What is a warrior?

[Kimble]

The person who prepares his entire life around that single moment when it's time to put "it" on the line, and then does so without hesitation, is a warrior.

Not sure what you mean by this, Mike, but if you mean a warrior sacrifices their family, you and I have very different ideas of what makes a "warrior." To me a warrior sacrifices himself for the better of his beliefs, not sacrificing others (especially his own family) for the same ends. Any coward can sacrifice the innocent (whether their own family or not) without making a sacrifice themselves.

[BJJVad]

What do you think is the definition of a warrior?

One who wages war..

Duh! The rest of you guys are a bunch of maroons!

[MikeG]

Not sure what you mean by this, Mike, but if you mean a warrior sacrifices their family, you and I have very different ideas of what makes a "warrior." To me a warrior sacrifices himself for the better of his beliefs, not sacrificing others (especially his own family) for the same ends. Any coward can sacrifice the innocent (whether their own family or not) without making a sacrifice themselves.

No, my point was that "it" is going to vary with the individuals, culture and circumstance. There are business warriors. There are Samurai-type warriors. They have the same mentality and risk different things.

For LE, their "it" is usually their own lives. They are warriors in that fight. But you may also find that they may not be warriors in the sense that they risk their pensions or investments the same way "warriors" in wall street do. Some people who risk their lives without flinching, get very anxious when it comes to finance or investing. Especially if the financial well-being of their entire family is at stake. Similarly, warriors that unflinchingly put their own lives on the line would not risk a "von Trapp" style escape with their family. It doesn't make them more or less of a warrior, it's just different.

Likewise, there are cultures where warriors make decisions that not only affect their own well-being but that of their family. It's not the cowardly slaying of innocent lives that I'm talking about. It's more about the warriors whole family/village being affected by the decisions of the warrior.

Examples from my POV:
Police Officer in the Ft. Hood shooting that ran to the sound of gunfire and shot, without hesitation, the attacker. For me, the warrior part comes when the unknown is huge, the danger is great but the officer had the clarity of purpose and training and preparation to take decisive action to protect third parties. The risk/reward ratio is awful for the officer in that case and still they met the challenge and dealt with it decisively. That's warrior.

The 16th century samurai warrior that enters service with his families blessing and encouragement knowing that if he is captured or dishonored, his entire family will be executed. It's a warrior mentality of that entire culture. He's not sacrificing innocents, rather he is entering service knowing that he is risking not just his own life with his actions, but also his family/village. He is prepared not only to die but to kill himself to prevent dishonor on them. He is also prepared to take the lives of family members that bring dishonor to them.

The father that sneaks his family out of East Germany before the fall of the soviet empire. He risks his own life and that of his family to bring them to freedom.

Each of those examples are different "its" that they risk but I would argue each are warriors.

[1depd]

Mikeg--I understand where you are coming from, however I completely disagree with your position that a warrior can be anything other than a person who uses force on force (whether it is physical or mental, or a combination of both). That force might be advancing to the rear to regroup or otherwise taking actions that might seem counter-intuitive to a force on force scenario. What you have provided is your definition and I asked for everybody's point of view. My definition is no more valid than yours, because the idea is not a well defined one. I started this thread partly in an attempt to clarify my own definition of the idea.

[MikeG]

Mikeg--I understand where you are coming from, however I completely disagree with your position that a warrior can be anything other than a person who uses force on force (whether it is physical or mental, or a combination of both). That force might be advancing to the rear to regroup or otherwise taking actions that might seem counter-intuitive to a force on force scenario. What you have provided is your definition and I asked for everybody's point of view. My definition is no more valid than yours, because the idea is not a well defined one. I started this thread partly in an attempt to clarify my own definition of the idea.

I think my examples are more general than what you were looking for. Let me try with elements of it:

Each element is required to meet definition of a warrior.
1. One who is willing to act (your start).
2. One who practices and trains for that act.
3. One who brings clarity of pupose when they act where clarity is often rare (i.e. cuts through the fog with decisive action)
4. One who follows through with their actions to their conclusion.