The Great Game

Throughout the 19th century two powers, Great Britain and the Russian Empire, fought each other with intrigue, alliances, and all sorts of other plots to foil each other. The prize? The vast markets and raw materials from India. The battleground? Central Asia. Ever since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, suspicions against Russia had slowly risen in both the press and the government in London. The same was happening in St. Petersburg, where the Tsar resided over his vast territory. This time of tension, exploration, and near war between these two huge empires would be called the "Tournament of Shadows" in Russia. In Britain, it would be called the "Great Game".

Much of the 1830's seemed like victory after victory for the British. First, a Russo-Persian joint siege of Herat was repelled with the help of an East India Company officer named Eldred Pottinger. Next, the "troublesome" ruler of Afghanistan, Dost Mohammed, was deposed and replaced with a British puppet after a brief invasion. Finally, a Russian attempt to attack the Khanate of Khiva was forced to turn back due to one of the worst winters in decades. The British were able to then promptly free all of the Russian slaves in the city, which removed the Tsar's previous casus belli.

The 1840's would bring disaster. In November of 1841, Alexander Burnes, a veteran player of the Great Game, would be killed by a mob of Afghans angry with British rule. But this mob quickly turned into a revolution of sorts, and the goal was now to remove Shah Shujah(the British puppet), and the British themselves from all of Afghanistan. This movement would be led by Akbar Khan, son of Dost Mohammed.

So far an entire Gurkha regiment and many of its officers had been killed. Eldred Pottinger had been wounded in this same incident. Now the British were fighting off an Afghan army right next to their hard to defend and badly placed cantonments.

Pictured: Using a rifle case to stable a telescope, often done by players to scan passes.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/t0Q9DE6V
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Part 1, screencapped by a nice user.

Part 2.

Also, here is a pastebin by another user that improves some of the spelling and grammar errors I make, along with naming more dates which I'll try to start doing more.

pastebin.com/t0Q9DE6V

In the books you've read, are the people of Central Asia devoutly religious or do they have a casual, permissive attitude towards religion?

How many times are you going to spam this, OP? It's up every single day..

Shut up.
His thread has been the most popular Veeky Forums thread ever

I'll limit my answer to the 19th century of course. Pretty devout, at least for Muslims. Admittedly, my knowledge of Christianity in Central Asia and the Caucasus during the 19th century is pretty limited, so any small Christian communities could have been less religious than the muslims around them, though I personally think that they would be just as religious. There are multiple accounts of Muslims in Central Asia being pretty devout, I think the best one is what I described happening to Shakespear and his Heratis though. In the second screencap, I mentioned how upon reaching Alexandrovsk, the Herati muslims were astounded by what they saw. "Short" dresses, people interacting with "dirty" animals, eating pork, drinking alcohol, and even what they perceived as idol worship. Islamic culture was pretty prevalent in the lives of people, especially in Afghanistan. Explorers from both Britain and Russia would often be asked by Emirs about the outside world and the actions of non-muslims. Alcohol and pork consumption were specifically asked about, probably because of the stigma attached to them.

This is my second time making a thread on it, its just that the first one stayed up for a long time. If a lot of people express interest in me discontinuing it, then I will. So far, people have reacted pretty positively though, so I'll be making new posts, at least for now.

I'm judging "devout" by today's standards for people in the west by the way, since that seems the easiest to compare to and make sense of. Obviously there isn't an exact scale I can use, but I hope that explanation should suffice.

this thread is relevant to my interests.

Has any book surpassed this yet?

Alright, I'm going to continue right where I left off from the last thread.
______________________________

The Afghans had now been pushed back, but with heavy casualties on both sides. The lesson was learned however, and soon the fire of the jezails was centered at the gunners, though infantry and cavalry were still being shot at. With the large gun being unable to shoot due to coming under heavy fire, the men once again started dropping like flies. Morale was crumbling, very few of the British bullets actually hit the Afghans at all. Once again, the Afghans crawled up the hidden gully, unseen by any of the British. They attacked and screamed, slashing their long knives in a frenzy. This was too much, and the troops fled in, as historian John Kaye described it: "One confused mass of infantry and cavalry - of European and native soldiers - they fled to the cantonment walls."

Attempts to rally them together failed, the men were scared out of their minds. All discipline had been lost, not to mention 300 of their companions. If the Afghans had continued on there and attacked the garrison, it surely would have been a massacre, at least from what the British could see. The Afghans however, under their leader's command, now turned back for some unknown reason.

The next day, the Afghans under Akbar Khan called for a truce. They outnumbered the British seven to one, with nearly 30,000 troops compared to the measly 4,500(now 4,200) the British owned. It was quite suspicious, though it made sense in the end. The British had Akbar's father, Dost Mohammed, firmly in their hands after sending him to exile in India. Afghan demands were this: Hand over Shah Shujah, surrender all weapons and leave for India, and return Dost Mohammed. In order to avoid a double crossing, British officers and their families would need to be held until Dost Mohammed returned. These ideas were insane to Macnaghten, and talks soon broke down.

Another meeting was arranged days later, on the banks of the Kabul river. Akbar came to this meeting himself and met Macnaghten. Many tribal leaders also arrived. Here, Macnaghten cemented the fact that the British surrendered, but he also made sure to let the Afghans know that they would not allow everything to be lost. The most that he would be willing to do was go back to Afghanistan with safe passage and force Shah Shujah to abandon his throne. 4 British officers would stay behind as bargaining tools in case the Company's troops decided to fight once again. They would be returned upon the arrival of Dost Mohammed.

Though this seems mostly the same as the last meeting, Macnaghten was in reality buying time to increase dissent in the Afghans. Mohan Lai had informed him that many powerful tribal leaders were beginning to get anxious at the idea of Dost Mohammed returning. Shah Shujah was a weaker ruler and much easier to influence. Not to mention that British gold which was given to pacify them before the revolts might start returning if the war could end with Shujah still on the throne. Preparations to pack up and leave the garrison were made, but there were still bribes being done in the background.

Lai worked tirelessly to further widen the differences and increase strife between the Afghans. Their was very little unity between the Afghans, most people only looked for the betterment of their own tribe. By playing all of these problems, the Afghans could be made to possibly fight against Akbar Khan.

On December 22, a new proposal was sent to Macnaghten by Akbar. It contained many of the conditions the British were looking for, even allowing Shujah to stay on the throne. Macnaghten, none the wiser despite a few warnings, set out for the meeting place. Three of his political officers would accompany him on the journey.

It was thought that the dissent was working quite well. The troops were seemingly getting split on tribal grounds and were anxious at the idea of a strong ruler returning. Everything was going to plan. Indeed it looked more like a British victory rather than an Afghan one.

Upon arrival, Akbar encouraged all of them to dismount and sit down for the discussion. Captain Kenneth Mackenzie who saw the event wrote this: "Men talk of presentiment. I suppose something of the kind came over me, for I could-scarcely prevail upon myself to quit my horse. I did so however, and was invited to sit down among the sirdars." When everybody was on the ground, Akbar asked him about the deal and if he agreed to it. He simply replied with two words: "Why not?" These words would seal the fate of all the British in Afghanistan.

Akbar Khan figured out what Macnaghten was doing, and he decided to turn the tables. Around Macnaghten and his officers were the tribal leaders that they had bribed. Akbar told these leaders that this former overseer of Kabul could not be trusted. That he would be willing to do deals without telling them first. Now these leaders had their proof for this claim.

They were all ordered to be seized at once. The three officers, including Mackenzie were ordered to surrender their weapons. They mounted horses at gunpoint and were sent to a fort. How Macnaghten died is unknown, though the most popular story is that he was killed by pistols he had gifted to Akbar. Whatever the case, his mutilated body would show up in the Kabul bazaar for passerbys to see and marvel at. His limbs would be paraded around in celebration.

Reads like an episode of game of thrones, keep it up this stuff is addicting!

Bump.

Bumpou

Bumpio

OP is the chemo that Veeky Forums needs: actual history

Akbar and the Afghans braced themselves for the torrent of British resistance that they now expected. Akbar especially must have realized what he did, for he apologized for the death of Macnaghten and claimed that he did not do it himself. Whether these claims are true or not are still disputed today. It could simply be Akbar backtracking after realizing that the British still had his father, or it really could have been a mistake made by some soldier looking to have fun. Whatever the case, the Afghans were now quite scared. They still remembered how the British had easily captured the various forts in their invasion only a few years prior. It was expected that more deadly fights were to begin.

But, as it turns out, the British stayed indecisive. Even with Macnaghten gone, Elphinstone continued to argue back and forth between other higher ups about what to do. He was old, stricken with gout, and was just about ready to retire somewhere quiet. On Christmas Eve, Akbar, now feeling much less scared about British action, sent new emissaries to discuss a deal. Eldred Pottinger was forced to take on the thankless task of negotiating with the enemy.

Most of the soldiers and officers were enraged at Macnaghten's death. They wanted Afghan blood on their hands, and Pottinger supported this. He also warned Elphinstone about the dangers of negotiating with someone like Akbar Khan. However, Elphinstone would force him to take the path of least resistance. Pottinger, who was still wounded after his previous fight wrote: "I was hauled out of my sick room, and obliged to to negotiate for the safety of a parcel of fools who were doing all they could to ensure their destruction."

The deal was much the same as the second deal, though it was somehow even worse for the British. British gold and artillery would have to be left behind. The hostages would now have to married officers with families. Elphinstone, ever ready to quickly leave, called on volunteers. Few showed up.

To get to India before the passes fully froze up meant leaving immediately. The agreement was signed on January 1st of 1842. The Afghans dropped the need for married officers, Mackenzie was even freed, but all artillery guns were left behind for the Afghans. The Afghans would have to escort the British through the harsh tribal lands back to Jalalabad, the westernmost fort from which the British could easily enter.

As the preparations were being made for the journey, a wild rumor soon came about in the encampments. It was said that the chiefs would seize all the women and slaughter all the men except for one. The one to survive would have his limbs hacked off and would be planted right outside of Jalalabad, warning the British to never again invade Afghanistan. The women would then be used as negotiation tools for Dost Mohammed's safe return. Afghans who still had British friends along with Mohan Lai also warned the British of the dangers of undertaking this exodus. It was suggested by Lai to take the sons of the Afghan leaders as hostages, but this idea never gained steam among Elphinstone and the higher ups who continued to argue.

On January 6th they would leave the cantonments. Shah Shujah, who presided in the nearly impenatrable Bala Hissar fortress was left behind. The Afghans would have to deal with him and his undermanned army. Leading the group were 700 infantry and cavalry troops. After them were the women and children, many of whom were sick or pregnant. The main force of troops would come straight after them. Finally were the rearguard troops and the camels in front of them.

Just before taking off, it was discovered that there were no signs of the protection force that Akbar promised. Elphinstone decided to continue on even without them though.

A few weeks later, a lone man, head gashed and horse tired, would stumble his way to Jalalabad. His name was Dr. William Brydon, and he was among the remnants of a once great and formidable army.

Bump

I returned to Veeky Forums the second I learned this thread(s) existed.

By the way, I'm the user who asked for some information on the central asian khanates in the last thread. Sadly I couldn't see it in case someone answered.

My question was basically about how they were since I know nothing about them besides having read russian and some persian history. How "civilized" were them? The term khanate makes me think about yurts and nomads. How were they structured and administered, what role played their ethnic diversity, etc.? Basically, what should I imagine when I read that those explorers travel to Khiva/Bokhara/etc. besides turbants, chadors and nice architecture?