: The sword and axe are analogous to this. Take fencing,
: for example, which is the best example of what a sword
: can do when it is at the extreme end of the spectrum.
: The pin-point, delicate blades of the rapier, sabre,
: etcetera, are for making tiny stab wounds or
: lascerations, not for hacking limbs. A longsword is
: less like this, but it still requires a good deal of
: experience and training to use effectively, unlike an
: axe for an undead Thrall.
Well, the Legion uses broadswords, which are still used primarily for hacking and chopping. Even so, they're a lot more precise than the Greataxes the Thrall use.
: A correlation to the pin-point idea can also be like the
: Roman Legionary and the Gallic Barbarian, as Martel
: pointed out. The Legionary has the gladius shortsword
: which is meant as a simple stabbing weapon, meant for
: precision, preferably through the heart. The Gaul,
: however, depends on hacking off an arm or two, or mb
: even a leg, when he attacks. A modern example might be
: Hitler's blunt assault on Russia (those were armies of
: Darkness too :). Had Hitler been more devious, or
: articulate in his plans and taken the Middle East
: first, he could have gotten enormous oil reserves so
: that he could either fuel a more powerful blunt
: assault or, better yet, divide Russia at the Urals and
: conquer less wastefully.
Or better still, Hitler could have avoided starting a war on two fronts in the first place and left military matters to people who actually knew how to handle them, like his generals.;) And in any case, a sledgehammer assault is probably the best way of attacking Russia- it's far too easy to cut off an surgical strike just by razing surrounding farmland and leaving the insurgents cut off and unsupplied. Such slash-and-burn tactics are harder to use against a sledgehammer assault, due to the wider area of attack, but, in the event, the Russian Winter was still successful.
: In a very poignant story which portrays a lot of good and
: evil, take Shakespeare's Richard III. King Richard III
: was a hunchback because he had trained since his youth
: to wield an axe in battle; so, after using only one
: side for such a long time, his body became deformed in
: its musculature and bone structure. Richard III was
: also horribly evil, so his use of the axe helps to
: characterize both as being or malificent.
Um, that's actually wrong. Although it's a common misconception, since the most common view we have of Richard III is Shakespeare's play of the same name. Because Shakespeare was writing in the reign of Elizabeth I, who was a descendent of Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard. Hence, saying that Richard III was a great guy would have been a good way for Shakespeare to get a one-way trip to the Tower of London. Although Richard probably did murder his nephews to become king, he was no crueller a ruler than most other kings of the time. As for the supposed physical deformity, it's actually physically impossible to ride a horse if you're a hunchback, and on the paintings of Richard, you can even see where Henry's artists painted on extra physical deformities. However, Richard was very strong, and hence the battleaxe would have been an exrememly effective weapon in his hands.
