Why Wasn’t Swimming Part Of The Ancient Olympics?

Have you ever wondered why swimming was not part of the Ancient Greek Olympics? After all, Greek civilization thrived along the Mediterranean Sea, and historical literature is filled with references to the swimming abilities of the Greeks.

Herodotus, in his Histories, even made a clear distinction between the Greeks, those who could swim, and the barbarians, those who could not. Plato also described ignorant people as “unable to read and swim.” So how is it possible that such a logical connection between swimming, Greece, and the Olympics never happened?

This article by Edward Clayton (2024) seeks to answer this question, carefully examining and refuting various arguments before arriving at its thesis: swimming events would not have truly represented kalokagathía, the Greek ideal of moral and physical excellence.

So why exactly wasn’t swimming included in the Ancient Olympics?

It Was Difficult to Penalize Infractions

Scholars have proposed as a shallow explanation the fact that in the Ancient Games, rule violations or fouls were not punished with disqualification but rather with flogging. However, flogging someone underwater would not have been very effective.

Swimming Had No Military Value

Although the Ancient Olympics were not created to train soldiers, they often won competitions, and many events showcased the skills of military personnel. For this reason, some have argued that swimming was absent from the Olympics because it was not considered a military activity.

However, this argument is easily disproved with two counterpoints:

• Swimming played a crucial role in warfare:
  • Herodotus recounts the Battle of Ariabignes, where Greek soldiers survived thanks to their swimming skills.
  • Various sources describe how, during the war against the Persians, the best Athenian swimmers carried out underwater operations to sabotage enemy vessels.
• Not all Olympic events had military significance.
  In reality, several exceptions existed among Olympic events. For example, chariots were not used in warfare, but it was one of the most famous events. Moreover the equestrian sports were conducted by slaves who mounted the horses and performed the “military” task,  yet the owner received the recognition. Similarly, the high jump was part of the pentathlon without direct military relevance.

Thus, another attempt to explain swimming’s exclusion is ruled out.

Swimming Wasn’t Aesthetically Pleasing

Okay, saying this on SwimSwam sounds crazy, but it’s another explanation scholars have attempted to give, based on two claims:

• In swimming, bodies are obscured by water, making it impossible to achieve the primary goal of the Olympics: showcasing Greek superiority in both physical and mental virtue.
  • However, this argument falls apart when you ask: why were equestrian sports accepted if the ones riding the horse weren’t’ the aristocratic masters, the supposed bearers of Greek virtue, but rather their slaves?
• The motions of swimming weren’t considered beautiful in its movement.

Supporting this theory is the fact that if swimming had been seen as graceful, we would find more artistic depictions of it. Additionally, in the Iliad, there’s a passage where Patroclus mocks Cebriones, whom he has just killed, by comparing him to someone diving into the water, highlighting how swimming motions were seen as ridiculous on land (No way).

However, relying on this explanation is difficult. Most likely, Patroclus was mocking the profession of the fisherman rather than the swimmer itself, something we’ll revisit shortly.

The Greek focus on the body and physical appearance leads to a key observation: the beauty of the body, as a reflection of noble souls, was a priority. Only those who frequented gymnasiums could achieve such conditions. In other words, the working and lower classes didn’t fit this category.

Swimming Did Not Represent EXCELLENCE

And now, we reach the core idea: whether swimming was useful or fascinating didn’t matter: swimming primarily represented a social status.

In the Gorgia there’s an interesting passage where Socrates discredits swimming, comparing it to rhetoric, as it is useful, but deceptive.

Responding to Callicles, a defender of the manipulative art of rhetoric, he asks:

“But now, do you think there is anything grand in the accomplishment of swimming?”

And after the sophist’s negative response, he adds:

“Yet, you know, that too saves men from death, when they have got into a plight of the kind in which that accomplishment is needed.”

The article’s author diverges from my interpretation here, defining swimming as something completely dissociated from excellence and from areté, the Greek concept of virtue.

This view should, however, be expanded, affirming that the various statements of Socrates and Plato are, in fact, consistent.

Those who learned to swim were part of the Greek aristocracy, and this was respected because the skill was acquired as a part of their education and with the aim of physical fitness. However, in the ancient oligarchic (and not only ancient) Western mindset, the lower classes were not worthy of respect.

Since the Olympics were open to all free Greek citizens, introducing swimming would have allowed the participation of fishermen and laborers who, out of necessity rather than education, knew how to swim even better than aristocrats. In reality, the aristocratic class didn’t actually swim that much but used the privilege of learning to swim as a status symbol.

In an Olympic swimming race, simple provincial fishermen would have won. They could not represent athletic excellence because they were not considered bearers of Greek virtue, nor even of physical health. Moreover, given their poor economic conditions, there was the risk that they would compete for prize money, whereas in ancient Greece, athletes were not professionals. They did not aspire to make a living from sports but rather sought glory for their city and themselves.