DSpace at VNU: Siam''s and vietnam''s 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 ư

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
1 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 ư

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
1. C.H. 11/22/1173 ( 1 8 1 1C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama 11. [As given in Thai transition
in the same royal chronicles]
2. C.H. 11/22/1173 ( 1 8 1 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
1. P.R.R.I, pp. 121, 123, 131, 153.
2. The term “ khakhopkhanthasima” is a combination o f
“ khopkhanthasima” , which means “boundary” .

meaning “subject”, and

3. P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p. 67.
4. Ibid., p. 70.
5. P .R .R .l, p. 113.

6. 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 ư

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
1. 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.
2. C.H.I/2/1 168 (1806C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long.
3. P.R.R.I, p. 174.
4.

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.
1.

Ibid.

2. C.H.Ị/5/1166( 1804C.E) Letter from Gia Long to Rama I.
3. P.R.R..I, p. 179.

601

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẦN THỨ T ư

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’' 1
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.

2.

Ibid., p. 757.

3. C.H.II/22/1173(1811C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama II. [As given in Thai translator! in
the same royal annals]
4. ĐNTL (Volume 2), pp. 324-325.
5.

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
1. P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p. 61.
2. Ibid., p. 72.

603

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉƯ HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẰN TH Ứ T ư

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.
1. P . R . R . Ỉ I , p. 19.

2. P.R.R.2(Dam-l), pp. 78-79.
3.

Ibid., p p. 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 .

4. ĐNTL (Volume 3), p. 153.
5. ĐNTL (Volume 4), pp. 27-28.

6 . ĐNTL (Volume 2), p. 6.
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

1. ĐNTL (Volume 1), p. 691.
2. Ibid.
605

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỦ T ư

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

1. John Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy to the Court of Siam and Cochin China iLonJon:
Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 146.
2. P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p. 78.
3. Anamwat, K h w a m Samphan, p. 42.
4. C.H. II/18/1 173 (1 811 C.E.) Letter from Rama II to Gia Long.
5. 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

1. ĐNTL (Volume 2), p. 231.
2. Ibid., p. 372.
3. Woodside,

Vietnam and the Chinese Model, p.

260.

4. Ibid.

607

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LÀN TH Ứ T ư

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.
2.

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
1. 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.
3. Kulab, Anam-Siam Yuth, p. 138.
Ibid .

5 . Ibid.
609

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QƯÓC TẺ LÀN THÚ T ư

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
1. Ibid., p. 156.
2. Ibid., pp. 156-157.
3. Ibid., p. 157.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 158.
6. C.H.1/2/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long.
6 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 do 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.
1. Anamwat, Khwam Samphan, p. 40.
2. ĐNTL (Volume 2), p. 83.
3. Ibid.
611


VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO QƯÓC TẾ LÀN THỦ T ư

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.
1. Ibid.
2. Ibid., p. 84.

3. Nhu viễn, p. 275 and Kulab, Anam-Siam Yuth, pp. 147-150.
4. 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
1. Ibid., p. 160.
2. Ibid., p. 171.

3. ĐNTL (Volume 4), p. 79.
613


VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỨ T ư

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
1. Nhu viễn, pp. 283-289.
2. Nhu viễn, p. 275. This point has been suggested by one of the thesis markers.
3. C.H.1/5/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama 1.
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 2 (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 các nước láns; giềng phía Đôns dưới thời
Taksin (1767-1782)”, in Tạp chí Nghiên cícu Đông Nam A (Journal o f Southeast Asian
Research), 5(2001): 47-52.
Đặng Văn Chương. “Việt Nam trong quan hệ với Xiêm về vấn đề Lào và 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 Đông Nam
A (Journal of Southeast Asian Research), 4(55), 2002: 64-68.
Đặng Văn Chương, “về cuộc tấn công của Xiêm vào Hà Tiên và 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 trong nứa đầu thế 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 Đông N a m A (Journal of Southeast Asian

Research), 6(2002).

ĐỖ Thanh Bình and Nguyễn Am. “Quan hệ Đại Nam - Xiêm nữa cuối thế 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 trong mối quan hệ giữa chúa N g u y ễ n với C hân Lạp và
Xiêm từ thế kỷ XVII đến thế kỷ X IX (Trong cách nhìn của 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 thế 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 của C hân dân
Lào dưới sự lãnh đạo của 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 và 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 sự 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 ư

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, 1 (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