Russia wins the Great Game

Its 1885 and Russian forces have seized large swaths of Afghan territory and are moving rapidly south, towards Kabul. The British have made several repeated attempts to halt the advance with diplomacy but have met with hostility on the Russian side. Tsar Alexander, having had enough of British designs on the region, has declared himself protector of all Persian peoples and declared that his army will soon dip its feet in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. With the imminent seizure of the Afghan capital the British march a large contigent from their Indian holdings to meet the Russians. It is too late however as the Russians have had time to move in a large force and dig in around strategic positions. After several pitched battles, Russian forces defend their gains and push on. By the following year they have taken the whole of the country and have broken off all diplomatic ties with Britain while the Indus is now a heavily fortified boder zone. For the victorious Tsar, Persia, ruled by a sickly, weak-willed Shah is next on the agenda...
 

mowque

Banned
1. Logistics in this area are terrible. The Russkis aren't marching anywhere.

2, War between UK and Russia? Should be interesting on other fronts.....
 
It seems like it would be better if Russia simply conquered Persia first. Both Afghanistan and Persia are difficult to conquer terrain wise, but Persia at least has a central government to subvert. If Russia could pull off out a quick conquest of Persia, they would be a better grounds to conquer Afghanistan and move into India.
 
A better solution would be for the Russians to manipulate the Afghans and associated peoples into going on campaign in India. After all, it would keep the Russians theoretically out of the fighting, and for the Afghans there's all that loot in the south.
 
Ah, see now when I saw this thread I said to myself, "MNP, this thread will be flooded with people saying that it is impossible for Britain to lose. Also you should really stop referring to yourself in the third person."
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
It seems like it would be better if Russia simply conquered Persia first. Both Afghanistan and Persia are difficult to conquer terrain wise, but Persia at least has a central government to subvert. If Russia could pull off out a quick conquest of Persia, they would be a better grounds to conquer Afghanistan and move into India.
Russia doesn't even really have to "conquer" Persia. It might be able to carve off Persian Azerbaijan and perhaps recapture the southern Caspian coast. After that all it needs to do is install a a compliant Shah (not too hard given the Qajar's tendency to murder one another) and maintain the monopoly over Persia's military that it had in later years.
A better solution would be for the Russians to manipulate the Afghans and associated peoples into going on campaign in India. After all, it would keep the Russians theoretically out of the fighting, and for the Afghans there's all that loot in the south.
This plan I like :cool:
 

Cook

Banned
A better solution would be for the Russians to manipulate the Afghans and associated peoples into going on campaign in India. After all, it would keep the Russians theoretically out of the fighting, and for the Afghans there's all that loot in the south.

Wouldn’t it be more likely that the Afghans suddenly find they had British friends willing to sell them rifles so they could drive out the Russians?

Afghanistan has never been welcoming to outside invaders since Alexander passed through and Machiavelli had nothing on the British in India.
 
Wouldn’t it be more likely that the Afghans suddenly find they had British friends willing to sell them rifles so they could drive out the Russians?

Afghanistan has never been welcoming to outside invaders since Alexander passed through and Machiavelli had nothing on the British in India.

Cook

It's the logical approach. After all Afghanistan is only important as a barrier to attacks on India. If the Russians have a large force starving in the mountains, being harassed by Afghan's that's very much a win for Britain in itself. [Not sure public opinion in London would necessarily see it that way but its the way a machiavellian commander would play it].

If Britain needed to it could probably drive the Russians out of southern Afghanistan simply because they would have so much better logistics. It could be bloody but then if there's one power that might be able to wage an attritional war with Russia roughly 1-1 it would be British India. [Not that I would like that but it would be possible. Especially since the Russians will need to consider their long borders elsewhere].

Steve
 
Last edited:

Don Grey

Banned
It seems like it would be better if Russia simply conquered Persia first. Both Afghanistan and Persia are difficult to conquer terrain wise, but Persia at least has a central government to subvert. If Russia could pull off out a quick conquest of Persia, they would be a better grounds to conquer Afghanistan and move into India.

Persia is easy to take from the east and the northeast well easyer then the west because of the montains. But afghanistan or persia is too far for the russia i dont think it can be dont.
 

Cook

Banned
Its 1885 and Russian forces have seized large swaths of Afghan territory and are moving rapidly south, towards Kabul.


It's the logical approach. After all Afghanistan is only important as a barrier to attacks on India. If the Russians have a large force starving in the mountains, being harassed by Afghan's that's very much a win for Britain in itself.



Pyrrhus’s scenario does not mention large forces of starving Russians; it talks of a successful Russian push towards Kabul.

Given that scenario I’d expect to see large numbers of British manufactured rifles available in the bazaar of Kabul at bargain prices. No British troops, who would only be regarded as another invader, just British Rifles.
 
Cook said:
Pyrrhus’s scenario does not mention large forces of starving Russians; it talks of a successful Russian push towards Kabul.

That is probably possible, the thread title begs the question what constitutes a 'win' in the Great Game. Personally I think it take a lot less than absolute victory and Russian soldiers in every city in Afghanistan.

Cook said:
Given that scenario I’d expect to see large numbers of British manufactured rifles available in the bazaar of Kabul at bargain prices. No British troops, who would only be regarded as another invader, just British Rifles.

The British reaction is a question, but Randolph Churchill (who we all know from FaBR) had just become Secretary of State for India. . .
 
A better solution would be for the Russians to manipulate the Afghans and associated peoples into going on campaign in India. After all, it would keep the Russians theoretically out of the fighting, and for the Afghans there's all that loot in the south.

Why would the Russians start the first shots? There might well be someone ambitious in the UK that start a war over flimsy excuses to seize Afghan territories.
Afghans resist and the UK becomes angry and send more troops, forces marches to seize Kabul and do so, occupation goes out of hand. The Afghans continues the war and the Russian Empire comes to their assistance.
 

Stalker

Banned
1. Logistics in this area are terrible. The Russkis aren't marching anywhere.
The Russians had the plans for railroad through Turkestan to the Afghan border but as the response to the British plans for railroads across Afghan territory to the borders of Russian sphere of influence. Russian protectorate, Emirate of Bukhara, suffered greatly as result of redirection by the British of the trade routs around Afghanistan. But the road did nor become a reality at that time. Russia was not ready to stretch itself that far and even more in war effort against the British.
 
My original inspiration for this discussion is that Russian expansion into Central Asia seemed like an unfinished task and that Afghanistan, successfully brought into Czarist Russia's administrative system would have prevented further British expansion and given Russia a free hand in Persia, with no direct British connection to the country. I still firmly believe that a quick strike against Kabul would have given Russia a tremendous advantage in the matter and led to a bloody war of atrition in southern Afghan territory but with Russian soldiers bouyed by Aghan conscripts and mercenaries the tide could be turned against a force marching from the Punjab. Additionally, though this may be a stretch, a Russian naval force landing at the port of Gwadar could help secure the coast and link up with a southward driving force to seize Baluchistan, which would critically aid in supplying the region.
 
My original inspiration for this discussion is that Russian expansion into Central Asia seemed like an unfinished task and that Afghanistan, successfully brought into Czarist Russia's administrative system would have prevented further British expansion and given Russia a free hand in Persia, with no direct British connection to the country. I still firmly believe that a quick strike against Kabul would have given Russia a tremendous advantage in the matter and led to a bloody war of atrition in southern Afghan territory but with Russian soldiers bouyed by Aghan conscripts and mercenaries the tide could be turned against a force marching from the Punjab.

I am not sure that Afghans would: a) be conscripted, b) be an effective military force against British standing armies, and c) not promptly use whatever the Russians taught them to revolt.

I wonder how much the Great Game was merely Britain perceiving what it thought was going to happen, and how much of it was Russia really considering an invasion of India.
 
Judging by the British examples, a quick strike in Afghanistan rarely does anything permanent. At best, you might be able to put a more pliable ruler on the throne, but in all likelihood he'll be gone before you even finish recrossing the border. All you'll do is get a whole lot of your men killed.
 
Pyrrhus’s scenario does not mention large forces of starving Russians; it talks of a successful Russian push towards Kabul.

Given that scenario I’d expect to see large numbers of British manufactured rifles available in the bazaar of Kabul at bargain prices. No British troops, who would only be regarded as another invader, just British Rifles.
Indeed, he didn't. However logistics would essentially imply/?require? that the Russian soldiers be starving and out of bullets by the time they got that far. How the FRIP are the Russians going to supply a full army across all of Central Asia.
 
Top