Talk:Siamese revolution of 1688

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

– Almost every "Revolution" article in Wikipedia is capitalized, let's have some consistency. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Siamese revolution of 1688 → Siamese Revolution of 1688
 * Siamese revolution of 1932 → Siamese Revolution of 1932
 * Comment: Capitalisation should depend on whether the title is being treated as a proper noun (is "Siamese Revolution" the name of the event?) or as a merely descriptive term (a revolution that happened in Siam). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I've said before, this is an invalid rationale.  There is zero expectation that capitalization of the word "revolution" be consistent across all articles, nor should there be; Wikipedia should follow the capitalization used in the sources.  That said, weak oppose for Siamese Revolution of 1688, and Oppose for Siamese revolution of 1932.  Checking Google Scholar for "Siam 1688" and "Siam 1932", a few references use capital R revolution for 1688 ("1688 Revolution in Siam: The Memoir of Father de Bèze"), but a few references use lowercase r ("The 1688 'revolution' in Siam and Its Origins: An in Depth Examination of a Seventeenth-century Siamese Power Struggle), so it's split, so article title stability argues against a move.  For 1932, some sources just call it a coup, and the one that uses revolution uses a lowercase r ("Siam in transition: A brief survey of cultural trends in the five years since the revolution of 1932"). SnowFire (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Siamese revolution of 1688 Suriyenthrathibodi - Mom Pi.jpg

Role of Phaulkon and Phetracha in the revolution according to Engelbert Kaempfer
The European explorer Engelbert Kaempfer, who visited Ayutthaya in 1690, gives a slightly different account of the events and of the roles of Constantine Phaulkon and Phetracha than the article on the Siamese revolution of 1688:

According to Kaempfer, Phaulkon was indeed a conspirator who plotted to seize power after king Narai's death: "The better to secure himself [i.e. Phaulkon] in this authority he thought it necessary to support it by some foreign power, of which he judg'd the French Nation to be the most proper for seconding his designs, which even seem'd to aim at the Royal dignity." For this purpose, Phaulkon supposedly intended to install a puppet king: ''"These preparations being made, he enter'd into measures with the French General, and some Mandarins, or officers of the Crown, whom he confided in. Monpi Totso, the King's Son in law, and by him adopted, a dependant of his and the French, was to be placed on the throne, assoon as the sick King should be dead, whose encreasing dropsy threatned him with a sudden dissolution. Petraatia and bis Sons, the King's two brothers, as presumptive heirs to the Crown, and whoever else was like to oppose the Conspirator's designs, were to be dispatch'd out of the way. Pursuant to this Scheme Monpi's Father, and relations, had already rais'd fourteen thousand Men, who lay dispers'd through the Country". Kaempfer further describes how the plot was supposedly (and rather conveniently) uncovered by Phetracha's son: "[T]he Conspiracy was discover'd by Petraatia's own Son, who happening to be with two of the King's Concubines in an apartment adjoyning to that where the Conspirators were, had the curiosity to listen at the door, and having heard the bloody resolution they had taken, immediateby repair'd to his Father to tell him of it. Petraatia without loss of time acquainted the King with this Conspiracy, and then sent for Monpi, Faulcon and the Mandarines of their party, as also for the Captain of the Guards to Court, and caused the Criminals forthwith to be put in Irons notwithstanding the King express'd the greatest displeasure, at his so doing. [...] Two days after Petraatia order'd against the King's will Monpi's head to be struck off, throwing it at Faulcon's feet, then loaded with Irons, with this reproach, See there is your King."'' (Source: Engelbert Kaempfer (1727) The History of Japan: Together with a Description of the Kingdom of Siam. Chapter II: The present State of the Court of Siam, with a description of Juthia, the Capital City and Place of the King's Residence, pp. 19-20)

While Kaempfer's account is a primary source providing third-hand, probably biased information (he was no direct witness to the events but met with Kosa Pan and other officials of Phetracha's court), I wonder if any of it can be confirmed by more reliable, secondary sources? It seems in line with the article on king Narai himself, where it says: "After questioning Phra Pi, he [Phetracha] discovered Phra Pi had conspired with Phaulkon to assume the throne, and Phra Pi was executed on 20 May. Further questioning of Phaulkon revealed a plot to raise a rebellion". In contrast, the article on the Siamese revolution of 1688 portrays Phetracha as a conspirator and leaves the role of Phaulkon ambiguous: "Phetracha staged a long-planned coup d'etat [...], initiating the 1688 Siamese revolution. On May 17–18, 1688, King Narai was arrested. On June 5, Phaulkon was arrested on accusations of treason, and later beheaded."

To me, it seems most likely that both Phaulkon and Phetracha independently conspired to size power with their respective supporters. Is there anyone with more expertise on the subject who can corroborate this? Thank you! --Shinryuu (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)