Again, let's take a look at this:
1) That every army set up the exact same way every battle.
Then, as now, there was doctrine that governed the deployment of an army. For example, early Roman legions often set-up in this fashion: three lines of soldiers with the
hastati in the front, the
principes forming the second row, and the
triarii,
rorarii and
accensi in the rear. As time went on, this formation was tinkered with, but the point is: yes, ancient armies did tend to follow a standard deployment doctrine.
2) That both sides set up the same way.
See above. Also, if it makes you feel better, there is always Fischer Random Chess where the units do not set-up the same way.
3) That in battle both sides have the same number of units. Seems like some might have more or less.
I will happily play a game against you where you have a single pawn and king.
Regardless, while armies did vary in size, you could also count on most organized armies to travel with certain organic units. Whether you faced a Roman legion in Gaul or in Iberia, you could count on facing the same basic make-up.
4)
That both sides have the exact same quality of units and leaders. I would think that one side or another might have elite or conscript units, or much better leadership. Where's the quality versus quantity battles?
Easy! That is where
the quality of the players comes in! Chess mimics the decisive importance of leadership in the pre-gunpowder age.
5) I didn't know only one unit moved at a time? I always thought it was groups of units. Their cohesion might go down, but they still moved in groups.
And who says that a single pawn is a single infantry unit? Why can't it be a collection of cohorts? Why can't a knight be a collection of cavalry sections?
6) I didn't know that there were paratrooper units back then? A Knight can completely jump over a whole line of other units any number of times.
Hmm...guess you haven't heard that horses, can, in fact, jump. Or that the mobility of cavalry allows them to bypass obstacles that would stymie other types of units.
As you can probably tell, I played your game by answering these questions as if chess is a high-fidelity simulation of warfare. Of course, neither I, nor Mr. Dunnigan, has put forth such a proposition. Chess is an abstraction of ancient/medieval warfare. In this regard, chess performs remarkably well considering you don't need a PC to crunch a tremendous amount of combat calculations. Sure, Rome: Total War might be exponentially more realistic in simulating ancient warfare, but chess can give you the same ebb and flow of battle with just a board, 32 pieces, and two human minds.
Capablanca once remarked that "A recorded game of chess is a story in symbols, relating in cipher the struggle of two intellects; a story with a real plot, a beginning, a middle, and an end
...[where] the fickleness of fortune is illustrated; the smiles of the prosperous, the struggles of adversity, the change that comes over the two; the plans suggested by one, spoiled by the tactics of the other - the lures, the wiles, the fierce onset, the final victory."
If that isn't a good summation of warfare, I don't know what is. :salute:
Fun debate! :thumup: