Material: carbon steel
Type: 1065 (I think but am not sure)
Length: 68cm
Minimum blade width: 2.8 cm
Maximum blade width: 3.5 cm
Balance point: 25.7 cm from end of pommel
Weight: 635gr
Overall: 3.5/5 not a bad reproduction of a xiphos with one historical accuracy let down.
As we all know, finding historically accurate, realistically 450BC looking xiphoi to buy in 2021 is close to impossible.
This may not be a surprise as I believe the total amount of xiphoi dug up is less than 10 total (including ones found outside Greece). Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Positives:
-It's hard to find an accurate handmade reproduction of a xiphos. If I was actually transported to 450BC and was hiding in some bushes and saw hoplites marching past me, what would their swords actually look like in 450BC? Not a freak, one in a million sword made for a king. But what I would see most often... everyday hoplites and their everyday swords.
Most xiphoi you can buy today (KOA, Devil's Edge, etc) are Hollywood interpretations. Too machined, too accurate, too precise. Not handmade, not 450BC. I wanted something that may have actually existed back then for real.
This is a paradigm shift (or a complete change of mind) that most 2021's buyers are not aware of. People want to buy items where the quality looks 21st century. The fit and finish. The shine. The symmetry, etc. We are used to 21st century purchases. Not actual ancient Greek weapons. So the handmade finish might be a shock to some.
The look of this sword is one I specifically wanted. Handmade, rough, not precise, not symmetrical, messy. This may not be what you want. I.e. on the sword I received there are dents in the blade halfway through. I like this. You may think differently. Like Tod explains very well here:
[video=youtube;TVL46CM9k80]
I wanted something "unsellable". Asymmetric, rough, messy, 450BC.
Note: This is different than something "looking used". Like Tod explains "handmadeness" is either there or it isn't. I can't buy a KOA or Devils Edge Xiphos and run over it with a truck and expect it to look handmade.
-Everestforge told me the weight of the sword was 972gr. Historically these should have been 500-750gr depending on the length. I asked for one under 700gr which the seller agreed to. The weight I received was 635gr. That is a very good weight for a 68cm xiphos.
For me this is the most important aspect of a sword. The weight. As soon as you pick up a reproduction piece (like the Kopis I own) that weighs 1370gr you just know it's fake. A single handed sword that weighs as much as a bowling ball. Completely unusable. So the weight of this sword at 635gr is perfect.
-The sword features a historically accurate light /white colored wood handle (which is accurate to a real Xiphos). Although it's a shame Everestforge oils up the handle together with the sword which darkens it.
-The hilt is perfect in terms of historical accuracy. Shell type twin hilt plates with the pommel a part of the plates. Metal end cap with a peened finish. It is surprising how often this construction (pommel as part of the hilt plates) is seen on pottery, while the opposite (pommel separate from grip) would have been far easier to draw.
-The sword features the notch in the guard that lines up with the scabbard which is historically accurate.
-What's nice about this sword, because of the weight, you really understand how a xiphos was made to be used.
For 80% I would consider this a thrusting weapon, thrusting upwards.
You can slash with it horizontally, or even over the head as depicted on the Metaponto vase (F176 c. 390–380 BC) but it takes much more effort. Feels much more unnatural. It's like a slash would be as effective as a slap, a thrust as effective as a punch. Your fingers pushing up and along the guard, increasing the force vector make such a difference as compared to a swing where it feels weaker. One simply wouldn't slash unless absolutely necessary.
Also don't forget that the Metaponto vase illustrates a swing against a hound. In that situation it is far more effective to swing than to thrust.
This could explain the lack of thrusting illustrations on vases, it is a pose more difficult to accurately illustrate.
At 635gr the sword really feels weightless. Just an extension of your wrist. The slight front heaviness I believe is a remnant of bronze swords where the structural integrity was boosted by the leaf shape. With this size and weight sword, I would consider a horizontal chopping motion a "salvage" or "emergency" manouver. The sword is so much more made for upwards thrusting. As soon as you start using it you understand. Same principle as a Roman Gladius!, but so much lighter and more flexible and personal. The thrust of this weapon is definitely more athletic than a gladius.
So the leaf shape I would actually consider a slight disadvantage, unless I have missed something. The (very slight, almost unnoticeable) front heaviness I would consider unnecessary, as the sword is 80% designed for an upwards thrust, not a slash. You can slash, and the leaf shape may help get through material in a slash, but the percentage of times you will slash is just too low in my opinion. Then again what do I know, I'm not a hoplite. The leaf shape may help in terms of piercing wound size, I don't know. This sword is 2.8 cm and 3.5cm leaf. Also, I am holding a sword made with 2021 carbon steel, not what they would have had back in 450BC. The leaf shape may also be linked to the type of steel they had back then.
I think this may be why the Galdius lost its leaf shape from the Hispaniensis to the Pompeii and subsequently the Fulham.
If the cross section of the grip was slightly more circular rather than oval (slightly thicker grip) maybe some of the dynamics would change. I don't know.
-The sword arrived in a long box. It was wrapped in clingfilm and bubble wrap inside the box.
-The sword is sharp
Type: 1065 (I think but am not sure)
Length: 68cm
Minimum blade width: 2.8 cm
Maximum blade width: 3.5 cm
Balance point: 25.7 cm from end of pommel
Weight: 635gr
Overall: 3.5/5 not a bad reproduction of a xiphos with one historical accuracy let down.
As we all know, finding historically accurate, realistically 450BC looking xiphoi to buy in 2021 is close to impossible.
This may not be a surprise as I believe the total amount of xiphoi dug up is less than 10 total (including ones found outside Greece). Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Positives:
-It's hard to find an accurate handmade reproduction of a xiphos. If I was actually transported to 450BC and was hiding in some bushes and saw hoplites marching past me, what would their swords actually look like in 450BC? Not a freak, one in a million sword made for a king. But what I would see most often... everyday hoplites and their everyday swords.
Most xiphoi you can buy today (KOA, Devil's Edge, etc) are Hollywood interpretations. Too machined, too accurate, too precise. Not handmade, not 450BC. I wanted something that may have actually existed back then for real.
This is a paradigm shift (or a complete change of mind) that most 2021's buyers are not aware of. People want to buy items where the quality looks 21st century. The fit and finish. The shine. The symmetry, etc. We are used to 21st century purchases. Not actual ancient Greek weapons. So the handmade finish might be a shock to some.
The look of this sword is one I specifically wanted. Handmade, rough, not precise, not symmetrical, messy. This may not be what you want. I.e. on the sword I received there are dents in the blade halfway through. I like this. You may think differently. Like Tod explains very well here:
[video=youtube;TVL46CM9k80]
I wanted something "unsellable". Asymmetric, rough, messy, 450BC.
Note: This is different than something "looking used". Like Tod explains "handmadeness" is either there or it isn't. I can't buy a KOA or Devils Edge Xiphos and run over it with a truck and expect it to look handmade.
-Everestforge told me the weight of the sword was 972gr. Historically these should have been 500-750gr depending on the length. I asked for one under 700gr which the seller agreed to. The weight I received was 635gr. That is a very good weight for a 68cm xiphos.
For me this is the most important aspect of a sword. The weight. As soon as you pick up a reproduction piece (like the Kopis I own) that weighs 1370gr you just know it's fake. A single handed sword that weighs as much as a bowling ball. Completely unusable. So the weight of this sword at 635gr is perfect.
-The sword features a historically accurate light /white colored wood handle (which is accurate to a real Xiphos). Although it's a shame Everestforge oils up the handle together with the sword which darkens it.
-The hilt is perfect in terms of historical accuracy. Shell type twin hilt plates with the pommel a part of the plates. Metal end cap with a peened finish. It is surprising how often this construction (pommel as part of the hilt plates) is seen on pottery, while the opposite (pommel separate from grip) would have been far easier to draw.
-The sword features the notch in the guard that lines up with the scabbard which is historically accurate.
-What's nice about this sword, because of the weight, you really understand how a xiphos was made to be used.
For 80% I would consider this a thrusting weapon, thrusting upwards.
You can slash with it horizontally, or even over the head as depicted on the Metaponto vase (F176 c. 390–380 BC) but it takes much more effort. Feels much more unnatural. It's like a slash would be as effective as a slap, a thrust as effective as a punch. Your fingers pushing up and along the guard, increasing the force vector make such a difference as compared to a swing where it feels weaker. One simply wouldn't slash unless absolutely necessary.
Also don't forget that the Metaponto vase illustrates a swing against a hound. In that situation it is far more effective to swing than to thrust.
This could explain the lack of thrusting illustrations on vases, it is a pose more difficult to accurately illustrate.
At 635gr the sword really feels weightless. Just an extension of your wrist. The slight front heaviness I believe is a remnant of bronze swords where the structural integrity was boosted by the leaf shape. With this size and weight sword, I would consider a horizontal chopping motion a "salvage" or "emergency" manouver. The sword is so much more made for upwards thrusting. As soon as you start using it you understand. Same principle as a Roman Gladius!, but so much lighter and more flexible and personal. The thrust of this weapon is definitely more athletic than a gladius.
So the leaf shape I would actually consider a slight disadvantage, unless I have missed something. The (very slight, almost unnoticeable) front heaviness I would consider unnecessary, as the sword is 80% designed for an upwards thrust, not a slash. You can slash, and the leaf shape may help get through material in a slash, but the percentage of times you will slash is just too low in my opinion. Then again what do I know, I'm not a hoplite. The leaf shape may help in terms of piercing wound size, I don't know. This sword is 2.8 cm and 3.5cm leaf. Also, I am holding a sword made with 2021 carbon steel, not what they would have had back in 450BC. The leaf shape may also be linked to the type of steel they had back then.
I think this may be why the Galdius lost its leaf shape from the Hispaniensis to the Pompeii and subsequently the Fulham.
If the cross section of the grip was slightly more circular rather than oval (slightly thicker grip) maybe some of the dynamics would change. I don't know.
-The sword arrived in a long box. It was wrapped in clingfilm and bubble wrap inside the box.
-The sword is sharp
Last edited: