Talk:Naresuan

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements
The article is full of unsourced claims and legends, for such an important figure in the history of Southeast Asia. I urge editors to write a well-researched, balanced article worthy of this figure.

First, I can start with Burma-related claims:
 * In the lead, "Siam reached its greatest territorial extent and influence" is demonstrably false. That title, I'm fairly certain, belongs to Rama III. (See Wyatt 2003: 155-159). In order for Naresuan to have controlled the largest Siamese empire, he must have, as per the Thai school books that Naresuan controlled all of Lower Burma up to Taungoo (Toungoo) and the entire Shan states. But that's not accepted history in academic circles. The part of Shan states he controlled was Lan Na, nothing else. Toungoo and Lower Burma? Just having marched into the lands doesn't equate to retaining control. If we follow the same logic, several Burmese kings could claim they controlled Siam, even though most of their invasions ended in failure. At Taungoo, Naresuan was driven back so severely that he wouldn't attempt another invasion. See (Harvey 1925: 183) and (Htin Aung 1967: 134). (Wyatt 2003: 88-91) covers Naresuan's story fairly close to the Thai version but Wyatt never crossed the line, and made any of the Thai school book claims--the largest Siamese empire or conquering Lower Burma.


 * Ethnicity and Regionalism: The article is written as though the Thai and Burmese nations of the era had developed the kind of ethnic consciousness of the 20th century and present. Modern academic opinion (Lieberman 2003; et al) is that the wars in those days were fought between the ruling dynasties, not between ethnic groups. In both states, Burma and Siam, the concept of ethnicity was still very fluid down to the 19th century. The 16th century wars were between regional power centers (much less nation-states) since in the 16th century, neither Burma or Siam had developed a large enough functioning centralized administration. Especially before the 17th century, Burma and Siam really were still in what Lieberman calls Pattern B administration, which basically means decentralized states. Burma and Siam both had several regional power centers to first confront and unify. Naresuan was viewed by the Ayutthaya elite as a usurper from Phitsanulok for much of Siamese history until he was lionized by Damrong in the 20th century as the hero of the Thai people for having defeated the Burmese. The article's claims about ethnic Mons and Shans being happy to be liberated by Naresuan are clearly written from a present-day prism.


 * IMO, the article serves as a prop to bolster Thai ethnicity and nationalism but shockingly little else. A more balanced article on this truly important figure should discuss academic viewpoints and cross-check other sources. He deserves better. Hybernator (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference complaints
"Reference sources are inadequate to corroborate any information given. Ref no.1 goes nowhere. Ref no.2 is in Thai. Ref no.3 is a newspaper article which in a nutshell says historians are still debating much of King Naresuan's life"This belongs here, not in the article. Current references as of today: —Pawyilee (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) goes to a Bank of Thailand article that explains the act of pouring water symbolizes "declaration of independence"
 * 2) Thai article containing Thai for "Declaration of Independence"
 * 3) definition to clear up confusion from when someone used the Sanskrit for the section heading, which then red-linked to an article of the same name
 * 4) Don't know who added that, and my Thai is only level-2, but it goes to an article from Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5, which hints that it is an important source of government propaganda
 * 5) article asserts he was a hero to the Shan, where "hero" should be understood in the context of a Greek hero cult
 * 6) links to Series 12 100-Baht note of April 6, 1978 which marks an important step in elevating Naresuan to cult-hero status. The other BoT link is to the 50-Baht series 16 of January 18, 2012, which indicates that Naresuan's cult-hero status was further enhanced just last year, with the added fillip of referring to Declaration of Independence

Parameters
—Pawyilee (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.
 * Biasing in electronics is the method of establishing predetermined voltages or currents at various points of an electronic circuit for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions in electronic components. My primary training is in electronics, so I'm biased to use "bias' without prejudice or bigotry, but for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions.
 * Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. I propose this be considered without prejudice or bigotry, but for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions when facing a real are perceived threat.
 * Cult in current usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement, or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society.
 * Greek hero cults were one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greeks, but may be considered abnormal or bizarre by many; I propose this term be used without prejudice or bigotry.

Discussion
Addition reading presently gives two peer-reviewed journal articles that a mere electronics technician cannot figure out how to incorparate into the above parameters.
 * Fernquist, Jon (Spring 2005). "The Flight of Lao War Captives from Burma back to Laos in 1596: A Comparison of Historical Sources" is by a Ph.D candidate at the Northern Thai Mae Fah Luang University. Fernquist's bias makes only oblique reference to prejudice and bigotry, and is written for purpose of establishing proper operating conditions in Naresuan's time, and those of reign of Rama V, to adopt a course independent of French and British pressure that had the king seriously fearful of losing his throne; and his people, their country.
 * Sunait Chutintaranond (1992). "The Image of the Burmese Enemy in Thai Perceptions and Historical Writings" updates that in the context of 20th century concern for independence from perceived threats from communism.

Current news concerning Ho Chi Minh's 2 September 1945 Declaration of Independence of Vietnam make it clear that Declaration of Independence barely fit into Southeast Asian context at the time, and would have been incomprehensible in the context of the Southeast Asian political model of Naresuan's time — the water-pouring ritual can be found today in the context of a Buddhist funeral. —Pawyilee (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy Thai
"Thais cheered up by Naresuan movie" --Pawyilee (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Elephant battle section
The section says:

"'Naresuan was able to cut Mingyi Swa with his sword [...]." "'Naresuan's sword, Chao Phraya Prap Hongsawadi or 'Chao Phraya which defeated Bago', and helmet, Chao Phraya Sen Phonlaphai or 'Chao Phraya which defeated a hundred thousand soldiers', still exist today.'"



This is completely wrong, for the following reasons:


 * 1) He didn't use a sword, but a ngao (ง้าว; which may be translated as halberd, scythe, etc.; see Picture 1). A sword was never used on elephant.
 * 2) Chao Phraya Prap Hongsawadi (เจ้าพระยาปราบหงสาวดี) was an elephant, not a sword.
 * 3) Chao Phraya Sen [correctly Saen] Phonlaphai (เจ้าพระยาแสนพลพ่าย) was a ngao, not a helmet.

The section also lacks theories introduced by modern scholars that the killing of Mingyi Swa by Naresuan was invented (never took place for real).

--iudexvivorum (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Emperor of Lan Na?
Is there a reference for Naresuan bearing this title? --RJFF (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Do you have an opinion or idea regarding this issue? It seems illogical or at least counter-intuitive that Lan Na is supposed to have had a higher ranking ruler title than Ayutthaya at a time when the former was just a vassal state of the latter. I guess that it is supposed to refer to the claim of being chakravartin. But 1) is "Emperor" an inaccurate translation of chakravartin and 2) did chakravartin express a universal claim to power, not a title linked to a certain realm, so "chakravartin of Lan Na" would be self-contradictory. --RJFF (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just found the same anomaly in the articles on Bayinnaung and Nanda Bayin. Perhaps User:Hybernator might have a say in this discussion, too? Why are they supposed to be just "king" of Burma, but "emperor" of Lan Na, Lan Xang and Siam, while Burma was indeed more powerful than Lan Na, Lan Xang and Siam at that time, and Lan Na's, Lan Xang's and Siam's rulers during independence are not referred to as "emperors"? In English-language literature I could not find a single reference for an "Emperor of Lan Na". And I could only find mentions of an "Emperor of Siam" and "Lan Xang" in anachronistic or non-expert texts, and they are referring to rulers of an independent Siam or Lan Xang, not foreign rulers who exerted the overlordship over these realms. --RJFF (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can only speak for the Burmese usage. Chronicles call Bayinnaung, among his *many* other titles, Min Ekarit (Lord Emperor) of his vassal states. Ekarit ("emperor") comes from Pali ekaraj, not chakravartin (sekkyawaday in Burmese.) Bayinnaung was ekarit of naing-ngans ("emperor" of "conquered states"). Neither he nor Nanda was ever called "king of Lan Na/Chiang Mai". That title, Zinme Bayin ("King of Chiang Mai"), in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, belonged to Nawrahta Minsaw. (In general, rulers of major vassal states were referred to with the title bayin ("king"). Exceptions were rulers of Mogaung, Keng Tung and Manipur, who though called sawbwa ("chief") by the chronicles were nonetheless allowed to keep their full royal regalia.)


 * I don't know how Naresuan's status as the overlord of Lan Na was referred to in Thai chronicles. AFAIK, Chiang Mai and Nan chronicles don't even acknowledge that Lan Na was ever a vassal of Siam during Naresuan's reign. I believe, we'd have to look at the Ayutthaya chronicle for the usage. Our Thai editors perhaps have access to it or other sources.


 * Anyway, as for the usage of king vis a vis emperor, I think we have a precedent in monarchs of the Great Britain (referred to as king and queen) being referred to as the Emperor/Empress of India. Two cents. Hybernator (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Thanks for your well-informed answer. Do modern English-language sources indeed render the native title of Ekarit as "emperor"? Sorry for my scepticism, but I find it always problematic to translate foreign royal titles into a different language, because these titles are usually tied to a certain social and political system and do not have a simple equivalent. Translating royal titles was very common in earlier centuries, but I have the impression that modern historians tend to avoid this practice more and more. A neutral term like "overlord" as proposed by User:Iudexvivorum (in a statement that he/she has unfortunately deleted) might be more appropriate. In fact, I had thought of the England/India example, too, once I had saved my above question. But I think there is an essential difference: India, despite being under British suzerainty, was much bigger and more populous than the British mainland. This is not the case with the Burmese vassals, that were either smaller (e.g. Lan Na), or at most, roughly equal (e.g. Ayutthaya). So I think it is still unprecedented to link a higher-ranking title to a less powerful and smaller, less populous dominion. By the way, you have written that Bayinnaung is referred to as Min Ekarit "of his vassal states"; does that mean Min Ekarit of his vassal states in total or Min Ekarat of each of his vassal states individually, i.e. Min Ekarit of Lan Na, Min Ekarit of Lan Xang, Min Ekarit of Ayutthaya etc. I would assume the former. I do not have that much a problem with labelling Bayinnaung an "emperor" per se (in the sense of ruler of an "empire" that consists of the Burmese mainland and all of its vassal states), but I am very doubtful about labelling him "Emperor of Lan Na", "Emperor of Siam", "Emperor of Lan Xang" as if each of these were individual, separable titles (which I doubt). --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the thoughtful comments.
 * In Burmese, ekarit means emperor. For more academic definitions of the term ekarit (ekaraj) in English, see: and


 * The chronicles do give his multitude of titles and names of his vassal states (including those that were more likely allies or protectorates in present-day India). But if you're asking if they specifically state in the form of: Ekarit of, no. (At least I haven't seen it.) Chroniclers, I don't believe, were thinking of in such neat academic terms.


 * I'm not sure if there are commonly accepted criteria as to what constitutes an empire. Relatively small territories (Vietnam, Korea, Haiti) called themselves empires and their rulers emperors. Of course, even the Toungoo Empire at its height in the grand scheme of things was rather small in comparison to other large empires.


 * FWIW, Lan Na was considered the most important, strategic vassal state by Bayinnaung and the Pegu court. The rank of the ruler of Lan Na was Bayin ("king") as was the case with Ayutthaya.


 * Now, many Burmese kings had grandiose titles that equate to emperor even if their domain was no more than a small region. They called themselves Min Ekarit, Sekkyawaday, Maha Dhamma-Yaza, Maha Dhamma-Yaza-Dipadi, Razadarit (Yazadarit/Yaza-di-Yaza). For example, Binnya Nwe controlled just the Pegu province at his accession but nonetheless proclaimed himself as Razadarit (king of kings; Raja-dhi-Raja). Of course, several Siamese kings also had the title Rachathirat.


 * Overlord, to me, is a term of relative rank/position. The closest equivalent term in Burmese would be min which means lord but could refer to various office holders (governors, viceroys, or kings) or members of the royalty. A min could have vassals underneath him/her, and still have higher ranked overlords (mins). In the case of Burmese monarchs, they saw themselves as the top ranked ruler. (I'm sure Siamese monarchs thought the same.) So, to me, overlord doesn't fully convey the sense of the paramount ruler: king of kings. Hybernator (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I will not try to argue with you about the translation of Burmese terms (of which you have obviously a lot of knowledge, and I have none). However, the works you have just linked to, do not translate ekaraj/Min Ekarit as "emperor", but "sole ruler, universal monarch" or "Ruler and First Lord". As long as there are no references for the titles of "Emperor of Lan Na", "Emperor of Siam", "Emperor of Lan Xang" (being separate titles), I think it will be best to omit them from the infobox, per WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Some positions or relationships are too complicated to be summarised in infoboxes. Of course, the article's bodies will still mention these rulers exerting the overlordship over the respective lands. --RJFF (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, don't take my word for it. You can ask other Burmese editors as well. Here are a few other books that translate ekaraja as sole sovereign (emperor) or universal emperor:, ; Anyway, that's all I have to say about the topic. I don't have a strong opinion about omitting them in the infobox here. Regards, Hybernator (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Dates
This article is still heavily reliant on Damrong's highly one-sided reconstructions, and poor editing of the 2001 English edition.

At the very least, let's get the dates right. The editor Chris Baker kept inserting *modern* Siamese month equivalents. For example, on page 85, Naresuan left with his force on the 6th waning moon of the third Siamese month of Thai BE 2126. Baker translated that as March 1583. When Damrong wrote the book, the Siamese calendar still straddled the Gregorian calendar, and the first Siamese month didn't start in January. Thai BE 2126 was 1583/84 (not just 1583). The third Siamese month would have been Magha (Tabodwe in Burmese). 6th waning of Magha / Tabodwe of 2126 Thai BE / 945 ME = 22 January 1584 (not March 1583). And he arrived at Khareng in the sixth month of 2127 Thai BE which should be Vaisakha (Kason in Burmese), 31 March to 28 April 1584 (not June 1583). That lines up quite perfectly with the Burmese chronicle dates of when Pegu asked its vassal states to send in the troops to fight the Ava rebellion. Dating discrepancies (by editing or otherwise) continue throughout the book. According to the Burmese chronicles, the second invasion of Siam took place in March–June 1586 (not in 1585). Third in the dry season of 1587–88 (Oct to April). Forth in 1590–91 (Nov to March). Fifth in 1592–93 (Nov to Jan). Hybernator (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think that anyone would oppose you being bold and changing it. I agree that the excessive reliance on Damrong is problematic, given that many parts of his account have been called into question or proven inaccurate by modern historians. The many references to "Our Wars With the Burmese" have only recently been added by User:Pi3.124, certainly in good faith, and they are still better than no references at all. But if you have access to more balanced and accurate sources, please go ahead. --RJFF (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. You cold use B.J. Terwiel's critical essay on the Elephant Battle story. According to Terwiel, the "official" version found in Thai history books is only one of ten different accounts of the Battle of Nong Sarai, and not even the most plausible one. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Just read it. Very thorough analysis. I'd still have to nitpick with Terwiel's date of February 1593. The battle took place in January 1593 in Gregorian calendar (or December 1592 in Julian), not February 1593. Burmese date: 8th waxing of Tabodwe 954 ME (8 Jan 1593 Gregorian); the Luang Prasert date: 2nd waning of 2nd Siamese month (Pausha) of 954 CS (18 Jan 1593).
 * I'll make the date corrections in this article when I get a chance. I'll have to explain why Baker's dates are off in a note so that the next person doesn't just revert citing the 2001 edition. Other aspects of the article, I'll leave them to others (given my limited cycles). Hybernator (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naresuan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617062149/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/30/headlines/headlines_30002880.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/30/headlines/headlines_30002880.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

History
Naresuen 117.20.115.84 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)