Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

War in Ancient India c7.t1: The Game of Chess and the Four-Fold Force

War in Ancient India c7.t1

Language
English

The Game of Chess and the Four-Fold Force

c7.t1.1

Owing to peculiar geographical features,¹ with her vast plains interspersed with forests, the ancient Indian State had to make extensive use of mounted forces which comprised cavalry, chariots, and elephants. This does not mean that infantry was neglected or it formed an unimportant limb of the army. Hindu India possessed the classical fourfold force of chariots, elephants, horsemen, and infantry,² collectively known as the Caturangabala. Students know that the old game of chess also goes by the name of Caturanga.³ Chess is a game of war, and in each game there are a king, a councillor, two elephants, two horses, two chariots, and eight foot-soldiers. The major pieces occupy the opposite edges of the board and in front of them are posted the foot-soldiers. The corner squares are occupied by the chariots, the next squares are occupied by the horses with the well-known move of the Knight, and the third squares by the elephant. In the two central squares are the King and the Councillor. The foot-soldiers are arranged on the second and seventh rows. On the whole the board is 8 × 8 squares.⁴ According to Tylor,⁵ the game of chess was the invention of some Hindu who devised a game of war with the aṣṭāpada board as his field of battle. From the reference to this game in the Ṛg Veda and the Atharva Veda and in the Buddhist and Jaina books, it must have been very popular in ancient India. The Persian term Chatrang and the Arabic Shatrang are forms of the Sanskrit Caturanga.5a This shows that India was the original home of this game which spread throughout the ancient world.

c7.t1.2

¹ For the influence of geography on the Indian Wars see H. C. Ray: *Notes on War in Ancient India*, Journal of the Department of Letters, 1927.

c7.t1.3

² Ar. Śās., p. 140; Kāma. 19. 23 and 25; Śukra IV. 7; Agni Purāṇa 228. 6; Jātaka VI. 298; Vol. II, p. 66, 70, 71; III. 157, and 161 etc. Yukti, p. 6.

c7.t1.4

³ See in this connexion A History of Chess by H. J. R. Murray (Oxford, 1913).

c7.t1.5

⁴ See for details op. cit. pp. 25 ff. For some diagrams of chess see Alberuni's India, ed. Sachau; also Parker, Ceylon.

c7.t1.6

⁵ Anthropology, 1892, p. 307.

c7.t1.7

5a Śūlapāṇi, Caturangadīpikā (Cal. Sanskrit series 21).

c7.t1.8

However this may be, we are here concerned with the question whether the fourfold force supplied the motive for the game or *vice versa*. It is to be noted that the relative values of the chess pieces were analogous to or identical with the relative values of different arms as laid down by Kauṭalya, Śukra, and Vaiśampāyana. This may mean that the values of different kinds of forces (made arbitrarily) were borrowed from chess. While mathematically the relative values of chess pieces can be worked out, there is less possibility of proving the relative values of different kinds of forces in war. We have to take it accordingly that the assumptions of Indian strategy were borrowed from chess, and not *vice versa*. We find that wherever chess has spread, its influence has led to the ascription of the same relative values to different types of military forces, e.g. in Persia and China. The organisation of the Indian army which came to be known as Caturanga, both in epic Sanskrit and Pāli literature, was based on the ancient game.

c7.t1.9

The two methods of winning in early chess were the checkmate and the barring of the opponent’s king.⁶ An exact reproduction of these methods is seen in ancient warfare, the prime object of which was the vanquishing of the enemy forces, secured by the capture or death of the opponent or by the devastation of his army. We may also add that a symmetrical arrangement of the different forces and its advantages must have been taken from chess.⁷ It may be asked, in this connexion: Can it not be the other way round, or can it not be mere accidental identity? The answer is simple. This was not possible, as we meet with the term *Caturanga*, a fourfold force, only in epic literature and not in the earlier Vedic literature. And it may be pointed out that the Vedic works are full of references to the game of chess. Therefore it is natural that the principles of chess supplied ideas to the progressive development of the modes and constituents of the army.

c7.t1.10

⁶ *Op. cit.* p. 45.

c7.t1.11

⁷ I am indebted to Rao Bahadur Professor K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar for this suggestion.

c7.t1.12

FURTHER DIVISIONS

c7.t1.13

The traditional fourfold force was not a static division. Later on the army was regarded as a sixfold force, *mantra* or the force of counsel and *kośa* or the power of the treasury being added to the original four divisions.⁸ The addition to the army of these two divisions was probably due to the early recognition by Hindu statesmen of the importance of a good treasury and expert counsel in military matters. The consultation was, of course, advisory. But the King would not take a line of his own independently of his Council. In cases of difference of opinion he had to convert the Council to his view and then act. This is clear from the Council held by Rāvaṇa on the eve of the War of Laṅkā,⁹ and from the proceedings of the meetings held by Rāma to entertain Vibhīṣaṇa as an ally.¹⁰

c7.t1.14

⁸ एतन्मौलादिषड्भेदं चतुरङ्गं बलं विदुः । षडङ्गं मन्त्रकोशाभ्यां पदात्यश्वरथद्विपैः ॥ *Kāma.* 19.24.

c7.t1.15

⁹ *Rāmāyaṇa*, Yuddha, chh. 35-36.

c7.t1.16

¹⁰ *Rāmāyaṇa*, Yuddha, chh. 17-18.

c7.t1.17

In another place¹¹ an eightfold division is mentioned. Besides the *Caturanga* there is *viṣṭi* or commissariat and transport, navy or admiralty, *cāra* or spies, and *deśika* or elders and advisers.

c7.t1.18

¹¹ प्रकाशश्चाप्रकाशश्च दण्डोऽथ परिशब्दितः । प्रकाशोऽष्टविधस्तत्र गुह्यश्च बहुविस्तरः ॥ रथा नागा हयाश्चैव पादाताश्चैव पाण्डव । विष्टिनश्चरश्चैव देशिका इति चाष्टमः ॥ अज्ञायतानि कौरव्य प्रकाशानि बलस्य तु ॥ Śānti. Ch. 58. 40-41.

c7.t1.19

It is interesting to study the judicious distribution of work and responsibility without causing any internal friction which constituted the greatest merit of the ancient Indian army. An examination of the different constituents of the army may therefore not be out of place here.

Linked texts (6)