This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / British / European / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Afghanistan High‑importance This article 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.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I vote we delete this. The article on Anglo-Afghan wars has all this information and then more

Make it a redirect to the main article instead of deleting? --Richard Clegg 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, some of this needs citations. It's nice to tell apocryphal stories about heroic behavior under insurmountable odds but citations are necessary. 6/19/06

I think the casualty mark is short-charging the Afghan deaths, as it says for the entire war the Afghans lost 200 KIA and Wounded. But in the Battle of Ghanzi, it says the Afghans had 500 KIA/WIA. So in other words, the Afghan casualties for one battle eclipse by 250% the supposed total of Afghan casualties for the WAR. I think this needs ironing out. ELV

Only a single soldier survived, but then the article goes on to reference "Ninety-five prisoners from the earlier massacre were rescued". I removed that sentence and suggest someone who knows something about this event correct the information. Elijahmeeks 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see William Brydon, the only European survivor -- Lost^(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were rescued prisoners. I'll find sources. Most of them were women and officers, including Elphinstone. Karajanis 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "soldier" who "survived" was an army surgeon. But it really means that he was the only member of the military to make it back to India. Other survivors included camp followers, servants, etc. and some English offiers (including some English army wives and children). However, these were captured on the retreat and did not make it back unless they were eventually released. This is how we know what happened on the retreat. However, there are tales of English women who eventually were married to their captors. See Macrory's book. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik I don't think the women that were married to the captors were British. They seemed to have been Afghan women within the camp followers. I know one of the wives that was captured was an Afghan wife of a Briton for example. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs some serious updating and I'll start ASAP with Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game. Karajanis 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can this by any means be counted as a Limited British victory, ending with a rout? Norrefeldt (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't end with a route. I believe you are referring to the retreat from Kabul, in which 4,500 British and Indian soldiers, with 11,500 camp followers were massacred, save for about 96 members. However, two more battles took place after this, the Siege of Jellalabad and the Battle of Kabul, both of which were British victories. (Trip Johnson (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

OK then, but the outcome of the war seems to have been that the British had to give up their plans for Afghanistan for this time. If we are to call it "Limited British gains" it ought to be possible to read about those gains in the article.Norrefeldt (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the instructions/style guide for the "Result", where it says: "How the war came to an end. What treaties were signed, and what were their conditions?" I think it should say: "British withdrawal from Afghanistan". Much more descriptive than the rather disputable "Afghan victory".Norrefeldt (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Norrefeldt, British withdrawal sounds much better. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, Norrefelt; "Afghan victory" is a little too controversial. I've reverted changes to the outcome under NPOV. haz (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some feel calling what happened an Afghan victory is "a little too controversial" accords well with the thinking that led England to this disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.172 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The British returned and completely massacred the Afghans, seized Kabul and Ghazi. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt it be mentioned in 'Causes' that one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was so that it could be used as a buffer state to limit the advance of Russia and protect British India. You have put to protect India but the extra detail would be nice. Also you could mention that one of the reasons the British left Kabul was because the cantonment was built on flat ground surrouded by mountains and that the ammunition dump was seperate from the cantonment. This made it indefensable. I would add this information myself if i new how, sorry!Willski72 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhara was under the control of Amir Alim Khan. It was not under the control of the persian king muzaffar. In addition somebody edited the Bukhara part without citation. Even though it is a fact that the Emirate of Bukhara is what ruled Bukhara not the persian kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.115.3 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding some extra info in about the causes of the war (Russia) and describing the indefensibility of the cantonement as a reason for the disastrous retreat. I hope this is fine with everyone if not you are quite free to change it back!--Willski72 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this query[1], which, I take it, is itself a reaction to recent edits, I have to say that Newcorps additions are entirely correct. It is clear that British plans to turn Afghanistan into a protectorate failed completely. Passing off the destruction of Eplhinstone's army as a minor setback would be mistake: it was a resounding defeat with a significant impact in the Victorian era. Pollocks subsequent expedition to Kabul went a little way to restoring British military pride, but did not alter the fact that the war as a whole was a failure for the British. The puppet ruler they had proposed to install(Shah Shuja) was murdered, and the leader they had set out to depose(Dost Mohammed) was reinstated. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what might normally be seen to constitute a war however, the actual war was a successful invasion and reestablishment of the Shah's rule, followed by an evacuation of troops who were then massacred en route (while leaving) - hardly a victory for the Afghans in the traditional sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Shuja's reestablishment was hardly successful, as the British were forced to abandon him to his fate, and he was murdered shortly afterwards. I'm rather puzzled as to what constitues this "traditional sense" of how a war's outcome should be defined, and how it is supposed to ignore the historical realities of the British military defeat and political failure. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without being invited, the British Empire invaded the Afghan Empire (obviously with bad intention) and in the over all 2-3 years the British suffered a massive defeat and the Afghans have declared victory. We are not the judges here, we have to respect both sides. Did British declare victory? Answer: no. Did Afghans declare victory? Answer: yes they did. The invasion by the British Empire didn't gain anything for the British, it was regretful for them because they lost at least 16,500 lives. It is by every defintion a victory for the Afghans, especially at that time when the British were well known as the super power of the world that no single country stood a chance of refusing their demands. Of course the British may not accept this as a defeat. But look at the February 1989 withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan, was that a victory for the Afghans or not? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was basically the same shit as the British invasion, it just lasted about 6 years longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.83.142 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my book Afghanistan in the Age of Empires I cite two British Generals who confirm the Afghans won: "Let the British General Napier, conqueror of Sind, tell us who won the first Afghan war, "All Lord E(llenbrough)’s proclamations and decorations for Pollock’s and Nott’s affairs will not hinder the Affghans saying they destroyed one army and kicked two others out, and history will say the same”( p257vol. 2 Life of Charles Napier) . Another British General Writing of Afghanistan, Sir Henry Smith stated “the Afghans are a hostile population who can redeem by force of Arms the Conquest of their Country and destroy the Army in its posession". Moreover, ""We are now in the act ONLY of endevouring to retire as `Victorious Seceders` from contest, much honour will accrue to the Party from which our Retreat is made"" reference:1842 Strategic analysis, military situation Afghanistan, letter and map. A critique of the war in Afghanistan in a 12-page letter by Major General Sir Henry Smith, sent from Simla, with map, private collection.. p 375 Afghanistan in the Age of Empires.In short I would say that bias is the main problem on this page which is why the dream of a British victory is present as well as nonsensical assertions about the marriage of Warburton to an Afghan lady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How relatively involved were the British army and the presidential armies of the East India Company? They were separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"To justify his plan, the Governor-General of India Lord Auckland issued the Simla Manifesto in October 1838, setting forth the necessary reasons for British intervention in Afghanistan."

This first line of the section is arranged awkwardly (who "his" refers to and what "plan" is being discussed only becomes apparent to the reader on second reading. In addition, the tone is inappropriately polemical. To "justify one's plan" carries an implication (in my humble interpretation) that the plan is somehow insidious and requires white-washing. This may or may not be true of Lord Auckland, but it is not usually the place of an encyclopedia to cast that sort of judgment. Paul Mumm (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if any negotiations occurred between Akbar Khan and the British on the issue of release of his family. The British had imprisoned his family including his wife and also his father Dost Mohammad Khan. It is important to remind ourselves that if the British reprisal was successful and Akbar Khan was "heavily defeated" then why on earth did the British released Dost Mohammad Khah and his family for nothing? Dost Mohammad Khan could have been used for political gains. It seems more logical to me that Akbar Khan may have had some concessions to the British to secure his family's release and the fact that the question of honour is a big issue in Afghan culture, re-enforces this notion.Haha1hoho (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the link to the "Manghit Dynasty". I noticed that the Alim Khan article states his DOB as Jan 3 1880, yet the text under Legacy on the First Anglo-Afghan War states "A peace treaty in 1873 with Amir Alim Khan of the Manghit Dynasty, the ruler of Bukhara, virtually stripped him of his independence. Russian control then extended as far as the northern bank of the Amu Darya."

The dates do not correspond, can someone with knowledge of this area please take a look and rectify either the Alim Khan article or the Legacy section, thanks. Kiwifaramir (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Kiwifaramir[reply]

user:༆, has not provided proper reasons for his removal of cited information on the article. He instead has a history of engaging in edit-warring. Xtremedood (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed by User:༆,[2] there is no need of further sources of temporary British victory. Half of the sources are incorrect, and others are not needed since there are few already. Also see WP:OVERCITE. Capitals00 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a a huge number of sources in the article which shows that the British lost this war. It is stated as a simple fact in most of these sources, with few of them going as far as to claim that this was one of the most humiliating defeats for the British in their northwestern campaign. Now whenever this well sourced information about the Afghan victory is added into the infobox one or more editors take affront and try to remove it and replace it with "Temporary British victory", which appears to be highly POV and illogical. I hereby invite the various editors removing the Afghan victory from the infobox to this discussion so that they can perhaps explain why they are removing this, and would like them to explain who actually "WON" the war. pinging User:Charlesdrakew, User:DatGuy, User:SovalValtos, User:༆User:Xtremedood. ‎FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, if you look at the history you can see the horrible amount of edit-warring to so-called overall Afghan victory in. The symbol was, an edit-warrer, which didn't revert since the protection. I am also sure that there is some IP puppetry since most of the IPs only have one or two contributions, both to reverting to your preferred pages. Before you start shouting that I'm accusing you, I'm not. It might be IP sockpuppetry, and I might even check some of the long-term abuse cases. Pinging @AlexiusHoratius:, the administrator that protected the page for comments. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British won the war but later failed to hold their gains, as seems to happen in that country. "Temporary British victory" is therefore the most appropriate summary and their is longstanding talkpage consensus for this. A POV-pusher has been socking to change this, resuming activity as soon as page protection expired. Further protection is needed.Charles (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: I made a request at WP:RFPP, and we have 1 year of PC protection. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Can we now revert to the status quo while discussion is going on? That is the norm rather than allowing POV changes to stand.Charles (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: I temporarily deleted the controversial material. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary British Victory seems to be correct, any other mention of victories must not be mentioned on the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing a long quote from a reference listed as "Afghanistan in the Age of Empires", written by one Farrukh Husain, published by Silk Road Books and Photos. Based on the website of this publisher (http://silkroadbooksandphotos.com/), Silk Road Books and Photos is also owned by Farrukh Husain, which would imply that this source is self-published. The quote attempts to link the date of an uprising to the Battle of Badr, which seems a bit of a stretch without a reliable source to back it up. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk • contribs) [reply]

This is in fact not correct about what is stated in Afghanistan in the Age of Empires, the book simply states that the 2 November 1841 uprising fell on 17 Ramadan because this is the auspicious date of the battle of Badr. That is not a stretch at all but you can google the date for 17 Ramadan in 1841 and it is 2 November. The source cited should therefore be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the British invasion route into Afghanistan (via Quetta to Kandahar), there are nowhere mountains with any height close to 4,000 meters. The Bolan pass (also used by the British then) as the highest point reaches not quite 1,800 m. Maybe the number is supposed to be in feet. --Ubel (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That one whole bit which is a paragraph mostly taken from John William Kaye's biography on how Afghan women would sleep with British officers and would become prostitutes. First of all this is totally made up and a complete lie to defame the Afghan people and their women and how they were savages, second it seems like some British fantasy of the invader bedding the women of the people they conquered. If this is true, then why aren't there reports of Indian women falling in love with British officers stationed throughout the country when the English actually ruled all of India but never Afghanistan? Thirdly, the Pashtuns are EXTREMELY overprotective of their women and do not let them step out of the house alone not even today in remote tribal areas. Such a thing is pure fantasy and there is no way the English could have done this without anyone finding out. Also i don't know who Mirza Ata is and i i could not find anything about him from a google search other then him being mentioned in the work of other British historians who seem to quote him.

The bit also goes on to say how Alexander Burnes had Afghan women in his harem, this is also false because all of his slave women were foreigners. The book called "Sikunder Burnes: Master of the Great Game" By Craig Maury clearly states that Alexander Brunes knew the danger and consequences of trying to seduce Afghan women which is why all his Sexual slaves were Kashmiri & Indian women. What's funny is this is the first time i am seeing this paragraph after the many times i have read this article.

I will remove this part because it is totally not true. Akmal94 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reeks of Afghan bias. As far as I know there were Afghan women in the entourage of the British. Some were later captured by the Afghans. The idea that the British 'knew better' than to bed Afghan women is ridiculous. They were invading Afghanistan and would later massacre the Afghans and take Kabul and Ghazi. Also, there are numerous reports of Indian women falling for British men during the occupations. It's generally accepted and well known. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan bias? Explain what that means, as far as i know, this article is written in a British bias to defame Afghans and their women. Also you need to provide a source for the British having Afghan women in their entourage or of reports of Indian women falling for British men. All of what you are saying falls under WP:OR. Also, the sources used here are from William Dalrymple and John Kaye, neither who are a reliable source. Akmal94 (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akmal94 is correct, this article is supposed to neutrally cover a war that the British lost and were defeated on, yet makes slanderous and innapropriate claims and generalizations that are contratory to the neutral POV and accuracy guidelines that this site pretends to follow. Furthermore, why is this content backed up by only 2 "novels" which seem to be heavily biased and misinformed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTruth (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Warburton marriage cited by Dalrymple was in fact a forced marriage see for example Peter Collister's book Hostage in Afghanistan (1999) cited by Dalrymple in his bibliography in Return of a King but obviously never closely read. Husain cites this book on p223 of his book Afghanistan in the Age of Empires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no Afghan woman would voluntary give up herself to elope with an Englishman. Afghan women often are strict followers of Islam and Afghan culture and won't go against the values they were raised on, espically those that will hurt them and their families in the long run. The funny part is, Dalrymple thinks the British were doing things like easily in the most conservative part of the world with no one knowing while there was strict purdah on women in those times, is just hilarious and naive to me. A woman couldn't leave the house alone without a male member of the family. The fact that is been 3 years since i asked for this information to removed yet no action has been taken goes to question Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Akmal94 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a couple posts posted below; much of this article is redundant and written in a biased and racist way. Why are there paragraphs about deviant and innapropriate fantasies and alleged actions of a British soldier committing vile acts of debauchery in an article about a war? Moreover, the user who adds such content is racist (look at the edit history and the comments that A.S Brown puts on them. On one, he claims: "How NOT to be a success ... These people only like money and killing". If Wikipedia is supposedly a neutral and accurate place of information, why is such unneccessary, untrustworthy libel and rumours about adultry and sin being presented as historical fact? Valid historical information from a variety of legitimate sources are valuable, not repeated references to one or two novels which are not corraborated or backed up by reliable sources. Furthermore, these slanderous claims against the people of Afghanistan and their morals are not even countered or carefully examined yet if similar claims and nonsense were inserted into an article about other nations or famous battles, they would be removed immediately.

In conclusion, this article needs to be immediately amended and all disgusting and false content needs to be removed. The obviously perverted and hateful ideologies of some people like A.S Brown and the anonymous user posted violent claims are useless and in fact regressive in intellectual and moral grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTruth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 2021-10-04 a search for "Suja" found 1 match, while a search for "Shuja" found 30. The reference to "Suja" looks like it should be "Shuja". I'm changing it. If it should be "Suja", someone who knows this subject should correct my erroneous "correction". Thanks,DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement appears to be based on the title of Lady Sale's book 'A Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan' since, as far as I can see, apart from a reference to that book's title there is in the cited source no other mention of the phrase or reference to it as a popular epithet.

Clearly the destruction of the British occupying force was a disaster but the merit of such a sweeping generalisation is unclear; certainly without placing it in a specific a time frame. The author of the cited article does mention the campaign being dubbed 'Auckland's Folly' at the time, but I would suggest that has no resonance in contemporary usage among 'The British.'

If a more reliable source for the statement cannot be found I recommend it be excised. JF42 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It requires more than the title of one book to justify saying 'it was known to the British as...' Stikko (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus today 'The Disaster in Afghanistan' would almost certainly mean more recent events. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Officers from the British Army serving in India tended to look down on officers serving in the Company's army as mercenaries and misfits, and relations between the two armies were cool at best"

This sentence is a misreading of the cited source. the relevant passage reads- "The East India Company maintained its own army, with field headquarters at Simla, and trained its own officers, all of them British, at its own military academy at Addiscombe, a country estate near London. The troops were mercenaries, drawn from all over India. Their officers were always British. It was inevitable that the queen’s officers, serving with European troops, would look down their patrician noses at company officers, serving with native, or sepoy, units."

The author's focus is more on the native troops, rather than the officers. He makes no mention of "misfits."

('Mercenary' is any case, not a neutral term, and in this case is not an accurate description of the sepoy regiments. The cited source, "Arrogant Wars," is a book that arguably has a premise that requires presenting the subjects of its narrative in the worst light. THe author clearly knows little about the British Army, stating that the Coldstream Guards were part of the British invasion force. The first time the Coldstream Guards went "east of Suez" was to the Crimea in 1854. He presumably confused them with the 2nd Queen's Regiment, who were in Elphinstone's force. The author's dismissal of the 13th Light Infantry "a sickly lot" as one of the worst regiments to be selected for the campaign would also appear to be a misepresentation.)

For the time being it may be best to excise the phrase "mercenaries and misfits" JF42 (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to a more reliable source being provided, ditto the reference to the respective standing of the Third Foot and Thirteenth Light Infantry. JF42 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with titles added for infantry regiments and Wiki links added JF42 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]