Talk:Third Anglo-Afghan War/Archives/2012/May

India Used to Be AFGHANISTAN before inslaved by the BRITISH
India which has been occupied by almost all invading forces at some pointused to be part of Afghanistan for many centuries, Ahmad Shah Abdali was the first who made Delhi the capital of Afghanistan. The Mughals were from Afghan decendants and most of the history of India reflects the days it was ruled by the Afghans. Mohmood Ghaznavi invaded India 17 times Ghauri 2 times and Abdali ruled India more then half a century followed by the Mughals

Proposed move
In order to maintain consistancy with other articles and categorisation I propose this article be moved to Third Anglo-Afghan War. Good article. Anotherclown (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers - that makes sense. I'm not sure how to do it, though. Still new at this. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved it now. It seemed uncontroversial to me. I have also added the Milhist tag and assessed it as B per the checklist, it seems to meet the criteria. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help mate. Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Information
This article requires further information regarding battle honours awarded as a result of the conflict. I have added the units that I believe received the battle honour 'Afghanistan 1919' but acknowledge that this list is at best incomplete.


 * The criteria for being awarded the Afghanistan N.W.F. 1919 clasp were:-
 * To all troops who served:—
 * (a) West of the Indus, exclusive of the Province of Sind, between 6th May, 1919 and 8th August, 1919, both dates inclusive.
 * (b) Under the orders of the General Officer Commanding the Baluchistan Force on the East Persian lines of communication between 6th May, 1919 and 8th August, 1919, both dates inclusive.
 * (c) In North-East Persia under the orders of Major-General W. Malleson, c.b., c.i.e., between 6th May, 1919 and 8th August, 1919, both dates inclusive.
 * (d) In the Khyber Pass, west of and excluding Jamrud, between 9th August, 1919 and 30th September, 1919, both dates inclusive.
 * (e) With the Waziristan Force, including those stationed at Darya Khan, Mianwali, Mari-Indus and Kalabagh, between 9th August, 1919 and 30th September, 1919, both dates inclusive.


 * I don't know if that helps at all but perhaps it reduces the list NtheP (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that. It helps with the search, although what would be great is if Regiments.org were working...but it seems I'm living in a fantasy land. Thanks for your help though. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I've added all the battle honours. The article on 11 Gurkhas says that it was awarded this campaign honour but Rodger says quite categorically disbanded units weren't eligible, so I'm not sure where the information about the honour being awarded comes from.  Also The Buffs and the Hampshire Regiment weren't awarded either.  I'm not sure why, perhaps they failed the 50% rule laid down in AO338/22 i.e The guiding principle in the selection and allotment of battle honours will be that Headquarters and at leaqst 50 per cent of the effective strength of a unit must have been present at the engagement for which the honour is claimed.  That or they didn't bother to apply. NtheP (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for adding that information, mate. That has greatly improved the article's accuracy. Well done. I have made a couple of tweaks to the citations, just to maintain the consistency of the citation style throughout the article. Regardless, I think what you have done is very good. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, further improvements could include:


 * further information on commanders from both sides;
 * more information regarding casualties (particularly Afghan military and civilian casualties)
 * a more comprehensive outline of the campaign; and
 * some pictures if any exist which can be used without breaching copyright policies ✅

If you have any information regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to add it to the site. Cheers.

AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Brigadier General Eustace
Does anyone know Eustace's first name? I can't find it anywhere - if you can help, please add it to the infobox as it is missing that piece of information. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This could be the man you are looking for |Here, Major-General Alexander Hastings Eustace:

Born in Rondebosch, in Cape Town, in 1863, he was the younger brother of Admiral John Bridges Eustace, Royal Navy. He attended the Diocesan College (“Bishop’s”), Rondebosch, Cape Town, and joined the Indian Army in 1885. Eustace served on the North West Frontier during WWI, commanding the Kohat Independent Brigade (1915-1919). Sorry, added by me Tristan benedict (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that, mate. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

4th Buffs
I'm not sure they served in this campaign. Certainly they aren't listed in the annexes to the offical account. The 1/4 battalion was in India at the time I think but I wonder if references to it serving in the war are mistaken identity with either 1/4 West Kents or the Kent Cyclist Battalion? NtheP (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Victory for Who?
The article says that the British achieved a minor tactical victory yet the summary box in the top right said Afghan Strategic victory. Seems a bit opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcoat-Mic (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. When I originally wrote the article I included in the infobox that it was both a British minor tactical victory (in so much as they forced the Afghans back over the border, thus holding their territory) and an Afghan strategic victory (in so much as they achieved political autonomy). Someone came through later and changed this to an Afghan strategic victory, evidently feeling that it was not possible for a war to end where both sides could claim some sort of victory. Of course one has to understand these terms broadly in order to understand how they are not mutually exclusive.


 * On the balance of things, I think that the Afghans probably achieved the most out of the conflict, achieving more in terms of the political settlement although they were clearly beaten tactically. However, given that the Afghans probably never hoped to achieve a tactical victory, the British victory was largely hollow. Given the size of their force and pestige they were always going to win, hence the conflict was not so much about taking territory but rather more about providing a distraction for the Afghan ruler and achieving political autonomy. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we get some concensus on this issue as the result in the infobox keeps being changed? I feel that it should say 'Minor British tactical victory, Afghan strategic victory'. I feel that it would be incorrect to leave it at British tactical victory. Likewise I feel it would be incorrect to have it just as Afghan strategic victory. I propose to change it to the above, which depicts both the tactical and strategic outcomes. Can anyone else involved with this article please state whether they agree with this or not? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rupert on this. The British won on the ground, the Afghans won the political war. 'Minor British tactical victory, Afghan strategic victory' is the best way of expressing this in the summary box.  NtheP (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't write "British millitary victory and Afghan independence in foreign affairs" due to the fact that The British won on the ground, the Afghans won the political war?--  The big noob, who can't write an article   14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling that a British victory would be like French claiming victory in the Algerian war. They held the ground and anihilated the FLN, yet Algeria became independant. Westerners have to bare the fact they can't always win, British first in line.

- Chairman Meow -
 * How can you comapare this with the Algerian war? The UN condemned that France participated in that war, that is why the lost the political war which has nothing to do with warfare. When it comes to the Third Anglo-afghan war, did no international organization care about the British invasion in 1919. We got to remember that this war took place right after WW1, but the Algerian war took place several years after WW2. A French (military)victory were certain, but the British empire was badly weakned by WW1, and victory wasn't certain, but they did won this war. Both military and Political (the Durand line which the Afghan despited) some of the british losses in this war was from cholera, and the afghans were bigger in number. I am not saying that the Afghans didn't get any benefits from the war (they got a somewhat independence) but they did not win the war. I believe that it is most correct to write that Britain won a military victory, with Afghan independence in foreign affairs.

Sorry for bad/simple english, and the mistake that I might have written (I am not from an english speaking counrty)--  The big noob, who can't write an article   21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I think the New Statesman 1919 quote is an exageration, Elliot states (pg44) 'the British under the treaty retained a measure of control over Afghan foreign affairs'. And it does seem that the Afghans did deal with other countries, the issue was Russia, and preventing Russian influence in Kabul was the consistent Brtish policy objective, for over a century this policy governed British actions. Continuence of this policy after 1919 means the war was a British strategic victory. It's also useful to remember that in 1914 Habibulla had announced that Afghan policy was neutrality, and in 1907 UK and Russia had concluded an agreement defining spheres of influnce from Tibet through Afghanistan to Persia. Of course the Russian fear was Afghans stirring the pot in Russian central Asia.

I think the key summary is Elliott pg 53: 'The British never had any desire to annex Afghanistan, but they were compelled, whatever the cost or risk, to retain it within their sphere of influence to ensure its independence from any other power. Such independence has always been essential to the security of any rule or dynasty in India.'Nfe (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've definitely noticed that whenever Britain or the US loses a war, the 'Result' section always gets a bit verbose, but the converse case tends to be unambiguous and determinedly conclusive. Any ideas why? Could this have anything to do with a bias induced blind spot? A desire to show the home countries as inclined towards glorious victory mirroring the propaganda that comes from the media? If so, I would argue that a more emotionally detached article would be a lot more intellectually rewarding in the long run. Harburg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC).