![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per the AfD, I'd still suggest that this article be redirected merged to
Muang Phuan#History, given that everything it covers is practically there already, and that only a tiny bit is actually about the "rebellion", which sources don't agree happened. (Though the coverage in that article is a bit confused, and describes the events twice in the same paragraph, as if they were different.) --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Their characterisation of the depopulation does not appear to reflect the consensus, and thus further scrutiny on their entire claim of a rebellion is warranted, not the least since the book is a general history work aimed at a general rather than academic audience. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished.
I've checked the Smuckarn & Breazeale book. This is what they have to say about the events of 1834:
...A massive mobilisation of troops from all Thai and Lao towns began during the last months of 1833, and early in 1834 the Thai-Vietnamese war began in earnest when Thai land and naval forces launched a major assault on Vietnamese positions in eastern Cambodia.
On the upper Mekong three groups of royal-Thai and provincial forces set up headquarters by February 1834. Their objective was to drive the Vietnamese out of the armed camps on the left bank and then to bring the entire remaining populace of old Vientiane and its dependencies under Thai control. Thai and Lao troops from the Luang Phrabang command centre approached the Phuan plateau from the north-west and destroyed the Vietnamese camps in Sui and Chiang Kham. Troops from the Nôngkhai headquarters launched a complementary attack on the Vietnamese camp in Chiang Khwang. Although Phuan leaders in the towns along the attack routes put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers, the commanders rounded up large numbers of Phuan villagers and took them down to the Mekong for resettlement...
So the events that were construed as rebellion in the Simmses' book only amounts to "put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers" here. However, I've also found a source that provides a further glimpse as to where that interpretation might have come from.
The Lao-language book Pavatsat ʻanāčhak Phūan, written by Chao K. Nokham, a descendant of the Phuan royal family and president of the Lao Phuan Association in the United States, more or less represents the Lao/Phuan traditional (if also rather nationalistic) view of Phuan history. It describes the events as such (my translation from the book's Thai transliteration):
Therefore in the year 31, Chulasakkarat 1196, corresponding to AD 1834, Chao San sent a messenger to request the Thai King to send an army to drive out the Vietnamese. King Nangklao accordingly named Phraya Ratchasurin to head an army of around 1,000 men to help. On another front, in Luang Phrabang, King Manthathurat of the Lan Xang Kingdom of Luang Phrabang named Chao Upparat Aphai to head an army of around 1,000 men to aid Muang Phuan. But before both armies arrived at Chiang Khwang, Chao San had Phuan soldiers ambush and attack the Vietnamese soldiers at night, with only one or two who survived and escaped back to Vietnam.
Two days later, the Thai army and the Lao army from Luang Phrabang reached Chiang Khwang. The Thai general discussed with Chao San that, given the circumstances, the Vietnamese would probably return to attack Muang Phuan. How would Chao San plan to defend against them? The Thai army could not stay and hold Muang Phuan indefinitely. Once the Thai army returned, the Vietnamese would surely come back to Muang Phuan.
So the Thai general forced Chao San to migrate Phuan families of around 6,000 people to Ban Phan Lam, on the right bank of the Mekong, opposite Ban Kuai in Lao's Khwaeng Borikhan today. But once they reached Nong Khai, instead of going to Ban Pham Lam, the Thai soldiers forced them to head on to Bangkok.
Considering that this traditional narrative holds that Phuan soldiers attacked the Vietnamese themselves, it's understandable that the event could be described as rebellion based on this view. However, this contradicts the Thai records, and doesn't appear to be accepted by scholarly sources. (The book itself is not a scholarly work—the editor himself says so in the introduction to the Thai edition. Also, it doesn't really make sense if you think of it—why would the ruler need to request assistance only to snub them and have his forces take care of the issue themselves?) In any case, though, the Simmses' statement that "the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated" is clearly erroneous, as it is contradicted by every narrative.
I'm not quite sure how best to move forward with this. I still believe that this should not be an article, because (1) the topic event probably never took place, as it is only mentioned briefly in traditional histories and not corroborated by evidence, and (2) even disregarding the first issue, the amount of coverage so far identified, in any context (rebellion or not), that specifically covers the events of 1934, is extremely brief, and in no way can satisfy the depth requirement of the GNG. The original issues that most of the article is not about the subject still stand. I might see if there's place for a more general article about forced migrations in Southeast Asia, as it's a significant topic covered by more sources than those dealing with Muang Phuan alone, and if the History section of the Muang Phuan article can be rewritten with better sourcing. But for this article, I'm inclined towards starting a second AfD, which will now hopefully be better informed. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per the AfD, I'd still suggest that this article be redirected merged to
Muang Phuan#History, given that everything it covers is practically there already, and that only a tiny bit is actually about the "rebellion", which sources don't agree happened. (Though the coverage in that article is a bit confused, and describes the events twice in the same paragraph, as if they were different.) --
Paul_012 (
talk)
08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Their characterisation of the depopulation does not appear to reflect the consensus, and thus further scrutiny on their entire claim of a rebellion is warranted, not the least since the book is a general history work aimed at a general rather than academic audience. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished.
I've checked the Smuckarn & Breazeale book. This is what they have to say about the events of 1834:
...A massive mobilisation of troops from all Thai and Lao towns began during the last months of 1833, and early in 1834 the Thai-Vietnamese war began in earnest when Thai land and naval forces launched a major assault on Vietnamese positions in eastern Cambodia.
On the upper Mekong three groups of royal-Thai and provincial forces set up headquarters by February 1834. Their objective was to drive the Vietnamese out of the armed camps on the left bank and then to bring the entire remaining populace of old Vientiane and its dependencies under Thai control. Thai and Lao troops from the Luang Phrabang command centre approached the Phuan plateau from the north-west and destroyed the Vietnamese camps in Sui and Chiang Kham. Troops from the Nôngkhai headquarters launched a complementary attack on the Vietnamese camp in Chiang Khwang. Although Phuan leaders in the towns along the attack routes put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers, the commanders rounded up large numbers of Phuan villagers and took them down to the Mekong for resettlement...
So the events that were construed as rebellion in the Simmses' book only amounts to "put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers" here. However, I've also found a source that provides a further glimpse as to where that interpretation might have come from.
The Lao-language book Pavatsat ʻanāčhak Phūan, written by Chao K. Nokham, a descendant of the Phuan royal family and president of the Lao Phuan Association in the United States, more or less represents the Lao/Phuan traditional (if also rather nationalistic) view of Phuan history. It describes the events as such (my translation from the book's Thai transliteration):
Therefore in the year 31, Chulasakkarat 1196, corresponding to AD 1834, Chao San sent a messenger to request the Thai King to send an army to drive out the Vietnamese. King Nangklao accordingly named Phraya Ratchasurin to head an army of around 1,000 men to help. On another front, in Luang Phrabang, King Manthathurat of the Lan Xang Kingdom of Luang Phrabang named Chao Upparat Aphai to head an army of around 1,000 men to aid Muang Phuan. But before both armies arrived at Chiang Khwang, Chao San had Phuan soldiers ambush and attack the Vietnamese soldiers at night, with only one or two who survived and escaped back to Vietnam.
Two days later, the Thai army and the Lao army from Luang Phrabang reached Chiang Khwang. The Thai general discussed with Chao San that, given the circumstances, the Vietnamese would probably return to attack Muang Phuan. How would Chao San plan to defend against them? The Thai army could not stay and hold Muang Phuan indefinitely. Once the Thai army returned, the Vietnamese would surely come back to Muang Phuan.
So the Thai general forced Chao San to migrate Phuan families of around 6,000 people to Ban Phan Lam, on the right bank of the Mekong, opposite Ban Kuai in Lao's Khwaeng Borikhan today. But once they reached Nong Khai, instead of going to Ban Pham Lam, the Thai soldiers forced them to head on to Bangkok.
Considering that this traditional narrative holds that Phuan soldiers attacked the Vietnamese themselves, it's understandable that the event could be described as rebellion based on this view. However, this contradicts the Thai records, and doesn't appear to be accepted by scholarly sources. (The book itself is not a scholarly work—the editor himself says so in the introduction to the Thai edition. Also, it doesn't really make sense if you think of it—why would the ruler need to request assistance only to snub them and have his forces take care of the issue themselves?) In any case, though, the Simmses' statement that "the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated" is clearly erroneous, as it is contradicted by every narrative.
I'm not quite sure how best to move forward with this. I still believe that this should not be an article, because (1) the topic event probably never took place, as it is only mentioned briefly in traditional histories and not corroborated by evidence, and (2) even disregarding the first issue, the amount of coverage so far identified, in any context (rebellion or not), that specifically covers the events of 1934, is extremely brief, and in no way can satisfy the depth requirement of the GNG. The original issues that most of the article is not about the subject still stand. I might see if there's place for a more general article about forced migrations in Southeast Asia, as it's a significant topic covered by more sources than those dealing with Muang Phuan alone, and if the History section of the Muang Phuan article can be rewritten with better sourcing. But for this article, I'm inclined towards starting a second AfD, which will now hopefully be better informed. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)