And although a warrior, doing his duty, may have to take life, sometimes more often than he wants, this , to my mind at least, isn't his primary goal and doesn't make him a killer per se.
And whenever and if opportunity arise, he might do what he can, so that "winning over reign over winning".
And here's where I hope even Graham would agree.
I agree it isn't a warriors primary goal in war and that there are many warriors in life outside of war. Taking a life however does make you a killer full stop. Once again cold hard reality, no fantasy, no rose tinted view afforded by many who 'play' at being martial.
I can just see a marine commander or elite forces commander of some description now saying the same thing, giving the same reality to those being trained. Cold, hard reality......training to kill. Training to be a killer. Training to be put in positions where it has to be done for real.He would soon get rid of anyone not willing to be one.
So we can fantasize all we like and use that word martial as if we are that kind of warrior but reality says we are not unless in such a scene or regiment if you like.
All madness is war. Being at war with a neighbour is also madness in action. Some unfortunately are continually at war with themselves. So they too could be considered martial under such definitions. Laws based on morals were created to handle such madness but have you ever considered why? It's because the we ain't as sane or wise as we consider ourselves to be. As a race we are still pretty dumb. Unenlightened. Even martial