Warriors?

[tacsit]

Since I'm not in the military that would make me a civilian, wouldn't it. As opposed to me spending my money as... ???

Michael, warriors come from all walks of life. Doesn't matter if they're soldier or civilians. I know some civvies that are more warrior than some soldiers I've run into (cough, Caroline, cough ).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ii didn't know if you spent that money on training when you were in the army or a civilian thats all. If you were in the army then i would have asked if you did it because you didn't feel like you were getting enough training as a soldier.

I may be hijacking the thread a little (by all means put it back on course if its an issue) but you got me kinda curious.
What is your definition of a Warrior and what qualifies someone for the name?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

To add to the Ghost's questions, if I may;

How do you tell if a soldier is a warrior?  I know from experience that you can't look at a soldier and tell if he is a warrior or not.

BTW, my definition of a warrior is one who can complete their task, whatever it may be, in conditions of extreme stress( which may include the possibility of injury or death).  I know that this is not everyones definition, but it works for me....

 

[tacsit]

Oh, I would go and get extra training even if I was still in the CF. Training in the CF and the tactical skills taught are lightyears behind the latest techniques that are out there. It's aboslutely incredible the disservice we are doing to our soldiers by not teaching them the most effective tactical skills.

As for my definition of a warrior it is a bit difficult to put down on paper so I'll take the easy way out and put forth the following which does a good job of describing a warrior: "The warrior protects and defends because he realizes the value of others. He knows that they are essential to society and, in his gift of service, recognizes and values theirs." (Virtue of the Sword, by James Williams). That is the first part. The importance here, lies in the realm of protection and defense. An older brother defends his younger sister. A mother will protect her child. A warrior takes it upon him or herself to defend everybody. That is the warrior's burden and the warrior's gift. There is a second aspect to it. A warrior, as a result of this burden/gift, never stops training and constantly seeks to improve himself in the martial arts. To clarify, when I say martial arts, I mean any such activity relating to the arena of life and death. So not just what people typically think of when they hear martial arts (like karate, jujitsu, etc.), but gunfighting, medical skills, language skills, negotiating, etc. The warrior strives to perfect him or herself into a total weapon. Hands, feet, fingers, toes, knives, guns, sticks, swords, IEDs, pens, flashlights, etc, etc, etc. It is this constant striving to improve himself (along with the protective mindset) which sets a warrior apart from others who also have a mandate to protect society, i.e. law enforcement officers and military pers. I have met many soldiers during my time in the CF, and I continue to meet many more. Yet being a soldier, having that mandate to protect others, does not make one a warrior. Going on the mandated field exercises and doing the drills alone does not make one a warrior. One has to strive beyond that, as much as is possible with the confines of day to day living (obviously this definition of warrior takes into account the fact we can't just up and leave our lives to train 24/7). So to sum up, it is a MINDSET to protect those around you, a MINDSET that YOU WILL NOT FAIL, and a MINDSET to constantly improve one's skills that makes one a warrior. That is why warriors can come from all walks of life. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. It doesn't matter if you're a construction lawyer, Bay St. accountant or a police officer. As John Steinbeck said, the final weapon is the mind, and that is the primary deciding factor in warriordom. I hope that was clear. Knowing what you are can be easy yet being able to express it can sometimes be difficult. If anything here was not clear just ask, I'll try to set my addled brain straight and make things easier to understand.

 

[Techy25]

So tacsit let me get this straight have you ever been in the Canadian Forces? and if so what was your MOC?

 

[RCA]

Please expand on "gunfighting skills". I'm not quite familiar with the term.

 

[tacsit]

Techy25, I was in the Royal Regiment of Canada for a couple of years, R031.

RCA, gunfighting is just a blanket term for things like weapons handling, CQB techniques, shooting and moving, fire and movement, etc.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thats a pretty good definition of a warrior.  I really liked it and think i might try to apply it in the future. I remember seeing pretty much the exact same definition on a thread at the lightfighter forum maybe a year or two ago. Lots of the same wording (anyone know if their still up?) They had some pretty good posts over there. I remember we had a thread about the warrior mindset a while ago here as well.

I've always found a big crutch with reserve training (maybe a bit of the regs) is that each time you go somewhere and theres an SME about, they all seem to teach you some different new way of doing things. CQB/FISH training has to be the worst offender. Use 2 men. Use 4 men.  The JTF do it like this, the navy seals do it like that. Leave a guy on ever corner, don't leave guys behind you. Even on brigade excersises it seems like companies have different ways of doing things as well as each platoon. Somtimes it works, sometimes it creates friction.

$5000 worth of training seems like a lot. If you don't mind me asking, what did you spend that money on? Like what kinda courses and training did you get? I'd imagine some members here might even be interested in taking something that catches their eye. (that you have taken)
You said the training out there  is light years ahead of what the CF teaches. Could you give some examples of how and why the training you recieved is better than what you learned in the CF?

 

[RCA]

Excuse me, I'm just a poor Gunner, but please explain the difference between shooting and moving, & fire and movement.

 

[Infanteer]

I think your letting your definition of "warrior" get to your head.

I understand your admiration of a particular mindset dedicated to excellence, but you must understand that this mindset is one of dedication to excellence in the profession of arms

Your definition of the term warrior is a bit misplaced.   The "warrior" is traditionally defined as a subculture that dedicates itself solely to battle.   However, the warrior is an individual who places emphasis on personal ability and prowess in battle.   There are many aspects that typified the warrior in battle such as highly valued personal weapons, individual combate, and reliance on ferocity and fighting prowess over tactics.

Your impression of the warrior as the pinnacle of armed conflict is unfortunately misplaced.   The "warrior" lost his standing over two thousand years ago when the professional soldier picked up arms under their commanders and worked as a unit to overcome the individual warriors.   Two of the earliest examples in Western civilization is when the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, picked up arms as professionals and worked as an amorphous unit known as the phalanx, to defeat 10,000 of the Persian King's elite "Immortals".   To the Greek professionals, maintaining one's position within the phalanx in order to protect the man to his right with his large shield was the epitome of excellence in battle as opposed to breaking ranks to find personal glory in singular combat (something that was severely frowned upon).   That trend carried on in Western civilization when Celtic warriors were subdued by the professional soldier of Rome, the Legionnaire, who followed his NCO commander, the Centurion (Yes, setbacks against warrior cultures such as the German tribes were present, but this was no fault of their military system).

History is full of examples of the elite "warrior" finding his social position toppled by the professional soldier who was simply a better fighter due to the fact that they dedicated themselves to the profession of arms rather then to the glory of combat.   The Japanese Samurai warrior were shot to pieces in the 1800's when they tried to bring their quasi-religious form of ritual battle to the fore against industrialized forces; this is why the Samurai class outlawed the firearms in the 1600's following Oda Nobunaga's destruction of samurai armies with conscript levies wielding cheap firearms; it was a threat to their inefficent and less effective warrior culture.   As well, the constant battles between various Native American tribes and the United States Army in the 1800's also saw the Native warrior destroyed by the disciplined regular.   Napoleon's professional Army, in its conquest of Egypt, decimated the Mameluke's; a Islamic subculture that dedicated its members from birth to being warriors.   That belief fell to the discipline and shock of the Regiment of the Line.   You could find many more examples if you took the time to truly study the history of conflict.

Those characteristics that you mentioned in you inaccurate depiction of the warrior are actually the signs of the highest form of dedication as a soldier to the profession of arms.   Look at the characteristics of our soldiers in our Special Operations Capable unit (JTF-2), whom I would regard as the elite of the professional soldier in a modern army; these men are not warriors, they do not relish personal combat and glory for their subculture.   Rather, they are the epitomization of what we should strive for as professionals; they are experts on all technical fields related to the trade, their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that), and their dedication to their profession, up to the point of sacrificing their own life, is unrivaled (hence the reason they spend nearly all their time to preparation and training).

I would encourage you to rethink your defintion of excellence in the profession of arms and how you look upon others who serve in the Army.   You adherence to the term "warrior" is incorrect and tends to shun what is central to the excellence of the modern soldier, his professional dedication to art and science of armed conflict.

 

[Armymedic]

Infanteer, can we break away this outstanding discussion on the warrior culture to continue on another thread, and get away from the chest rig topic?

Unless there is more to add about the chest rig...

I put forth the motion for STAT

 

[tacsit]

Ghost778, there have been many threads about the concept of warrior on the LF forums, though what I typed wasn't copied from any source (save for the quote). Sent you a PM btw. That $5000 wasn't just courses, but ammo for the courses, ammo for shooting here in TO, paying for martial arts/combatives training, etc. Unfortunately it all adds up pretty quick. If anybody has the opportunity though, I highly recommend a US company known as Tactical Repsonse Inc. Top notch training and the instructors are superb.

RCA, shooting and moving is shooting your weapon while you are moving. The term fire and movement is generally accepted to mean the infantry tactic of one person or a small team moving while being covered by another person or another small team. Sorry for the confusion.

Infanteer, I believe you have misunderstood the orientation and basis of my beliefs. You bring up the point of the traditional definition of warrior. As you'll see in my post, I rendered my own definition, hence my POV. I am well aware of the history of the samurai, and the development of the modern day professional soldier. This is nothing new to me. Your arguments have a flaw however. You mistakenly assume that because previous warrior cultures (or sub-sects of certain societies) were beaten by groupings of professional soldiers, it is due solely to the fact that one group saw itself as professional soldiers, and the other saw themselves as warriors. This is incorrect. For example, the samurai were defeated because they chose not to use firearms and thus train in their use and learn tactics suited to them, not because they were warriors. Yes, I know that it was because of their warrior beliefs that they chose not to use firearms, but that does not equate to them being warriors is why they failed, it equates to them not having a flexible viewpoint of warriordom being the reason they were defeated. I agree that several principles upheld by warriors throughout the ages (as well as the principles upheld by my own personal definition of warrior) are shared by professional soldiers. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is your notion that all warriors, "relish personal combat and glory for their subculture." That was true of the samurai. That was true of other warrior cultures. That is not true of me or my definition of a warrior. I'll share with you a quote near and dear to my heart which lies in symbiosis with my definition of a warrior. I paraphrase here because the exact words seem to escape me at the moment. "A warrior does not seek a battle, to fight. Rather he believes that there are some causes worth giving one's all for." I don't seek battle. I don't want to fight. But I train, and I train, and I train in case, god forbid, the time comes when those skills would be needed. Because if those skills are needed, they are needed direly.

I think I can tell what your problem here is. You have completely skipped over my personal definition of warriodom, and applied historical examples to my character. That is absolutely incorrect and one could see that by checking my definition. I would also like to point out that I said that was my own definition. Different people see things differently, but the way of the warrior how I see it is how I live my life. Your comment, "...their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that..." troubles me. You seem to believe that because I think I am a warrior I cannot work well in a team oriented setting. Why? Because the samurai worked as individual warriors? Because other previous warrior cultures did? I have news for you, I am not Samurai, nor do I label myself a warrior from any other culture. You said yourself, that central to the excellent of the modern soldier is his dedication to the, "...art and science of armed conflict." That's exactly what I have. That's why I train ceaselessly. I don't consider myself part of an elite social sub-sect either. I consider myself prigileged enough to partake in the community of warriors, to learn from them, to dispense the miniscule amount of knowledge I have managed to attain over my brief time on this planet, and to enjoy the company of like minded people. I am no more, no less than those I protect. I would advise you to reread my previous post and stop applying historical definitions, attitudes, and cultural beliefs onto me, because you will find yourself, as you are now, way off the mark.

Edit to add: BTW, the Spartans viewed themselves as warriors and citizen soldiers, not as our current definition of professional soldiers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

After reading Infanteers post i got a very good insight as to the differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Professional soldier'. I liked the historical examples too. A very great post IMHO.  I think there may be a way you can apply the mind set of personal excellence (what tacist was eluding to i think) to being a professional soldier.
The important part being your goal is to better the team over all vice just yourself.
Armymedic is right though, probably best to start a new thread about it.

 

[combat_medic]

tacsit: So, you're not a soldier, and so you spent $5,000 in training and $500 in gear to do the job of unarmed security in Canada? How on earth is a tac vest, or fire and movement skills in any way relevant to someone who isn't even a serving soldier? Unless you're a police officer, sherriff or armoured car operator, you aren't legally allowed to carry a handgun in public. What possible job training skills could firearms have for you?  I'm not sure if you think you're some kind of solo commando doing Rambo-esque black ops in the Middle East, but there is no such thing as a "Warrior" by your definition any longer. To what "community of warriors" do you belong? What group of people do you profess to protect?

By your posts and professed "experience", you sound like a kid who played soldier as a kid, and is now trying to play soldier as an adult; purchasing weapons, combat training, purchasing military gear, etc., with no intention of actually becoming a soldier, other than spending a couple years in the MO. Are you planning to join a foreign military or re-join the CF? If not, then your $5,500 is nothing more than an expensive hobby.

Oh, and no one I've ever encountered in my military training or civilian firearms courses has ever referred to "shooting and moving" as a valid term of firing a weapon while in motion.

 

[Fusaki]

combat medic is asking some good questions. tacsit, here's just a taste of what you've posted on this forum:

I do work in the private sector that has given me opportunities to do interesting things in interesting places, mostly on the green side thus far (hence why I have no black rig as of yet).

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.0.html

it wasn't in Canada (obviously not, what with the mag restrictions here), and the ammo loadout for this rig is predicated on two jobs that I have done (different rig, my 82 pattern webbing actually) and two jobs that I will be doing, one in 5 months, the other in 12. None have been through actual companies though I still refer to them as civvy jobs because they aren't military (obviosuly). I will readily admit that luckily in neither of the past two greenish jobs was I directly shot at, so I hold no claim to fame or any such thing.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.30.html

Mil Exp:  2 years in the Mo, various private security/CPP jobs

http://army.ca/forums/members/3703

I don't want the only manuever I can do to be advance to ambush.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.0.html

I'm saying that the standard set forth by 3VP in Astan is the proper yardstick to use WRT non-issue kit.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18144.15.html

I've been studying small unit warfare and military history since the age of 10. I'm 20 right now and have just served a couple of years in the Royal Regiment of Canada before releasing to focus exclusively on schoolwork as well as private security work in Toronto.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16771.15.html#msg76417

So let me get this straight...  Your current line of work involves doing Close Personal Protection, and other Private Security. You have already been on two different jobs overseas that required you to have at the very least 7 mags, as well as military style web gear and a ruck. Your line of work could potentially include armed offensive action. But you are only 20 years old and your REAL military experience is only 2 years in the Militia? I gotta say, man, my spider sense is tingleing. Are you trying to say you're a mercenary? Some sort of soldier of fortune? For a 20 year old this is way too much to believe. I mean, where do you get off citing 3VP's Afghanistan gear as what should be the Army standard? Were you in Afghanistan? Did you read about it in a book? You've dropped enough hints about your current occupation that any attempt to maintain a low profile is now worthless. Anyone serious about personal security wouldn't do that.

To put it bluntly: I smell bullshit.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Tacsit et. sum al: upon serious retro-flection, and at the risk of droppin' the pin where ships could not/should not float, I can't help but wonder whether you are advancing (1) a warrior thesis in which you believe over   (2) a creed with a collateral belief in the "warrior." Both have merit, and have deeply rooted honour, but i'm gonna get behind Infanteer & Coy. here: too many beliefs have been slayed under the dispassionate sword of hard hearted professional soldiers over the past 15-20 centuries.   Nevertheless, great posts overall by all!!!    

 

[KevinB]

Training in the CF and the tactical skills taught are lightyears behind the latest techniques that are out there.

Daniel - I have layed off most of yor post but you have gone beyond the pale with me here.  WHO the FUCK do you think you are?

You just jumped into my biggest idiot list with that post.  How would you know what the skill training level of the CF is at..

I have half a mind to go over to Lightfighter and lay into to you there.

If you actually served in an operational unit - you woudl have access to a surprisingly high level of training.  I put way more than 20k of round down range last year - live fire kill house entry - precision DA mission (live) - force on force simuntion trg and more.
                 
I will break a small bit of OPSEC - but our SOF guys are the BEST out there - even ask the Brits and US CAG guys and their will admit the DH Ski team is the varsity for HR missions -- guess what they train reg force 031's.

Just because you did not like you year or two in the MO does not give a lease on life for you to go around and blast the CF, of which you dont have a fricking clue about.

Caroline might be a bin rat and RTFO on kit - but guess what -he/she/it is serving and you are not.

Grow The F up -

Kevin

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I think that we all need to slow down and do a bit of self-reflection here...

Tacsit, you've just stuck your arm up in the hornet's nest and are getting stung hard.  You're a good guy and you have your heart in the right place, but Kevin's got a pretty good point.  2 years in the militia don't really qualify as that much experience in the CFs, especially if you never did an operations cycle.  Sometimes it's much better to sit back and take stuff in, rather than rattle off opinions which the basis of is sometimes groundless.

I agree on alot of points.  The CFs suffers from a lack of money to train all of its soldiers to the standards which they deserve and the political will to change the situation.  That's a big reason why I emigrated to the US and became a Marine. All too often only units that are slated to be operational are given the necessary resources to do their jobs.  However, I don't think that 2 years in the reserves and some time in cadets qualify you as a "warrior" even by your own definition.

Every time you mention the word "warrior" the image of some fur loincloth clad battle-axe conan-looking barbarian comes to mind.  Personally, I think warrior is a cheesy term, but we're all entitled to different opinions.  Just keep in mind that when you like to put your opinion forth in the manner that you do, you may have some serious questioning as a result.

I'd suggest that you get back in the CFs or join a foreign military (the Brit's take commonwealth citizens, and there's always the Legion).  That way you can really get the necessary experience to qualify yourself on the arguments you make. 

 

[MG34]

Tacsit,you are so full of crap your eyes must be brown. At the risk of being banned or whatever this clown is so full of it it makes me sick. I have it on good information that during a firearms course about a month ago he was almost booted off the course for major safety infractions including pointing a pistol at other students on the range (known as sweeping) and for not listening to the word of command on the range.(loading not once but twice when not ordered to on a live range). Hmm so much for the $5000.00 spent on training,where was that you did this training anyways?? The Mickey mouse School of Gunfight'n?
he has the gall to criticize CF training yet it seems he couldn't zero a rife at 25 yds,committed various safety infractions and was almost booted offof the course.
You may think you are a warrior but buddy you are the worst kind of poser there is,go tell your stories to the kids in the playground.

 

[Travis]

To me the definition of a warrior is simple.  Heres what someone has already said better than me. A warrior and a soldier Can be a very differnt thing.


"In every culture around the world, there have been plenty of men and women willing to fight anyone, anything, any time, anywhere.  In ancient civilizations as well as today, a warrior stands apart from everyone else around them.  A person who has dedicated his life to the art of combat, of going out and defeating a for by whatever means necessary, a warrior has a philosophy of lie and death differnt from anyone else in the world.
  For there can be no doubt that when a warrior takes up his sword, bow, or rifle, that he is picking up whatever weapon he uses with one goal in mind - to kill.  Once battle is entered he does what he has been trained to do.  The samurai of feudal Japan understood this better than any civilization before them, and were therefore able to train their warriors to go into battle expecting to die, fighting each battle as though it was their last, thereby conquering their fear of death.  When a warrior no longer fears his own demise, he is beyound worrying about keeping himself alive, and is free to concentrate solely upon combat.  It is this single-minded dedication, the willingness to go forth into battle knowing that he might not come back, that sets the warrior apart.
  But combat is just one aspect of the warrior's art.  A true warrior is also a master of strategy and tactics, choosing not only which battles to fight, but where, when, and how to fight them.  A warrior can also become a leader of men, and accomplish more in that role than he could in an entire life-time of simply fighting. "