Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

History magazine - researches
Reference:

The dynamics of academic interest in the Great Game in foreign historical science in the second half of the XX — early XXI centuries.

Beliaev Anton Vadimovich

Graduate student; Institute of International Relations and World History; Lobachevsky National Research Nizhny Novgorod State University

603106, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Nadezhda Suslova str., 2 bldg. 3, sq. 11

Belyaev_av@list.ru

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0609.2024.4.71087

EDN:

OYUDIE

Received:

20-06-2024

Published:

02-08-2024

Abstract: The subject of the study is the dynamics of academic interest in the problem of the Great Game in foreign historiography of the second half of the XX – early XX centuries and the factors that influenced this process. The traditional study of historical thought practically does not take into account quantitative indicators of the prevalence of certain concepts in historiography. At the same time, there is a genuine revival of interest in Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia. The article analyzes the content of foreign historiography after the Second World War and the prerequisites for the growth and decline of research interest in certain periods of time. The aim of the work is to trace the correlation between foreign policy events and trends in the study of the Great Game. To do this, an array of more than 300 papers was formed in order to graphically display bursts of scientific interest in the problem by plotting a time series. The work uses quantitative methods that allow you to build an initial graph and perform its mechanical alignment for greater reliability of the results. Also, the main technique for interpreting the data obtained was the analysis of bursts of research interest in the problem of the Great Game, for which historical-systemic and historical-comparative methods were used. The use of quantitative methods and the display of results in graphical form determines the novelty of the work. The catalyst for the intensification of research on this issue has almost always been an aggravation in the confrontation between superpowers or a significant change in the international situation. It is also worth noting the emergence of the term The New Great Game in the mid-1990s and its subsequent expansion beyond the Central Asian region and historical science in general. In British historiography, the growth in the number of publications on the Great Game is due to the development of postcolonial studies. In the USA, there is a significant difference between the pre-war and post-war volumes of research on this topic, the penetration of the concept of the Great Game into American science and gaining popularity among researchers. Further study of the patterns of development of the foreign historiography of the Anglo-Russian rivalry, including using statistical methods, will allow us to more accurately characterize the relationship between political conjuncture and academic discourse in the bipolar and post-bipolar world, as well as the place of the image of the Great Game in modern public consciousness.

Keywords:

The Great Game, historiography, quantitative methods, Central Asia, Great Britain, USA, USSR, Russia, The New Great Game, dynamics of academic interest
This article is automatically translated.

The theme of the Big Game has been attracting more and more attention in recent decades. In addition to the scientific environment, this image penetrates into journalism and the media, becoming a universal explanatory metaphor. The geography of the concept is rapidly expanding, striving to cover the whole world. In this regard, the reasons and prerequisites for such attention to a topic that has a rich and extensive historiography are important. The return of interest in the Anglo-Russian confrontation and the transfer of certain components of the concept of the Big Game to modern realities could not be realized without serious impulses from society. In this regard, the study of publication and research activity allows us to formulate an assumption about the nature of the reactualization of the theme of the Big Game. Foreign historiography from the end of the Second World War to the end of the second decade of the XXI century was chosen as the object. It includes, first of all, Anglo-American works of this period, because more attention was paid to the development of the problems of the Big Game in these countries. Additionally, selected Indian and Chinese works published in English-language publications are also involved.

For a full-fledged analysis of the dynamics of academic interest in the problem of the Big Game, an array of English-language literature was formed, published from 1945 to 2022. (more than 300 works). Various historiographical reviews were used as a guide for compiling this array, with the help of which the key and most significant studies were identified. In addition to this group, to create a more complete picture, the information was in the journals American Historical Review and English Historical Review. These publications specialize in reviewing recent publications. Due to their general nature, their issues clearly demonstrate an informative cross-section of the most popular research topics among English and American historians, from which works on the Big Game were consistently selected. Central Asian Survey, in turn, is a highly specialized journal, the involvement of which in order to select publications for research was carried out with the expectation that profile collections for the region of interest would most likely contain fresh and relevant views on the problem.

The main method of their analysis is the construction of a time series and the interpretation of the resulting graph. Mechanical smoothing and the use of a moving average were used to check and correct the resulting trend lines. This eliminates potential distortions caused by possible incompleteness of the available data.

The resulting time series shows a very interesting picture of the trends that clearly manifest themselves in foreign historical science in the study of the Big Game (see the Graph of the dynamics of academic interest). The key to interpretation is the growth trends or, conversely, the stagnation of interest in the Big Game. The graph of the dynamics of academic interest clearly demonstrates the changing nature of the attention of the foreign scientific community to the topic of the Big Game. The spikes in the mid-1960s, the first half of the 1980s, the first half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2010s are clearly visible. At the same time, there are periods of stable relevance of the problem of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in historiography. To reveal the factors that influenced this dynamics and the convenience of analysis, the entire period of the historiography under consideration is divided into separate stages.

The first stage of foreign English-language historiography (1945-1964)

After the end of World War II, a significant part of the research was devoted either directly to the events that had just ended, or to various kinds of retrospective reviews of German society [1-3]. The second factor in the post-war foreign historiography was a certain fading of scientific life. An indirect sign of this may be the results of a cursory analysis of the first post-war issuesAmerican Historical Review. They were much less voluminous (~ 200 pages), while over time their sizes began to increase (issue 22, issue 1, February 2017 is 317, and in certain periods the volume reached 400 pages). An important milestone on this path was 1967, when the number of issues per year was increased from 4 to 5 (which lasted until 2022).

Both of these factors significantly influenced the first stage of the historiography of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in Central Asia. Up to and including 1964, the time series shows consistently low interest in this issue. The works were distributed on several main topics: English policy in the region [4-18], Russian promotion and policy in Central Asia [19-24], Anglo-Russian relations [25-33]. In general, from the presented studies, it is worth highlighting V.K. Fraser-Tytler [26] and J. Gleason [25], who expressed their views on the great influence of Russophobia in British society on the situation in Central Asia. It is also worth noting the work of M. Yapp and his assessment of the impact of the First Anglo-Afghan War on the development of the country. He concludes that as a result of this conflict, "the last blow was dealt to the power of the leaders, whom Dost Muhammad was able to quickly bring under control after that" [18, p. 381]. The last thing worth mentioning is a certain number of reviews of translated Soviet works, which fit into another trend of post—war science — an increase in interest in Russian and Soviet history. Well-deserved attention in the USA was paid to the works of the prominent Soviet researcher N.A. Khalfin. He was a leading specialist in the study of the history of Central Asia in the USSR in those years. To pay tribute to him, translations of some of his works were published in the USA with a slight lag from their publication in the USSR [for example, 33].

Within the framework of the proposed return of the problem of Anglo-Russian rivalry to academic discourse, works devoted to the study of the Central Asian region as a whole are separately highlighted, which are evaluated as part of the general course of development of the historiography of the issue. In addition to the bare academic interest, regional historical studies prepare the ground for problematic study and mark public attention to the region [34-38].

The surge of academic interest in the problems of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in the mid—late 1960s.

In 1965, the number of studies on Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia increased dramatically, reaching a peak in 1969. A comparison with the previous stage also serves to confirm the phenomenal explosion of research interest. There, in the existing array, 32 works are found over 19 years (stage 1945-1964). In the period from 1965 to 1969, there were already 40 such studies.

The content of this stage is also much richer. In addition to the traditional political analysis of the situation in Central Asia, close attention was paid to the individual contribution to the confrontation and the personal qualities of its participants. This was reflected in the writing of political and problematic biographies of both British [39-47] and Russian players [48]. The focus is also on the problems of colonial administration, the specifics and consequences of Britain's active policy in the region within the framework of the First Anglo-Afghan War. Moreover, in line with the postcolonial tradition, cultural aspects come to the fore [49-50]. Many researchers are keen to find the positive consequences of the intervention of the great powers in the history of the region. The development of education, military affairs and road construction were among the obvious achievements in improving the lives of the peoples of Central Asia [51]. The pre-war points of view on the Anglo-Russian confrontation in the spirit of geopolitics also remained. The representative of the "defensive" concept in British historiography, J. Norris, insisted that the growing tensions in Central Asia (and the First Anglo-Afghan War) were caused primarily by the intrigues and adventures of the Russian Empire [52]. During the same period, there was a manifestation of the concept of an Ongoing Big Game. Its main idea was that the confrontation of the powers captures the XX century with new participants [53-54]. Separately, it is worth noting the emergence of an approach that expands the circle of competing powers in the region at the expense of China [55]. This concept will continue to develop as China's political and economic power grows, until at the present stage of international relations, Beijing's role as a full participant in the rivalry in Central Asia is recognized by everyone.

This short but eventful period in foreign historiography allows us to speak legitimately about the revival of research interest in the Big Game. Less obvious is the complex of reasons that served as a starting point. The surge in academic attention to this problem could only be a consequence of the general growth of foreign historical science. One of the indirect evidence of this is that the largest historical journal in the United States, American Historical Review, demonstrates an increase in its volume, and since 1967, the transition to publishing five issues per year instead of four. However, while maintaining high rates of historical research, the number of works on the Big Game at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s is decreasing. Accordingly, if the total number of works remained the same in the period 1965-1969 and since 1970, then the rapid growth of interest in this problem in the second half of the 1960s was due not only to the general rise of foreign historiography.

It can be assumed that the increase in the number of works on the Big Game is due to the international situation. The interest in Russian history and relations with Russia is due to the formation of a bipolar world, the confrontation between two superpowers and the need for a comprehensive study of the rival. The significant international aggravation associated with the Caribbean crisis, despite the subsequent policy of "detente", clearly demonstrated that the conflict of interests of the USSR and the United States will continue and will affect different regions of the world. With an obvious pause for conducting a full-fledged study, the study of the Big Game has been showing a reaction to a socio-political request since 1965. The significant development of American Russian studies, Slavic studies and Asian studies is caused by these political motives.

Foreign historiography of the 70s — 80s of the XX century. about the rivalry between Great Britain and Russia in Central Asia.

The beginning of the 1970s was characterized by a significant drop in the number of works on the problems of Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia, as can be seen in the time series graph. However, this indicator still exceeds, especially on the moving average, the results before 1965.

The continued attention to the problem of the Big Game in 1970-1992 was confirmed by the nature, level and significance of the presented works. Many trends, trends and concepts of the previous period continued and expanded. Attention to the personalities that determine the face of the confrontation of the great powers forms a special attitude to the role of personality in the success or failure of individual episodes of fierce struggle in Central Asia [56-62]. Much attention was paid to the study of the processes of the conquest of Central Asia by the Russian Empire and its subsequent management [63-72]. The thesis formulated in Russian historiography about the progressive significance of Russia's conquest of these territories in foreign, primarily British, historiography was not recognized by all researchers. For example, D. Gillard directly accuses the Russian Empire of aggressive expansion and the desire to "expand its borders to establish control over neighboring nomadic tribes and weak states whenever the opportunity was given" [73, p. 64]. Another plot of foreign English-language historiography in the 1970s and 1980s was closer attention to such regions of the Big Game as Tibet [74-77] and Kashgaria [78-80]. In these works, the authors' desire was traced not only to expand the area of study of the problem, but also to highlight various aspects of the impact of the global confrontation of the great powers on these communities.

The activities of the famous British researcher and journalist P. Hopkirk deserve special attention. Although his works are mostly journalistic, they still deserve to be included in the time series under consideration. Hopkirk possessed outstanding scientific scrupulousness and relied on a detailed study of sources in his popular science books. In addition, he had a significant impact on the development and growth of interest in the Big Game not only in the academic environment, but also in Anglo-American society as a whole [81-82].

At this stage, the concept of the Ongoing Big Game was being developed no less successfully. The turbulent events of the second half of the 20th century, especially those related to the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, were analyzed from the perspective of the geopolitical confrontation of superpowers [83-85]. But special attention should be paid to a group of works that put the concept under study in the title. From the entire spectrum of such researchers, it is worth highlighting J. Morgan, M. Edwards and I. Ingram, who sought to comprehensively study both the Anglo-Russian confrontation itself and the specifics of its unusual name [86-89].

The main reason for the continued relevance of the problem of the Big Game is still seen as the enduring antagonism of the superpowers. The USSR and the USA, as the legal successors and heirs of the Russian and British Empires, metaphorically "try on" the established roles of rivals in the world and in Central Asia. The reaction of historiography to the outbreak of the Afghan War was indicative in the context of this interpretation. The peak value in this period was in 1980. Provided that 8 out of 9 papers are articles in scientific journals, this is seen as an academic response to the transition of events in Central Asia to the "hot" stage [88, 90-96] By the end of the decade, analytical works on the global American-Soviet confrontation appeared [97]. However, as Soviet military and geopolitical power declined, interest in the Big Game waned, only to be revived at the next stage.

The image of the Big Game and the new geopolitical situation in the region (1992-2011).

A major geopolitical event related to the collapse of the USSR significantly changed not only the entire world politics, but also the balance of power in Central Asia. The independence of the five Central Asian republics required the leading players to build a radically new paradigm in relation to the region. This resulted in the emergence and widespread dissemination of the concept of a New Big Game. Leaving aside the genesis of the new terminology in the study of Central Asia, it is worth noting that in scientific discourse, attention to the Anglo-Russian confrontation was obviously preserved.

From a substantive point of view, this period largely repeats the trends of the previous one. Attention was paid to the personalities of the participants in the Big Game [98-103], the colonial policy of Great Britain [104-108] and Russia [109-119]. It is noteworthy that there were fewer works devoted directly to the interaction of the two empires [120-123]. This can be explained by the new political reality in the world. At that moment, the Russian Federation did not possess the power that allowed the Russian Empire to resist Britain (and the USSR to resist the United States). The desire of the Russian leadership to reconsider the role of its country in the modern world order has also influenced the study of the Big Game.

A recent topic that has gained some popularity in historiography has been the study of intelligence and secret missions in the region [124-127]. The image of the "Shadow Game" is extremely attractive as a starting point in the history of intelligence. Not the least influence was exerted by the general "espionage" in popular culture in the late XX — early XXI centuries.

This period is also notable for the deepening of the problems of myth-making around the Big Game. A complex and complex phenomenon was undergoing a transformation in the public consciousness, both in the XIX century and up to the present day. Due to the popularity of this image in modern science, the study of its evolution is extremely important. The correlation of reality and fiction, as well as the role of linguistic and metaphorical constructions in this, have been highlighted in few but significant studies [128-130].

It is worth noting the unprecedented growth in popularity of this topic of the Big Game not only in scientific circles, but also in the public space. This was largely facilitated by popular science works performed with sufficient respect for sources [131-134]. An analytical study on the fate of superpowers in regional conflicts of the second half of the 20th century serves as a definite result [135]. And although the Soviet-Afghan war was not directly articulated in terms of a Big Game, like the Vietnam War, the general conclusion appeals to the specifics of the struggle for security through proxy wars.

Another important trend in the historiography of the 1990s-2000s was the continuation of consideration of aspects of the Anglo-Russian advance into Central Asia in the context of socio-cultural impact on its inhabitants [136-139]. Various aspects of spiritual life were studied through the prism of the confrontation of the great powers. Attention to these areas was cultivated in historical science throughout the second half of the 20th century.

Returning to the factors that contributed to the high proportion of studies of the Big Game in English-language historiography, it is worth noting the lack of correlation between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and any significant increase in the number of works on the topic. Instead, there was a slight shift in research topics in favor of the Afghan issue [140-143]. In fairness, it is worth noting that there have also been studies directly related to the events of September 11 and the subsequent actions of the United States and allies [144]. In general, interest in the Anglo-Russian confrontation was gaining momentum, gradually moving beyond academic discourse. There were more and more political science and journalistic works appealing to this concept. If we carefully consider the time series, then in the period from 1992 to 2011, all the peaks in the volume of work turned out to be due, among other things, to a New Big Game. However, it cannot yet be said that it completely displaces the previous terminology and historical focus of research from the scientific field.

Approaches to the problem of confrontation in the Central Asian region in the 2010s-2020s.

The first thing worth noting when characterizing this stage is the highest peak in the entire time series since the end of World War II. Almost half of the papers on the issue highlighted in 2014 are articles from the Central Asian Survey magazine, which devoted the entire second issue to the topic of the Russian conquest of Central Asia. The presented research includes both a classical analysis of certain aspects of the colonization of the region [145-146], as well as attempts to rethink previously reached conclusions [147-148] or work within the framework of new areas of historical science [149-151]. The very fact of such a thematic issue perfectly characterizes the place of the Big Game in modern historiography. 2014 is becoming the peak of this whole stage, not so much in terms of the volume of published works, as in assessing the importance of this topic, embodied in a special issue of a major magazine on Central Asia.

In the 1970s-1980s and 1990s-2000s, the abrupt behavior of the graph, nevertheless, was characterized by an increase in the average level, which allowed us to conclude that the image of the Big Game in science is continuing to grow in popularity. The current stage (since 2012) is still developing according to a slightly different scenario. After an extremely eventful 2014, a steady downward trend begins. This is complemented by an increased proportion of works devoted not to the confrontation of powers in Central Asia, but to the region itself and its peculiarities.

From a substantive point of view, several ongoing trends can be identified at this stage. There is still interest in the Russian colonization of Central Asia [152-154], personalities [155-155] and espionage [157]. The works devoted to the perception of the Big Game in the public consciousness and the myths associated with it are considered significant [158-159]. They raise an important idea about the complex and not always straightforward relationship between political action and its response in society. Every year, the problem of the correlation of reality and illusions in the modern digital world is becoming more and more urgent.

The ongoing Allied operation in Afghanistan maintains interest in its history [160-162], although a significant decline is noticeable compared to the previous stage. This is also due to the shift in the focus of American foreign policy on the global confrontation with China. The study of the cultural history of the region is becoming increasingly developed. And if the issues of interethnic interaction and the role of colonizers in the fate of Central Asian communities are not something new [163-165], then research on the problems of the ecology of the region, including in the historical and colonial perspective [166-168], turn out to be a characteristic feature of this stage in historiography.

The results of foreign English—language historiography of the second half of the XX - early XXI centuries.

Immediately after the Second World War, the total volume of historical literature was not the most significant, and the main topics were the recent conflict and the history of Germany. The outbreak of the Cold War increased interest in the history of the USSR, the Russian Empire and the problems of communist ideology. During this period (1945-1964), the Big Game remains largely on the periphery of scientific research.

The next stage formally began in 1965 and was characterized by a full-scale surge of interest in the Anglo-Russian confrontation in Central Asia. The prerequisites for this were laid back in the early 1960s. The topic became relevant again and more and more scientists paid attention to its development. The revival of attention to the Anglo-Russian rivalry, as it seems, is due to a combination of at least two factors. The first is the rapid growth of all foreign historical science in the late 1960s. The second factor is the deepening of contradictions between superpowers, the development of the Cold War and the awareness of the need to study one's own opponent. It is possible to choose the Caribbean crisis of 1962 as a formal starting point, after which the more subtle methods of the global struggle of the two systems turned out to be a priority. In this regard, any examples of geopolitical confrontation with the USSR or Russia became relevant, and the Big Game was better suited for this than ever.

Attention to the theme of the Big Game continued in the next time period (1970-1992). The global rivalry between the USSR and the USA continued to be a catalyst for scientific interest. A vivid confirmation was the violent academic reaction to the outbreak of the Afghan War, expressed in a stream of articles on the Big Game during 1980. At the end of this period, works directly interpreting this conflict as a continuation of the Big Game, as well as an analysis of the global rivalry of modern superpowers through the prism of local wars, managed to appear.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical situation in Central Asia has changed significantly. The independence of the five former Soviet republics opened the way for major world players to enter these countries and fight for their resources. In addition, the need to build a long-term strategy in relation to the region has become urgent. These factors turned out to be key in order for the Anglo-Russian rivalry in the region to remain in the focus of attention of the scientific community. Last but not least, the volume of research literature is due to the emergence of the concept of a New Big Game, which is rapidly gaining popularity both in the academic environment and beyond. Much attention was paid to cultural interaction at the point of contact of empires and other topics previously ignored in historiography. It is surprising that the beginning of the operation of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, after the September 11 attacks, did not have a significant impact on the volume of research.

The latest period at the moment represents an anomalous picture of an unprecedented surge in interest in the Big Game in 2014. This was largely facilitated by the special issue of the Central Asian Survey magazine, which is entirely devoted to the Russian colonization of the region. Interdisciplinary approaches and research into the New Big Game continued to grow among the works.

Can the post-war historiography of the topic be characterized as a form of reactualization of the Anglo-Russian confrontation under the influence of the bipolar system of international relations and the postcolonial social conjuncture? In the second half of the 20th century, British historiography closely merged with American science due to the academic ties between these two countries. The growth of publications since the mid-1960s was largely due to an external factor, which was most often associated with the aggravation of the international situation in Central Asia or relations between the great powers. Efforts to develop postcolonial trends in the humanities in the UK also made a significant contribution. Soon this trend gained popularity in the United States, but it was not a key message for intellectual search. The United States turned out to be a country where the difference between pre-war and post-war attention to the problem of the Big Game is enormous. It was the US foreign policy interests that stimulated the significant development of full-scale studies of Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia. The share of American works in the study of this problem grew throughout the second half of the XX — early XXI centuries, exerting an increasing influence on foreign historiography as a whole. Under the influence of the conjuncture, the theme of the Big Game is once again becoming popular in the academic community, and its image is widely used in political discourse and popular culture.

The theme of the Big Game has been attracting more and more attention in recent decades. In addition to the scientific environment, this image penetrates into journalism and the media, becoming a universal explanatory metaphor. The geography of the concept is rapidly expanding, striving to cover the whole world. In this regard, the reasons and prerequisites for such attention to a topic that has a rich and extensive historiography are important. The return of interest in the Anglo-Russian confrontation and the transfer of certain components of the concept of the Big Game to modern realities could not be realized without serious impulses from society. In this regard, the study of publication and research activity allows us to formulate an assumption about the nature of the reactualization of the theme of the Big Game. Foreign historiography from the end of the Second World War to the end of the second decade of the XXI century was chosen as the object. It includes, first of all, Anglo-American works of this period, because more attention was paid to the development of the problems of the Big Game in these countries. Additionally, selected Indian and Chinese works published in English-language publications are also involved.

For a full-fledged analysis of the dynamics of academic interest in the problem of the Big Game, an array of English-language literature was formed, published between 1945 and 2022. (more than 300 works). Various historiographical reviews were used as a guide for compiling this array, with the help of which the key and most significant studies were identified. In addition to this group, to create a more complete picture, the information was in the journals American Historical Review and English Historical Review. These publications specialize in reviewing recent publications. Due to their general nature, their issues clearly demonstrate an informative cross-section of the most popular research topics among English and American historians, from which works on the Big Game were consistently selected. Central Asian Survey, in turn, is a highly specialized journal, the involvement of which in order to select publications for research was carried out with the expectation that profile collections for the region of interest would most likely contain fresh and relevant views on the problem.

The main method of their analysis is the construction of a time series and the interpretation of the resulting graph. Mechanical smoothing and the use of a moving average were used to check and correct the resulting trend lines. This eliminates potential distortions caused by possible incompleteness of the available data.

References
1. Morgan, J.H. (1946). Assize of Arms: The Disarmament of Germany and Her Rearmament (1919–1939). NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Valentin, V. (1946). The German People: Their History and Civilization from the Holy Roman Empire to the Third Reich. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
3. Barraclough, G. (1947). The Origins of Modern Germany. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; NY: Macmillan Company.
4. Wint, G. (1947). British in Asia. L.: Faber and Faber.
5. Webster, C. (1951). The Foreign Policy of Palmerston, 1830–1841: Britain, the Liberal Movement, and the Eastern Question. In two volumes. L.: G. Bell and Sons; NY: British Book Centre.
6. Thornton, A.P. (1954) British Policy in Persia, 1858–1890. The English Historical Review, LXIX (CCLXXIII, Oct. 1954), 554-579.
7. Gibbs, N. (1955). The Origins of Imperial Defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8. Burns, A. (1957). In Defence of Colonies: British Colonial Territories in International Affairs. NY: Macmillan Company; L.: George Allen and Unwin.
9. Magnus, P. (1958). Kitchener, Portrait of Imperialist. L.: J. Murray.
10. Greaves, R. (1959). Persia and the Defence of India, 1884–1892. A Study in the Foregn Policy of the Third Marquis of Salisbury. L.: The Athlone Press.
11. Mosley, L. (1960). The Glorious Fault. The Life of Lord Curson. L.-NY.
12. Harris, J. (1960). British Policy on the North-Western Frontier – 1889–1901. Ph.D. Diss. University of London.
13. Fleming, P. (1961). Bayonets of Lhasa. The First full Account of the British Invasion of Tibet in 1904. L.: Rupert Hart-Davis.
14. Mackintosh, J. (1962). The Role of Committee of Imperial Defence before 1914. The English Historical Review, LXXVII (304, July 1962), 490-503.
15. Yapp, M. (1962). Disturbances in Eastern Afghanistan. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 25(1), 499-523.
16. Singhal, D.P. (1963). India and Afghanistan, 1876–1907: A Study in Diplomatic Relations. University of Queensland Press.
17. Alder, G.J. (1963).British India's Northern Frontier, 1865–1895: A Study in Imperial Policy. L.: Longmans.
18. Yapp, M. (1964). The revolution of 1841–1842 in Afghanistan. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 27(2), 333-381.
19. Dallin, В. (1950). The Rise of Russia in Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20. Lobanov-Rostovskii, A. (1951). Russia and Asia. Ann Arbor, Mich: George Wahr Publishing Company.
21. Holdsworth, M. (1959). Turkestan in the Nineteenth Century. A Brief History of the Khanates of Bukhara, Kokand and Khiva. Oxford: Central Asia Research Institute.
22. Pierce, R. (1960). Russian Central Asia, 1867–1917. A Study in Colonial Rule. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
23. Kazemzadeh, F. (1962). Russia and the Middle East. In I. Lederer (ed.), Rusian Foreign Policy. Essays in Historical Perspective (pp. 489-530). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
24. Lensen, G (eds.). (1964). Russia's Eastward Expansion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
25. Gleason, J. (1950). The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain. A study in the Interaction of Policy and Opinion. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
26. Fraser-Tytler, W.K. (1950). Afghanistan. A study of political developments in Central Asia. L.-Oxford: University Press.
27. Palmer, A. (1955). Lord Salisbury Approach to Russia. Oxford Slavonic Papers, VI, 102-114.
28. Thornton, A. (1956). Reopenning of the «Central Asia question», 1864–1869. History, New Ser. XLI (141-143), 122-136.
29. Menon, K. (1957). The «Russian Bogey» and British Aggresion in India and Beyond. Calcutta: Priyadarshi Banerji, Eastern Trading Company.
30. Walsh, W. (1957). The Imperial Russian General Staff and India: A Footnote to Diplomatic History. Russian Review, 16(2), 53-58.
31. Cowling, M. (1961). Lytton, the Cabinet, and the Russians, August to November 1878. The English Historical Review, LXXVI (CCXCVIII, Jan. 1961), 59-79.
32. Anvar Khan, M. (1963).England, Russia and Central Asia, 1857–1878. Peshavar: University Book Agency.
33. Khalfin, N.A. (1964). Russia's Policy in Central Asia, 1857–1868. L.: Central Asian Research Centre.
34. Sanderson, G.D. (1951). India and British Imperialism. NY: Bookman Associates.
35. Lenczowski, G. (1952). The Middle East in World Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
36. Griffiths, P. (1952). The British Impact on India. L.: Macdonald; NY: Macmillan Company.
37. Roberts, P.E. (1952). History of British India under the Company and the Crown. Third edition completed by T. G. P. Spear. NY: Oxford University Press.
38. Shwadran, B. (1955). The Middle East, Oil and the Great Powers. NY: Frederick A. Praeger.
39. Kydgate, J. (1965). Curzon and Kithener and the Problem of Indian Army Administration, 1899–1909. Ph.D. Diss. University of London.
40. Howard, C. (1967). Splendid Isolation: A Study of Ideas Concerning Brit-Ain's International Position and Foreign Policy During the Later Years of the Third Marquis of Salisbury. NY: St. Martin's Press.
41. Gillard, D. (1967). Salisbury and the Indian Defence Problem, 1885–1902. In K. Bourne, D. Watt (Eds). Studies in International History (pp. 237-241). L.: Longmans.
42. Mehra, P. (1968). The Younghusband Expedition. An Interpretation. L.: Asia Public House.
43. Dilks, D. (1969–1970).Curzon in India. 2 vol. NY: Taplinger Publishing Company.
44. Rose, K. (1969). Superior Person. A Portrait of Curzon and his Circle in Late Victorian England. L.: Weidenfield and Nicolson.
45. Preston, A. (1969). Sir Charles Macgregor an the Defence of India, 1857–1887. The Historical Journal, 12(1), 58-77.
46. Sharma, A. (1969). India's Foreign Problem and Lord Curzon (1899–1905). Journal of Historical Research, 12(1), 81-92.
47. Sharma, A. (1969). The Russian Menace to India and Lord Curzon (1899-1905). Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 31, 476-481.
48. Mackenzie, D. (1969). Expansion in Central Asia: St Petersburg vs. The Turkestan Generals (1863–1866). Canadian Slavic Studies, 3(2), 286-311.
49. Bacon, E.E. (1966). Central Asians under Russian Rule: A Study in Culture Change. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.
50. Becker, S. (1968). Russia's Protectorates in Central Asia: Bokhara and Khiva, 1865–1924. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
51. Kelly, J.B. (1968).Britain and the Persian Gulf. 1795–1880. Oxford: University Press.
52. Norris, J.A. (1967). The First Afghan War, 1838–1842. NY: Cambridge University Press.
53. Kapur, H. (1967). Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917–1927: a Study of Soviet Policy Towards Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. NY: Humanities Press.
54. Swinson, A. (1967). The North-West Frontier. People and Events 1839–1947. L.: Hutchinson.
55. Edmund Clubb, O. (1971). China & Russia: The «Great Game». (Studies of the East Asian Institute, Columbia University.). NY: Columbia University Press.
56. MacKenzie, D. (1974). The Lion of Tashkent: The Career of General M. G. Cherniaev. [Athens:] University of Georgia Press.
57. Strong, J. (1975). The Ignatiev Mission to Khiva and Bokhara in 1858. Canadian Slavionic Papers., XVII(2-3), 236-269.
58. Rayfield, D. (1976). The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky, Explorer of Central Asia. L.: P. Elek.
59. Alder, G.J. (1980). Standing Alone: William Moorcroft Plays the Great Game, 1808-1825. The International History Review, 2(2, Apr. 1980), 172-215.
60. Preston, P. (1980). Frustrated Great Gamesmanship: Sir Garnet Wolseley’s Plans for War against Russia, 1873–1880. The International History Review, 2(2), 239-265.
61. Addy, P. (1983). Imperial Prophet or Scarmonger? Curzon's Tibetan Policy Reconsidered. Asian Affairs, 14(1), 54-67.
62. Whitteridge, G. (1986). Charles Mason of Afganistan: Explorer, Arheologist and Intelligence Agent. Warminster: Aris and Philips.
63. Riasanovsky, N. (1972). Asia Through Russian Eyes. In W. Vuchinich (ed.), Russia and Asia. Essays on the Influence of Russia on the Asian Peoples (3-29). Stanford: Hoover Institute Press.
64. Sarkisyanz, M. (1972). Russian Conquest in Central Asia: Transformation and Acculturation. In W. Vuchinich (ed.), Russia and Asia. Essays on the Influence of Russia on the Asian Peoples (248-288). Stanford: Hoover Institute Press.
65. Mackenzie, D. (1974). Turkistan's Significance to Russia (1850–1917). Russian Review, 33(2), 167-188.
66. Wheeler, G. (1974). Russian Conquest and Colonization of Central Asia. In T. Hinczak (ed.), Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution (264-298). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
67. Saray, M. (1982). The Russian conquest of Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 1(2-3), 1-30. doi:10.1080/02634938208400394
68. Saray, M. (1988). Russo‐Turkmen relations up to 1874. Central Asian Survey, 7(2-3), 133-144.
69. Manz, B.F. (1987). Central Asian Uprisings in the Nineteenth Century: Ferghana under the Russians. Russian Review, 46(3), 267-281.
70. Becker, S. (1988). Russia's Central Asian Empire, 1885-1917. In M.Rewkin (ed.), Russian Colonial Expansion to 1917 (pp. 235-256.). L. and NY: Manswell Publoshers.
71. Mackenzie, D. (1988). The Conquest and Administration of Turkistan, 1860–1885. In M. Rewkin (ed.). Russian Colonial Expansion to 1917 (pp. 208-234). L. and NY: Manswell Publoshers.
72. Allworth, E. (Ed.). (1989). Central Asia, 120 Years of Russian Rule. Durham-London: Duke University Press.
73. Gillard, D. (1977). Struggle for Asia, 1828–1914. A Study in British and Russian Imperialism. L.
74. Macgregor, J. (1970). Tibet: A Chronicle of Exploration. NY: Praeger Publishers.
75. Keay, J. (1979). The Gilgit Game: The Explorers of the Western Himalayas, 1820–1875. L.: J. Murray.
76. Addy, P. (1984). Tibet on the Imperial Chessboard: The Making of British Policy towards Lhasa, 1899–1905. Calcutta, New Delhi: Academic Publishers.
77. Lamb, A. (1986). British India and Tibet, 1766–1910. L.: Routlege and Keagan Paul.
78. Skrine, S.P., & Nightingale, P. (1973). Macartney at Kashgar. New Light on British, Chinese and Russian Activities in Sinkiang, 1890–1918. L.: Routledge.
79. Hassnanin, F. (1974). British Policy towards Kashmir (1846–1921). (Kashmir in Anglo-Russian Politics). New Dheli: Sterling Publishers.
80. Henze, P. (1989). The Great Game in Kashgaria: British and Russian Missions to Yakub Bek. Central Asia Survey, 8(2), 61-95.
81. Hopkirk, P. (1982). Trespassers on the Roof of the World. The Race for Lhasa. L.: J. Murray.
82. Hopkirk, P. (1984). Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia. Oxford: University Press.
83. Wolpert, S. (1982). Roots of Confrontation in South Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the Superpowers. NY: Oxford University Press.
84. Rezun, M. (1986). The Great Game Revisited. International Journal, 41(2), 324-341.
85. Knabe, G. (1984). The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asian Survey, 3(4), 15-47.
86. Morgan, G. (1973). Myth and Reality in the Great Game. Asian Affairs, LX, New Ser. (Vol. IV, Part. 1), 55-65.
87. Edwardes, M. (1975). Playing the Great Game. L.: Hamish Hamilton.
88. Ingram, E. (1980). Great Britain's Great Game: An Introduction. The International History Review, 2(2, Apr., 1980), 160-171.
89. Ingram, E. (1981). Commitment to Empire: Prophesies of Great Game in Asia, 1797–1800. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
90. Fromkin, D. (1980). The Great Game in Asia. Foreign Affairs, 58(4), 936-951.
91. Alder, G.J. (1980). Standing Alone: William Moorcroft Plays the Great Game, 1808–1825. The International History Review, 2(2, Apr., 1980), 172-215.
92. Martel, G. (1980). Documenting the Great Game: 'World Policy' and the 'Turbulent Frontier' in the 1890s. The International History Review, 2(2, Apr. 1980), 288-308.
93. Williams, B. (1980). Approach to the Second Afghan War: Central Asia during the Great Eastern Crisis, 1875–1878. The International History Review, 2(2 , Apr. 1980), 216-238.
94. Preston, P. (1980). Frustrated Great Gamesmanship: Sir Garnet Wolseley’s Plans for War against Russia, 1873–1880. The International History Review, 2(2, Apr. 1980), 239-265.
95. Duthie, J. (1980). Some Further Insights into the Working of Mid-Victorian Imrerialism: Lord Sulisbury and Anglo-Afgan Relations: 1874–1878. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, V(4), 475-495.
96. Towle, P. (1980). The Russo-Japanese War and the Defense of India. Military Affairs, 44(3), 111-117.
97. Dukes, P. (1989). The Last Great Game: USA versus USSR; Events, Conjunctures, Structures. NY: St. Martin's.
98. Goradia, N. (1993). Lord Curzon: The Last of the British Moghuls. NY: Oxford University Press.
99. Wright, D. (1993). Sir Percy Sykes and Persia. Central Asian, 12(2: Russia and the Muslims of the Former Soviet Union: Dynamics of Ethnicity, Religion and Security), 217-231.
100. French, P. (1994). Younghusband: The Last Great Imperial Adventurer. L.: Harper Collins.
101. Chakrabarti, S. (1995). From Robert Shaw to George Nathaniel Curzon: British Penetration to Eastern Turkestan in the Late 19th Century. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 56, 813-824.
102. Otte, T. (2002). «Floating Downstream»? Lord Salisbury and British Foreign Policy, 1878-1302. In Otte T. (Ed.). The makers of British Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
103. Wynn, A. (2003). Persia in the Great Game. Syr Persy Sykes: Explorer, Consul, Soldier, Spy. L.: J. Murray.
104. Charmley, J. (1999). Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War. L.: Hodder and Stoughton.
105. Goodlad, G. (2000). British Policy in India, 1858–1905. L.-NY: Routlege.
106. Mahajan, S. (2002). British Foreign Policy 1874–1914: The Role of India. Routledge Studies in Modern European History. NY: Routledge.
107. Johnson, R. (2003). Russians at the Gates of India? Planning the Defense of India, 1884–1899. Journal of Military History, 67(3) 697-743. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0230
108. Singh, S.N. (2006). The Shadow of the Great Game – The Untold Story of India's Partition. L.: Constable.
109. Rieber, A. (1993). Persistent Factors in Russian Foreign Policy: An Interoretative Essay. In H. Ragsdale (Ed.). Imperial Russian Foreign Policy (pp. 315-359). Cambridge: Cambridge Univercity Press.
110. Allworth, E. (ed.). (1994).Central Asia. 130 Years of Russian Dominance, a Historical Overview. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press; L.: Academic & University Publishers Group.
111. Becker, S. (1994). The Russian Conquest of Central Asia and Kazakhstan: Motives, Methods, Conequences. In H. Malik (Ed.). Central Asia: its Strategic Importance and Future Prospects (pp. 21-38). NY: St. Martin's Press.
112. Page, S. (1994). The Creation of Sphere of Influence: Russia and the Central Asia. International Journal, 49(4), 788-813. doi:10.1177/002070209404900404
113. Khan, H. (1996). Russian Expansionism in Central Asia and the Region’s Response. Pakistan Horizon, 49(2), 33-57.
114. Yetigsin, M. (2000). How the Tomes of London covered and Interpreted Russian Expansion into Central Asia in the Second Half of the 19th Century. Ph.D. Diss. Texas Technological University.
115. Brower, D. (2003). Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire. L.: RoutlegeCurzon.
116. Mackenzie, D. (1994). Imperial Dreams, Harsh Realities. Tsarist Russian Foreign Policy, 1815–1917. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
117. Andreeva, E. (2007). Russia and Iran in the Great Game: Travelogues and Oriantalism. L.-NY: Routlege.
118. Sahadeo, J. (2007). Russian Colonial Society in Tashkent, 1865–1923. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Universiry Press.
119. Morrison, A.S. (2008). Russian Rule in Samarkand, 1868–1910: A Comparison with British India. Oxford: Oxford U.P.
120. Lieven, D. (2000). Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals. L.: J. Murray.
121. Hughes, M. (2000). Bernard Papers, Russia Studies and the Promotion of Anglo-Russian Friendship, 1907–1914. The Slavonic and East European Review, 78(3), 501-512.
122. Siegel, J. (2002). Endgame. Britain, Russia and the Final Straggle for Central Asia. L.-NY.
123. Sandole, D.J.D. (2007). Central Asia: Managing the Delicate Balance between the «Discourse of Danger», the «Great Game», and Regional Problem Solving. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 40(2), 257-567.
124. Weale, A. (1997). Secret Warfare. Special Operetion's Forces from the Great Game to the SAS. L.: Hodder and Stougton.
125. Rich, D. (2004). Building Foundations of Effectve Intelligence: Military Geography and Statistics in Russian Perspective, 1845–1905. In D. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, B. Menning (Eds.). Reforming Tsar's Army. Military Innovation in Imperial Russia from Peter the Great to The Revolution. Washington: Woodrow Wikson Center Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
126. Johnson, R. (2006). Spying for Empire. The Great Game in Central and South Asia, 1757–1947. L.: Greenhill Books.
127. Stewart, J. (2006). Spying for the Raj. The Pundits and the Mapping of the Himalaya. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing.
128. Macdonald, D. (1994). The Language of Empire: Myths and Metaphors of Popular Imperialism, 1880–1980. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
129. Hopkirk, P. (1996). The Quest for Kim. In Search of Kipling's Great Game. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
130. Hopkins, B. (2004). The Myth of the «Great Game»: The Anglo-Sikh Alliance and Rivalry. University of Cambridge, Centre of South Asian Studies. Occasional Paper, 5, 1-36.
131. Meyer, K., & Brysac, S. (1999). Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington: A Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book.
132. Hopkirk, P. (1995). Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire. NY.
133. Hopkirk, P. (1995). Trespassers on the Roof of the World: The Secret Exploration of Tibet. NY.
134. Hopkirk, P. Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of Empire in Asia. Oxford: University Press.
135. Borer, D. (1999). Superpowers Defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan Compared. Portland, Oreg.: Frank Cass.
136. Silverstein, B. (2002). Discipline, knowledge and imperial power in Central Asia: 19th century notes for a genealogy of social forms. Central Asian Survey, 21(1), 91-105.
137. Mojtahed-Zadeh, P. (2004). The Small Players of the Great Game: The Settlement of Iran's Eastern Borderlands and the Creation of Afganistan. L.: RoutlegeCurzon.
138. Crews, R.D. (2006). For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
139. Allender, T. (2006). Ruling through Education: The Politics of Schooling in the Colonial Punjab. (Asian Studies Association of Australia, South Asian Publications Series, number 14.). Elgin, Ill.: New Dawn Press.
140. Bearden, M. (2001). Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires. Foreign Affairs, 80(6), 17-30.
141. Sukash, C. (2002). Afghanistan and the Great Game. Dehli: New Country Publications.
142. Chakravatry, S. (2002). Afghanistan and the Great Game. Delhi: New Century.
143. Akhtar, A.S. (2009). The New Great Game in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(1), 36-40.
144. Kuniholm, B.R. (2002). 9/11, the Great Game, and the Vision Thing: The Need for (And Elements of) a More Comprehensive Bush Doctrine. The Journal of American History, 89(2, History and September 11: A Special Issue (Sep., 2002), 426-438.
145. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, D. (2014). Paul's great game: Russia's plan to invade British India. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 143-152. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.909672
146. Malikov, A.M. (2014). The Russian conquest of the Bukharan Emirate: military and diplomatic aspects. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 180-198. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.916110
147. Campbell, I.W. (2014). «Our friendly rivals»: rethinking the Great Game in Ya'qub Beg's Kashgaria, 1867–77. Central Asian Survey., 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 199-214. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.915613
148. Morrison, A. (2014). Introduction: Killing the Cotton Canard and getting rid of the Great Game: rewriting the Russian conquest of Central Asia, 1814–1895. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 131-142. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.915614
149. Morrison, A. (2014). «Nechto eroticheskoe», «courir après l'ombre»? – logistical imperatives and the fall of Tashkent, 1859–1865. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 153-169. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.909131
150. Mamadaliev, I. (2014). The defense of Khujand in 1866 through the eyes of Russian officers. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 170-179. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.913903
151. Anashin, S. (2014). The «fierce fight» at Oshoba: a microhistory of the conquest of the Khoqand Khanate. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 215-231. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.909196
152. Poullada, P. S. (2018). Russian–Turkmen encounters: The Caspian frontier before the Great Game. L.: I. B. Tauris.
153. Keller, S. (2020). Russia and Central Asia: Coexistence, Conquest, Convergence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
154. Morrison, A. (2020). The Russian Conquest of Central Asia: A Study in Imperial Expansion, 1814–1914. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
155. Murray, C. (2016). Sikunder Burnes: Master of the Great Game. Edinburgh: Birlinn.
156. Minassian Ter, T. (2016). Most secret agent of Empire: Reginald Teague-Jones, master spy of the Great Game. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
157. Kreutzmann, H. (2018). Wakhan Quadrangle: exploration and espionage during and after the Great Game. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
158. Hamm, G. (2013). Revisiting the Great Game in Asia: Rudyard Kipling and Popular History. International Journal, 68(2), 395-402. doi:10.1177/0020702013492534
159. Morrison, A. (2014). Twin Imperial Disasters. The Invasions of Khiva and Afghanistan in the Russian and British Official Mind, 1839–1842. Modern Asian Studies, 48(1), 253-300. doi:10.1017/S0026749X13000036
160. Jalaly, A. (2017). A Military History of Afghanistan: From the Great Game to the Global War on Terror. University Press of Kansas.
161. Lee, J.L. (2018). Afghanistan: a history from 1260 to the present. L.: Reaktion Books.
162. Sinno, A. (2015). Partisan Intervention and the Transformation of Afghanistan’s Civil War. The American Historical Review, 120(5), 1811-1828. doi:10.1093/ahr/120.5.1811
163. Gorshenina, S. (2014). Samarkand and its cultural heritage: perceptions and persistence of the Russian colonial construction of monuments. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 246-269. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.916071
164. Babajanov, B. (2014). «How will we appear in the eyes of inovertsy and inorodtsy?» Nikolai Ostroumov on the image and function of Russian power. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia), 270-278. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.916484
165. Eden, J. (2018). Slavery and Empire in Central Asia. NY: Cambridge University Press.
166. Shioya, A. (2014). Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: a new canal and the birth of ethnic conflict in the Khorazm oasis, 1870s–1890s. Central Asian Survey, 33(2: The Russian conquest of Central Asia.), 232-245. doi:10.1080/02634937.2014.916077
167. Keating, J. (2022). On Arid Ground: Political Ecologies of Empire in Russian Central Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
168. Zajicek, T.S. (2022). The seismic colony: earthquakes, empire and technology in Russian-ruled Turkestan, 1887–1911. Central Asian Survey, 41(2: Technology, Temporality and the Study of Central Asia), 322-346.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The modern world is characterized by a gradual transformation of the system of international relations, in which multipolarity will replace monopolarity, where, along with the tired North American colossus, a number of countries, including China, Russia, India, and Iran, will occupy leading positions. At the same time, it is obvious that at the moment there is a great geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West, which should be understood primarily as the Anglo-Saxon world. In this regard, there is an increasing attention to the study of various historical aspects of the Anglo-Russian rivalry, including in the framework of the so-called Big Game for Primacy in Central Asia. These circumstances determine the relevance of the article submitted for review, the subject of which is academic interest in the problem of the Big Game. The author sets out to analyze the stages of foreign English-language historiography on the topic of the Big Game, as well as to identify the reasons for the activation of full-scale studies of Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia. The work is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, reliability, objectivity, the methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author seeks to characterize the dynamics of academic interest in the Anglo-Russian confrontation in foreign historical science in the second half of the XX — early XXI centuries. Considering the bibliographic list of the article, as a positive point, we note its scale and versatility: in total, the list of references includes 168 different sources and studies, which in itself indicates the amount of preparatory work that its author has done. The undoubted advantage of the reviewed article is the involvement of foreign English-language literature, which is determined by the very formulation of the topic. Among the works attracted by the author, we will point to the works of V.K. Fraser-Tytler, J. Gleason, R. Johnson, D. McDonald and other specialists, whose focus is on various aspects of the study of the Big Game. Note that the bibliography of the article is important both from a scientific and educational point of view: after reading the text of the article, readers can turn to other materials on its topic. In general, in our opinion, the integrated use of various sources and research contributed to the solution of the tasks facing the author. The style of writing the article can be attributed to scientific, at the same time understandable not only to specialists, but also to a wide readership, to anyone interested in both the Anglo-Russian geopolitical confrontation in general and its study in particular. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency, it can be distinguished by an introduction, the main part, and conclusion. At the beginning, the author shows that "the graph of the dynamics of academic interest clearly demonstrates the changing nature of the attention of the foreign scientific community to the topic of the Big Game": "spikes in the mid-1960s, in the first half of the 1980s, the first half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2010s are clearly visible." The author draws attention to the fact that "British historiography in the second half of the twentieth century closely merged with American science due to the academic ties between these two countries." It was the US foreign policy interests that "stimulated the significant development of full-scale studies of Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia." It is noteworthy, and this causes fair perplexity to the author of the reviewed article, "the beginning of the operation of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, after the September 11 attacks, did not have a significant impact on the volume of research." The main conclusion of the article is that the post-war historiography of the topic is characterized as a form of reactualization of the Anglo-Russian confrontation under the influence of the bipolar system of international relations and the postcolonial social conjuncture. The article submitted for review is devoted to an urgent topic, will arouse readers' interest, and its materials can be used both in lecture courses on the history of Russia and in various special courses. At the same time, there are significant comments to the article: 1) It is necessary to proofread the text, eliminating individual typos. Thus, the author's text reads: "The graph of the dynamics of academic interest clearly demonstrates the changing nature of the attention of the library scientific community," "US foreign policy interests stimulated the significant development of full-scale research," etc. 2) The title of the article should be specified, because the author considers the dynamics of studying the Big Game, and not the entire Anglo-Russian confrontation, for example, during the Cold War. After correcting these comments, the article may be recommended for publication in the journal "Historical Journal: Scientific Research".

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research is the development of basic concepts, theories, approaches to the problem of global rivalry (Big Game) in foreign historical science of the second half of the XX – early XXI centuries. The research methodology is based on the principles of scientific objectivity, historicism, consistency, and integrity. The methods of historiography are used in the work, the chronological period is the basis of the work. For historiographical analysis, the author has formed an "array of English-language literature" from various historiographical reviews on the topic, for the period from 1945 to 2022. (more than 300 works). This array includes mainly works by Anglo-American researchers, as well as some "Indian and Chinese works published in English-language publications." In addition, the author, in addition to this group of works, used research from the American Historical Review and English Historical Review, specializing in reviewing new works, as well as materials from their journal Central Asian Survey, which also publishes profile collections on this region. The predominant method of analyzing this literature was "the construction of a time series and the interpretation of the resulting graph. Mechanical smoothing and the use of a moving average were used to check and correct the resulting trend lines." According to the author, this "eliminates potential distortions caused by possible incompleteness of the available data." Relevance In recent years, the topic of global rivalry or the Big Game, as the author notes, "penetrates journalism and the media, becomes a universal explanatory metaphor," and the geography of the concept covers the whole world, which makes the research topic relevant and significant and raises the question of the need for closer attention to the study of the historiography of the Big Game issue and the need to analyze this literature. The Russian-British rivalry on the world stage has intensified and this fact actualizes the study of the origins and stages of this confrontation and its reflection in the scientific literature. The relevance of the topic is beyond doubt and obvious. The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the formulation of the problem and the objectives of the study. Scientific novelty is also determined by the style, structure, and content. The style of the article is academic, the language is clear and precise, there are also descriptive elements, which makes the text easy to read and perceive. The structure of the work is logically structured and aimed at achieving the purpose of the article. At the beginning of the article, the author reveals the relevance of the topic and writes about what criteria he used in forming the body of literature that he analyzed. The work is based on chronological and also on regional principles and the main part of the work consists of the following sections: The first stage of foreign English-language historiography (1945-1964); The surge of academic interest in the problems of the Anglo—Russian confrontation in the mid-late 1960s; Foreign historiography of the 70s - 80s of the XX century. about the rivalry between Great Britain and Russia in Central Asia; The image of the Big Game and the new geopolitical situation in the region (1992-2011); Approaches to the problem of confrontation in the Central Asian region in the 2010s and 2020s. In each section, the author highlights the main research topics, notes the most interesting works and notes the factors that determine the interest of researchers in the topics under study and shows the reasons and factors that determined the thematic focus of the work and the number of works. The author also pays considerable attention to the content of the works, shows differences in approaches by country to the topics under study. The work is completed by the final section "Results of foreign English—language historiography of the second half of the XX - early XXI centuries", in which the author provides objective conclusions on the research topic. The conclusion of the work is to a certain extent consonant with the introductory part of the work and repeats it to some extent. The author notes that in the post-war period, the topic of the Big Game remained on the periphery of scientific interests, since the main topics of the works were devoted to the results of World War II, the history of Germany, as well as the history of Russia and the USSR, and the problems of communist ideology. And the theme of the Big Game began to gain momentum from the second half of the 1960s, it is noted that the collapse of the USSR actualized this topic, it is noted that after the collapse of the USSR, issues of cultural interaction in the place of contact of empires, cooperation in Central Asia were actualized, and the term New Big Game appears, which becomes popular both in the academic environment, so it is outside of it. He notes the reasons for the actualization of the topic and the factors that determine the interest of both academic researchers and public demand for the study of certain issues. The paper provides a graph of academic interest in the topic under study by year. The author writes that the time series presented in the graph shows a very interesting picture of those trends that clearly manifest themselves in foreign historical science in the study of the Big Game. " The graph of the dynamics of academic interest clearly demonstrates the changing nature of the attention of the foreign scientific community to the topic of the Big Game. The spikes in the mid-1960s, the first half of the 1980s, the first half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2010s are clearly visible. At the same time, there are periods of stable relevance of the problem of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in historiography.". The bibliography of the work consists of 168 works and indicates that the author is well versed in the topic under study. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of information received during the work on the topic and a qualitative historiographical analysis of the works. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The work is written on an urgent topic, has signs of scientific novelty and will be of interest to specialists.
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.