Talk:Burmese–Siamese wars

User:Pelaisse's changes
User:Pelaisse tried to split Burmese–Siamese War (1594–1605) into two wars. I think it is inappropriate since the two invasions led by Naresuan were part of a single war. Just like the Sino-Burmese War, there were four invasions but that doesn't mean there were four wars. S WH  talk  06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Naresuan's alleged conquest of Toungoo
To the users (or sock puppets) who've been making repeated edits, saying that Naresuan conquered Toungoo. What's taught in Thai school books notwithstanding, the fact is that Naresuan laid siege to Toungoo in 1600 for about a month (April to May) but he was driven back by the combined Toungoo and Arakanese forces. This is an accepted fact, not just by historians on Burma but also by historians of Thai and Southeast Asian history, including David Wyatt, perhaps the most prominent academic on Thai history. I'm not aware of any English language books by historians of any nationality that claim otherwise. (Find a modern Thai historian who has written in a peer-reviewed paper that Naresuan conquered Toungoo.) Yes, you've cited Prince Damrong's book, which has an English language translation by a Burmese man. No offense but that book is not a history book; it's a highly nationalist account written by a Siamese prince with an ax to grind that took a lot of liberties with facts. I understand Damrong's version is what's in Thai school books. Have you given thought that not everything you see in schoolbooks may not be true? I request that you consult other sources too.

Till then, I'm going to revert the changes you've made in all other articles, and I'll have to report the incident. Hybernator (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1774)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1774). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Burmese–Siamese War (1700–01)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Burmese–Siamese War (1700–01). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"Burmese–Siamese War (1824–1826)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Burmese–Siamese War (1824–1826). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the First Anglo-Burmese War be considered an actual part of the Burmese-Siamese Wars?
Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. While I argued for deleting the redirect in the above-linked RfD discussion, it does appear that Siam was directly involved in the war (though in the end it didn't do much due to political wrangling). It does seem a bit strange that the Anglo-Burmese War should be included in a list article about "Burmese–Siamese wars", but then the latter term is just a made-up construct for convenience. Hypothetically, Bayinnaung's wars of conquest could be treated as a single extensive war, and in that case it probably wouldn't just be called a "Burmese–Siamese war", though it would definitely still belong on this list. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you recommend me some resources that proves Siam's involvement in the conflict? Some lazy finding led me to one unverifiable website article. I'm a little afraid if someone's going to remove Siam's co-belligerency from the First-Anglo Burmese War article due to the lack of sources, plus a level of ignorance regarding Siam's small-scale involvement in the conflict. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most convenient source I found is this article from Manager's popular history column. It's not a scholarly work, but I think the main primary source for the narrative is the Rattanakosin Royal Chronicles. It differs quite a bit from the one online English source I found, a 1931 SOAS thesis. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I could go either way but on balance it should be listed as Siam was involved, peripherally. Siam was also indirectly involved in the Second Anglo-Burmese war as it tried to pick off Kengtung and Kenghung. Burma retained those lands primarily because the local sawbwas withstood sieges from Siamese forces. (We could also mention WWII, see: Saharat Thai Doem.)
 * Also agree that the Burmese-Siamese wars are a made up name as the wars, according to modern scholarship, in those days were fought between dynasties, not between peoples. Hybernator (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Tha Din Daeng campaign as it's own separate war?
I had a discussion with Paul I think about the 1785-86 war and how the war ended in 1787 due to Tha Din Daeng being grouped with the conflict. Should that apply here as to separate the two? The Bangkaeo campaign also got separated from the 1775-76 war too. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wars in Thonburi Period
Clarifying edits on the wars in Thonburi Period Battle of Pho Sam Ton (1767) - This was not a full scale war but it was significant due to the fact that it was the first military conflict event between Burma and Siam in Thonburi period. Battle of Bangkung (1768) - This event was not recorded in the Burmese chronicle Hmannan Yazawindawgyi but it is well remembered by Thai chronicles, not a full scale war but a minor skirmish. Burmese–Siamese War (1771) - This event was not recorded in the Burmese chronicle but it was recorded in Thai chronicles. It is a Burmese–Siamese War because it was the Burmese who defended Chiangmai. Burmese–Siamese War (1774–1775) - This event was recorded in both Burmese chronicle and Thai chronicles. Bangkaeo Campaign (1775) - This event was recorded in the Burmese chronicle. Thai chronicles specified the place as Bangkeo, Ratchaburi. Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776) - This event was well recorded in both Burmese chronicle and Thai chronicles. Regarding the victor of the war, both Burmese and Thai chronicles stated that they suffered major losses. Burma achieved some forms of victory because they had inflicted major losses on Siam and defeated Siamese armies many times. Burmese–Siamese War (1777) - This event was recorded in Hmannan Yazawindawgyi. It even specified the date to January 1777, which contrasted with Thai chronicles who said 1776.

NewFrontierHistoryEng (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , a few points:
 * First, this article is a list of wars. The campaigns from 1774 to 1777 over Lan Na are all part of a single war. If you want to create separate articles for specific campaigns, go at it. But they don't belong on this page. Otherwise, we'd have to break up these wars to the campaign or battle level. (I don't even know why 1774–1775 and 1775–1776 campaigns are listed as separate articles.) Then, we could break up the war of 1547–1549 into two (one on the 1547–1548 Tenasserim campaign and the 1548–1549 Ayutthaya campaign); the 1584–1593 into five campaigns; 1593–1600 into two campaigns; the 1849–1855 war into three campaigns; etc. Just because Damrong organized them into campaigns doesn't mean we have to follow it.
 * Second, the traditional Burmese/Siamese calendars straddle the Gregorian year. Most campaigns were fought during the dry season (Nov-May). So, the Thai chronicle date of "1776" and the Burmese chronicle date of January 1777 are likely talking about the same date. (I have the 2001 edition of Damrong; the editors did a terrible job of translating the traditional dates. See the footnotes in the Naresuan article. The current Thai "Buddhist" calendar is a renumbered Gregorian calendar, introduced in 1941.) Hybernator (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * One more point: I haven't seen any reliable sources that say Burma achieved a "strategic victory" in 1776 in Lan Na. If anything, it lost Lan Na for good--an unmitigated disaster. If you have a reliable source that states it as such, let's see it. Hybernator (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for answering There were many conflicts between Burma and Siam in Thonburi Period with many events and details. It is impossible to condense them into a single article it will be a very long redundant article to read. When Maha Thiha Thura invaded Siam in October 1775 the Thais called it "Azaewunky War" but not when Taksin invaded Chiangmai (because it did not involve Maha Thiha Thura) and not Satpagyon Bo's campaign at Bangkaeo. I have never split Burmese-Siamese War articles before. I always go with the existing demarcations. Dealing the 1774-1776 war in just one article will be long and confusing. Burmese chronicles, in my opinion, did not focus on Siam during this period because of the Sino-Burmese war but Thai chronicles treated these events with great detail. 1774-1776 was not a single war but at least two wars on different fronts with different background developments. I think at least the invasion of Chiangmai should be separated as it dealt with Burma-Lanna-Siam relationships. To say that there was only one war between Siam and Burma in this period is misleading. But I will not force my opinion on this page. Let it be the consensus of the community.  Regarding the Burmese strategic victory, it cited Nidhi Eoseewong การเมืองไทยในสมัยพระเจ้ากรุงธนบุรี in the 1775-1776 article I am sorry that I do not put it here. When we speak of the Maha Thiha Thura's war, we do not speak of the Siamese invasion of Lanna, which was certainly a Siamese victory, but we speak of when Maha Thiha Thura entered Siam in October 1775 and wrecked many northern Siamese towns including Phitsanulok (and even defeated Taksin at Pakphing. "Fall of Phitsanulok" is certainly a Burmese victory) to when after the demise of King Hsinbyushin the Burmese gradually retreated until September 1776. It was not about the Siamese invasion of Chiangmai. Chiangmai had already fallen to the Siamese in January 1775 and did not relate to Maha Thiha Thura's invasion of Siam. Burma had lost Lanna before Maha Thiha Thira invaded Siam. I think traditional and modern historiography conflicted. Naming wars as "Burmese-Siamese Wars" following by years is problematic in some way. There may be better solutions in the future. I considered naming that article "Siamese Expedition to Chiangmai (1774-1775)" but I think that would be non-standard and not complied with the existing articles.  Detailed information on Thai history does not widely available in English, which I lament. When I write articles, I try to cite English sources but if I cannot I have no choice but to cite Thai sources. NewFrontierHistoryEng (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Couple of points:
 * I sense the battles of Pho Sam Ton and Bangkung are important in Thai history. You could add those battles in the Taksin's reunification of Siam article, and list that article here. (...since the First Anglo-Burmese War article is listed here anyway).
 * The 1775–1776 campaign didn't happen in a vacuum. It was in response to the fall of Chiang Mai. So, those two articles should really be one. And I still don't understand Nidhi's rationale for giving Maha Thiha Thura a "strategic victory" when the general didn't achieve any of Hsinbyushin's aims. If we're generous, we could say Maha Thiha Thura achieved tactical victories during the campaign but ultimately had to withdraw.
 * Btw, where did you get that Hmannan says the Burmese forces were fighting in Siam in January 1777? I double-checked. Maha Thiha Thura withdrew in the rainy season of 1776, and his son-in-law new king Singu, who was busy eliminating rivals for the throne, didn't order any new campaigns. Hybernator (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comparison to Prince Damrong's reckoning
Prince Damrong's Our Wars with the Burmese might not be considered relevant as a factual source nowadays, but given its immense influence on the study of the topic, I think a comparison of the wars as they're listed here to how they are by the Prince (and perhaps other significant sources as well) would be useful. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)