Talk:List of wars involving Afghanistan

WP:COLOR
I have little opinion on the colors used in the table, but I made changes to make them at least compliant with WCAG. Change them around all you like, but please follow the proper guidelines to ensure maximum visibility and legibility for those with less sharp eyes (like me). Drmies (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to victory/defeat/inconclusive
I find the changes proposed by @Patasaunii7 to be factually incorrect and I don't think the changes should stand (I am looking at this diff specifically).

The first change, making the result of Afghan–Sikh Wars inconclusive, I don't understand. By looking at the article it looks like the Durrani Empire lost territory and the Sikhs gained territory, for example Kashmir being lost after the Battle of Shopian.

The second change, removing the result of Second Anglo-Afghan War (victory) doesn't really make sense to me. The war article has four citations supporting a British victory, for one. For another, the treaty was most certainly a loss (ceded frontier areas) and Afghanistan was made into a protectorate. That is nothing but a British Victory.

The third change, changing the outcome of Third Anglo-Afghan War to victory from inconclusive is incorrect- yes the Afghans secured independence and a diplomatic victory however the British confirmed the Durrand Line as the border.

I appreciate Patasaunii7's good faith willingness to edit but I don't see any justification for the changes. Note: the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor that adds material. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 17:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No source claimed Sikh victory ie. gaining territory does not equal victory.

The British failed to receive the control of the internal affairs of Afghanistan, had to pay a subsidy for that protection, full military withdrawal planned prior to agreement and occurred after agreement, British resident prevented from staying in Kabul. Thus, the outcome is referred to in the treaty rather than outright victory.

Aim of the Afghans was to get independence - achieved - thus, victory Patasaunii7 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a lot of my first post was original research. I do think an inconclusive result could make sense for the Sikh wars- or none at all. In the article the result is listed for each phase- not "victory" or "defeat" and I could not find a source to support either.
 * However, here is one source that has the second anglo-afghan war as a victory: Also, the treaty occurred after phase one of the war and listing that as the result excludes the Second phase.
 * I also have another source that lists anglo-afghan 3 as inconclusive: Here's another source that says both sides claimed victory: If both sides claimed victory, then listing it as inconclusive seems appropriate. Listing it as a British strategic & tactical victory and an Afghan diplomatic victory might be a viable alternative, although that is wordy. Also, how do you know the aim of the Afghans was independence (do you have a source)?
 * In summary, your first change might be fine but I respectfully disagree with your second and third changes (supported by sources). Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 18:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In summary, your first change might be fine but I respectfully disagree with your second and third changes (supported by sources). Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 18:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please refrain from making condescending remarks such as 'you appear to be lost'. Because the Tajiks populate present-day Afghanistan, does not mean that the medieval Ghurids were Afghan. You're mixing modern nationality with ethnicity. This has been discussed several times at Ghurid dynasty article, where the consensus was that they were not Afghan, hence why the article is portrayed as such. I would highly advise you to revert yourself back, or I will take this to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In your first response, you admitted "exactly" to when I stated the Ghurids as per the historians admitted they were Tajiks. It is not difficult to understand if they logically concluded to be Tajiks in ancestry. It means they are referring to the native Afghan state's population of Tajiks. Tajik is not a nationality, it is an ethnic group. Furthermore, both Pashtuns and Tajiks identify as Afghans (modern Afghan state is only mentioned as to discuss the modern bounadaries of Afghanistan. Moreover, if it has been concluded that they were Tajiks as per the Ghurud Dynasty Wikipedia page had admitted, it can only be understood as an "Afghan" empire (territory wise) as they originate from that land. Otherwise if you refer to just nationality, all "wars involving...." for each country would begin only counting for the last few hundred years, unless that is the only point you are trying to make?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downfall7 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not mentioned in the sources, and is based on your personal interpration, thus violating WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. The Ghurids were not Afghan, as they were neither 1. Pashtun, 2. Afghan nationality, as that is a modern nationality first constructed in 18 or 19th-centuries. Calling a medieval Tajik for 'Afghan' even though the country of Afghanistan was first established almost six centuries later is again, pure WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran was right, although we don’t completely know that if the ghurids were generally Tajik or Pashtun, most modern scholars today believe they may have been tajik, it is generally just unknown.

And if it is unknown, it should not be included in this page. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * blocked as ✅ sock. Should these same arguments arise from a new editor again, they can be reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Mujhideen101.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Noorullah21, this page is already negatively affected with a disruptive nationalist sock and you don't need to repeat his edits. While I have already mentioned that Afghan-Sikh war needs not be mentioned twice, I would also note that your claim that Afghan-Sikh war was inconclusive is wrong because Sikhs won several territories in the war, thus they were the winners. You are even more misleading with claiming that Afghanistan won 1919 war with British when Afghans lost large chunk of area over which they are still fighting against Pakistan (see Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes). NavjotSR (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @NavjotSR The Afghan Sikh Wars is mentioned twice because the dynasties swapped from Durrani - Barakzai, in its third phase, but you seem to ignore that. The Afghan-Sikh Wars were also rather inconclusive, the Sikhs usurped territories of a departing Afghan empire, but were forced to halt expansion, especially since during these phases, the afghans would score multiple victries, you can read at Afghan-Sikh Wars for more details, rather then assuming the opposite. I do not understand by what you mean "you are even more misleading claiming that afghanistan won the 1919 war", I think you have the wars completely confused, the afghans did not lose any land in the 1919 war, and infact won it via achieving independence. They lost no land. Noorullah21 (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @NavjotSR There is no reason as well to remove the phase section from the barakzai - durrani swap, it is used later in this article as well for the later Taliban war and their phases, as the onset of the Afghan-Sikh wars was not a war in itself, but a onset of different phases that concluded the war. as I said, you can read at Afghan-Sikh Wars for more details, you also confused the Second Anglo-Afghan War with the Third Anglo-Afghan War, the British won the Second war, while the Afghans won the Third war. Noorullah21 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you stop edit warring and focus on gaining consensus?
 * Just because there were multiple dynasties involved, doesn't mean it needs repetition. I am also removing Battle of Rohtas (1779) which was part of Afghan-Sikh war.
 * Either Afghan-Sikh war was Afghan defeat or you need to detail every phase like it has been done on infobox at Afghan–Sikh Wars.
 * Afghanistan lost enough land to British during 1919 war. Just gaining independence doesn't mean gaining victory. Read Third Anglo-Afghan War instead of pushing pro-afghan POV. NavjotSR (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit anything past the Afghan-Sikh wars, I don't know why you are still going over that. You are talking about something that I haven't affiliated with, also I am detailing the phases, as you can clearly see, I mentioned the dynastical swap. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NOT ONLY THAT, but these are supposed to represent battles that occurred between the wars. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @NavjotSR Hello!, I just wanted to tell you that I added the rest of the Afghan-Sikh war phases as you likely suggested, so you can add on the battles from each phase if their are some if you wish. I'd also like to correct you on your mistake, the Afghans did not lose any land in the 1919 war, which is the THIRD ANGLO AFGHAN WAR, the war they lost land in was the 2nd war, as linked. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolve it out at Third Anglo-Afghan War, not here. This page isn't for producing different results than the main articles of each battle. Also, don't add particular battles like Rohtas 1779 when the whole war of Afghans and Sikhs was already included. Wareon (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wareon Nobody is in dispute over the third anglo-afghan war, I think it was just some sockpuppet disrupting it. Anyway, the main point of this page is to point out the wars each said Afghan state had and its battles included in the infoboxes, ie rohtas, and so on, hence why there is such. Noorullah21 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (the reason we have the battles included is due to their not being a page for said wars, but since their is a afghan-sikh war page, i suppose it is appropriate to remove such like rohtas) Noorullah21 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Restored — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavjotSR (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

what the hell is "panjshir conflict"??
Are these the new hollywood heroes? Marching freedom fighters of the west delivering democracy to Afghanistan? Remove it please. it isnt reality. Sorry. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Definition of this page
I think this page should be much better defined on what it means by "List of wars involving Afghanistan". What does this stem from, and what are we starting from?

Is it the Durranis who are considered the founders of modern Afghanistan, or is it the Hotak dynasty, or is it even prior to the Lodi dynasty?

This page has no clear definition on what it means by "List of wars involving Afghanistan". So I am here to seek and establish what should we consider the start here on the talk page with some of the more recent or prominent editors here. A lead should also be written once this has been discussed that reflects what is best choice of action.

Pinging in regards to:

@Utcursch @HistoryofIran @Koopinator @Dicklyon Noorullah (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe even the Taymanis? (1566/67 - 1894) (per christine noelle's book) here: Noorullah (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I personally think that all "List of wars involving x" should be deleted due to these exact reasons, it's too convoluted. But since that's not going to happen, I think that it should start sometime under the Durrani Empire, as it was first under them Afghanistan became the political name of their realm (I know that some articles don't even do it this way, but they too should follow suit imo):


 * "While the modern nationalist discourse identifies Aḥmad Shāh Sadūzāʾī (r. 1160–86/1747–72) as the founder of present-day Afghanistan, the Persian sources of the time yield no evidence that this name served as a state designation during the twelfth/eighteenth century. Aḥmad Shāh was addressed as the “ruler of Iran, Tūrān, Khurāsān, the eastern territories, and Hindūstān” (Fūfalzāʾī, 724). His successor, Tīmūr Shāh (r. 1186–1207/1772–93), was styled “king of the countries of Hind and the territories of Turkistān, the ruler of the region of Sind and the realm of Tūrān” (Fūfalzāʾī, 268). In the early nineteenth century Tīmūr Shāh’s son Shāh Zamān (r. 1207–15/1793–1801–2) defined his former realm as the “Afghan kingdom” (mamlakat-i Afghāniyya) and described it as embracing “Khurāsān and part of India including Kashmīr, Lahore, Sind, Multān, and Shikārpūr all the way to the great ocean, Kandahar, Balkh up to the banks of the Oxus, the limits of Bukhara, as well as the Dār al-Salṭana of Herat as far as the limits of ʿAjam” (Fūfalzāʾī, 548–50).


 * At the turn of the nineteenth century, the name “Afghanistan” surfaced in the colonial setting and gained official currency with the growing British involvement in the region. In 1798 the British traveller George Forster referred to the extensive territory ascribed to the Sadūzāʾī rulers of Kabul as “Afghanistan” (Forster, 2:48, 50, 72, 74–5, 79–80, 85–7). Soon thereafter, the name “Afghanistan” was employed in the Persian version of the Anglo-Persian treaty of 1801."


 * But this of course opens up another problem, as the Hotakis and early Durranis played a key-role in Afghan history. -HistoryofIran (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it gets more difficult because technically the name of Afghanistan was only adopted in 1855 officially under Dost Mohammad Khan.
 * It is tough on what to do here. Not only that, what are we defining as Afghan here? Are we going to include much of the break-away Hazara or Tajik states following Durrani collapse? Or are we only defining them under the Pashtuns ethnicity, this is quite difficult to determine what to do. @HistoryofIran Noorullah (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's about Afghanistan, Afghan as a nationality would make the most sense here imo. But let's wait for more input I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Afghan as a nationality to define the page would branch it as far back as Jalaluddin Khalji, who was of Turco-Afghan origin. And then cutting it to the use of "Afghanistan" itself would only technically make sense at 1855, and that leaves out quite a lot of stuff.
 * My proposal is to include what we know as Afghan defined by nationality (born in), or ethnicity (Pashtun, etc) and its dynasties ranging back towards the Khaljis. Which would go on to include the Bahmanis, Lodis, Surs, and many of the break-away states (post-durrani collapse) that were of Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek, etc origin. @HistoryofIran
 * I would also like to see further input as Historyofiran would see toward as well so pinging again:
 * @Utcursch @Koopinator @Dicklyon Noorullah (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion. Please stop pinging me. Koopinator (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether this page should include list of wars fought in present-day Afghanistan, list of wars fought by kingdoms that had their capitals in present-day Afghanistan, or only the list of wars involving the modern state. However, it's completely wrong to include wars fought by the likes of the Khalji dynasty and the Sur Emipre here. This is not "List of wars involving Afghans". utcursch &#124; talk 19:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)