Talk:First Anglo-Afghan War

Untitled

I vote we delete this. The article on Anglo-Afghan wars has all this information and then more

Make it a redirect to the main article instead of deleting? --Richard Clegg 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, some of this needs citations. It's nice to tell apocryphal stories about heroic behavior under insurmountable odds but citations are necessary. 6/19/06

Strange Death Tolls

I think the casualty mark is short-charging the Afghan deaths, as it says for the entire war the Afghans lost 200 KIA and Wounded. But in the Battle of Ghanzi, it says the Afghans had 500 KIA/WIA. So in other words, the Afghan casualties for one battle eclipse by 250% the supposed total of Afghan casualties for the WAR. I think this needs ironing out. ELV

Massacre

Only a single soldier survived, but then the article goes on to reference "Ninety-five prisoners from the earlier massacre were rescued". I removed that sentence and suggest someone who knows something about this event correct the information. Elijahmeeks 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see William Brydon, the only European survivor -- Lost^(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There were rescued prisoners. I'll find sources. Most of them were women and officers, including Elphinstone. Karajanis 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "soldier" who "survived" was an army surgeon. But it really means that he was the only member of the military to make it back to India. Other survivors included camp followers, servants, etc. and some English offiers (including some English army wives and children). However, these were captured on the retreat and did not make it back unless they were eventually released. This is how we know what happened on the retreat. However, there are tales of English women who eventually were married to their captors. See Macrory's book. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Afaik I don't think the women that were married to the captors were British. They seemed to have been Afghan women within the camp followers. I know one of the wives that was captured was an Afghan wife of a Briton for example. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Updating

This page needs some serious updating and I'll start ASAP with Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game. Karajanis 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who won?

How can this by any means be counted as a Limited British victory, ending with a rout? Norrefeldt (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't end with a route. I believe you are referring to the retreat from Kabul, in which 4,500 British and Indian soldiers, with 11,500 camp followers were massacred, save for about 96 members. However, two more battles took place after this, the Siege of Jellalabad and the Battle of Kabul, both of which were British victories. (Trip Johnson (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

OK then, but the outcome of the war seems to have been that the British had to give up their plans for Afghanistan for this time. If we are to call it "Limited British gains" it ought to be possible to read about those gains in the article.Norrefeldt (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read the instructions/style guide for the "Result", where it says: "How the war came to an end. What treaties were signed, and what were their conditions?" I think it should say: "British withdrawal from Afghanistan". Much more descriptive than the rather disputable "Afghan victory".Norrefeldt (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Norrefeldt, British withdrawal sounds much better. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, Norrefelt; "Afghan victory" is a little too controversial. I've reverted changes to the outcome under NPOV. haz (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some feel calling what happened an Afghan victory is "a little too controversial" accords well with the thinking that led England to this disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.172 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. The British returned and completely massacred the Afghans, seized Kabul and Ghazi. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Additions

Shouldnt it be mentioned in 'Causes' that one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was so that it could be used as a buffer state to limit the advance of Russia and protect British India. You have put to protect India but the extra detail would be nice. Also you could mention that one of the reasons the British left Kabul was because the cantonment was built on flat ground surrouded by mountains and that the ammunition dump was seperate from the cantonment. This made it indefensable. I would add this information myself if i new how, sorry!Willski72 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bukhara

Bukhara was under the control of Amir Alim Khan. It was not under the control of the persian king muzaffar. In addition somebody edited the Bukhara part without citation. Even though it is a fact that the Emirate of Bukhara is what ruled Bukhara not the persian kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.115.3 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Extra info

I have taken the liberty of adding some extra info in about the causes of the war (Russia) and describing the indefensibility of the cantonement as a reason for the disastrous retreat. I hope this is fine with everyone if not you are quite free to change it back!--Willski72 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who won?(2)

In response to this query, which, I take it, is itself a reaction to recent edits, I have to say that Newcorps additions are entirely correct. It is clear that British plans to turn Afghanistan into a protectorate failed completely. Passing off the destruction of Eplhinstone's army as a minor setback would be mistake: it was a resounding defeat with a significant impact in the Victorian era. Pollocks subsequent expedition to Kabul went a little way to restoring British military pride, but did not alter the fact that the war as a whole was a failure for the British. The puppet ruler they had proposed to install(Shah Shuja) was murdered, and the leader they had set out to depose(Dost Mohammed) was reinstated. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of what might normally be seen to constitute a war however, the actual war was a successful invasion and reestablishment of the Shah's rule, followed by an evacuation of troops who were then massacred en route (while leaving) - hardly a victory for the Afghans in the traditional sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Shah Shuja's reestablishment was hardly successful, as the British were forced to abandon him to his fate, and he was murdered shortly afterwards. I'm rather puzzled as to what constitues this "traditional sense" of how a war's outcome should be defined, and how it is supposed to ignore the historical realities of the British military defeat and political failure. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Without being invited, the British Empire invaded the Afghan Empire (obviously with bad intention) and in the over all 2-3 years the British suffered a massive defeat and the Afghans have declared victory. We are not the judges here, we have to respect both sides. Did British declare victory? Answer: no. Did Afghans declare victory? Answer: yes they did. The invasion by the British Empire didn't gain anything for the British, it was regretful for them because they lost at least 16,500 lives. It is by every defintion a victory for the Afghans, especially at that time when the British were well known as the super power of the world that no single country stood a chance of refusing their demands. Of course the British may not accept this as a defeat. But look at the February 1989 withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan, was that a victory for the Afghans or not? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was basically the same shit as the British invasion, it just lasted about 6 years longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.83.142 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In my book Afghanistan in the Age of Empires I cite two British Generals who confirm the Afghans won: "Let the British General Napier, conqueror of Sind, tell us who won the first Afghan war, "All Lord E(llenbrough)’s proclamations and decorations for Pollock’s and Nott’s affairs will not hinder the Affghans saying they destroyed one army and kicked two others out, and history will say the same”( p257vol. 2 Life of Charles Napier) . Another British General Writing of Afghanistan, Sir Henry Smith stated “the Afghans are a hostile population who can redeem by force of Arms the Conquest of their Country and destroy the Army in its posession". Moreover, ""We are now in the act ONLY of endevouring to retire as `Victorious Seceders` from contest, much honour will accrue to the Party from which our Retreat is made"" reference:1842 Strategic analysis, military situation Afghanistan, letter and map. A critique of the war in Afghanistan in a 12-page letter by Major General Sir Henry Smith, sent from Simla, with map, private collection.. p 375 Afghanistan in the Age of Empires.In short I would say that bias is the main problem on this page which is why the dream of a British victory is present as well as nonsensical assertions about the marriage of Warburton to an Afghan lady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

East India Company

How relatively involved were the British army and the presidential armies of the East India Company? They were separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Causes" section begins abruptly, possibly inappropriate tone

"To justify his plan, the Governor-General of India Lord Auckland issued the Simla Manifesto in October 1838, setting forth the necessary reasons for British intervention in Afghanistan."

This first line of the section is arranged awkwardly (who "his" refers to and what "plan" is being discussed only becomes apparent to the reader on second reading. In addition, the tone is inappropriately polemical. To "justify one's plan" carries an implication (in my humble interpretation) that the plan is somehow insidious and requires white-washing. This may or may not be true of Lord Auckland, but it is not usually the place of an encyclopedia to cast that sort of judgment. Paul Mumm (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Negotiations

I was wondering if any negotiations occurred between Akbar Khan and the British on the issue of release of his family. The British had imprisoned his family including his wife and also his father Dost Mohammad Khan. It is important to remind ourselves that if the British reprisal was successful and Akbar Khan was "heavily defeated" then why on earth did the British released Dost Mohammad Khah and his family for nothing? Dost Mohammad Khan could have been used for political gains. It seems more logical to me that Akbar Khan may have had some concessions to the British to secure his family's release and the fact that the question of honour is a big issue in Afghan culture, re-enforces this notion.Haha1hoho (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy: Alim Khan

I corrected the link to the "Manghit Dynasty". I noticed that the Alim Khan article states his DOB as Jan 3 1880, yet the text under Legacy on the First Anglo-Afghan War states "A peace treaty in 1873 with Amir Alim Khan of the Manghit Dynasty, the ruler of Bukhara, virtually stripped him of his independence. Russian control then extended as far as the northern bank of the Amu Darya."

The dates do not correspond, can someone with knowledge of this area please take a look and rectify either the Alim Khan article or the Legacy section, thanks. Kiwifaramir (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Kiwifaramir

Disruptive edits by user ༆

user:༆, has not provided proper reasons for his removal of cited information on the article. He instead has a history of engaging in edit-warring. Xtremedood (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Overciting and sources

As pointed by User:༆, there is no need of further sources of temporary British victory. Half of the sources are incorrect, and others are not needed since there are few already. Also see WP:OVERCITE. Capitals00 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

POV much

There appears to be a a huge number of sources in the article which shows that the British lost this war. It is stated as a simple fact in most of these sources, with few of them going as far as to claim that this was one of the most humiliating defeats for the British in their northwestern campaign. Now whenever this well sourced information about the Afghan victory is added into the infobox one or more editors take affront and try to remove it and replace it with "Temporary British victory", which appears to be highly POV and illogical. I hereby invite the various editors removing the Afghan victory from the infobox to this discussion so that they can perhaps explain why they are removing this, and would like them to explain who actually "WON" the war. pinging User:Charlesdrakew, User:DatGuy, User:SovalValtos, User:༆User:Xtremedood. ‎FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, if you look at the history you can see the horrible amount of edit-warring to so-called overall Afghan victory in. The symbol was, an edit-warrer, which didn't revert since the protection. I am also sure that there is some IP puppetry since most of the IPs only have one or two contributions, both to reverting to your preferred pages. Before you start shouting that I'm accusing you, I'm not. It might be IP sockpuppetry, and I might even check some of the long-term abuse cases. Pinging @AlexiusHoratius:, the administrator that protected the page for comments. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The British won the war but later failed to hold their gains, as seems to happen in that country. "Temporary British victory" is therefore the most appropriate summary and their is longstanding talkpage consensus for this. A POV-pusher has been socking to change this, resuming activity as soon as page protection expired. Further protection is needed.Charles (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: I made a request at WP:RFPP, and we have 1 year of PC protection. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Can we now revert to the status quo while discussion is going on? That is the norm rather than allowing POV changes to stand.Charles (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: I temporarily deleted the controversial material. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Temporary British Victory seems to be correct, any other mention of victories must not be mentioned on the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing self-published source

I am removing a long quote from a reference listed as "Afghanistan in the Age of Empires", written by one Farrukh Husain, published by Silk Road Books and Photos. Based on the website of this publisher (http://silkroadbooksandphotos.com/), Silk Road Books and Photos is also owned by Farrukh Husain, which would imply that this source is self-published. The quote attempts to link the date of an uprising to the Battle of Badr, which seems a bit of a stretch without a reliable source to back it up. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk • contribs)

This is in fact not correct about what is stated in Afghanistan in the Age of Empires, the book simply states that the 2 November 1841 uprising fell on 17 Ramadan because this is the auspicious date of the battle of Badr. That is not a stretch at all but you can google the date for 17 Ramadan in 1841 and it is 2 November. The source cited should therefore be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"4,000-meter high" mountain passes?

On the British invasion route into Afghanistan (via Quetta to Kandahar), there are nowhere mountains with any height close to 4,000 meters. The Bolan pass (also used by the British then) as the highest point reaches not quite 1,800 m. Maybe the number is supposed to be in feet. --Ubel (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

John William Kaye on Sex slaves

That one whole bit which is a paragraph mostly taken from John William Kaye's biography on how Afghan women would sleep with British officers and would become prostitutes. First of all this is totally made up and a complete lie to defame the Afghan people and their women and how they were savages, second it seems like some British fantasy of the invader bedding the women of the people they conquered. If this is true, then why aren't there reports of Indian women falling in love with British officers stationed throughout the country when the English actually ruled all of India but never Afghanistan? Thirdly, the Pashtuns are EXTREMELY overprotective of their women and do not let them step out of the house alone not even today in remote tribal areas. Such a thing is pure fantasy and there is no way the English could have done this without anyone finding out. Also i don't know who Mirza Ata is and i i could not find anything about him from a google search other then him being mentioned in the work of other British historians who seem to quote him.

The bit also goes on to say how Alexander Burnes had Afghan women in his harem, this is also false because all of his slave women were foreigners. The book called "Sikunder Burnes: Master of the Great Game" By Craig Maury clearly states that Alexander Brunes knew the danger and consequences of trying to seduce Afghan women which is why all his Sexual slaves were Kashmiri & Indian women. What's funny is this is the first time i am seeing this paragraph after the many times i have read this article.

I will remove this part because it is totally not true. Akmal94 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This reeks of Afghan bias. As far as I know there were Afghan women in the entourage of the British. Some were later captured by the Afghans. The idea that the British 'knew better' than to bed Afghan women is ridiculous. They were invading Afghanistan and would later massacre the Afghans and take Kabul and Ghazi. Also, there are numerous reports of Indian women falling for British men during the occupations. It's generally accepted and well known. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Afghan bias? Explain what that means, as far as i know, this article is written in a British bias to defame Afghans and their women. Also you need to provide a source for the British having Afghan women in their entourage or of reports of Indian women falling for British men. All of what you are saying falls under WP:OR. Also, the sources used here are from William Dalrymple and John Kaye, neither who are a reliable source. Akmal94 (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Akmal94 is correct, this article is supposed to neutrally cover a war that the British lost and were defeated on, yet makes slanderous and innapropriate claims and generalizations that are contratory to the neutral POV and accuracy guidelines that this site pretends to follow. Furthermore, why is this content backed up by only 2 "novels" which seem to be heavily biased and misinformed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTruth (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Even the Warburton marriage cited by Dalrymple was in fact a forced marriage see for example Peter Collister's book Hostage in Afghanistan (1999) cited by Dalrymple in his bibliography in Return of a King but obviously never closely read. Husain cites this book on p223 of his book Afghanistan in the Age of Empires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.234.146 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, no Afghan woman would voluntary give up herself to elope with an Englishman. Afghan women often are strict followers of Islam and Afghan culture and won't go against the values they were raised on, espically those that will hurt them and their families in the long run. The funny part is, Dalrymple thinks the British were doing things like easily in the most conservative part of the world with no one knowing while there was strict purdah on women in those times, is just hilarious and naive to me. A woman couldn't leave the house alone without a male member of the family. The fact that is been 3 years since i asked for this information to removed yet no action has been taken goes to question Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Akmal94 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sick, hateful and perverted bias in the content

I agree with a couple posts posted below; much of this article is redundant and written in a biased and racist way. Why are there paragraphs about deviant and innapropriate fantasies and alleged actions of a British soldier committing vile acts of debauchery in an article about a war? Moreover, the user who adds such content is racist (look at the edit history and the comments that A.S Brown puts on them. On one, he claims: "How NOT to be a success ... These people only like money and killing". If Wikipedia is supposedly a neutral and accurate place of information, why is such unneccessary, untrustworthy libel and rumours about adultry and sin being presented as historical fact? Valid historical information from a variety of legitimate sources are valuable, not repeated references to one or two novels which are not corraborated or backed up by reliable sources. Furthermore, these slanderous claims against the people of Afghanistan and their morals are not even countered or carefully examined yet if similar claims and nonsense were inserted into an article about other nations or famous battles, they would be removed immediately.

In conclusion, this article needs to be immediately amended and all disgusting and false content needs to be removed. The obviously perverted and hateful ideologies of some people like A.S Brown and the anonymous user posted violent claims are useless and in fact regressive in intellectual and moral grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTruth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Suja v. Shuja

On 2021-10-04 a search for "Suja" found 1 match, while a search for "Shuja" found 30. The reference to "Suja" looks like it should be "Shuja". I'm changing it. If it should be "Suja", someone who knows this subject should correct my erroneous "correction". Thanks,DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also known by the British as 'The Disaster in Afghanistan'

This statement appears to be based on the title of Lady Sale's book 'A Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan' since, as far as I can see, apart from a reference to that book's title there is in the cited source no other mention of the phrase or reference to it as a popular epithet.

Clearly the destruction of the British occupying force was a disaster but the merit of such a sweeping generalisation is unclear; certainly without placing it in a specific a time frame. The author of the cited article does mention the campaign being dubbed 'Auckland's Folly' at the time, but I would suggest that has no resonance in contemporary usage among 'The British.'

If a more reliable source for the statement cannot be found I recommend it be excised. JF42 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It requires more than the title of one book to justify saying 'it was known to the British as...' Stikko (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus today 'The Disaster in Afghanistan' would almost certainly mean more recent events. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"mercenaries and misfits"

"Officers from the British Army serving in India tended to look down on officers serving in the Company's army as mercenaries and misfits, and relations between the two armies were cool at best"

This sentence is a misreading of the cited source. the relevant passage reads- "The East India Company maintained its own army, with field headquarters at Simla, and trained its own officers, all of them British, at its own military academy at Addiscombe, a country estate near London. The troops were mercenaries, drawn from all over India. Their officers were always British. It was inevitable that the queen’s officers, serving with European troops, would look down their patrician noses at company officers, serving with native, or sepoy, units."

The author's focus is more on the native troops, rather than the officers. He makes no mention of "misfits."

('Mercenary' is any case, not a neutral term, and in this case is not an accurate description of the sepoy regiments. The cited source, "Arrogant Wars," is a book that arguably has a premise that requires presenting the subjects of its narrative in the worst light. THe author clearly knows little about the British Army, stating that the Coldstream Guards were part of the British invasion force. The first time the Coldstream Guards went "east of Suez" was to the Crimea in 1854. He presumably confused them with the 2nd Queen's Regiment, who were in Elphinstone's force. The author's dismissal of the 13th Light Infantry "a sickly lot" as one of the worst regiments to be selected for the campaign would also appear to be a misepresentation.)

For the time being it may be best to excise the phrase "mercenaries and misfits" JF42 (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Further to a more reliable source being provided, ditto the reference to the respective standing of the Third Foot and Thirteenth Light Infantry. JF42 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, with titles added for infantry regiments and Wiki links added JF42 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

History

who won the war in first anglo afghan war ? 223.239.25.96 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The sides on the Emirate of Kabul. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The British won in a pyrric victory. The article mentions it Panekasos (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop changing the results the afghans did not win the war. Stop being biased. The article itself says that the British sent a punitive force and destroyed the afghans and then the war ended. It's status quo ante bellum because the situation remained the same it's NOT an Afghan victory. If you're muslim and you're doing this stop it please. 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Also let's discuss and then change do not just tell on me just because you dont like it. 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Lee's A history of Afghanistan 1260 to Present (pg.302):

"The political and military failures of the First Anglo-Afghan War had widespread repercussions in both India and Britain. First and foremost, Britain’s imperial and military prestige suffered a major blow for even the most ardent imperial propagandists could not deny the campaign had been a disaster. Britain had been humiliated and its army had suffered its worst defeat since the American War of Independence."

"...the campaign ended with Britain withdrawing from the country having suffered one of the worst military disasters of the 19th century." Noorullah (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

At the same time as the attacks on the garrison at Kabul, Afghan forces beleaguered the other British contingents in Afghanistan. These were at Kandahar (where the largest British force in the country had been stationed), Jalalabad (held by a force which had been sent from Kabul in October 1841 as the first stage of a planned withdrawal) and Ghazni. Ghazni was stormed, but the other garrisons held out until relief forces arrived from India, in spring 1842. Akbar Khan was defeated near Jalalabad and plans were laid for the recapture of Kabul and the restoration of British control.

As the expedition advanced through Afghanistan, they bore witness to the countless dead comrades who perished following the retreat from Kabul. This enraged the British who took revenge on Afghan civilians by razing villages, murdering men and raping women. Neville Bowles Chamberlain described the killings as "truly wicked."[36] The combined British forces defeated all opposition before taking Kabul in September. 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems you forgot that the army of Retribution beat the afghans. So please leave it at status quo ante bellum. Also, that paragraph was from the article itself 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The second Expedition was a victory for the British and they successfully took revenge. 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And all if this is said in the article in Wikipedia 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the sources.

The "Army of retribution" obtained no goal other then freeing POWs and laying destruction, and then withdrawing to save face. The British had no intentions to try and reoccupy Afghanistan. Noorullah (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please you check the sources. Because the war ended when the army of Retribution beat the afghans and then left and successfully took revenge. The war ended the same way it started afghans never won the war. Also, the British in the second war successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan 2A02:586:1031:491C:60E0:29B8:A83D:3FEF (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You haven't cited any sources.

The Second Anglo-Afghan War is irrelevant to the first conflict. Noorullah (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You're contradicting the article itself. Panekasos (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

But if you want sources fine wiat and I will cite but please do not be biased Panekasos (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The article says nothing about a British victory. Noorullah (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not say about a victory. But I said it's not an Afghan victory please just remove that part or do not say the result at all . Because it's wrong the British did not lose the war militarily. Panekasos (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Panekasos But they did, sources say so, like how I've cited above.

The result wasn't a status quo either..

The Afghans did gain some land, especially around Sibi. Noorullah (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will remove the results completely to compromise or I will send you my sources Panekasos (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, you've cited no sources. Noorullah (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

They did not because the British returned and took revenge. Panekasos (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

when I say compromise I mean that to remove the result as I did Panekasos (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet again.

"Lee's A history of Afghanistan 1260 to Present (pg.302):

"The political and military failures of the First Anglo-Afghan War had widespread repercussions in both India and Britain. First and foremost, Britain’s imperial and military prestige suffered a major blow for even the most ardent imperial propagandists could not deny the campaign had been a disaster. Britain had been humiliated and its army had suffered its worst defeat since the American War of Independence.""

""...the campaign ended with Britain withdrawing from the country having suffered one of the worst military disasters of the 19th century."" Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet again they returned and they took revenge and destroyed parts of kabul etc Panekasos (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please to end this just remove the results completely ok? Panekasos (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Sorry, but the sources say the war was a British defeat.

Moreover, your constant disruption of the result of the page has resulted in me reporting you to an Administrator. The same one that blocked you for your disruption on the Third Anglo-Afghan War. Noorullah (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do you do this are you afraid to have a conversation and you act like that and decide to take away my freedom if sppech just because Panekasos (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Anglo-Afghan-War Panekasos (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Just remove the results or change them. I personally would like to change them but the I'm willing to compromise and remove the results completely Panekasos (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

please let's compromise do not start reporting etc Because I can do that too Panekasos (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to fight and start reporting etc I want to have a discussion please don't report or change anything let's discuss. Panekasos (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You're afghan I just checked so please let's have a discussion Panekasos (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The result is gonna remain the same because sources point out such. You don't have sources that are backing up your claim so there is no proper discussion here. Noorullah (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I have and provided didn't you see them Panekasos (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You've cited nothing from Britannica, Britannica does not mention anything of what you're implying, such as a status quo, or a British victory. Noorullah (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I sent you the source was to proove you that this source doesn't mention anywhere about an Afghan victory Panekasos (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

So? It doesn't emit the result anywhere, then why corroborate it with the result at all?

We have sources that clearly state the result. Noorullah (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but I have sources that say it was NOT an Afghan victory but it was Inconclusive reslut as bith sides gained something. I think it's biased you mentioned your own country when the result is clearly Inconclusive according to the sources Panekasos (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Why because you don't like my answer Panekasos (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. @Panekasos You need to stop making changes prior to attaining consensus. Just because a random IP agrees with you, doesn’t mean you’ve attained consensus.

Again, your still using a single purpose account. What your doing(POV pushing) isn’t allowed here. Your breaking policy and I think everyone here has been quite patient with you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

So if I provide more and more sources you will believe me? Because I provided some and say that the war was Inconclusive NOT an Afghan victory . Please, I would like to further discuss this and provide sources. Panekasos (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

So, I will start sending you reliable sources ok and then we will discuss it Panekasos (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored The page was protected [by an administrator] already. So it has halted. Noorullah (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t notice. Thanks for pointing that out. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked the admin and said that he will change it if we decide to change it Panekasos (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant he will remove the protection and let us change the result Panekasos (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Panekasos You need to make an Edit Request and cite your sources. Also the protection will not be removed just for one edit, that is what the edit request is for. You also seem to have been disruptive here so you may want to change that. All of your edits to the page have been reverted which makes me think that you should not edit but should make the edit request. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 00:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok btw how do you fonan edit request? Panekasos (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok by the way how fo you do an edit request? Panekasos (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

do* Panekasos (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please look at WP:Edit requests it will tell you how to make an edit request. Just remember that your request may be turned down. Also take more time to review your reply, WP is not an instant messaging platform like Discord, and so you should review your replies and correct spelling errors before posting. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

The upkeep costed the

Change “costed” to “cost”. TIA Apache501 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Noorullah (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

Change the Pashto and Persian translations (Pashto: د افغان-انگرېز لومړی جنگ, romanized: Də Afġān-Angrez Lumṛay Jang, Persian: جنگ افغان-انگلیس اول, romanized: Jang-i Afğān-Anglīs Awal)

Copy the edit through source editing AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: If you are referring to the lead, per MOS only one is included. Nubzor [T][C] 15:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Source for Belligerents in First Anglo Afghan war

@AfghanTsakhtan: I was going to remove some belligerents who I could not find in sources while reviewing but wanted to give you benefit of doubt. Please share sources with page numbers for these listed who acted as commanders or leaders during war. Please add source with page numbers next to names for each.

• Zaman Shah Durrani
• Shahpur Shah Durrani
• Mirdom of Tashqurghan
• Ghulam Mohammad Khan Is this Ghulam Khan Popalzai?
• Mullah Shakar
• Mohammad Osman Khan
• Sayyid Mohammad Khan
• Timur Mirza Durrani
• Safdar Jang Durrani
• Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai
• Mir Sharbat Khan
• Sardar Doda Khan
• Mir Mohammad Shahwani
• Mir Shahdad Khan
• Mizrab Khan
• Mohammad Amin Beg

RangersRus (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Zaman Shah was briefly regent (yes, the same Zaman Shah Durrani, I believe that's observed in Dalrymple, this is following shuja's death.

Shahpur Shah Durrani was ruler after Fath Jang Durrani.

Mullah Shakar and Mohammad Osman Khan were both viziers of Shah Shuja (Seen in Lee).

Timur Mirza, Safdar Jang are sons of Shuja (seen in Lee), I'm not sure if Safdar Jung led armies though. Timur did, at Parwan atleast.

The Mirdom of Tashqurghan was led by the Mir Wali, who acted on the side of the British and Dost Mohammad through different points of the conflict, thats seen in Lee 1996 and 2019 I believe, as well as Dalrymple possibly.

Not sure about the rest, just sharing what I know from memory. Noorullah (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Explained it better than I did.

Also keep in mind that Safdar Jang Durrani defected in his final days and sided with Afghan rebels. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Noorullah21. Did Shahpur Shah Durrani have a role to play as commander or leader in the war? Per page, war ended on 12 October 1842 and Shahpur Shah Durrani reigned from 12 October 1842 onwards. RangersRus (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Zaman Shah Durrani, led his army despite being blind.

Shahpur Shah Durrani, de jure head of state of Afghanistan until the arrival of Dost Mohammad Khan

Mirdom of Tashqurghan, also the Mirdom of Khulm.

Ghulam Mohammad Khan Is this Ghulam Khan Popalzai? Yes.

Mullah Shakar, vizier of Shah Shujalandhar.

Mohammad Osman Khan, another vizier of Shah Shujalandhar.

Sayyid Mohammad Khan, commander of the Durrani Empire.

Timur Mirza Durrani, son of Shah Shujalandhar and army commander.

Safdar Jang Durrani, another son of Shah Shujalandhar and army commander.

Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai, Khan of Kalat.

Mir Sharbat Khan, head of the Marri tribe.

Sardar Doda Khan, head of the Bugti tribe.

Mir Mohammad Shahwani, commander in the Marri tribe.

Mir Shahdad Khan, commander in the Bugti tribe.

Mizrab Khan, Khan of Maimana.

Mohammad Amin Beg, Mir Wali of Tashqurghan. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. Source with page numbers that shows their role in the war as commander and leaders? RangersRus (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If its Ghulam Khan Popalzai in source, then that is the name that should be shown. RangersRus (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I was able to verify most but these ones still need to be verified that I could not find in source.

Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai

Mir Sharbat Khan

Sardar Doda Khan

Mir Mohammad Shahwani

Mir Shahdad Khan

Mohammad Amin Beg RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai was the Khan of Kalat, while Mir Sharbat Khan and Sardar Doda Khan were heads of the Marri and Bugti tribes respectively, and Mir Mohammad Shahwani and Mir Shahdad Khan were commanders for the two tribes respectively.

Mohammad Amin Beg was the Mir Wali of Tashqurghan. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Source about the role in the war between 1838 to 1842? RangersRus (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The Khanate of Kalat was directly involved, also see Marri-Anglo Wars

Lee, 2018.

Hazarah, 1912.

Dalrymple, 2013. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Page numbers? And do not revert till verification is complete. Do not change names to something that is not mentioned in source. Provide page numbers to complete verification just like others have. Show me the roles played during the war between 1838 to 1842 including that of Shahpur Durrani. Shahpur Durrani reigned for few months after the war, so what role he played during war? Did he lead an army? Need page numbers in source to show so. RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to check on it later, also valid point on Shahpur Shah. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Remind you that Ghulam Khan Popalzai and Khulm name stays as sourced. If its different in other source, please share with page number and then we will have to accomodate all different names. RangersRus (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Why should the Mirdom of Khulm stay as it is, if it was called "Tashqurghan" before the 1880s? AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Both names are interchangeable and used in sources. Noorullah (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If you find and share a source that shows khulm also known as Tashqurghan during the war, then we can have the names added this way, "Mirdom of Tashqurghan(Khulm)" or "Mirdom of Khulm(Tashqurghan)" or just Khulm(Tashqurghan) or Tashqurghan(Khulm). RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd go with the very latter. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Dalrymple, p. 125

Talpur Sindh assisted the British and Shuja Shah Durrani in the First Anglo-Afghan War directly, they let their armies pass through Sindh, while giving them supplies and let their territory be used during the campaign… thus showing that Sindh allowed passage and logistical support. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is also mentioned in Talpur Era in Sindh, p. 10. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems what you said is taken from "Talpur Era in Sindh". When the British ship Wellesley approached Karachi in February 1839, the Talpur gunners posted at Manora fired their guns. The British ship promptly fired back and leveled the sea face of the fort to the ground and occupied Karachi. The Talpurs, who were under threat from both Ramjet Singh and Shah Shuja, signed a treaty whereby they agreed to pay an indemnity of 2.3 million and an annual tribute of five hundred thousand. They accepted the British occupation of Karachi and appointment of a Resident at Hyderabad. They also agreed to provide transport to the British army at a reasonable pride and maintain the purity of their rupee. The assistance which the Mirs secretly withheld was cordially supplied by Hindus who had no cause to love them . It doesn't mention if transport was for the war. Lets say even if it was, it is not like they lead an army or sent soldiers to the war. RangersRus (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sani Panhwar is a civil engineer, not historian. So it makes the source unreliable anyways. RangersRus (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad regarding that matter. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure its page 125? I do not see what you mentioned on that page. I also did search on "Talpur" and nothing showed up in entire Dalrymple book. RangersRus (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe even though it does not mention Talpur specifically, but it does mention Sindhis on page 125. Are you talking about note from Macnaghten that says, All this arose out of my requesting 1000 camels for the use of the Shah and his force. This request was an allusion to a growing crisis with the baggage animals, which had just got much more serious after half of the Shah’s camels had died from eating a poisonous Sindhi plant. Sindhis clearly did not like British and already fought against them but gave in before the 2nd battle. And 1000 camels was a request but not clear if Sindhis provided them. Either way, this is not a reason to include Sindhis. If Sindhis supported by providing Soldier's or marched alongside the British by leading an army, that would be a reason to be listed as one of the Belligerent. RangersRus (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sindh at the time was ruled by the Talpur dynasty, and the ruler at the time was Noor Muhammad Khan Talpur.

It's a poem, showing how they passed through way of Sindh and how they were logistically supported as well.

"On the appointed day, at the appointed hour

Replete and multitudinous, the army set out for Kabul

When the horde was set in motion from that land

The earth shook to its very foundations

Accompanying the Shah, by way of Sindh

Were one hundred and fifty thousand hand-picked soldiers

By another route, Timur, Wade and Daktar [Doctor] Lord

Were on their way with five thousand other soldiers

Two raging rivers from two different directions

Made their way to Kabul from Ludhiana

The ruler of every region and province

Was as obedient as wax to the Shah's seal ring

The stamping horses reached the mountains of Sindh

And entered the deserts of Hind

Sweating and over-loaded camels

Flooded through the mountainous road

The cannon and the elephants marched together

Like a mountain moving from its place with the force of the River Nile." AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw the poem on page 126 before but did not think much of it and opinion is still the same. Nothing here to include Sindhis as belligerent. RangersRus (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Even though the Sindhis helped Shuja Shah and the British Empire to march through Sindh, giving them logistical support while paying tribute to the former? Alright… AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

No response yet, but it was called Tash Qurghan (Tashqurghan). Dalrymple, p. 188 @RangersRus AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Response for what? And can you quote the lines from p188 that says or shows Khulm aka Tash Qurghan? RangersRus (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, right here. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, it's p. 160. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

nothing in p 160 either. You did a search with "Tash" that shows part of this sentence escaping out of their reach beyond Saighan to Tash Qurgan, and into the territory of the independent Uzbek leader. This is not what has been asked of you. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Shows that Mirdom of Tashqurghan should be an acceptable term, and not Khulm. Khulm wasn't used until 1880. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Source should specifically say as such but you have not been able to find any such evidence and coming from historians themselves of calling Khulm during First Anglo Afghan war, cannot be replaced by any other name unless coming from a historian who specifically say that Khulm was also called Tashqurghan. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No evidence also shows that it was contemporarily called "Khulm" in the 1840s. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

So do you propose to remove Khulm entirely? See Dalyrmple source again and do search on Khulm. Try Lee's source as well. RangersRus (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

For this dispute modern sources clearly refer to it as Khulm.

-

Lee (2019) on pg 154-155 says...: "When Timur Shah finally reached the plains of Baghlan he was joined by the Mir Wali of Khulm,"

"The only reason the Mir Wali of Khulm did not expel the hakim..." (pg 155)

"who accorded Shah Shuja‘ even token sovereignty was Qilij ‘Ali Beg, the Mir Wali of Khulm," (pg 173)

"Timur Shah’s strategic interest in the Chingissid wilayat of Balkh shifted from Maimana and the Chahar Wilayat to the amirs of Khulm" (pg 151) ... "aligned to Qilij ‘Ali Beg, the Uzbek mir of Khulm."

"Timur Shah’s alliance with Khulm was also unacceptable to Murad Beg of Qataghan..." (page 152-153)

"The Amir therefore decided to extend his authority north of the Hindu Kush and sent an army commanded by his designated heir, Akram Khan, to force Khulm and Qataghan to accept his authority." (pg 229)

"so Amir Beg anticipated that with the help of the Muhammadzais he could restore Khulm’s pre-eminence." (page 230)

"However, by this time the long-standing alliance between the Durrani monarchy and the ruler of Khulm had broken down and the Amir was told in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome." (page 312)

"...he rejected this demand as well, whereupon the relationship between Khulm and the Amir broke down." (page 313)

-

We can clearly see it's referred to as Khulm. Noorullah (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Whereas in Noelle and other sources, we can see it's also simultaneously referred to as Tashqurghan: "...Mir Wali of Tashqurghan"

"This was followed by the outbreak of war between Tashqurghan and Kabul in 1845"

"Mir Baba and Mir Wali , fought for control of Khulm / Tashqurghan after their father's death . "

- "the Mir of Tashqurghan conquered Balkh during the following year ." Both names are appropriate. Noorullah (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

thanked.

Even though it would be more appropriate to mention both, Tashqurghan is preferable as it was the contemporary name used at the time. @RangersRus AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Great search and per sources, both will be used. RangersRus (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Both have been added to keep reader's or viewer's clarity RangersRus (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I verified Shahpur's role as acting governor of Kabul during war. Tag removed. I still can't find others unless you added different names. Either way, please find page numbers so that verification can be complete and cite tags can be removed by me. RangersRus (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Mohammed Amin Beg

@AfghanTsakhtan: pls share source that shows Mohammed Amin Beg played a role in the war? Or should it be called Mir Wali instead? @Noorullah21: RangersRus (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Mir Wali is the title for the ruler of Tashqurghan. Mohammad Amin Beg was the Mir Wali of Tashqurghan from 1817 to 1849. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. Is there a source that mentions this name Mohammad Amin Beg as someone who provided support or lead army between 1839 to 1842? I looked in Dalrymple and Lee but did not find the same. Any different name you know of that can be found? RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes.

Hazarah 2012, 354 (Index) AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

How is an index suppose to prove that this individual lead an army during the battle? And Hazarah does not seem to be a reliable source. Please find modern source by an actual historian who had an education in the area or related like Lee and Dalyrmple, that shows that the individual of concern here, had a role to play during the war. RangersRus (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't simply refer to that, but for Mohammad Amin Beg being the head of state of Tashqurghan, who himself was involved in the war. Not that hard. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, the index itself redirects to p. 151. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It is hard if you can not verify it through reliable sources. We can not move forward without it. RangersRus (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this a joke or is my time being wasted on purpose here? The source clearly states that Mohammad Amin Beg was the Mir Wali (head of state) of Tashqurghan during the First Anglo-Afghan War. If he wasn't the leader, then who was, and whose name should we put there? The "Mir Wali of Khulm" has been added as a belligerent ever since this page has been revamped by others. Why shouldn't we put the leader of Tashqurghan from 1817 to 1849 as the leader of Khulm and whose name has been mentioned, just like Mizrab Khan of Maimana? AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

A very simple thing is asked of you and you are not able to provide it and you are wasting your own time by doing so. One more time, find a reliable source that shows that Mohammed Amin Beg provided support or lead an army during the first Anglo-Afghan war, with page number and quote from the page that proves so. RangersRus (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do you require one if you already know and believe that Tashqurghan was involved in the First Anglo-Afghan War? AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you serious? Tashqurghan is one but leaders are many during different times, years, months, days. So we need to prove that this particular individual was involved through sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To help you guys with your dispute, from what I can recall with memory:

Tashqurghan under the Mir Wali initially aided the British by declaring to Shah Shuja, with a British expedition even possibly reaching Khulm itself (for scouting).

Afterward, when Dost Mohammad Khan returned from Bukhara in 1840 (May-August), the Mir Wali joined his side and aided him, assaulting British/Shuja forces in northern Afghanistan in Bamiyan until they were rebuffed at Bamiyan itself. (September), where Dost Mohammad continued to north of Kabul (leading to the Parwan Campaign (1840), while the Mir Wali rejoined the Durrani/British side.

Afterward, in November 1841, during the Kabul Uprising, the Mir Wali again flips to the side of the Barakzais, aiding Wazir Akbar Khan to march on Kabul. I don't think he's relevant directly after this point in the First Anglo Afghan War as he doesn't lead troops iirc for this part of the war, and only possibly sends men.

All these above can be observed in 2 of Lee's books, his 2019 one (which both of you are familiar with), and his second one in 1996, "The 'Ancient Supremacy': Bukhara, Afghanistan and the Battle for Balkh, 1731-1901". Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. Does Lee source show the name specifically or just says Mir Wali only? I wasn't able to find Mohammed Amin Beg and if someone with this name as leader of Khulm was involved in the war. Could it be different name? I just want to make sure we add correct name of the leader of Khulm who was involved in the war. RangersRus (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The Mir Wali was Mohammad Amin Beg.

Citing from Noelle: "Followed by Nawwab 'Abd al-Jabbar Khan and his family, Dost Muhammad Khan moved via Bamiyan to Tashqurghan, where he found refuge with the Uzbek chief Mir Muhammad Amin Beg Khan, generally known as Mir Wali." (page 44), also seen in page 432 index. Noorullah (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. There we go. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Any additional belligerents need discussion

AfghanTsakhtan You seriously need to stop removing cn tags and changing names of belligerents. We have already gone over this. Any additional belligerent you need to add you need to reach a consensus with verification in reliable source. I have reverted all changes. So if you need, you can only readd flag changes. For others, please reach consensus first. RangersRus (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Understood. But, we have already discussed about Talpur Sindh being a belligerent, despite you not agreeing because of an "opinion remaining the same". Even though, sources clearly recall their lands being involved, while backing the Durrani and British armies with supplies and logistics during the war.

Moreover, the Khanate of Kalat aimed to restore their independence after removing the British-backed puppet Khan after the death of Mehrab Khan II. Not to forget, the Marri-Bugti Baloch tribesmen who had their own dominions and actively fought the British Empire, just like how the Khanate of Kalat did.

I also suggest that you should look into those edits thoroughly, before erasing them entirely. I had fixed the adjustments of the Kabul and Kandahar flags, and added the old Kalat flag. I also added Talpur Sindh's Mir at the time. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

First thing first. While making edits you removed cn tags and changed name by removing popalzai again to unsourced name that was discussed before. For any other additional belligerent you need to show sources with page number to verify their roles during the war. RangersRus (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit flags. For rest once again, verification is important on the roles played followed with consensus before adding to infobox. As discussed before Talpur Sindh is not a belligerent. RangersRus (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: I am not an expert in flags. Do you have any concern on flag changes? RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@RangersRus Not that it comes to mind. They seem okay. Noorullah (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

We can verify through their roles in the First Anglo-Afghan War. Marris and Bugtis had their own independent dominions and fought the British. They were led by Mir Sharbat Khan, Sardar Doda Khan, Mir Mohammad Shahwani and Mir Shahdad Khan.

Whereas, the Khanate of Kalat was led by Mehrab Khan II, who was killed in action, and Nasir Khan II, who restored independence and actively fought against the British. I don't get what you are trying to be skeptical of, and I don't know what you seek to remove, I also don't get why. These figures were literally present during the war fighting a side, I don't know how else to simplify it.

Yes, Nasir Khan II and Baloch tribesmen continued leading, even after Mehrab Khan II's death. (Defence of Kahan; The Gazetteer of Baluchistan (Sibi); Imperial Gazetteer of India Provincial Series (Baluchistan); Baluchistan Historical & Political Processes)

Moreover, you can't dismiss Talpur Sindh being a belligerent that provided logistics to both armies, because an "opinion remained the same." AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

^ The sources also acknowledge Marri-Bugti leaders' and commanders' names and such.

There are pages on Wikipedia that even display these, hence why I added their names in this war. Siege of Kalat (1839) & Siege of Kahun. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

List links to sources with page numbers here for each belligerent in question that needs verified. You still haven't shown anything. Whereas Talpur Sindh is dismissed. Please revisit the discussion in previous topic. Please just share sources so that verification can be completed. Once all looks good as you claim, I can then move ahead by removing the cn tags. RangersRus (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)