The Great Game Turns Deadly

Everybody knows what the Great Game was right? It was the contest for influence and power between England and Russia in Asia, specifically
Central Asia and the Middle East in the early 19th century. The British were mainly concerned with protecting India, so they focused on controlling the Khyber Pass and other traditional invasion routes while building a buffer of friendly tribes, emirates, and Kingdoms around their posessions. The Russians tried to counter the British efforts in order to expand their own power and get a piece of the Indus valley to suport their central Asian territories. So lets say the Second Afgan War (1878) began this hypothetical conflict. What would happen? Who would win? What would be the implications for the rest of the world? And, just so I have some hope of not getting this thread closed, what would be the effects on China?

Finn McCool said:

And, just so I have some hope of not getting this thread closed, what would be the effects on China?

Click to expand...

I think the above quote is reason enough to close this thread.

Some hope.

Well I will elt this go on for now, tough i cannot see the idea of speculating on issues that no one has nothing more than textbook insights...

I thinkits quite interesting. We can get rid of hte whole 2nd Afghan War thing. Just think about what could have happened. Say Russia wins. They take the Khyber pass, push on through into what's now Pakistan, move down the Indus and besiege Bombay. It could be like the siege of Sebastapool in reverse. Then Russia would be the dominant world power up until WWI.

Say Russia wins.

Click to expand...

No one has conquered afghanistan.Ever.Afghanistan was an obstacle that even the United Kingdom (the strongest country in the world) couldnt overcome.
And i seriously doubt that Tzar Russia would be able to do that.Especially with their commanders being so incompetent and their army so ill-prepared during that time.

actually for the 1870's the Crimean war had left Russia so unstable that they were unable to interfear in Prussia's unification of Germany.

But as for arms and commanders it wouldn't be hard to argue that after the Crimean war better commanders would've made it up in important positions or at least its the precosis upstart commanders that end up exiled to backwater posts... so in an theotetical invasion of afghanistan we could arguebly count on adequat generalship.

The actual state of the militaries involved would actually go in Russia's favor. So its possible that Russia could sieze Afghanistan.

However, assuming the British are involved we are in a position where both Russia and England are fighting over extended supply lines and possible a not-so-friendly populace being occupied.

So numbers would gradually become less important and instead the quality of individual soldiers and the skill of commanders becomes crucial.

Both sides to achieve victory would need a better grasp of command of the terrain, the ability to improvize in a hurry, and be able to secure more supplies at any given time then the enenemy.

Food for thought.

The British woul dhave advantage of knowledge of the terrain and shorter suppply lines, as India could support the army on its own, at least for a while. However, the Russians might be welcomed by the locals as liberators from the British. Russia would also be able to send lots of troops, whereas Britain only had a few regiments. So each side has its advantages and disadvantages.