Fox & Geese is one of many similar games around the world. What these hunt games all have in common is that they are asymmetrical: one player has one or at most a few pieces, whereas the other player has many pieces. Very often, 'predator' (fox, tiger, leopard, bear, puma, coyote, etc) is pitched against 'prey' (geese, lambs, chickens, goats, rabbits, alpacas, etc). The aim of the 'predator(s)' is to capture as many 'prey' as possible by jumping over them. 'Prey' can't capture, and their aim is to hem in the 'predator(s)' such that it can't move anymore. As a game family (although it's not established that European, Asian and American versions have a single ancestor), it goes back to at least medieval times.
My vintage Fox & Geese game came from eBay.
The cruciform board carries a single wooden fox and 18 wooden geese.
Ganzenbord ("Goose board") is the Dutch name for the Royal Game of the Goose. It is a race game: the winner is the player who is the first to get his or her 'goose' from start to finish. Moving is based on dice throws as well as several special squares, some of which offer a bonus, whereas others are hazards, delaying progress. As each player has a single piece to move, the game is one of pure chance.
The Royal Game of the Goose appears to have originated in Italy in the late 15th century. The rules seem to have changed very little in half a millennium, and it may well be one of the earliest commercially produced board games.
Plenty of copies available for not very much on eBay and similar platforms. Being Dutch, I got myself a vintage copy of Ganzenbord some time ago, bringing back some childhood memories ...
The board shows the traditional spiral-shaped path to square 63, all squares are illustrated, and the 'bonus' and 'hazard' squares are duly identified.
The game came with six wooden 'geese' and a large die.
Chinese Checkers is a positional game. The objective is to be the first to get all his or her pieces across the board from the starting 'point' to the 'point' opposite. The game is one of pure strategy; pieces move or jump over each other to advance, and there is no capturing.
Chinese Checkers dates from the late 19th century, and originated in Germany. It is basically a star-shaped version of Halma ('Stern-Halma'). Calling it 'Chinese' was purely a marketing ploy to make it sound more exotic. Although referred to as 'tiaoqi' ('jumping game') in China, the game has no Chinese roots.
I got my copy of Chinese Checkers off eBay for not very much.
A simple wooden board with wooden pegs in six colours is all you need to play it.
Doushouqi ('fighting animal game') is a Chinese game of unknown age and origin. It has been suggested that it dates from the early 20th century and may be derived from, or at least influenced by, Xiangqi (Chinese chess). Anyone interested can find my thoughts on that here.
Whether or not the game is linked to Xiangqi in some way, it's an interesting little game on its own. All pieces move the same and capturing is hierarchical: a piece can’t capture a 'higher' piece. The aim of the game is to occupy the opponent's den with a piece. As such, the game combines elements of both a war game and a positional game. The game is purely strategic; dice or hidden information play no role.
I got my copy from a shop in Soho, London, many years ago.
In the wee box are a paper board and wooden pieces, showing the different animals.
Backgammon is a race game; more specifically, a multiplex race game, as each player has multiple men that can be moved. Because of this, even though moves are based on dice throws, the game is a mixture of chance and strategy. The winner is the first player who gets all his or her men around and off the board.
Backgammon can trace its history back, through Nard and related games, to the Roman game of Ludus Duodecim Scriptorum, giving it something like a 1,600 year history.
The marquetry chess board I got several years ago actually has a backgammon board inside, and it came with men and dice!
The board is possibly of Turkish or Syrian origin, but wherever it comes from, it's a beautiful inlaid board, a real piece of craftsmanship ...
Weiqi, or Go, is a positional game, where the aim is to enclose territory. The game is one of placement only (stones don't move once placed on the board), and so is fully strategical. The winner is the player who encloses most territory, and captures most stones.
Weiqi's origin lies in China, and the earliest written record dates from roughly 500BC, making the game at least 2,500 years old. As such, given it is very popular and commonly played to this day, it may well be the board game with the longest continuous playing history.
Daldøsa is a Danish and Norwegian running-fight game, traditionally played on a boat-shaped board. Although piece moves are dictated by dice throws, the aim of the game is not to be the first one to get his/her piece(s) home, as in race games. Captured pieces don't start again or are forced back, as in typical race games, but disappear from the game altogether, and the winner is the player who captures all his or her opponent's pieces. As each player has potentially multiple pieces to move, the game is a balance between chance and strategy.
Daldøsa is at least a few hundred years old, but next to nothing is known of its origin, and it may well be much older. It is very similar to a family of games ('tab' games) known from North Africa, the Middle East and the Arab world, which raises the question as to how it got to Scandinavia .... One hypothesis is that the east Vikings (Varangians) brought it back from Byzantium something like a thousand years ago.
Mancala is the name often used for a large and distinctive family of related games. Also known as bean games or sowing games, what makes them distinctive is that the pieces while in play do not belong to either of the players. Those pieces, often seeds or similar, are picked up and "sown" around a board consisting of two or more rows of 'holes', and this "sowing" allows subsequent capture of 'seeds'. The game is purely strategic; dice or chance play no role, and the player capturing most 'seeds' is the winner. Across its distribution range, there is a lot of variation in board size, number of rows, and details regarding "sowing" and capturing.
The centre of gravity of the mancala family is situated in Africa, but games of this family are also known from across the middle East and even as far east as China. Finds of what looks very much like mancala boards are known from ancient Egypt and it has been suggested that the family as a whole may date back to around 3000 BC.
My (rubber wood) mancala board was obtained many years ago via WWF.
I misplaced the pieces it originally came with, but replaced them recently with wooden beads, in a variety of colour patterns.
This actually works really well (and better than the original simple wooden pieces), as they really resemble seeds!
Luzhanqi ("Land Battle Game") is a war game. It is very similar to the game known in the western world as Stratego, with the aim being to capture the opponent's flag. Like Stratego, it is purely strategic in the sense that dice play no role, but as it involves hidden information about the whereabouts of the opponent's flag and other pieces, chance does play a not-insignificant role. Capturing is by displacement of a lower ranked piece by a higher ranked piece.
Very little is known about the origin and history of Luzhanqi. Jean-Louis Cazaux and Rick Knowlton, in their "A World of Chess" suggest it may date from the first quarter of the 20th century, which would make it about a 100 years old and older than Stratego. Whichever the oldest of the two games is, an interesting question is whether the two games influenced each other in some way, or whether they arrived at almost identical game-play (i.e. strategic war game, hidden information, aim of capturing the opponent's flag) independent of each other (akin to 'convergent evolution' in biology).
I picked up my Luzhanqi set in a Chinese shop in London many years ago.
The board is a basic paper board, showing roads, railroads, camps, and other features.
The wooden pieces show various military ranks, as well as bombs, mines, and, of course, the flag.
Ludus Latrunculorum is a board game played in the Roman Empire. As such, it dates back to around at least the first century BC, though it may be a form of an even older Greek game called Petteia.
Although the precise rules are lost to time, what is clear is that it was a war game between two players. It was a pure strategy game; no dice were involved. Board size seems to have been variable (e.g. 7x8, 8x8, 9x10). The aim was to capture all or most of the opponent's pieces. Both players had an equal number of pieces (possibly with an additional ‘dux’ piece which had more power) and pieces moved orthogonally. Sources are unclear as to whether this involved one square or unlimited squares (i.e. like a king or rook in chess) per turn. What does appear clear from contemporary sources is that pieces were captured by being surrounded by two enemy pieces on either side ('custodian capture'). The game might have had two phases, with the first phase involving placing all pieces on the initially empty board, after which moving and capturing then took place in the second phase.
One of my two Ludus Latrunculorum sets was a xmas gift from friends years ago. The board is a square of leather, with a simple 7x8 grid. The pieces are made from wood, and kept in a leather pouch. For this set, the board starts empty.
My other set for Ludus Latrunculorum is marketed as 'Ludus Romanus'. In this set each side has a single additional 'dux' piece, and I've set up this game with all pieces on the back two rows at the start of the game, and the 'dux' piece in front of those two rows.
Although Ludus Latrunculorum as a game disappeared with the Roman Empire, a part of it appeared to have lived on in Hnefatafl: it is thought that the 'custodian capture' in tafl games came from Ludus Latrunculorum ...
Snakes and Ladders is a game many people probably know from their childhood. It is a simple race game for two or more players, and the aim of the game is to be the first to get from start to home along a linear track. Each player has a single piece, and movement is dictated by die throws, so the game is fully chance-controlled; strategy plays no role. Some squares ('ladders') allow a player to jump ahead, whereas others ('snakes') force the player back.
Although the game in its current form dates from the late 19th century, its origin lies in a much older Indian game, Gyan Chauper, which may go back to as early as the 13th century. The early Indian game symbolises morality, karma, good and evil, and thus virtues (the ladders) and vices (the snakes).
I don't remember when and where I got my travel set for Snakes and Ladders, but it surely was many years ago.
The set consists of a simple plastic fold-up board, four plastic magnetic counters, and a single die.
First set in this new collection of traditional board games!
For many years, I've had an interest in traditional board games. Not so much with the aim of playing them, but an interest primarily fueled by their origin and history. I guess this may at least partly come from me being a biologist, and seeing board games as 'species', subject to mutations and subsequent evolution.
You may be aware that I already have two board game related blogs: Chess creations & collection focuses on my collection of sets for Chess in its many variants. And Hnefatafl collection has a focus on Hnefatafl and other tafl variants. While focusing on games from these 'chess' and 'tafl' families, on occasion I did pick up examples of other games. I felt I should bring these together in a more formal collection of traditional board games, and create a blog for them, with posts including notes on their origin, age and history. And no doubt, going along, I'll add a few more to the collection ...
Why study board games from more than a purely playing perspective? Board games are often being considered as too trivial a subject for serious study. But people across the ages and across civilisations play board games; some of the board games that pretty much everyone is aware of nowadays go back thousands of years and have spread around the world. So playing board games is clearly an intrinsic part of human nature, and, therefore, worthy of study. Ideally, this study (often referred to as 'ludology') should be multidisciplinary, combining anthropology, linguistics, history, psychology, and, dare I say it, evolutionary biology.
A few classic books from my own 'board game studies' library that evidence serious study of board games are shown here, in chronological order.
Stewart Culin's extensive study of the games of native Americans, originally published in 1907; the first part deals with board games:
Harald Murray's monumental 'A History of Chess', published in 1913:
Followed in 1952, by, basically, a history of 'the rest':
Robert Bell's two books on board and table games, published in 1960 and 1969:
And, much more recent, and still too young to be referred to as a 'classic', David Parlett's attempt to update Murray's '... other than Chess' book, published in 1999:
One year prior to that saw the start of the academic journal "Board Game Studies":
Issues 1-9 of BGS can be found here (issue 3 has my article on using phylogenetic methods to try and shed light on the origin of chess!), while issues 10 and further are accessible here.
Murray, Bell and Parlett each present a classification of traditional board games, based on fundamental aspects ('ludemes') such as the aim of the game, the way in which pieces interact with each other and with the board, and the balance between chance and strategy. For instance, race games have the aim of being the first to get their piece(s) off the board. These games are often fully dependent on chance (as dictated by rolling dice or similar; think 'Snakes and Ladders') but may also allow a balance between chance and strategy (think 'Backgammon'). War games have the aim of capturing one or more of the opponent's pieces, and are often fully strategy-based (think 'Chess'). Bean games (think 'Mancala') are unique in that the pieces while in play aren't differentiated as to who owns them.
The classifications used by Murray, Bell and Parlett show some overlap, but differ in other ways, and any such classification will be faced with games which just don't fit well into the suggested categories ... As I present the board games in my collection, I will include comments on where they fit into the various classification categories.
Before finishing this introductory post to my new blog, I want to mention one more board games researcher. He is a curator at the British Museum, an assyriologist passionate about the study of board games. His name is Irving Finkel and the best way to introduce him is simply to let him talk for himself; enjoy!
