This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Great Game is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have changed the name of the section heading from "The New Great Game" to "Twenty-first century" because although many articles 10 years ago talked about the "New Great Game" and linked to to some sort of gold rush over resources (if only it were that simple and rational), there have been many articles published in the last couple of years that simply call it "The Great Game" and the motivations seem to be about strategic geo-politics, international and regional security, IE the old Great Game. I have put in some example citations to cover this the oldest being an Economist Article from 2007 and most recent is October 2010. The selection is meant to be representative, but I have selected two that I have quoted from in the citation:
Rubin, Barnett R.; Rashid, Ahmed (November/December 2008). "From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations). "The Great Game is no fun anymore".
Ivens, Martin (24 January 2010). "More guile needed in the Afghan game". Sunday Times. "The new strategy proposed by the US commander in Afghanistan... A settlement of outsiders as well as insiders is also vital. Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and China have to have a stake in a deal or they will have an incentive to break it. ...A new world order is being tested in Afghanistan. George W Bush left this region in a terrible mess, but now it’s President Obama’s mess and ours. Can western intervention still work? It requires low cunning as well as skill to play the great game the British empire once made its own."
The first because although it is pertinent and relevant source, I quoted it Mr Rubin is obviously not a fan of Liverpool United if he were he would know that professional games are usually played for reasons other than fun ("Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.") and the second quote is to show that there a many players in the Great Game. I have also included as a citation and article "Jaswant Singh (25 September 2010). China and India: the great game's new players. The Guardian." because although Afghanistan is the cockpit of the game other regions in the Himalayas are also on the board as rivalry between China and India two neighbours and rapidly growing regional powers is also part of this never ending diplomatic and strategic "game". -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that if this section is to be kept, and not considered to be off-topic, something needs to be said about the Cold War replacing the Great Game, and America replacing the British Empire as its chief player. If such content is not added to fill the gap between the Great Game ending in the 1950s and the present-day, then this "21st century" section has as much validity as the article also having a section on the "Great Game" between the Roman and Sassanid empires. The article is not about all superpower "great games", or all power struggles in central Asia, or all uses of the phrase Great Game, it is just about the one between the British and Russian empires. Meowy 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
this section should be expanded, but not as of now, this part will have to wait at least until the US forces leave Afghanistan, let's see what happens then, because the impact of the Americans leaving will have an affect right up to Jammu and Kashmir in India, due to the islamist terrorists becoming more active there as lesser people would be needed in Afghanistan. Also, the spread of the taliban in pakistan, according to me, should be considered a part of the great game, but as the situation is still developing, nothing can be said as of now. --Rishab1996 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Eric Enno Tamm is not a historian on China or the Qing dynasty. factually incorrect information sourced from his book was removed. The Qing dynasty did modernize its military and fortified garrisons with modern engineering and krupp artillery, with soldiers carrying modern rifles. They also built modern arsenals at plaves like Lanzhou. This modernization was done as early as the 1870s and 1880s, and the British viewed it as so successful that they were considering an alliance with China against Russia during this time. chinese armies equipped with modern german weapons defeated Yaqub Beg's rebels at Kashgar and the Russian empire viewed the chinese military stationed in xinjiang and manchuria as a serious military threat. During this time, britain also took great pains not to militarily antagonize China over affairs like the panthay rebellion and burma.
The life of Sir Halliday Macartney, K. C. M. G.: commander of Li Hung Chang's trained force in the Taeping rebellion, founder of the first Chinese arsenals, for thirty years councillor and secretary to the Chinese legation in London
I also see the issues about merging this with the Cold War. But I think that the "Chronology" section is a condensed of everything that's wrong about putting contemporary history into the article. Crimea? Really? It's almost something to be expected of the blog of a paranoid-on-the-run! This article needs some love for a change. Stop degrading it into a bar's political discussion. It'll end up locked if this keeps going on.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)