| Revision as of 20:52, 6 December 2017 editInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,380,898 edits Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Balon Greyjoy)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:34, 18 August 2024 edit undoLlywelynII (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions90,637 edits →1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement |
| (15 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=C}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|British=yes|Russian=yes|South-Asian=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|British=yes|Russian=yes|South-Asian=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes|physgeo=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes|physgeo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography |importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archive box | auto=long}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:The Great Game/Archive |
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Great Game/Archive |
|
|format= %%i |
|
|format= %%i |
|
|header={{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|header={{automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|age=8784 |
|
|age=2160|<!--90 days--> |
|
|index=no |
|
|
|minkeepthreads=4 |
|
|minkeepthreads=4 |
|
|maxarchsize=100000 |
|
|maxarchsize=100000 |
|
|numberstart=1 |
|
|numberstart=1 |
|
|
|archivebox=yes |
|
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
<!--Bot in hours: 24 * 30.5 * 12 ~= 8,784 (12 months since section edit) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Scope== |
|
|
This article has now had its scope narrowed to focus on the referent, The Great Game, which is defined as Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia during the 19th Century. It now has a proposed start date and an end date, with linkages to key documents in archive. Unfortunately, the article mentions Central Asia - and the Khanate of Bukhara in particular - very little. It did not even mention in the body of the article that in 1842, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Stoddart and Captian Arthur Conolly were beheaded in Bukhara for spying. It has focused on a series of military engagements in Afghanistan, which although are important, appears to be a simple copy-and-paste from other articles. I recommend that future development be directed more towards Central Asia, and Bukhara in particular. I intend on providing further material shortly. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#DCDCDC;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You've just changed the British Empire article to suggest that the Great Game was focused solely on Afghanistan. This claim is repeated at the top of this article - something I'm sure a number of historians would disagree with. However, above, you say ''this'' article should broaden its scope to cover Central Asia and focus on Bokhara (presumably Khiva and Samarkand as well?). While I support what you say above and welcome the proposal, some of your edits don't match up with what you've said. ] (]) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello ], thanks for your interest in this topic, which has had the regions of Khiva and Bokhara included from what was here before I commented, and everything here is cited which was not the case before. Time was my modifier; when I said that about Khiva and Bokhara above, I then went on a journey to ascertain what I could learn about them from cited sources, giving weight to the works of noted historians and not the work of a journalist. (Please be aware that some writers do not accept that Afghanistan is in Central Asia - they define CA as the steppes and do not include the mountainous regions.) I had expected to find a vast amount on this "Great Game in Central Asia" that so many authors allude to without further defining - spies, ambassadors, intrigue, move and counter move. What I found was that Britain's "Great Game" was a plan to turn Afghanistan into a protectorate, and try to influence Khiva and Bokhara into becoming neutral buffer states. These were the only parts of "Central Asia" that Britain had an interest in - to say that Britain was seeking rivalry in "Central Asia" - which is a huge region, refer map - is not correct from my reading. |
|
|
::And it failed. Britain had no border contact with Khiva or Bokhara for most of the period, she did have border contact with them when she invaded Afghanistan and sent a couple of officers to Bukhara who were beheaded in 1842 and there was nothing Britain could do about it, and then got thrown out of Afghanistan in the same year. That is hardly rivalry with Russia in Central Asia - you can only have rivalry if you have any influence. Later, Russia annexed Khiva and Bukhara with no shots fired by Britain, and Britain invaded Afghanistan once again out of fear of Russian influence there. Clearly, Afghanistan was central to British interests, and in particularly the Herat district and its mountain passes. Would you be prepared to accept a moderation to "Afghanistan and its bordering Khanates in Central Asia" rather than the much broader "Central Asia"? (Also note that a number of authors appear to have overlooked that most of the British action during the GG was the annexation of areas that are in what is now Pakistan and India in the lead up to final control over Afghanistan.) Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hmm, I think you need to be a little bit careful about original research here: "giving weight", "what I found", "not correct from my reading" etc. It's not for us as editors to reinterpret what the sources explicitly say, nor to under-weight a source because, for example, the author happened to be a journalist as well as a historian. Hopkirk's work is quite highly rated, so it cannot just be dismissed. Conversely, from a quick skim through this article I note it closely reflects the views expressed in a single discursive essay by Yapp; ''my'' reading of that essay is that his findings are flatly contradicted by research conducted by other historians (e.g. that the Russians never made plans to invade India). I'm not sure if these are recent changes, but a single view should never be given undue prominence on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::::Hello ], no original research has been applied. I personally believe it was all a legend based on two stumbling bureaucracies and some overly excited frontier administrators, later "head office" sorted it out through agreements, and later some academics used the term TGG for something they wanted to write about. (The views of the "culture" administering the East India Company may not necessarily reflect the views of the culture in power in London.) However the sources I have used - see the Citations, I put those there - indicate otherwise and that is what is expressed. Therefore, I rebut using ] heavily as he is only one of many, and not one I particularly agree with, but you cannot easily dismiss his background. If you have work by other historians then I would be pleased to see them included here because I have redeveloped this article as a framework for others to add to, as long as they don't go off-topic. |
|
|
:::::There again, you say "I personally believe", but is that the same as the historiographical consensus? You may believe that it was a "legend" - along with a certain number of historians - but the section on different interpretations refers to only two who treat the subject in this way. I'm sure there will be more, but are you representing that point of view neutrally in the context of all the historians who believe it was real? From reading widely the work of other historians it is difficult to see how the rivalry - whatever we call it - can be considered a "legend": exploration, invasion, border changes - these things all happened. Whether it was planned and co-ordinated in any meaningful way is another matter - most historical events are not - but historians invent labels for convenience (e.g. "Dark Ages", "Age of Discovery" that didn't exist at the time), regardless of inferences which may mislead the casual reader. |
|
|
::::::Nonetheless, the authors cited have used the word "legend", regardless of whether we agree with that or not. That includes Hopkirk in The Making of Afghanistan, ''The Myth of the Great Game''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::On points of detail: I think this comes down to the map as much as the chronology. Most historians agree this historical episode ended in Afghanistan, but its origins are debated. Some historians would suggest British interference in the Caucasus triggered Russian moves, some include British/Russian influence on Persia. What is certain is that the map of Central Asia in the nineteenth century was much more complicated than it is now, so to an apply anachronistic interpretation of the geography is misleading for the reader. For example, you refer to British annexation of independent territories in what is now Pakistan and India. This northward push was certainly part of this historical episode, as was the southward movement of the Russian border from the Caspian forts, so the article should capture it. However, these territories were not khanates, nor were they part of Afghanistan so they wouldn't fit under your definition. Politically they were not in Central Asia, but geographically they weren't squarely in Southern Asia either. |
|
|
::::I do not agree on the Caucasus nor Peria. It is after the two wars that we see even the slightest interest in Bukhara by the British with a firm direction to set up trade. I entirely agree with you on the map and the annexations in the Indian Subcontinent, which is what makes this so complex. The majority of historians define TGG as being "in central asia", yet it certainly does include southern asia, and both Ingram references support that. (Ingram is two citations by the way, one in a book and one in a journal, and offers a superb background - a true geopolitical context as to why. But you need to read further into the articles that I cited on the British Empire page which need to be read through to get their core - it took me weeks, it is unclear how you did it overnight.) However, if I were to include this area in the definition it might be quickly changed by some passing editor at some time in the future, so there may be no point. |
|
|
:::::Again, you're entitled to a view on whether activity in the Caucasus and Persia prompted this, but whether you agree or not, some historians ''do'' believe it was relevant. If nothing else it is relevant context, setting the shape of the diplomatic landscape before all this began. |
|
|
::::::That is fine, as long as they can cite an original document that indicates that this starts the Great Game. If they cannot, then it is only the conjecture of the author and has no place here. |
|
|
:::::As to your second point - you're right - I haven't read all the sources you provided overnight. I skimmed a few of them and referred back to existing knowledge from having read many books on the British Empire. Obviously I'll defer to your in-depth reading into the subject, but on the broader point of whether there was such a thing and where/when (which is why I came looking after your edit to the BE article) I think we need to acknowledge that it went wider than what is now Afghanistan - my focus was simply on whether the sources you used focused on Afghanistan alone or "Central Asia". |
|
|
::::::Part of this issues is, as you have said, are the maps. Lines drawn on maps are something the European powers did - the main concern of the Britain and Russia. It could be argued that there was no Afghanistan, there was a collection of tribes that paid tribute to various rulers, some of them to Kabul and some of them much further afield. I think the new lead sentence more closely reflects a wider view, certainly a more accurate one with the inclusion of Southern Asia, and I thank you for your guidance here. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So where do we go from here? I think we have space in this article to elaborate on all the various interpretations, and I see that there has been some attempt to cover the different angles. However, for summary articles such as the British Empire, a generalisation such as "Central Asia" is concise and less open to challenge. For the first line of this article I would suggest something very similar to your proposal: ''"The Great Game" is a term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central Asia.'' ] (]) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am happy with your change on the British Empire, my real point there was that this was not a Eurasia-wide event, and that is a position that you have supported. I will amend the lead to ''"The Great Game" is a term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern Asia.'' and see how long it lasts in that form. For further development, I have taken the content of this article from 30kb of largely uncited material to 65kb of cited material and am approaching exhaustion. I have even tracked down scans of the works of the people involved back in the 1830-1890s. As I have said above, I would be pleased for others to now further develop it. I will next read the novel, Kim, to ascertain exactly what Kipling was talking about and if that stacks up to some of the claims made by some historians. Regards, and thanks for your comments <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Totally agree it was not a Eurasia-wide event. Hopkirk does cover Russian movements from the Caucasus up to the Chinese border, but that's a separate and wider historical development. |
|
|
:::::I respect that you've expanded and cited lots of material, but I'd urge some caution over the weighting of sources. For that reason I've made some slight tweaks to the presentation style of the section on different interpretations to make it clear that it's not necessarily the consensus view. I would like to help further, but I am a little time poor at the moment. ] (]) 21:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I also. When I first came here, there was not much more than uncited blather that lead the reader into thinking that there was some kind of cold war with Britain and Russia not talking to each other and a giant chess game going on with war imminent at any moment. From my reading, this does not appear to be the case. I have expanded the article to cover a wider view, but there is still much more to be done here. The work by Chakravarty - from Khyber to Oxus - is a collection of citations and quotes from original documents from that time. Someone could spend weeks producing a fine article from it with original quotes and British Foreign Office letters going between London, St Petersburg, Calcutta and Kabul. However, I think I am drawing to a close here. Thanks for the recent tidy-up. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 08:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I sometimes think Misplaced Pages is heading towards being 'complete'. Then I look around and realise how much more there is to do! Keep up the good work. ] (]) 21:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Thanks, and agreed! You get a feeling of some satisfaction then later on you have a rethink about what something may have meant or some new material comes to light or you read yet another point of view. We now have Martin J. Bayly's 2016 work stating that Anglo-Afghan relations during this period has been too focused on Anglo-Russian rivalry and The Great Game, and that historians should stop repeating the work of earlier historians on this matter - the fun never ends! Please maintain your vigilance over the ]. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 09:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello ] and ]. Nothing gives me more pleasure right now than watching two editors who are passionate about this subject voicing a difference of opinion - I swear we have finally breathed some life into this article, which for too long atrophied. However, I fear that we are on the edge of an edit war which may lead to some unpleasant impacts, so I gave you both a ping. On the one hand the term is used predominately by historians, however the article contains citations from some strategic analysts (geostrategists if you like) and also journalists (who use it to the point of cliche). I will leave it to both of you to form a compromise; most Misplaced Pages articles are a compromise of differing opinions, which over time evolve to be closer to the mark. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;"> ] |] </span> 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::my point is that it is not a term invented by historians. It is the common usage by the general public (eg Kipling) & diplomats of the late 19th century. It's the difference between: a) ''the Korean war is what historians call the war of 1950....'' versus b) ''The Korean war was a war fought in 1950...'' I recommend version b. The goal should be to highlight the actual event in the opening, not highlight the historiography. ] (]) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If the article title was descriptive like "The Korean War" or "]" then we wouldn't need to explain what it means or who uses it. However, since "The Great Game" is a quote and it is used primarily - today - by historians, not the general public, then we do. (If you used the term in the UK today without any other qualification then most people would think you were talking about football.) And, as User:William Harris has highlighted above, some historians reject the term entirely, so to present it as an ''agreed'' term for this historical episode is misleading. I suppose the opening line should actually say: ''"The Great Game" is a term used by '''some''' historians.'' ] (]) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tournament of Shadows? == |
|
== Tournament of Shadows? == |
| Line 90: |
Line 61: |
|
::::::I concur with your observations. ] ] 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
::::::I concur with your observations. ] ] 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
== Map == |
|
|
Is the map of modern Central Asia really that instructive? The article also includes information about Persia. Wouldn't it be more useful to use a map from the time with borders representing the period mentioned? ] (]) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727194809/http://www.docsonline.tv/Archives/description.php?doc=73 to http://www.docsonline.tv/Archives/description.php?doc=73 |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement== |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
Presently, the article includes ]. , there never was a signed accord. Instead, the agreement was made by two separate letters, one from Granville on 17 October 1872 and a separate one from Gorchakov on 31 January 1873. The second letter more or less established an agreement but only in concert with the other letter. No joint paper was ever signed, and the letters that were exchanged were dated O.S. separately by the Russians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also a bit odd not to mention the British side of the negotiation was Granville and to link to his article, which entirely omits this discussion and instead highlights an 1871 agreement with Shuvalov that ''this'' article currently omits. — ] 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
The Article comes to Redirect for The Russian Tournament of Shadows, which is the a different Term for the same conflict, however the article fails to mention the term, however It in Fact used to is there any reason for the Term to be Removed? Sir James H. Westwood (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it in March 2015. The major contributor to these chances was William Harris (diff)
It seems to me that removing the 20th and 21st century sections is a form of OR as many modern sources have used the term "The Great Game" for the continuing involvement on great powers and regional powers in the area. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the map of modern Central Asia really that instructive? The article also includes information about Persia. Wouldn't it be more useful to use a map from the time with borders representing the period mentioned? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Also a bit odd not to mention the British side of the negotiation was Granville and to link to his article, which entirely omits this discussion and instead highlights an 1871 agreement with Shuvalov that this article currently omits. — LlywelynII 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
