DTop
Active member
Jaeger, it seems to me that this is a matter of definition of terms. If one defines a warrior as an undisciplined or less disciplined fighter and a soldier as a disciplined fighter then the contention that a soldier is a more desirable member of an organized fighting unit is valid.
If, on the other hand, one defines a warrior as someone skilled in the art of war through actual experience and with inherent or learned ability to adapt and innovate in order to overcome obstacles encountered during combat, then this type of fighter becomes the desirable one.
If we were to talk about which psychological traits might do better in a given situation, then that's another discussion. I think all units have within their ranks a range of personalities and psychological make ups. Yes, those people less conventional eventually find themselves among a group of like minded folks and it can work to the unit's overall advantage actually. For example if I, as 1SG, found that I had a new individual that seemed to be a "gung ho, hard charger", I would try to move him out of say the supply section and into one of my rifle platoons. The rifle platoon would benefit, the company would benefit, and the individual would be much happier. His opportunities for promotion would increase as well(instead of waiting for the old supply sergeant to retire). I would bet that there was another individual who would make a good replacement for that supply clerk in one of the other platoons as well. I think there is a need for a range of personalities as much as there is for different skill sets in every unit. So, in that sense I would agree that the more aggressive "warrior" type might get assigned to a slot where his traits are an asset. However if he was really undisciplined or a danger to his fellow soldiers, he would find himself out of a job or in the stockade.
That's why I contend that this is a matter of definition of terms.
If, on the other hand, one defines a warrior as someone skilled in the art of war through actual experience and with inherent or learned ability to adapt and innovate in order to overcome obstacles encountered during combat, then this type of fighter becomes the desirable one.
If we were to talk about which psychological traits might do better in a given situation, then that's another discussion. I think all units have within their ranks a range of personalities and psychological make ups. Yes, those people less conventional eventually find themselves among a group of like minded folks and it can work to the unit's overall advantage actually. For example if I, as 1SG, found that I had a new individual that seemed to be a "gung ho, hard charger", I would try to move him out of say the supply section and into one of my rifle platoons. The rifle platoon would benefit, the company would benefit, and the individual would be much happier. His opportunities for promotion would increase as well(instead of waiting for the old supply sergeant to retire). I would bet that there was another individual who would make a good replacement for that supply clerk in one of the other platoons as well. I think there is a need for a range of personalities as much as there is for different skill sets in every unit. So, in that sense I would agree that the more aggressive "warrior" type might get assigned to a slot where his traits are an asset. However if he was really undisciplined or a danger to his fellow soldiers, he would find himself out of a job or in the stockade.
That's why I contend that this is a matter of definition of terms.
