Slavonic and East European Review

SEER, 92, 4, OCTOBER 2014 772 Sergeev, Evgeny. The Great Game 1856–1907: Russo-British Relations in Central andEastAsia.WoodrowWilsonCenterPressandJohnsHopkinsUniversity Press, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD, 2013. xix + 530 pp. Selected chronology. Notes. Appendix. Selected archival sources and bibliography. Index. $65.00; $35.00. The imperial rivalry in Asia between Russia and Britain played a central role in shaping the international relations of the Great Powers in the half century before the First World War. Sergeev’s book describes the course of the ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia in detail, concentrating on the period between the end of the Crimean War in 1856 and the signing of the Anglo-Russian agreement in 1907. Strangely, the book nowhere mentions that it is effectively a translation of Sergeev’s 2012 work published in Russia (E. Iu. Sergeev, Bol´shaia igra, 1856– 1907: mify i realii rossiisko-britanskikh otnoshenii v Tsentral´noi i Vostochnoi Azii, Moscow 2012). Sergeev begins by putting Russo-British relations into a broader context through discussions of the their development during the first half of the nineteenth century and of the wider phenomenon of imperialism. He suggests that it was the Crimean War which marked the beginning of a period of intense rivalry between Britain and Russia, as both states began to concentrate on expanding their power and influence in Central Asia. St Petersburg, feeling its European ambitions frustrated, began to expand vigorously into Central Asia while the British acted to protect their Indian possessions in the wake of the 1857 revolt (for which Sergeev uses the term ‘Sepoy mutiny’). The book proceeds to trace the course of Anglo-Russian rivalry over the following half century in depth, identifying Afghanistan as the fulcrum for competition between the two states. Sergeev shows how British pressure on Russia in the Balkans and the Near East at the end of the 1870s prompted more assertive elements in the Russian military to propose marching troops into Afghanistan as a step towards threatening British India. Russian intervention in Afghanistan in the summer of 1878 proved, however, to be unsuccessful, as by the end of the year the British had entered Kabul and for almost the next twenty years the two powers faced a stalemate in Central Asia. Changes in the European balance of power at the beginning of the twentieth century, with Germany emerging as a potential threat to British interests, persuaded the London government to try to break the deadlock in its relations with Russia. The resulting Anglo-Russian convention of 1907 essentially neutralized the rivalry between the two states in Asia, opening the way for the wartime alliance of 1914. Sergeev’s book is based on a wide range of sources from both the Russian and British sides and the discussion of this intense imperial rivalry from both standpoints represents the major strength of the work. He shows how threat REVIEWS 773 and counter-threat reinforced each other, and how the process built upon deepseated perceptions of Asia in both Britain and Russia. The Great Game was a central part of nineteenth-century European imperialism, and both Russia and Britain felt themselves justified in bringing what they perceived to be political, economic and cultural benefits to Asian peoples. Sergeev’s book itself continues to perpetuate some of these stereotypes: he asserts that in the mid nineteenth century ‘Central and East Asia were characterized by more or less medieval political, social and political features’ (p. 329), stuck for centuries in ‘social apathy, economic backwardness and political anarchy’ (p. 330). He sees both Britain and Russia as pursuing ‘civilizing missions’ (p. 346) in their desire to cement their power in Asia. The intellectual challenge posed by Edward Said to European interpretations of the wider world is acknowledged in Sergeev’s book, but his view of the rivalry between Britain and Russia is firmly within the tradition that Said ably dissected. This book takes very much a traditional view of relations between European powers and Asia: it places Britain and Russia as the central figures in a struggle for influence, with Asian states and peoples as merely subjects in the interplay between the two European powers. Sergeev rejects the idea that Anglo-Russian rivalry...