Siams and vietnams perceptions of teir diplomatic relations in the pre colonial period 1780s 1850s

SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IN THE PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD (1780s-1850s) Morragotwong Pftumplab* This paper is a political and cultural history of the bilateral relations between the Siamese and Vietnamese courts from the 1780s to the 1850s Through the examination of the diplomatic worldviews and outlooks of the respective courts, it demonstrates how the Siamese and Vietnamese’s similar views towards interstate relations affected their interactions Both courts attempted to balance their equal status as great kingdoms as well as joint-overlords Their approach to diplomatic relations with other countries largely followed a culturally hierarchical pattern between a superior and an inferior Both courts defined themselves as a central and powerful state dominating other small surrounding states Their diplomatic relationship, however, was the only exception to this conceptualization of their geopolitical centrality, as Siam and Vietnam both regarded and approached each other as equal great kingdoms This was contemplatable in principle, but hardly realizable in practice Siam and Vietnam struggled with this special arrangement because they both had never treated any other foreign states as their equal Siam and Vietnam maintained this diplomatic relationship and understanding with great difficulty, especially when it came to issues pertaining to the Cambodian and Lao kingdoms that became the peripheries to the two states competing to be the center of the region This paper focuses on two aspects: (1) the political and cultural dimensions of both courts’ perceptions of each other; (2) the entanglements between Bangkok and Huế regarding court rituals and cultural strategies towards their vassal states that led to shifts in their consciousness and attitudes within different contexts Introduction The rise of powerful dynasties in Southeast Asia brought about interactions among different societies with different kinds of politics and cultures, each desiring * Lecturer, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand 595 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẺU h ộ i th ả o q uố c té lẩn th ủ t to expand its territory to guarantee its overlordship of its region The prosperous dynasties established states and strengthened their claims to authority and sovereignty These states tried to demonstrate their power and grandeur through establishing formal politics and luxurious court ceremonies; as Clifford Cieertz commented, “Power serves pomp, not pomp power.”1 Due to their contrasting levels of political and economic power, the states in Southeast Asia developed different interstate relationships, between the big states seeking to counter-balaice one another, and between suzerainties and tributaries The diplomatic relationship between Siam under the Chakri dynasty ind Vietnam under the Nguyễn dynasty illustrate the shift of bilateral relations fbm friendship to antagonism, especially between the 1780s and the 18: Os Diplomatically, the relations between Bangkok and Huế were not only ai’fected by their direct interaction but also by the competition to gain influence ever neighboring states, in particular the Cambodian and Lao kingdoms, through different political and cultural policies The two states were competitors striving to be the overlord of the region The relationship between Rama I (1782-1809) ind Gia Long (1802-1820) was most cordial The concerns of the threat from Burma during the reign of Rama II (1 809-1824) led to the expansion of Vietnamese po ver in Cambodia and Laos during the reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1840) This marxed the beginnings of a shift of relations and perceptions from friends to rivals Wiile the earlv conflicts and misinterpretations between the two courts were resolved through diplomatic negotiation, the escalating tensions culminated in their shif ing from being rivals into becoming real enemies by the reign of Rama III (1824-1851), Minh Mạng and Thiệu Trị (1840-1847) A people’s worldview, as a collectively-held set of understandings and beliefs, was a vital factor in shaping interstate diplomacy and determining the shifts in the character of the relationship between Siam and Vietnam The two societies hailed from different cultural backgrounds - Indian cultural influences shaped Siamese worldviews while China was a powerful influence on Vietnam These divergent influences contributed to the Siamese and Vietnamese conceptualization of tieir identities and became the basis of each state's cultural expansion and political formation However, their worldviews were similar in spite of their diffe.-ing cultural backgrounds and this similarity in turn led to diplomatic conflicts, which escalated to military confrontation in some instances Despite the cultural differences, both thought that they were the center and the most powerful state in Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Princeton University Press, 1980), p 13 596 Bali (Princeton, SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS the region Additionally, they saw themselves as more superior to others They acted like a superior and treated others like inferiors; these were fundamentally based on their own cultural identities Royal correspondence between Bangkok and Hue, as well as the courts’ records, showed the attitudes towards each other and their interaction The diplomatic rhetoric showed the evolution of their relations, attitudes and, in some instances, hidden contradictions The difference between the original letters received by each court, and the information it records, is the use of language which exhibits both hierarchical and non-hierarchical patterns In the original letters, the languages used between the two states were more polite or neutral, unlike the recorded version which tended to depict the diplomatic relationship in hierarchical terms of superiority and inferiority Court rituals and protocols followed by the diplomatic missions also revealed the cultural dimension of Siamese and Vietnamese foreign affairs The symbolic implications of the presents sent between Bangkok and Hue influenced each court’s interpretations of their counterpart’s intention This paper explores the reciprocal worldviews of the Siamese and Vietnamese courts as their relationships shifted from amicable to inimical The rhetoric employed in the letters and chronicles of both courts evidenced their political and cultural perceptions Furthermore, the differences in the Siamese and Vietnamese cultural foundations accounted for the dissimilar rituals and ceremonies of courts, which led to different understandings among them Political perceptions: the status of state and territory The state’s power was measured in terms of size, political influence and authority The Siamese and the Vietnamese saw themselves as exemplary centers and powerful states, surrounded by junior states and lesser powers that had to accept their authority At the founding of both dynasties, Siam and Vietnam both sent emiss.aries and tributes to China asking for recognition from the Qing court This common identity as a tributary of China was one of the possible reasons for both states to consider each another as equally powerful states Although this was not mentioned in any Thai or Vietnamese text, both countries presumably conceptualized their hierarchical position in relation to China Siam and Vietnam, at least, knew that each other sent periodic tribute to China Correspondence between the Bangkok and the Huế courts also illustrated their perceptions regarding the status of both states In these messages, both kingdoms addressed and referred to one another as equal, big, and powerful states The 597 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YỂU HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẦN THỨ T correspondence exchanged between the Siamese kings and the Vietnamese emperor over incidents regarding the Cambodia and Lao tributaries also revealed that both courts felt that, as joint overlords, they had to be benevolent towards their vassals For example, in the coưespondences between Rama II and Gia Long in 1811 over Cambodia, the latter wrote that: “The Vietnamese imperial court thinks that Cambodia was a subject (khc) of the two great states (song phramahcinakhon yai) V ietnam could not ignore ind, therefore, ordered Saigon governor to send troops to resolve the chaos in Cambtdia .Our Cambodian dependency can live happily.”1 Rama II replied: “ As the desire to stop the chaos as the cause of the sending of troop; to Cambodia by a governor of Saigon, Siam was not suspicious [of the intention OÍ the Vietnamese court] since [both] are big states (song phramahanakhon) and we are close friends .As we are big kingdoms, not like other small states [as it guarantees], we can trust each other forever ”2 The Siamese and the Vietnamese courts acknowledged each other’s prestige as benevolent overlords, especially when they had to deal with their vassals stites This significantly suggested the Siamese and Vietnamese mutual recognition of equality, as indicated by the use of the term ‘sons, phramahanakhori (two big states) However, in their court records, they recorded information about each ether using hierarchically-toned language, attempting to demonstrate their )wn superiority over the other From a vassal to a friendly peer: the Siamese perception of Vietnam From a geopolitical perspective, the size of Siamese territory reachec its largest during the reign of Rama I Siam clearly defined itself as a suzerain over Nguyễn Anh’s regime Siam considered Vietnam a vassal for a brief period btfore Gia Long’s restoration of the Nguyen’s power but changed its perception ifter Vietnam was founded in 1802 Rama I probably saw Prince Nguyễn Anh as a Vcssal but Emperor Gia Long as an equal Siam’s conception of Vietnam as a vassal before Gia Long’s enthroneme.1t is clearly shown in the Phraratchaphongsawadan Thai records suggest that the Bangkok court displayed benevolence towards the Nguyễn ruler before the C.H 11/22/1173 ( 1C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama 11 [As given in Thai transition in the same royal chronicles] C.H 11/22/1173 ( 1C.E.) Letter from Rama II expressing his gratitude to Gia Long 598 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS establishment of the Neuyễn court Rama I requested Nguyễn Ánh to send troops, ammunition and provision in the same manner as other vassals.1 A letter sent to Nguyền Anh in 1791 underlines Rama I’s assumed disposition of overlord As recorded in the Thai chronicle: “The King of Siam has been planning to support Nguyễn Anh to be a ruler of Muang Yuan (Vietnam) Furthermore, Siam claimed that Nguyễn Anh had said, in a letter he left before he departed from Bangkok to Gia Định, that: “ if I could restore my country, I would accede to becoming a subject under Siamese authority (khakhopkhanthasima) and will not betray you [Rama I].3 Nguyễn Anh’s message undoubtedly meant to Siam that he was willing to become a protectorate of Siam Thai records additionally emphasized that: ■‘Nguyễn Ánh fulfilled his promise in his letter to be a vassal (Muang Prathetsarath) of Bangkok.’'4 In the traditions of the states in Southeast Asia, golden and silver trees were a symbol of tributary admission According to Thai sources, Nguyễn Anh sent silver and golden trees from Gia Định to Bangkok six times between 1788 and 1801.5 The Siamese interpreted these gifts as tribute that evinced Nguyễn Anh’s acceptance of his vassal status After Nguyễn Ánh ascended the throne, Rama I initially sent a crown to Gia Long in 1803, but Gia Long refused the conferment and returned it to Bangkok This shows Rama I’s perception of Gia Long as a vassal ruler, as this was how the rulers of the other vassals were treated When the new ruler ascended the throne, the Siamese king would usually bestow a crown and/or make an oath of allegiance However, after Gia Long refused to accept the gift of a crown, Rama I started to treat him as an equal and a close friend Rama I replied to Gia Long thus: “[The Emperor of Vietnam] accepted the presents for the Emperor, but [the Emperor of Vietnam] arranged envoys to return a crown reasoning that a crown has immeasurable; [I] have never been wearing it, I would like to return it [to you] By the way, the Emperor of Vietnam humbly to offer gifts [to me], it would hardly arrange the returned presents following the correct traditional custom of [your] country.”6 The Thai accounts did not exactly mention how Rama I felt to Gia Long’s response Rama I probably was just experimenting to see how far he could P.R.R.I, pp 121, 123, 131, 153 The term “ khakhopkhanthasima” is a combination o f “ khopkhanthasima” , which means “boundary” meaning “subject”, and P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p 67 Ibid., p 70 P R R l, p 113 C.H 1/2/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long 599 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỨ T go with Gia Long He perhaps speculated that Vietnam could become Siam’s vassal and this led him to send a crown to, and bestowed presents upon, Gia Lcng However, Rama I’s reply showed that he was disappointed with Gia Lorg's response, and avoided embaưassment by invoking cultural differences Thè original correspondences sent between Gia Long and Rama I show hat Siam did not perceive Gia Long as a vassal ruler, unlike the Lao kingdoms ind Cambodia The language used in the letters exhibited a strong sense of friendship, or a formal polite tone of equality between an elder king and a youneer emperor Although the two rulers did refer to each other in generational terms, i.e ‘an elder’ and ‘a junior’, which suggest a relationship of subordination, the relationship between Rama I and Gia Long was exceptional Gia Lona’s reference to himself as a junior was intended to demonstrate his politeness and exalt Rama I, and no; to imply subordination or vassalship Gia Long, therefore, acted as a humble emperor of a big country The emperor did not regard the assistance the Siamese rendered him as the benevolence demonstrated by an overlord to a vassal, but the natiral support friends rendered to each other This is different from the depiction in Thai chronicles which clearly presented a stronger sense of hierarchical status —between an overlord and a dependency It was clear, especially after Gia Long’s success or!, that Siam defined Vietnam as its equal as a big state For example, a letter sent f'om Siam to Vietnam in 1806 highlighted how “Vietnam and Siam are situated in the same sea, the same sky Although, the two countries are far apart, we seem to live in the same piece of territory.” ỉn another letter, Rama I wrote: “ [I] the Siartese king also tried to maintain the royal tradition for both states to be in a long tirm relationship [I] wish that the two states retain their long-lived friendship and remain the same piece o f territory (suwan pathaphee diew kan) forever.”2 This plrase “sifwan pathaphee diew kan” implies equality for two separate countries After Gia Long’s ascendancy in Ỉ802, the Siamese regarded Vietnam at an equal friend: “He [Gia Long] never sent silver and golden trees to Siam anymoie.”3 When Gia Long sent a letter to Rama I declaring that: “I finally could occupy -Iue and ascend the throne as Gia Long,”4 Bangkok recorded that Gia Long defned Lê Quý Đôn, Phủ biên tạp lục (Micellaneous Records of Pacification in the Border /re a ) (Hanoi: Social Sciences Publishing House, 1977), pp 261-262 This letter was sent rom Bangkok to Hue C.H.I/2/1 168 (1806C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long P.R.R.I, p 174 Ibid 600 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS himself as a ruler o f a big state (Chao phean-din-yai).' Siam was, at first, careful neither accept this definition nor to feel this change as Vietnamese arrogance Siam did not rush to pass a negative judgement on Vietnam because it waited to see how Gia Long would behave To Siam however, this implies that Gia Long had distanced from Bangkok Gia Long had made a transition, from being a dependent vassal to a peer In the records, Siam accepted that Gia Long’s ascension meant that Vietnam would no longer be a Siamese vassal According to Thai records, the Nguyễn court took advantage of Siam’s preoccupation with the war with Burma to expand its power over Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The growth of Nguyễn power in the region was swift and effective No conflict between Siam and Vietnam ensued, even though the Cambodian and Lao kingdoms agreed to pay tribute to both courts, as they managed their diplomatic relationship, based on mutual trust, honesty and prestige as big kingdoms, well Royal correspondence was a vital and effective diplomatic tool In the coưespondence between Bangkok and Hue, the Siamese always mentioned that they cherished their sustained friendship, although the Bangkok court subsequently realized that Vietnam was an independent rival Achieving balance - the Vietnamese attitude towards Siam In the Nguyễn records, the Vietnamese never depicted themselves as Siamese vassals Even before Gia Long ascended to the throne, no Vietnamese official information acknowledged the status of Vietnam as a tributary of Siam No court text mentions the tribute missions Nguyễn Ánh sent to Siam even once, even though Thai records mentioned the submissive letter he sent with his tribute of golden and silver trees The Vietnamese considered their state as equal to Siam and this therefore entails that Vietnam denied that the sending of silver and golden trees represented their acceptance of tributary status Gia Long merely wrote that he would always recognize Rama I’s support and would like to send the silver and golden trees as a gift.2 He was referring to a previous gift that he had sent while he was still a prince He wrote this when the Nguyển court once sent royal gifts to Siam consisting ten gold bullion, a hundred of silver bullion, a halberd, beeswax, granulated sugar and silk from Vietnam.3 The tributes that were sent from Gia Định (Sàigòn) while Nguyễn Ánh was still fighting with the Tây Sơn were their way of showing their gratitude for Rama I’s support Ibid C.H.Ị/5/1166( 1804C.E) Letter from Gia Long to Rama I P.R.R I, p 179 601 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẦN THỨ T Although the Vietnamese court did not accept that Vietnam was a Siamese va:sal, at that time he had to know what sending silver and golden trees meant In the Nguyễn chronicles, Nguyễn Anh defined Siam as a friendly peer For example, when Siam asked Gia Định to provide rice, he said: “To the Siamese, our country is their friend The people of Siam are also same as our people The Siamese are experiencing famine and hunger, how could we ignore them insteai of giving them tenderly help’' Vietnamese official records describe the attempt of Hue court to cstallish good diplomatic relations with the Bangkok court In 1809, Gia Lone mentioned to his court that “Siam and our country have friendly relations.5'2 Similar to Sam, Vietnam also employed the same concept as seen in the letter from Gia Lon; to Rama II in 1811, which stated: “[Vietnam] sends this letter to Bangkok folloving our friendly relations and seeks news about the Siamese king and Uparacha [I] wish that both prosper more and more And [I] give tribute (bannakan) tc an ambassador for preserving our friendship; the two big kingdoms (phramahanah.on) were on the same stretch o f territory (phaendin diew kan) and had long frieidiy relations since the past till now.”3 Although the term bannakan suggested submission, this case was perhaps an exception, especially since the mes;age contained no other term or word acknowledging inferiority There was no ether example of such language except for this word Within a few decades, Vietnam expanded its territory to its largest ever, especially during the reign of Minh Mạng The rivalry with Siam over vassal.1 led Vietnam to confirm its power and sovereignty in the region In the court’s leters, the Hue court showed its friendship to Siam by expressing concern about the Siamese-Burmese war In the eyes of Vietnam, Siam and Burma were longime enemies of each other.4 Minh Mạng told the Siamese ambassador that “í t 'Birina was invaded or fought with other countries such as Britain, it is good lor iiam because the court will not be troubled with the Burmese threat anymore.”5 The Bangkok court expressed its sratitude for Vietnamese friendship by sending heir thanks to Minh Mạng 1.Đ N TL(V olum el), p 304 Ibid., p 757 C.H.II/22/1173(1811C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama II [As given in Thai translator! in the same royal annals] ĐNTL (Volume 2), pp 324-325 Ibid., p 372 602 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS Siamese and Vietnamese attitudes towards each other’s involvement in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms Their attitudes influenced the diplomacy between the two courts and their tributaries, Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The Siamese and Vietnamese claimed their legitimacy and overlapping spheres of influence over their Cambodian and Lao peripheries Both states defined themselves as a center and a powerful authority From the Siamese perspective, Rama III tried to preserve Siamese authority over Anouvong of Vientiane and Chan of Cambodia, especially since they had grown closer to the Hue court during Rama IPs reign About this time, Minh Mạng expanded Nguyễn power in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The personal attitudes and leadership styles of the Chakri kings and the Nguyễn emperors partly influenced the changes in the character of their relationship Vietnamese policies of expansionism led to new perceptions about each other, which became marked by hostility, antagonism and rivalry The reigns of Rama III and Minh Mạng marked a turning point as their views of each other shifted from friends to rivals, or in some instances, enemies Issues over Cambodia and Lao kingdoms led to distrust in their diplomatic relations From the perspective of the Siamese court, it was the vassal states’ rulers who generally decided the level of their overlord’s involvement The Bangkok court thought that when Cambodia gravitated towards whichever of the two sides which it assessed as m ore p o w e rfu l.1 B u t i f both kingdom s w ere seen as eq u ally pow erful, Cambodia would accept being one vassal under two overlords The Siamese was agreeable to be joint-overlords with the Vietnamese Arguably, the main reason was that Bangkok was concerned with the Burmese threat, even though the court also realized that the Nguyễn court tried to reclaim its power over Cambodia and Lao states because the latter believed that these cities used to be under Vietnamese domination The Vietnamese expansion started after Gia Long’s enthronement He spread the news to Cambodia and other cities to show that Vietnam had restored its territory, set itself free from the Tây Sơn and become as powerful as before However, Siam still believed that Gia Long dared not commit any transgressions while Rama I was still alive.2 Prom the Siamese perspective, the events following the death of Rama I clearly showed Vietnamese intention to reclaim suzerainty over Cambodia During P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p 61 Ibid., p 72 603 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉƯ HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẰN TH Ứ T the cremation of Rama I and the coronation of Rama II, Gia Long asked to res'.ore Hà Tiên as a Vietnamese protectorate, claiming that it used to be a Vietnarr.ese vassal and Rama II acceded to the request.1 There was no point for Siam to reject the request because Rama II was still concerned with the situation with Burma and did not want to provoke more enemies.2 Bangkok saw that it was losing authority over its vassals to the Nguyễn court gradually Thai sources wrote that after the 34 cities of Cambodia were solely under the Vietnamese kingdom for a few decades; Siam got them back during the reign of Rama III Siam and Vietnam foreign relations became marked with distrust From the Vietnamese perspective, although the Bangkok court still sent missions to keep its friendship with the Hue court and to preserve peace, the Siamese still found a vay to invade Cambodia, by conspiring with the people who were opposed to the Vietnamese court.4 Furthermore, they believed that even after Siam had lost its foothold in Cambodia, Bangkok still sought to expand its power in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The Huế court saw that “the Siamese had unreliable minds like snakes.”5 Vietnamese records further suggested that after the Vietnamese trcops expelled the Siamese from Cambodia, the border area of Vietnam was peaceful and the territory of the Western protectorate (Trấn Tây) grew larger.6 Protocol, ceremony, and language as indicators of status The dynastic chronicles contain the thoughts and attitudes of the Siamese and the Vietnamese courts about one another The royal correspondence shows low both courts made contact, indicated their goodwill and exchanged news betveen Bangkok and Huế Cultural assumptions shaped the political behavior of Siamese and Vietnamese rulers The cultural ceremonies between the two courts illustrate to us the close relationship they shared, and were also used to make some strategic negotiations The relationship between the two courts can be seen from the diplomatic court rituals The Siamese and the Vietnamese court created diplomatic ceremonies to illuminate their status to as powerful states, for example through the welcome ceremonies for envoys, the exchange of presents, the bestowal of regalia, and the royal cremation P R R Ỉ I , p 19 P.R.R.2(Dam-l), pp 78-79 Ibid., p p 1 - 1 ĐNTL (Volume 3), p 153 ĐNTL (Volume 4), pp 27-28 ĐNTL (Volume 2), p 604 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS Some issues about court rites and differing customs caused conflicts between the Siamese and the Vietnamese courts The differences between the Indianized and Sinicized cultures affected the rituals of court and different ways of interaction between them In some ways, the manner in which diplomatic missions were treated signified the warmth of relations between the two courts Protocol and ceremonies have a dual function: they can be used to honor someone, but also to reinforce a hierarchical relationship or a position of superior authority This would certainly be true in the case of Siam and Vietnam With regard to court rituals and protocol, the Bangkok court mostly adopted the luxurious model and practices from the Ayutthaya period The Hue court conversely modeled its rituals after the Qing court of China and also the Lê court of Vietnam The conspicuous luxurious royal court ceremonies and the bestowal of royal gifts to other countries implied the prosperity and greatness of the Siamese and Vietnamese vis-à-vis their neighboring states The missions between Huế and Bangkok were sent in two ways, by land and sea The Vietnamese mission to Bangkok consisted of twelve people by land and fifty people by ship The Siamese mission to Huế consisted of fourteen people by land and fifty people by ship.1 The Nguyễn court established the rule that letters sent to Siam had to pass through Cambodia first Vietnamese records also describe that when the Bangkok envoy came to Hue, he had to stop at Gia Định (Sàigòn) before heading to Huế.2 The Nguyễn and the Chakri courts traditionally sent missions between Bangkok and Hue every year Their purpose was to maintain their friendship and to negotiate diplomatic issues The Hue court recorded the rules for welcoming Siamese emissaries and treated them as a close neighboring state because both states tried to maintain their friendship These features, such as the frequency of correspondence and the exchange of presents, and the warm welcomes extended to each others’ envoys, reflected each’s effort to treat the other as a close friend This mutual treatment was reflected in both Vietnamese and Siamese sources Both courts arranged royal missions between Bangkok and Hue to participate in important events such as the funerals of the royal family members, and the coronation of new rulers The cordial relations between Siam and Vietnam were shown through the warm welcome and good care of their respective missions For example, John Crawfurd described the warm welcome the Siamese gave to the ĐNTL (Volume 1), p 691 Ibid 605 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỦ T Vietnamese envoy during Rama II’s reign and how Siam was very respectful and towards the Vietnamese He narrated that, “The Ambassadors were feasted on the way, serenaded with Siamese music, and amused with gymnastic and theatrical performances, wherever they rested There were not less than twelve or thirteen gilded barges, each rowed, or rather paddled, by twenty-five to fifty boatmen, vho were uniformly dressed in scarlet, and who pulled with great animation, keeping time to a Siamese song.”1 Thai sources also mentioned that “In 1810, Vietnamese envoys were welcomed with full honors because the Siamese court arranged for a welcome procession from Samutprakan and also allowed their ambassador to iT.eet Rama II everyday like the Siamese officials.”2 For Siam and Vietnam, funeral ceremonies were important rituals '.hat signified the goodwill between the two courts Furthermore, the envoys for rcyal funerals and coronations between Siam and Vietnam also engaged in diplomitic discussion over issues and conflicts at these ceremonies, in what could be termed as “funeral diplomacy” Royal funerals were an important occasion for both courts to reinforce their respective diplomatic status Gia Long sent a mission and presents from Hue to express his sorrow and condolences upon the death of Rama I in 1809 The new, of the death of Gia Long's mother in 18Ỉ1 was disseminated from Hue, and Rami II showed his court's friendship by sending royal letters and presents to Gia L)ng saying that Siam and Vietnam always shared their suffering and happiness.4 The cremation notifications from Bangkok were sometimes interpreted for hidden meanings by the Nguyễn court While the Nguyễn mandarins g'ew suspicious about the death of the Siamese elites, Gia Long believed that the royal announcement of their funerals did not bear any hidden meanings or implications.5 The reason why the mandarins were suspicious of these messages was possbly because they thought the messages were written in the style of an overord disseminating orders and information to its tributaries At this point, the Vietnamese probably believed that the Siamese might think that the Vietnamese accepted Siam’s power should they send an envoy for the cremation However, Gia Long John Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy to the Court of Siam and Cochin China iLonJon: Oxford University Press, 1967), p 146 P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p 78 Anamwat, K h w a m Samphan, p 42 C.H II/18/1 173 (1 811 C.E.) Letter from Rama II to Gia Long ĐNTL (Volume 1), p 690 606 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS also gave a warm welcome to Siamese envoys, showing great respect to Rama I He bestowed wealthy gifts upon the Bangkok ambassador and also gave royal presents for the Siamese kings in return In 1822, when one of the other royal family members passed away, Rama II sent an envoy to announce his death Some of the Vietnamese mandarins thought that Siam had a hidden agenda in sending this news but Minh Mạng did not perceive ill-intentions on the part of the Siamese He decided to follow the custom of the Gia Long period by sending an envoy and giving mourning gifts.1 When Siamese envoys announced the cremation of Rama II and the succesion o f Rama III, Minh Mạng ordered three days of formal mourning in Hue to demonstrate his respect for the deceased king.2 It was unusual for the Nguyễn emperor to mourn the death of the ruler of a foreign state like Siam Minh Mạng, however, carefully justified by referring to a precedent from Chinese history where the Chinese emperor mourned the ruler of a small country.3 Minh Mạng probably used this Chinese precedent as an excuse because it helped Vietnam to preserve its sense of superiority It was, therefore, a special exception Vietnam was making for Siam as a purportedly inferior country However, the Bangkok court never reciprocated Minh Mang’s gesture for the funerals of Vietnamese emperors or Vietnamese royal families The Huế court also reported the funeral of the previous emperor to Bangkok In 1820, Minh Mạng sent an envoy to Bangkok to announce Gia Long's death and his succession to the throne The Vietnamese ambassador was forced to accept the Siamese court custom when Rama II made a generous gift of gold to express bereavement However, when the Vietnamese envoy returned to Hue, Minh Mạng was furious at his acceptance of the gift as he thought it was against Vietnamese court traditions which did not allow as the acceptance of presents in the color yellow or gold The presents must usually be wrapped in or made from red material.4 The reason why Minh Mạng was very angry was perhaps these presents were inappropriate for the Vietnamese emperor to accept as it implied that the Emperor of Vietnam was following the Siamese royal rites It was possible that there was a misunderstanding, because yellow was the preferred royal color in Siam but while it was red in Vietnam, and the ambassador was supposed to follow ĐNTL (Volume 2), p 231 Ibid., p 372 Woodside, Vietnam and the Chinese Model, p 260 Ibid 607 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LÀN TH Ứ T Vietnamese court protocol Furthermore, the Bangkok court usually gave this tvpe of presents to its vassals It possibly meant to Minh Mạng that Vietnam accepted being treated at the same level as Siamese dependencies The other incident was when Rama II passed away and Rama III sent the le:ter to inform Minh Mạng regarding Rama II’s funeral and his own succession The Vietnamese court discussed how many envoys they should send to Bangkok, mentioning that during the reign of Gia Long the court aưanged two processions for such a case One procession was to congratulate the new king and another wai to bring offerings in honor of the deceased The Vietnamese mandarins suegcstec to Minh Mạng that it was unnecessary to follow the old practice because one procession could both mourn the deceased king and congratulate the new ruler They provided further justification by areuing that, in the past, the Qing dynasty only sent one procession to confer honors upon the emperor and pay a visit of condolence Minh Mạng agreed and only sent one procession of envoys to Bangkok to mourn Rama II’s death and also witness Rama Ill’s ascension.1 The decision to follow a Chinese precedent possibly indicated the desire to act like a superior state like China and treat Siam like a junior state This was probably Wien Vietnam began to change their attitude towards Siam and accord them a io.ver status through the reduction of the number of envoys and the treatment of Siam as an inferior Since the Siamese and the Vietnamese imagined themselves as the center power in the region, it affected the format of their royal correspondence and their processions The differences in the court rituals became a source of conflict and tension Vietnamese mandarins in Gia Định sometimes complained to Hue that the royal letter written in Chinese from Siam had many ‘mistakes’ as it did not use the correct forms of letter-writing established by the Huế court For example, in U09, the officials in Saigon reported to Hue that “The Vietnamese mandarins found hat the contents of the letter from Siam contained many boastful words When that Vietnamese mandarin told the Siamese ambassador that the Siamese ambassador was being arrogant, the Siamese ambassador denied it and said that the Vietnanese mandarin was harming Siam-Vietnam friendly relations.”2 Normally, for the Nguyễn court, this type of letter would be rejected Gia Long however accepted the letter on the basis of the long friendship with Siam On this issue, Gia Long replied: “the Bangkok court could not write the Chinese script It was entirely the mistake of 1.Đ N T L (Volume 2), p 383 608 ĐNTL (Volume 1), pp 770-771 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS the Chinese who came alone with the envoy Actually, when the Siamese court wrote to Vietnam, it used a Chinese translator who did not know the form of Chinese court customs well.” This was possibly a convenient excuse for Gia Long to explain the inappropriate terminology in the letter He was probably being sincere and wanted to justify the Siamese attitudes through his experience in Bangkok and knowledge of the Siamese court rites It shows that distortions and mistakes that even the courts did not deliberately intend for might have occurred during the translation of the letters It is especially the use of the terminology which probably has sensitive meanings and significant effects on the state of their bilateral relations To Siam, the written form of the letter required by the Nguyễn court became a source of criticism Rama III was very angry when Minh Mạng sent a letter mentioning that, “From now on, whenever the Vietnamese emperor sends letter to Bangkok he would address himself as Việt Nam Đức Hoàng để ” Minh Mạng asked the Siamese court to change the addressee term used for the Vietnamese emperor and stated that “If the great kingdom Ayutthaya [Bangkok] was to send an ambassador to Hue, the Siamese must follow the format of prefacing the letter with the salutation: “The le tte r of the Buddhist King of Siam (Xiêm La Đức Phật Vương) sent to show respect to the Emperor of Vietnam ( Việt Nam Đức Hoàng Để).”3 Rama III expressed to his court that Minh Mang’s request aimed to honor himself He compared this with the protocols of the Chinese court: “Vietnam is a smaller state than China China is a greater state, but it has never even once forced Siam to write the le t t e r in accordance with Chinese rules.”4 From the Siamese perspective, this signified that Minh Mạng thought Vietnam was greater than China, and that Vietnam was proudly acting as a great state.5 This issue angered the Siamese greatly as they probably felt that Minh Mang was attempting to assert power over Siam by commanding the Siamese king to follow his wishes The Siamese court was not alone in feeling that Vietnam’s request was a terrible affront Rama III too perceived that Minh Mạng’s intention was to show the Ibid z T h e r e is an interesting parallel from the r e i g n o f K i n g Chulalongkorn when the Thai claimed that when Chinese in Siam in earlier times had translated the letters to and from China, they had distorted the terminology to make Siam into a Chinese vassal This point has been suggested by Assoc Prof Bruce Lockhart It is mentioned in Thai sources regarding China during the Fifth Reign Kulab, Anam-Siam Yuth, p 138 Ibid Ibid 609 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QƯÓC TẺ LÀN THÚ T Other states who knew Chinese that Siam was afraid of Vietnam’s power In the eyes of the Siamese, if Rama III acceded to the request, the Siamese vassals would possibly believe that Vietnam dominated Siam or, at the very least, that Siam was eager to please Vietnam That would entail an infringement of Siamese prestige Rama III also felt that this was only a matter of prestige for Vietnam.1 The two requests were important factors for Rama III to change his perception of the Vietnamese court The Bangkok court also expected that the Vietnamese court would give honor and prestiee following the form that was practiced before Minh Mang's request Rama III stated: “I had never seen any ruler like the emperor of Vietnam He intended to break our diplomatic relationship.”2 Furthermore, Minh Mạng also wished to alter the customary diplomatic rules He compared Minh Mạng with Gia Long by sayine that, “the previous emperor followed the rules of diplomacy and was friendly and smooth in his treatment of Siam In contrast, this emperor seems to insult the Kingdom of Siam.”3 This incident caused much tension between the two courts The Bangkok court felt that Vietnam was condescending towards Siam, and no other state would treat them like Vietnam had, not even Burma, the Western states and other vassals.4 Finally, Rama III concluded that Siam should no longer remain friendly v/ith Vietnam.5 The exchange of presents between the two courts was part of the diplomatic relationship Gifts and royal regalia contained diplomatic meanings For Siam, the roval regalia w e e important in signifying the status of Siamese patronage When Rama I sent regalia to Gia Long, the Vietnamese emperor did not accept the crown He returned it to Siam The Vietnamese court mentioned that the crown was exaited and Gia Long had not been wearing it Rama I mentioned: “Regarding the Vietnamese emperor returning a present [a crown] back to Bangkok; [the Siamese court] also found that it is difficult to choose a suitable present to send to the Vietnamese court following Vietnamese customs The crown was actually regarded as the highest resalia for Siam and the Indianized states The acceptance of a crown from the kins of other stctes Ibid., p 156 Ibid., pp 156-157 Ibid., p 157 Ibid Ibid., p 158 C.H.1/2/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long 10 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS sjmbolized submission to the bestowing monarch The Siamese king had bestowed crowns on the Cambodian and Lao kings As discussed earlier, Gia Long did not accept the crown probably because the crown signified an acceptance of Siamese power and supremacy over Vietnam This perhaps also led the Vietnamese to feel that they had lost their prestige because the Siamese had employed this custom with Cambodia before Only the Siamese king did bestow a crown to the rulers of his vassals Vietnam never bestowed a crown upon their vassal rulers upon their ascension It was not within Vietnamese tradition to this The Nguyễn court was very careful in its consideration of their acceptance of the presents from Bangkok Gia Long had expressed his gratitude for the bestowal of the crown without accepting it This incident was an early indication of tensions between the Siamese and Vietnamese expectations of the nature of their relationship The Vietnamese court’s refusal to accept Siamese gifts also happened during the reign of Minh Mạng The Huế court strictly followed Sino-Vietnamese court customs In the reign of Minh Mạng, Siamese envoys first had to pass through Gia Định before coming to Hue The Siamese ambassador refused the Saigon official’s request to view the state’s official letter The official letter did not follow the court’s prescribed format Furthermore, the royal message that Rama II sent to Minh Mạng seemed to indicate his seniority vis-a-vis Minh Mạng.1 The gifts were decorated in gold or yellow, i.e a golden betel box, a golden spittoon, a golden pipe All were presents that the Siamese king customarily bestowed upon vassals and his officials The Bangkok court also sent money as donations to charities.2 This was a serious issue among the Nguyễn court To the Vietnamese, it had never happened before in diplomatic history Finally, Minh Mạng allowed Lê Văn Duyệt to make the decisions Lê Văn Duyệt eventually won the argument, although Minh Mạng did not agree with him It was probably because Minh Mạng felt that this big issue was unprecedented and because he did not want to get implicated as the majority of Vietnamese mandarins in Hue court also criticized the Siamese Lê Văn Duyệt interpreted that the gifts as symbolizing Siamese condescension and expression of superiority He thought that, if the Vietnamese court accepted the presents, Vietnam would probably lose prestige; but if the court did not accept, it would harm the goodwill with Siam.3 Minh Mạng thought that Siam and Vietnam were foreign countries, and the Nguyễn court should not disregard them Finally, Lê Văn Duyệt returned all the presents to the Siamese envoy Anamwat, Khwam Samphan, p 40 ĐNTL (Volume 2), p 83 Ibid 611 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QƯÓC TẾ LÀN THỦ T The Siamese ambassador explained that Siam was a Buddhist kingdom The king felt that those were valuable and fit gifts to give to the Neuyễn emperor As for the money that the Bangkok court donated for charity, the ambassador answered that this followed the customs of Siam because the Buddhists believed thev wculd sain merit if they engaged in charity.1 From this incident, Minh Mane voiced his opinion within his own court that the Bangkok court did not know how to folow the customs Duyệt wrote a letter accusing Siam of trying to assert supremacy ind show greater prestige than Vietnam’s.2 There is no record of the Bangkok court’s reaction to this The situation worsened when Siam sent envoys to Vietnam in 1830 after Siamese generals killed Vietnamese envoys Rama III wrote a letter and sent nore presents to Hue than usual Actually, each time the Banẹkok court normally ;ent only seven items Minh Mạng was very angry and returned some presents to Sum He complained that the reason why Vietnam had been maintaining long frierdly relations to Siam was not because of the numbers of presents Minh Mạng vas displeased with the larger number of presents because he probablv thought bat these presents would not be able to compensate for Siam’s grave offence Instead, Minh Mạng expected Rama III to punish the guilty Siamese generals After Sam did not accede to this request, it led to the hostile reception of the Siamese misiion by the Nguyễn court The Siamese ambassadors had to go back to Bangkok themselves without any assistance from the Vietnamese Rama III was angry with the Vietnamese reception, or rather the lack of i; as it suggested that the Siamese had lost prestige Rama III and the Siamese court felt that Vietnam had made a huge mistake in their diplomatic relations The treatment of Vietnam made Siam want to end their friendship Geopolitically, Siam no lorger depended on Vietnam for support and possessed as much manpower and provisons as Vietnam From Siam’s point of view, Vietnam started the conflict first; Siam vvas merely reciprocating the Vietnamese’s behavior.4 Prestige and honor seemed verv important to Siam Siam respondec to Vietnam when the Vietnamese sent an envoy to pay respect upon the death OÍ the Uparaja Rama III did not allow the Vietnamese ambassador to meet him in fror.t of his throne This was different from how Siam treated Vietnam in the past Ibid Ibid., p 84 Nhu viễn, p 275 and Kulab, Anam-Siam Yuth, pp 147-150 Ibid., pp 153-155 612 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS Conversely, the Bangkok court arranged for the ambassadors of other countries to meet Rama III From the Siamese perspective, Siam had remained magnanimous in honoring their Iona relationship even thoueh Vietnam had invaded many Siamese teưitories of Siam, and some of their vassals had also accepted Vietnamese overlordship Rama III thus thought that the generosity of the Bangkok court had led the Nguyễn court to believe Siam was afraid of Vietnam and that the Vietnamese were deeming their Kmperor to the greatest emperor in this world.1 Furthermore, Rama III mentioned that the Vietnamese actually denigrated Siam as an inferior vassal, even though they behaved like a close friend.2 These affronts gave Siam the pretext and opportunity to declare war with Vietnam When Vietnam sent a propaganda letter to publicize how Siam had initially severed the diplomatic relationship with Vietnam and initiated the conflict, Siam defended itself by sending a letter in both Chinese and Thai to the Cambodian and Lao vassal cities, describing how Vietnam had slandered Siam Siam may have been the only country with which the Vietnamese had relations with that was neither an overlord (China) nor a vassal (Cambodia and Lao kingdoms) Officially, the Vietnamese did not call the Siamese “barbarians.” However the term was used in exceptional occasions when, for instance, Vietnamese emperor or generals were angry at them For example, Minh Mạng criticized Siamese troops before his army in 1834 during the war, remarking that “the barbarian Siamese were many times defeated by our troops ”3 It was difficult but still possible for Vietnam to deal with another country on an equal basis The Vietnamese court embraced the concept of the emperor as the ‘Son of Heaven’, and the idea that the imperial court was supposed to exercise singular dominance over the region However, in practice the Vietnamese was unable to prevail as a single power and needed to contend with the equally powerful kingdom of Siam On the other hand, the Siamese were already used to dealing with the Burmese, who were also neither overlord nor vassal, and hence could more readily countenance the need to manage relations with an equal power However, the Siamese only considered the Burmese as an enemy, never a friend like Vietnam before the tensions in their relationship Interestingly, the Vietnamese did not define Siam as barbaric like other surrounding states despite the Siamese’s possession of Ibid., p 160 Ibid., p 171 ĐNTL (Volume 4), p 79 613 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỨ T totally different beliefs, customs and culture Even Burma, which should be considered an equally powerful country, was thought of as "barbarian’.1 The language and specific terminology used in communication reveals the communicators’ perceptions and attitudes towards the others In the case of Sam and Vietnam, both hierarchical and unhierarchical rhetoric were used in diffejsnt Thai and Vietnamese texts In the original letters, the language employed vas unhierarchical Both courts used the polite and neutral language Conversely, the information about each other that the two courts recorded contained hierarchcal terms and language that suggested superiority and inferiority In Vietnamese reccrds i.e., Đại Nam Thực lục and Nhu Viền, the Vietnamese used the word “tặng (PI)” which has two meanings, - “to present or give”, and also “to bestow.” It conmtes the granting of something from a superior to a junior Meanwhile, when the Thai gave gifts to the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese sources translated that they "'dâng iản vật địa phươne [presented/offered local products],” this is the language which his used to refer to what happens when a tributary state presents tribute, since “dâig” means that an inferior is offering something to a superior.2 Similarly, the Siarrese used hierarchical terms in Thai sources, writing that the Vietnamese “thawai” gfts, which means “to give” from an inferior to a superior For instance, the Sianese used the word that the Vietnamese “to send tribute (ihawai khretng ratchabannakanỴ when there were missions from Hue Furthermore, the ttrm “thawai banekhom” which means “to pay homage” also signified the hierarchcal position In the letter sent from Gia Long to Rama I in 1804, Thai source recoried that “the letter from Vietnamese Emperor sent to pay homage (thawai bangkhon) to Siamese king I have never forgotten the kindheartedness of you, your majesty You have been always benevolent and taking care of me I sent envoys to sulmit tribute (thawai bannakan) to you.”3 Both sides, therefore, recorded informaion about this relationship as a one between a lord and a vassal, however both depi'-ted themselves as the lord and the other as the vassal Conclusion The Siamese-Vietnamese relationship changed from amity to enmity across different periods The personal characters of the rulers, their shifting relation;hip and courtly customs were influenced by their cultural background The difference of cultural interpretation and treatment of the diplomatic courtly rituals were imporant Nhu viễn, pp 283-289 Nhu viễn, p 275 This point has been suggested by one of the thesis markers C.H.1/5/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama 614 SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS issues which led to the different interpretations The nature of the reception of the court missions also bore significant implications for diplomacy The non-observance of court rituals and customs was in fact one of the important factors for the end of amiable diplomatic relations, in addition to than conflicts over territorial expansion When both countries could not arrive at a satisfactory outcome to their negotiations, their diplomatic attitudes were changed Siam used the changes in coưespondence protocol that the Vietnamese emperor requested to legitimize their provocation of war with Vietnam After the Siamese invasion of Hà Tiên and Châu Đốc in 1833, Vietnam regarded Siam as an enemy, no longer a friend, and continued a decade of war between the two states over Cambodia The clash between Siam and Vietnam ensued because of the similar aspects of their worldviews, and not the differing elements Even though they hailed from differing cultural backgrounds, both their Indie and Sinic cultural legacies influenced both countries to imagine themselves as the regional center and power, possessing supremacy over all other vassal states To manifest their centrality, they had strict formats and forms of court rituals and customs that other states had to abide by This led to the sense of cultural superiority and sometimes discordance in their diplomacy Bibliography / Thai Language Sources Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi Neung (Records of the First Reign) [C.H.I] Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi Song (Records of the Second Reign) [C.H.II] Chotmaihet Ratchakan Thi Sam (Records of the Third Reign) [C.H.III] Damrongrachanuphap Phongsawadan Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan thi song, Lem 1(Chronicles of the Second Reign of the Rcittancikosin Period, Volume 1) Bangkok: Silapakorn, 1962 [P.R.R.2(Dam-l)] Damrongrachanuphap Phongsawadctn Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan thi song, Lem 2(Chronicles of the Second Reign of the Rattanakosin Period, Volume 2) Bangkok: Khurusapha, 1968 [P.R.R.2(Dam-2)] Kulab Amm-Sayam Yuth (The Vietnamese-Siamese War) Bangkok: Khosit, 2007 Krom Silapakorn (Fine Arts Department) Nangsu Prachum Phongsawadan Chabap Kanjanaphisek, Lem 12 (The Collection of Thai Chronicles Kanjanapisek Edition, Volume 12) Bangkok: Khanakammakan Chalongphithi Kanchanaphisek, 2006 [P.C.K.12] 615 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỬ TƯ Thipakornw ongse Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Rattcinakosin Ratchakcin Thi Neung (Chronicles of the First Reign of the Rattanakosin Period) Bangkok: Khlar.g Wittaya, 1962 [P.P.R.I] Thipakoraw ongse Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Rattcmakosin Ratchakan Till Song (Chronicles o f the Second Reign of the Rattanakosin Period) Bangkok: Khrurusaphi, 1961 [P.P.R.II] Thipakoraw ongse Phongwadan Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan thi (tuci khien) (Chronicles of the Second Reign of the Rattanakosin Period (manuscript version), edited by Naruemon Thuravvat Bangkok: Amarin, 2005 Thipakorawongse Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Ruttanakosin Ratchakan Tin Sam (Chronicles of the Third Reign of the Rattanakosin Period) Bangkok: K hurusapha, 1961 [P.P.R.Ill] Krom Sinlapakorn (Department of Fine Arts) Prachum Phraratchaniphon Phrabatsomdet Phranangklao Chaoyuhua (Collected of R a m a Ill's Royal Writings) Bangkok: Sophonphiphatthanakorn, 1929 Anamwat, Thanom Khwam Samphan Rawang Thai Khamen Lae Yuan Nai Samai Rattanakosin Torn Ton (Relations Between Siam, Cambodia, and Vietnam during the First Part of the Rattanakosin Period) Bangkok: Khurusapha Publishing, 1973 II Vietnamese Language Sources Bưu Cảm (ed.)- Nhu viễn (The Harmonious Management o f Distant Peoples), translated into modern Vietnamese by Tư quang Phai (2 Volumes) Sàigòn: n.p., 1965 Đặng Văn Chương “Quan hệ Xiêm-Việt từ 1782 đến 1847 (The Relationships between Siam and Vietnam from 1782 to 1847) University of Pedagogy, Hanoi, 2003 Đặng Văn Chương “Quan hệ Xiêm với nước láns; giềng phía Đơns thời Taksin (1767-1782)”, in Tạp chí Nghiên cícu Đơng Nam A (Journal o f Southeast Asian Research), 5(2001): 47-52 Đặng Văn Chương “Việt Nam quan hệ với Xiêm vấn đề Lào Campuchia đầu thể kỷ XIX (Vietnam in the Relations with Siam about the Problems in Laos and Cambodia in the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century)”, in Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Đơng Nam A (Journal of Southeast Asian Research), 4(55), 2002: 64-68 Đặng Văn Chương, “về công Xiêm vào Hà Tiên Châu Đốc cuối năm 1833 đầu năm 1834(The Attack of Siam to Hà Tiên and Châu Đốc from the End of 1833 to the Beginning of 1834)”, in Journal of History Research, 3(2002) Đinh Xuân Lâm “Quan hệ Việt - Campuchia thời Nguyễn nứa đầu kỷ XIX (The Relationships between Vietnam and Cambodia in the Nguyễn Period in the First Half 616 S IA M ’S AN D V IE T N A M ’S PE R C EPTIO N S OF TH E IR D IP LO M A TIC R ELATIO N S OÍ N ineteenth Century)” , in Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Đơng N a m A (Journal of Southeast Asian Research), 6(2002) ĐỖ Thanh Bình and Nguyễn Am “Quan hệ Đại Nam - Xiêm cuối kỷ XIX (The Reltaions betw een Đại N am and Siam in the second h a lf o f the N ineteenth Century),” Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Đông N a m A (Journal of Southeast Asian Researchi), 2(1994) L ê Q u ý Đ ô n P h ủ b iê n tạp lụ c (M is c e lla n e o u s R e c o r d s o f P a c ific a tio n in the B o r d e r Area) Hànội: Social Sciences Publishing House, 1977 N gaosyvathn, M a y o u ry and Ngaosyvathn, Pheuiphanh Vietnamese Source M aterials concerning The 1827 Conflict between the Court o f Siam and the Lao Principalitues (Vol I Introduction, Translation, Han-nom text) Tokyo: Komiyama Printing Co., Ltd., 2001 N guyễn Sỹ Tuấn, “N a m Bộ mối quan hệ chúa N g u y ễ n với C hân Lạp Xiêm từ kỷ XVII đến kỷ X IX (Trong cách nhìn m ột số tác giả C am puchia) [The South in the relationship betw een the N guyễn lord with C am bodia and Siam from the seventeenth century to th e nineteenth century (From the view o f som e C am bodian s c h o la rs )]” , in Một so van để lịch sử vùng đất Nam Bộ đến cuối kỷ X IX [S o m e issues about Southern history up to the end o f nineteenth century] Hanoi: T he Giới Publishing House, 2009 Phạm N guyên Long “ Cuộc khởi nghĩa chống ách thống trị X iêm La C hân dân Lào lãnh đạo Châu A -N u (1827-1828) (The Liberation o f Laos under the Leading of Anouvong from Siamese Domination)”, in Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Lịch sử (Journal of Historv of Research, 1(1972): 11-21 Viện Sử học, V iệ n K hoa học xã hội Việt N a m (Institute o f H istory Studies, Department of Social Sciences of Vietnam) Đại Nam Thực lục, tập 1-6 (Veritable R ecords o f Đ ại Nam Volum e 1-6) Hanoi: Education Publishing House, 2007 [DNTL] Viện Sử học, Trung tâm K hoa học X ã hội N hân văn Q uốc gia (Institute o f History Studies, The National Center of Social Sciences and Humanities) Khâm Định Đại Nam hội điển lệ (Administrative catalogue of the Đại Nam established by imperial order) Huế: T huận H óa Publishing House, 2005 Viện Sừ học, V iện K hoa học xã hội Việt N a m (Institute o f H istory Studies, Department of Social Sciences of Việtnam) Đại Nam liệt truyện (The Đại Nam Court Biography) Huế: Thuận Hoá Publishing House, 1993 Unpublished paper Đại Nam nhat thong chí, Quốc sử quán Triều Nguyen (Geography of the Unified Đại Nam, The missions of the Nguyen Dynasty) III Western Language Sources Chandler, David p “ C am bodia Before the French: Politics in a Tributary K ingdom 1794-1847” The U niversity o f M ichigan, 1973 617 VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TẾ LÀN TH Ứ T Eiland, M ichael Dent “ Dragon and Elephant: Relations betw een V ietnam and S ara, 1782-1847” The G eorge W ashington U niversity, 1989 Chapuis, Oscar A History of Vietnam: from H o ng Bang to Tu Due W estport, Ctnn.: G reenwood Press, 1995 Choi, Byung Wook Southern Vietnam under the reign o f Minh Mạng (1820-1841): central policies and local response Ith a c a , N ew Y o rk : S o u th e a s t A s ia P rogram Publication, 2004 Cooke, Nola “ Southern R egionalism and the C om position o f the N g uyen Riling Elite” in Asian Studies Review, 23,2 (1999): 205-231 Crawfurd, John Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochmcbina London: Oxford U niversity Press, 1967 F i n l a y s o n , G e o r g e The m issio n to S ia m , a n d H u e , the c a p ita l o f C o c h in C h in a in the years 1821-1822 : from the journal of the late George Finlayson, Esq with a memoir of the author by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles London: J M urray, 1826 Gaultier, Marcel Minh-Mang Paris: Larose, 1935 G eldem , Robert Heine ‘C onceptions o f State and K ingship in S outheast Asia’, in The Far Eastern Quarterly, 2, (N o v e m b e r 1942) Geertz, Clifford Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U niversity Press, 1980 Li, Tana Nguyen Cochinchina: Southern Vietnam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Ithaca, New York: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1998 Lockhart, Bruce M “ C om peting N arratives o f the N am T iế n ” U npublished Ịaper presented at w orkshop organized by the A sia R esearch Institute, N ational University o f Singapore, 2003 Lockhart, B ruce M “ T he historical L a o -V ietn a m e se relationship seen from the Lao PDR"’ in New research on Laos (Recherches nouvellcs sur le Laos), Y ves G oudineai and Michel Loưillard (Eds) Bangkok: A m a rin Printing and Publishing Public C om pany, 2008: 259-282 Ngaosyvathn, Mayoury and Ngaosyvathn, Pheuiphanh Paths to Conflagration: Fifty Years of Diplomacy and Warfare in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1778-1828 Itiaca N.Y.: Southeast A sia Program Publications, C ornell University, 1998 Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja The Buddhist Conception o f Universal King and it! Manifestations in South and Southeast Asia Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, 19Ỉ7 Vella, Walter F Siam under Rama III, 1824-1851 Locust Valley, New vork Published for the A ssociation from A sian Studies by J.J A ugustin, 1957 618 S IA M ’S A N D V IE T N A M ’S P E R C E P T IO N S O F TH E IR D IPLO M ATIC R ELATIO N S W enk, Klaus The Resotration o f Thailand under Rama I, 1782-1890 Tucson: The U niversity o f A rizona Press, 1968 Vietnam and the Chinese Model: A Comparative Study of Vietnamese and Chinese Government in the First Half if the Nineteenth Century W oodside, A lexander Barton Cam bridge, M ass: Harvard U niversity Press, 1988 W yatt, D avid K., and W oodside, A lexander change: essays on Southeast Asian thought N e w Moral order and the question of H aven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 1982 619 ... collectively-held set of understandings and beliefs, was a vital factor in shaping interstate diplomacy and determining the shifts in the character of the relationship between Siam and Vietnam The two societies... and the treatment of Siam as an inferior Since the Siamese and the Vietnamese imagined themselves as the center power in the region, it affected the format of their royal correspondence and their... during the reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1840) This marxed the beginnings of a shift of relations and perceptions from friends to rivals Wiile the earlv conflicts and misinterpretations between the two