Other/Mixed Verifiably True Ancient Greek and Roman Exercises

[Kev]

That's what we call a topos - in this case glorifying your past to serve as an example for future generations.
As for the gladiators, that newsline was based on the gladiator cemetary in Ephesos. However, it appears the anthropologists have jumped to conclusions there: the only evidence they had from the bones is that the gladiators were apparently eating mostly plants (you can tell that from the C to N ratio), and they concluded that they must have been fat because of it (I suspect they were both Atkins followers, or it simply made for a good headline). No other signs of obesity were present, at least none were published. There is also Galenos who criticized the predominantly plant-based diet, since he thought it would not lead to ideal muscle development as seen in the Greek athletes. This was again interpreted quite bravely as "purposefully getting fat to be protected against stabs", and I can't help but wonder whether these people know anything about nutrition, exercise physiology or the use of bladed weapons at all.
There have also been other attempts to interpret the gladiator's diet as "vegetarian" or even "almost vegan", both of which miss the point in my opinion.
The main thing to consider, in my opinion, is that fighting with weapons mainly requires TONS of drilling, therefore a huge volume. While strength plays a role in the actual encounter (especially with the big scutum), weight classes are less relevant because of the different armaturae and the fact that the arena is much bigger than a boxing ring. That means that training for it basically was predominantly an endurance sport, probably 6-10 hours per day. And if you look at the diet of endurance athletes, you'll find that the vast majority of them eats mostly plants (they'll usually still end up with enough protein, simply because 6000-8.000 kcal of ANYTHING this side of pure oil or sugar tends to have enough protein for most intents and purposes; just 5000 calories from barley and beans (2:1) will give you over 200 g of protein per day, and most likely it was served at least with a bit of cheese, bacon and the occasional egg, since all surviving recipies from the time call for that). Tell them to change their diet "because of science", and they'll refuse, simply because what they do works for them. The number of people who get fat on such a routine, on the other hand, is quite small. The only examples I can think of - kushti wrestlers, Sumotori, Bökh competitors (basically everyone who wrestles without a weight class) - all emphasize one or several protein sources in addition to carbs.
These anthropologists also seem unaware that the gladiators were basically eating the same food as the Roman legionnaires, so I assume those must have been fat as well...

PS: For reference, I teach Archaeology at the university of Zurich these days, and I used to do gladiator stuntwork (for the lack of a better word) for a certain gentleman called Marcus Junkelmann for nine years (in addition to competing in Freestyle and Greco wrestling, hence the interest in kushti etc.).

Extensive knowledge. Are you aware of the Leeds university study which found that out of earths current elite athletes it would be hard to crew one trireme that could row the distances and at the tempo Ancient Greek mariners could?

 

[Period]

Extensive knowledge. Are you aware of the Leeds university study which found that out of earths current elite athletes it would be hard to crew one trireme that could row the distances and at the tempo Ancient Greek mariners could?

This one? Fitness Has Fallen Since The Days Of Ancient Greece & science in action: the trireme Olympias – purple motes
It is definitely interesting, but there are a number of variables to consider in my opinion. First of all, design efficiency (whether the boat in the test actually matches the peak of evolution of boats of that type), which is also mentioned in the articles, second the construction and use of the sails (I'd guess there is a lot of - potentially unharvested - potential there) and finally, the distance difference between modern rowing competitions and ancient "practical" rowing. Modern rowing basically is a short distance event. Comparing modern rowers to ancient rowers basically would be similar to taking 400 or 800 meter runners, testing them in an ultramarathon and then drawing conclusions on their fitness level. After all, "fitness" according to Darwin means selection for and adaptiation to a given demand, and that includes the duration of said demand. Selection definitely shouldn't be overlooked here - if you look at runners, someone with a perfect genetic makeup for sprinting usually won't be a champion ultramarathoner, and vice-versa. Adaptation further increases this gap. You would probably get a more reliable comparison by recruiting from the people who are into these 12, 24 or 48 hour rowing competitions.

Now, I do think that experimental archaeology could indeed benefit from recruiting more athletes for testing. Mr. Junkelmann mostly liked to recruit people with a background in full contact sports and combat sports for his gladiator games, since they already had a lot of the qualities he was looking for (including a good feel for distance, which is vital in fighting with weapons, especially the gladiator armaturae which usually operate without a "bind" of the weapons, unlike modern and historic fencing). However, all of this needs to be seen in context. For a competitive athlete today, everything he does outside of his sport is going to be a side hustle (guilty as charged - I won almost all my gladiator matches thanks to my athletic background in wrestling and boxing, not to the time I'd practiced with weapons). Therefore, he will tend to only improve to a certain extent, unlike somebody who has a life-threatening incentive to do so. In other words, you'd have to find a way to make it essential for the athlete to perform at his best in the given test. I'd argue that, legality aside, that is a lot easier to do for logistically simpler things depending on fewer outside variables, such as lifting weights, shooting a bow, running or jumping. The other thing to consider is the pool of potential - you will have a hard time these days to recruit the top potential for such a test, because most people have other things to do, and earn good money with it. Back in ancient Greece, basically the coolest thing you could strive for (if you lacked the high birth necessary for a political career) was winning the old Olympics, followed by a military career.

 

[Kev]

This one? Fitness Has Fallen Since The Days Of Ancient Greece & science in action: the trireme Olympias – purple motes
It is definitely interesting, but there are a number of variables to consider in my opinion. First of all, design efficiency (whether the boat in the test actually matches the peak of evolution of boats of that type), which is also mentioned in the articles, second the construction and use of the sails (I'd guess there is a lot of - potentially unharvested - potential there) and finally, the distance difference between modern rowing competitions and ancient "practical" rowing. Modern rowing basically is a short distance event. Comparing modern rowers to ancient rowers basically would be similar to taking 400 or 800 meter runners, testing them in an ultramarathon and then drawing conclusions on their fitness level. After all, "fitness" according to Darwin means selection for and adaptiation to a given demand, and that includes the duration of said demand. Selection definitely shouldn't be overlooked here - if you look at runners, someone with a perfect genetic makeup for sprinting usually won't be a champion ultramarathoner, and vice-versa. Adaptation further increases this gap. You would probably get a more reliable comparison by recruiting from the people who are into these 12, 24 or 48 hour rowing competitions.

Now, I do think that experimental archaeology could indeed benefit from recruiting more athletes for testing. Mr. Junkelmann mostly liked to recruit people with a background in full contact sports and combat sports for his gladiator games, since they already had a lot of the qualities he was looking for (including a good feel for distance, which is vital in fighting with weapons, especially the gladiator armaturae which usually operate without a "bind" of the weapons, unlike modern and historic fencing). However, all of this needs to be seen in context. For a competitive athlete today, everything he does outside of his sport is going to be a side hustle (guilty as charged - I won almost all my gladiator matches thanks to my athletic background in wrestling and boxing, not to the time I'd practiced with weapons). Therefore, he will tend to only improve to a certain extent, unlike somebody who has a life-threatening incentive to do so. In other words, you'd have to find a way to make it essential for the athlete to perform at his best in the given test. I'd argue that, legality aside, that is a lot easier to do for logistically simpler things depending on fewer outside variables, such as lifting weights, shooting a bow, running or jumping. The other thing to consider is the pool of potential - you will have a hard time these days to recruit the top potential for such a test, because most people have other things to do, and earn good money with it. Back in ancient Greece, basically the coolest thing you could strive for (if you lacked the high birth necessary for a political career) was winning the old Olympics, followed by a military career.

So do you think that modern folk are getting a bad press in all these studies or is there merit in the idea people where a lot stronger and fitter back in the day. Are you aware of the markers in modern day Istanbul? I think they are chiselled distances that Ancient Greek javelin throwers managed. I don’t know if these markers are outwith modern throwers abilities. I’m only aware of there existence from a book I read about Byzantium ages ago.

 

[Kev]

This one? Fitness Has Fallen Since The Days Of Ancient Greece & science in action: the trireme Olympias – purple motes
It is definitely interesting, but there are a number of variables to consider in my opinion. First of all, design efficiency (whether the boat in the test actually matches the peak of evolution of boats of that type), which is also mentioned in the articles, second the construction and use of the sails (I'd guess there is a lot of - potentially unharvested - potential there) and finally, the distance difference between modern rowing competitions and ancient "practical" rowing. Modern rowing basically is a short distance event. Comparing modern rowers to ancient rowers basically would be similar to taking 400 or 800 meter runners, testing them in an ultramarathon and then drawing conclusions on their fitness level. After all, "fitness" according to Darwin means selection for and adaptiation to a given demand, and that includes the duration of said demand. Selection definitely shouldn't be overlooked here - if you look at runners, someone with a perfect genetic makeup for sprinting usually won't be a champion ultramarathoner, and vice-versa. Adaptation further increases this gap. You would probably get a more reliable comparison by recruiting from the people who are into these 12, 24 or 48 hour rowing competitions.

Now, I do think that experimental archaeology could indeed benefit from recruiting more athletes for testing. Mr. Junkelmann mostly liked to recruit people with a background in full contact sports and combat sports for his gladiator games, since they already had a lot of the qualities he was looking for (including a good feel for distance, which is vital in fighting with weapons, especially the gladiator armaturae which usually operate without a "bind" of the weapons, unlike modern and historic fencing). However, all of this needs to be seen in context. For a competitive athlete today, everything he does outside of his sport is going to be a side hustle (guilty as charged - I won almost all my gladiator matches thanks to my athletic background in wrestling and boxing, not to the time I'd practiced with weapons). Therefore, he will tend to only improve to a certain extent, unlike somebody who has a life-threatening incentive to do so. In other words, you'd have to find a way to make it essential for the athlete to perform at his best in the given test. I'd argue that, legality aside, that is a lot easier to do for logistically simpler things depending on fewer outside variables, such as lifting weights, shooting a bow, running or jumping. The other thing to consider is the pool of potential - you will have a hard time these days to recruit the top potential for such a test, because most people have other things to do, and earn good money with it. Back in ancient Greece, basically the coolest thing you could strive for (if you lacked the high birth necessary for a political career) was winning the old Olympics, followed by a military career.

I mean consider the lifts of pre-steroid strongmen. I’m pretty sure no one has matched the stuff Arthur Saxon did or Herman Goerner for that matter just to name a couple.

 

[BJJ Shawn]

So do you think that modern folk are getting a bad press in all these studies or is there merit in the idea people where a lot stronger and fitter back in the day. Are you aware of the markers in modern day Istanbul? I think they are chiselled distances that Ancient Greek javelin throwers managed. I don’t know if these markers are outwith modern throwers abilities. I’m only aware of there existence from a book I read about Byzantium ages ago.

I know little to nothing about this topic, but humans are substantially bigger than at any period in history, I can't see how that wouldn't also come with strength gains. The average male 2000 years ago was closer to 5' than to 6' tall, and on AVERAGE I would think those leverages would help modern humans.

 

[Period]

So do you think that modern folk are getting a bad press in all these studies or is there merit in the idea people where a lot stronger and fitter back in the day. Are you aware of the markers in modern day Istanbul? I think they are chiselled distances that Ancient Greek javelin throwers managed. I don’t know if these markers are outwith modern throwers abilities. I’m only aware of there existence from a book I read about Byzantium ages ago.

I would phrase it differently: the "bad press" is at least in part influenced by the type of comparison that is made, which is often somewhat inaccurate/unfair, both based on selection and on adaptation periods. It would be similar to taking an athlete and testing his capacity in manual labour - regardless of what athlete and what type of manual labour you choose, he likely won't perform as well as someone who's been doing that all his life, at least not immediately. Conversely, no manual labourer will likely match the athlete in his or her sport.
As for Greek javelin throwing, you might find this article interesting: Recreating the Ancient Greek Javelin Throw: How Far Was the Javelin Thrown? The authors discuss several variables that would play a role, but again they leave out some in the comparison. For example, they don't seem to discuss the variable between the two test subjects - the weaker thrower without the ankyle actually outhrew the guy who was beating him by on average 33% with the ankyle -, and they also don't mention that the athletic comittee has banned certain spear designs (e.g. the "Held cigar") in the 20th century because they were deemed to be too effective. I am pretty sure that back in ancient Greece, they had no such reservations. Finally, there is the question of talent pool again - I only know a handful of spear throwers, and I spent my entire teens in track and field. Back in the day, every kid on the block would have picked up a stick and thrown it all throughout their childhood, instructed by older brothers, dads and grandfathers.

 

[Period]

I mean consider the lifts of pre-steroid strongmen. I’m pretty sure no one has matched the stuff Arthur Saxon did or Herman Goerner for that matter just to name a couple.

That may also be due to the fact that nobody is practicing the pet lifts of these guys seriously anymore. If you compare their best lifts in the Olympic press, the snatch and the jerk, their numbers were outmatched a couple of decades later.
Comparing different eras in athletics is always difficult - the focus changes, so does training methodology (focusing on 2-3 lifts usually means added efficiency in those compared to somebody who trains in 20), and a modern Olympic barbell isn't the same as the ones Goerner and Saxon lifted, either.

 

[Kev]

That may also be due to the fact that nobody is practicing the pet lifts of these guys seriously anymore. If you compare their best lifts in the Olympic press, the snatch and the jerk, their numbers were outmatched a couple of decades later.
Comparing different eras in athletics is always difficult - the focus changes, so does training methodology (focusing on 2-3 lifts usually means added efficiency in those compared to somebody who trains in 20), and a modern Olympic barbell isn't the same as the ones Goerner and Saxon lifted, either.

You’re obviously a hell of a lot more knowledgeable on these topics than myself. What do you make of the Boulder on Thera that weighs 1300lbs and has the inscription “Eumastus, son of Critibulos lifted me” in Ancient Greek?

 

[Period]

I know little to nothing about this topic, but humans are substantially bigger than at any period in history, I can't see how that wouldn't also come with strength gains. The average male 2000 years ago was closer to 5' than to 6' tall, and on AVERAGE I would think those leverages would help modern humans.

Strength and what it results in is a somewhat complicated topic in my opinion. For example, you have to consider leverage. In the article about spear throwers I linked above, the authors mention that height and wingspan are selection factors for spear throwers. However, top spear throwers today are only slightly above average height and weight for western societies. Also, wingspan can be compensated for with the ankyle, you could get used to an extremely long one for example, which would be unweildy for someone not accustomed to it. It is safe to say that a good spear thrower is stronger than an average person, but not necessarily to an extreme degree. However, due to the nature of his sport, he needs to be extremely explosive and at least a decent sprinter.

 

[Period]

You’re obviously a hell of a lot more knowledgeable on these topics than myself. What do you make of the Boulder on Thera that weighs 1300lbs and has the inscription “Eumastus, son of Critibulos lifted me” in Ancient Greek?

We don't know how he supposedly lifted it. Then again, if we are comparing anecdotal lifts, he would be bested by the stone that "Great Gama" supposedly lifted in the early 20th century, which weighs 1200 kg (1,200 kg stone lifted by Gama Pehelwan on display | Vadodara News - Times of India). Here, the source even claims he carried it for some distance. Fun fact: Gama supposedly didn't even train in lifting this way, his recorded training, apart from the well-known millions of dands and bethaks and the wrestling, seems to have focused on cubbells, gar nal (stone ring) and some isometrics. As an impromptu feat, it seems somewhat unlikely, to say the least.
There is also the stone of Bybon (143kg, with a carved-in handle) that he supposedly lifted over his head with one hand (Our weightlifters have nothing on Eumastas), which would arguably at least rival Saxon's bent press of 371 lbs with a much more balanced implement. An extremely impressive lift, no doubt, but not necessarily out of this world if you consider that there are centuries of selection ahead of it.
Long story short: I am sure that the ancient athletes as well as the early 20th century strongmen were extremely impressive individuals, no doubt about it. But we have to consider several factors in comparison. I would argue that the length of the selection and adaptation process is crucial for top performance, and modern athletics haven't been around as long as the ancient ones (and even so, the rules change almost every year), plus the focus has often changed between events. Then, you have the variables of accurate testing vs. at least partly anecdotal records, part of which served the purpose of making their heroes even more impressive than they were. I've spent over half my life around athletes, and I'd be lying if I said I haven't seen some exaggerated numbers in the process

 

[John K]

I like the cut of your jib @Period . Well said throughout.

 

[Antti]

Consider the simple deadlift. There are impressive numbers done on the platform these days. But people always find difficulties in comparing the feats of athletes. One was a master's lifter. One on steroids. One did it with a deadlift bar, one with a stiff bar. One with a two hour weigh-in, one 24 hours. One used straps. One did sumo. Etc.

All this in some decades of a sport with rules and video recordings and calibrated plates and modern equipment. Imagine what it was like for thousands of years all over the world with stones and the like being used.

 

[Brett Jones]

De Arte Gymnastica

Published in 1569, De arte gymnastica, was written by Geronimo Mercuriali (Hieronymus Mercurialis, 1530-1606). Several reissues were published including one in 1672 in Amsterdam by Frisuis with a title page made by artist Romeyn de Hooghe. Geronimo Mercuriali was an Italian philologist and physician. In Rome in Italy he was very well connected and had free access to many libraries where he studied the classical and medical literature of the Grecians and Romans. He translated many Crecian books. He taught as a professor at the university in Padua. In his book De arte gymnastica he divided exercise into three groups: regular exercise which includes medical use, military exercise and athletic exercise. He describes many forms of exercise like dancing, ball games, walking, running, jumping, discus exercise, dumbbell exercise, throwing, singing, riding, swimming, wrestling, boxing and even fishing and hunting. Every form is described with its benefits.

Considered to be the first book on physical training and sports medicine.

 

[Period]

Consider the simple deadlift. There are impressive numbers done on the platform these days. But people always find difficulties in comparing the feats of athletes. One was a master's lifter. One on steroids. One did it with a deadlift bar, one with a stiff bar. One with a two hour weigh-in, one 24 hours. One used straps. One did sumo. Etc.

All this in some decades of a sport with rules and video recordings and calibrated plates and modern equipment. Imagine what it was like for thousands of years all over the world with stones and the like being used.

Yes, and that's only one lift. If we look at strongmen, we can see that some of them excel in single events, others are strong "across the board". Back when the press was still part of Olympic lifting, you'd have "press specialists", "snatch specialists" and "jerk specialists". moreover, we are quite challenged to compare "strength levels" of competitors in various sports - is the world record holder of the total in the Olympic lifts stronger than the one who holds the corresponding record in powerlifting? - and so on.
I think the bottom line is that we still cannot clearly separate strength from technique, and can only come to the conlusion that strength is "specific" or, as Pavel puts it, "a skill". Therefore, even now we are compelled to compare performances in single lifts with as few variables as possible (which you have listed for the deadlift). When comparing modern and ancient performances, I'd say it comes down to finding out what is possible today under which circumstances, publishing the established protocol in as much detail as possible, and discussing the potential variables, preferably also with coaches in the respective field.

 

[Period]

De Arte Gymnastica
[...]
Considered to be the first book on physical training and sports medicine.

The first one written after antiquity, at least - Peri Gymnastikes by Philostratos or some of Galens books could also be considered to fall into this category in my opinion. There are also some medieval precursors to this - for example, Hans Talhoffer's Königsegger Codex includes an (albeit brief) training suggestion, some similar bits and pieces from a variety of sources can be found here: https://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm

 

[Brett Jones]

The first one written after antiquity, at least - Peri Gymnastikes by Philostratos or some of Galens books could also be considered to fall into this category in my opinion. There are also some medieval precursors to this - for example, Hans Talhoffer's Königsegger Codex includes an (albeit brief) training suggestion, some similar bits and pieces from a variety of sources can be found here: https://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm

One of the first "published" books I should have added. Printed and published in the modern sense post Gutenberg printing.

 

[spc]

One thing easily overlooked is, that people in former times had to do everything manually.
You want to drink? Go get a bucket. You want to eat? Go get a bucket or two.
Watering the fields? Go get 1000 buckets.
Plowing the field? Go, pull the plow. Dig that hole, carry that log. ALL day long. Sunrise to sunset. Those farmers (and almost everyone lived in the country) been working out 24/7. And still do. I had a farmer boy in my class in highschool. He was simply the strongest and toughest guy around. He fought Judo and Karate guys with ease. He just smashed them. I helped once with haymaking and I couldn't lift that fork up to the trailer.
Splitting wood, cutting trees, lifting hay balls, cutting grass... Endless strength exercises.
So people have been stronger in many ways. And jobs they had. Blacksmith, baker, mason...
(I don't think that gladiators had slaves, for they have been slaves themselfes (mostly) and roman soldiers in the field neither.)
What they had to do for sure besides a whole lot of sword swinging?
Washing clothes in the river or public fountain.. (Probably they found out, the heavier the cloth the better the workout..)
Just today I helped my girlfriend to wring out a down pillow. Man - that thing was heavy and thick. Whole body exercise.
And a secret weapon in Kushti Wrestling:

 

[Period]

Washing clothes in the river or public fountain.. (Probably they found out, the heavier the cloth the better the workout..)
Just today I helped my girlfriend to wring out a down pillow. Man - that thing was heavy and thick. Whole body exercise.
And a secret weapon in Kushti Wrestling:

There are a number of similar exercises is Shuai Jiao, twisting bundles of sticks or a "Tai Chi ruler". Theraband also makes thick rubber bars for that purpose (they call it "FlexBar"). And washing and wringing out the Kurtka by hand is allegedly a tradition in Sambo, too...

 

[spc]

And washing and wringing out the Kurtka by hand is allegedly a tradition in Sambo, too...

I could imagine, that Karatekas do that with thei Gi's, too!? Or did?

 

[Period]

I could imagine, that Karatekas do that with thei Gi's, too!? Or did?

I don't know, to be honest - I'm not too familiar with Karate. I heard that some of bigger Judo dojos in Japan apparently keep the Gis at the dojo and pay non-practitioners to do the laundry, but that's about as much as I can contribute for the Japanese styles.