrior
>>398209
Plenty of modern tribal societies would disagree.
Warrior is pretty blanket a term.
it's the exact same thing some people say ''oh but warrior is the way of life!'' no shit so is being a soldier warrior just sounds more heroic
>>398209
but even back when people used swords and spears warriors were called soldiers
>>397940
>romans going berserk
wasn't this punishable?
>>398109
Soldiers are trained fighters. Warriors are born into a society that embrace war/fighting.
Contract ashigaru with samurai, for example.
>>398422
Pullo, get back in formation you drunken fool!
>>398422
One wonders.
On one hand, you have roman legions descripted as exceedingly disciplined armies that fought rigorously in formation.
On the other hand you have accounts like Caesar's of Titus Pullo racing out of the encampment on his own, and many accounts of single combat.
The truth is probably that breaking formation was bad, but if weren't putting anyone in danger aside from yourself, it was probably seen as heroic enough to be overlooked.
Soldiering is a profession
Warriors adhere to it as an integral cultural way of life
One can be both of course
>>398767
Until melee weapons were superceded by firearms and ranged combat, single combat had always been a part of war, though the practice largely died down in the west in the middle ages. Numerous Roman writers like, like Livy and Polybius, mention it, though as you did, breaking formation to fight in single combat would have been a no no for the Romans. Same for the Hellenes, given the nature of the phalanx. But before the battle, absolutely.
>War is boring.
That's a soldier.
>War is boring. Except when you get to break into and assault compounds while constantly outnumbered. Let's do that some more!
That's my pop... how was I even born....
>If it weren't for those yanks, we could have kept this jolly war going for ten more years!
That's a warrior who brought a medieval claymore to a nuke fight. I'm surprised he managed to live through the entire war. He also had kids. I wonder if they all carried little claymores in their pockets at kindergarten.
>Nippon banzai!!!
That's a regular Japanese citizen.
>War is cute!
I think you know....
>>398422
Yes, but not really.
Look up the battle of gergovia. Caesar wanted a smash and grab to save face.
It worked.
And then the legion decided to press the attack, piss away the battle plan, get mauled, and FUCK Caesars political maneuverings.
He punished the men with a lecture.
Centurions died in droves fighting-they were expected to be incredibly brash, aggressive men at all times.
A good rule of thumb for romans is this:
If you aren't expressly forbidden from engaging in offensive action, you can get away with it.
If you ARE, expected to be killed.
If you retreat or refuse to engage without orders... You're going to have a bad fucking time.
>>398767
Basically, you have Josephus-who was writing to make his client look good, and to save face because got BTFO by romans, who ROUTINELY contradicts himself-and then every other writer.
Polybius didn't find Romans overly disciplined. He DID think they were agressive.
>>398805
Romans fought single combat on a regular basis. They even had a special award for generals who killed opposing generals.
Romans were so damned eager for it that phyruss had to give his bodyguard his cloak and helm to get them to stop fucking rushing him so he could lead the battle.
If you aren't under speicif orders not to duel, you're fine. If lines are formed, best ask permission.
You'll get it. Romans were glory hungry people.
>>397594
Soldiers wield lances, warriors wield axes and bows.
>>398793
literally this
>>397594
soldiers fight for their country, warriors fight for glory
>>398793
The most accurate answer in this thread.
Its interesting to see how many different interpretations have been given in this thread, though.
Jokes aside, what >>398793 and >>397599 said.
Warriors
>people that attend a war, the spoils are their payment
Soldiers
>people that are payed for serving in a militant function, for which they gain their "sold" or payment (solidus, the roman coin)
>>397594
same as difference between shell shock and PTSD
>>397594
Being a warrior is a way of life, and denotes the voluntary acceptance and adherence to a warrior culture.
Being a soldier is simply a title given to any asshole in any given military whether or not they treat their duty as a profession, or a sentence.
>>397594
Soldier is a profession.
Warrior is a social class tied to a profession or ocupation (like most of them). By extension, people from societies without a warrior class but with knowledge of them can be identified (or identify themselves) as warriors if they have a profession related to war.
Both words are of course intimately related to war so they can coexist. You can be a soldier and a warrior, or only one of them.
>>397594
All soldiers are warriors, all warriors aren't soldiers.
>>405466
I would say that while warriors can be soldiers and soldiers can be warriors, all soldiers certainly aren't warriors.
A warrior fights for a cause, even if that cause is their own pleasure.
A soldier fights for an army, even if they don't agree with the orders they are given.
