Talk:Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

captions[edit]

  • That Rama V's reforms saved Thailand from colonial rule is not an opinion but a fact recognised by every reference I have looked at
  • The map was based on reputable historical atlases. Adam 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to broaden your reading.;) I give you Siam Mapped by Thongchai Winichakul:
p. 102: the two major efforts which have been known to historians of Siam as measures of self-defense against the European threat- namely the reform of provincial administration and the expeditions to suppress the Ho disturbances in the Lao region. Both were in fact operations to resolve the ambiguity of the overlapping margins [between the Siamese and French spheres of influence].
p. 149: the conventional history of the loss of territories and provincial reform can exist only if the ideas of premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm are suspended or suppressed.
In the interests of being peacable I've neutered that one rather than reverting; there's no particular need for Chulalongkorn's caption to address nationalist mythology either way anyway.
  • I'm not quite sure what your second point is. If you're saying that the map is not derived from the 1935 map, then Thongchai traces the map which is widely reprinted in Thailand to that map. If you are contending that there is a second line of maps, which has an independent source but which shows the same nationalist shibboleths, then you need to provide sources demonstrating an independent origin. If you are suggesting that the map also appears in many recently published, non-Thai atlases, then I doubt it but I'll take your word for it and we can delete the word "Thai". For the moment, I've added a citation for the only sourced information which we have. Mark1 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The map is not "replicated" from anywhere. I made it myself. Are you denying that these territories were lost under pressure from the British and French as the map shows?

Changed to "reproduces". As you say, you copied it from other maps rather than through your own original research. Certainly I would deny that the territories were "lost", although my own opinion is irrelevant; as I quoted before however, the conventional history of the loss of territories and provincial reform can exist only if the ideas of premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm are suspended or suppressed. The idea of pre-1907 Siam as a nation state with borders and territories to "lose" is an anachronism. Mark1 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference between a pre-modern polity and a modern state. But 19th century Siam was not a "nonbounded realm." Its boundaries to the west and south were set by the British and those to the east and north-east by the French. The map shows territories which the Kings of Siam were forced to ceded sovereignty over to the colonial powers, as both sides understood. This is the established ("conventional" if you like) history, which is what both the article and the map need to reflect. If you want to cite dissenting views, you should do in the text and we can then debate that. Adam 03:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the text says: "All of these "lost territories" were on the fringes of the Siamese sphere of influence and had never been securely under their control, but being compelled to abandon all claim to them was a substantial humiliation to both king and country." I think that addresses the point you are making. Adam 03:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need to reflect conventional views of history. It needs to neutrally describe all reputable views. The idea that Siam had the territories to cede is far from non-disputed and should not be presented as fact. Mark1 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then make an edit to the text and we can discuss it. The caption as you currently have it only serves to mystify readers. Adam 01:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the moment the text says: All of these "lost territories" were on the fringes of the Siamese sphere of influence and had never been securely under their control, but being compelled to abandon all claim to them was a substantial humiliation to both king and country... In the early 20th century these crises were adopted by the increasingly nationalist government as symbols of the need for the country to assert itself against the West and its neighbours. I'm not clear what that leaves unexplained about the caption. Mark1 02:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I wrote. I want to know what you think is the fact of the matter. At the moment the captions suggests that there were no lost territories at all, that this is just a fantasy of the Phibun regime. The caption must correspond to what is in the text. So either you write some text that explains and supports the caption, or I delete the caption. Adam 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were abandoned claims; there were no lost territories. I don't see any discrepancy between the text and the caption. Mark1 02:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The text says:

In 1893 the French authorities in Indochina used a minor border dispute to provoke a crisis. French gunboats appeared at Bangkok, and demanded the cession of Lao territories east of the Mekong. The King appealed to the British, but the British minister told the King to settle on whatever terms he could get, and he had no choice but to comply. Britain's only gesture was an agreement with France guaranteeing the integrity of the rest of Siam. In exchange, Siam had to give up its claim to the Tai-speaking Shan region of north-eastern Burma to the British.
The French, however, continued to pressure Siam, and in 1906–1907 they manufactured another crisis. This time Siam had to give up territory on the west bank of the Mekong opposite Luang Prabang and around Champasak in southern Laos, as well as western Cambodia. The British interceded to prevent more French bullying of Siam, but their price, in 1909, was the transfer to British Malaya of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu.

You apparently dispute that these events took place, and the caption you have given the map reflects that view. If that is the case, write some text stating your position. If you don't I will delete the caption. Adam 02:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done- thanks for pointing those bits out. It would be nice to have an exploration of the evidence for the varying degrees of control which each power exercised over each territory at each time, but that would be beyond the scope of this overview article. I think here it's wisest to neutral formulations rather than "A says, B says". Mark1 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The map again[edit]

Yes we have been over this several times, but I am returning to this issue. I am now reading Stuart-Fox's history of Laos preparatory to travelling there. He includes a detailed description of the French annexations of the territory which now comprises Laos in 1893 and 1904. It is quite clear from this that the position Markalexander has been taking in relation to the map is not correct. By 1893 the Siamese government no longer saw itself as a "premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm." It saw itself as a modern nation state and claimed the Lao lands as its territory. This perception was no doubt not entirely accurate, but that is not the point. The French actions of 1893 and 1904 were a straitforward territorial annexation under threat of force, analagous to the German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine. The Siamese did not see these events in pre-modern terms, and nor of course did the French.

I am therefore not prepared any longer to accept Markalexander's caption to the map, which I created, and which is not based on any Thai map of 1935, nor on any nationalist mythology of subsequent Thai regimes, but on my own reading of Thai and Lao history. The text explains clearly that Siamese sovereignty over some of these lands was at times only nominal. I agree that this was the case with the Shan states and with the Malay sultanates, but it was not true of the Lao lands by 1893, where the Siamese had done their best to establish a formal military and civil administration. The caption should describe the map for what it is - a map of lands which were transferred under duress from Siamese sovereignty to French or British sovereignty. Adam 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you live with my abandoned territorial claims proposal, which with a bit of luck is equally obnoxious to both of us? Mark1 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Siam/Thailand did not abandon its claims to these territories, as was shown in 1941 when Phibun retrieved some of them. The claims weren't abandoned until 1947, when Pridi did his deal with the Allies. I would accept "Territories claimed by Siam but occupied by France and Britain". Adam 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did abandon the claims in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as my proposed caption says (that's what the treaties said); Phibun revived them in the 30s and 40s. Revival of the claims belongs in a later section. Alternatively, how about "territorial concessions", which skips over the thorny question of exactly what rights were being conceded? Mark1 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama I[edit]

The section about Rama I is simply incorrect. This article is another attempt of 'farangs' who thought they knew something about Thai history; only that they don't. I appreciated your time but what your wrote is simply incorrect. This is another example of why Wikipedia should not be use as a reliable reference source.

  • 'His government was carried out by six great ministries headed by royal princes. Four of these administered particular territories: the Kalahom the south; the Mahatthai the north and east; the Phrakhlang the area immediately south of the capital; and the Krommueang the area around Bangkok. The other two were the ministry of lands (Krom Na) and the ministry of the royal court (Krom Wang).'

--There were only 4 ministries during the reign of Rama I which were Krom Weing, Krom Wang, Krom Krang (Phrakhlang), Krom na

  • 'The army was controlled by the King's deputy and brother, the Uparat.'

--There was NO Uparat title during the reign of Rama I

Also, in the Rama II and Rama III, there are many incorrect points.Dhanakorn 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So provide sources and fix it. Markyour words 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the article I wrote are largely based on Wyatt's History of Thailand. I don't have the book in front of me at present but I'm fairly confident I have paraphrased him correctly. So if you think it is wrong you will need to provide a better source that Wyatt. Adam 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

I am proposing a move of this article to the title Rattanakosin Kingdom, which currently redirects here. Thai studies on national history has traditionally divided and named the periods of Thai history after the Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Thonburi and Rattanakosin Kingdoms, the last of which spans from 1782 to the present (even if the name has been all but abandoned). Thonburi Kingdom already has its own article, so the corresponding section on this page should be moved there, and although today is still technically within the Rattanakosin Period, leaving the discussion in this article at 1932 as it currently does would remain appropriate in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Make it so. --rikker (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox former country unsuitable[edit]

I don't think {{Infobox former country}} is entirely suitable for use in this article, at least not the way it is currently done. The Rattanakosin Kingdom extends from 1782 up until now, and is the current historical period in Thailand. Unlike European former states which had specific borders and symbols during their time of existence, Rattanakosin's evolved over time, and it would be inappropriate to show a single flag, symbol or map in the infobox, as this would likely mislead the reader into thinking that those were representative of all the Kingdom's stages.

The article should be modified to clearly tell the reader that the Rattanakosin Kingdom did not end at 1932, but rather continues on until today, although the name did fall out of common usage and now mostly refers to the historical aspect of the period. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rattanakosin vs Ratanakosin?[edit]

Is there a reason why the spelling with two Ts are used instead of one that would follow RTGS? --Dara (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the spelling with two Ts is more prevalent. But the spelling with one does occur in articles, I got 22 in a search result, with one in an article name space. --Dara (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rattanakosin is the RTGS spelling. As the name is formed by samasa, it is pronounced [รัด-ตะ-นะ-โก-สิน], with ต being both the final consonant of the first syllable and the initial consonant of the second. The spelling of naval ship's names need not follow the RTGS, though it's not really clear what the Navy's preferred spelling is exactly. These navy websites [1][2] don't use a consistent spelling. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The current mismatch between the article title (Rattanakosin Kingdom, which technically spans 1782 – the present) and its actual scope (1782–1932) appears to be causing confusion. Should the article be moved to something more specific, e.g. Rattanakosin Kingdom (pre-1932)? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: Sorry for the late answer. I do not think that the scope of the article should be extended beyond 1932 until today, as this would be redundant to History of Thailand (1932–1973) and History of Thailand since 1973. In my perception, "Rattanakosin" is rarely used for the time after 1932, while technically you are right, it continues to the present. I do not have a problem with the title as-is, if the intro properly defined the scope of the article. Alternatively, History of Thailand (1782–1932), History of Siam (1782–1932) or Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932) would be accurate and unambiguous without being too clumsy. I do not have a strong preference for either title. --RJFF (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rattanakosin Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change?[edit]

Should the Rattanakosin Kingdom infobox be changed from a historical era to that of a country/former country, and mention the historical era there? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my above comments from 2009 still mostly apply, though I don't feel as strongly now about the issue. The problem with using Infobox former country is that it will say that the kingdom ended in 1932 and was replaced by Thailand, while traditional historiography holds that there has been no disruption in the continuity of the state since 1872 until now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I find it just a little annoying how the 1932 and 1973 History of Thailand articles feature the map in the infobox and this page doesn't, though that's just my own opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more to me that those uses are incorrect, but there doesn't seem to be a standard for this kind of articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the flag[edit]

If I am not mistaken, the flag in the infobox is the first flag of the Rattanakosin Kingdom. I don't mind this present flag, but I'm trying to understand if the present flag is used to symbolize the era or not? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section outline is confusing or too long.[edit]

I would suggest arrange them to be similar as Byzantine Empire article. (It has long more than 1,000 years..compare to this one)--Polyesterchips (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A second option would be to split the article into two (i.e. 1782-1851/55 and 1851/55 and 1932), but I prefer the single article for Rattanakosin if possible. The non history section needs a revamp. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for some time that the coverage of the early (1st–3rd reigns) and middle (4th reign until 1932) Rattanakosin periods should be split across separate sub-articles, since they cover different trajectories. Since there's already History of Thailand as the main article, I'm not sure an overview for the entire Rattanakosin period is still needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture section[edit]

I think this article needs an architecture section like the Ayutthaya article. The Rattanakosin period is just as influential (if not more so) in terms of cultural development of Thailand. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map is somewhat off[edit]

I know that the current infobox map is taken right out of Wyatt's 2003 book, but even in the text, he only mentions of Siamese raids into Kengtung, seizing people and material, but never vassalizing the region. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come every section does not have any citation?[edit]

Please suggest how to solve this problem. Maybe we have to rewrite it all? Adding citations for this article would be really difficult for anyone, it is better to rewrite it. --Polyesterchips (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article content was probably created back in Wikipedia's early days, before citation requirements became established. It could use a complete rewriting, and while that is being considered, maybe reorganisation of content as mentioned above would be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)–[reply]

Are the Thai territorial losses overstated in Thai history?[edit]

This is my personal belief, also from this podcast https://newbooksnetwork.com/shane-strate-the-lost-territories-thailands-history-of-national-humiliation-u-of-hawaii-press-2015/ by New Books Network on the book "The Lost Territories: Thailand's History of National Humiliation". In the podcast, the author of the book, Shane Strate, kind of states that the territorial losses didn't really matter to Thai elites when those territories were actually ceded in the late 19th/early 20th century but were a product of 1930s/40s Thai nationalism, in which the idea of the "lost territories" were created. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was first and most extensively explored by Thongchai Winichakul in Siam Mapped, which is cited in the article, but rather haphazardly, and not in regard to the specific topic. It's pretty much required reading for balancing out the traditional historiography, but the text itself isn't very accessible IMO. Many other recent works, including the one you mention, follow and/or expand on this line of thought, and yes, it needs to be worked into the article. (See also the topmost section of this talk page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2 years later) Just an update that the article Territorial losses of Thailand has since been created that covers the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separating this article into "Early" and "Late Rattanakosin"?[edit]

There's a lot of stuff on this article now that I think it might be better separating it into two separate articles or at least moving some of this into niche articles. There's a distinctive transformation between Early and Late Rattanakosin too historically as well, the Siam of 1782 was drastically different, demographically, culturally, and politically, from the Siam of 1910 and after, even and especially in Bangkok. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much content about demographics and not enough about history; Streamlining?[edit]

As much as I would like to imagine this kingdom as significant as the Byzantines were, I don't think it's worth dedicating all the stuff about the demographics and foreign relations on this main article. A possible idea is to separate this into their own specific pages and to therefore shorten this page? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kengtung shown as a part of Siam on the map?[edit]

In the Burmese Siamese War (1765-67) article, it mentions that the Siamese failed to take Kengtung. I also read that in Wyatt's book, in which states that the Siamese only seized captives from the region, never establishing a tributary. The Burmese also have quite reliable historical sources and that's where I assume that information was retrieved in 1765-67 article.

Wyatt mentions only slave raids, or the depopulation of the region, not vassalization. I personally assume the map to be some kind of error in his book. Neither Baker and Phongpaichit in "A History of Thailand" nor WAR Wood's "History of Siam" ever mention Siam vassalizing Kengtung during this period either. You can find Wood's book on Internet Archive. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By 1802, he raided Keng Tung and carried off many families for resettlement farther south. (Wyatt 138)

The book "The Emergence of Modern Southeast Asia: A New History" (pg. 101) also says the same (of whom Wyatt is also involved in the book) https://books.google.com/books?id=h5kBEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems to be largely based on that from Wyatt's book, which in turn appears to have been influenced by the set of maps produced by the Royal Survey Department around 1935, which have since been widely popularized by Thongbai Taengnoi's student atlases (though Wyatt's excludes the Mon country).
Larry Sternstein (1964)[3] says of the map:

[T]he Thai dominions are, as usual, overstated and under-differentiated. Tavoy and Mergui were under Thai suzerainty for only the two year interval A.D. 1791 to 1793, and never since; the northern Malay States could be considered vassals only in the sense that Thailand was a vassal of China; there appears to be no historical justification for the inclusion of the Southern Shan States; and Laos and Cambodia were vassals, not integral parts of the Kingdom.

I think I made the argument somewhere above that the map is not an appropriate representation of the historical period covered by the article. Regardless of the accuracy issue, it unavoidably paints an inaccurate picture of the geopolitical relationships of the time period. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter?[edit]

@Vif12vf it doesn’t matter how much countries is listed, as long as that’s what that place is currently part of, whether it’s 8 or 10 current countries, it really doesn’t matter. Javyriv (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The established standard for the today-section is no more than 4-5 countries. So yes, it does matter! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthems correct?[edit]

Are the link to the anthems correct? The first anthem links to God Saves the King, which is the anthem of the UK. The second anthem links to the current Thai Royal Anthem, and not "The Floating Moon on the Sky" or "Glory his Prestige". 223.24.167.158 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article split[edit]

As has been raised earlier by Polyesterchips and Yourlocallordandsavior, there's a case to be made for splitting the coverage of Thai history from 1782 to 1932 into smaller articles, considering the distinct change in trajectory of the history the period. While the current text, contributed by NewFrontierHistoryEng, makes the split at watershed events in 1855 (Bowring treaty) and 1905 (abolition of corvée), the more traditional approach (that aligns better with sources) would be to follow the reign boundaries.

For the first three reigns, the term early Rattanakosin period is quite well attested, and I think that should be the natural choice for the article title. For the remainder, there seem to be various approaches. Some consider the period of modernisation to cover only the fourth and fifth reigns, though it would be more convenient to just cover the 1851–1932 period together (as there's not that much to cover between 1910 and 1932). While some sources use the term middle Rattanakosin period, they're much rarer than those for early. References to modernisation and reform are often used, but more as a description than a distinct term, so there doesn't seem to be an easy natural title here.

We could also fall back on the descriptive title History of Thailand (1851–1932), which would be consistent with succeeding articles. Or we could stick with the current format, and name the new articles Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1851) and Rattanakosin Kingdom (1851–1932) (though my preference is against this as I think the title should emphasise the fact that these are periodisations rather than distinct countries, a misconception that the kingdom terminology is bound to cause).

As for the remaining Rattanakosin Kingdom page, I think it should be converted to a disambiguation / set index page, which would require that incoming links be updated.

In summary, here's a breakdown of the options I see:

Opinions and suggestions, please? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Early Rattanakosin period and History of Thailand (1851-1932). Might have nationalistic problems to do C if you claim that Thailand began in 1782 and that Ayutthaya wasn't Thai, etc... Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rattanakosin_Kingdom_(1782–1932)&oldid=1195114780"