In military terminology, the distinction between combat sports and the martial arts would refer to “lines of drift.” Lines of drift are natural or man-made features that tend to lead people (or animals) toward a given direction. Examples of these are bridges, game trails, and roads. Normally people are apt to follow lines of drift when moving: we sacrifice freedom of movement in exchange for ease of movement along a line of drift. Simply put, faster and more convenient routes of transportation such as highways are preferable to game trails, though the actual distance from point to point may be greater along a highway. Military personnel, however, do not follow lines of drift in combat, because this is where, more often than not, ambushes are established. The examples above, involving a bladed weapon or exposed vulnerable points when an opponent is in the mounted position, are similar. Exposing a vulnerable point to attack is similar to establishing a line of drift, hence it is a condition that one must be aware of during combat.
The mounted position described in the paragraphs above does indeed expose, for moments in time, vulnerable areas of the body to attack and it would be best, in an uncontrolled environment, to avoid such possibilities. That having been said, there is no guarantee that a defender (or an assailant) will be able to reach a weak point when faced with a skilled opponent. Even though combat sports have rules forbidding the practitioners from attacking these points, there is also no doubt that practitioners of combat sports today tend to be considerably more skilled than their counterparts in the traditional martial arts, simply because practicing with a resisting partner allows for the development of higher levels of skill.
PREPARING FOR COMBAT
Although the differences between pammachon and pankration are clear, the right training for martial arts practitioners is incomplete without the inclusion of combat sports. If one had not become accustomed to competition through sports, he might be found lacking physically, emotionally, and intellectually when he took part in battle. This is testified to by the Codex Wallerstein (a fifteenth-century combat manual), which refers to the difference between combat sports and the martial arts:
Doch so ist ein yeder krancker ringer im ernsten einem starken zu gleichen hat er pehentikait und mass kampfstuck und mordstuck enpfor genomen aber mit gesellen ringen so hacz der starck alzeit enpfor doch so wirt dy kunst gelopt vor ritter und knechten fur allew ding.
Translation: Although a weak fighter in a serious combat can be equal to a strong opponent if he has previously learned agility, reach, fighting tricks, and killing tricks, in a friendly combat, strength always has the advantage; in spite of this, the art of fighting [wrestling] is praised by knights and squires above all things.5
There are also historical anecdotes that demonstrate that advanced skill in a combat sport allowed the competitor to win in actual combat. For instance, there is the well-known duel of Dioxippos the Athenian and Koragos the Macedonian. In a state of drunkenness, the Macedonian challenged the Athenian to a duel. Dioxippos had won the pankration competition at the Olympiad in 336 BCE. King Alexander himself set the date for the duel and thousands of soldiers gathered for the event. Koragos appeared in full armor, in contrast to Dioxippos, who appeared in the nude, oiled like an athlete, and holding a club like Hercules.
Koragos first threw a javelin at him, but Dioxippos avoided it, and so Koragos tried to stab him with his spear. Dioxippos avoided the thrust and broke the spear in two with his club. Desperate, Koragos tried to stab him with a knife, but the Athenian grabbed his right hand with his own left, breaking his balance, and then knocked him off both feet and threw him to the ground. The winner, Dioxippos rested his foot on his opponent’s throat and raised his club, looking out at the audience as does the winner in the pankration. Apparently, Dioxippos had knowledge of both pammachon and pankration, which allowed him an easy victory.
And yet, the controversy as to whether combat sports are appropriate for training warriors has lasted for centuries. Euripides, for example, in his work Autolykos, teases professional athletes:
Name one renowned wrestler, one swift runner, one champion discus-thrower, one expert boxer who has served his country by winning laurels. Do they drive the enemy out of the fatherland by throwing the discus, or do they break the row of the enemy’s shields with their kicks? No man is so mad as to do this when facing the horror of deadly steel.
In the Iliad we find the example of Epeios, who, though an unbeaten boxer, did not enjoy great esteem among his peers in actual combat. General Philopoimen (fourth century BCE), a distinguished wrestler, learned through bitter experience that athletes did not become good warriors, and so forbade his soldiers from taking part in athletic competitions! The philosopher Plato (although a wrestler himself) was against pankration as a means of training warriors, while he supported fencing and training in mass competitions with wooden weapons. On the other hand, King Agesilaus of Sparta, that formidable warrior, instituted athletic games in Ephesus to keep his soldiers in good shape.6
A second distinction we have to make is that between war and battle (or combat). Battle, in this book, refers to combat between two or more adversaries with close-quarter combat weapons such as knives or swords. War is technological, a science unto itself, and is not necessarily tied to notions of archaic and classic combat, as we present them here. In the Greek battle of Sphakteria in 425 BCE, for example, the Spartans surrendered to the Athenians (for the first time in their history) because their armored warriors could not close with the lightly armed auxiliaries of the Athenians, who outflanked them and bombarded them with arrows and stones from a distance, decimating them. Similarly, today skill in close-quarter combat does not necessarily protect a person from bombs dropped by a B-2, or from the 30mm bullets of an Apache helicopter.
Why then should we study close-quarter combat and combat sports? Without going into the benefits of psychosomatic exercise at this point, we could state that, simply, knives, hatchets, and lances continue to be a threat to citizens. In addition, the protective gear and armor that police officers and soldiers wear today is not different in function from that of the armed warriors of the classical and medieval ages. Nothing has changed, in other words, and as a result, both martial arts and combat sports, from a technical point of view, are timely and directly applicable.
MARTIAL ARTS WEST TO EAST
A popular legend around the world today is that the most prevalent Eastern martial arts (such as karate and many styles of kung fu) are a development of the martial and meditative-respiratory exercises taught by the Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma to the monks of the Buddhist Shaolin temple in Hunan province, China, circa 520 CE.
In the past two decades, ethnocentric circles in Greece (and beyond) have propagated the theory that Shaolin kung fu is an exclusive derivation of a Greek martial art that the supporters of this view have arbitrarily named pankration. This is a documented position on their part: most federations associated with pankration today advertise that the martial arts, as a Greek creation par excellence, traveled by way of Alexander the Great to the Indian subcontinent, and from there to the Chinese (with the implied supposition that all nations along the way were bereft of martial arts until Alexander’s arrival), to provide the impetus for the creation of karate, kung fu, judo, and so forth. This theory, however, can be readily disproved, and discloses a lack of knowledge of the related historical events, battles, and cultural interactions. Sadly, it seems that the people who promote such theories are unaware that Alexander himself considered the combat sport of pankration unsuitable for the training of warriors.7
These assertions do raise the question of whether there is some relationship between the ancient Greek combat sport of pankration and the Shaolin kung fu popularly attributed to the Zen Patriarch. In the appendix we will deal with this question and present a model—based on historical events and the archaeological record—by which a cultural exchange between Greece and China could have taken place over the centuries. At this point, however, we refer to this question only to make
another point.
The purpose of this book is to explore the archaic and classical martial arts and combat sports of the ancient Mediterranean in general, and ancient Greece in particular. But in furthering our exploration into what exactly comprises the combat sport of pankration and the martial art of pammachon, it is not our intention to concentrate on this distinction with a Greco-centric bias, but rather to use these two words to specify the divergence of combat sports and martial arts in general. To this end, we will use these ancient Greek words to clarify a distinction that exists in every country on Earth that has developed combat sports and martial arts, or will develop them in the future.
“THE GAMES BEGIN— OF MOST NOBLE FEATS A TREASURY”
All of the Olympic games of the ancients had their origins in the need for combat training and thus were closely connected to actual battle. The ability to run quickly for short or long distances, to overcome natural obstacles, to strike a distant target with a thrown javelin, to box or wrestle, are all battle-preparation activities. Like pankration, the games of wrestling and boxing began as individual martial skills that became athletic contests over time, and their techniques changed considerably in accord with the spirit of a game and in opposition to actual combat. As athleticism evolved, the combat sports developed their own characteristic traits and skillsets. One indication of this is that in the ancient Olympic games the contestants were nude and in the “heavy” contests—such as wrestling, boxing, and pankration—rubbed their bodies with oil.
After the Olympic games began in 776 BCE, young men trained in sporting contests not only to prepare for war, but in a wider framework of their culture, with the goal of becoming not only ideal fighters but ideal citizens. Still, pankration’s origins as a way of training for actual combat could be seen in its early practice in the Olympics: athletes were restricted to the standing, battle-related positions. Thus, prior to the fifth century BCE, artistic representations of athletes show them standing on their feet, fighting with blows and kicks. Similarly, presentations that we are sure depict pammachon show absolutely no fighting on the ground.
However, the distinction between the martial art and the fighting contest remained clear for centuries. Klemes the Alexandrian, for example, the father of the Orthodox Church in the second century CE, mentions the difference between pammachon and pankration, with praise for both. The most significant factor distinguishing pankration from pammachon was the rules that govern the practice of pankration, which in turn determine the techniques, strategies, and tactics of the game.
RULES
Although the word pankration can be translated as “he who holds everything,” there were ample restrictive rules. Philostratos mentions that biting was banned in pankration. Plutarch mentions that the genitals, abdomen, and throat were off limits in pankration. Several references to choking and strangulation cases indicate that blows to the neck were also restricted—this is logical, since the intention was not to kill the opponent but to subdue him.
The game ended when one of the contestants declared his submission. Submission was declared in the following two ways:
By lifting one finger high up, which we can see in many presentations on pottery; this was also used in wrestling and boxing.
By striking on the shoulder (tapping out), a move by which one’s resignation is declared even today in combat sports.
In figure 2.1 we can see a depiction of a technique forbidden in pankration, and a judge intervening to stop it. The presence of judges was not superficial; it was essential, as they had the authority to intervene by hitting any contestant who violated one of the rules with a stick, to offer the fighters relief from exhaustion, or to protect one of the contestants if he looked pale and weak, rather than in good health as he should be!
The mightiest rule was the unwritten law to “Compete Nobly” (eugenês ámilla), which characterized the athletic contests of the Olympic games. So, in spite of the hardships and rigor of the game, during which the athletes frequently reached or even exceeded their limits, only one accidental death in a pankration match was recorded in ancient Olympia. This death was most likely caused by the victim and not by his opponent. The victim was Arrichion, who was proclaimed the winner of the contest after his death, because he had forced his opponent to resign by snapping his ankle, while he himself was held in a strangulation hold by his rival. Arrichion, prompted by his trainer, preferred to die rather than resign the game.
Figure 2.1. Typical example of forbidden technique. The athlete on the right attacks his opponent’s eyes, unable to free himself from his opponent’s hold. Red amphora, British Museum. (Drawing based on photograph from the museum.)
It is worth noting that there were fewer injuries in pankration than in boxing. This is shown by the following reports from various authors. Artemidoros mentions in his work The Book of Dreams that “pankration has the same properties as boxing, but it has no injuries.” Michael Poliakoff writes: “The ancient Greeks did not consider it more dangerous than boxing, because a man who wanted to compete both in pankration and boxing chose to compete in pankration first, in order to avoid injuries.” The fact that pankration was a safer game than boxing leads us to three conclusions:
There were many more restrictive rules in pankration.
Most likely athletes on the ground fought using holds and locks rather than blows, with the aim of leading their opponent into a critical joint lock causing submission.
Although boxing and pankration shared a common goal—forcing the opponent to resign—they used different means to achieve it. To be specific, if a man uses only his fists to subdue his opponent, he will most likely injure him, because, unlike the body, the head has no muscle tissue to protect it. As submission wrestling was allowed in pankration, a finishing joint lock often prevailed as a way to force submission, which ideally would have an immediate effect, much as in today’s mixed martial arts contests.
All these restrictive rules obviously did not exist on the battlefield, where fighters could use any method to eliminate and not just subdue their enemy.
CONSTITUTING ELEMENTS OF PANKRATION
An examination of the elements characterizing the game of pankration in ancient Olympia will enable us to draw interesting conclusions concerning the techniques of the game as well as the development of specific physical properties.
Strength and Technique
Initially, strong and large athletes had the advantage in the pursuit of victory. With their weight and strength they could subdue their opponent. As time passed, around the seventh to sixth century BCE, stamina, with added strength, patience, and technique, created the ideal pankration athletes.
TH. B. YIANNAKIS, ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE,
PHILOSOPHY OF COMPETITION
There were no weight categories in pankration, which gave bigger and stronger athletes the advantage. This is supported by some other parameters as we shall see. In the game of pankration, strength and size could overcome a smaller opponent’s better technical skills. In the battlefield, however, the effective use of weapons demanded refined technique and correct timing, regardless of strength and size. Weapons were ideal “equalizers.” The same applies today. Good soldiers—in addition to their good physical condition, which is a “must”—base their excellence on the correct use of weapons and on strategy, not on physical strength.
The Ground and Restricted Mobility
The ground on which pankration took place was dug-up sand, called a skamma (which simply means “dug up”). The reason for this was to allow the fighters to fight and fall without getting injured but also because this kind of terrain brought about restrictions in mobility that duplicated the conditions of the actual battlefield while wearing armor. This leads us to some useful comparisons between pankration and the martial arts of the East.
The difficulty involved with moving on dug-up sand is clear to anyone who has tried. Lateral moves are especially difficult, which mirrors the fact that human beings move forward much more freque
ntly than sideways in an actual melee. In the game of pankration (as in other fighting contests such as wrestling and boxing) a straight move was the prevailing move (in contrast to modern contests). The type of step made popular today by sixteenth- to nineteenth-century traditional Japanese martial arts—where the student glides on his feet without picking them up in order to enhance his balance, has been developed for use inside buildings on tatami (rice-plant fiber) mats; however, it has no practical application in a natural environment where one is more likely to trip over a root or stone using same.
Considering the restrictions in mobility and the size advantage, pankration athletes approached each other with impetus—mostly in a linear fashion—to quickly reduce the distance between them. This resulted in a powerful collision between two well-prepared athletes, whose physical capabilities were extremely well developed; this “collision” is somewhat reminiscent of Japanese sumo.
Avoidance and Blocks
Avoidance—especially at close range where hand blows were typically used—was executed by a short move of the body and bending of the knees, while blocks were enhanced and executed in two ways: a) hand blows on the limbs of the opponent; b) “refined (soft) avoidance” along with penetrating moves aimed at capturing the offensive limb. One should imagine the delicate parries of Western fencing when visualizing this approach; please note that this type of parry was characteristic of pammachon, and was brought into pankration as a result. Avoiding the opponent using long steps or extraordinarily deep stances was difficult. Therefore the timing of the athletes had to be excellent and very precise.
The Martial Arts of Ancient Greece Page 4