Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This idea, the 'universal warrior' is nonsense. Heck, the Macedonian phalangite wouldn't have fit in a Roman legion (Plb. 18.28ff) and vice versa. A Spartan wouldn't have been properly drilled to fight in either! War is not constant, and neither are combatants.https://twitter.com/SPressfield/status/1346185128742014976 …
And also, while we're here, the United States doesn't have warriors. Rome didn't have warriors. Alexander didn't have warriors.
They had (or in the USA's case, still have) 
soldiers
. There is a difference, those words are not synonyms.
But to be clear, just as there is no universal warrior, there is no universal soldier either. War, war does in fact change.
I can see modern nation-states not having warriors. Do warriors become warriors because they're born into a warrior class? Or is it being not paid that differentiates them from a soldier?
I’ve seen “war-fighter” to encompass all branches of the military.
“Soldier” from the same root as “soldi.” That means, you get paid. Paid to kill and destroy. The new phrase “war fighting” etc. carefully elides the dirty confluence of violence and wealth.
"Warrior Culture" has become a big topic in Australia as one of the underlying causes of SAS war crimes. Warriors kill prisoners as an initiatory "blooding", take trophies from corpses, and compete for kills. From ADF chief Alex Campbell's speech:pic.twitter.com/4dKeOb5aam
Do you have a link for that full speech?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
