Not the same boat, perhaps, and yet they are all part of the same war.
What, then, is the difference, really? And why should there be one? A personal sword or a gunblade may stand as a symbol of the individual, their fighting prowess, or their leadership abilities, yet it would be those "case studies in hubris" - the larger weaponry and the fleets of airships which truly turn the tide - those too often in part to the strategies laid out and executed by those who would command them.
Even looking to other articles of warfare - the catapult, for example, which might topple an enemy stronghold. Or the suits of armor which allow soldiers to live to tell the tale of their exploits. Why is it that these things so often prove lesslegendary and less often named than their more compact counterparts?
no subject
What, then, is the difference, really? And why should there be one? A personal sword or a gunblade may stand as a symbol of the individual, their fighting prowess, or their leadership abilities, yet it would be those "case studies in hubris" - the larger weaponry and the fleets of airships which truly turn the tide - those too often in part to the strategies laid out and executed by those who would command them.
Even looking to other articles of warfare - the catapult, for example, which might topple an enemy stronghold. Or the suits of armor which allow soldiers to live to tell the tale of their exploits. Why is it that these things so often prove less legendary and less often named than their more compact counterparts?