Again, I have some objections! At least the article is in neat bullet point format so it's easy to go point-by-point...
Now, I'm not an expert by any means, so expect ample generalizations and gloss-overs, and if somebody here knows better please do correct me in turn.
Based on the rest of the article I'll assume that we're talking about the Greek
xiphos and Roman
gladius, specifically. (Both cultures used other sword forms, too, e.g. the Greek
kopis and
makhaira, and Roman
spatha and arguably
sica - not to even mention all the earlier Bronze Age types!)
Xiphoi tend to be narrower in profile and have the swell of the leaf shape situated farther out towards the tip than on leaf-shaped gladii. Bronze xiphoi typically had a reinforced central rib running down the length of the blade, like most Bronze Age sword forms, although the later iron blades quickly adopted a diamond cross-section similar to the typical gladius. Due to the greater standardization of gladius designs, there is also much more variation in xiphos blade length, ranging (very roughly) from around one to around two feet.
However, the greatest difference between the xiphos and the gladius is actually in the design and construction of their hilts.
The archetypal Roman gladius has an organic hilt composed of a flattened semi-spherical guard (often with an inset metal disk under the blade shoulders), a slightly flattened tubular grip, and a roughly spherical pommel; the fairly narrow tang passes all the way through these hilt components and is peened over a metal peen block. The overall construction method is very similar to later European swords of Medieval, Renaissance and Modern periods.
The xiphos, on the other hand, has a full slab or sandwich tang, i.e. the shape and size of the tang follow the full outline of the hilt, being visible at the sides. The parts that form the guard and grip are sandwiched between organic grip scales, a cylindrical or conical pommel of likewise organic material is attached to a small tab at the end of the tang, and finally the guard and pommel (and sometimes the entire hilt) are partially covered with thin sheet metal. This sort of construction is a direct descendant of and closely resembles older Bronze Age swords from the same region.
Swords of this kind were to be used with a shield, just like the spears, axes, maces and other weapons of war of the time; none of them were intended for use
after losing your shield. Nothing really was - losing your shield was essentially synonymous to losing the battle (and poets and artists made much use of this metaphor). If you
had to fight without your shield, for whatever reason, a spear in two hands would be preferable to a short sword in most situations.
Swords (and axes and maces) were used simply when the fighting got so close that spears became awkward, or, indeed, when you lost or broke your spear. Or when you were taken by surprise, or for some other reason were unprepared for battle, and only had your sidearm on you.
The primary weapon for all militaries of this period was the
shield. Spears were by far the most common companion to it, and swords popular sidearms, but the shield was the weapon that actually dictated the strategies and battle tactics (at least for infantry).
This is kinda sorta technically true, in a sense... but really not accurate
at all.
On one hand, there is no historical or archaeological basis of any kind for assuming that classical Greek warriors were any cruder in their individual training and weapon skills than professional soldiers and martial artists of any other time or region. This is just a brazen assumption, with zero evidence to back it up.
On the other hand, there is really no room - both literally and figuratively - for individual fencing in a battle formation. When you fight in a phalanx or similar close formation, you're
not a warrior facing another in man-to-man combat; you're part of a
unit working as a whole against a similar unit of your enemies, and your collective morale, cohesion and group coordination
vastly outweigh whatever fencing skills any individual member of your unit may possess.
On the horribly mutated third hand, when one or both formations break and a general rout or chaotic melee ensues, or you ride your personal battle taxi (AKA Homeric chariot) into heroic shock troop combat on your own, that's when your
personal prowess has a chance to shine - which is why you might want to do this sort of thing despite how unsafe it is. And the kind of person who was likely to engage in this kind of solo exploits was also likely to train for it, because it is quite unsafe indeed!
Put short,
formation fighting techniques and training are necessarily simple and repetitive, completely regardless of culture and era; however, there's no reason to think that the
personal fighting techniques and training of Greek warriors were any simpler or cruder than those of any other culture or era.
Bone, horn and ivory were also used for the hilt scales and pommels, as well as the throats and chapes of some scabbards.
All scabbards were made of wood; those of wealthier individuals were sometimes covered and/or otherwise decorated with precious metals, but they still had wooden cores.
This is a common misconception.
The heavy round shield the stereotypical hoplite is famous for is actually called
aspis.
Hoplon is more correctly translated as "implement" or "piece of equipment". The term occurs most often in the plural,
hopla, quite neatly translatable to English as "arms", which refers to the weapons and armour of a warrior as a whole, not just his shield (although, as mentioned above, the shield was the most important single piece of his armament, so the confusion is understandable).
Hoplite is thus very close in meaning and connotations to the Medieval "man-at-arms".
Simply not true. For example,
Kult of Athena's Greek section alone has SwordsSwords's Greco-Roman selection beat in both quantity and quality (and then KoA has
a separate Roman section on top of that).
