IDEAL | The Great Game of Britain: The classic race game along Britain's historic railway networks | Classic Board Games | For 2-6 Players | Ages 7+

Product Information

As for a Kazakh perspective, Kereihan Amanzholov insists, contra Sergeev, that Russian colonization offered ‘no essential difference with the colonialist policies of Britain, France, and other European powers’ since all of them were ‘Eurocentric’ and exploitative. (50)

Phanjoubam, Pradip (2016). The Northeast question: conflicts and frontiers. New Delhi. pp.147–156. ISBN 978-1-317-34003-4. OCLC 944186170. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link)The Russo-Persian Wars began to coalesce into a point of tension between the British and Russian empires, particularly following the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813, which gave the Russian Empire the theoretical right to intervene in Persia at any time, a humiliation of Persia. [8] [25] Fath-Ali Shah sought to counterbalance Russia by increasing the ties between the Qajars and Britain; the British offered military and financial assistance to the shah, supporting Iran as a buffer between Russia and India. [25] [8] The Russian invasion of Iran in 1826-1828 led to a Russian victory, weakening Qajar Iran which retained only minimal influence and power. This fully placed Persia into another colonial contest between Russia and Britain. [8] Beginnings [ edit ] Britain's perspective [ edit ] Map of the Indus River basin today. Britain's intended strategy was to use its steam power and the river as a trade route into Central Asia.

The Great Game of Britain Board Game includes 1 playing board, 36 x souvenier cards, 60 x hazard cards, 6 x steam train playing pieces, 12 x counters, 1 x die, 1 x die shakerFurther information: Second Anglo-Afghan War Elephant and Mule Battery, Second Anglo-Afghan War Khyber Pass with Ali Masjid fort - lithograph by James Rattray (1848) In 1810, British Lieutenant Henry Pottinger and Captain Charles Christie undertook an expedition from Nushki ( Balochistan) to Isfahan (Central Persia) disguised as Muslims. The expedition was funded by the East India Company and was to map and research the regions of "Beloochistan" (Balochistan) and Persia because of concerns about India being invaded by French forces from that direction. [27] After the disastrous French invasion of Russia in 1812 and the collapse of the French army, the threat of a French invasion through Persia was removed. A good deal more could, likewise, have been said regarding the development and impact of the pan-Islamic and broader pan-Asian movements upon the dynamics of Russo-British and other ‘great power’ relations. In describing how ‘[t]here emerged for the first time a perspective on the coalescence of Asian states under Russia’s patronage to renounce a British civilizing mission’ among ‘some native princelings’ of India following the Sepoy Uprising of 1857-58 (pp. 73–4), Sergeev offers fair, but limited coverage. He has, for starters, overlooked the fact that ‘[d]uring the [Sepoy] Mutiny, the British took full advantage of the help they had given to the Ottomans during the Crimean War’ by ‘not only obtain[ing] permission from the Porte for the passage of their troops to India through Egypt and Suez, but also secur[ing] a proclamation from the Sultan, as Caliph, advising the Indian Muslims not to fight against them’, with the proclamation then ‘circulated and read in the mosques of India’. While Indian Muslims certainly retained a measure of bitterness toward the British, the Ottoman Sultan’s proclamation ‘had a remarkable influence over them’, so much so that ‘”in this way the debt that Turkey owed to Great Britain for British support in the Crimean war was paid in full”’. (5) Indeed, with the Sepoy incident leading to the official end of the Mughal Dynasty and, thus, the dethroning of Muslim power in India, Indian Muslims were, more and more, driven to look toward the Ottoman Sultan as the sole Caliph of the Muslim world, as well as the Meccan ulema who were also under Ottoman rule, so that in due course debates over ‘jihad’ against the British as ‘infidels’ were deemed unnecessary and even un-Islamic by the remaining Muslim leadership in India. (6) Britain and Russia officially ended their dispute with the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, and afterward cooperated to enforce its provisions on Qajar Iran, while covert rivalry continued. [111] Effect of The Great Game on contemporary political boundaries [ edit ] On India [ edit ] And finally petroleum deposits in central Asia were discovered in the early 20th century. This oil was essential to the modernization of the Royal Navy, and to build Britain's economy. [32]

a b c Zaloga, Steven J. (20 October 2015). Gustaf Mannerheim. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-1443-2. The Great Game was played between the Russian Empire and British Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. At stake was the preservation of India, key to the wealth of the British Empire. When play began early in the 19th century, the frontiers of the two imperial powers lay two thousand miles apart, across vast deserts and almost impassable mountain ranges; by the end, only 20 miles separated the two rivals. [1] Najibullah translation [ edit ]Hopkirk, Peter (1990). The Great Game: On Secret Service in High Asia. London: Hachette UKJohn Murray (published 2006). ISBN 9781848544772 . Retrieved 14 June 2019. The Caucasus, thanks to Urquhart and his friends, had thus become part of the Great Game battlefield. Russia remained a focus for Curzon through and after his time as Viceroy of India. [134] "The British colluded with the Russians over Central Asia" [ edit ] It was introduced into the mainstream by the British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901). [19] It was first used academically by Professor H.W.C. Davis in a presentation titled The Great Game in Asia (1800–1844) on 10 November 1926. [20] The use of the term "The Great Game" to describe Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia became common only after the Second World War.

Here we are, just as we were, snarling at each other, hating each other, but neither wishing for war. – Lord Palmerston (1835) [31] Two authors, Gerald Morgan and Malcolm Yapp, have proposed that The Great Game was a legend and that the British Raj did not have the capacity to conduct such an undertaking. An examination of the archives of the various departments of the Raj showed no evidence of a British intelligence network in Central Asia. At best, efforts to obtain information on Russian moves in Central Asia were rare, ad hoc adventures and at worst intrigues resembling the adventures in Kim were baseless rumours, and that such rumours "were always common currency in Central Asia and they applied as much to Russia as to Britain". [19] [51] After two British representatives were executed in Bukhara in 1842, Britain actively discouraged officers from traveling in Turkestan. [51] In 1889, Lord Curzon, who later became Viceroy of India (1899-1905), wrote a book on the strategic balance between the Russian and British Empires, as well as his travels on the Trans-Caspian railway. [131] I fully agree with your critique of the Eurocentric approach of E. Sergeev. His statements remind me of some pre-Soviet and Soviet publications. …Seems to me, the author disregarded post-Soviet publications of Central Asian historians. (49)

The Second Tournament of Shadows: Perceptions of great power politics in Turkestan, 1919–1933, youtube.com 18.11.2022. The Russians had gained all of the lands north of the Amu Darya which included the land claimed by the Khanate of Khiva, including the approaches to Herat, and all of the land claimed by the Khanate of Khoqand, including the Pamir plateau. To ensure a complete separation, this new Afghan state was given an odd eastern appendage known as the Wakhan Corridor. "In setting these boundaries, the final act of the tense game played out by the British and Russian governments came to a close." [103] Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 [ edit ] Influence zones in Iran following the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 Still more, Sergeev’s choice to use the adjective ‘punitive’ (in the text cited above) carries a clear, intended sense of ‘just, deserved punishment’ for aggressive violations against the innocent, assaulted Russian victims. (37) Meanwhile, the Kazakh scholar Akseleu Seidimbek insists, from the perspective of the colonized, that for his people it accomplished not justice, but instead only ‘cast the hell of colonization into their consciousness’. (38) Another Kazakh scholar, Abdizhapar Abdakimuhli, agrees, calling it nothing but ‘oppressive over-lordship’. (39)