Talk:Sen Soulintha

Problem with dates
The reign dates are not in accordance with those given in the Burmese chronicles. The dates given by Simms, I assume, are based on Laotian records. IMHO, the Burmese records are the most complete and reliable for the era. I'm not saying that because I'm Burmese. If Laotian chronicles are anything like the Siamese ones of the era, they are likely to be very thin, written centuries later, and dates not very accurate, probably off by many years. (Siamese dates for the 16th century were off by about two decades. Thai history for this era follows the Burmese dates.)

A couple of points:
 * Setthathirath's death year: [Western] historians tend to abbreviate the Southeast Asian lunisolar calendar, which straddles the Gregorian calendar into one. So, I suspect that the Laotian records probably say King Setthathirath died in 933 ME (which ran from 31 March 1571 to 30 March 1572). But Simms & Simms report simply as dying in 1571. The Burmese chronicles say that the Pegu court learned of Setthathirath's death in early 934 ME (July 1572). So, Laotian records could still be right since the king likely died in late 933 ME (early 1572). (They typically find out about the death of a faraway vassal ruler in about a month. The death was Queen Vissudhadevi of Lan Na was reported at the Pegu court within a month after her death. Lan Xang being farther away, and the mysterious circumstances of Setthathirath's death would have delayed the news of his death a bit more. So, the Laotian date of 933 ME is definitely possible though probably not in 1571 as reported in Western books.)


 * Sen Soulintha's appointment date is off by a decade! According to the Burmese records, Maha Ouparat died in September/October 1588. Chronicles consider him a weak vassal king; they criticize his inability to keep Lan Xang quiet. The Pegu court initially selected Thado Dhamma Yaza III as king of Lan Xang before he was reassigned to Prome in February 1589. Sen Soulintha was appointed in 1589, not 1579.

A key problem is that the Burmese chronicles haven't been translated into English. (Only up to the Pagan Dynasty has been translated.) International scholars who specialize in the history of neighboring countries don't read Burmese--they aren't expected to--can't cross-check the native records, written centuries after, against the Burmese records, the most reliable and complete for the era. AFAIK, Thailand/Siam historians have cross-checked with the Burmese records and changed the dates accordingly. Laos historians may not have.

Of course, I understand why you have to report the history as written in Stuart-Fox and Simms. You have to! But we need to include that Burmese records report different dates. And I'll remove your reference about the Burmese chronicles saying Sen Soulintha being appointed in 1579 since they don't say so. Hybernator (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanda Simms is a Burmese aristocrat, she was born as a princess in the Shan states, and her father was the first President of the Independent Union of Burma after British occupation- Therefore although the Simms' book is a general Lao history it never really entered my mind that there would be an issue with the Burmese chronicles! The main issue with all the mainland Southeast Asian Chronicles is that they are highly regional, and major portions of the Thai, Lao and Burmese histories were lost through frequent warfare. Like you mentioned, the Burmese chronicles aren't available in English translation. The Lao chronicles from the period would have been kept in Vientiane, which were lost during the destruction of Vientiane by the Siamese in 1828. We do have short versions of the Vientiane Chronicles, as well as Chronicles from Xieng Khouang and Luang Prabang. It makes sense to me to include a statement about variations among regional histories, which would include the dates.

The circumstances surrounding Setthathirath's death even in the chronicles is vague, so being either 1571 or 1572 I don't think is much of an issue. It is more interesting that Sen Soulintha's appointment would be so divergent. Michel Lorrillard, in La Succession de Setthathirat pieces together the chronicles from Nan, Luang Prabang, and Vientiane and also extant epigraphic inscriptions. His use of archaeological evidence to corroborate the chronicles is helpful in establishing the dates I've used. Lorrillard notes that from the era of Sen Soulintha, there is a kind of over-employment of original Pali titles granted to sovereigns, which is in a way used to commemorate a “curious artifice of legitimacy,” probably because the chronicles clearly presented the legitimacy problems he had. The Lao chronicles record a succession of several kings (Voravongsa I (the Ouphahat), Sen Soulintha, Nakhon Noi, Nokeo Koumane, Voravongsa II (Thammakirath)) during the Taungoo period, with only Nokeo Koumane (Setthathirath’s son) being widely viewed as legitimate. Sen Soulintha was born around 1512, using the Burmese dates it is still possible he was appointed in 1589 as you state above, but he would have been about 80.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that Lan Xang was a thorn in the side of the Taungoo Empire. Just as the Lao chronicles gloss over the involvement of the Ouphahat, who was hated by the population, it is likely the Burmese Chronicles would gloss over the period from 1583-1591 where control of the Lan Xang kingdom was mostly nominal and resistance was widely spread.

At any rate, I've added some language about the differences between texts and dates from the period, Thanks StampyElephant (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Burmese chronicles indeed gloss over many things. But not in this case. Maha Ouparat being alive in Vientiane doesn't mean he had any control of the countryside. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Burmese chronicles repeatedly acknowledge the sad state of affairs in Lan Xang, and blame him for not keeping the country quiet. IMHO, the death year of Maha Ouparat (1579) is likely a copying error. It's not difficult to imagine. With most of the source material gone--which both Burmese and Siamese troops must take their share of the blame and shame--reconstructing centuries later would have been awfully difficult. Piecing a narrative together from fragments of whatever remaining poorly legible manuscripts couldn't have been easy. (Burmese chronicles themselves include many typos, copying errors, inconsistencies--especially with regard to pre-Toungoo period dates. The pre-11th century dates in some cases are off by many decades in comparison to contemporary inscriptional dates. But the chronicles' Toungoo period dates, sourced from contemporary royal orders, have been deemed highly accurate by scholars.)
 * Yes, Burmese chronicles indeed gloss over many things. But not in this case. Maha Ouparat being alive in Vientiane doesn't mean he had any control of the countryside. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Burmese chronicles repeatedly acknowledge the sad state of affairs in Lan Xang, and blame him for not keeping the country quiet. IMHO, the death year of Maha Ouparat (1579) is likely a copying error. It's not difficult to imagine. With most of the source material gone--which both Burmese and Siamese troops must take their share of the blame and shame--reconstructing centuries later would have been awfully difficult. Piecing a narrative together from fragments of whatever remaining poorly legible manuscripts couldn't have been easy. (Burmese chronicles themselves include many typos, copying errors, inconsistencies--especially with regard to pre-Toungoo period dates. The pre-11th century dates in some cases are off by many decades in comparison to contemporary inscriptional dates. But the chronicles' Toungoo period dates, sourced from contemporary royal orders, have been deemed highly accurate by scholars.)


 * Not sure if Sanda Simms could read Burmese (well), or checked the Burmese sources in Burmese. After a quick review of this particular section in their 1999 book, I doubt they read any native chronicles in Burmese or Lao. I can give you a few examples: I don't know where they got Bayinnaung invading Mong Nai in March 1556. In March 1556, Bayinnaung was in Myedu and Tagaung (present-day northern Sagaing Region and Mandalay Region. Bayinnaung's invasion of Mong Nai came later, in Nov 1557. Likewise, Setthitharath's date of death, as mentioned before, was learned in Pegu only in July 1572. The Simmses probably simply took the (abbreviated) 1571 date given in some other source in English/French? (I doubt they read or checked the actual Laotian chronicle, which I suspect says 933 ME/CS (1571/72).) And finally, Maha Ouparat's death year. It's so glaring; it's worth at least a mention! So, no, I don't think they checked the Burmese chronicles in Burmese. IMO, they simply checked English language Burmese history books, which of course do not have the detail of the chronicles. Anyway, I do realize they were writing a general audience history book, not a dissertation. With my admittedly poor knowledge of Laotian history, I do think they have the outline of the history right, and appeared to have compiled as much detail they could from available Western sources. My two cents.


 * Anyway, you have to work with whatever you have. *Please keep up the good work.* It's always great to see good content being added to one of Wiki's severely underrepresented areas. I will review them and provide feedback from time to time when *time permits*. Cheers and thanks. Hybernator (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)