The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia (Kodansha Globe)

Good book which lead me to some other good reading. If you want to read the story because you think it sounds good and have no personal interest in the region, I imagine it would be hard to get through. Can be tedious at times.

"The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk is fascinating if only to compare the British involvement in Afghanistan in the 1840's with our involvement today. Before trying to "civilize" and "democratize" Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers should have studied how that worked out not only for Russia in the 1970's and 80's but the British occupation of Afghanistan in the 1840's. These people have not changed in hundreds of years and I don't think they're about to. Hopkirk does a good job of covering Britain's protection of India from Russian incursion into the neanderthal wastes of Bokhara, Kiva, Khorland, Turkmenistan, Tashnet and other realms of uncivilized backwardness. Torture, beheadings, superstition, and lots of ignorance abound. (The Kivans, all 30,000 of them, thought that England was a smaller tribe than them and a vassal state of Kabul). I don't think much has changed in that area of the world. While not many people are in favor of chemical warfare, this area of the planet would be a good place to make an exception.

More than any other book I’ve read, Hopkirk’s The Great Game shows the problems and dangers of looking at international relations as a game. A game assumes a pre-defined objective that a set of pre-defined players are trying to achieve, and that only one can win. From the point of view of the British forward school, the Great Game was a contest between Russia and Britain for the control of India. By 1904, after a hundred years of political and military maneuvering, Russian advances in Central Asia had stalled and Britain still ruled India. So Britain won the game, right?

But this “game”-centered viewpoint blurs some embarrassing realities. Britain, the “winner,” lost India within a lifetime of the “end” of the Great Game. And it lost India not to Russia but to national exhaustion from two devastating wars against Germany – wars in which Russia, Britain’s supposed “opponent” in the Great Game, was in fact a vital ally. In other words, to retain India, Britain needed not to defeat Imperial Russia but to strengthen it, into a position where it could either deter war with Germany, or end such a war quickly before Britain could be prostrated.

Well, better to lose India to Germany in 1945 than to Russia in 1845, the forward school might answer. But this too shows the fallacy of the “game” assumption; the Russians were not playing the Game, because capturing India was not their objective – at least, not after 1801 and the failure of Tsar Paul’s mad lunge at Khiva. Certainly, local Russian military commanders still dreamed of marching triumphantly into Bombay at the head of a fantasy army of mountain-jumping Cossacks aided by conveniently pliable native rebels. But nobody in the Kremlin had such delusions. The imperial court had long ago reached the same conclusion as the more intelligent British officers had: a Russian occupation of India was impossible. The utter futility of the task was finally proven by Russia’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, which failed disastrously even with far more advanced technology than the Tsar’s troops had available a hundred years earlier.

Russia’s aggression in Central Asia might be useful to scare the British and force them to divert resources to defend India. And it also ended the Turkmens’ constant raids, kidnappings and enslavement of Russian subjects. But the main point of Russia’s Central Asian empire was to build a captive market for Russia’s expanding economy. In short, Central Asia was Russia’s India, to be dominated and exploited in the same way that Britain did her own empire. So from the Russian viewpoint, Russia won the game; it achieved its own objective of annexing Central Asian resources, which had nothing to do with the objective the forward school imagined Russia to have. And it retained that empire long after Britain lost India.

So the Great Game’s importance in history is ultimately the distraction it provided to the British Foreign Office. While the Queen’s ministers pored over the reports from Khiva and Samarkand, sent agents to map the passes of the Himalayas and Pamirs, and dispatched armies to strengthen friendly local kings and punish hostile ones in the high mountains, Prussian-led Germany was growing stronger and stronger, beating Austria, humiliating France, and ultimately becoming so mighty that the balance of power in Europe could not be maintained, and the disaster of 1914 became inevitable.

A history of almost 200 years of political, economic, and military maneuvering between Russia and England over Central Asia, which reads a bit like, as another reviewer has said, today's headlines. It is arranged chronologically and clearly written, although a bit dull; none of the characters, Russian, English, or native rulers, many of whom were rather colorful, come to life. The maps, though small, help make sense of the geography, some of which is still being fought over today. The sad thing is that "spheres of influence" is still a rationale for countries, as Russia takes back the Crimea, which belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and then Russia, and then was fought over between England and Russia, and then became part of the Ukraine, etc. My primary issue with the book is the jingoistic Anglocentric point of view. Granted the book was written by a Brit, but he goes out of his way to paint natives and their rulers as brutal and treacherous, and the Russians as sly, devious, and aggressive. He displays an undeveloped sense of irony because the actions of the English he describes are exactly the same as those of the Russians and, in many cases, the native rulers. Instead of owning people, the empires of those days owned countries.

This book should be required reading for all policy "wonks" who think that they can occupy, pacify or democratize Afghanistan. The tribesmen have traded their jezails for RPGs and IEDs, thus they are even more deadly.
Hopkirk documents in a lively readable fashion: the frustrations and debacles over several centuries that Great Britain and Russia experienced in sparring to extend their hegemony over this area of few resources and many tribes. He examines this history of ineptitude primarily through the writings of various forward and passively oriented, but colorful, adventurers that explore the land for the two protagonists. Many are still buried there along with thousands of Sepoys and Cossacks, that paid the heavy human cost, for the many failed attempts at imperial expansion.

Great Game was shadow war between two great powers of 19th century British Empire and Czarist Russia to establish political supremacy in Central Asia. The term was first used Arthur Conolly, an intelligence officer of British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry. It was introduced into the popular consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim. Russians called the struggle Bolshaya Ugra.

British went on to carve a huge empire in India. Security of India became an obsession for British strategists. London was particularly sensitive to what was happening beyond India's borders. This obsession finally became mania as London was determined to protect her colony at all costs. British feared Russian expansionism threatened to endanger their hold over India. Biggest nightmare for them was Cossack cavalry riding down the Khyber Pass and pouncing upon to snatch away `Jewel in the Crown of British empire: India. To forestall such a possibility the British strategists did extensive threat assessment study which was conducted Indian Army Captain John Mcdonald Kinneir. British came to India by sea and were unaware of strategic land routes leading toward India. Sea borne invasion appeared remote possibility and so attention focused on overland routes leading east ward from Turkey through Persia and south eastward from Central Asia. Over the years bevy of political agents mostly young India Army officers went to Central Asia disguised as travelers, explorers, surveyors. They made detailed study of landscape of the region mapping passes, deserts, tracing rivers to their source. There was a particular to stress to find out which route can support an invading force.

Author says reaching the borders of India was a tough proposition as nature posed a formidable obstacle: snow-covered mountain ranges, waterless deserts and steppes. Last major barrier for an invader had to surmount was the Indus River with swift-flowing currents and deep at most places hence not fordable. What I like here was the discussion among British strategists on how best to contain Russian threat. Hawks in the establishment advocated Forward Policy. This involved erecting a cordon sanitaire, a string of buffer states across probable avenues of approach of an invading army. Opponents of the policy argue invading force must work its way through wild, inhospitable, rugged terrain and by the time they reach India's border it would be so exhausted making it incapable of defeating well-trained, equipped, organized British forces.

Author claims over the centuries many Russian rulers entertained hopes of annexing India. It started Peter the Great who made a feeble attempt. Then Russian czars Paul and Alexander decided to combine their efforts with Napoleon Bonaparte in invading India. There are different strands to the geo political rivalry . But in my opinion four things stand out: Russian annexation of Central Asia: successive campaigns launched by Generals Cherniaev, Skobelev, Kaufman virtually subdued Central Asian Khanates bringing it fully under the control of St. Petersburg. Building of Transcaspian railroad across the deserts of Turkmenia made it feasible large-scale transportation of troops,war material to the borders of Afghanistan. After capturing Merv Russian forces reached Pandjeh which lay close to Afghan border. Russian incursion into Pandjeh almost brought both powers to the brink of war. Forward policy pursued by hawks in the British establishment led to Anglo Afghan wars. British wished to bring Kabul under their sphere of influence and thought the security of the Indian empire demanded it. London tried controlling the country through surrogates. But Afghans rebelled and the British army had to retreat. While working their way down the passes of Hindukush British army was ambushed and annihilated by wild Pathan tribes. British Empire's prestige took a terrible beating though subsequently they managed to redeem it.

Then came the flash point in the Pamirs. For there was a place where Hindukush, Pamirs,Himalayas and Karkoram mountain ranges converged. Russian scouts discovered there was 50-mile gap which was literally no man's land. Cossack patrols under Captain Gromchevsky launched a foray reaching Hunza territory lying north of Srinagar. British belatedly woke up to the threat and started pressing Chinese authorities in Kashgaria to plug the gap. Then came the forcible opening of Tibet to the outside world which author claims happened because of Russian machinations. St. Petersburg vehemently protested British incursion into Tibet saying Russian threat was highly exaggerated.

Intensity of Great Game diminished to a considerable extent after the defeat inflicted on Russian army by the Japanese in Russo-Japan war[1904-1905]. Russian empire was beset with troubles. Bolsheviks started fomenting insurrection aimed at seizing power. Then on the other end Kaiser's Germany was becoming powerful and was aiming at supplanting British influence in the Middle East. London did not want Czar to be driven into the hands of Germans. Geo political expediency dictated London to water down concession which Francis Younghusband had painfully extracted from Tibet. So on August 31 1907 Anglo Russian convention was signed amid great secrecy in St Petersburg which finally brought the great imperial rivalry to an end.

Author has resurrected a subject which has faded away into the mists of time. However I am familiar with the broad contours of Great Game having been initiated into it while taking graduate -level classes in History. For the first time in my life I became familiar with words such as Russophobe, Anglophobe, and xenophobia. Drawback of this book it is highly Anglo centric. Author depicts Russians as aggressors. British is seen as defending her empire from Russian expansionism. However I feel British policies were no less aggressive than Russian. For instance, Forward policy actively pursued by hawks is an euphemism for British expansionism. The policy frequently led to Britain entangling in the quarrels of Central Asian states. For some time London actively toyed with the idea of reconciling the disputes of feuding Central Asian Khanates making them to serve as a bulwark against Russia. This raised fears in St Petersburg that Britain was meddling in her backyard. So for the sake of historical accuracy I would like a neutral observer to come up with book on Great Game. For only he could provide an even,objective, balanced perspective of events.

There are many individual histories out there concerning the heroes and demons of the Great Game, Britain's Cold War with Russian in Central Asia, but there are relatively few histories of the Great Game as an historical event. Mr. Hopkirk's The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia fills this gap nicely.

The work is balanced, fair, and critical where useful. The perspective is definitely from the British side, but this does not harm the reading of the Great Game at all.

An excellent introduction to the history of the Great Game.

Recommended for those who enjoy political, imperial, and espionage histories.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Peter Hopkirk, a British journalist and historian, wrote this well-researched account, twenty years ago, of the struggle between two vast empires, the British and the Russian, for dominance in Central Asia in the 19th Century. The title is derived from a quote from Rudyard Kipling's Kim (Barnes & Noble Classics) and for the men (and it was only men) who chose to play this "game," it became an all-consuming passion, that often consumed their lives. It is a lengthy volume, not for the casual reader, but is immensely readable. Twenty years ago most Americans had only the dimmest knowledge of the region - that is probably still true today. But the area has now become a matter of high national priority, with disproportionate allocations of our national treasure, including our young men and women, and for those who want a better understanding of the experience of others who attempted to direct the fate of the people of this region; this is an essential reference work. No better encouragement to read this work could be provided than Hopkirk's statement in the Prologue: "Indeed, the headlines of today are often indistinguishable from those of a century or more ago."

Hopkirk starts with the Russians, and their fear of the "yellow peril," having been dominated by the Mongols in previous centuries; therefore they had the intention of maintaining their independence by returning the favor. The second chapter I found particularly surprising, and it depicted the British fear that Napoleon might sweep through Russia, Central Asia, and seize India. I believe some snow assuaged that fear. Hopkirk sums it up with a sign in Vilnius, in what is now Lithuania: "On the side with its back towards Moscow is written: `Napoleon Bonaparte passed this way in 1812 with 400,000 men,' on the other side are the words: `Napoleon Bonaparte passed this way in 1812 with 9,000 men.'" With the French out of the picture, it was the British and the Russians who proceeded to expand towards each other, like two massive tectonic plates.

The "Game" commenced in the 1830's, and proceeded basically until the First World War, when the competing empires became allies against the Central Powers. The author writes - primarily - a "big man" theory of history. History is determined by the heroics, or lack of same, of a few British, with the names of Moorcroft, Burnes, Hayward, Rawlinson, Younghusband and others; Russians like Yermolov, Paskievich, Skobelev and others; and some of the `native' rulers are also depicted, like Imam Shamyl, Dost Mohammed, and Emir Nasrullah of Bokhara. Hopkirk draws deft portraits of all, making their actions understandable, and the book includes real portraits of these individuals, drawn by others.

With only a change of country, does the following have a familiar ring, in speaking of the ruler of Afghanistan? "Moreover, the British showed no signs of leaving, despite earlier assurances. It looked more and more as though the occupation would be permanent, as indeed some of the British were beginning to think it would have to be if Shujah (Karzai??) was to survive.

Hopkirk chronicles one of the worst defeats in British military history which occurred in Afghanistan in 1841-42. Every single British soldier, along with all the accompanying women and children were slaughtered, save one, Dr. William Brydon, who, though wounded, managed to reach the fort at Jalalabad, and report on the fate of the others. The underlying reason for this action involved the "little people" in history; Hopkirk briefly, but sufficiently covers it: "Then there was the growing anger, especially in Kabul, over the pursuit and seduction of local women by the troops, particularly the officers...Strong protests were made, but these were ignored. Murderous feelings towards the British possessed those who had been cuckolded..." The "little people's" revenge for "messing with `their' women." Hum! The very same ones we are attempting to "rescue"?

Thoughts on who is at "Gitmo," and how they got there: "In his efforts to bring the murderers to justice, Roberts offered rewards for information leading to convictions. This inevitably served as an invitation to settle old scores. As a result, a number of those accused were convicted on very dubious evidence" (p 392).

And the "Great Game" gave Afghanistan its "panhandle," the Wakhan salient. It is the narrow corridor of the country that extends to touch China, but whose main purpose was to prevent the Russian and British empires from touching.

Hopkirk had written an excellent historical account of two empires attempting to dominate events in Central Asia, with enough "cautionary tales" to make all but the wildest fools hesitate from rushing in. A very solid 5-star read for our times.

First published in 1990 and re published in 2006 with a short introduction to the second publication. The mood of the latter was "will the world ever learn". Sadly the entire book is an affirmation of the phrase: we do NOT learn from history.

The blunders, disasters and defeats are spread around among the great powers: Britain, Russia and China. Now, we can add the United States to the list.

The terrain is glorious and the attraction to control this part of the world is immense but the misjudgments and miscalculations based on late or inaccurate data are astounding.

Hopkirk has used little known or previously unavailable sources to piece together one disaster after another. There has been no long term victors. The elements, the demanding terrain and the wily nature of the local tribes and leaders all argue against trying to "conquer" these areas.

The bravery and wit of the erstwhile soldiers is always thwarted by the treachery of the war lords and only death awaits.

Careers and knighthoods were made and lost in the Great Game.

After so many horrific experiences, one would assume that all of the major nations would stay clear of High Asia - all this said as the US is withdrawing its troops and the death toll of US soldiers passes 2,000. We seem not to learn.

An important and well researched and documents volume.

I came across the term Great Game first while reading Byron Farwell's "Armies of the Raj," and then later in Kipling's "Kim." It was in the appendix of Kim that I first read about Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game." Hopkirk's account - though biased towards the British point of view - details the events in the Great Game with a flair and style that makes it extremely interesting to read. The voyages of the soldiers and civilians involved in the Great Game, the numerous instances of treachery and cruelty which were a norm with the rulers of the Central Asian khanates of the time, the two wars in Afghanistan that were catastrophic to the British, the two failed expeditions to Khiva that did tremendous damage to the prestige of the Russians, etc., are all described with meticulous details in this wonderful book of almost 550 pages.

The term Great Game was first coined by Arthur Conolly, a captain in the British army, and is used to describe the epic standoff between Russia and Britain for the control of India and Central Asia in the nineteenth century. There were many players in this Great Game from both the sides - brave men who thought nothing of venturing into hostile territories hitherto unknown to westerners to gather valuable political and military information for their countries. Many - including Conolly - perished playing this dangerous game of intrigue and espionage. The British, wary of any move on part of the Russians that would bring them closer to India, did everything in their power to extend their influence over the Central Asian khanates of Khiva, Bokhara, Samarkand, Kashgar, and especially Afghanistan. The Russians, on their part, after suffering some initial setbacks, ended up conquering most of the Central Asian countries around them (these countries were to remain a part of the Soviet Union till its collapse in 1991).

Fortunately, Britain and Russia did not get into a direct confrontation during this whole episode, and the Great Game finally ended after about a century with the Anglo-Russian convention of 1907. There were times, however, when war appeared to be imminent between the two superpowers of the time. Once, even Napoleon Bonaparte had planned to attack India with Russia's help. Things, however, soon went sour between him and Tsar Alexander I, and he ended up invading Russia - a costly mistake which resulted in a humiliating defeat for his army. Apart from the Central Asian countries, many other countries like Turkey, Persia, and China also got sucked into this game because of their proximity to both India and Russia.

These days, when Central Asia is in the limelight again because of recent developments in the world, this book was especially helpful to me in understanding the geography, politics, and culture of that region (before reading this book, I was not even aware of the names of many Central Asian countries). Now I am planning to read the rest of Peter Hopkirk's books to get an even better understanding of that part of the world.

The Great Game is an enthralling account of a largely-forgotten - yet extremely important - period in history. By the end of the 18th Century, Great Britain had, through both accident and design, conquered India, uniting the subcontinent into the "Crown Jewel" of the British Empire. Russia, meanwhile, had just emerged onto the world stage as a power, and began expanding southward into the Caucasus and Central Asia, in the face of ferocious resistance by Muslim tribes. As these two empires grew, mutual suspicion and distrust led to a century-long standoff, where Britain and Russia, squinting at each other across the expanses of Afghanistan and Persia, sent spies, paid off native leaders, and on occasion resorted to brute military force, to try and maintain the upper hand. Caught in between, of course, were the natives of these regions, from power-mad, murderous war lords to common brigands to humble peasants, many of whom lost their lives as pawns of European empire-buidling.

The Great Game is both a great work of history and a fine bit of entertainment. A dozen adventure novels or epic films could be culled from Hopkirk's sprawling narrative, which feature undercover spies, brave (and foolhardy) explorers, huge expanses of forbidding desert and mountains, ancient, impenetrable cities, dastardly slavers and brigands, cruel torture, treacherous warlords, and bayonet charges into oblivion. By focusing on the colorful, eccetnric individuals that took part in this shadowy struggle, Hopkirk makes his book the stuff of a Boy's Own periodical; the adventures of Arthur Connolly, "Bukhara" Burnes, Francis Younghusband and Yan Vitkevitch seem stranger and more outlandish than anything that a Rudyard Kipling or George MacDonald Fraser could possibly invent.

Hopkirk is a brilliant writer and he constructs the story like a television miniseries. Each chapter is almost self-contained, describing a unique explorer or event in the Great Game, yet they all manage to tie together into a greater whole. Though these disparate men and their improbable adventures, Hopkirk always keeps sight of the larger context, making sure that these seemingly disparate events add up to something. Hopkirk's masterly prose, colorful and gripping without seeming ridiculous, is the icing on the cake. This book is never boring, the highest complement that can be paid to a work of history, and is entertaining as well as educational.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the book, however, is its timelessness. Hopkirk, writing in the late '80s, found parallels between the events described in the book, and the Soviet Union's disastrous invasion of Afghanistan. Twenty years later, with America now embroiled in an Afghan conflict of its own, readers will find the adventures of Burnes, Connolly, Elphinstone, Burnaby and Younghusband, even more familiar. Perhaps as long as Western powers see fit to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, the story of The Great Game is doomed to repeat forever.

IN THIS EXCELLENT WORK, PETER HOPKIRK TELLS THE STORY OF THE GREAT GAME, BY TELLING US THE INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF THOSE WHO "PLAYED" IT. I MUST ADMIT THAT I APPROACHED THIS BOOK WITH A BIT OF HESITANCY. THE SUBJECT OF THE 'GREAT GAME' SOUNDED A BIT TOO 'DUSTY' AND DETACHED, TO INTEREST ME. I EXPECTED THE BOOK TO BE AN OBTUSE RAMBLE ON THE POLITICAL DEALINGS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE 150 YEARS REMOVED FROM MY SPHERE OF INTEREST. ON ONE LEVEL, PERHAPS THE GREAT GAME ITSELF WAS THAT. NOT SO, HOWEVER, THIS BOOK. HOPKIRK'S TALE IS ONE OF AMAZING EXPLOITS AND INTRIGUE. IN READING IT, I WAS 'INTRIGUED' INDEED. HE TELLS OF GALLANT YOUNG BRITISH OFFICERS, OFTEN IN THEIR TWENTIES, WHO - EAGER FOR ACTION, AND LONGING TO LEAVE THE SWELTERING HEAT OF INDIA - VOLUNTEERED TO EXPLORE THE UNKNOWN LAND OF AFGHANISTAN. TO DO THIS, THEY TRAVELLED ALONE AND INCOGNITO; DISGUISED AS THE VERY AFGHANS AMONGST WHOM THEY WOULD LIVE, AND WHOM THEY SOUGHT TO DECEIVE. DISCOVERY OF THEIR TRUE IDENTITY OR PURPOSE COULD, AND NOT A FEW TIMES DID, MEAN DEATH (OFTEN OF A QUITE PAINFUL SORT). TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR MISSION, THESE INTREPID AGENTS KEPT UP THEIR RUSE FOR MONTHS, IN SOME CASES MORE THAN A YEAR, ALONE IN A TRULY FORBIDDING COUNTRY FILLED WITH `THE WORST SORTS' OF CHARACTERS.
IN ADDITION TO ITS 'ENTERTAINMENT' VALUE, THE BOOK ACQUAINTS THE READER WITH THE COUNTRY AND HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN AND CENTRAL ASIA, AND GIVES HIM OR HER A `FEEL' FOR THE PEOPLE AND CULTURE OF THAT PERIOD. SOME OF THIS APPLIES TODAY - AND MUCH OF IT IS VERY HELPFUL AS A CONTEXTUAL SETTING FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THIS STARKLY BEAUTIFUL, YET OFTEN DIFFICULT, COUNTRY. FINALLY, THE BOOK DOES DEAL WITH - YES - THE POLITICAL MACHINATIONS OF RUSSIA AND THE BRITISH DURING THE 1800'S. BUT IT DOES SO IN A PALATABLE AND SOMEWHAT INTERESTING FASHION.
ALL IN ALL, THIS BOOK WAS A SURPRISINGLY WORTHWHILE READ. IT WAS ALWAYS INTERESTING, GENERALLY FUN, AND SOMETIMES DISTRESSING. (MUCH LIKE, IT TURNS OUT, MY RECENT DEPLOYMENT TO THAT COUNTRY). I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK HEARTILY TO THOSE WHO SEEK TO GO BEYOND THE PRESENT TO BETTER GRASP THE UNDERLYING INFLUENCES THAT SHAPE THE CURRENT SITUATION. IN SHORT, BY UNDERSTANDING WHAT AFGHANISTAN `WAS' - WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT AFGHANISTAN `IS' TODAY.

Interesting subject, interesting book. And interesting author. Peter Hopkirk has somehow got himself unofficially elected as the world's leading Great Game aficionado.

So what is the "Great Game?" The term, coined by Rudyard Kipling in his book "Kim," describes the competition between Russia and Great Britain for control of Central Asia. It was, in a way, the "Cold War" of the Nineteenth Century. My first real introduction to the Great Game was in 2005, when I traveled to Kashgar in the West of China's Xinjiang Province. I got a dorm room at the Seman Binguan. Walking outside one day around the grounds of the hotel, I came upon the old Russian Consulate, looking just about exactly the way it had over a hundred years earlier, in 1890, the date on the plaque in front. Across town, behind the Chini Bagh Hotel, I found the old British Consulate. It was kinda eerie to see these two symbols of a bygone era staring each other down as if no one had informed them that the Great Game had ended generations earlier.

Peter Hopkirk is a British journalist and author who has made a lifetime project out of studying and writing about the Great Game. During his many years as a journalist, he has gotten himself into some interesting scrapes. He was twice held incommunicado in secret police cells, and was once acosted by terrorists. Prior to his career as a journalist, he was a comrade in arms of Lance Corporal Idi Amin, later the cannibalistic dictator of Uganda.

But it is Hopkirk's life-long fascination with the Great Game that does the readers of this book the greatest service. He has lived, eaten and breathed the Great Game for many, many years. If you want to study it, start here.

After all that praise, I should tell you that this is not the easiest book to read. Not that it isn't well written. But it is so loaded full of stories about the Great Game that the overall narrative sometimes gets lost. The trees outshine the forest. That makes the grand scheme of history a little more difficult, perhaps, but in my opinion, it is a small price to pay, because you can always make up for the grand scheme of things, but the wealth of information this book contains about specific events would be hard to replace. You need this book if you want to study this great historical interlude.

I said you should start here, but maybe it would be a good idea to spend a little time with Wikipedia or something getting a feel for what the Great Game is all about, before you read this book. Then the stories will come together. I don't read very many books more than once, but I think this one may just become an exception. Five stars. And my sincere thanks to Mr. Hopkirk for the scholarship he has presented in this comprehensive work.

One has to wonder how much the historic themes of Hopkirk's brilliant "The Great Game" come up in the current conversations of Washington D.C.'s diplomatic and military elites. After all, as Central Asia and the Caucuses continue heating up into the new trendy geopolitical flashpoint: a raging battleground of Islam, ideology, oil, blood, and ethnicity, the world's policymakers are increasingly scratching their heads. Should we be worried about the ongoing Russian influence in the area? Should we fear the new rise of political Islam among the ex-Soviet Khanates? What is the best way to encourage the rise of liberal democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights in the new states of Central Asia?
For the astute reader, Hopkirk answers all of these contemporary questions in his history of The Great Game. Far from being a simple narrative of the 19th-Century struggle between Britain and Czarist Russia for influence in the Near East, this book is nothing short of a political blueprint for all modern statesmen who would seek influence in Asian lands. If Hopkirk had been Russian, perhaps his writing would have dissuaded a few generals from launching their disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Indeed, Hopkirk foretold it all, and, like Robert Kaplan writing about Yugoslavia, the world probably has yet to see the full extent of his prophecy. If you are interested in the means by which ambitious empires have attempted to influence the most "unruly" and rebellious of their subjects, then "The Great Game," with its tales of gentlemen-adventurers posing as pilgrims or traders to gain information for their kings (and being sold into slavery or beheaded if they failed in their quests) is most definitely of interest.
Hopkirk's only literary shortcoming is an excessively dry style that is rather light in amusing anecdotes, which may have lent the book a more human touch. Also, he could have been a bit more explicit about the present-day political implications of his book -- that's right -- the ones I've just been raving about! But otherwise, the book fully deserves the four stars that I've given it.

During the 19th century two vast land powers, Russia and Britain found themselves rivals in Central Asia. The Russian empire had advanced south to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, while the British had fought two Anglo-Afghan wars and "won" most of what is today Pakistan from the Afghans. The final frontier for both empires was Afghanistan. The British were unable to conquer most of Afghanistan and had to settle with a sphere of influence situation, while the Russians did everything they could to arm the Afghans and counter-balance the British. In reality, neither empire is particularly benevolent and Hopkirk does an excellent job of being an objective academic. What was the most interesting portion of the book involved some of the British spies disguised as Afghans and attempting to discover what the Russians were up to. Such was the case with Arthur Conolly and "Bokhara Burnes" who travelled in Central Asia to gather information and make contacts for Britain. The Russians played a similar game in Central Asia such as with their man from the Caucasus, Lt. Alikhanov, whose efforts helped conquer various Turkmen strongholds. Why was this region so important to these respective empires? What seems to have been the case is that both saw a threat in the other and Afghanistan became a cold war type battleground. Sometimes Afghan rulers played the two powers against one another such as Abdur Rahman who ultimately leaned towards the British. The results of this Great Game would continue to reverberate many decades later. Hopkirk gives a superb analysis as to why this part of the world has been so important for so long. It's the crossroads of civilization and ancient trade routes and, of course, a potential resource bonanza. An excellent source of information for those seeking some background to the recent conflict in Afghanistan and why that country has had its difficulties in the midst of foreign interference and intervention that has gone on for centuries.

This book is certainly not dull. Despite its length, it's lively and entertaining reading that is also extremely educational. I am definitely a layman. My knowledge of this era of competition between Britain and Russia was very shadowy. What was great about this book is that it filled in so many gaps and helped me make connections to other things I knew. This book gave me a lot of insight into many things that are seemingly unrelated. I was shocked to read that the Russian playwright Griboyedov was hacked to pieces while he was serving in a diplomatic post in Central Asia. (Stage acting guru Stanislavsky devoted an entire book to the interpretation of one of Griboyedov's characters.) There were connections to the American Civil War, The Crimean War, The Boxer Rebellion, The Russo-Japanese War, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Revolution. It clarified a lot of Victorian literature for me, both British and Russian. Kipling's KIM is now more understandable to me and I have a better idea what Count Vronsky did in his military service in ANNA KARENINA.

But for me this book was basically a grand adventure saga, replete with spies, behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, ambitious military campaigns and hair-raising sieges. Parts of it are extremely suspenseful. There are also passages of pure horror and violence. I found this book exceptional on many levels. This is one of the best books I've read this year (and I've read some good things lately). Five Stars.

The Roman historian Livy is said to have explained how Rome conquered the Mediterranean world in self-defense. The Great Game began when the biggest power on the Indian sub-continent was the East India Company. They pursued profit, not territory. The north was the age-old route of invasion. Delhi was sacked from Afghanistan in the 18th century. so the need to protect India was not a fiction, even if...
Russia's eastward expansion stirred up these old fears and for much of a century the two empires played the "game." H. may read only English. He has been over the ground, a necessity.
this is most useful for understanding the role of Afghanistan in the region. conquerors since Alexander the Great have found the place difficult to hold. Some of these adventures could have happened last week. If you want to understand that region, you will benefit from this book (granting that the author's sources were English and that he cannot present the Russian viewpoint, although he can, and does, admire Russian accomplishments).

As in "Like Hidden Fire" (reviewed in Middle East Quarterly, March 1995), his exemplary account of German and Ottoman cooperation against the British Empire during World War I, Hopkirk here tells the tale of the nineteenth-century Russian-British face-off in Asia. Again, wherever possible, Hopkirk tells his story "through the individuals, on either side, who took part in the great imperial struggle, rather than through historical forces or geopolitics." This approach has the advantage of bringing to light many remarkable individuals obscured by the passage of years; it also has the disadvantage of leaving the reader somewhat uncomprehending about the deeper causes or consequences of the action-packed pages he's read.
"The Great Game" rightly conjures up romantic visions of valor and deceit, for this century-long contest did inspire more than its share of remarkable deeds; at the same time, of course, it was a bloody, unforgiving confrontation with its quota of victims and even of massacres (most notably, the British at Afghan hands in 1842). Perhaps most memorable about the Game is its unending oddities and unexpected twists. For example, Lt. Richmond Shakespear in 1840 convinced the khan of Khiva to release the many Russian slaves toiling away in Khiva, not out of compassion for the captured Russians but to prevent Moscow from finding a pretext to invade Khiva. The tsar had to pretend delight with this operation; in private, however, he was furious at the gambit. "The Great Game" really does live up to its reputation.
Middle East Quarterly, June 1995

The Great Game, by Peter Hopkirk, is an amazing history of British and Russian imperialism clashing in the Middle East and Asia. Encompassing the time period from the late eighteenth century to the very beginning of the twentieth, the Great Game was much like an enormous game of chess, with Russia seeking to expand its borders and Britain to safeguard its interests in India. Hopkirk reveals both the national policy thoughts of the two nations and the daring moves of each's officers and agents in the regions in question, which include most of Central Asia, Afghanistan, India and the Caucasus. In many cases, the men Hopkirk describes were the first Westerners to set foot in such regions (for example, Bokhara, Khotan and Khokand).

Hopkirk has done incredible research: his bibliography is an impressive 15 pages. And even though he has a wealth of material to cover, he makes sure that the whole presentation is interesting to the reader. He tells a complete story, but expands on issues and events that are both important and interesting. As a result, the exploits of men like Conolly, Stoddart and Burnes come into clear focus against a backdrop of intrigue and, often, duplicitous ness, across a little over 500 pages.
Not unexpectedly, Hopkirk's account tends to be favor the British point of view slightly. Even so, he's quick to point out mistakes and torpedo unjustified accusations on both sides.
I found this book an easy and quick read, completing it in across about four days. While it progresses in roughly chronological sequence, it could easily be read piecemeal if the reader desired. The book kept my interest well, and didn't ever seem to wander aimlessly. I must believe that this is the authoritative account of the subject, and I can recommend it unconditionally, whether this is a subject area of interest for you, or you just want an interesting book to occupy your time.
Interestingly, the end of the Soviet Union has refocused the spotlight on many regions discussed in this book. If you find that you remain interested in the topic after reading it, I recommend following up with Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy MacLean or Journey to Khiva by Phillip Glazebrook.

The Great Game is a story of bravery, cruelty, honor, greed, and violence. In the name of national honor, Great Britain and Russia found themselves locked into a strategic chess match over Central and Southern Asia. The exotic realms of the region were the pawns. By the 1700s Russia and Great Britain were established nation states, both looking to expand. Britain's prize to protect was India/Pakistan and it moved north in present day Afghanistan to secure its flank. Russia's imperial designs lurched it southward in a slow but steady imperial land grab.

Where these two empires met, mainly present day Afghanistan, became the center of gravity for the great game. The only catch were the primitive, but fierce tribesman of Afghanistan who fought and resisted any invasion. Neither empire was ever any to control any more of the country than the few miles outside of Kabul. Now, hundreds of years later, the great game continues with international forces once again attempting to exert control in an area that has been in a constant state of imperial resistance for hundreds of years.

The book bring the action to life. It is gripping and exciting, while also being extremely well researched. An all-time favorite.

THE GREAT GAME by Peter Hopkirk is wonderful background reading if you want to know more about: 1) the current situation in Afghanistan (tribes, warlords, attitudes, fighting, treachery, oppression of women, slavery); 2) Russian and English relations relative to Central Asia (tribes, warlords, attitudes, fighting); 3) Military intelligence or lack thereof; 4)Endless struggle.
As far as I am concerned, Hopkirk has written a masterpiece. His focus is Central Asia from about 1800 C.E. to WWI when both Russia and England attempted to establish dominance in trade and political influence over the many fiefdoms or minor kingdoms of warlords and/or petty despots in Central Asia and retain influence with peripheral areas in China, India, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire.
Hopkirk has written extensively on the topic of Central Asia, and I will read other books by him. However, I will have to recover from the 524 pages of THE GREAT GAME before I take on another volume. I'm exhausted. Although the English and the Russians apparently never went to war with each other during this period, they wore out their own people and resources and soldiers fighting proxies. In Russia's case, the struggle ended with the demise of the Tsar.
THE GREAT GAME can be thought of as a giant chess game. The two players (Russia and England) were constantly fomenting strategies for taking the other guy's khan. As a result, they were slaughtered, slaughtered others and suffered a lot of frostbite. The game went on as long as it did in part because the British government could not decide whether to be assertive or passive (hawk or dove). As the British elected their officials, one can see why the position of the British vacillated. The Tsar on the other hand was single minded most of the time (there were several Tsars) but in the end it cost him his life as well as the lives of his familiy members.
If the inhabitants of Central Asia were peaceful natives I might feel worse about the incursions of the Russians and English, but they weren't. The Central Asians set the stage for invasion of their own lands when they invaded Europe over and over until the Europeans learned how to fight back. In addition, the societies in Central Asia were inhumane and relatively barbaric. Slavery and harems were a way of life, and in many instances the slaves lived in the harems.
Hopkirk spent many long hours in libraries pouring over the military archives, journals, contemporary books, correspondence and anything else he could find to flesh out his story. His narrative switches back and forth and he makes a valiant effort to not take sides. I think he accomplishes this, but I am an Anglophile so I may be biased. Hopkirk does not pass pc judgement on his characters, who literally come from the pages of history. So, you can judge for yourself after having read this massive book if you think anything at all was accomplished by either England or Russia. Probably the saddest part of the story is the heroic efforts of the Gurkas and Sepoys and Sikhs who were never fully accepted as equals and without whom the British would have failed miserably at whatever they undertook.
Some journalists have indicated the U.S. will fail in Afghanistan just as the British and Russians did. Having read this book I think this is a mis-characterization of what occurred in the past and what is happening now in Afghanistan. The long struggle between the British and the Russians ended in a stalemate that prevented either country from accomplishing the goal of economic dominance. The story is different today since Russia and England are allies-along with the U.S.-and while the U.S. and allied interest may be economic as well as altruistic, their actions are not likely to lead to war among the allies. Whether peace will reign in Afghanistan seems to be up to the natives who remain very much as they ever where - hostile.

Here Peter Hopkirk gives us a very entertaining history on the Great Game, the sort-of cold war that took place between Russia and England over the lawless lands of Central Asia. England was incessantly paranoid about losing its tenuous grip on India and all of its vast riches, always worrying about who would try to invade it. The prime suspect was Russia, who at first had few designs on India, but later decided to use the British fears of invasion to play a game of political supremacy and intrigue with England. It hardly mattered that a Russian invasion of India was highly unlikely due to the thousands of miles of horrendous deserts, impenetrable mountains, inscrutable local politics, and treacherous tribes that lay between.
The resulting Great Game is strangely interesting when viewed from the present day. The two empires engaged in more than 100 years of paranoia, ethnic chauvinism, heavy-handed diplomacy, threats of invasion, espionage, skullduggery and never-ending political intrigue. The hapless nations that were caught between were repeatedly invaded even if they were peaceful, with their natives losing the greatest number of lives, and their rulers given a black-or-white choice in choosing sides between two far-off empires whose conflict had little to do with themselves, except for the fact that both sides used them as pawns. Does any of this sound familiar? It's true that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, with the Americans taking the place of the British in the next episode. Also of great interest is that the tripping point for both sides in the Great Game was the one and only Afghanistan. Both sides vastly underestimated the toughness of this rugged kingdom and didn't bother to figure out its internal politics. During the Great Game Russia couldn't get close to Afghanistan, while the British were decisively defeated there three times. Noboby learned this lesson either, given the Soviet disaster there in the 1980's. This makes you wonder what will become of the current events there!
Peter Hopkirk proves himself as a great writer of history, with a conversational and suspense-filled style that keeps the pages turning. While he is an Englishman and understandably leans a little in that direction during this book, he gives plenty of coverage to the other players in the Great Game and usually manages to avoid passing judgment. His coverage of some of the fascinating non-military and non-political players, such as the many intrepid adventurers, explorers, and merchants who got involved adds a great human dimension to the book. This a great history book for those who like to see heroes in action, while those in power just never seem to learn their lesson!

Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game is a very interesting story of British/Russian attempts at empire in central Asia. Apparently, many parts of the area had never been seen by European eyes, and had been set apart since the Mongols stormed through in the 14th century. The British spend most of the book panicking at what they percieve the Russians are doing, while the Russians don't really invade the territory until the 1870's. Most of the book is told through the story of a lone (and usually British) explorer mapping out previously unknown territory, seeing where the enemy (usually Russian) would come to invade.
Although invading Afghanistan wasn't so great an idea in the nineteenth century, much less in 1979. Reading about both of the routs of the tiny force of British there was very depressing. And of course the parallels with today are very interesting, it almost seems that The Great Game was the first Cold War, especially since they never actually went to war over India.
The only thing wrong with it to me is that Hopkirk's dryness with the material can sometimes make it a chore to read. All in all I would definitely say it is a good read for those who love spy stories, British or Russian history, or anyone who believes that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

This is Peter Hopkirk's classic account of the nineteenth century cold war struggle between the British Empire and Imperial Russia. Hopkirk is a devil with the pen and knows how to spin a great story. The end result is a gripping tale, the kind of wild adventure story my grandfather used to tell me when I was a child. Five stars simply isn't enough. This is terrific stuff.
For those who don't know, this is the story of how Central Asia became part of the Russian, and then Soviet Empire. Russian expansion to the southeast caused consternation in British India where military planners became convinced the Russians were out to invade the `Jewel of the Crown'. There followed a century's worth of cold war espionage between the empires that involved all maner of characters and military encounters.
There are invasions and wars in Afghanistan, where the Brits were turfed out twice, Russian conquests of the Emirates of Khiva & Bokhara and legions of adventurers heading off into the wild blue yonder on missions to map the region and foil the enemy. All their stories are here. You'll have to pinch yourself to believe some of them. What an adventure story this is.
Five Stars.

This is a book about the shadowy contest between the British Empire and the Czarist Empire, for information and influence in Central Asia. It tells of the intrigues of adventurers and spies of both sides, the permutations of the two rival governments and the local princes and potentates that were caught in between. And the never ending quest by everyone to find out what in the world everyone else was doing.

There is an irony about this in that it was impossible to get a modern army with an artillery train over the mountains. Still there was no way the British government could know that, until it's various explorer-scouts had found out and any government(including an imperialist one) would be irresponsible not to try to find out whether it was possible. In any case it was possible to attempt to subvert the Raj by infilterating support. Be that as it may the tales of adventure and intrigue in this book fascinating as is the setting on which they carried on their contest of wits, endurance, and initiative in vast wastes and lost civilizations of Central Asia.

Peter Hopkirk's book 'The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia' is a great historical account and a very enjoyable book to read. It is very rare nowadays to find a book that holds your attention throughout, without finding one boring section, this is one of those books. In over 560 pages (paperback edition) Peter Hopkirk tells the amazing stories of a number of early British and Russian officers and men involved in the great imperial struggle for supremacy in Central Asia.

I found myself reading late into the morning, at times I couldn't put the book down. Most of the time I had heard of the places and people involved but a lot of this story was new to me. The narrative read like a novel, gripping but informative, never boring and full of information, breathing life into history in a way that is hard to find now-a-days.

This is a great book and I fully agree with the quote on the front cover of the book by Jan Morris "Peter Hopkirk is truly the laureate of the Great Game." If you ever wanted to learn something about this large and remote area then this is the book to start with. If you enjoy military history then this book has it, if you enjoy historical accounts of exploration then this book has it, if you just enjoy good history then this book has it all.

The story of Britain and Russia carving out their Empires in India, Afghanistan and the surrounding areas is truly fascinating and I was amazed at the brave and resourceful men who carved their name in history during this period. Most people have heard of the Khyber Pass and places like Chitral however I had never heard of the Pamirs and Karakorams mountain ranges or of the Kerman and Helmund deserts nor of some of the fierce and warlike tribes that lived in these areas.

After reading this book I yearn for more information about this region and I intend to buy the rest of Peter Hopkirk's books. I would rate this book one of the better ones I have read this year.

After reading The Great Game, I now officially count myself among Hopkirk's many fans. Fast-moving and very exciting, it's hard sometimes to remember that you're reading a history book and not an adventure novel. Despite the fast pace and zoom-in focus, however, there is never any doubt as to whether Hopkirk is stretching the facts or just making them up to fill in holes in the story. Despite meticulous research, there are occasionally questions without answers. Peter Hopkirk makes no attempt to cover these up or to pass rumors off as fact. Hopkirk gives us a load of maps, accurate but drawn in such a way as look like the maps that the characters in the book would have seen. The effect is to draw us further in as it informs us. He also gives us enough of the strategic picture to make the individual adventures meaningful without slowing down the pace one bit. All in all, I would rank this book near the top of my list of either adventure novels or history books.

"Reads like a novel" ??? Come on, folks! The yellow pages of any phone book are far more exciting. This text takes a subject of great potential, & reduces it to the dried up dust of a Central Asian desert. I am disgusted with Mr. Hopkirk, because I truely love real History. This author is only one of the sorry crowd who destroy interest in even the most eager seeker. Our schools are full of them. This text belongs to the times when books were sold by the pound, rather than the content. As a former teacher - & lifelong seeker after the amazing truths of history - I consign Mr. Hopkirk to the dust bin.

Hopkins combines superb scholarship and a gripping writing style which draws the reader into this fascinating series of tales of 19th century imperial espionage and covert action in Central and South Asia. The courageous (and ofttimes fatal) real-life adventures of the British spies and their Russian opposites match and frequently exceed those conjured by the most creative historical novelists. Drawing on insatiable curiosity and remarkable linquistic skills, these operatives donned disguises of regional tribesmen, and criss-crossed the roof of the world into enemy territory, collecting intelligence and influencing strategic alliances in some of Earth's most remote kingdoms and khanates. Hopkirk's descriptions paint a vivid and realistic canvas of the vast expanses, the peoples there, and high political intrigue. A fascinating read, that's hard to put down

"The Great Game" is a well-written and gripping account of the British and Russian machinations in central Asia during the 19th century that reads more like a novel than a dry history book. What's even better is that the story is quite relevant to the geopolitical realities of our century.
Although a few forays are taken into Turkey, the Caucasus and the Far East, most the action takes place in central Asia (including the Pamirs and western China), and much of that was in the buffer region that is now Afghanistan. After having spent centuries subjugated by Mongol invaders, an expansionist imperial Russia began trying to secure its borders by extending its sphere of influence into central Asia. Meanwhile the British had colonized India and were concerned about protecting her northern borders. `The Great Game' was an expression coined by an early participant and later immortalized by Rudyard Kipling to describe the often-shadowy means these two great powers used to pursue these goals.
At the beginning of the 19th century few westerners had gone into central Asia and almost none had seen the great cities of the area. Into this void came a series of British and Russian adventurers seeking information about the terrain, population, and cities, and who in many cases sought to create alliances with the local rulers that could be used to further Britain's and Russia's imperial ambitions and cement their desired security zones.
The book is written around the stories of these adventurers, many of whom, but by no means all, were soldiers. The early explorers had the advantage of entering a region where no westerners had been before and could often pass themselves off as Indian traders. Eventually they were able to penetrate far enough into central Asia to meet local rulers who were so isolated that they understood `Britain' and `Russia' to be simply powerful tribes in their general vicinity. The British and Russian envoys would try to outdo each other in attempting to indicate the sizes of their respective countries (which, in the case of the UK, would include its vast colonial holdings for maximum impact).
Much of the book is devoted to the first and second Afghan wars in which the British tried to install their monarch of choice and were eventually routed as a result of both their incompetence and the fierce Afghan fighters. Some of the accounts of Afghanistan today could almost have been taken directly from `The Great Game'. Life for many in the region appears to have changed very little in the intervening years.
Hopkirk has written this book from an unabashedly pro-western and pro-British perspective, but it is a fascinating story and one that still has great pertinence to world affairs today. I can highly recommend it to anybody who would like a better understanding of both the history and current reality of central Asia.

My brother introduced this book to me 5 years ago, but its size intimidated me, so I put it aside. Big mistake. I finally started reading it and found it completely intriguing. I had NO idea of any of the history of Russian expansionism into Central Asia. Zip. Zilch. It's a tragedy that this topic is not covered in American high school curriculums. Our teachers and professors blathered on about the cold war, but I had no idea of how Russia and the Soviet Union came to be what they were/are in the 20th and 21st centuries. I would have appreciated a better background on Russian and Soviet acquisitions of surrounding territories. This book provides all that and more in a very readable, summary fashion, as a tale told around individual historic figures. Very entertaining and hard to put down.
-pj

My brother introduced this book to me 5 years ago, but its size intimidated me, so I put it aside. Big mistake. I finally started reading it and found it completely intriguing. I had NO idea of any of the history of Russian expansionism into Central Asia. Zip. Zilch. It's a tragedy that this topic is not covered in American high school curriculums. Our teachers and professors blathered on about the cold war, but I had no idea of how Russia and the Soviet Union came to be what they were/are in the 20th and 21st centuries. I would have appreciated a better background on Russian and Soviet acquisitions of surrounding territories. This book provides all that and more in a very readable, summary fashion, as a tale told around individual historic figures. Very entertaining and hard to put down.
-pj

I found it difficult to put down "The Great Game". Despite it's century long scope, Hopkirk pays enough attention to the details to keep the reader entranced. I also learned a great deal as Hopkirk does a good job of providing context and explaining the relevance of all of the game's players. My only minor criticisms are that I would have liked more maps (the ones in there are great but more would have been helpful) and Hopkirk too often says "I've written about this elsewhere so I won't elaborate here," in areas where I wanted more details. Of course, I ended up wanting to buy his other books so I guess this worked from his perspective!

Central Asia in the 1800s' was a backwards area, full of medieval khanates and maurading bands of slave trading nomads. It became the stage for a great colonial struggle between the Russian and British Empires. Mr. Hopkirk covers the period of time between Napoleon's dreams of an Asian empire, and the end of the race, in the early 1900s'. There is enough tales of adventure in this book to make twenty movies. Though it covers both sides of the story, it does have a certain Anglocentric tendency, probably because the British sources are most readily avaliable (and it seems like every player of "The Great Game" from Britain in the 1800s' wrote several books about their travels.) All in all it is extremely well written, and Hopkirk is able to take over 100 years of history and make it into a flowing narritive.

It seems that Shakespeare said it best, "What's past is prologue." In preparation for a sojourn to the Middle East, which I now consider to be a misnomer, I sought out recommendations for reading material. Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game" was recommended as the first book I should read. I was well served by that recommendation, and found that Mr. Hopkirk's book provided an outstanding primer for this part of the world. Mr. Hopkirk drew me in with the manner in which he presented his information. I found his narrative to be a very easy read, yet it was also rich with detail. I am far more knowledgeable for having read his book, and would enthusiastically recommend it to anyone who wants to gain insights into Central Asia. Only after reading "The Great Game," did I truly begin to appreciate the complexties of Central Asia, the dynamics of the regions relationships with other regions and why it's so often misunderstood. My take away is that, as is often the case, the players may have changed, but Kipling's "Great Game" continues. Mr. Hopkirk's book offers an opportunity, for those who want to try, to learn the rules of a game that continues to be played.

Good stuff for the history buff. This is the story of a century of great adventurers from Victorian England and Tsarist Russia as they struggled for control of Central Asia. The back and forth between the two great Ninteenth Century powers is gripping as they use force and guile over what is now Iran, Iraq, Afganistan and the various other "-stans" that were former Soviet states.
The history is told through the varios exploits of Russian and British men who travel through lands unknown and risk their lives for adventure and Mother Country.
While most all of the stories are fascinating, it is hard to keep track of the years when the stories take place. The book is more like a series of great stories rather than a flowing narrative. It is also very Anglo-centric and would have been better to have been more balanced.
This book is recommended for those particulary interested in this era but not to anyone else.

Peter Hopkirk's book `The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia' is a great historical account and a very enjoyable book to read. It is very rare nowadays to find a book that holds your attention throughout, without finding one boring section, this is one of those books. In over 560 pages (paperback edition) Peter Hopkirk tells the amazing stories of a number of early British and Russian officers and men involved in the great imperial struggle for supremacy in Central Asia.
I found myself reading late into the morning, at times I couldn't put the book down. Most of the time I had heard of the places and people involved but a lot of this story was new to me. The narrative read like a novel, gripping but informative, never boring and full of information, breathing life into history in a way that is hard to find now-a-days.
This is a great book and I fully agree with the quote on the front cover of the book by Jan Morris "Peter Hopkirk is truly the laureate of the Great Game." If you ever wanted to learn something about this large and remote area then this is the book to start with. If you enjoy military history then this book has it, if you enjoy historical accounts of exploration then this book has it, if you just enjoy good history then this book has it all.
The story of Britain and Russia carving out their Empires in India, Afghanistan and the surrounding areas is truly fascinating and I was amazed at the brave and resourceful men who carved their name in history during this period. Most people have heard of the Khyber Pass and places like Chitral however I had never heard of the Pamirs and Karakorams mountain ranges or of the Kerman and Helmund deserts nor of some of the fierce and warlike tribes that lived in these areas.
After reading this book I yearn for more information about this region and I intend to buy the rest of Peter Hopkirk's books. I would rate this book one of the better ones I have read this year and to finish my review I would like to quote Byron Farwell from his review in `The New York Times':
"Those who enjoy vividly told tales of derring-do and seek a clear understanding of the history of the emerging central Asian countries will find this a glorious book."

Hopkirik is a first class historian and writer; he is in a class by himself as he has managed to fuse the historical with the anecdotal and trivia in a style that makes history read like a thriller. Central Asia and its suitors have been covered like no one else has and one will have to study the testaments left by Connolly and others to home in to specific individual research subjects. The only (strong) regret I have is that each chapter should have had a corresponding map or at least more maps than the book has, to offer a 'real' perspective to the intriguing goings on in that region... this book will have to be read at least twice over to assimilate the detail of the subject... very, very highly recommended. Try and ensure a hardcover copy, a library edition to avoid headaches...

Must read for anyone interested in Central Asia or the general theme of British and Russian imperial ambitions. Despite the 500+ page count, Hopkirk's history of Russian and British intrigues in Central Asia from the late 1700s until WWI is a real page-turner. There are boatloads of real-life adventure stories: man against the elements, agents racing against time, bloodthirsty tribes, devious schemers, valiant young officers, continual teetering on the brink of war, etc... Hopkirk does an excellent job explaining how events and people all interrelate, and to what effect. This is history at its best.

A literary style of writing makes this a fast-paced yet historically packed summary of a long history for the control of south central Asia. The context of this history on current events is absolutely essential and Mr. Hopkirk's knowledge of central Asia combined with his ability as a communicator make this an invaluable resource for that context. The color and sweeping drama make this an enjoyable read with vivid details that bring the history alive. This work is a key component in any central Asian historical study.

A great and fascinating book for all ages and backgrounds.

The beginning of the book, say the first 75 pages, was a bit slow (not boring, just slow), but the rest of it was superb. It took me about 2 sittings to get through the first 75 pages... but then about 1.5 days to finish the rest (book has about a total of 525 pages).

The book gives a good background about the region and the players. Other reviews cite the book's English (or Western) bias/slant in the storytelling. This is somewhat true; however, the author doesn't exactly have all-access to and cannot draw clues from notes/records from the former Soviet Union or other present day nations in the region.

Worth the read!