Talk:Military saint

"christianized"

it's a bit tendentious, isn't it, and unnecessary, to talk about St Michael as being 'Christianized'. It adds nothing to the article and makes it into an ideological statement about the history of Christianity. 128.100.110.82 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sts Boris and Gleb

I'm unclear as to why they are mentioned here. They are not considered Military Saints in the Russian tradition, they are 'Passion-bearing Saints', a different category.128.100.110.82 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peresvet

What about persons such as Peresvet, et al? Are they to be considered here? 72.245.213.214 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Constantine

Should Constantine, a saint in the Greco-Orthodox churches, be considered a "soldier-saint"? Although recognized for many things, his victory over Maxentius, said to have been with God's help, would probably make him the most most prominant "military saint" of them all. --Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

neutrality

I tried to make the intro a bit more neutral. A soldier who converted to Christianity faced an unresolvable conflict: soldiers were required to swear traditional oaths of loyalty to the Emperor and the gods of the Roman state, and a Christian soldier could not in good conscience do this: it would be rather like asking a Muslim to swear on the Bible in a court of law. However, from the Roman perspective, refusing to swear an oath of loyalty was tantamount to treason. (In American terms, one might compare a soldier trampling on the flag he's supposed to defend, or refusing to make the Pledge of Allegiance, that kind of thing.) So it's non-neutral to take only the Christian perspective; Roman military discipline was very strict, and any refusal to do what soldiers were supposed to do would receive harsh punishment (see for instance fustuarium). From the Roman perspective, that this involved the soldier's religion was not really the point; he disobeyed an order. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Previously erased content

Lots of more content, including both names and images, is to be found in this previous version. Not sure why it was erased. Either way, the whole or parts of the erased content could be implemented into the new list, along with images. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Joan of Arc is a military saint

There should be a change in the description of a "military Saint" as some such as Joan of Arc may not fit the specified time period. A section for Military Saints of a specific time period can be added to a sub-section or an entire page, but I do not believe this to be that page (as it excludes Military Saints in its framework). Twillisjr (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Patron Saints of Military link recursive

Quote from opening header: 'For Christian patron saints of the military, see "Patron saints of the military".'

The hyperlink for "Patron saints of the military" simply leads back to the same article. Johnnyrev (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Joan of Arc was not in the United States Army...

As the title says. Joan of Arc was not in the US Army lol. 174.113.40.135 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just going to leave it? Oh well. Not like one mistake matters when wiki lies about nearly everything political or scientific now. Since I know some lefty will show up demanding examples, here ya go:

Lies about genders, men menstruating, politics, reliability of fact checking sites like Snopes, Snopes found David Mikkelson's embezzlement, divorce, marrying and hiring a hooker to work at snopes, I mean I could go on for days. I just wanted there to be a few examples for that one person thats going to get huffy and puffy about it. 174.113.40.135 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim you're disagreeing with is that the Joan of Arc is the patron saint of the Women's Army Corps, not that Joan of Arc served in the US Army. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)