Generally, you are correct. I would read a bit more deeply, however. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-...

" Assault: Act Requirement
Even though contact is not generally necessary for an assault offense, a conviction for assault still requires a criminal "act". ... Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm.

Assault: Intent Requirement
In order commit an assault an individual need only have "general intent". ... Moreover, an intent to scare or frighten another person can be enough to establish assault charges, as well."
(Quite bit more to this. The out-takes are just my frames.)

Obviously, you must consider the validity of the threat. It is largely true that those who threaten do not follow through. Those who attack do not warn you in advance. However...

It is well-known that government prosecutors told Michael Milken that if he did not plead guilty, they would go after his brother. Do you imagine that they were bluffing? It is also well-known that in pleading guilty, Milken was the only one of the "junk bond" or "inside traders" to go to prison. Every other prosecution (for instance Ivan Boessky) was either defeated at trial or overturned on appeal. But it takes a lot of courage and financial resources to stand up to that kind of intimidation. And via RICO, the government deprives you of your resources. We know that with so-called "street crime" people often plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. ("Who is the jury going to believe, kid?")

As for that street crime, bullies pick on people who cannot defend themselves. That much is true by definition. The bullies save themselves the actual effort with the threat of violence. So, we would have to say that the threat is equivalent to the act.

Here in Texas, it does not take much of a threat to you for you to lawfully respond with actual violence in your own (pre-emptive) defense.

Once upon a time me dino was a newspaper reporter who was threatened several times on the phone before there was such a thing as *69 and and Caller ID.
I did not lose a drop of blood.
Off and on some coward on the phone would tell me how "someone" was gonna make me pay or that "someone" was gonna run my out the county.
Toward the end of of that thankless for a crappy pay career, I told a caller that "Ive been waiting for this "someone" for seven years to do something and I haven't seen him yet."
Me dino got no response for saying that. Click!
Years later as a corrections officer an inmate in a cell block day room was excitedly carrying on how I'd better be worried about something happening to me when I pretended to yawn.
In mid-sentence he came to a stuttering stop and walked away. I could tell several similar stories like that but they'd start to become boring.

If I have the terms straing there is a difference.
Actual violence against someone is Battery. The threat of violence is Assault. So if tyou threaten somone and then stricke them you have committed Assault and Battery.
Again, I'm not sure I have the terms right, but there is a distinct difference between the threat of violence and the actual commitment of violence.
I practical terms 1 to 3 yrs vs 5 to 7 years behind bars.