![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Am i the only person who has noticed a large presence of American infantry batallions, and nothing British? Do we deserve nothing? Come on.....Redcoats? Nelson? The SAS? Something, at least.
I think ill start a cleanup for this section. It needs more references and content, as well as new organization. BreadBuddy ( talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The current list seems to lack a coherent definition of what a "warrior community" is. For example, is it a select group within a wider society focussed on martial pursuits? Or are we looking for a big social group with a martial focus? Or even an entire society in which martial prowess is elevated to a high level? Apply any of these and the list can be edited and gaps identified. Monstrelet ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi I was reading the history section and I think there are issues with the third paragraph
"In contrast to the belief of the caste and clan based warrior who saw war as a place to attain valor and glory, warfare was a practical matter that could change the course of history. History always showed that men of lower orders who, provided that they were practically organized and equipped, almost always outfought warrior elites through an individualistic and humble approach to war. This was the approach of the Roman legions who had only the incentive of promotion, as well as a strict level of discipline. When Europe's standing armies of the 17th and 18th centuries developed, discipline was at the core of their training. Officers had the role of transforming men that they viewed as lower class to become reliable fighting men."
This basically contains a lot of editorializing and dubious or unclear points as well as presenting war as something that occurred only in the past. Since the need to equip commoners has been cited already most of this paragraph is in fact redundant. imo what is actually needed instead is a note explaining how in european and other societies the warrior as a separate caste disappeared ie. due to the end of feudalism.
2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1CA4:EB3B:546B:9C01 ( talk) 10:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Attempts to delete this section seem premature. It is badly cited and some statements do need stronger evidence, though obvious POV edits seem to be absent. Just deleting after a few days of citation tagging and no real attempt to discuss what improvements are needed seems a rush, especially as a lot of the content here has sat in the article for a long time. Recommend a period to allow improvement before deletion. Monstrelet ( talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Am i the only person who has noticed a large presence of American infantry batallions, and nothing British? Do we deserve nothing? Come on.....Redcoats? Nelson? The SAS? Something, at least.
I think ill start a cleanup for this section. It needs more references and content, as well as new organization. BreadBuddy ( talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The current list seems to lack a coherent definition of what a "warrior community" is. For example, is it a select group within a wider society focussed on martial pursuits? Or are we looking for a big social group with a martial focus? Or even an entire society in which martial prowess is elevated to a high level? Apply any of these and the list can be edited and gaps identified. Monstrelet ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi I was reading the history section and I think there are issues with the third paragraph
"In contrast to the belief of the caste and clan based warrior who saw war as a place to attain valor and glory, warfare was a practical matter that could change the course of history. History always showed that men of lower orders who, provided that they were practically organized and equipped, almost always outfought warrior elites through an individualistic and humble approach to war. This was the approach of the Roman legions who had only the incentive of promotion, as well as a strict level of discipline. When Europe's standing armies of the 17th and 18th centuries developed, discipline was at the core of their training. Officers had the role of transforming men that they viewed as lower class to become reliable fighting men."
This basically contains a lot of editorializing and dubious or unclear points as well as presenting war as something that occurred only in the past. Since the need to equip commoners has been cited already most of this paragraph is in fact redundant. imo what is actually needed instead is a note explaining how in european and other societies the warrior as a separate caste disappeared ie. due to the end of feudalism.
2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1CA4:EB3B:546B:9C01 ( talk) 10:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Attempts to delete this section seem premature. It is badly cited and some statements do need stronger evidence, though obvious POV edits seem to be absent. Just deleting after a few days of citation tagging and no real attempt to discuss what improvements are needed seems a rush, especially as a lot of the content here has sat in the article for a long time. Recommend a period to allow improvement before deletion. Monstrelet ( talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)