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

Russia in Central Asia in 1889, and the Anglo-Russian question". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 16 December 2021 . Retrieved 6 June 2022. In 1908, the Persian Constitutional Revolution sought to establish a Western-oriented, democratic civil society in Iran, with an elected Majilis, a relatively free press and other reforms. Seeking to resolve financial problems of the Qajar dynasty such as heavy debts to Imperial Russia and Britain, the Majilis recruited the American financial expert, Morgan Schuster, who later wrote the book The Strangling of Persia condemning Britain and Russia. [12]

In 1557, Bokhara and Khiva sent ambassadors to Ivan IV seeking permission to trade in Russia. Russia had an interest in establishing a trade route from Moscow to India. From then until the mid-19th century, Russian ambassadors to the region spent much of their time trying to free Russians who had been taken as slaves by the khanates. [34] Russia would later expand across Siberia to the Far East, where it reached the Pacific port that would become known as Vladivostok by 1859. This eastward expansion was of no concern to the British Foreign Office because this area did not lie across any British trade routes or destinations, and therefore was of no interest to Britain. [35] A. Vescovi argued that Kipling's use of the term was entirely fictional, "...because the Great Game as it is described in the novel never existed; it is almost entirely Kipling's invention. At the time when the story is set (i.e. in the late Eighties), Britain did not have an intelligence service, nor an Ethnographical Department; there was only a governmental task force called 'Survey of India' that was entrusted with the task of charting all India in response to a typically English anxiety of control." [153] The Second Tournament of Shadows: Perceptions of great power politics in Turkestan, 1919–1933, youtube.com 18.11.2022. According to the scholar Andrei Znamenski, Soviet Communists of the 1920s aimed to extend their influence over Mongolia and Tibet, using the mythical Buddhist kingdom of Shambhala as a form of propaganda to further this mission, in a sort of "great Bolshevik game". [126] The expedition of Russian symbolist Nicholas Roerich has been put in context of the Great Game due to his interest in Tibet, [164] [165] [166] Although Roerich did not like the Communists, he agreed to help Soviet intelligence and influence operations due to a shared paranoia towards Britain, as well as his goal to form a "Sacred Union of the East" [126] :181–182 Jan Morris states that "Roerich brought the bewilderments of the later Great Game to America" through mysticism movements [167] called Roerichism. Curzon, George Nathaniel Curzon (1967). Russia in central Asia in 1889 and the Anglo-Russian question. New York, Barnes & Noble. pp.296–297.

a b "ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION OF 1907". Encyclopedia Iranica. Archived from the original on 29 April 2011 . Retrieved 22 August 2021. interpretations of the Great Game Toggle Historiographical interpretations of the Great Game subsection

the Transcaspian conquests of the Czar have brought about, and the seal upon which has been set by the completion of the new railway. The power of menace, which the ability to take Herat involves, has passed from English to Russian hands; the Russian seizure of Herat is now a matter not so much of war as of time; and that the Russians will thus, without an effort, win the first hand in the great game that is destined to be played for the empire of the East. [133]

Etymology

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] 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)

A pencil and piece of paper for each player might also be useful (especially for younger kids) when planning their route around the board. Please can you tell us whether the move station cards must be played immediately or can a player hold them for later use?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)

But this is not all. Sergeev’s Great Game narrative is simply incomplete without mention of Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani (1838–97), a Persian Shia Muslim who was to become the preeminent figurehead of the pan-Islamic movement. Al-Afghani, after completing his theological training in Iran, was journeying in India when the Sepoy Uprising took place. His witnessing of that event led him to launch into a career traveling all around the Middle East, with excursions into Central Asia, promoting the pan-Islamic cause. (7) The Shia Persian Afghani would eventually be courted by the Sunni Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II (1876–1908), who himself made significant contributions to Pan-Islamism at time when ‘a conscious Pan-Islamic tendency [was] becoming evident in the Porte’s policy’. (8) This coincided with, one, the Balkan crisis of 1875–6 in which ‘Ottoman counter measures in Bulgaria created a strong anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim feeling, especially in Britain’, and two, the ensuing Russo-Turkish War (1877–8), which hardened Indian Muslim attitudes against the Russians to the point that ‘the Government of India was showered with numerous petitions condemning Russian action and demanding British support for the Ottomans’. (9) But ‘Britain, still under the influence of Gladstone’s [anti-Ottoman] campaign, chose to remain neutral after the Russian assurance that they would not threaten British interests by occupying Istanbul and the Straits’. (10) Thus, both Britain and Russia, as Christian powers, became the objects of Pan-Islamic scorn across much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and India during the 1870 and 1880s in particular. This is essential, but overlooked material in such a study. Further information: Second Anglo-Afghan War Elephant and Mule Battery, Second Anglo-Afghan War Khyber Pass with Ali Masjid fort - lithograph by James Rattray (1848) a b Great British Adventurers by Nicholas Storey. Pen and Sword Books Ltd, Yorkshire, UK, 2012. ISBN 9781844681303 p29-32 On 10 September 1885, the Delimitation Protocol Between Great Britain and Russia was signed in London. The protocol defined the boundary from the Oxus to the Harirud and was later followed by 19 additional protocols providing further detail between 1885 and 1888. [87] The Afghan Boundary Commission agreed that Russia would relinquish the farthest territory captured in their advance, but retain Panjdeh. The agreement delineated a permanent northern Afghan frontier at the Amu Darya, with the loss of a large amount of territory, especially around Panjdeh. [92] [93] Volodarsky, Mikhail (1983). "Persia and the Great Powers, 1856–1869". Middle Eastern Studies. 19 (1): 75–92. doi: 10.1080/00263208308700534. ISSN 0026-3206. JSTOR 4282923. Archived from the original on 24 October 2021 . Retrieved 24 October 2021.

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] Ingram, Edward (1984). In Defence of British India: Great Britain in the Middle East, 1775–1842. Routledge. p.7. ISBN 978-0714632469. Archived from the original on 24 January 2023 . Retrieved 23 October 2020.