The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia

Rating:
Summary: Excellent History of the 'Great Game'
Review: 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."

Rating:
Summary: A Hard Book to Put Down
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Filling a gap in world history
Review: This books fills a gap in world history. All have heard of Marco Polo and most of Dgengiz Khan; some might know about the Russian advances towards India into Central Asia and might even place the British defeats in Afghanistan in the mid 1800s in the same context; however, no book could have filled that gap in my knowledge as good the Hopkins' Great Game. Not only interesting, but moreover entertaining. Once caught, it will be impossible to put it down.

Rating:
Summary: Wandering Through Central Asia
Review: I think I may be intrigued by central Asia because of its vast emptiness. In sculptural terms, it is the negative space that defines the cities and countries which surround it. I imagine the book is analogous to travelling through central Asia. Its pretty interesting on the offset then a huge bleak middle peppered with colorful stops, until it gets interesting again at journey's end.

The book is pretty disapointing on a number of levels, not however for its comprehensiveness (snore). First of all, the "reads like a novel" claim is probably based upon a few provocative (and repetitve) opening paragraphs of several chapters before lapsing into a dry account of events (and more often non-events). Second, I found it difficult to follow at times, the book lacked maps and he uses too many pronouns in place of proper nouns. Thirdly, the British bias creeps along with the implicit conceit that the colonization of India was wrong (but still better than a Russian colonization). He is allowed to have a point of view of course (he is a reporter for the London Times afterall) but I do look for at least some self-awareness. Hopkirk falls a bit short. For example, the last chapter features a brief but felicitous acknowlegement of the Native Indian Soldiers who fought so effectively for the British empire. It does not occur to him to acknowlege the native peoples so exploited by the Russian army.

I may be nitpicking but I really felt like I was reading an encyclopedia rather than a history. Or perhaps Hopkirk has not adjusted his lens from journalistic reporting ("we report you decide") to historical analysis (like what is relevant--or irrelvent). When I finally slogged to the end I could only wonder: Is there really a story here?

Rating:
Summary: Incorrect facts. I refuse to buy this book.
Review: I have read the excerpt and concluded that this book is based on erroneous facts about the Mongol domination in Russia. The name of the Mongol Khan in 1480 was not Ahmed Khan. It was Khan Toktomysh, a descendant of Ghengis Khan. It's true that Mongols lost a battle over Kulikovo in 1480. However, in 1482 Khan Toktomysh burned down Moscow and destroyed the entire Moscovy army. Thus, the rule of Mongols lasted for another 100 years and Russia did not get independence from the Mongols in 1480. It was not the Russians that broke down the Golden Horde but Tamerlane. Tamerlane and and Khan Toktomysh had been in war for decades. Khan Toktomysh resisted three big battles, the last being in Sarai, Golden Horde. (I forgot the date but I think it was in 1487, which is much later than 1480. So, the Golden Horde was still in its glory might in 1480.)

The only way Russia could get independence was when it had unity of command and new weaponry, i.e. the gun powder. Ivan the Terrible used the first bomb to blow up the Kazan fortifications. Those events happened much, much later than 1480. Ahmed Khan, mentioned above, was the khan of Kazan at that time. So, the facts in the excerpt about Akhmed Khan being indecisive over the River Urga (p. 14) in 1480 are a hundred years off. How can I believe an author who is wrong by a whole century??

Additionally, one should ask a question why did the Crusaders go to pillage Jerusalem instead of the neighboring Russia? The truth is that they were beaten by the same Mongols a number of times. Mongols were protecting their dominions in Russia from those knights (mostly German). That is why Russia was able to preserve its Orthodox Church instead of converting to the Catholic Church. Note: Mongols did not oppose Christianity. Mongols themselves were in majority Nestorian Christians. Ghengis Khan's first wife was a Nestorian Christian, too.

Instead of this book, I would highly recommend "The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia" by Rene Grousset. A friend of mine, a respected Professor of Anthropology (unbiased in my opinion), initially recommended this book as the best historical source. Though "The Empire of the Steppes" is missing some facts, too, I still believe it is the best recommendation. I presented a couple of copies to my friends and family members.

Rating:
Summary: Exciting and Fun Introduction
Review: This is a really fun book, and the author does a good job of explaining geopolitical tensions while also narrating some pretty exciting adventures.

This book is not a "complete" history of the topic: it is told mostly from the British perspective, the Afghans come across poorly, and way too many of the characters are described only as "brilliant, multilingual and resourceful young subalterns." It is not particularly critical of the sources, either, but that's okay, because there's no particular pretension to Historiography here. (This is about spies and explorers and adventure--not about deconstructing anything.)

But Hopkirk's greatest success comes in introducing the reader to the subject matter and providing fodder for the imagination.

One caveat: Do not look at the photographs before you read the book!

Rating:
Summary: History being a guide to the present
Review: The Great Game puts the present events in perspective and once again confirms why I love to read history when I crave a good tale. You really could not dream this stuff up, yet it all actually happened. That whole thing with mid-19th century Brits tramping off into (translated from that local language) "the place that nobody in their right mind sets foot in". They emerge 2 years later with meticulous journals and having compiled 8 dictionaries of the local languages and botanical samples with 124 species new to science. And of course, a huge scar on their (choose anatomical feature) where they were almost impaled by a (choose gruesome weapon). They return to a Knighthood yet always seem to die of syphilis in opium-addicted obscurity.

Gotta Love it

Rating:
Summary: Its a good book, but...
Review: It being far easier to find fault than to praise and yours sincerely born lazy, I will tell you all that is wrong with this book. (many others before me have told you all that is right with it, i will skip that part entirely)

Agreed, the subject matter sometimes is dull and needs a dash of drama to make it come to life. In that, PH (author) sometimes shows himself a better historian than novelist. There are many places in which after describing what is a climactic incident, in the last sentence of the paragraph, he will give away what is to happen in the coming chapters. its like a friend telling you the ending of a christie novel - where's the fun in reading it after that?

the book screams for more maps - small half page affairs inserted in the right places so that the reader knows what part of the world he/she is in - i am from india, a place not far removed from the scenes that this "game" unfolds in, and i often found myself lost geographically. to another person for whom this is just another remote corner of the world, it can be oh so confusing. and the one small map at the front does little to make up for this gaping omission.

ph tells his story from a decidely british perspective. the british are always brave, commendable and if ever proven wrong, only so because of the deceit of the untrustworthy russians or the double crossing tribals. british mistakes are either overlooked entirely or condoned without question. if you are not from britian (or america for that matter), the holier than thou attitude of the british can be poignantly ubiquitous in the book. of course, i don't know if this is justified criticism of the narrative for that is probably very close to the truth of those days.

read the book, yes - but only for want of something better and more balanced in perspective and outlook.

Rating:
Summary: Such tragic writing.
Review: Central Asia is an undeniably fascinating place. The histories of the countries are the stuff of fairy tales, and one has to wonder why more movies haven't been made about them, since they're really riveting in anecdotal form.

I've taken a lot of classes on the area, and did my thesis research in Uzbekistan. As a person who's read quite a bit about these places, I can say that The Great Game follows a tragic trend in Central Asian writing: people who study the place in depth, for some reason, are incapable of communicating the information without sucking the life out of it.

I found the writing in The Great Game to be deplorable. The prose is riddled with cliches and trite expressions, and the style, which I suppose was meant to be 'easy reading,' is in fact stifling in it's simplicity: it feels like there are few sentences over five words long, and the simple prose makes the book an intensely boring read, despite the fact that it's covering fascinating people and events.

Maybe it was just me, but I felt like the author was talking down to me throughout the book. I say 'throughout the book,' but I never managed to finish it. The author lost my interest quickly and never managed to regain it, largely because of his incredibly poor form.

I'm still looking for the ideal book on Central Asia to recommend to people, so they can understand why I'm so in love with the region. Tragically, this book is absolutely not it.

Rating:
Summary: A must for understanding Central Asia
Review: Indeed, it is a must to understand the current situation in and around Central Asia, including Afghanistan. Hopkirk is not only an authod who compiles history, but ushers the way to the reader to think over and to reach conclusions, thus enriching his own assesments. I would also recommend his other books, including East of Constantinopole.