The Great Game

This thread is all for the discussion of the Anglo Russian rivalry of the 19th century, especially the territorial competition in South and Central Asia. I had read somewhere that Alexander II did not push further into South and Central Asia in the 1850s and 1860s because they did not want to upset relations with Britain after the Crimean war. What if they had continued pushing onward, or the Crimean war never happened? Would there have been Russian India?

>inb4 warm water ports in the Indian ocean

Bumping for bokhara khanate

>Would there have been Russian India?

The answer is, probably not. Multiple explorations and surveys of North-Western Indian territories, along with some surveys in Persia and Afghanistan all indicated that moving a contemporary army through the Hindu Kush would be nigh impossible. The weather and terrain conditions were just too unfavorable. Any non-Russophobic analyst from that time would've told you exactly that. Let's not forget that Afghanistan probably wouldn't be too happy with an army marching through their territory. Dost Mohammed had returned to rule by this time, and I believe that it was in 1855 that he signed a defensive treaty with the British.

Now, while a full on Russian India was more than likely improbable, I believe that an Indian independence movement with Russian help certainly is. Russian intrigue often found itself far into the subcontinent. Let us also remember that the Indian Mutiny occurred in 1857, and that tensions still simmered even after the rebellion was quashed. If Russia was not weary with the Crimean War, I imagine that it would have much more ability to aid with the rebellion or at least use it to their advantage. For example, I do not think that a Russian invasion of Afghanistan would be out of the question, especially when British India is caught up in turmoil. Funding and materiel for Indian rebels, while unlikely, could also be possible. What this adds up to is a stronger Russian position in Central Asia which they could then take advantage of later on. This stronger Russia now has the ability to exert way more influence on the subcontinent, possibly aiding Indian independence movements.

There are a few other ways I can think of that can get to something close to what you describe, but they're a bit more outlandish(and this one's already a bit ridiculous). I remember reading about a scrapped plan to call on Muslims to help remake the Mughal Empire. I'll see if I can find a source for it, I think it was in Hopkirk's book.

Just for clarification, I said:
>moving a contemporary army through the Hindu Kush would be nigh impossible

This is true for Russia alone, as most of it's troops were centered far away from the Hindu Kush, to the point of supply lines faltering. The same is not true for the British, who moved over the Hindu Kush multiple times(although it wasn't easy for them either).

Sources: Hopkirk, Meyers, and texts from the period pertaining to the Great Game.

>moving a contemporary army through the Hindu Kush would be nigh impossible
Good thing Hindu Kush only covers northeastern Afghanistan and you can safely avoid going through altogether, then.

Right, and then you can go through the arguably even more unforgiving desert in the South.

"The presence of such vast natural obstacles astride an invader's path, Pottinger knew, would be extremely welcome news to those responsible for the defence of India. He was soon to discover for himself why these deserts enjoyed so ill a reputation among the Baluchis, for within a few miles they ran into a succession of near-vertical dunes of fine red sand, some of them 20 feet high."

"But even if he did manage to acheive this - and here Kinneir spoke from first-hand experience of the terrain - he would be faced by a series of extremely formidable obstacles all the way to India. These would include high mountain ranges; impassable to artillery; waterless deserts; areas so poor that they could hardly support the existing population, let alone a passing army."

>muh deserts
Wasn't much of a deal when conquering Turkestan.

There is some pretty good Russian art of those events.

The first expedition towards Khiva by the Russians was destroyed because of the harsh weather. Yes, the weather was unusually bad that year, but even so, it still acts as proof that invading a desert is not an easy task.

Besides, conquering Turkestan and conquering or even just invading the Indian Subcontinent are two entirely different endeavors, especially when the levels of organization, technology and fortification between the armies you will be facing will be extremely different. It's simply unrealistic to think that a Russian army beleaguered by the scorching desert that often whips up sandstorms that blind people will be able to match up to a well supplied British army on the other side.

>poor little persian guy

are you the Great Game user from last year?

Yes, why do you ask?

One thing I cannot understand is how did the emirates function as countries. While reading about the great game, I got the impression that the emir/khan didn't have much control over territories far from his capital, so how meaningful are the borders? Did they have some kind of administration? Was it effective?

This is a pretty hard question because their isn't much information on how the khanates/emirates were run. From what I understand, all of the power was concentrated in their respective capital cities(Khiva, Bokhara, Khokand) and smaller towns in the area gave taxes / men to their respective conquerors. Small towns would change hands pretty often, and so borders tended to change quite often too. This didn't really foster a close relationship with the ruled and the rulers, and it meant that whoever takes down the capital gets the entire nation along for the spoils. It's sort of a case of new ruler, same rules. That's not to say that the khanates didn't own other big cities. For example, Khokand owned Tashkent which was pretty large and rich. It's just that even big cities would immediately submit if the capital was conquered. Another important aspect of rule was that the owners of these nations would pay off the turkmen tribes to not attack their cities / towns and caravans. This didn't always work however, and it gave Central Asia a reputation for being a lawless desert at times.

As for your other questions, the borders didn't really mean too much unless they were close to a big city. Small villages would change rulers from time to time. But the big cities like Samarkand or Tashkent would always be beholden to their khans/emirs.

I'm going to look more into this, I'll see if I find anything interesting about the administration, or if I can clarify anything. I might even make some corrections on this original post if I need to.

Moar pls

I absolutely loved that thread, must have been 1 of maybe 5 actually good and informative threads I've ever seen on this board

There is a reason why all the invasions of India directed from Central Asia have come through Cyber Pass. The mere logistics of getting a hundred thousand or so men down there from lightly fortified and distant Russian bases in Sarmarkand would be nightmarish. Going a several hundred miles south to march through a desert you do not even control, just in order to make headway into India would be even more insane.

After looking more into it, I do have one revision I'd like to make. Cities like Tashkent and Samarkand, while not equally important to cities like Bokhara and Khokand, still held a good amount of power within their respective nations. For example, the Russian conquests of Bokhara and Khokand focused on these two cities instead of the capitals. By taking out these two huge revenue generators, the Russians were able to submit the two nations into protectorates instead of outright conquering them by siege. In contrast, the Russians went straight for the kill when conquering Khiva.

As for administration there isn't much. Though it might be worth mentioning that a lot of the time, the real power was held by the viziers. This was true for both Bokhara(if I remember correctly) and Herat, whose technical rulers were often more interested in lavish lifestyles rather than actual governance. Viziers therefore took charge and were able to make huge decisions on their own. I've yet to find anything about taxation and other administrative efforts unfortunately. Is there anything else you'd specifically like to know about? Your question is rather broad, so maybe specifying something might help me out a little.

Thanks, that thread took a lot of time to write up and research.

honestly how much of a "threat" was Russia to British India?

I can't imagine the Ivans possibly transporting enough men and supplies through Central Asia to do much.

They wouldn't even need to, realistically they needed to spark another Sepoy rebellion to kick the Anglos out.

The biggest threats Russia posed were fostering rebellion among the Indians and blocking off Central Asia to British/Indian goods.

Realistically? It was more likely than not impossible for most of the century. The Russians were not going conquer India traditionally. Something like said is certainly possible though. The Indian Mutiny was forever scarred into the minds of British-Indian administrators. It was an ever present existential threat that the British feared. And they had good reason to fear it. It should also be noted that this extremely controversial painting showing the execution of leaders of the rebellion was painted by a Russian. Vasily Verischagin, the same painter who made this . He fought extensively in Russia's Central Asian campaigns, and he was there for the Russian conquest of Khiva. I wouldn't go far as to say it was propaganda, but he was definitely trying to cast the British in India in a certain light. I think that if the Russians really did want to spark a second Sepoy rebellion, they'd need to up their intrigue in India tenfold. For most of the Great Game, it was just too low to do much. Of course, such a large spy network would've required entering Central Asia at an earlier time. The Russians didn't really get their engine going till the 1860s.

Makes a very good point as well. Trade was one of the largest factors pushing Russia South. They wanted access to that sweet Central Asian/Indian exchange of goods. Some of the most important Great Game missions were made by traders. One that I remember in particular involved tea, and another involved a very fine and expensive type of wool from sheep. Blocking off Central Asian horses to India(One of the biggest commodities traded there at the time) would have been devastating. Flooding Indian/Central Asian markets with their own goods was another commonly discussed strategy by the Russians.

>to match up to a well supplied British army on the other side.
What if they funded and armed sufficient groups like in the rebellion of 1857? There were still several trained , bitter soldiers left scattered around who were just as well trained and experienced as their British/British sepoy counterparts.

Thanks. I don't really have anything specific in mind. It's just that I wanted to learn more about the countries in between.

I answered this here: More or less, your situation is way more plausible and likely to happen than an outright invasion of India. It would require Russia being much closer to India, though I don't think that's a hard requirement to follow given that the OP is wondering about a world without the Crimean War. It would also be analogous to British attempts at supporting natives in the Russo-Circassian War(Though these attempts were no near as successful as the ones that I am predicting).

That's good to know. If I do find anything else, I'll definitely post it in this thread.

>Indian Empire

?

Afghanistan was as much as a British protectorate as it was a Soviet satellite state

>indian empire (br.)
was this really necessary?

I found something on taxes that might interest you. Particularly, this is how taxation worked in Khiva. It was written by Muraviev who visited the city in 1819. He describes 4 different ways in which the Khan of Khiva gained revenue: Poll Tax/Capitation, Gifts to the Khan, The sale of the Khan's property, and war/trade spoils. Keep in mind that the Khan's bank account was also the nation's bank account. Also keep in mind that not everyone was taxed. Uzbeks, who tended to hold positions in the army, were often not taxed unless they were traders. Turkmen were also not taxed, as they too were used for military purposes.

The Poll Tax was the first method of taxation. You were only exempt from this tax if you could prove that you were sufficiently poor(Muraviev says that you must prove that you "do not own a felt tent"). Taxation is split up between tribes and clans, and it is determined by the value of the land, how long the land has been settled, and what kind of trade occurs over that land. Tax assessors would come along tax you based on your income as well, with richer people paying larger capitations. These assessors are decided by the community in order to ensure fairness.

Revenue also comes from the Khan's private property. The Khan owns multiple private estates, each with large canals and farms that were tended to by slaves. Any grain the Khan sells would come from this property. If you were Khivan, it was illegal to sell grain until the Khan himself decreed that it was okay to do so. This ensured that the Khan got the maximum profit from his own supply.

The next source of income was from treasure and import taxes. Turkmen raiders were required to give up 1/5th of any treasure obtained when they went on a raid inside Persian territory. Caravans that entered Khiva were required to pay a certain tax that could give the Khan upwards of 23,000 pounds per year(Not adjusted for inflation).

The final source of income comes from gifts. Gifts come from the Sarts and Turkmen. The Sarts, being mostly traders, use these gifts to try and woo the Khan into giving special privileges to them. Exemptions from taxes, or special protection for caravans. The Turkmen also give gifts, though they usually respect something of greater value in return.

There is one extra way of making money, and this is for when a war is about to start. The Khan may call upon any number of tribes to try and give him a huge sum of money. The whole of this money goes into the army, none of it is wasted on frivolous expenditures that the Khan may normally use it for.

The total revenue of the Khan was estimated by Muraviev to be around 150,000 pounds. That's about the end of it. After this he goes on to talk about how the Khan is somewhere in between being frugal and spending his money on lavish goods. I do hope that this wall of text helped answer your question a little bit better.

Why didn't the Ottomans and Persians ally?

Too much bad blood

Had Ottomans converted to Hurufism in 1444 the map might have been vastly different

Rivary between Constantinople and Persia is basically eternal, be downright strange for two empires to actually ally from that position.