Talk:Kabul Expedition (1842)

Really a Battle?
Everything I had read, including this article states that the Afghans retreated, the British entered Kabul, destroyed what they could and retreated back to India, there was never a "battle", much less in Kabul itself. All the whole British presence in Kabul got summarized in two line anyway. If no one disagrees I will change the article to "Kabul expedition (1842)" or something similar. Any ideas? Bertdrunk (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is confusing to the reader. I have now made changes to the article as in fact there were a number of battles right from the start of the expedition. From that more detailed individual articles on those battles can be added at some point. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to do with 1842
That image has nothing to do with 1842. Check this:, first image on the left page. By early days of the occupation its referring to in its first in August 1839. @HLGallon Noorullah (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * From the original description of the image uploaded to Wikipedia:

This lithograph was taken from plate 5 of 'Afghaunistan' by Lieutenant James Rattray. He wrote of this scene: "After a march of 210 miles through the most desolate and terrific mountain passes in the world, the view ... bursts suddenly on the delighted eyes of the fastness-wearied soldier."

The encampment of the troops led by General Sir William Nott lay on the vast plain of Chaman-e-Shah. Kabul is pictured in the distance. Towering above all are the heights of Paghman. Rattray wrote that if this commanding and secure site had been taken earlier during the Afghan campaign, it "in all probability could have prevented that long series of unparalleled disasters, reverses, crimes and errors, which ended in our total annihilation." A mark in the high road, running through the centre of the sketch, indicates the spot where Shah Shuja was murdered.[NB on 5 April, 1842]

The original source was the British library. The publishers of Dalrymple's much later book seem to have taken liberties with several images and captions. Note that there may also be confusion between two people named Rattray; one was the assistant to political agent Pottinger, and was murdered near Charikar in 1841; the other, who produced this and other lithographs, was a subaltern in Nott's Army, and commanded a small detachment in Kandahar in February 1842. Source: Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan Vols. 2 and 3. HLGallon (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @HLGallon Looked online for some more resources and they seem to point out 1842, fine to keep it then. Noorullah (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive removal
@ User:Noorullah21 - please don't disrupt/remove edits, there is a talk page here if you disagree, the article had problems as noted from a previous editor. The article suggests one battle when there clearly wasn't. The expedition was in fact a series of battles, and it wasnt just Kabul. Also, do I have to start quoting sources to prove the points of changes and dditions. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Eastfarthingan Please see WP:BRD and don't define any revert as disruptive editing. I have reverted it again due to WP:ONUS and so that a consensus can be opened on this talk page.
 * Sykes source is strictly WP:RAJ from 1940, and not the misleading 2014 in the infobox.
 * I haven't seen anything be pointed out that says the Kabul expedition was a British victory such as Dalryimple, could you link that specifically? Dalrymple doesn't have page numbers either in their books. I am also not denying that it was centered in Kabul. I am well versed on the topic of them also leading campaigns into regions like Charikar. Noorullah (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since that is the point of contention let's leave the result in the infobox as it is. The question is why have you reverted the content that is valid - such as the article layout and timeline when clearly that ins't in contention. I'll also remove Sykes as a source since it is WP:RAJ. As to the result clearly the expedition had achieved what it had wanted. Let's take Norris, 'The First Afghan War 1838-1842' - page 415 -
 * Now Pollock had achieved what he had been sent to achieve. He had recovered all the prisoners and had exhibited British strength where British troops had previously suffered defeat.
 * As for Dalrymple on page 456 'The Return of the King', here is the quote:
 * On his defeat, Akbar Khan had fled Northwards to Khulm and was well out of reach. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article layout and timeline can be restored fine, no contention with that.
 * Pollock did not achieve every goal he wished for. From Jonathan Lee's "A History of Afghanistan from 1260 to present" page 300:
 * "-- thrown into the fires. McCaskill then pushed on to Charikar, dealing out death and destruction as he went, but failed to kill or capture any of the rebel leaders and he was eventually recalled to Kabul. Pollock too dealt out retribution, but since he was unable to punish the leaders of the revolt or the assassins of Burnes, Macnaghten and Trevor, he vented the collective wrath of Britain on the chieftains’ qal‘as and the Old City. Pollock was determined to destroy at least one major monument in the capital as a permanent reminder of the dire consequences of daring to challenge British military might. Initially he wanted to level the Bala Hisar, but changed his mind when it was pointed out that this was the residence of Shah Shuja‘ and the Saddozai monarchs, the dynasty on whose behalf Britain had gone to war in the first place. Instead, Pollock ordered the destruction of the Chahar Chatta, or Grand Bazaar, justifying his action on the grounds that it was in this chauk that the bodies of Macnaghten and Trevor had been put on public display. His decision was an act of petty-minded vindictiveness. None of the occupants of the Chahar Chatta had had any hand in the uprising, nor had they played any part in the deaths of any British officer. Indeed, most of the residents and shopkeepers of the bazaar were Shikapuri baniyas, Hindus who were citizens of India and not Afghan Muslims. They had remained in Kabul since Pollock had assured them that they and their property would be protected. During the occupation they had advanced Macnaghten millions of rupees and honoured letters of credit made out to the Calcutta treasury, yet now it was these Hindus, and their homes and livelihoods, that were to suffer for the sins of others. Forced from their homes and shops at bayonet point, they were given no time to remove their goods and chattels; indeed anyone who showed the slightest signs of resistance risked being shot or bayoneted. Once the bazaar was empty, the Royal Engineers tried to pull the bazaar down, but it was so well built that they had to resort to gunpowder"
 * He does mention that British prestige had been somewhat restored however. "Militarily, Pollock and Nott’s campaigns in the summer and autumn of 1842 went some way to restore British military prestige".
 * In Dalrymples source, Nott is quoted to even be unsure of why they were still in Kabul, with the objectives being unclear. "Nott was equally disillusioned. ‘What we are staying here for I am utterly at a loss to know,’ he wrote on 9 October, ‘unless it be to be laughed at by the Afghans, and the whole world."
 * It also says "it also left many of the Company’s own sepoys in captivity. ‘We ought to have remained longer to have recovered more of our captive people,’ wrote a disgusted Colin Mackenzie. ‘Hundreds were left in slavery." -- Meaning not even all prisoners were recovered.
 * The disastrous position that Pollock/Nott left the remnants of the Sadozais in as well is also explained. Seems hardly justified as a victory. Noorullah (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes but left the result of the infobox. The fact that this was an 'army of retribution' gives way to the proceedings that followed. There is no denying that the retribution was achieved and as Norris also states page 415 but had he (Pollock) inflicted just retribution without being vindictive? what is the difference between just retribution and vindictive retribution? Ellenborugh's fine sounding distinction between the two was rather vague and left Pollock in reality with considerable latitude. On the whole Pollock was worthy of of the trust that Ellenborugh placed in him but his choice of the Kabul bazaar as the scene of final retribution was unfortunate. This then adds the point made above. In addition there is also no denying that militarily the expedition was a victory (or a series of, given the battles that took place) and given that Akbar Khan was defeated and fled, as quoted by Dalrymple and many others. I will leave it to a WP:CON if necessary for 'British victory' that can be added. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your points and no doubt that it was a military victory, just seems like politically not all their objectives were fulfilled, similar to the case of the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Noorullah (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your points and no doubt that it was a military victory, just seems like politically not all their objectives were fulfilled, similar to the case of the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Noorullah (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)