Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Was Thailand (Siam) such an aggressive nation?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#31 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:51 AM

Yes, the same sort of heroic nationalistic stories that each of our countries tell us. Each country having a rich and old history with many heroes striving to preserve that heritage for their children and grandchildren. Yes, Thai, Lao and many others tell of similar stories.

But stories do not always feed stomachs. Throughout history we often do what our leaders have told us to do, not what we want to do. Coming from Vietnam I thought you would have been familiar with that aspect of our region's culture. Our countries, the way we speak our languages, the cultures and many other things were formed by the elites who lead our countries. If the leaders do not want to lose their power and instead would rather keep a separate country then they will do it and come up with a reason, along with many heroic stories to tell us so as to justify what they have decided to do. This has been the case for so long and I am surprised you are not familiar with it. Democracies tend to go with what their population want, but in other places sometimes it is the elite ruling circle's will that often prevails.


I think you have underestimated the strength of Vietnam as a state. The population base and the depth of self-identity in Vietnam is strong enough to ensure its survival. It is a mini China. If the Europeans had not intervened, the Vietnamese would have continued their southward expansion and absorbed parts of Cambodia, leading to direct conflict with Siam. Vietnam since its independence in the 10th century, have always been expansionist, and it was due to the ability of this Confucianist state to successfully increase and manage its population versus that of its southern neighbours. Despite her size, Vietnam has already since the early days of its independence, the largest population of any of the states in mainland southeast Asia, larger than either Siam or Myanmar. Indeed China's attempts to thwart Vietnamese expansion against Chinese tributaries such as Champa and Cambodia have all failed in the long run. The Ming invasion from China was not the first to to fail, the Mongols failed before them, even after conquering the powerful Southern Song. Post-Ming China was to view Vietnam as an independent tributary with similar status as Korea.

If China were to continue its expansionist activities in the absence of European interference, Siam and Myanmar would be in greater danger than Vietnam, given they had thinner populations characteristic of the Hindu-Buddhist countries of southeast Asia. They would have been overwhelmed by Chinese colonization and immigration if annexed by a Chinese dynasty. Vietnam has past this vulnerable stage.

#32 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 01:35 AM

We are looking at things too much through the lense of modern interpretation based on what we know of the modern world.

I think you have underestimated the strength of Vietnam as a state.

You are aware that Vietnam was not a "single state" at the time of the French intervention, right? I think it sort of puts that assertion into confusion. How can a state have "strength" when it is not a single state in all but name.

Vietnamese would have continued their southward expansion and absorbed parts of Cambodia, leading to direct conflict with Siam.


You also realize that it is not "Vietnam" that is continuing southward expansion, but the great Nguyen Lords of the south, right? With their adoption of modern weaponry the Nguyen not only expanded to the south, but also fought against the Trinh Lords who ruled the north. Two separate kingdoms united only in name. Was it not the Nguyen who "requested help" from the French that would later lead to increasing French presence and eventual colonization? Who is to say that without European intervention Vietnam would ever truly unite again.

If the Vietnamese can claim independence from China, then can south Vietnam not also claim indepdence from Vietnam? Mini China wasn't it? The truth is they can claim independence from China because they are helped in part by the geography. From southern China into northern Vietnam it is a choke point. Very difficult to attack in that direction.

Modern nationalism. Such a powerful idea, and yet there was once a time when the average people such as you or me do not care about who our lords are, except that we hope they will not tax us too hard, and would protect us from war.

Edited by One time poster, 08 July 2009 - 01:40 AM.


#33 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:46 AM

We are looking at things too much through the lense of modern interpretation based on what we know of the modern world.

You are aware that Vietnam was not a "single state" at the time of the French intervention, right? I think it sort of puts that assertion into confusion. How can a state have "strength" when it is not a single state in all but name.

You also realize that it is not "Vietnam" that is continuing southward expansion, but the great Nguyen Lords of the south, right? With their adoption of modern weaponry the Nguyen not only expanded to the south, but also fought against the Trinh Lords who ruled the north. Two separate kingdoms united only in name. Was it not the Nguyen who "requested help" from the French that would later lead to increasing French presence and eventual colonization? Who is to say that without European intervention Vietnam would ever truly unite again.

If the Vietnamese can claim independence from China, then can south Vietnam not also claim indepdence from Vietnam? Mini China wasn't it? The truth is they can claim independence from China because they are helped in part by the geography. From southern China into northern Vietnam it is a choke point. Very difficult to attack in that direction.

Modern nationalism. Such a powerful idea, and yet there was once a time when the average people such as you or me do not care about who our lords are, except that we hope they will not tax us too hard, and would protect us from war.


Still, even a divided Vietnam does not necessarily translate to extinction of the people or loss of their identity. Assuming that the French are absent, it is only a matter of time that the Nguyen south would dominate the north, since it has a larger hinterland, and could expand almost unhindered into the Khmer plains, which enables it to support an even larger population and economy. Intensive cultivation of land is typical of a Confucianist state, which partly explains their ability to support large populations as compared to the Hindu-Buddhist states of southeast Asia, and makes them less vulnerable to extinction. There are also other facets of a Confucianist state philosophy which gives it distinct advantages over the Hindu-Buddhist ones in terms of governance. As I have said, the Vietnamese had already passed the danger zone of being swamped by a conqueror to the extent that they become assimilated, even in pre-modern times. The Mongol and Ming experience testify to this. Yes, the geography of northern Vietnam is favourable for defence, and it would remain so in future. Short of a conquest by sea, China would have trouble subjugating Vietnam. Pre-Modern China has always been continental in inclination, except during the brief period under Yongle. Even if they succeeded, the Chinese would be expelled at the soonest opportunity. As I see it, in the absence of the Europeans, the fates of Cambodia and Laos are sealed. Siam and Myanmar are both in greater danger than even a divided Vietnam from loss of identity in the event of Chinese encroachment. They are really just larger versions of Champa, in terms of their pre-modern civilization.

#34 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:19 AM

I see. The view is based more along religious and perhaps racial overtones.

Just to remind you, only us modern people see it as being a "divided Vietnam". If that division had been permanent they would have come up with nationlistic stories to justify what has happened. And if Vietnam were reabsorbed into the Chinese state they would then have a story for that as well. Modern nationalism exists partly because of the nationalistic stories that we have been fed. If Vietnam were to conquer the rest of its neighbors they'd also have a story for that. No problem. As I've said I have no personal bias against any nation or state, however I am not sure if others here are the same.

As for Siam losing identity to Chinese encroachment. Hehehe Chinese migrated into Siam in large numbers for a very long time, and it was never a problem until the early 1900s when nationalism was on the rise. A large part of central Thailand is Chinese, well their ancestors were Chinese in any case. Never a problem.

Edited by One time poster, 08 July 2009 - 09:39 AM.


#35 MC420

MC420

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rain City
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Vietnamese history
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Vietnamese History and Culture

Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:07 PM

You are aware that Vietnam was not a "single state" at the time of the French intervention, right? I think it sort of puts that assertion into confusion. How can a state have "strength" when it is not a single state in all but name.


Nguyen Anh was already able to reunify the whole country and established the Nguyen's dynasty from 1802. The French only arrived and imposed their colonian policy over Vietnam effective 1862. What you meant by implying Vietnam was not a "single state" during the time of the French intervention?

It sounded like you've mixed up the Trinh Lord vs Nguyen Lord period before the arrival of the Tay Son's rebellion and the estblishment of the Nguyen's dynasty from the year of 1802 - 1954.

Regarding the relevancy of the topic; Siam troops & Viet's troops did engage in several major and minor battles in both Cambodia and southern part of Vietnam. Most noteworthy, Siam's troops under the banner of Nguyen-Anh, attacked Tay Son's troops repeatedly from 1780-1782 but their efforts failed at the end. We do not record there was any direct battles or skimishes took place between Siam & Viet's troops afterward.

#36 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:07 PM

As for Siam losing identity to Chinese encroachment. Hehehe Chinese migrated into Siam in large numbers for a very long time, and it was never a problem until the early 1900s when nationalism was on the rise. A large part of central Thailand is Chinese, well their ancestors were Chinese in any case. Never a problem.


Yes its a plus point in this sense for Siam, because this absorbtion of assimilated Chinese immigrants and thus bringing in of some Confucianist influence enabled Siam to incorporate these influences into its basically Buddhist system of governing, and at the same time (ironically) successfully ward off any Chinese territorial encroachment. It is obvious that this worked to Siam's advantage even in pre-modern times, especially when compared to Cambodia, which did not have as large a body of Chinese immigration and influence. In another thread I also compared a hypothetical conquest of China by Tamerlane vs the Muslim conquest in India, and how I believe the Chinese would have responded vs the Indians (also Persians and Europeans) towards Muslim occupation.

There existed a competition between the Indianized and Sinicized cultures in southeast Asia in pre-modern times. The one which more successfully utilized its resources had the advantage. Of course both were sort of out-competed by the Europeans in the end. Nonetheless strong legacies remain. I think 'racial' is not the key, but 'cultural' is. I know I risk offending Indians here, but I hope I'm carrying out an objective observation. I would not say one culture is superior to another, but there are certain aspects which gives it a political advantage over another. As such, in the end it is the West European / American culture which dominated the world, clear evidence of its strength over all others at this current stage of world politics anyway. Yeah I know about the impending Asian or Pacific Century....

Edited by Wayne, 08 July 2009 - 08:39 PM.


#37 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:08 PM

I was referring to the request made near the end of the 1700s before the French Revolution towards the French royal crown, and before Nguyen Anh's ascension. It never gained state support from France because the French Revolution ended the French Monarchy, but "privateers" still made their way to Vietnam to play a role. It would eventually lead to increased French involvement that led to colonization. I personally do not think that the French had any coherent policy towards colonization. It seemed to me the French only did it to counter the increased British presence in the area.

#38 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:16 PM

Yes its a plus point in this sense for Siam, because this absorbtion of assimilated Chinese immigrants and thus bringing in of some Confucianist influence will enable Siam to incorporate these influences into its basically Buddhist system of governing


It was the British who had by far the most influence on Siam's change from a feudal society to a modern nation state. I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing, but I think you should become a little bit more familiar with the history of the region in more detail than what Wikipedia can offer.

While it doesn't mean too much British influence still heavily outweigh most others in the modern time. Thailand still drives its cars on the same side as the British, and many of its leading politicians, including the current Prime Minister and Finance Minister, were born in England, studied in England and even speaks English with an English accent.

There existed a competition between the Indianized and Sinicized cultures in southeast Asia in pre-modern times. The one which more successfully utilized its resources had the advantage. Of course both were sort of out-competed by the Europeans in the end. Nonetheless strong legacies remain.


I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Please explain because from what I understand wars were fought between different powers on a regular basis regardless of what "civilization" they had inherited from. Even the many city states within the same "kingdoms" regularly fight one another.

#39 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:39 PM

It was the British who had by far the most influence on Siam's change from a feudal society to a modern nation state. I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing, but I think you should become a little bit more familiar with the history of the region in more detail than what Wikipedia can offer.

While it doesn't mean too much British influence still heavily outweigh most others in the modern time. Thailand still drives its cars on the same side as the British, and many of its leading politicians, including the current Prime Minister and Finance Minister, were born in England, studied in England and even speaks English with an English accent.

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Please explain because from what I understand wars were fought between different powers on a regular basis regardless of what "civilization" they had inherited from. Even the many city states within the same "kingdoms" regularly fight one another.


You are right about the role of the British of course, but we are talking about a hypothetical scenario where the Europeans were absent right?

Of course I do not mean that the Indianized states fought against the Sinicized states. Like you said, conflict was all round. But what I mean is that Confucianism concerned itself very much with how to govern, vs Hinduism or Buddhism, which are basically religious in nature. It offers an advantage to states with such influence vs those with none, and in an open competition for survival, these states stand a higher chance.

#40 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:58 PM

I see. You are possibly right without European influence. Then again, without European influence I do not think there would be enough pressure for Siam to modernize. After all it was this same pressure that forced Japan and Burma to modernize, although in Burma's case it came too late to avoid colonization.

As for Buddhism in government. Well, it is a bit more complex than that. Some of the Buddhist kings, such as that of Siam (which of course was influenced by the Khmer) they presented themselves as an object of veneration. In fact, their declared divine right to rule is based on their role as "protector" of Buddhism. It is very similar to the European rulers during the period where Europe had many absolute rulers.

These rulers and their schemes to justify what they do. If you study history closely us common men never had much of conscious role to play in shaping our societies and our relationship with other societies. All of this is done for us by the elites who constantly scheme with and against each other, while the common men fight their battles, pay their taxes and lose their lives for them.

#41 mumbaki

mumbaki

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 95 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    SE Asian History

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:27 AM

I think you have underestimated the strength of Vietnam as a state. The population base and the depth of self-identity in Vietnam is strong enough to ensure its survival. It is a mini China. If the Europeans had not intervened, the Vietnamese would have continued their southward expansion and absorbed parts of Cambodia, leading to direct conflict with Siam. Vietnam since its independence in the 10th century, have always been expansionist, and it was due to the ability of this Confucianist state to successfully increase and manage its population versus that of its southern neighbours. Despite her size, Vietnam has already since the early days of its independence, the largest population of any of the states in mainland southeast Asia, larger than either Siam or Myanmar. Indeed China's attempts to thwart Vietnamese expansion against Chinese tributaries such as Champa and Cambodia have all failed in the long run. The Ming invasion from China was not the first to to fail, the Mongols failed before them, even after conquering the powerful Southern Song. Post-Ming China was to view Vietnam as an independent tributary with similar status as Korea.

If China were to continue its expansionist activities in the absence of European interference, Siam and Myanmar would be in greater danger than Vietnam, given they had thinner populations characteristic of the Hindu-Buddhist countries of southeast Asia. They would have been overwhelmed by Chinese colonization and immigration if annexed by a Chinese dynasty. Vietnam has past this vulnerable stage.

If Myanmar was colonized by China,Mons could be back in power.....

#42 Meown

Meown

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tai History

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:17 PM

Umm...Most of the Ayuthaya Kings have Chinese blood ? As far as I know, reading from the chronicles of Ayuthaya, they are pure Thais,definitely not mixed with Chinese. Site me a source if you will, or you'll be in kiam pak list. And pur-leaseeeeeeeeee, the Burmese were the ones who invaded Siam,don't the Thais here tell you that? Theung ja bpenคนจีน, but gor chuay pra thet rao noi, mai dai ror ?

#43 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:55 PM

I don't recall anyone here saying Ayuthaya Kings were Chinese, pure Thai or anything else. I don't remember anyone saying anything about their ancestry. What is a pure Thai anyway?

Anyone who has even glanced at Siam or Burmese history would know that it was the Burmese who invaded Siam, not the other way around so I do not understand why you make an issue out of us "not defending our country even if we are Chinese". If you read through most people's writings they all confirm this. Only the 1st person said anything about Siam being aggressive against Burma. That is the only person.

Edited by One time poster, 22 July 2009 - 10:04 PM.


#44 Meown

Meown

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tai History

Posted 23 July 2009 - 02:46 AM

I apologise about the Ayuthaya Kings are Chinese part, I must have stumbled it on another thread, though I'm 100 percent sure someone in here said that. Never mind,I'll go correct them on their thread later. The "not defending our country even if we are Chinese" words were directed at the Thai-Chinese who obviously thought that they are above the natives which I'm seeing a lot in here,of course. Granted,this is a Chinese Supremacist forum so I shouldn't be surprise about this。(Not here to pick an argument about this.)

My definition of Pure Thai-Think for Thailand, Love the country and our highest institution.(In other words,those who fall outside the category shall be rightfully refer to as 泰奸) In the past it will be the Tai ethnicity,by way of racial puritan.

#45 One time poster

One time poster

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 430 posts

Posted 23 July 2009 - 09:04 AM

I see what you mean. I understand that being a Chinese forum that sometimes Chinese will display Chinese pride, that is to be expected. However, for the most parts I see a decent level of professionalism in this forum in regards to the moderators and their attempts to keep this forum from descending into nationalistic battles. Everyone has pride in their country or ancestry to some extant, so if everyone engages in patriotism when discussing history then you will never get any truths. You will only get very proud people defending their country, sometimes with half truths and with truth twisting only. There would be no real point in discussing history at that point.

That is one reason why so many people outside of Thailand make fun of Thai history books, and perhaps Asian history in general. We sometimes mistakenly believe we are serving our country when we lie or tell stretched out truths about our history. Asians have not yet taken to seeing history as an objective science. But to some extant everyone is biased, so it is always good to try to get many different opinions. When we look at history we'll try to interpret it a certain way, and that will always be a biased opinion.

Meant to add that I know what you mean about the being above the natives statement. I remember seeing someone say that Taksin was removed from power "because he was a Chinese" and that was not true at all as any of us who are familiar with the situation already knew. The constant talk of superior Chinese culture and business acumen as compared to the natives and other such talk also tends to try to differentiate people, which is needless. From what I have noticed and this might be true elsewhere. If you are rich you recognize your Chinese ancestry, but if you are poor you end up not even knowing if you had Chinese ancestry.

But, again that type of sentiment is to be expected in a Chinese forum. The effort at keeping the forum at a certain level of professionalism by some of the moderators, however, I think should be praised.

Edited by One time poster, 23 July 2009 - 09:40 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users