The Martial Arts of Ancient Greece

by Kostas Dervenis

  As soon as he places his foot on the ground, he executes a body turn, pulling his opponent hard and sweeping at his base with his thigh. From then on, he will proceed to ground fighting from an advantageous position (D).

  LEG TAKEDOWNS

  Figure 3.78a, b, c. From tomb 17 at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawings by P. E. Newberry from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  ANALYSIS

  Leg takedowns are very commonly used in submission wrestling and in freestyle wrestling. This technique is almost always used when an athlete intends to follow his opponent to a ground fight, as the usual reaction to a leg takedown attempt is a reverse headlock choke (or “guillotine” as it is called in contemporary times; see page 144). Thus the athletes stay in close contact and the fight continues on the ground.

  Figure 3.78 shows two different types of leg takedowns. In figures 3.78a and 3.78b both athletes on the left have bent down and use one or both hands to hold their opponents’ legs near the knee joint, in order to lift them off the ground. In figure 3.78c the athlete on the left has already lifted his opponent’s leg off the ground; he is holding one leg a little above the ankle with his right hand, and has passed his left arm around the thigh higher up. From this position, he can force his opponent to the ground in two ways, applicable today in submission wrestling:

  With a linear move, entering and knocking the opponent off balance.

  With a twisting move, taking a backward step and turning his body.

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

  The attacker grabs his opponent’s front leg by the knee and holds it tightly to his chest, eliminating any openings his opponent might take advantage of (A–C).

  Next, he enters the space between his opponent’s legs and throws him to the ground (linear move) (D).

  There, he immobilizes his opponent by trapping his other leg under his own leg. From this position he can proceed to a good number of attacking techniques for a ground fight (E).

  COUNTERS TO A FRONT LEG TAKEDOWN

  The images presented in this section make it clear that, while attempting a front leg takedown, it is very important for the attacker to avoid leaving a gap between his opponent’s leg and his own head. A gap allows the defender to proceed with counterattacking techniques such as a reverse forearm choke or neck crank.

  ANALYSIS

  Reversed Forearm Choke (“Guillotine”) Counter to Front Leg Takedown

  The ancient Egyptian image in figure 3.79 shows a reverse choke counter to a front leg takedown attempt. The athlete on the left had grabbed his opponent’s leg and was attempting a throw. However, he left a gap, offering his opponent the chance to pass his forearm in front of his neck, which resulted in the choke represented in this image. The athlete on the right has also put his weight on his opponent’s head, thus freeing his leg from his opponent’s hold. The pair of athletes on the right in figure 3.79 demonstrate an attempted arm-bar throw and how to counter it.

  Figure 3.79. From the temple-tomb of Ramses B1 at Medinet Habu, Egypt, 1150 BCE. (Drawing based on a photograph from the University of Chicago, published in Combat Sports in the Ancient World by Michael Poliakoff.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

  If an attacker does not manage to close all the gaps and keep his opponent’s knee tight to his chest, then he provides his opponent with the chance to place his arm in front of his throat and execute a reversed choking or strangulation attack (A–C).

  Figure 3.80. Theseus vs. Kerkyon. Attic cup, 460 BCE, Ferrara Archaeological Museum. (Drawing based on photograph from the museum.)

  ANALYSIS

  ”Crucifix” or “Neck Crank” Counter to Front Leg Hold

  The image in figure 3.80 depicts an instance in the mythological combat between Theseus and Kerkyon. Theseus has passed his forearms under the arms of Kerkyon, who is attempting a front leg takedown. Theseus is trapping his opponent’s head under his armpit with under hooks. This is the perfect position from which to proceed with an attack on the joints of the cervical vertebrae (which can result in dislocation if applied with enough pressure). This move is called a “neck crank” or a “crucifix” in modern submission wrestling, the latter term due to the position of the opponent’s arms when executing it.

  Figure 3.81. “Crucifix” or “neck crank.” From the tombs at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawing by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

  The same—faulty—attack seen in the previous depiction (A).

  This time the defender takes advantage of suitable gaps and passes his arms through them, placing them under his opponent’s armpits (B).

  He completes his counterattack by clasping his palms behind his opponent’s, trapping his head under his armpit, applying pressure on his neck (C).

  DOUBLE-LEG TAKEDOWN

  Figure 3.82. Wrestling. Attic amphora, fifth century BCE, Museo Nazionale, Tarquinia. (Drawing based on a photograph published in Combat Sports in the Ancient World by Michael Poliakoff.)

  ANALYSIS

  In figure 3.82, we see an attempt to grab both legs. The athlete attacks without having previously bypassed his opponent’s defenses by lowering his own body. Hence he is forced to duck, which offers his opponent the chance to grab him by the waist, with the clear intention of turning him over backward.

  Conversely, in figure 3.83, we see that the attacker has lowered his own base adequately, not presenting his opponent the option of seizing him around the waist in a reverse grip.

  Figure 3.83. From tomb 17 at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawing by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  Figure 3.84. From tomb 2 at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawings by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  In figure 3.84 we have two similar leg takedown attacks. In the representation on the left, the attacker pushes his head into his opponent’s body, maintaining a distance, while he executes a takedown on both legs. In the representation on the right, the attacker places his head at his opponent’s side, which, if not combined with a lowering of his base, allows the opponent counterattacking options, as in this case. The defender places his arms accordingly, preventing the other athlete from “penetrating,” and keeping his opponent’s pelvis and legs at a safe distance.

  “SPRAWL” (COUNTER TO ATTEMPTED DOUBLE-LEG TAKEDOWN)

  Figure 3.85. Hercules vs. Antaeus. Attic amphora, 520 BCE, British Museum, London.

  ANALYSIS

  In figure 3.85, Hercules (on the left) shows the reaction to a double-leg take-down attempt by Antaeus. He removes his legs from the range of the attack while “sprawling” his body on top of Antaeus’ own. At the same time he tries to pass his arm in front of his opponent’s neck to execute a reverse strangulation. However Antaeus reacts shrewdly, closing the gap, lifting his left arm next to his ear, at the same time pressing down with his left foot, preparing to rise.

  The sequel to Hercules’ attempt is shown in figure 3.86. The athlete on the right has completed the process of forcing his opponent to the ground, who has retreated into the position known today as “the turtle” in order to protect himself. From there on, regaining his base, he will counterattack with a double-leg takedown, by applying pressure with his head to the side, preparing to throw his opponent.

  Figure 3.86. From the tombs at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawing by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS

  Penetrating for a Double-Leg Takedown

  The attacker on the left infiltrates his opponent’s defenses, entering between the legs of his opponent. During this breach of his opponent’s defenses, he keeps his hands near his face as a guard in case of a possible counter blow (A–B).

  He grabs his opponent right behind the knee joint without clasping his palms together (C).

  The throw is accomplished as he pulls with both hands and kneels down on his forward leg (
D–E).

  After the throw, he proceeds to establish a mounted position, taking care not to be caught between his opponent’s legs (inside the opponent’s “guard”) (F–G).

  ”Sprawl” (Counter to Attempt at Double-Leg Takedown)

  The athlete on the left attacks by penetrating to grab both legs (A–B).

  The opponent reacts by sliding his legs and body backward and placing the weight of his body on his opponent’s back at the same time. He ends up on top of him, having pushed him down on his chest (C–D).

  ATTACKS TO THE NECK: CHOKES AND STRANGULATIONS

  Figure 3.87a. Mosaic showing ancient wrestling ring. Roman era, Tusculum, Italy. (Drawing from Monumenti ineditti pubblicati dall’Instituto di corrispondenze archeologica, 1857–63.)

  “The Helians who supervise the games . . . praise the choke.”

  PLATO’s SCHOLIAST

  ANALYSIS

  Attacks using asphyxiating holds on the throat and neck, either chokes or strangulations, were considered superior technique in pankration, so whoever managed to apply such a difficult hold on a fellow competitor achieved acclaim. A choke is a technique in which pressure is applied directly to the trachea, obstructing the airway and causing suffocation. A strangulation is a technique which applies pressure to the areas around the trachea, squeezing the carotid arteries and windpipe and limiting blood flow to the brain. Both techniques are highly dangerous, can cause immediate unconsciousness and, when deliberately maintained, the death of the opponent.

  Figure 3.87b, from the Roman mosaic above, depicts an excellent application of rear forearm choke. In this representation, the attacker has his back on the ground and has wrapped his legs in front of the defender, pinning him in place while he chokes him.

  Figure 3.87b. Magnified part of the mosaic.

  Figure 3.88a depicts a single-handed rear forearm choke attempt by the attacker on the left, while he holds the defender’s left arm with his other hand. The defender is preparing to attack his opponent’s groin using his free hand. Figure 3.88b shows the correct application of rear strangulation: the attacker has turned his body sideways and lifts the defender, who is unable to react and will lapse into unconsciousness.

  Figure 3.88a, b. From tomb 17 at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawings by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS

  Rear Strangulation

  The attacker has passed his arm in front of the defender’s neck, but is applying pressure to the sides of the neck, on one side with his forearm and on the other side with his bicep. The effectiveness of the hold is supported by tightening the arms in a grip that resembles a modern number 4 or triangle. This maneuver has become known as the “sleeper” hold today. The applied pressure is formidable and can block the carotid arteries (A).

  Rear Forearm Choke

  Pressure is applied by the forearm directly to the front of the throat, effectively blocking the trachea, or windpipe, of the defender (B). This is an extremely painful technique that also attacks the hyoid bone in the process and is very dangerous. In fact, it appears that the rear forearm choke was precisely the technique that brought about one of the few recorded deaths in ancient pankration, that of the athlete Arrichion, who refused to submit to his opponent’s choke and broke his aggressor’s ankle to escape, expiring in the process. (He was awarded victory posthumously.)

  REVERSE FOREARM OR “GUILLOTINE” CHOKE

  Figure 3.89. Roman bas-relief, The Vatican Museum.

  ANALYSIS

  Figure 3.89 is an excellent representation of a reverse choke. The centaur has trapped the attacker’s head and—passing his forearm in front of his neck— he closes the hold, executing suffocation. The same technique is shown in figure 3.90, from Beni Hasan. In this case, the attacker was trapped while attempting a front leg takedown, and is being choked or strangled from a standing position.

  Figure 3.90. From the tombs at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawing by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS

  Reverse Forearm Choke (Guillotine) with a Fall

  Many times—in submission wrestling competitions, for example—reverse chokes are finally fully secured while on the ground. This happens mainly after an attempt to grab the defender’s legs, when the attacker manages to break the defender’s balance and drive him to the ground (A–C).

  However, a gap between his attacker’s neck and his own body allows the defender (on the right) to pass his arm under his attacker’s neck . . . and finish him off by trapping him between his legs, in a position called “the guard” in modern mixed martial arts (D). When executed in this fashion, reverse chokes actually attack the vertebrae, and can lead to hernia, dislocation, or more serious injuries; therefore, extreme care should be taken while applying these techniques.

  “Naked” Rear Strangulation with a Takedown

  The athlete on the left has applied a rear body clinch on his opponent (A).

  From this position, he passes one arm around his opponent’s neck and blocks his opponent’s capability to step back with his own legs and feet (B).

  Next, he breaks his opponent’s balance and falls backward, taking his opponent with him by placing heel hooks inside his thighs. He finishes with a rear naked strangulation (C–D). This technique is commonly used in today’s mixed martial arts.

  Ground Wrestling and Fighting

  So far, we have analyzed standing combat and wrestling based on the archaeological archives. An important part of standing combat is its transfer to the ground. We have analyzed many techniques for throwing, lifting, sweeping, and taking down our opponent. We have also analyzed finishing holds in both the standing position and on the ground (when the entrapment range and the ground wrestling range coincide).

  In this part we shall focus our attention on ground wrestling and fighting, where the fight usually ends in submission contests. Ground fighting is clearly part of an athletic contest (pankration)—like the submission fighting popular in mixed martial arts circles today—not part of the preparation for actual battle (pammachon).

  We have already mentioned in a previous chapter that on an actual battlefield warriors had to avoid transferring the fight to the ground, due to the danger of being hurt by other members of the opposing army. Therefore, they focused on neutralizing their opponents by throwing them, by inflicting blows upon sensitive parts of their bodies, or by executing finishing holds in a standing position.

  The other distinction between actual combat and athletic competitions is that in real combat the combatants carry weapons. In the ground fighting that occurs as a part of an athletic contest, there are certain positions that offer the advantage to those who achieve them, allowing them to follow up with finishing holds to win the contest. In conditions of real hand-to-hand combat in battle, which would presuppose the presence of short-range personal weapons, such positions could be fatal.

  This is the basic difference between real battle arts and athletic duels. After all, the meaning of a duel is the confrontation between two persons (not two opposing armies). The kinesiology may seem similar but there are differences. The greatest difference is in the strategy, tactics, and application of fighting techniques in an athletic contest versus a real battle. In athletic competitions dangerous holds and other dangerous techniques, such as blows against sensitive body parts, are disallowed. Such techniques would be desirable in actual battle where the objective is to mortally wound the enemy. In athletic contests the safety of the athletes comes before everything else.

  THE MOUNTED POSITION

  Figure 3.91a. Mosaic showing ancient wrestling ring. Roman era, Tusculum, Italy. (Drawing from Monumenti ineditti pubblicati dall’Instituto di corrispondenze archeologica, 1857–63.)

  ANALYSIS

  The mounted position is a strong position in submission fighting, as it affords the attacker good control and mobility and allows hard blows with good placeme
nt. This position also restricts the upper body mobility of the defendant.

  In submission wrestling, however, it is not as valuable, because it is not as stable as people would like to think. In judo, it is called tate shiho gatame.

  Figure 3.91b. Magnification of a part of the mosaic.

  Armbar from the Mounted Position

  In the Roman mosaic, the attacker keeps his opponent between his legs, but he does not sit on him; he remains standing. He seems to have trapped his opponent’s arm. He has also armed his right hand and prepares to strike his opponent.

  There are various options for attacking or applying finishing holds from a mounted position. Such attacks can take place against the opponent’s neck and throat using asphyxiating holds. The defender’s upper limbs are also vulnerable to dislocations of the elbow or shoulder.

  Figure 3.92. From the tombs at Beni Hasan, Egypt, 2000 BCE. (Drawing by P. E. Newberry, from the publication Beni Hasan, London, 1893.)

  CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS

  Stabilization

  Today, because the mounted position has become the premier ground-fighting position in mixed martial arts contests, it has changed significantly since ancient times. The mounted athlete strives to maintain his position by placing hooks under his opponents’ legs (A). Sometimes he even places double hooks around his opponent’s calves, restricting his own mobility (B). He presses his opponent toward the ground with his chest and, by spreading his hands far apart and placing them well in front of his body, he maintains a wide and steady base (A–B).

  Blows from a Mounted Position

  The mounted position is desirable in a submission fight as it allows the attacker to hit his opponent effectively. From this position, having immobilized his opponent on the ground, the attacker finds himself in a favorable position for delivering direct downward blows (A–B).