I should note that I said 'trained combatant' versus 'master of the mystic arts' not 'warrior' vs. 'wizard' which is important.
The thing is, in quasi-medieval fantasy worlds, 'warrior' tends to be defined as a 'trained combatant.' Meaning a guy (or occasionally girl) who is at best a really good fighter based on authorial understanding of medieval combat capabilities and fighting styles with perhaps some very small level of augmentation. This is very much not the same as the way warriors are presented in myth. This should not surprise us, because quasi-medieval worlds are deliberately not mythic in design, in part because mythic worlds present verisimilitude problems in world-building terms and because mythic settings are essentially superhero settings and there's a considerable aversion to that approach for a variety of reasons.
If you are doing a mythic setting - say Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive - then this particular balance issue disappears, but it simply becomes a superhero balance issue where you have to make sure the powers are equivalent in efficacy.
Different kinds of settings place different demands on party balance. D&D, unfortunately, is something of a worst of all possible worlds case because it's zero to hero kitchen-sink setup means that a D&D world is several different kinds of setting at once.