The Pheidippides myth

The marathon race is considered as the crowning moment of modern Olympics. It has been present since the very first, 1986, Athens, Games. In fact it was during those Games that the race was introduced. The idea came from a french linguist, Michel Bréal. He was a personal friend of de Coubertin and he convinced him to incorporate into the olympic program a race that would commemorate the feat of Pheidippides. Unless you have been living under a stone, you have heard about the battle against the Persians and how Pheidippides ran all the way from Marathon to Athens in order to announce the athenian victory, expiring upon arrival, just after crying out "Νενικήκαμεν" (we have won).

Well, things are not that simple. While working on the amateurism series I came upon the writings of D. Young. He was great hellenist, who published several treatises among others on the Olympic Games. (One day I will tell the story of how the modern Olympics came to be, based on Young's writings). In an Appendix of his book on the history of the (ancient) Olympics he dispels the Pheidippides myth. I found his arguments more than convincing and I decided to write this short article.

The story of the battle of Marathon, where the Athenian army defeated the much larger Persian one, is told by Herodotus, who is a reliable historian and, moreover, gave his account just half a century after the battle. Herodotus explains that the Athenians, fearing the superiority in numbers of the Persians, sent a runner, named Philippides (in some manuscripts the name is given as Pheidippides), to Sparta to ask for assistance. The Spartans agreed to help the Athenians but their departure was delayed because, for religious reasons, they could not leave before the full moon with as a result their arriving after the battle. Anyhow, Phillipides ran the close to 500 km, Athens-to-Spartan distance and came back in time to participate in the battle. There is no other mention of Philippides or Pheidippides in the writings of Herodotus. In fact, after the battle, the whole of the Athenian army, and not just a single envoy, marched swiftly back to Athens, where they feared an attack of the remaining Persian forces.

A statue of Pheidippides near Marathon. 

(Why did the sculptor depict him carrying a torch? 

The olympic torch relay was invented by the nazis)

And, why on earth, does a runner, able to run 500 km, die after running just 40? The writings of ancient historians give accounts of athletes who, having won in Olympia, ran all the way to their hometowns in order to announce their victory. Pausanias is telling the story of Ladas from Sparta, who, after winning in the Games, ran the 150 km to Sparta and died upon his arrival. This may be the origin of the Pheidippides myth. Writing in the first century AD, Plutarch tells the story of Eukles who participated in the Marathon battle and ran to Athens, dying just after having announced the victory. Lucian, writing a century after Plutarch conflates this story with that of Herodotus and uses the name Pheidippides instead of Eukles. So, the Marathon story, as is known today, dates from seven centuries after the facts.

I prefer, and by far, this representation of Pheidippides

The infatuation with the Pheidippides story stems most probably from the homonymous poem by Robert Browning written in 1878. And with Bréal's lobbying, the marathon race was born. The first marathon was run over a distance of 40 km. It would have been much simpler had the distance being fixed to this simple, metric, one. Instead we are now stuck with the 42195 m which was, totally arbitrarily, inflicted upon us by the organisers of the 1908, London Olympics. The first marathon races were, to say the least, eventful. The Athens, 1986, was won by Spyros Louis who became instantly a national hero. (But things are not always as they appear and I will tell the story of the Athens marathon some other time). The Paris, 1900, marathon was a disaster (just as the whole 1900 Olympics). It took place in the streets of Paris and there are strong suspicions that the French runners, and in particular the winner, M. Théato (announced as French but being actually a native of Luxembourg) took shortcuts. The St. Louis, 1904, marathon, was another disaster. F. Lorz arrived first but it soon became known that he had covered part of the distance in a car. The official winner T. Hicks was carried part of the way by his support crew. (You can see the photo in my article on the history of doping). His trainers had to carry him over the finish line. Still, he was not disqualified. Had he been so (quite deservedly), F. Carvajal would have won the bronze medal. (You can read the story of Carvajal in the wikipedia page dedicated to him). The 1908 marathon was marred by the Dorando Pietri incident. He entered the stadium first but, utterly exhausted, took the wrong direction. He was redirected by the judges and then fell down for the first time. He fell three more times and was helped by umpires in every occasion, taking 10 minutes to cover the last 350 metres. He was subsequently disqualified for an error committed not by himself but by the judges. 

So, it is a disputable and rather improbable myth that led to the creation of the marathon race. Given that there is no historical foundation for this event wouldn't it have been better if we have stuck to the metric distances, say 40 or 50 km? Well, World Athletics appears to think otherwise. As the IOC rejected the proposal for a women's 50 km race-walk, they proposed a two-athlete mixed race-walk relay over a marathon distance. Why on earth did they opt for this distance that has nothing to do with race-walking instead of choosing something simple like a 40 km? Once more the argument, far from being sports-based, is one of marketing, trying to capitalise on the popularity of the marathon, a race introduced by a misguided dreamer and which survives and flourishes thanks to a self-sustained tradition. (And just to make things clear: I have a great admiration for the great marathon runners, who are superb athletes. It is the choice of the race that I am criticising and, to some extent, the use of the word "marathon" that has created a slew of "-thon" ending linguistic atrocities).