How do we refer to a member of the US military? Collectively? What do we call that person regardless of which service they are in or job they do? The whole lot of them?
No figuring out Airman or Marine or Sailor or Soldier or Guardian. Just ??? as a member of the US military.
They also hung around on the fighting tops trying to murder the other guy’s officers e.g. Horatio Nelson.
Only if I were buying that particular brand of tuna. And the Marines at one time branded themselves soldiers of the sea.
But your point stands, and perhaps the Space Force can brand themselves Starkist.
Typically it was servicemen, probably servicepeople now. Military personnel works well.
There was a time when marines were exactly that. Soldiers put aboard ships to serve at sea. But then there was also a time when their gun crews were also exactly that, when the leader of a company of soldiers (a “captain”) would embark on a civilian ship (led by a “master” or “sailing master” who continued to give orders to the ship’s existing crew). And yet now, today, the proper term for the former is marines and the latter sailors or seamen. Not soldiers. Because they are not in any army. Not anymore. At least not in the US.
I suppose, if you want to get technical, some countries (China comes to mind) do consider their navies a component of their army. Whether they would thus call the members of their navies some brand of soldier, I have no idea.
That was their own self-description before they gained prominence among the general US consciousness, because the average person wouldn’t know what “Marine” meant. After engagements like Belleau Wood put them in the headlines, they dropped it as unnecessary.
The Marines have always used branding and self-promotion against politicians who see them as unnecessary. Often this drifts into myth making.
(Often unfairly, as in the case of the sailors who’re disparaged as just the Marines’ cabbies. Even though more of them died at Guadalcanal than Marines)
I have a whole rant ready to go about how the Marines “remember” the Navy’s role and actions at Guadalcanal, but I’ll save it for another thread.
“Space Cases” hee-hee-hee.
This ignores the history and historical purpose of the Marines and actually isn’t correct for members of the Imperial Japanese Military in WWII, either. The Imperial Japanese Navy had infantrymen who were not called soldiers.
I believe that the Royal Marines are not called “soldiers”, either but are called “Marines.”
The purpose of the US Marines was (from Wiki)
They are not simply an army with another name.
They have a distinct purpose and command, falling under the Navy rather than the Army.
They are used in an expeditionary role. While that role have been fallen to particular army units in other countries, in the US military, it was given to the Marines.
Hence, the Marines were sent to fight against the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800.
In the US Civil War, they weren’t given much of a role but later were used in the banana wars the US had in Central America.
After WWI and before WWII, the Marines were looking for more of a purpose and started to develop doctrine and training for amphibious warfare.
In the Pacific War, the Marines started the counter offensive with the invasion of Guadalcanal, and from there they conducted the famous island hopping campaign through to Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
There is a lot of mythology that developed around the Marines during the war, and most people don’t know that more Army personnel served, fought and died in the Pacific War than Marines.
The popular narrative is that the Pacific War was fought at Sea by the Navy and on land by the Marines, and the Army’s role gets shortchanged.
The Marines were not just another army. They lacked the self sufficiency in logistics, for example, and were dependent on the Army and Navy for these things.
The interplay and rivalry between the various service branches is fascinating (for people who are interested in such things).
Yeah, I’ve got that same rant
But every army in the world can claim to be unique in various aspects, and they’d all be right. The Roman Legions were like no other army before and after, but they were still soldiers. The Varangian Guard, the Knights Templar, the Janissary Corps, the Landsknecht, the Zulu Impi and many more were all radically different from each other, but they all followed the profession of arms. I refuse to concede that the U.S. Marine Corps, and them alone of all modern fighting forces, are so special and unique that they can no longer be referred to as “soldiers”. As someone who underwent just as much combat training as most Marines and who had esprit de corps coming out of my wazoo, I find that kind of offensive.
Besides, the U.S. military does not own the English language.
Even better, they’re called Royal Marine Commandos. How cool is that!
If there’s things we know about all military personal, it’s that they’re tribal, love tradition and like to feel special.
double post!
TIL
Yes, until i read this thread i would have called every one of those “soldiers”. Because in civilian English, soldier isn’t just a specific word for “member of the US army”, but it’s also a generic word for “people who fight in an organized structure”.
But TIL that members of the US military care deeply about the noun used to describe their service, because to them, it is tightly associated with which service they report(ed) to.
Fwiw, i also use “sailors” to refer to people who sail boats. Like, there are recreational sailers who aren’t part of any armed service, in the English i use. I consider myself to be a mediocre sailor, capable of piloting small craft and very good at being crew for better sailors.
I’m confused, would you call a member of the US Navy a soldier?
I mean I get the confusion for Marines, but Navy?
Yes, I’d call any member of any military group a soldier. I mean, after reading this thread, I’ll try not to, because it’s like misgendering people. But i would have.
And to be entirely accurate, Seabees were once “sailors”, as they were transported via ship and landing craft to the Pacific Island theater to do their jobs. In fact, Seabees were still being transported via ship to Diego Garcia in the 70s, when they were engaged in building the airfield and com station.
Also service members, members of the armed forces, armed forces personnel…
That’s where I was too.
Ignorance fought. Good stuff.
That’s what I have gotten out of these conversations as well (not this particular one, but similar ones in meatspace over the years) In many parts of the world and for people not in military families or otherwise conversant with the sensitivities involved, a soldier (or equivalent word in that language) is just a generic term for any member of the armed forces.
But I’ve learned that this is kind of like calling all workers on electricity distribution system “linemen” which might offend female workers. Or mail delivery workers “postmen” or “mailmen”.
Ironically the person who got most exercised against changing our town charter to refer to the executive board as the Select Board rather than Board of Selectmen is a marine who would be mightily pissed off if you called him a “soldier”. Perhaps even more so if you called him an ex marine or former marine.
I understand in the UK at one time surgeons would be offended by being referred to as a “doctor” and in fact would ask to be addressed as “mister” so-and-so, not doctor so-and-so. And of course they didn’t countenance the possibility of female surgeons. Ironically this is a turnaround from the time when physicians disdained surgeons who were not considered learned people, but technicians.