The White Elephant - A Siam AAR

Introduction​

When, in 1511, the first European travelers from Portugal arrived in today`s Thailand, the country had already seen a long history .

The Tai people probably arrived in the course of the 9th century in the region, emigrating from today`s province of Guangxi in China. Already in the 10th century the Tai city states gathered in the Lavo kingdom, which, however, did not last long due to internal quarrels and finally became a part of the rising Khmer Empire.

As of the 13th century, the Khmer Empire became weaker and new independent Tai realms were established, such as the Sukothai Kingdom in central and south Thailand (1238 - 1583) and the Kingdom of Lanna in the north (1292 - 1775).

In the middle of the 14th century the rise of the city-state of Ayutthaya, a bit north of the later capital of Bangkok, began. This new Kingdom would slowly absorb the Sukothai Kingdom over the centuries. The end of Ayutthaya came in the year 1767 after a long war with Burma, that had risen to power in the northeast and already destroyed the Kingdom of Lanna in the process. As a result of the war, Ayutthaya was besieged, captured, its territory occupied and the King killed due to starvation.

After this episode, General Taksin seized power and relocated the capital to Thon Buri, a small city close to Bangkok, on the other side of the Chao Praya river. This short lived Kingdom, that could regain most of the former Kingdom again from the Burmese and expand eastward, ended in 1782, when a rebellion in the capital removed Taksin from power and the new King silently executed him.

This new King was Chao Phraya Chakri (born as Thong Duang but as King known as Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke or simply Rama I.), the highest ranking official under King Taksin, who moved the capital to Bangkok and established the Rattanakosin Kingdom under the Chakri Dynasty.

Although the quarrels with Burma continued over the next years, it became obvious that the greater threat to Siamese independence was the growing influence of the western powers. During the rule of King Jessadabodindra (Rama III.), who ascended to the throne in 1824, the first treaties with Great Britain (Burney-Treaty; 1826) and the United States (Roberts-Treaty; 1833) were signed.

In the mid 1830s Siam was a country with a population of 5 million people. The educational standards were low with a literacy rate of roughly 4.5%, but measures were taken to slowly improve that. Just a little more than half of the population were Thai, but with the exception of the military leadership all other nations had equal possibilities to rise to higher ranks of the society. Siam was still backwardish compared to western countries, and it remained to be seen whether it would maintain its independence or not.

metalinvader665 said:

Interesting--Siam has a lot of potential for an unciv and can easily dominate the region.

Britain and France could prove troublesome, though. But Britain is troublesome to every nation.

Click to expand...

To be frank this is more of a writing exercise. So my priorities are survival, westernization, progress and regional domination. In this order.

1836 - 1840​

The Siamese policy of the late 1830s was characterized by two developments.

Firstly a general movement toward "westernization". King Jessadabodindra (Rama III.) further tightened the relations to Great Britain. In mid 1837 the Hanson-Treaty was signed, guaranteeing a cooperation between the two countries in cultural matters. This included a more western approach to education for the members of the upper class inclusive of the Royal Family.


Secondly the King tried to reconcile with his neighbors. The two most important countries in the region besides Siam itself were Burma and Dai Nam. The enmity between Siam and Burma was probably too old and deep anyway, so the King focused to improve the relations with Dai Nam in the east. Although the diplomatic contacts became more frequent, no decisive breakthrough in the relations was made.

Siamball said:

is very short

Click to expand...

Well, nothing happened. But don´t despair, the next chapter will be longer.

1841 - 1845​

"They [the Siamese soldiers; A/N], although less disciplined and organized than the forces of Her Majesty, fight valiantly when thrown into a battle. Their commander seems to have a decent understanding of strategy despite his low educational standard and it was interesting as well as frightening to see these people storm an enemy position, for they make no prisoners and any enemy willing to surrender was murdered in cold blood."

(Letter from Major William Palmerston to his wife; 20.09.1844)

Click to expand...

The policy of King Rama III was put to the test during the Burmese War (1843 - 1844). The province of Chiang Mai had been contested between Burma and Siam for a long time. On 9th October 1843 Burmese units crossed the border with the intent to conquer the disputed region. But although Burma was allied with Dai Nam, the latter refused to declare war on Siam too. It is generally accepted, that this was a result of the intense diplomatic efforts of the King of Siam in the preceding years.

The first nine months of the war passed by with a lot of maneuvering, but no decisive actions. Then, in July 1844, Great Britain, worried about a possible imbalance of power in the region, joined the war on Siam`s side. In September and October 1844 huge parts of the Burmese army were destroyed in the battles of Chiang Mai and Xiangabauli. With its forces beaten and the British 17th Army entering Burmese territory, Burma agreed to surrender on 16th December 1844.

For the time being, Siam was safe from external threats. At the same time several internal quarrels evolved. In the previous decades Siam had conquered territories to the east and small nationalist independence movements began to make claims. At the same time the "western" orientation of the King and parts of the Nobility led to the formation of a reactionary movement to preserve the Siamese traditions. It remained to be seen, whether the Government could contain these movements or not.

Siamball said:

Siam strong remove Mohinga form chaingmai

Click to expand...

See, I don`t care about what you do in your AAR, but in this one I prefer comments with proper grammar.

1846 - 1850​

"Leaving the capital is like leaving the country. The more away one is from Bangkok, the less efficient the already rudimentary tax administration works and the more rampant corruption becomes. In the most northern and southern departements the King pays more to his officials than they return taxes to the court."

(Letter from French Ambassador Charles Maurice de Noailles to Paris; 1846)

Click to expand...

De Noailles was French Ambassador in Siam from 1844 - 1849 and throughout his private correspondence he made clear, that he did not like his appointment he did not volunteer for. Consequently his assessment of the local conditions were consistently negative and described as primitive, inefficient and sometimes barbaric.

Nevertheless he was probably right concerning the tax system in Siam, which did not yield enough revenues for the royal treasury. Hence the first of a series of reforms within the Kingdom was the fiscal reform of 1847, that clarified and simplified the tax system. Although there are no statistics about the additional income generated by the new system, the King was able to lower the tax rate and increase the military budget in the following years.

This reform was also the first measure that significantly increased the militancy of the reactionary movement within the country and a first, although small, revolt is reported in 1848 in the region of Sukothai.

At the same time the reactionary movement experienced a new idea, whereupon revolutionary energy should be converted into productivity and manual labor instead of violence. This idea had positive reception among the people and the discontent was reduced. Today it is known, that the court actively supported this notion.

I happily oblige

Rama III, King of Siam
(1824 - 1851)​