This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 18, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Burmese–Siamese War of 1548–49 saw the legendary death of
Ayutthaya's Queen
Suriyothai during elephant-mounted combat (statue pictured)? | |||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 14, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guess this belongs in another article but the first fall of Ayutthaya was in 1564. The 1564 fall wasn't a mere stern rebuke. The Siamese king Mahinthrathirat was brought back to Pegu, and kept under house arrest. In 1568, He under the guise of joining the sangha was allowed to go back to Ayutthaya where he promptly threw off the robe and declared himself king of Siam again. This provoked another invasion which resulted in the second fall in 1569. Hybernator ( talk) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess Burmo-Siamese War is technically correct but I hardly ever see the term "Burmo" used. What about the wars that the Siamese started? The Siamo-Burmese Wars of 1599, 1787, 1792-1793, 1852-1854? I vote for the more common Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (Most Burmese-Siamese war articles should start with "Burmese" as they started the majority of them.) Hybernator ( talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Great piece of work! May still need some copy-editing to correct the few grammatical errors/typos still existent, though. I've placed a DYK nomination for the article, FYI. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at a proposed revision in my sandbox. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sodacan,
If the intro is to mention the 1569 invasion it has to mention why since the prior statement mentions Siam becoming a Burmese vassal in 1564. If it was already a vassal, why the need for another invasion? It was a revolt (rebellion, insurrection). If you can come up with a better description, do so. I haven't said much on the Suriothai *legend* which is prominently displayed in the intro because it is what is known in Thailand. But if the 1563/64 invasion and the suppression of rebellion in 1569 are follow-ups to the 1548 invasion, and fits in with the narrative. You said you wanted write a non-Siamese-centric article, well here's your chance. It's a historical fact. I can put in the citations in the lead, if need be. Be fair. Hybernator ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've looked over the article again, and its very well done. It's written well, had good references, and the addition of pictures has made it much easier on the eyes. I've upgraded it to B status, and I think it could easily be ready for a GA nomination with just a little more work. That said, I have one thing I'd like to nitpick about right now: the last picture (of the Queen's memorial) should probably be moved up in the article. I'd suggest in the Legacy section, though this will require some careful maneuvering with the other picture in that section to keep it from looking too strange. Feel free to add any further comments/questions here, as I've added this page to my watchlist. Cromdog ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
OD To start, you can create them. A short explanation of when, who, and what with an infobox is fine. If you create them, and then tag them with the MilHist and other projects, while you continue with this one others might pick up the other two articles. Even if they don't, they are important articles that will need creating eventually. If you get this one along far enough, you might want to take another under your wing as well, after all. I'm not trying to push you into anything, just pointing out that its something worth doing. Cromdog ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The number of Burmese troops is too large indeed. According to logistic capabilities, Burma needed at least two millions population to rise 300,000 active combat troops for five months. I don't think Burmese had such at that times considering they only had 1 million population even at 1885 (British census).. Soewinhan ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WOW so fast reply :) I don't think it should be deleted since Siamese chronicles mention it. But, it would be nicer if we have information about Siamese army as well. Soewinhan ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone read the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine? Does anybody know where the report is kept? I've recently interacted with user:Chris.urs-o who is Portuguese and fluent in English. His primary interest is in vulcanism and geology, but maybe we can get his help here. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 04:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you know how to get hold of the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine in the making of the movie, The Legend of Suriyothai? The question arises in the context of the Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49), where she's mentioned in Siamese chronicles, but not those of the Burmese. The only thing Google tells me about Domingos is that he was mentioned in an unrelated report as having killed an elephant [1] and that in Décadas da Ãsia (1552-1615), João do Barros relied extensively for his treatment of Siam on Domingo de Seixas, who had spent over two decades in the country The Castilians Discover Siam.
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
While from the Thai nationalist and the feminist POVs, the war is notable for the supposed intervention of a women in defensive of her husband -- and possibly justifies a Wikipedia category for same; from the POV of military history, it is notable for the introduction of Early Modern warfare to conflicts between the combatants. While I won't do it myself, I do recommend considering revising the lede. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I note she is included in Category:Women in 16th-century warfare. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've only recently read deeper into other sources about this, and here are what I've found so far. Let's figure out how to deal with it.
I hadn't noticed but apparently, the war occurred in late 1547-1548, according to Burmese records. Not 1548-1549 as stated here. Prominent historians of Burmese history (Phayare, Harvey, Htin Aung, Kyaw That) all give the date as late 1547/early 1548. Harvey (History of Burma, p. 158) gives it as 1547-1548, and has a whole section on why Siamese dates aren't trustworthy (Harvey, History of Burma, p. 343, Siamese chronology). (Main reason: The Burmese burned down the records in 1767, and the Siamese chronicles are mainly later reconstructions). Harvey states that "Prince Damrong and other leading Siamese authorities now accept the Burmese chronology for these years". "It is also confirmed by the Portuguese writers and European travellers". Again, to be precise, the fighting happened in early 1548 alone. Late 1547 was the preparation period.
If there's agreement, I propose we change it Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (drop 1549).
Along the same lines, the "battle at the border" couldn't have happened in 1538. Not between Toungoo Dynasty and the Siamese anyway. In 1538, Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung still were smalltime warlords of a tiny kingdom raiding Hanthawaddy's (Pegu's) territory. They hadn't won any territory in 1538. Even after Pegu fell in 1539, which they won only by stratagem, they still didn't control Martaban, which came only in 1541. If such an event did occur, then it must have been after 1541.
The invasion force couldn't have been "300,000 foot soldiers, 3,000 horses and 700 war elephants"; it's clearly an exaggeration. Toungoo Dynasty in 1547/1548 still controlled only Lower Burma, and couldn't have raised even a tenth of that. All of Lower Burma probably had a little over half a million people at the time. Per Harvey, even Bayinnaung with his huge empire raised 70,000 men for his 1568 invasion of Ayutthaya. Still per Harvey, Konbaung kings with a larger empire than Tabinshwehti's could have mobilized no more than 60,000 at most. Hybernator ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the article with info from Burmese sources. It still has a few issues:
User:Philipandrew2, please provide reliable sources. I've never seen Philippine (excuse the anachronistic term) involvement in the war in academic sources. If you have them, please cite them. It's not out of the realm of possibility as a number of foreign mercenaries fought in the wars between Siam and Burma. But even then, did they fight as part of their own regiments to be listed in the campaign boxes? AFAIK, I haven't seen Luzon warriors in Burmese sources -- both chronicle and academic. Let's not extrapolate some possible participation into something larger. Thanks. Hybernator ( talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
That the Lucoes ( Luzon warriors) been had a Aids and campaigns to their neighboring countries (Including the first wave of the Burma-Siam wars. Thank you! ( [[ᜉ ᜀ| ໑]] P.A-II ( talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC))
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
The link is a blog post and not reliable under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which states,
"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." Please don't add it back without consensus. Thanks.
SWH® talk 12:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I now realize that the real source may not have been the blog but may be an old memoir about war. Please don't add links to the blog, but cite the old book directly instead. Thanks. SWH® talk 12:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Its okay if a blog was removed from the cites ...but theirs a book referenced on the part which written by Antonio Pigafetta during the 16th century. ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
@ JournalmanManila:, @ Philipandrew2:, et al. Originally, it was Pigafetta; now it's Pinto. I don't see anything about the war of 1547−49 in the book [3]. Where's the page? Besides, Pinto isn't a reliable source. GE Harvey called him "not so much a liar as an inveterate rhetorician." You can read Harvey's assessment online here: [4] Hybernator ( talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that Philipandrew2 was already banned here a long time But in my case, I just shared that statement here because the in some Philippine articles particlarly lucoes,it was mentioned that the lucoes fought those wars, but you said it was uncertain, So i better check them to verify these conflict. ( JournalmanManila ( talk) 02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ JournalmanManila:, @ Darwgon0801:, please use reliable sources. See WP:RS. The Soils of the Philippines may be a reliable source for the soil history of the Philippines but not one for the history of Southeast Asia--especially when it liberally uses various Wiki articles for sourcing. I've assumed good faith but it's getting ridiculous. Again, read: WP:RS. Hybernator ( talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 18, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Burmese–Siamese War of 1548–49 saw the legendary death of
Ayutthaya's Queen
Suriyothai during elephant-mounted combat (statue pictured)? | |||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 14, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guess this belongs in another article but the first fall of Ayutthaya was in 1564. The 1564 fall wasn't a mere stern rebuke. The Siamese king Mahinthrathirat was brought back to Pegu, and kept under house arrest. In 1568, He under the guise of joining the sangha was allowed to go back to Ayutthaya where he promptly threw off the robe and declared himself king of Siam again. This provoked another invasion which resulted in the second fall in 1569. Hybernator ( talk) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess Burmo-Siamese War is technically correct but I hardly ever see the term "Burmo" used. What about the wars that the Siamese started? The Siamo-Burmese Wars of 1599, 1787, 1792-1793, 1852-1854? I vote for the more common Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (Most Burmese-Siamese war articles should start with "Burmese" as they started the majority of them.) Hybernator ( talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Great piece of work! May still need some copy-editing to correct the few grammatical errors/typos still existent, though. I've placed a DYK nomination for the article, FYI. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at a proposed revision in my sandbox. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sodacan,
If the intro is to mention the 1569 invasion it has to mention why since the prior statement mentions Siam becoming a Burmese vassal in 1564. If it was already a vassal, why the need for another invasion? It was a revolt (rebellion, insurrection). If you can come up with a better description, do so. I haven't said much on the Suriothai *legend* which is prominently displayed in the intro because it is what is known in Thailand. But if the 1563/64 invasion and the suppression of rebellion in 1569 are follow-ups to the 1548 invasion, and fits in with the narrative. You said you wanted write a non-Siamese-centric article, well here's your chance. It's a historical fact. I can put in the citations in the lead, if need be. Be fair. Hybernator ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've looked over the article again, and its very well done. It's written well, had good references, and the addition of pictures has made it much easier on the eyes. I've upgraded it to B status, and I think it could easily be ready for a GA nomination with just a little more work. That said, I have one thing I'd like to nitpick about right now: the last picture (of the Queen's memorial) should probably be moved up in the article. I'd suggest in the Legacy section, though this will require some careful maneuvering with the other picture in that section to keep it from looking too strange. Feel free to add any further comments/questions here, as I've added this page to my watchlist. Cromdog ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
OD To start, you can create them. A short explanation of when, who, and what with an infobox is fine. If you create them, and then tag them with the MilHist and other projects, while you continue with this one others might pick up the other two articles. Even if they don't, they are important articles that will need creating eventually. If you get this one along far enough, you might want to take another under your wing as well, after all. I'm not trying to push you into anything, just pointing out that its something worth doing. Cromdog ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The number of Burmese troops is too large indeed. According to logistic capabilities, Burma needed at least two millions population to rise 300,000 active combat troops for five months. I don't think Burmese had such at that times considering they only had 1 million population even at 1885 (British census).. Soewinhan ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WOW so fast reply :) I don't think it should be deleted since Siamese chronicles mention it. But, it would be nicer if we have information about Siamese army as well. Soewinhan ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone read the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine? Does anybody know where the report is kept? I've recently interacted with user:Chris.urs-o who is Portuguese and fluent in English. His primary interest is in vulcanism and geology, but maybe we can get his help here. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 04:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you know how to get hold of the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine in the making of the movie, The Legend of Suriyothai? The question arises in the context of the Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49), where she's mentioned in Siamese chronicles, but not those of the Burmese. The only thing Google tells me about Domingos is that he was mentioned in an unrelated report as having killed an elephant [1] and that in Décadas da Ãsia (1552-1615), João do Barros relied extensively for his treatment of Siam on Domingo de Seixas, who had spent over two decades in the country The Castilians Discover Siam.
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
While from the Thai nationalist and the feminist POVs, the war is notable for the supposed intervention of a women in defensive of her husband -- and possibly justifies a Wikipedia category for same; from the POV of military history, it is notable for the introduction of Early Modern warfare to conflicts between the combatants. While I won't do it myself, I do recommend considering revising the lede. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I note she is included in Category:Women in 16th-century warfare. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've only recently read deeper into other sources about this, and here are what I've found so far. Let's figure out how to deal with it.
I hadn't noticed but apparently, the war occurred in late 1547-1548, according to Burmese records. Not 1548-1549 as stated here. Prominent historians of Burmese history (Phayare, Harvey, Htin Aung, Kyaw That) all give the date as late 1547/early 1548. Harvey (History of Burma, p. 158) gives it as 1547-1548, and has a whole section on why Siamese dates aren't trustworthy (Harvey, History of Burma, p. 343, Siamese chronology). (Main reason: The Burmese burned down the records in 1767, and the Siamese chronicles are mainly later reconstructions). Harvey states that "Prince Damrong and other leading Siamese authorities now accept the Burmese chronology for these years". "It is also confirmed by the Portuguese writers and European travellers". Again, to be precise, the fighting happened in early 1548 alone. Late 1547 was the preparation period.
If there's agreement, I propose we change it Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (drop 1549).
Along the same lines, the "battle at the border" couldn't have happened in 1538. Not between Toungoo Dynasty and the Siamese anyway. In 1538, Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung still were smalltime warlords of a tiny kingdom raiding Hanthawaddy's (Pegu's) territory. They hadn't won any territory in 1538. Even after Pegu fell in 1539, which they won only by stratagem, they still didn't control Martaban, which came only in 1541. If such an event did occur, then it must have been after 1541.
The invasion force couldn't have been "300,000 foot soldiers, 3,000 horses and 700 war elephants"; it's clearly an exaggeration. Toungoo Dynasty in 1547/1548 still controlled only Lower Burma, and couldn't have raised even a tenth of that. All of Lower Burma probably had a little over half a million people at the time. Per Harvey, even Bayinnaung with his huge empire raised 70,000 men for his 1568 invasion of Ayutthaya. Still per Harvey, Konbaung kings with a larger empire than Tabinshwehti's could have mobilized no more than 60,000 at most. Hybernator ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the article with info from Burmese sources. It still has a few issues:
User:Philipandrew2, please provide reliable sources. I've never seen Philippine (excuse the anachronistic term) involvement in the war in academic sources. If you have them, please cite them. It's not out of the realm of possibility as a number of foreign mercenaries fought in the wars between Siam and Burma. But even then, did they fight as part of their own regiments to be listed in the campaign boxes? AFAIK, I haven't seen Luzon warriors in Burmese sources -- both chronicle and academic. Let's not extrapolate some possible participation into something larger. Thanks. Hybernator ( talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
That the Lucoes ( Luzon warriors) been had a Aids and campaigns to their neighboring countries (Including the first wave of the Burma-Siam wars. Thank you! ( [[ᜉ ᜀ| ໑]] P.A-II ( talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC))
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
The link is a blog post and not reliable under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which states,
"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." Please don't add it back without consensus. Thanks.
SWH® talk 12:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I now realize that the real source may not have been the blog but may be an old memoir about war. Please don't add links to the blog, but cite the old book directly instead. Thanks. SWH® talk 12:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Its okay if a blog was removed from the cites ...but theirs a book referenced on the part which written by Antonio Pigafetta during the 16th century. ( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
( { ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II ( talk) 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
@ JournalmanManila:, @ Philipandrew2:, et al. Originally, it was Pigafetta; now it's Pinto. I don't see anything about the war of 1547−49 in the book [3]. Where's the page? Besides, Pinto isn't a reliable source. GE Harvey called him "not so much a liar as an inveterate rhetorician." You can read Harvey's assessment online here: [4] Hybernator ( talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that Philipandrew2 was already banned here a long time But in my case, I just shared that statement here because the in some Philippine articles particlarly lucoes,it was mentioned that the lucoes fought those wars, but you said it was uncertain, So i better check them to verify these conflict. ( JournalmanManila ( talk) 02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ JournalmanManila:, @ Darwgon0801:, please use reliable sources. See WP:RS. The Soils of the Philippines may be a reliable source for the soil history of the Philippines but not one for the history of Southeast Asia--especially when it liberally uses various Wiki articles for sourcing. I've assumed good faith but it's getting ridiculous. Again, read: WP:RS. Hybernator ( talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)