Talk:Ayutthaya Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammanthaalewis, Rshafik, Sloth36, Tabadia. Peer reviewers: Latticus97, Rshafik, Sloth36.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

Upon inspection, the List of rulers of Ayutthaya section seems to contradict with most Thai sources. This revision from a few years back, just before information from Wyatt's was incorporated, seems to agree with those Thai sources, including the Thai Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However I don't think that Wyatt made up his version of the list without solid foundations. Given that there are various versions of the Royal Chronicles, each copy to new palm leaves could insert errors, or invited later kings to "correct" the history a bit, and many lost in the sack of Ayutthaya by the Burmese, it's no wonder that different scholars come to different lists. It might make sense to work out the most striking differences between Wyatt's list and the traditional Thai lists. To find the actual reason for the difference would mean to search in the journals for publications of Wyatt and other scholars in Thai studies, and would be IMHO beyond the scope of this article. andy (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Siamese kingdom that truly controlled Lan Na and Lan Xang (its successors Luang Prabang and Vientiene) was Bangkok Chakri. Not Ayuuthaya. Ayutthaya never controlled the Burmese Shan States, the Chinese Shan States, Lan Xang, or Champa. The disappearance of Champa was really an affair between the Khmer Empire and Annam. Ayutthaya was never strong enough to impose its will beyond the central Menam valley. Lan Na did become a vassal to Ayutthaya during Naresuan's reign (when the Burmese viceroy of Lan Na allied with Naresuan) but lapsed back to Burmese control in 1615, 10 years after Naresuan's death. Hybernator (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project India?[edit]

Quoted from Project India's page: "The India WikiProject is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Republic of India and the history of the Indian subcontinent." Therefore, the link to Project India has been removed.

Wiki vandals[edit]

This revision is vandalism. 16:07, 26 February 2007 205.222.248.109. Random word changes from previous version.

Other Subsection Under History[edit]

I am deleting the "Other" subsection under "History". The information contained there in is either irrelevant (the story about the Korean princess visiting the city of Ayodhya in India, not Ayutthaya in Thailand) or already stated (Ayodhya as the source of Ayutthaya's name). --Harel Newman 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trailokanat[edit]

The reforms of Trailokanat need to be consolidated in to one section, but I've bee sitting here too long! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check accuracy[edit]

I wonder if the text "until the Burmese invasion caused the total collapse of Ayutthaya's economy in 1788." in the Economic development is accurate or not. The year 1788 is after than the fall of the kingdom (1767) and I can't find text in the reference given talking about this. --223.206.180.101 (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ming China and Malacca and Thailand[edit]

Ming China warns Ayutthaya (Thailand) from attacking Malacca and frees Malacca from Thai vassalage

http://books.google.com/books?id=vIUmU2ytmIIC&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=aU5hBMxNgWQC&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 24

In the beginning years of the Ming Dynasty, Siam was so strong that it inaugurated aggresive wars toward its nighboring nations. Those nations asked China for help. Thus Ming Ch'eng-tsu interfered. The first thing he did was to send an imperial mandate to reproach the Siamese King. Then in 1408 the court eunuch Cheng Ho (SPftl) went to Siam. In 1409 Siamese King ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=54hwAAAAMAAJ&q=Those+nations+asked+China+for+help.+Thus+Ming+Ch'eng-tsu+interfered.+The+first+thing+he+did+was+to+send+an+imperial+mandate+to+reproach+the+Siamese+King.&dq=Those+nations+asked+China+for+help.+Thus+Ming+Ch'eng-tsu+interfered.+The+first+thing+he+did+was+to+send+an+imperial+mandate+to+reproach+the+Siamese+King.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6HBgUc6uDfPk4AO924GYBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

Rajmaan (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting FUBB[edit]

This page as last modified on 22 February 2013 at 12:54 was formatted correctly. Don't know why it is fouled up beyond belief, now.--Pawyilee (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute monarch[edit]

Ayutthayan monarchs were not absolute monarchs whose powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law, but aspired to be Chakravartin. They did not pass laws but ordinances.

Royal ordinances were collectively known as the Rajasat, a term that might be rendered as 'King's Lore' as distinct from the Thammasat, the 'Inspired Lore,' which was the work supposedly of a superior agency, a Constitution in fact which was not to be tampered with even by the highest in the land. See Prince Dhani Nivat, Kromamun Bidyadabh [in Thai] (1947). "The Old Siamese conception of the Monarchy" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. JSS Vol.36.2b (digital). Siamese Heritage Trust: image 8. Retrieved March 7, 2013.

If anyone has a citation calling them absolute monarchs, let it be included, then refuted by Dhani. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Ayutthaya Kingdom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credible Sources[edit]

Can we get a credible source for Sunni and Shia Islam in the kingdom. A self published PDF of Omar Ahmed would never be accepted by anyone with seriousness in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.104.134 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ayutthaya Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayutthaya Kingdom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Ayutthaya Kingdom architectural sites[edit]

I'm going to start a talk section about the notable architectural sites in the Ayutthaya Kingdom. Since this is a subjective matter, this will be a helpful place to discuss what and what not to add/remove on the list. I've already compiled quite a few sites I feel were significant enough to be placed on this list that should've been on there before, such as Phu Khao Thong, King Narai's Palace, and Wat Na Phra Men. Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas here. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kham Yat Palace to the list so that the list would be less imbalanced with temples and also fixing how underrepresented non-Chakri Palaces are. Certainly wouldn't mind a section dedicated to the residences of Ayutthayan kings on this article either. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a general need for better organisation of Ayutthaya historic sites, both in the capital city and further afield. The article is already quite long and such lists could be split off into another article. For those in/around the city, there are already the articles Ayutthaya Historical Park and Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya (city), though I'm not quite sure how the information would be best organised between them. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think about it, I think I agree. I don't think that the list totally fits within the topic of the article as I think it's more suited to the Ayutthaya Historical Park article. I think vandalism for the list, along with the constant maintenance of such a list. While I do like this list, I am open to that suggestion. My idea is that separate parts of the list be moved to Ayutthaya Historical Park, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya (city), and new "Ayutthaya Palace" articles. For the latter, there doesn't seem to be a distinction between the important palaces (and temples, to an extent) of the different periods of Thai history so I think it would be helpful. Future Ayutthaya categories can possibly be added/discussed later. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "Political Development" section under "Government" section?[edit]

Personally, I don't see why don't you put the political development stuff under the government section (since both sections contain very similar information), and maybe put the military subsection under the government section (unless it relates to political development)? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of population section should be included[edit]

I think there needs to be a separate section which deals with the language of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, and the nature of its people, particularly the shift from Mon to Thai. It's a bit of a controversial subject that needs to be addressed in this article. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map[edit]

Should Fang be labelled a part of Ayutthaya? The early 15th century map used below in the article indicates this, same with Taksin's reunification article. I'm not sure if Fang was always part of Ayutthaya and not Lan Na or whether it was incorporated later, the English language books that I have never mentions this. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite?[edit]

Chris Baker as often mentioned that the story of kings fighting wars is overstated in Ayutthaya historiography. In "A History of Ayutthaya" by Baker and Phongpaichit, both authors deemphasize the importance of the old narrative. I would personally love to do it but I just don't have the time currently. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"start date"[edit]

Hello @Yourlocallordandsavior: You've changed the "start date" in the infobox to "c. 1282/83" being the "earliest written record", citing Baker's A History of Ayutthaya (without page number). However, the "Founding of Ayutthaya" still is dated 1351. This is not easily understandable to readers without previous knowledge. How can the earliest written record of the kingdom predate its founding? Of course, as Baker writes, Ayutthaya did not suddenly appear out of nowhere in 1351. There has been a substantial settlement at the place of Ayutthaya (or nearby) before the 14th century, and the statehood of Ayutthaya is in some ways in continuity from the Lavo Kingdom. The official version that U Thong just founded Ayutthaya from scratch on the 4 March 1351 is mostly legendary. Nevertheless, the founding date of the kingdom of Ayutthaya (not the city) is customarily defined as 1351 and even Baker does not repudiate this. We should change the "start date" in the infobox back to 1351. The origins and previous existence of Ayutthaya before that date is appropriately described in the article's body. Kind regards, RJFF (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Governments" edit[edit]

I was the one who inserted that in in the first place. Since I was the one who first did that, I should have the right to remove that as well. Despite that, I've decided to leave it in. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayutthaya_Kingdom&oldid=1194097337"