Soldier & Warrior.

This is coolbert:

The soldier versus the warrior.

What is the difference if indeed there even is one?

The concept is something that has been around since the time of Alexander the Great [and probably before that].

I think to many people the difference is non-consequential, but this is not so.

Those differences that they exist to include:

* Soldiers fight as part of a team.

* Comport themselves to and accept discipline.

* Fight according to a plan.

Warriors do not do these things.

Warriors see battle and war as a means to gain glory, loot plunder and gain.

In the days of the medieval knight, warfare was a way for the nobility of the time to gain glory - - engaging in single combat with another knight and vanquishing your foe [someone who you probably knew personally and maybe were even friends with or were related to]. Noble men of time in constant training and practice, the man-at-arms requiring a skill not easily acquired or maintained.

The troops of Alexander, Caesar, and say the troops of the American Indian fighting army [Crook, Miles, and yes Custer] were soldiers.

The "barbarians" of Gaul and the warriors of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were not.

It is interesting to note that after the massacre of Custer's troop, the remaining members of the 7th Cavalry hunkered down and did successfully defend themselves for three days while the victorious warriors of the Sioux nation milled around and could not make up their mind as to what to do. Concerted action on the part of the Indian warriors could have certainly defeated the remnants of the 7th Cavalry that survived the Little Big Horn battle. But this did not occur!

coolbert.