Quote:
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
However, there is one inescapable truth:- in the English language a warrior is a person whose profession is war. When the word warrior is used in other senses than this it is either poetic usage, rhetorical usage, or eulogistic usage.
Occasional, or forced participation in armed conflict does not make a warrior, if it did, virtually every nation in the Western World would be a nation of warriors.
|
Alan, i don't really wish to belabor this point too much further, but your comment sent me searching for the English definition of the word "warrior".
Miriam-Webster: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare"
Cambridge: "a person who has experience and skill in fighting, esp. as a soldier"
Collins: "A warrior is a fighter or soldier, especially one in former times who was very brave and experienced in fighting."
Oxford: "(especially in the past) a person who fights in a battle or war"
Nowhere is there a mention that a warrior is someone who fights wars in exchange for money. I do acknowledge that a couple of these definitions mention "soldier", which certainly can be considered a profession, though soldiers can be conscripted as well. Though even when someone becomes a soldier for pay it does not necessarily mean that soldiering is their intended profession. Many soldiers serve their nation in times of war and then return to their regular lives as farmers, carpenters, and tradespeople. When we speak of Native American warriors, surely fighting wars was not the sole occupation of these braves. They fought where and when they were needed and hunted and/or farmed also when needed, all as a service to the tribe. And certainly they weren't paired for their warrior skills when they did go to war. So i am afraid that this connection you are making that demands that "warrior" only be used in the context of a "profession" does not really ring true for me.