[caocao74]

KINGS OF THAILAND

The Sukhothai Period

1. Sri-inthrathit (1249…)
2. Banmuang (…1279)
3. Ramkhamhaeng the Great : (1279 - 1298)
4. Loethai (1298…)
5. Nguanamthom (.... 1347)
6. Lithai or Thammaracha I (1347 - 1368/1374)
7. Thammaracha II (1368/1374 - 1399)
8. Thammaracha III (1399 - 1419)
9. Thammaracha IV (1419 - 1438)


The Ayutthaya Period

1. Ramathibodi I (1350 - 1369)
2. Ramesuan (1369 - 1370) First ruling term
3. Borommaracha I (1370 - 1388)
4. Thonglan (1388)
5. Ramesuan (1388 - 1395) Second ruling term
6. Ramracha (1395 - 1409)
7. Intharacha (1409 - 1424)
8. Borommaracha II (1424 - 1448)
9. Borommatrailokkanat (1448 - 1488)
10. Borommaracha III (1488 - 1491)
11. Ramathibodi II (1491 - 1529)
12. Borommaracha IV (1529 - 1533)
13. Ratchadathiratkuman (1533-1534)
14. Chairacha (1534 - 1546)
15. Kaeofa (1546 - 1548)
16. Mahachakkaphat (1548 - 1568)
17. Mahinthrathirat (1568 - 1569)
18. Mahathammaracha (1569 - 1590)
19. Naresuan the Great: (1590 - 1605)
20. Ekathotsarot (1605-1610)
21. Sisaowaphak (1610-1611)
22. Songtham (1611-1628)
23. Chetthathirat (1628-1629)
24. Athittayawong (1629)
25. Prasatthong (1629 -1656)
26. Chaofa Chai (1656)
27. Sisuthammaracha (1656)
28. Narai the Great: (1656-1688)
29. Phetracha (1688 - 1703)
30. Sanphet VIII (Sua) (1703 - 1708)
31. Phumintharacha (Thaisa) (1708 - 1732)
32. Borommakot (1732 - 1758)
33. Uthumphon (1758)
34. Ekkathat (1758 - 1767)


The Thonburi Period

Tak Sin the Great: (1767 - 1782)


The Rattanakosin Period


1. Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok the Great: Rama I (1782 - 1809)
2. Phraphutthaloetla Naphalai (Rama II) (1809 - 1824)
3. Phranangklao (Rama III) (1824 - 1851)
4. Phrachomklao (Mongkut or Rama IV) (1851 - 1868)
5. Phrachunlachomklao: (Chulalongkorn the Great or Rama V) (1868 - 1910)
6. Phramongkutklao (Vajiravudh or Rama VI) (1910 - 1925)
7. Phrapokklao (Prajadhipok or Rama VII) (1925 - 1935)
8. Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) (1935 - 1946)
9. Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great: (Rama IX) (1946…..)

[wuTao]

Whoa, great list!

Why is it though that whenever people talk about Thai history, they don't consider the Chiangmai period? Is the Kingdom of Lanna not considered Thai?

[caocao74]

wuTao, on Jan 28 2005, 03:11 AM, said:

Whoa, great list!

Why is it though that whenever people talk about Thai history, they don't consider the Chiangmai period? Is the Kingdom of Lanna not considered Thai?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think may be because the Kingdom of Lanna was independent and was constituted from parts of present-day myanmar, Laos and Thailand.

http://www.simply-thai.com/Thailand_Histor...nna_kingdom.htm

[Gubook Janggoon]

Beautiful

[Lianbang Diaocha Ju]

seems like a few of those kings go by names of hindu gods. is the royal family hindu?

[General_Zhaoyun]

I thought they are buddhist instead of hindu..

[Yun]

That's what is called 'Indianised' culture in Southeast Asia - the fusing of local, Buddhist and Hindu influences over a thousand years, with Sanskrit as an important courtly language. The names of many monarchs in Siam, Cambodia and Champa were Sanskrit and based on Hindu traditions.

Interesting to note that Ayudhya/Ayutthaya is actually a sacred Hindu site in India, associated with Rama - the ideal figure of divine kingship in Hindu mythology. The use of Ayutthaya as the name for a Thai state, and of Rama as a name for all the kings of the current dynasty, shows how influential Hindu political ideology remains.

[caocao74]

The Thai rulers were absolute monarchs whose office was partly religious in nature, like the Emperor in Japan (an intermediary between the gods and mortals). The king during the Sukothai period was revered as a father by his people, but this concept disappeared at Ayutthaya because Khmer influence. The king was considered chakkraphat, the Sanskrit-Pali term for the "wheel-rolling" universal prince who through his adherence to the law made all the world revolve around him. As the Hindu god Shiva was "lord of the universe," the Thai king also became by analogy "lord of the land". They even spoke a different language.

As devaraja (Sanskrit for "divine king"), the king ultimately came to be recognized as the earthly incarnation of Shiva and became the object of a politico-religious cult officiated over by a corps of royal Brahmans who were part of the Buddhist court retinue. In the Buddhist context, the devaraja was a bodhisattva, and in the 18th Century the Thai model of Buddhist-Hindu divine kingship reached a peak.

[Yun]

Quote

The king was considered chakkraphat, the Sanskrit-Pali term for the "wheel-rolling" universal prince who through his adherence to the law made all the world revolve around him.

The original Sanskrit term for such a universal Hindu/Buddhist monarch was Cakravartin. Quite a number of Chinese rulers in the Age of Fragmentation and Tang have also tried to present themselves as Cakravartins by patronising Buddhism - the most famous are Liang Wudi, Sui Wendi and Wu Zetian, but according to Prof. Ku Cheng-mei, it also included Shi Hu, Fu Jian, the Northern Liang kings, the Northern Wei emperors, and Gao Huan. Even Han Huandi (of the Eastern Han) may have tried to be a Cakravartin.

[Lianbang Diaocha Ju]

believe it or not, i've an article about lots of thais who are supposedly buddhist actually take pleasure in worshiping vishnu, around and in chiang mai(wherever it is in thailand) and bangkok. according to hinduism, the buddha is the ninth reincarantion of vishnu. btw, why i'm little curious as to why buddhism was able to spread throughout most of the eastern side of asia, but hinduism only went to indochina indonesia and nepal. but today almost all of hinduism outside india has been supplanted by buddhism and islam. nepal was buddhist but somehow most people became hindus. but both are interesting religions to me.

[lobster]

Which one is the one in Anna and the King?

[caocao74]

lobster, on Mar 30 2005, 07:51 AM, said:

Which one is the one in Anna and the King? 

Well, it was set in the 1860s, so presumably Phrachomklao (Mongkut or Rama IV) (1851 - 1868) .

[Sawa]

"As devaraja (Sanskrit for "divine king"), the king ultimately came to be recognized as the earthly incarnation of Shiva and became the object of a politico-religious cult officiated over by a corps of royal Brahmans who were part of the Buddhist court retinue."

In reality, however, the Kings of Ayutthaya were always challenged by the nobility. The Brahmans were influentials, they were 'scholars' and one Brahman, as protrayed in the movie, Suriyothai, actually became King. Mahinthrathirat (1568 - 1569). He was put there by a former consort of the late King, after assasinations. Of course, he too, was assasinated. Such unstable politics led to the 1st fall of Ayutthaya.

"In the Buddhist context, the devaraja was a bodhisattva, and in the 18th Century the Thai model of Buddhist-Hindu divine kingship reached a peak."

Not so true. The latter years of Ayutthaya as in 1700s - its fall, was plagued with rebellions and power struggle. Although some Kings retain power, he had to always balance things out. So, there was no 'divine kingship' by then - but of course the commoners have always considered the Kings to be divine, the nobles to be full of merits (good Karma). 'Divine Kingship' - as in full respect of the King by ALL his subjects, only come in the Rattanakosin Period, the present one - and only in two Reigns. King Chulalongkorn and the present Reign. Where his majesty is held in high regard by the nobles (upper elites nowabdays) and loved by the people. 'Divinity' is deserved through action.

"believe it or not, i've an article about lots of thais who are supposedly buddhist actually take pleasure in worshiping vishnu, around and in chiang mai(wherever it is in thailand) and bangkok."

Likewise, I go to Chinese shrines and temples, worship Phra Vishnu, and try to follow the 5 basic rules of the Buddha. We're a mixture of culture! It's not only in Chiangmai, its everywhere! (except for the 3 southern provinces who are mostly moslems)

"btw, why i'm little curious as to why buddhism was able to spread throughout most of the eastern side of asia, but hinduism only went to indochina indonesia and nepal."

I would say that because Southeast asia was closer to India, Hinduism spread out more easier, through merchants and travelling bhramas. While Buddhism have a more 'concentrated' effort to spread, like when King Asoka sent out missionaries - monks everywhere.

"but today almost all of hinduism outside india has been supplanted by buddhism and islam. nepal was buddhist but somehow most people became hindus. but both are interesting religions to me."

I wouldn't say 'hinduism' is long lost outside India, it may not be the same ones you see in India, but its still influential. Many Royal Thai ceremonies still retain ancient Hindu rituals that no longer exist in India. Likewise, in Burma, Laos and Cambodia, the influence still exists to a great degree. In Thailand, everythings still retain some of its qualities, even if you wish to classify it as 'gone.'

BTW, Anna and the King is Banned in Thailand. I've seen it outside, (both version) and must say it doesn't have the slightest facts, and is disrespectful to a people who revered their Kings.

[norenxaq]

I have seen references suggesting that the Thais claim their kings descend from Buddha's
family. Which kingdom made this claim?

What was the lineage?