Talk:Suriyothai

Location
The "Phra Chedi Sisuriyothai" is not "located outside Ayutthaya" but is situated at the banks of the Chao Phraya southwest of the Royal Palace, that is within the island. The "Queen Suriyothai Memorial Park" however is situated northwest of Ayutthaya, still northwest of Phu Khao Thong (14.38417°N, 100.52583°W). See photos (of the partly inundated park) and plan here or here. --hdamm 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

' Sri ' suriyothai = Pagoda

Suriyothai = Queen


 * Wrong:
 * "Phra Chedi Sisuriyothai" = Pagoda (Chedi)
 * "Somdet Phra Suriyothai" (Thai: สมเด็จพระสุริโยทัย)) = Queen
 * --hdamm 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, wrong: 'Sri' = Sri; an honorary preffix Sodacan (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT project
Since Suriyothai disguised herself as a man to enter the war and fight with her husband, she's of interest to the WikiProject LGBT studies. Please don't removed the project banner. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Particularly in light of this snippet from the portal page:


 * This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of LGBT and intersex identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions.


 * Is there really any LGBT studies interest here? She disguised herself as a man in order to enter battle; I'm not certain I can see how that relates to her identity, attractions, relationships, etc.


 * J.M. Archer (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked through the page history and seen no "interest" of any kind exhibited by the project in question, I'ma delete this thing. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Death date
Older versions of the article state her death date was 3 February 1549. Would anyone know the actual Chulasakkarat date (not the translated one)? I wonder if the 3 February date is a mis-translation (assuming that the second Siamese month was February); in her time, the second Siamese month still was Putsa (ปุสส). I wonder if it was 3rd waxing of Putsa 910 CS (2 December 1548), which fits nicely with Burmese records, which say that the Burmese armies left Kanchanaburi for Ayutthaya in mid-November (either 13 or 15 November). Taking another two weeks or so to reach the outskirts of Ayutthaya where the battle took place seems quite probable.

She still could have died on 3 February 1549 (assuming the translation is correct). It would mean she died during the battle where Ramesuan and Maha Thammaracha were captured, which took place in early February 1549!? (Of course, assuming that she participated in the battle. The Burmese records say nothing about any elephant duels.) If so, the narrative that she died in the battle of Ayutthaya (before the siege of Ayutthaya) would be incorrect.

On balance, I suspect it's a mistranslation. I've seen calendar translation errors in the English translation of Damrong's Our Wars with the Burmese (Damrong 2001, White Lotus). The editor of that the English translation seems to have assumed the Siamese month-to-Western-month conversions as those of today, which came into effect only in 1941. (Quite careless, if you ask me.) Anyway, I'm going to remove 3 February and replace it with December 1548. Again, if someone knows her exact death date in the Chulasakkarat form, please provide. Hybernator (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The date is given as "วันอาทิตย์ ขึ้น ๖ ค่ำ เดือน ๔" (Sunday 6th, waxing moon, 4th month) in the Royal Chronicles. There appears to be some discrepancy between the various editions regarding the year. Some (incl. the British Museum edition) say "ศักราช ๙๐๕ ปีเถาะ เบญจศก" (CS 905, year of the Rabbit), but the Luang Prasert Edition gives the year as CS 910, year of the Monkey. Prince Damrong wrote in his commentary to the Royal Autograph Edition that such discrepancy probably stemmed from misreckonings of King Mahachakkraphat's reign, but that 910 was the most likely correct. I'm not sure where the solar date came from, but 3 February 1549 was actually a Thursday. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (Edited: typo in link)


 * Thanks for the informative response.
 * A few (random) points:
 * Which version of the Luang Prasert chronicle? My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that the later versions of the Ayutthaya Chronicle were edited to align with the Burmese chronicle dates. Did the original (1791?) version say 905 or 910?
 * 3 February 1549 could be 6th waxing of Phakkhun (4th month) 910 CS. According to J.C. Eade's formula, 6th waxing of Phakkhun (4th month) 910 CS is equivalent to Saturday, 2 February 1549. But Eade's calendar is a modified-formula-based approximation, and the actual calendar in use could have been a day later. Or, it could be a recording/copying error in the chronicle (as often the case with Burmese chronicle dates).
 * 6th waxing of Phakkhun 905 would be Thursday, 28 February 1544 (per Eade). But 905 CS can't be true since Toungoo was neck-deep in the war with Ava in February 1544. (If the original Siamese chronicle date (not the later modified, Burmese chronicle-aligned date) was indeed 6th waxing of Phakkhun (4th month) 905 CS, then all bets are off. Even 6th waxing of Phakkhun is not reliable.)
 * According to Burmese chronology of the campaign (see below), by early February 1549, the Burmese armies had already been in full retreat for a few weeks, and were at Kamphaeng Phet.
 * 14 Oct 1548: campaign begins; armies leave Pegu
 * 13 or 15 Nov 1548: armies leave Kanchanaburi for Ayutthaya
 * unknown date [early Dec?]: armies reach outskirts of Ayutthaya (having found minimal resistance en route)
 * unknown date [early Dec?]: drive back Siamese army led by the Siamese king
 * unknown date [early-to-mid Dec?]: siege of Ayutthaya begins
 * one month later [early-to-mid Jan?]: withdrawal begins; route of retreat via Kamphaeng Phet
 * unknown date [late Jan/early Feb?]: battle of Kamphaeng Phet; two senior Siamese princes captured
 * unknown date [late Jan/early Feb?]: negotiations begin
 * a few days later, unknown date [late Jan/early Feb?]: peace agreement reached
 * 8 days after the agreement [c. mid-Feb?]: armies leave Kamphaeng Phet for Pegu via Moulmein
 * 1 Mar 1549: Tabinshwehti arrives back at Pegu


 * The dates in the brackets are my estimates (working forward and backward from the reported dates of 13 Nov 1548 and 1 Mar 1549 and the reported siege duration of one month).


 * The bottom line is that the article's current narrative [that she died in action at the battle of Ayutthaya before the siege] is in conflict with the known Burmese dates.
 * If she did die in action on 3 February 1549, the battle would have been at Kamphaeng Phet
 * If she did die in action in the pre-siege battle of Ayutthaya, the likely date was in early December. (Assuming that 6th waxing is correct, and the month and year was Putsa/2nd month 910, the date would be 5 Dec 1548 per Eade).
 * Or, she could have died on 3 February 1549 in Ayutthaya but not in action (possibly from wounds she received a few months earlier?). [Did the Siamese chronicles really say that (1) she died in action, (2) at Ayutthaya, and (3) on the same day of the battle? My understanding is that the chronicles had a couple of lines about the queen. Or was it Prince Damrong that embellished the account? He took many liberties, IMO.]


 * I think we should change her death date to December 1548 in the article's text if we want to preserve the narrative that she died in action at the battle of Ayutthaya. Hybernator (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm no Ayutthaya expert myself; all this is from Google searches:
 * The Luang Prasert Edition refers to an (incomplete) abridged version of the chronicle discovered in 1907. It reportedly was composed during King Narai's reign in CS 1042 (1680 CE). Another copy dating from 1774 was discovered 1913, with identical contents. It contained many differences from other versions of the chronicles, and was used for much cross-examination. It doesn't give specific dates though, only that the siege occurred in the 4th month, seven months after Maha Chakkraphat took the throne.
 * Versions of the chronicles which contain dates (I'm taking these from the British Museum version on Wikisource linked above) give the following:
 * Sunday, 2nd waxing of the 3rd month: Tabinshwehti leaves Hanthawaddy, and 7 days later crosses the Mottama River
 * Saturday, 5th waxing of the 4th month: Burmese forces set up camp outside Ayutthaya
 * Sunday, 6th waxing of the 4th month: Battle outside Ayutthaya and the death of Suriyothai
 * Tuesday, 3rd waning of the 4th month: The Uparaja (Bayinnaung) defeats the Siamese Camp at Thung Hantra. However, due to dwindling supplies and impending rainy season, Tabinshwehti decides to end the siege
 * Sunday, 9th waning of the 4th month: Burmese forces leave Ayutthaya
 * The chronicles do explicitly state that Suriyothai died in action during the battle at Ayutthaya. Her body was cremated after the end of the war.
 * This timeline does seem to give a rather condensed version of events, with the siege barely lasting over a fortnight. The narratives fit; it's the dates that conflict with the Burmese account. Perhaps the fact could be mentioned in the article (and also in Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49))? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed response. Very helpful. Yes, I agree; both narrative outlines are the essentially same. Just the dates are different. Yes, can mention it in both articles. Need to think about how--maybe in a table format? Anyway, will look into it this weekend. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Death date and comparison of accounts
Paul_012, I did a bit more research (Google) into this.

Dates

 * Luang Prasert (LP) is the most reliable Siamese chronicle for the era.
 * It's not clear in which year the British Museum edition, which gives 905 CS (1543–44), was published. (Per (Harvey 1925: 343), the official Ayutthaya chronicle editions till 1914 reported that the war took place in 1529–30. The 1914 edition, edited by Damrong, placed it at 1548–49.)
 * Can you double-check the LP dates? The LP dates as you listed are totally inconsistent. For example:
 * If the 2nd waxing of the 3rd month 910 fell on a Sunday, the 9th waxing of the 3rd month must have fallen on Thursday, not Saturday as reported by LP.
 * If the 3rd waning of the 4th month 910 fell on a Tuesday, the 9th waning of the 4th month must fall on Monday, not Sunday as reported by LP.
 * In fact, the only two dates that are consistent are: Sat, 5th waxing of the 4th month and Sun, 6th waxing of the 4th month. The rest are internally inconsistent.

Narrative comparison
The chronicle narrative outlines mostly match but details differ quite a bit. See this comparison of the Burmese, Siamese (and Portuguese) accounts of the war by BJ Terwiel, a historian of Thai history:. As you can see, Terwiel's analysis does not give much weight to the Siamese account at all. In fact, he thinks the Burmese might have won the war as reported by the Burmese chronicles.

I can update the 1547–49 war article with the following table (or a similar one). But can you (1) double-check your LP dates, and (2) provide a citation for them? Of course, if you can fill in the blanks in the table, please do so.

Hybernator (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The date conversions here are calculated using JC Eade's Southeast Asian Ephemeris (1989).
 * Assumes the LP dates follow the Sukhothai style (Chiang Mai's 3rd month is equivalent to the 1st month of Sukhothai style per (Eade 1989: 10)).


 * The LP chronicle (according to Wikisource) only lists the year as CS 910, and that the Burmese attacked Ayutthaya in the 4th month. All the dates I listed above are from the British Museum / Phan Chanthanumat editions, which agree with each other. The inconsistent dates appear as such in the source documents (also on Wikisource). I don't have print sources to check the accuracy of those reproductions, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your help. I didn't realize the specific lunar dates were from the British Museum/PC editions. (Based on the Google translations of the LP chronicle and the British Museum edition, I now see the specific dates come from the royal chronicle.) I've added a new column in the table to reflect it. The year 905 obviously is incorrect. The reported months are troublesome as well; they suggest that the Burmese began the campaign with half the dry season already over. The Burmese almost always began their campaigns right after the Buddhist Lent. And in this war, the Burmese records indicate they started the campaign in mid Oct. If she did die in the battle before the siege, she likely died in late Nov/early Dec 1548. Anyway, I'll just remove just "In February" from the article text. Hybernator (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Female royal warriors?
I was reading the circumstances of Suriyothai's, the famed Ayutthaya warrior queen, death where it mentions that her daughter fought alongside her, who was also slain. How is it possible that two females, of noble blood, were allowed to go into battle? I know that for a while, Tai society was particularly matriarchal, with women been given much freedom back in the days. Did this concept continue into the 16th century with the story of Suriyothai and her daughter's death? It's just so strange from a Western historical and from a modern Thai standpoint. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The oldest surviving record about her is the 17th-century document Luang Prasoet Chronicle (Thai Wikisource texts), which only contains a few sentences about her, merely saying when King Maha Chakkraphat went out to war, his wife and daughter accompanied him and the two ladies fought with the enemy to the point that they "died on the necks of their elephants" (page 10). This record doesn't mention the cause of their death, or even their names.
 * Subsequent documents (all just created in the 19th-century Bangkok era) contain additional details (which are considered by scholars to be less reliable), saying Maha Chakkraphat's wife, named Suriyothai, saw that her husband was being chased by the viceroy of Pyay during the war, she then charged forth to block the pursuit and fought with the viceroy instead and was thus slain on the neck of her elephant. These Bangkok era documents say she helped her husband out of her "sense of obligation" towards him (page 33), but none says any daughter was also killed.
 * That's all we have in historical accounts, of which none actually or directly describes the reason why Maha Chakkraphat was accompanied to war by his wife & daughter. But, generally, women (whether before, during, or after her time) were not involved in fighting and were exempted from being conscripted into army. What usually seen in media is actually a result of romanticisation, especially the movie The Legend of Suriyothai, regarding which a research by Silpakorn University found that nearly 50% of the contents are fictional or not supported by historical facts.
 * --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)