Talk:Anglo-Siamese War

Title of the Wikipedia page
The title of the Wikipedia should be changed to East India Company-Siamese war. There were many English interlopers on the Siamese side, with the conflict stemming from said English interlopers. Siam and the East India Company were at war by declaration; not the Siamese and English governments. Thus, the title would be incorrect as the East India Company is not the English government. Octopus81 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but convention. See Anglo-Maratha Wars, Anglo-Mysore Wars and Anglo-Nepalese War. The Company may not be the gov't or a branch of it, but it did have a royal monopoly on trade with the East. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alterations of infobox
The removal of Samuel White and Richard Burnaby from the Battle infobox is unfair. They were initially on the Siamese side before defection and surrendering to Weltden’s forces. White was in a position of authority, as Harbourmaster of Mergui and Burnaby as governor. The local Siamese lord of Mergui was the major leader of the upheaval. Octopus81 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The usage of the English Red Ensign
Samuel White, Richard Burnaby and other English sailors in Siamese service are entitled to fly the Red ensign, as English nationals overseas. Despite being in Siam’s service, they acted autonomously in Mergui as a faction or a sub-group within Siamese jurisdiction. Octopus81 (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is unnecessarily confusing to put all those flags there. We only need flags for the belligerents. Also, White and Burnacy were not "defectors" or "interlopers". They were foreign nationals in Siamese service who left to comply with an order from their superior. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

“Confusing” is very subjective the same has been applied to many pages on Wikipedia regarding conflict, showing subgroups within a faction for detail. Samuel White and Richard Burnaby became Siamese subjects despite their background, and thus, their attempt to hand over Mergui upon being threatened by Weltden was treason. They were not, at that moment, Company men because they pledged fealty to Ayutthaya and carried out acts of war under the Siamese flag until threatened by the Company and Weltden. Erasing the clarifications of factions and factional subgroups with “confusion” as a justification diminishes the detail of the Wikipedia page. As for the reference of Burnaby and White as well as their clique being interlopers, various writers and pages referred to them as such. Their treason equates to defection as they were entrusted with Mergui by Narai and Phualkon with Burnaby holding the rank “Ok-phra” of Mergui, the governor and Samuel White being the Harbourmaster. Octopus81 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the dispute of the Battle infobox
1) Richard Burnaby and Samuel White, despite their background, were Siamese subjects having pledged fealty and allegiance to Ayutthaya and entrusted with Mergui. Burnaby was given the Siamese title “Ok-phra” of Mergui and White was made Harbourmaster. Their surrendering of Mergui to Weltden was treason, as they had pledged to Ayutthaya yet conceded to the Company. They were not merely complying to their “superiors”. They left the Company and fought against them, leading to the Company’s retaliation. Until their surrender to the Company and allowing Weltden’s entry into Mergui, the EIC was not their superior, but their enemy despite being employed by them in the past. Thus they were “defectors” of the Ayutthayan cause when Weltden and his forces successfully threatened them into handing over Mergui and they conceded to his demands.

2) Burnaby and White were principal in acts of war against the Company through piracy and raiding in the initial phase- thus, initially “commanders” on Ayutthaya’s side, although acted on their own impulses, they were the main figures of military and administrative power in Mergui by engaging in war under the Siamese flag until their surrender to Weltden’s forces, making them traitors to Ayutthaya.

3) Though Burnaby and White were Siamese subjects, they acted with great autonomy and negligence in their duties from the Capital- ignoring Phualkon’s orders to cease their activities. Thus, despite being from the Ayutthaya faction and fighting under Siamese banners, they were an unruly subgroup within the faction- hence “English interlopers”, as despite being Ayutthaya’s officials, their faction acted beyond their jurisdiction by conducting unsanctioned naval battles and raids against Golconda and the Company. The Red Ensign was what they are entitled to fly as English nationals- not affiliated to the English government or Company, but also autonomous from Ayutthaya as their actions reflected.

4) Burnaby and White were referred to as “interlopers” and “pirates” across many documents and accounts.

5) In regards to the usage of flags. Many Wikipedia battle infoboxes places flags before commanders to establish and clarify their positions such as The Battle of Solebay. The flags being “confusing” is subjective, if anything, adds more detail to the Battle infobox. The flag of Ayutthaya being used for Narai and Phualkon reflect their position as the Siamese government. The Red Ensign for White and Burnaby reflected their status as an autonomous subgroup under Siam. The Company flag being used for Weltden and Yale reflected their affiliation to the Company. As a Wikipedia page Battle infobox, detailed information of factions should be emphasised for clarity of complex factions and subgroups, which would further explain their relationship. Octopus81 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)