The Great Game: IT WAS GREAT!

The textbook mentions the "Great Game" briefly in its discussion of Russian imperialism, describing it as "the maneuvering, spying, and support of friendly puppet governments" (Coffin, 803) between Britain and Russia in Central Asia and the Middle East. This topic is a particular favorite of mine, but I also think it presents a good case study for the many different forms European imperialism took in the 19th and early 20th centuries. With Russia there is the expansionary form of imperialism, in that Russia was conquering neighboring lands (the Caucasus region, Kazakhstan and Turkestan), whereas with Britain there is the other, overseas, form of imperialism, in which Britain was conquering far off lands (India). (Note that I am not making a distinction between expansionism and imperialism, but rather a distinction between types of imperialism).

Of course, it wasn't all conquering, or the direct rule of formal imperialism. Both Russia and Britain often practiced an informal imperialism, extending their separate spheres of influence by making deals with the local khans, emirs, and other despots, particularly in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. In fact, this informal imperialism usually occurred before any formal imperialism. It was easier for the European countries because they could still get concessions, resources, and new markets without having a military presence in the area. However, these agreements between the European countries and the local rulers eventually ended in most cases. For instance, the local ruler would grow tired of one country's influence, and, believing his army to be strong enough, would either exchange the influence of Russia for Britain (or vice-versa) or strive to be independent. On the other hand, Britain and Russia could feel that the time was right for an new territory and scrap the agreements themselves. In any of those cases, informal imperialism led to formal imperialism when the European countries invaded the territory (historical examples are the Russian campaigns in Central Asia in 1868-1870 and Anglo-Afghan Wars in 1838-1842 and 1878-1880; not all of these, however, were successful for the European countries).

The motivations of each country are also important to consider. Besides economics, which I have already mentioned (new markets, resources), Russia engaged in much of this imperialism for power, glory, and a demonstration of strength. Britain spent so much time in the area in an attempt to check Russia's imperial ambitions, which were a growing threat to India, and by extension Britain's entire empire. In addition, there was much public support in both countries for the imperial undertakings that took place during the "Great Game." The "Great Game" is still around in the present day (though many features of it have changed); it continued through World War One, the Russian Revolution and Soviet imperialism (both in the 1920s and later with the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan), and even past the break-up of the colonial empires. You could argue whether or not the current U.S. engagement in Afghanistan counts as part of a new "Great Game" or not, but there is definitely still competition for resources in Central Asia and the Middle East for natural gas and oil, respectively. To conclude, I think the "Great Game" is fascinating, and a very good example of European imperialism.

Note: For those interested, check out "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk. You could also look up Vasily V. Vereschagin on the internet; he was a Russian artist who had paintings of the Russian campaigns in Central Asia, as well as painting or two of the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny.