Peter Hopkirk. The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha, 1994.
From the shores of the Pacific, and to the heights of the Himalayas, Russia will not only dominate the affairs of Asia, but those of Europe also.
—Count Sergei Witte, Finance Minister under Tsar Nicholas II, (502)
The title of The Great Game comes from a term used by both Russia and England to describe the diplomatic and political machinations of the nineteenth century over political power in central Asia. The origins of the term may be obscure, but it was used certainly by 1860 and made famous in Kipling’s Kim, which was published around the time the Great Game would end in the form it had back then. One could argue that it is still going on today.
Hopkirk does a good job of explaining why Russia has imperial ambitions even today. Russia is somewhat unique in that it has been attacked numerous times by enemies from the East (the Alans, the Huns, the Mongols, the Timurids) and the West (Vikings, Napoleon, and Hitler). By subduing people groups in Central Asia and Eastern Europe Russia would create buffer zones that would provide safety for Russians. Because of the intensity of even small slaving raids from Central Asian khanates, it also may help explain why Russia has always had a much more authoritarian government than most European nations.
It is impossible to summarize the ins and outs of the story told in The Great Game. Basically, after the defeat of Napoleon, Russia realized it needed greater security on its Eastern borders. Except for sparsely-populated Siberia in the north, Russia had little or no influence east of the Caspian Sea. It saw opportunities for trade with the people of Central Asia, but dealings were difficult. The Turkmen and others were more tribal and at least nominally Muslim. From time to time horsemen from the deserts would attack Russian villages for loot and slaves. Indeed, a major justification for Russian annexation of the various Central Asian peoples would be freedom for Russian slaves.
Meanwhile, England wanted to insure the security of its domains in India. They were concerned that Russian expansion might be at the expense of English influence. Hopkirk details the various intrigues and attempts of both sides to try to pre-empt the other and whether by force or treaty pacify the various indigenous groups. Looking at a map, one can see that in the middle is the nation of Afghanistan. Both Russia and England tried various means to either conquer or befriend the Afghans. Neither were ultimately successful, but it does make for some gripping stories of political intrigue and heroism in battle. Hopkirk suggests Russia did not learn from what it observed in the nineteenth century when it tried to annex Afghanistan in the twentieth century.
Hopkirk tries to be evenhanded with his analysis. While there are more records and writings extant from the British and Indian side, he includes the Russian perspective as well. Often the interpretations of certain events differ significantly, but that makes the study of history interesting. Because the book came out in 1994, it sees Russia’s future as a European democracy rather than the oligarchy it has become.
Perhaps most striking in this book are the number of intrepid explorers on both sides. Some returned heroes, other died after being taken captive or succumbing to the elements. The geographic area covered in this book contains some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world between the highest mountains and some of the bleakest deserts. To use the words of Conrad, much of the region back then was “white on the chart.” No one in Russia or India knew what the geography was like. Much of the exploration was done simply to map out the region—of course, with military possibilities in the back of the cartographers’ minds.
The British were concerned about unknown passes or routes through the Pamirs, Himalayas, and Hindu Kush that raiders from the North could use. After all, history tells us that armies attacked India from the north eighteen times, and fifteen of those times the attacks succeeded.
Russia wanted to find ways through rivers and deserts that could be used by its army but also by its traders to establish Russian influence and even build Russian railroads. In some cases the surveys succeeded, at least in making more accurate maps with less “white” or blank areas. In other cases they demonstrated impossibilities. For example, one explorer died in the mountains in the north of India. A monument was actually erected at the location, but Hopkirk tells us that no one from any of the region’s people has even visited or traveled by the location since the 1940s. How remote can you get?
There are numerous fascinating details that even put current issues in perspective. Did you know that the Uighurs actually had an independent country called Kashgaria, named for one its main cities, from 1864 to 1877? Because of its remoteness, Russia was about the only country that treated it as a separate nation. Eventually, the Chinese would re-take the territory.
The British thought that the people of Tibet might enjoy more freedom affiliating with India. While some intrepid explorers from India would reach even Lhasa, they never made much of an impression, and at the time the Dalai Lama was willing to continue accepting Chinese suzerainity.
The three powers of Russia, England, and China would meet at the Afghan frontier. The Pamir Gap, that narrow stretch of Afghanistan that reaches the Chinese border between what today is Pakistan and Tajikistan was an agreed-upon zone that buffered Russia from Britain.
We learn for example the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was eventually tracked down, was named for a British officer, James Abbott, who originally scouted the area. He would eventually go to Khiva and arrange for the freeing a the Russian slaves held there and bring them to Russia. He was unsuccessful, but that led to a second attempt by a Lt. Richmond Shakespear who brought 416 freed Russian slaves to Fort Alexandrovsk on the Caspian sea in 1840.
At times, then, Russia and England appeared to be seeking the same thing: freedom for slaves and commerce in Central Asia. But more often than not there was mistrust. Clearly that was exemplified by the Crimean War, though that conflict was about Turkey and the Caucasus rather than territory to the east.
Eventually, another war would put an end to the Great Game. Japan’s surprise attack on the Russian navy base in Port Arthur (Lüshunkou), China, crippled the Russian Navy, and one other big sea battle rendered it nearly useless. (Could it be that Japan thought it would get similar results when in bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941?)
The Russo-Japanese War effected a blow to Russian expansion in the Far East. For all intents and purposes, the Great Game would end in 1905. However, as we know, there have been more contemporary manifestations with the ambitions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Soviet Union and NATO allies. As Mark Twain supposedly said, History never repeats itself, but it rhymes.