 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Ayutthaya Kingdom" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Ayutthaya Kingdom | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1351–1767 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg) Trade flag (1680–1767) _goldStamp_bgred.png) Seal (1657–1688) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capital |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Common languages |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Religion |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Demonym | Krung Tai | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Government | Mandala kingdom | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monarch | |||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1351–1369 (first) | Uthong | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1448–1488 | Ramesuan | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1590–1605 | Naresuan | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1629–1655 | Prasat Thong | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1656–1688 | Narai | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1688–1703 | Phetracha | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1758–1767 (last) | Ekkathat | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Viceroy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1438–1448 (first) | Ramesuan | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1757–1758 (last) | Phonphinit | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Historical era | Post-classical era,early modern era | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• First tributary embassy to China | 1292[a][15] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Kingdom official establishment | 4 March 1351[14] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Lopburi and Suphanburi rivalry | 1370–1409 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Union with theNorthern Cities | 1378–1569[b][16] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Vassal of theToungoo dynasty | 1564–68, 1569–84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Golden Age of Ayutthaya | 1605–1767[16] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
• Invasions fromKonbaung | 1759–60, 1765–67 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 April 1767 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Area | |||||||||||||||||||||||
• Total | 500,000 km2 (190,000 sq mi) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Population | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ~2,500,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Currency | Photduang,Cowries[18] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Today part of | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TheAyutthaya Kingdom[i] or theEmpire of Ayutthaya[19] was aThai kingdom that existed inSoutheast Asia from 1351[14][20][21] to 1767, centered around the city ofAyutthaya, in Siam, or present-dayThailand. European travellers in the early 16th century called Ayutthaya one of the three great powers of Asia (alongsideVijayanagara and China),[14][22] although the Chinese chronicles recognise the kingdom as one of its tributary states.[23] The Ayutthaya Kingdom is considered to be the precursor of modern Thailand, and its developments are an important part of thehistory of Thailand.[14]
The name Ayutthaya originates fromAyodhya, aSanskrit word. This connection stems from theRamakien, Thailand's national epic. The Ayutthaya Kingdom emerged from themandala or merger of three maritime city-states on the LowerChao Phraya Valley in the late 13th and 14th centuries (Lopburi,Suphanburi, and Ayutthaya).[24] The early kingdom was a maritime confederation, oriented to post-Srivijaya Maritime Southeast Asia, conducting raids and tribute from these maritime states. After two centuries of political organization from theNorthern Cities and a transition to a hinterland state, Ayutthaya centralized and became one of the great powers of Asia. From 1569 to 1584, Ayutthaya was a vassal state ofToungoo Burma; but quickly regained independence. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Ayutthaya emerged as an entrepôt of international trade and its cultures flourished. The reign ofNarai (r. 1657–1688) was known for Persian and later, European, influence and the sending of the1686 Siamese embassy to the French court of KingLouis XIV. The Late Ayutthaya Period saw the departure of the French and English but growing prominence of the Chinese. The period was described as a "golden age" of Siamese culture and saw the rise in Chinese trade and the introduction of capitalism into Siam,[25] a development that would continue to expand in the centuries following the fall of Ayutthaya.[26][27]
Ayutthaya's failure to create a peaceful order of succession and the introduction of capitalism undermined the traditional organization of its elite and the old bonds of labor control which formed the military and government organization of the kingdom. In the mid-18th century, the BurmeseKonbaung dynasty invaded Ayutthaya in1759–1760 and1765–1767. In April 1767, after a 14-month siege, the city of Ayutthaya fell to besieging Burmese forces and was completely destroyed, thereby ending the 417-year-old Ayutthaya Kingdom. Siam, however, quickly recovered from the collapse and the seat of Siamese authority was moved toThonburi-Bangkok within the next 15 years.[26][28]
In foreign accounts, Ayutthaya was called "Siam",[29] but people of Ayutthaya called themselvesTai, and their kingdomKrung Tai (Thai:กรุงไท) meaning 'Tai country' (กรุงไท).[30] It was also referred to asIudea in a painting requested by theDutch East India Company.[31][citation needed] The capital city of Ayutthaya is officially known asKrung Thep Dvaravati Si Ayutthaya (Thai:กรุงเทพทวารวดีศรีอยุธยา), as documented in historical sources.[32][33][34][35]
The lower Chao Phraya Basin around the turn of the second millennium was split betweenLavo Kingdom, which dominated the eastern half of the Lower Chao Phraya, andSuphannabhum, which dominated the west. The western lower Chao Phraya Basin was also influenced byAngkorian culture but not direct Angkorian political and military influence.[28][16] Ayutthaya, argued byCharnvit Kasetsiri, was the merger of four different port polities along the Lower Chao Phraya Basin: Lopburi (Lavo),[36] Suphanburi, Ayutthaya, and Phetchaburi. Suphanburi had first sent a tribute mission toSong dynasty in 1180 and Phetchaburi to theYuan dynasty in 1294 and tribute missions toVijaynagar empire between 1400 and 1500.[37][24][38] The earliest written records of Ayutthaya in the Chinese chronicles is that a Chinese official fled to Xian in 1282/83. Xian first sent an embassy to the Yuan dynasty in 1292, after which the Yuan requested another embassy. While older and traditional scholars argue that the ethnically ThaiSukhothai or Suphanburi was theXiān[39][37] mentioned in Chinese sources, more recent scholarship, likeChris Baker andPasuk Phongpaichit, argue thatXian referred to Ayutthaya as that was the same name later used for Ayutthaya by the Chinese court. Michael Vickery argued that it is likely the Chinese used Xian to refer to the lower Chao Phraya Basin from its inception.[24][40]
One of the earliest foreign sources to mentionXiān are theĐại Việt texts compiled during the reign ofLý Anh Tông, says merchants from Xiān Kingdom (暹羅) and others arrived atHǎidōng (chữ Hán:海東) and requested permission to trade and set up a trading post atYún tún (chữ Hán:雲屯) in 1149.[41]:line 61 Other requests for trade were sent in 1241[41]:line 29 and 1360.[42]:line 109 Xian also sent tributes toĐại Việt in 1182[41]:line 25 and 1334.[43] In 1313–1315, Xiān attempted to annexChampa but failed due to the reinforcements fromĐại Việt.[44]:line 148[45]: 121–3 There was also a record ofSiamese led byPassara, son of the king of Siam, settled inJava and established the city ofPassaraan in 800.[46]: xvi
Archaeological findings have found evidence of buildings on the island of Ayutthaya prior to the 12th century. Pottery shards have been discovered to have been dated as early as the 1270s. Some temples to the east of Ayutthaya, off the island, have been known to exist before the traditional founding of the kingdom in 1351.[24] Recent archaeological works reveal pre-existingbarays superimposed on by subsequent structures. TheTamnan mulasasana Buddhist chronicle notes that in the 1320s, two Buddhist monks visited Ayutthaya in search of scriptures and that a previous monk had been honored by the "King of Ayodhia" on his return fromLanka.[47] Since the late 13th century, expeditions were sent to theMalay Peninsula and Sumatra in the goal of extracting resources to gain a share of the maritime trade.[48] Other contemporary scholars argued that Ayutthaya had been an important commercial center since the 11th century or at least several centuries prior to 1351.[40]
Twenty-first century archaeological surveys found that the name of the pre-Ayutthaya cities on the Khao Kop Inscription dated to the 14th–15th centuries isAyothaya Si Ram Thep Nakhon (Thai:อโยธยาศรีรามเทพนคร),[49] as stated in the Thai Chronicle,Phraratchaphongsawadan Nuea (Royal Chronicle of The North compiled in 1807 collected from old books from period of KingNarai and stories told by northerners).[50]: 68 At least three royal decrees in Thai were enacted during that period, and the name of the king who ruled Ayodhaya in the oldest of the three royal decrees,The Miscellaneous Laws (Thai:Phra Aiyakan Betset) (1225), is found as King Uthong, who reigned from 1205 to 1253[51] (not to be confused with KingUthong reigning from 1351 to 69). It was also found thatThai was used as the official language at that time, which reflected the social changes of the people in the Chao Phraya River Basin.[50]: 295–296
The existence ofAyothaya Si Ram Thep Nakhon is also mentioned in the Burmese chronicle,Hmannan Yazawin, which mentions the Gywan warriors, who are descendants of theThai Yuan,[52] marched toThaton kingdom in 1056 as inscribed on the Burmese inscriptions at Arakan Pagoda,Mandalay.[53] TheHmannan Yazawin said the south-eastward country of the Gywans, also calledAyoja.[54]George Cœdès pointed out thatAyoja orArawsa meant Ayudhya or Siam.[55]
The Malay annals (Sulalatus Salatin) and History of the Malay Kingdom of Patani (Sejarah Kerajaan Melayu Patani) say that prior to 1160, the Siam-Thai of Ayutthaya (Tai-Shan's or Siam-Asli, literally "aboriginal Siamese") were migrating southward and penetrating far into the Malay Peninsula.[56] The History of the Malay Kingdom of Patani highlights the fact that Patani rulers treated the Siam-Thai of Ayutthaya (but notSukhothai Kingdom) as equals rather than vassals when discussing the southward expansion of Siam.[57] In the 12th century, theMalays were successful in establishing states such asKedah,Melaka, andTemasek. However,Patani and other surrounding territories remained under the control of the aboriginal Siamese.[58]
Archaeology surveys performed near Wat Khun Mueang Chai have found traces of pre–1100s buildings. Old temples in the area to the east may have been forest monasteries, similar to the pattern of other early towns. Digs have yielded pottery shards dating back to the 1270s.[59]: 46 According to the Northern Chronicle, the earliest settlement was found in 944[ii] on the south bank ofLopburi River near the present-dayWat Thammikarat by a royal lineage from Bang Pan (present-day inPhran Kratai,Kamphaeng Phet), Phra Maha Phuttha Sakhon (พระมหาพุทธสาคร),[60] who ruled the city until he died in 964.[61]: 30 However, his successor was despoiled byNarai(not to be confused with KingNarai reigning from 1656 to 88), the son of King Chadachota from Lavo Kingdom,[61]: 33 who was of theSuphannabhum lineage.[62]: 191 Narai renamed the city Ayodhya (อโยธยา) and eventually set itLavo's new capital.[63] The former capital was then renamedLopburi.[64] The majority of Ayodhya's inhabitants are supposed to have migrated fromDvaravati'sAyojjhapura following its fall in 946, as well as residents fromLavo'sLavapura who fled after the city was destroyed byAngkor in 1001.[65] The rising of Ayodhya happened after the fall ofKamalanka or Mevilimbangam, centered atNakhon Pathom, which was sacked by theChola andPagan in 1030 and 1058, respectively.[66]: 180–3 [67]: 95, 105 Ayodhya then overshadowed Lopburi and other cities in the lower Chaophraya Plain by exploiting opportunities created by the decline of theSrivijaya trading network in the 13th century.[59]: 47
After the end of Narai's reign in 1087, Ayodhya fell under the power struggles between nineamatyas for two years,[64] and was won by Phra Chao Luang (พระเจ้าหลวง), who relocated the city, in 1097, southward to the east bank of theChao Phraya River near the mouth of the Mae Bia River (แม่น้ำแม่เบี้ย), south of the presentWat Phanan Choeng.[68] However, since he had no male heir, he had his only daughter marry Sai Nam Phueng (สายน้ำผึ้ง),[69] son of Kraison Rat (ไกรศรราช) who was ofMon'sChaliang andTai'sChiang Saen lineages and served as theLavapura king at that time.[61]: 21, 23 Their descendants, later known as the Uthong (Lavo) dynasty, continued to rule Ayodhya until the traditional establishment of the Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1351.
During the pre-Aytthaya period, Ayodhya was mentioned asXiān (暹; or Siam)[59]: 46 in several Chinese andĐại Việt texts from 1149[41]:line 61 to the official establishment of the Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1351.[70] There are many records of Xiān invasion ofChampa,[44]:line 148Dān mǎ xī (單馬錫, identified as far as Tumasik, orSingapore),[71]: 39 Xī lǐ (昔里),[71]: 39 Ma-li-yü-êrh (Melayu),[72]: 140 andSamudera Pasai Sultanate onSumatra,[73] as well as a well-known bas relief panel ofAngkor Wat showing mercenaries of the Khmer army, who, among others, are identified assyam-kuk, perhaps "of the land of Siam." One cannot be certain what ethnolinguistic group these mercenaries belonged to, but many scholars have thought them to beSiam people.[74]: 70 In 1431, aRyukyu ship reported that “the King of Xian had punished the previous chief ofPalembang and had put a new chief in power.[59]: 49
According toThe Customs of Cambodia written byZhou Daguan as an official delegation sent by theYuan Dynasty toAngkor from 1296–1297, the Siamese people exerted significant influence overLavo'sLavapura and appeared in huge numbers in the Angkorian capital ofYasodharapura.[75][76] It was recorded by Zhou Daguan that Cambodia also imported cloth and silkworms from Xian, and suffered from repeated attacks by its people.[59]: 46 Thus, the Siamese invasion of Angkor might have begun in the 1290s.[77]: 211 [78]: 90
The LaotianPhra That Phanom Chronicle [th] refers to Ayodhya before the traditional formation of the Ayutthaya Kingdom by several names, including Pahalanakhon (พาหละนคร),Dvaravati, and Sri Ayodhiya Dvaravati Nakhon (ศรีอโยธิยาทวารวดีนคร). Meanwhile, theLan Na'sYonok Chronicle mentions Ayodhya during this period as Guru Rath (กุรุรัฐ;lit. 'Country ofGuru'गुरुcode: san promoted to code: sa), which is almost identical to theKolo Kingdom哥罗国 or Kamalanka in several Chinese texts that existed from the 1st to 11th century. It was ruled by King Guru Wongsa (กุรุวงศา;lit. 'Family of Guru'), and its people were calledKhlom (กล๋อม), which has been mispronounced asKhom till the present day.[79]
Ayutthaya was traditionally founded by KingUthong on 4 March 1351.[81] This fact, however, has been subject to long scholarly debate. According to Chris Baker-Pasuk Phongpaichit, there are at least seven legends about who Uthong was: "a Northern Thai prince, a fugitive Chinese prince from the sea, a Khmer noble from Angkor, a ruler from one of the gulf cities, or aChola."[82] Other than being the legendary founder of Ayutthaya, the only thing known about Uthong in the chronicles is the year of his death.[24]
Before the official establishment of the kingdom, the lowerMenam Valley entered the conflict-free era in the 12th century; artifacts and ruins dating back to the 12th–13th centuries found in the area indicate that there was a massive migration from surrounding neighbors, such as theKhmer from the east, theMon from the west, and theTai-Mon from the north. Several modern mandalas then emerged, such asSuphannabhum,Phip Phli,Sukhothai, as well as Ayutthaya Kingdom.[83]: 272–3
In the 1290s through to the 1490s, Ayutthaya sent forces down to the peninsula and demanded tribute from the Malay principalities down toTemasek (Singapura (modern Singapore)) andSumatra. The early Ayutthaya polity was a maritime-oriented confederation, more in line with the Malay polities of Maritime Southeast Asia than with states inland like Sukhothai and the Northern Cities. Muslim and European mapmakers labeled theMalay Peninsula up to theTenasserim coast as part of Ayutthaya in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Early Ayutthaya did not keep records and their early dynastic chronology is likely fabricated by later Ayutthaya elites writing their histories: the early chronology in the palace chronicles does not correlate with the Ayutthaya temple chronicles nor the Chinese court chronicles.[16][11][84]
The integrity of the patchwork of cities of the early Ayutthaya Kingdom was maintained largely through familial connections under themandala system.[85] King Uthong had his son, PrinceRamesuan, the ruler of Lopburi (Lavo),[36] his brother, the ruler of Praek Sriracha[86](in modernChainat Province) and his brother-in-law,Khun Luang Pa-ngua, the ruler of Suphanburi. The ruler of Phetchaburi was his distant relative.[87] The king would appoint a prince or a relative to be the ruler of a city, and a city that was ruled by a prince was calledMuang Look Luang (Thai:เมืองลูกหลวง). Each city ruler swore allegiance and loyalty to the King of Ayutthaya but also retained certain privileges.
Politics of Early Ayutthaya was characterized by rivalries between the two dynasties; theUthong dynasty based on Lopburi (Lavo) and theSuphannabhum dynasty based on Suphanburi. Traditional narratives argued that Ayutthaya conquered Sukhothai,Angkor, etc., but more modern narratives argue that territorial conquest was a European thing and not a Southeast Asian thing. Rather, the processes which saw Ayutthaya expand was one of political merger and consolidation between the cities at the head of the peninsula and slowly ascending up the Chao Phraya River Basin to the Northern Cities.[24][88]
The culture of early Ayutthaya, described byMa Huan, a scribe onZheng He's voyages, in the early 15th century, described Ayutthaya as a rowdy port town, whose men practice fighting on water, and where the affairs of everyday life was arranged by the women. The cities on the peninsula regularly complained to the Chinese court about constant Siamese attacks down the peninsula around this time period.[24][88][89]: 7
The 1430s through to 1600 marked a period of rising warfare throughout Mainland Southeast Asia. In 1500, the Portuguese noted that Ayutthaya had 100 elephants, 50 years later, Ayutthaya had 50,000 elephants. Ayutthaya began launching military land expeditions far to the west and east. In the west, Ayutthaya fought to acquire the cities ofTavoy,Mergui, Tenasserim, andMartaban in the late 15th century. Song China's increasing interests to sea commerce at the turn of the second millennium made trade between China and the Indian Ocean especially lucrative. In the 1430s,Ayutthaya attacked Angkor, but did not sack the city, although Ayutthaya did install a short-lived puppet ruler.[24][88]
Palace Law Codes underBorommatrailokkanat exemplified the newfound attention to warfare, citing a number of rewards for the number of enemies beheaded. The introduction of elephants, guns, and mercenaries made wars in Southeast Asia much more chronic and much more deadly. By the late 16th century,Pegu (Bago) suffered a severe conscript revolt, Ayutthaya phrai fled into the forests or bribed the conscription officers, and the construction of sturdier and stronger city walls made warfare largely ineffective.[24][page needed][88]
The Ayutthaya Kingdom shifted from a maritime state to more of a hinterland state during the 15th and 16th centuries. Its absorption of the Northern Cities and the shifting of trade power to the inland trade routes with China facilitated this change of policy. The reign of KingBorommatrailokkanat was the peak of this merger between the basin and theNorthern Cities, being the scion of generations of intermarriage between the two.[24][88]
Even though Borommatrailokkanat symbolized the merger between North and South, theLan Na Kingdom, a state North of Ayutthaya (modern-dayNorthern Thailand), contested Ayutthaya's growing influence over the Northern Cities. TheAyutthaya-Lan Na War was fought over the Upper Chao Phraya valley for control of the Northern Cities. Whether he preferred the Northern Cities to Ayutthaya or the necessity to have a capital closer to the war, Borommatrailokkanat moved his capital toPhitsanulok. Lan Na suffered setbacks and Borommatrailokkanat eventually sued for peace in 1475.[24]
Ayutthaya's sphere of influence down the peninsula was contested by theMalacca Sultanate. Ayutthaya launched several abortive conquests against Malacca which was diplomatically and economically fortified by the military support ofMing China. In the early-15th century the Ming admiralZheng He established a base of operation in the port city, making it a strategic position the Chinese could not afford to lose to the Siamese. Under this protection, Malacca flourished, becoming one of Ayutthaya's great foes until thecapture of Malacca by the Portuguese.[91] Ayutthaya's attention to the portage routes across the upper peninsula meant that it did not send a military expedition to the lower peninsula and the Malay States throughout the 16th century.
_of_Wat_Phra_Si_Sanphet.jpg)
Ayutthaya's sphere of influence was now stretched from the Northern Cities to the Malay Peninsula, with its heartland centered around the old Ayutthaya-Suphanburi-Lopburi-Phetchaburi polity. TheMuang Look Luang system was inadequate to govern relatively vast territories. The government of Ayutthaya was centralized and institutionalized under King Borommatrailokkanat in his reforms promulgating in Palatine Law of 1455, which became the constitution of Ayutthaya for the rest of its existence and continued to be the constitution of Siam until 1892, albeit in altered forms. The central government was dominated by theChatusadom system (Thai:จตุสดมภ์ lit. "Four Pillars), in which the court was led by twoPrime Ministers; theSamuha Nayok the Civil Prime Minister and theSamuha Kalahom the Grand Commander of Forces overseeing Civil and Military affairs, respectively. Under theSamuha Nayok were the Four Ministries. In the regions, the king sent not "rulers" but "governors" to govern cities. The cities were under governors who were from nobility not rulers with privileges as it had previously been. The "Hierarchy of Cities" was established and cities were organized into four levels. Large, top level cities held authorities over secondary or low-level cities.
The increased wealth of Ayutthaya resulted in the beginnings of a chronic succession struggle for the Ayutthaya throne. Due to the lack of stablesuccession law, from each succession from the 16th century onwards, princely governors or powerful dignitaries claiming their merit gathered their forces and moved on the capital to press their claims, culminating in several bloody coups.[92] With the dominance of the Suphanburi clan, it now had to face the militaristic nobles of the Northern Cities, who increasingly came south for wealth prospects at an increasingly wealthy and powerful Ayutthaya.[88][24] The first real succession struggles in Ayutthaya occurred in the early 16th century, with the Northern lords playing a prominent role. Under the reign ofMaha Chakkraphat, the Northern lords, led by the Lord of Phitsanulok,Maha Thammarachathirat, became kingmakers in Ayutthaya. The final nail for this transition was the overthrow of the Suphanburi clan from the Ayutthaya throne following the 1569 Burmese capture of Ayutthaya, placing Maha Thammarachathirat on the Ayutthaya throne.[24]
The 15th century also marked a turning point in Ayutthaya's view of itself. King Borommatrailokkanat performed some sort of coronation ceremony, the first in Ayutthaya history, in the 1460s. Prior to the 15th century, Ayutthaya's palaces and temples were inferior in grandeur to cities such as Sukhothai and Phitsanulok. By the early 16th century, Ayutthaya had now rivalled its regional competitors in its city grandeur, building magnificent wats and palaces for kings with a number of tributary states.[24]
Starting in the middle of the 16th century, the kingdom came under repeated attacks by theTaungoo dynasty ofBurma. TheBurmese–Siamese War (1547–1549) resulted in a failed Burmese siege of Ayutthaya.A second siege (1563–1564) led by KingBayinnaung forced KingMaha Chakkraphat to surrender in 1564. The royal family was taken to Pegu (Bago), with the king's second sonMahinthrathirat installed as the vassal king.[93]: 111 [94]: 167–170 In 1568, Mahinthrathirat revolted when his father managed to return from Pegu as aBuddhist monk.The ensuing third siege captured Ayutthaya in 1569 and Bayinnaung madeMaha Thammarachathirat (also known as Sanphet I) his vassal king, instating theSukhothai dynasty.[94]: 167
In May 1584, less than three years after Bayinnaung's death,UparajaNaresuan (or Sanphet II), the son of Sanphet I, proclaimed Ayutthaya's independence. This proclamation resulted in repeated invasions of Ayutthaya by Burma which the Siamese fought off ultimately finishing in anelephant duel between KingNaresuan and Burmese heir-apparentMingyi Swa in1593 during the fourth siege of Ayutthaya in whichNaresuan famously slew Mingyi Swa,[95]: 443 although the existence of this battle has been challenged by modern scholars such asSulak Sivaraksa. Today, this Siamese victory isobserved annually on 18 January asRoyal Thai Armed Forces day. Later that same year warfare erupted again (theBurmese–Siamese War (1593–1600)) when the Siamese invaded Burma, first occupying theTanintharyi province in southeast Burma in 1593 and later the cities ofMoulmein andMartaban in 1594. In 1599, the Siamese attacked the city of Pegu but were ultimately driven out by Burmese rebels who had assassinated Burmese KingNanda Bayin and taken power.[95]: 443
In 1613, after KingAnaukpetlun reunited Burma and took control, the Burmese invaded the Siamese-held territories in Tanintharyi province, and took Tavoy. In 1614, the Burmese invaded Lan Na which at that time was a vassal of Ayutthaya. Fighting between the Burmese and Siamese continued until 1618 when a treaty ended the conflict. At that time, Burma had gained control of Lan Na and while Ayutthaya retained control of southern Tanintharyi (south of Tavoy).[93]: 127–130 [95]: 443
The cessation of warfare around 1600 gave way to a prolonged period of peace and commerce, beginning with the reign ofEkathotsorot. The Portuguese and Dutch conquest of Malacca encouraged Asian traders to bypass Malacca by crossing the portage route mid-peninsula, controlled by Ayutthaya. This was a period of the great Asian empires:Ottoman Empire,Safavid Empire,Mughal Empire, Ming andQing China, andTokugawa Japan. Ayutthaya therefore became the lucrative middleman for trade between the global empires of the Early Modern World. Kings and nobles turned to hunting, trade, and the competition for the throne with the ending of warfare.[24]
This period of Ayutthaya is also characterized by the emergence of mercantile absolutism, where the king had a virtual monopoly on all incomes into the kingdom, allowing the king to build new temples and palaces, sponsor ceremonies, and enshroud the monarchy in ritual mysticism. The king had the power to appoint governors of cities in the inner Ayutthaya mueang (cities) as well as appoint ministers in charge of the government. This however all made the target of the throne much more lucrative and rewarding than before. To be able to successfully put your target onto the throne would immensely reward its facilitators as much as the winner of the crown. The ability to appoint aFront Palace was effective in times of war but became a double-edged sword in regards to peace. Foreigners, due to their lack of connections within the kingdom, often became prominent officials within the Ayutthaya court during this period.[24]
In 1605, Naresuan died of illness while on campaign against a Burmese spillover conflict in theShan region, leaving a greatly expanded Siamese kingdom to be ruled by his younger brother,Ekathotsarot (Sanphet III).[96]: 173–180 Ekathotsarot's reign was marked with stability for Siam and its sphere of influence, as well as increased foreign interactions, especially with theDutch Republic,Portuguese Empire, and Tokugawa Shogunate (by way of theRed Seal Ships), among others. Indeed, representatives from many foreign lands began to fill Siam's civil and military administration – Japanese traders and mercenaries led byYamada Nagamasa, for example, had considerable influence with the king.[97]: 51
Ekathotsarot's era ended with his death in 1610/11.[98] The question of his succession was complicated by the alleged suicide of his eldest legitimate son, Suthat, while his second legitimate son,Si Saowaphak, was never legally designated as an heir by Ekathotsarot himself. Nonetheless, Si Saowaphak succeeded to the throne against his late father's wishes, and led a short and ineffective reign in which he was kidnapped and held hostage by Japanese merchants, and later murdered.[96]: 203–206 After this episode, the kingdom was handed toSongtham, a lesser son born of Ekathotsarot and a first-class concubine.
Songtham temporarily restored stability to Ayutthaya and focused inward on religious construction projects, most notably a great temple atWat Phra Phutthabat. In the sphere of foreign policy, Songtham lost suzerainty of Lan Na,Cambodia and Tavoy,[96]: 207–208 expelled thePortuguese,[99] and expanded Siam's foreign trade ties to include both theEnglish East India Company andFrench East India Company, along with new merchant colonies in Siam representing communities from all across Asia.[97]: 53–54, 56 Additionally, Songtham maintained the service of Yamada Nagamasa, whose Japanese mercenaries were at this point serving as the king's ownroyal guard.[96]
As Songtham's life began to fade, the issue of succession generated conflict once again when both King Songtham's brother, Prince Sisin, and his son, PrinceChetthathirat, found support for their claims among the Siamese court. Although Thai tradition typically favored brothers over sons in matters of inheritance, Songtham enlisted the help of his influential cousin,Prasat Thong to ensure his son would inherit the kingdom instead. When Songtham died in 1628, Prasat Thong used his alliance with Yamada Nagamasa's mercenaries to purge everyone who had supported Prince Sisin's claim, eventually capturing and executing Sisin as well.[96]: 213 Soon Prasat Thong became more powerful in Siam than the newly crowned King Chetthathriat, and through further intrigue staged a coup in which Chetthathirat was deposed and executed in favor of his even younger brotherAthittayawong, whom Prasat Thong intended to use as a puppet ruler.[96]: 215–216
This form of government was quickly met with resistance by elements within the Thai court who were dissatisfied with the idea of having two acting heads of state. Since Prasat Thong already ruled Siam in all but name asKalahom, he opted to resolve the issue by orchestrating the final dethronement and execution of the child king in 1629. Thus, Prasat Thong had completely usurped the kingdom by double (perhaps triple) regicide, extinguishing the Sukhothai dynasty 60 years after its installation by the Burmese.[96]: 216 Many of King Prasat Thong's former allies abandoned his cause following his ascension to the throne. In the course of quelling such resistance, Prasat Thong assassinated his former ally Yamada Nagamasa in 1630 (who now opposed Prasat Thong's coup), and promptly banished all the remaining Japanese from Siam.[97] While a community of Japanese exiles were eventually welcomed back into the country, this event marks the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate's long-standing formal relationship with the Ayutthaya Kingdom.[97]
_c1665.jpg)
%2c_Capital_of_Siam_ca._1662_(SK-A-4477).jpg)
_by_Alain_Mallet_1683.png)
Upon his death in 1656, King Prasat Thong was succeeded first by his eldest son,Chai, who was almost immediately deposed and executed by the late King's brother,Si Suthammaracha, who in turn was defeated in single combat by his nephew,Narai.[96]: 216–217 Narai finally assumed a stable position as King of Ayutthaya with the support of a mainly foreign court faction consisting of groups that had been marginalized during the reign of his father, Prasat Thong. Among his benefactors were, notably, Persian, Dutch, and Japanese mercenaries.[96] It should therefore come as no surprise that the era of King Narai was one of an extroverted Siam. Foreign trade brought Ayutthaya not only luxury items but also new arms and weapons. In the mid–17th century, during KingNarai's reign, Ayutthaya became very prosperous.[100]
In 1662 war betweenBurma and Ayutthaya erupted again when King Narai attempted to take advantage of unrest in Burma to seize control of Lan Na.[101]: 220–227 Fighting along the border between the two adversaries continued for two years and at one time Narai seized Tavoy and Martaban. Ultimately, Narai and the Siamese ran out of supplies and returned home back within their border.[93]: 139 [95]: 443–444
.jpg)
While commercially thriving, Narai's reign was also socially tumultuous. Much of this can be attributed to three-way conflict between theDutch,French, andEnglish trading companies now operating in Siam at an unprecedented intensity due to Siam's role as a center of trade, fostered by Narai. Of these competing foreign influences, Narai tended to favour relations with the French, wary of the growing Dutch and English colonial possessions in theSouth China Sea.[97]: 58 Soon, Narai began to welcome communities of FrenchJesuits into his court, and pursue closer relations with both France andthe Vatican.[96]: 243–244 Indeed, the many diplomatic missions conducted by Narai to such far-flung lands are some of the most celebrated accomplishments of his reign. Narai as well leased the ports ofBangkok andMergui to the French, and had many French generals incorporated into his army to train it in Western strategy and supervise the construction of European-style forts.[102] During this time, Narai abandoned the traditional capital ofAyutthaya for a newJesuit-designed palace inLopburi.[96]: 250–251
As a growing Catholic presence cemented itself in Siam, and an unprecedented number of French forts were erected and garrisoned on land leased by Narai, a faction of native Siamese courtiers, Buddhist clergy, and other non-Catholic and/or non-French elements of Narai's court began to resent the favourable treatment French interests received under his reign.[97]: 63 This hostile attitude was especially directed atConstantine Phaulkon, a Catholic Greek adventurer and proponent of French influence who had climbed to the rank of Narai's Prime Minister and chief advisor of foreign affairs.[103] Much of this turmoil was primarily religious, as the French Jesuits were openly attempting to convert Narai and the royal family toCatholicism.[97]: 62
Narai was courted not just by Catholic conversion, but as well by proselytizing Muslim Persians,Chams andMakassars in his court, the later of which communities launched an unsuccessfulrevolt in 1686 to replace Narai with a Muslim puppet king.[104] While members of the anti-foreign court faction were primarily concerned with Catholic influence, there is evidence to suggest that Narai was equally interested in Islam, and had no desire to fully convert to either religion.[105]
Nonetheless, a dissatisfied faction now led by Narai's celebrated elephantry commander,Phetracha, had long planned a coup to remove Narai. When the king became seriously ill in May 1688, Phetracha and his accomplices had him arrested along with Phaulkon and many members of the royal family, all of whom were put to death besides Narai, who died in captivity in July of that year.[96]: 271–273 [106]: 46, 184 With the king and his heirs out of the way, Phetracha then usurped the throne and officially crowned himself King of Ayutthaya on 1 August.[106]: 184
King Phetracha took Mergui back from French control almost immediately, and began the pivotalSiege of Bangkok, which culminated in an official French retreat from Siam. Phetracha's reign, however, was not stable. Many of Phetracha's provincial governors refused to recognize his rule as legitimate, and rebellions by the late Narai's supporters persisted for many years.[96]: 276–277 The most important change to Siam in the aftermath of the revolution was Phetracha's refusal to continue Narai's foreign embassies. King Phetracha opted instead to reverse much of Narai's decisions and closed Thailand to almost all forms of European interaction except with the Dutch.[96]: 273–276
.png)
Despite the departure of most Europeans from Ayutthaya, their economic presence in Ayutthaya was negligible in comparison to the Ayutthaya China-Indian Ocean trade. Lieberman, later reinforced by Baker and Phongpaichit, refutes the idea that Siam's alleged isolationism from global trade following the French and English departure in 1688 led to Ayutthaya's gradual decline leading up to its destruction by the Burmese in 1767, stating:
Clearly, however, the late 1600s and especially the early 1700s inaugurated a period not of sustained decline, but of Chinese-assisted economic vitality that would continue into the 19th century.[107][3][108]
Instead, the 18th century was arguably the Ayutthaya Kingdom's most prosperous,[109] particularly due to trade withQing China. The growth of China's population in the late 17th–18th centuries, alongside nationwide rice shortages and famines in Southern China, meant that China was eager to import rice from other nations, particularly from Ayutthaya. During the Late Ayutthaya Period (1688–1767), the Chinese population in Ayutthaya possibly tripled in size to 30,000 from 1680 to 1767. The Chinese played a pivotal role in stimulating Ayutthaya's economy in the last 100 years of the kingdom's existence and eventually played a pivotal role in Siam's quick recovery from theBurmese invasions of the 1760s,[110][111] whose post-Ayutthaya monarchs (Taksin andRama I), held close ties, through blood and through political connections, to thisSino-Siamese community.[3]
Between 1600 and 1767, all but two royal successions were contested with a mini civil war in the capital. The throne became such a powerful and lucrative source of wealth during the 150 years of prosperity that many royals harboured ambitions to seize the throne. An Ayutthaya noble in the 18th century lamented that a large portion of court officials and able generals were killed in multiple succession struggles over the previous 90 years.[112] The last monarch,Ekkathat, alongside his brother,Uthumphon, undermined PrinceThammathibet, the Front Palace Uparaj and designated heir to his father, KingBorommakot, by instigating or exposing his affair with two of his fathers' consorts. Prince Thammathibet was executed for his alleged crimes.
Corruption was rampant due to economic prosperity. Position buying and bribery for political offices became commonplace.[112]
The mass arrival of Chinese farming settlers to Siam in 18th century introduced Capitalism to Siam. The past 150 years of growth encouraged phrai to flee the bonds of government control and become peasant farmers in the countryside to earn wealth. People fled the government phrai system in a variety of other ways, including entering the monkhood and fleeing into the wilderness.[112]
A new category for people now appeared in the late Ayutthaya records, called phrai mangmi, or a rich "serf".[112]
From 1688 onwards, the period was characterized by the increasing severity of commoner revolts. The 1688 mass commoner revolt against French Catholicism was unprecedented in Ayutthaya history prior to 1688.[112] The revolts of 1688 also marked the beginning of proto-nationalism, in which the concept of a proto-Siamese Buddhist nationality was formed. However, Ayutthaya kings only occasionally viewed themselves as the defender of "the kingdom, people [sic], and Buddhism", which wouldn't be fully realized until the Thonburi and Bangkok regimes in response to the traumatic destruction of the Siamese state in 1767.[113][28][112]
.jpg)
The 150 years of prosperity brought significant fortunes to the Ayutthaya elite. The Ayutthaya elite created theatre tropes and held elaborate celebrations, funeral ceremonies, and were awarded royal titles, all of which was previously privilege only to royalty.
Kings and nobles now contested with one another for control of the decreasing pool of labour. Repeated Ayutthaya laws on improving the controls of labour highlighted the increasing failures of the elite to control the people.
The turmoil which resulted from increasing wealth resulted in the Ayutthaya nobility turning towards the reformation of Buddhism as a new source of societal order. This was symbolized with the reign of King Borommakot (1733–1758), who was championed as a pious king for having all the characteristics of a virtuous and piousBodhisattva: building and restoring new temples and dramatically transforming the Ayutthaya skyline during his reign.[112] In 1753, following the request made by a delegation of Sri Lankan monks who travelled to Ayutthaya, Borommakot sent two Siamese monks to reformTheravada Buddhism inSri Lanka.
It will however take until the early Rattanakosin period for the surviving Ayutthaya nobility (under the future KingRama I of the Rattanakosin Kingdom) to successfully reform Buddhism in their image and form a near unbroken bond between the Siamese monarchy and Buddhism lasting until the present in modern Thailand.[112]
.jpg)
In the period between 1600 and 1759, the scale of war subsided compared to the preceding era of warfare. Narai tried (and failed) to capture Chiang Mai in the 1650s and 1660s. Ayutthaya fought with theNguyễn Lords (Vietnamese rulers of south Vietnam) for control ofCambodia starting around 1715. In contrast, the Ayutthaya Kingdom and the Restored Taungoo Burma overall generally engaged in harmonious relations with each other and traded an embassy with each other in the 17th century.
Ayutthaya's military organization had remained virtually unchanged for the next 150 years. Ayutthaya still heavily relied on its mercenary forces. It had failed to create an elite military caste like theSamurai of Japan or theSikhRajputs, perhaps due to Ayutthaya kings purposely undermining the creation of such an elite group of warriors that can significantly influence or challenge the throne. On the other hand, the city of Ayutthaya relied on the wet season monsoons making the city impenetrable to a siege for six months a year. Ayutthaya had over time amassed a huge stockpile of large cannons and arms that amazed the Burmese when they opened the treasury of Ayutthaya in the sack of Ayutthaya in 1767. It however lacked the men to arm these weapons, with the failure of the Ayutthaya corvee system and increased economic incentives for phrai to escape due to greater integration with the world's economy over the past 150 years of peace.[16]
_map_-_EN_-_001.jpg)
.jpg)
The weakened BurmeseToungoo dynasty was overthrown by theMons ofRestored Hanthawaddy Kingdom in 1752.[114][115]: 116 Aung Zeiya, a local Burmese leader, arose against the Mons and reconqueredUpper Burma, proclaiming himselfKing Alaungpaya and establishing militaristic regime of the newKonbaung dynasty. Alaungpaya proceeded to conquer the Mons ofLower Burma in 1757,[114][115]: 116 unifying Burma under his rule. Next year, in 1758, the Mons rebelled in Lower Burma against Alaungpaya[114] but were quelled and took refuge in Siamese-heldTenasserim Coast. Alaungpaya demanded that Siam repatriate the Mon rebels but Ayutthaya was not cooperative. The Burmese king was then convinced that Siam supported the Mon rebels. Alaungpaya also sought to expand his powers and glory in accordance withChakravartin ideology of universal ruler.[116] Alaungpaya marched his war-hardened Burmese armies to attack Ayutthaya in mid-1759 conquering Tenasserim, coming through theSingkhon Pass and attacking on the way to northwestern outskirts ofAyutthaya city itself in early 1760. Ayutthaya was not prepared for war.[115]: 116 Long absence of external threats and economic prosperity in the mid-eighteenth century rendered traditional conscription system useless and ineffective. Manpower shortage undermined Siamese defense system.[117] Panicked Ayutthayan people beseeched the more-capable temple king Uthumphon to leave monkhood to lead the defenses. Fortunately, the treacherous wet rainy season arrived, obliging the Burmese to retreat. Alaungpaya himself was either ill and injured from cannon explosion, died on his way back to Burma in 1760. Ayutthaya was thus saved from Burmese conquest for one last time.
After the Burmese retreat, Siam did little to improve or reform its own military in preparation against Burmese invasions. Ekkathat pressured Uthumphon to return to monkhood permanently in mid-1760 and resumed powers. Prince Thepphiphit, who had been exiled to Ceylon previously in 1758, became involved in local rebellion and was repatriated to Siam in 1762,[118] upsetting Ekkathat. The new Burmese kingHsinbyushin, who had partaken in the 1759–1760 invasion of Siam, was determined to accomplish the unfinished campaign of his father Alaungpaya to conquer Ayutthaya. Burma conquest of Lanna (modernNorthern Thailand) in 1763 and Laos in 1765 allowed Burmese access to vast manpower.[119] Hsinbyushin ordered the grand invasion of Ayutthaya through two routes; theTavoy-Tenasserim route with 20,000 Burmese-Mon men underMaha Nawrahta and the Lanna route underNemyo Thihapate with 20,000 Burmese-Lanna men.[120] These two routes were to converge on Ayutthaya. In early 1765, the Burmese Tavoy regiment conqueredWestern Siam.[119] In mid-1765, Nemyo Thihapate marched his Burmese-Lanna regiment to attack and conquer Northern Siam. Suppression of peripheral governors in response to internal rebellions meant that little could be provided for frontline defences. Siamese peripheral cities fell to Burmese invaders one-by-one. Maha Nawrahta marched his main column from Tavoy to attack Ayutthaya in November 1765.[120] William Powney,[121] a British merchant who happened to be trading in Ayutthaya, led British-Siamese forces to attack the Burmese in the Battle of Nonthaburi in December 1765 but was defeated.
Two Burmese invading regiments eventually converged on Ayutthaya in January 1766 and laid siege. Maha Nawrahta placed his Tavoy regiment at Siguk (modernBang Ban district) to the west of Ayutthaya in Nemyo Thihapate at Paknam Prasop (ฺBang Pahan district) to the north. Ayutthaya initially faired well in the siege due to abundance of supplies as Ayutthayan defenders simply waited for rainy season to arrive. The Burmese, however, did not plan to leave.Bang Rachan camps, a group of self-defenders inBang Rachan, managed to locally resist Burmese occupying forces for five months in early 1766.[122] When the rainy season approached, the Burmese held their grounds by staying on flotillas and concentrated on high grounds.[115]: 118 The Burmese approached Ayutthaya city walls in September 1766. In early 1766, due to conflicts over theShan States,Qing China invaded Burma in theSino-Burmese War. Burmese king Hsinbyushin urged his commanders to finish up the conquest of Ayutthaya in order to divert forces to the Chinese front. The besieging Burmese then constructed twenty-seven fort towers surrounding Ayutthaya[123] to escalate the siege in January 1767. The situation for Ayutthayan defenders became dire as more Siamese people surrendered to the Burmese[123] to escape from anarchy and starvation.Phraya Tak, a Siamese military man of Chinese heritage, upon realizing the hopelessness of the defences of Ayutthaya, gathered men and broke through Burmese siege in January 1767 to seek for new position in Eastern Siam. French-Portuguese Christians and Chinese immigrants provided the last defence line south of Ayutthaya. In March 1767, Ekkathat attempted to reach a truce with the Burmese but failed.[120] Shortly after that, Maha Nawrahta died, leaving Nemyo Thihapate to assume command over all Burmese besiegers. The Burmese put down Chinese and Christian resistances in March 1767.
In April 1767, Nemyo Thihapate ordered the digging of underground tunnel into Ayutthaya, setting fire on the foundations of the city walls, causing the north-eastern portion of the walls to collapse, allowing the Burmese to enter the city. After enduring fourteen months of siege, the four-century-old Siamese royal capital finally fell to the Burmese invaders on 7 April 1767.[115]: 118 Unlike the previous fall of Ayutthaya in 1569,[119] the Burmese destruction of Ayutthaya in April 1767 was permanent, profound and extensive. Palaces and temples were burned to the ground and inhabitants were indiscriminately slaughtered. Ekkathat, the last king of Ayutthaya, either died from starvation or random fatal gunshot. Treasures and cultural artifacts were seized. The Buddha image of Phra Si Sanphet, which stood atWat Phra Si Sanphet Temple for two centuries and a half as thepalladium of Ayutthaya kingdom, was destroyed and molten for gold.[124] An estimated 200,000 Siamese died during the war and 30,000[119][125] to 100,000 Siamese people, including the temple king Uthumphon, other members of Ban Phlu Luang dynasty and thousands of courtiers, were deporteden masse fromCentral Thailand to Burmese capital ofAva. The Burmese conquest of Siam in 1767 left Siam depopulated[119] for about a century after until the mid-nineteenth century. Nemyo Thihapate and Burmese victors left Ayutthaya in June 1767,[120] leaving Mon commander Thugyi or Suki[clarification needed] in charge of relatively small Burmese occupying forces at Phosamton north of Ayutthaya.[126] Local regimes emerged from various regional centers due to absence of central authority.[115]: 122
Lieberman states that, "hundreds of thousands possibly died during the [1765–67] Burmese invasion."[127] Many people were either forcibly taken by the Burmese or fled into the forests. Objects were hauled back to Burma. Whatever that wasn't movable was burned by Burmese soldiers.[16][128] Historians Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit describe the fall of the city as a failure of defence and a failure of dealing with rising wealth. By 1767, Ayutthaya had become a prize that many kingdoms would seek.[vague] In an age where warfare was fought among kings than[clarification needed] ethnic boundaries, a number of Siamese joined the Burmese in the sack of Ayutthaya. Ayutthaya nobles who were seized from Ayutthaya settled according to their stations at the court of Ava and settled in well, according to the Burmese chronicles. Historian Nidhi Eoseewong, says the "kingdom fell even before the walls of Ayutthaya fell".[129][16][128]
Ayutthaya however, according to Liberman, represented centuries of political and economic development that was hard to destroy.[130] One general, Phraya Taksin, former governor ofTak and of Siamese-Chinese descent, began thereunification effort.[131][132] He gathered his forces and retook the ruined capital of Ayutthaya from the Burmese garrison at Pho Sam Thon in June 1767, using his connections to the Chinese community to lend him significant resources and political support.[133][134] He finally established a capital atThonburi, across theChao Phraya from the present capital,Bangkok. Taak-Sin ascended the throne, becoming known as King Taak-Sin or Taksin. By 1771, he reunited Siam (with the exception of the cities of Mergui and Tenasserim) and defeated all local warlords. The new conflict between Burma and Siam would last for another 50 years, depopulating large areas of Siam (including the Northern Cities and Phitsanulok, the former second capital of Ayutthaya) and leaving some areas deserted as late as the 1880s.[131][132][16][115][page needed]
The palaces and temples that marked Ayutthaya as a royal capital was reduced to "heaps of ruins and ashes".[135] The city, described by a Danish visitor in 1779 to be a "terrible spectacle", totally buried in undergrowth and inhabited by elephants and tigers,"[135] was resettled quite soon after, with former Ayutthaya temples being used for festivals and celebrations following the sack.[136] According to one historian, the post-Ayutthaya monarchs were the real demolishers of the former capital,[137] they took apart most of the ruins that survived the Burmese sack for the construction of the new capital at Bangkok for symbolic and practical reasons; Bangkok was the successor of Ayutthaya in the eyes of the new Bangkok elite and therefore had to transfer its spiritual power through the reuse of its bricks to build Bangkok[138] while the prospect of future Burmese invasions meant that there was not enough time to build a capital via the traditional method during the early Rattanakosin Kingdom.[137]
In its early maritime phase, Ayutthaya rulers were leaders of a port city. Ma Huan described the ruler of Ayutthaya in the 15th century as a ruler wearing gold-trimmed pants who rides on an elephant inspecting the city with one attendant and a ruler who lives in a modest-looking residence. Their relationships to the other cities were a first among equals status. Early Ayutthaya rulers had to balance their interests alongside those of their city vassal states. As Ayutthaya incorporated the Northern Cities and adapted their government functions in the 15th and 16th centuries, Ayutthaya rulers became more regal and assumed more power at the cost of their vassal cities. As the kings became richer through trade in the 17th century, they used their wealth to express their power, including the shrouding of the monarch in Angkorian and Brahmic rituals and symbolism.[16]
The kings of Ayutthaya from the 17th century onwards were absolute monarchs with semi-religious status. Their authority derived from the ideologies of Hinduism and Buddhism as well as from natural leadership. The king of Sukhothai was the inspiration of Inscription 1 found in Sukhothai, which stated that King Ramkhamhaeng would hear the petition of any subject who rang the bell at the palace gate. The king was thus considered as a father by his people.
At Ayutthaya, however, the paternal aspects of kingship disappeared. The king was considered thechakkraphat (Sanskritchakravartin) who through his adherence to the law made all the world revolve around him.[139] According to Hindu tradition, the king is theavatar ofVishnu, destroyer of demons, who was born to be the defender of the people. The Buddhist belief in the king is as righteous ruler (Sanskrit:dharmaraja) who strictly follows the teaching ofGautama Buddha and aims at the well-being of his people.
The kings' official names were reflections of those religions: Hinduism and Buddhism. They were considered as the incarnation of various Hindu gods:Indra,Shiva, or Vishnu (Rama). Thecoronation ceremony was directed bybrahmins as theHindu god Shiva was "lord of the universe". However, according to the codes, the king had the ultimate duty as protector of the people and the annihilator of evil.
According toBuddhism, the king was also believed to be abodhisattva. One of the most important duties of the king was to build a temple or a Buddha statue as a symbol of prosperity and peace.[139]
For locals, another aspect of the kingship was also the analogy of "The Lord of the Land" or "He who Rules the Earth" (Phra Chao Phaendin). According to the court etiquette, a special language,Rachasap (Sanskrit:Rājāśabda, 'royal language'), was used to communicate with or about royalty.[140] In Ayutthaya, the king was said to grant control over land to his subjects, from nobles to commoners, according to thesakna orsakdina system[141] codified by KingBorommatrailokkanat (1448–1488). Thesakdina system was similar to, but not the same asfeudalism, under which the monarch does not own the land.[142] While there is no concrete evidence that this land management system constituted a formalpalace economy, the FrenchFrançois-Timoléon de Choisy, who came to Ayutthaya in 1685, wrote, "the king has absolute power. He is truly the god of the Siamese: no-one dares to utter his name." Another 17th century writer, the DutchmanJan van Vliet, remarked that the King of Siam was "honoured and worshipped by his subjects second to god." Laws and orders were issued by the king. For sometimes the king himself was also the highest judge who judged and punished important criminals such as traitors or rebels.[143]
In addition to thesakdina system, another of the numerous institutional innovations ofBorommatrailokkanat was to adopt the position ofuparaja, translated as 'viceroy' or 'prince', usually held by the king's senior son or full brother, in an attempt to regularise the succession to the throne – a particularly difficult feat for a polygamous dynasty. In practice, there was inherent conflict between king anduparaja and frequent disputed successions.[144] However, it is evident that the power of the throne of Ayutthaya had its limits. The hegemony of the Ayutthaya king was always based on his charisma based on his age and supporters. Without supporters, bloody coups took place from time to time. The most powerful figures of the capital were always generals, or the Minister of Military Department,Kalahom. During the last century of Ayutthaya, bloody fighting among princes and generals, aiming at the throne, plagued the court.[citation needed]
With the exception ofNaresuan's succession byEkathotsarot in 1605, 'the method of royal succession at Ayutthaya throughout the seventeenth century was battle.'[145] Although European visitors to Thailand at the time tried to discern any rules in the Siamese order of succession, noting that in practice the dead king's younger brother often succeeded him, this custom appears not to have been enshrined anywhere.[145] The ruling king did often bestow the title ofuparaja upon his preferred successor, but in reality, it was an 'elimination process': any male member of the royal clan (usually the late king's brothers and sons) could claim the throne of Ayutthaya for himself, and win by defeating all his rivals.[145] Moreover, groupings of nobles, foreign merchants, and foreign mercenaries actively rallied behind their preferred candidates in hopes of benefiting from each war's outcome.[145]
Ayutthaya politically followed the mandala system, commonly used throughout Southeast Asia kingdoms before the 19th century. In the 17th century, the Ayutthaya monarchs were able to frequently appoint non-natives as governors of Ayutthaya-controlled towns and cities, in order to prevent competition from its nobility. By the end of the Ayutthaya period, the Siamese capital held strong sway over the polities in the lower Chao Phraya plain but had a gradually looser control of polities the further away from the capital at Ayutthaya.[112] The Thai historianSunait Chutintaranond notes, "the view that Ayudhya was a strong centralized state" did not hold and that "in Ayudhya the hegemony of provincial governors was never successfully eliminated."[146][147]
_State_Officials_Envoys_1759.jpg)
Thereforms of King Borommatrailokkanat (r. 1448–1488) placed the king of Ayutthaya at the centre of a highly stratified social and political hierarchy that extended throughout therealm. Despite a lack of evidence, it is believed that in the Ayutthaya Kingdom, the basic unit of social organization was the village community composed of extended family households. Title to land resided with the headman, who held it in the name of the community, although peasant proprietors enjoyed the use of land as long as they cultivated it.[148] The lords gradually becamecourtiers (อำมาตย์) andtributary rulers of minor cities. The king ultimately came to be recognized as the earthlyincarnation of Shiva or Vishnu and became the sacred object of politico-religiouscult practices officiated over by royal court Brahmans, part of the Buddhist court retinue. In the Buddhist context, thedevaraja (divine king) was a bodhisattva. The belief in divine kingship prevailed into the 18th century, although by that time its religious implications had limited impact.
With ample reserves of land available for cultivation, the realm depended on the acquisition and control of adequate manpower for farm labor and defense. The dramatic rise of Ayutthaya had entailed constant warfare and, as none of the parties in the region possessed a technological advantage, the outcome of battles was usually determined by the size of the armies. After each victorious campaign, Ayutthaya carried a number of conquered people back to its own territory, where they were assimilated and added to the labour force.[148]Ramathibodi II (r. 1491–1529) established acorvée system under which every freeman had to be registered as aphrai (servant) with the local lords,chao nai (เจ้านาย). When war broke out, malephrai were subject toimpressment. Above thephrai was anai (นาย), who was responsible for military service,corvée labour on public works, and on the land of the official to whom he was assigned.Phrai Suay (ไพร่ส่วย) met labour obligations by paying a tax. If he found the forced labour under hisnai repugnant, he could sell himself as athat (ทาส, 'slave') to a more attractivenai or lord, who then paid a fee in compensation for the loss of corvée labour. As much as one-third of the manpower supply into the 19th century was composed ofphrai.[148]
_1759.png)
Wealth, status, and political influence were interrelated. The king allotted rice fields to court officials, provincial governors, and military commanders, in payment for their services to the crown, according to thesakdina system. Understandings of this system have been evaluated extensively by Thai social scientists likeJit Phumisak andKukrit Pramoj. The size of each official's allotment was determined by the number of commoners orphrai he could command to work it. The amount of manpower a particular headman, or official, could command determined his status relative to others in the hierarchy and his wealth. At the apex of the hierarchy, the king, who was symbolically the realm's largest landholder, theoretically commanded the services of the largest number ofphrai, calledphrai luang ('royal servants'), who paid taxes, served in the royal army, and worked on the crown lands.[148]
However, the recruitment of the armed forces depended onnai, ormun nai, literally meaning 'lord', officials who commanded their ownphrai som, or 'subjects'. These officials had to submit to the king's command when war broke out. Officials thus became the key figures in the kingdom's politics. At least two officials staged coups, taking the throne themselves while bloody struggles between the king and his officials, followed by purges of court officials, were common.[148]
King Borommatrailokkanat, in the early-16th century, established definite allotments of land andphrai for the royal officials at each rung in the hierarchy, thus determining the country's social structure until the introduction of salaries for government officials in the 19th century.[148]
| Social class | Description |
|---|---|
| munnai | Tax-exempt administrative elite in the capital and administrative centres.[149]: 272 |
| phrai luang | Royal servicemen who worked a specified period each year (possibly six months) for the crown.[149]: 271 They were normally prevented from leaving their village except to perform corvées or military services.[149]: 273 |
| phrai som | Commoners with no obligation to the crown. They vastly outnumbered thephrai luang.[149]: 271 |
Outside this system to some extent were thesangha (Buddhist monastic community), which all classes of men could join, and the overseas Chinese.Wats became centers of Thai education and culture, while during this period the Chinese first began to settle in Thailand and soon began to establish control over the country's economic life.[148]
The Chinese were not obliged to register for corvée duty, so they were free to move about the kingdom at will and engage in commerce. By the 16th century, the Chinese controlled Ayutthaya's internal trade and had found important places in civil and military service. Most of these men took Thai wives as few women left China to accompany the men.[148]
.jpg)
Uthong was responsible for the compilation of aDharmaśāstra, a legal code based on Hindu sources and traditional Thai custom. TheDharmaśāstra remained a tool of Thai law until late in the 19th century. A bureaucracy based on a hierarchy of ranked and titled officials was introduced, and society was organized in a related manner. However, thecaste system was not adopted.[150]
The 16th century witnessed the rise of Burma, which had overrunChiang Mai in theBurmese-Siamese War of 1563–1564. In 1569, Burmese forces, joined by Thai rebels, mostly royal family members of Thailand, captured the city of Ayutthaya and carried off the whole royal family to Burma (Burmese-Siamese War 1568–1570). Thammarachathirat (1569–1590), a Thai governor who had aided the Burmese, was installed as vassal king at Ayutthaya. Thai independence was restored by his son, King Naresuan (1590–1605), who turned on the Burmese and by 1600 had driven them from the country.[151]
Determined to prevent another treason like his father's, Naresuan set about unifying the country's administration directly under the royal court at Ayutthaya. He ended the practice of nominating royal princes to govern Ayutthaya's provinces, assigning instead court officials who were expected to execute policies handed down by the king. Thereafter royal princes were confined to the capital. Their power struggles continued, but at court under the king's watchful eye.[152]
To ensure his control over the new class of governors, Naresuan decreed that all freemen subject tophrai service had becomephrai luang, bound directly to the king, who distributed the use of their services to his officials. This measure gave the king a theoretical monopoly on all manpower, and the idea developed that since the king owned the services of all the people, he also possessed all the land. Ministerial offices and governorships – and the sakdina that went with them – were usually inherited positions dominated by a few families often connected to the king by marriage. Indeed, marriage was frequently used by Thai kings to cement alliances between themselves and powerful families, a custom prevailing through the 19th century. As a result of this policy, the king's wives usually numbered in the dozens.[152]
Even with Naresuan's reforms, the effectiveness of the royal government over the next 150 years was unstable. Royal power outside the crown lands – in theory, absolute – was in practice limited by the laxity of the civil administration. The influence of central government and the king was not extensive beyond the capital. When war with the Burmese broke out in the late 18th century, provinces easily abandoned the capital. As the enforcing troops were not easily rallied to defend the capital, the city of Ayutthaya could not stand against the Burmese aggressors.[152]
.jpg)
Ayutthaya's military was the origin of theRoyal Thai Army. The army was organized into a small standing army of a few thousand, which defended the capital and the palace, and a much larger conscript-based wartime army. Conscription was based on thephrai system (including phrai luang and phrai som), which required local chiefs to supply their predetermined quota of men from their jurisdiction on the basis of population in times of war. This basic system of military organization was largely unchanged down to the earlyRattanakosin period.
The main weaponry of theinfantry largely consisted of swords, spears and bow and arrows. The infantry units were supported bycavalry andelephantry corps.
According to a French source, Ayutthaya in the 18th century included these principal cities: Martaban,Ligor or Nakhon Sri Thammarat, Tenasserim,Junk Ceylon orPhuket Island,Singora orSongkhla. Her tributaries werePatani,Pahang,Perak,Kedah and Malacca.[154]
Particularly in the South, Ayutthaya's claims were often discredited or underplayed by the Malay sultanates, resulting in some number of military expeditions starting in the 17th and 18th centuries to subjugate querulous sultanates, most infamously with KingNarai's military expedition to theSultanate of Singora in 1680.
_Map_by_Valentijn_1726.png)
For the entirety of the Ayutthaya Kingdom's duration, it was largely managed by a society of a service nobility composed of a few thousand and serfs (phrai) composed of the rest of the population, comparable to the contemporaryAncien Regime in France orFeudalism in the rest of Europe.[155] The social ladder existed during times of war and, particularly during the late Ayutthaya period, of rich commoners challenging the societal status quo of the Ayutthaya Kingdom as a result of commercial prosperity during the kingdom's last 150 years of peaceful existence.
According to the historianChris Baker, the Ayutthaya peasantry practiced commuter agriculturalism and largely lived in dense areas along the canals leading up to the city of Ayutthaya and other cities within the kingdom, producing homemade goods and textiles for the international market.
What is now known as theSiamese (Thai) language was initially spoken only by the Ayutthaya elite, while everyday people throughout the Chao Phraya delta spoke a medley ofMon,Khmer, andTai dialects. The PortugueseTomé Pires described in the early 16th century that "The people [of Siam], and almost the language, are like those of [Mon]Pegu," which may suggest that many or most common people still did not identify with the Tai-language culture of the elites as late as 1515.[156] By the Late Ayutthaya period (1688–1767), the Siamese language and culture had gradually grown to transcend social classes and had been adopted by many of the local people throughout the kingdom.[157]
TheKhmer language was an early prestige language of the Ayutthaya court, until it was supplanted by the Siamese language.[3] However it was still continually spoken by the ethnicKhmer community living in Ayutthaya. Many variants ofChinese were spoken in the Ayutthaya Kingdom, with the Chinese becoming a large minority in the kingdom during the Late Ayutthaya period.[3]
Various minor minority languages spoken in the Ayutthaya Kingdom includedMalay,Persian,Japanese,Cham,Dutch, andPortuguese.
Ayutthaya's mainreligion wasTheravada Buddhism. However, many of the elements of the political and social system were incorporated fromHindu scriptures and were conducted byBrahmin priests.[150] Many areas of the kingdom also practicedMahayana Buddhism,Islam[158] and, influenced by FrenchMissionaries who arrived through China in the 17th century, some small areas converted toRoman Catholicism.[159] The influence of Mahayana and Tantric practices also entered Theravada Buddhism, producing a tradition calledTantric Theravada.
The natural world was also home to a number of spirits which are part of theSatsana Phi.Phi (Thai:ผี) are spirits of buildings or territories, natural places, or phenomena; they are also ancestral spirits that protect people, or can also include malevolent spirits. Thephi which are guardian deities of places, or towns are celebrated at festivals with communal gatherings and offerings of food. The spirits run throughoutThai folklore.[160]
Phi were believed to influence natural phenomena including human illness and thus thebaci became an important part of people identity and religious health over the millennia.Spirit houses were an important folk custom which were used to ensure balance with the natural and supernatural world. Astrology was also a vital part to understanding the natural and spiritual worlds and became an important cultural means to enforce social taboos and customs.
.jpg)
The myth and epic stories ofRamakien provide the Siamese with a rich source of dramatic materials. The royal court of Ayutthaya developed classical dramatic forms of expression calledkhon (Thai:โขน) andlakhon (Thai:ละคร).Ramakien played a role in shaping these dramatic arts. During the Ayutthaya period,khon, or a dramatized version of Ramakien, was classified aslakhon nai or a theatrical performance reserved only for aristocratic audience. The Siamese drama and classical dance later spread throughout mainland Southeast Asia and influenced the development of high-culture art in most countries, including Burma, and Laos.[161]
Historical evidence shows that the Thai art of stage plays must have already been highly evolved by the 17th century.Louis XIV, the Sun King of France, had a formal diplomatic relation with Ayutthaya'sKing Narai. In 1687, France sent the diplomatSimon de la Loubère to record all that he saw in the Siamese Kingdom. In his famous accountDu Royaume de Siam, La Loubère carefully observed the classic 17th century theatre of Siam, including an epic battle scene from a khon performance, and recorded what he saw in great detail:
The Siamese have three sorts of Stage Plays: That which they call Cone [khôn] is a figure dance, to the sound of the violin and some other instruments. The dancers are masked and armed, and represent rather a combat than a dance. And though every one runs into high motions, and extravagant postures, they cease not continually to intermix some word. Most of their masks are hideous, and represent either monstrous Beasts, or kinds of Devils. The Show which they call Lacone is a poem intermix with Epic and Dramatic, which lasts three days, from eight in the morning till seven at night. They are histories in verse, serious, and sung by several actors always present, and which do only sing reciprocally … The Rabam is a double dance of men and women, which is not martial, but gallant … they can perform it without much tying themselves, because their way of dancing is a simple march round, very slow, and without any high motion; but with a great many slow contortions of the body and arms.[162]
Of the attire of Siamese Khôn dancers, La Loubère recorded that, "[T]hose that dance in Rabam, and Cone, have gilded paper-bonnets, high and pointed, like the Mandarins caps of ceremony, but which hang down at the sides below their ears, which are adorned with counterfeit stones, and with two pendants of gilded wood."[162]
.jpg)
La Loubère also observed the existence ofmuay Thai and muay Laos, noting that they looked similar (i.e., using both fists and elbows to fight) but the hand-wrapping techniques were different.[162] Muay Thai from the Ayutthaya period (better known as Muay Boran) would greatly influence the modern sport of Muay Thai.
The accomplishment and influence of Thai art and culture, developed during the Ayutthaya period, on the neighboring countries was evident in the observation ofJames Low, a British scholar on Southeast Asia, during the early-Rattanakosin Era: "The Siamese have attained to a considerable degree of perfection in dramatic exhibitions – and are in this respect envied by their neighbours the Burmans, and Laos who all employ Siamese actors when they can be got."[161]: 177
Krabi-krabong is a form of sword fighting developed in Ayutthaya that is now recognized as an essential element of traditional Thai culture and arts.[163]Wat Phutthaisawan, a major ancient temple in Ayutthaya, is considered to be the birthplace of krabi-krabong.
Ayutthaya was a kingdom rich in literary production. Even after the sack of Ayutthaya in 1767, many literary masterpieces in the Thai language survived. However, Ayutthayan literature (as well as Thai literature before the modern era) was dominated by verse composition (i.e., poetry), whereas prose works were reserved to legal matters, records of state affairs and historical chronicles. Thus, there are many works in the nature of epic poetry in the Thai language. The Thai poetical tradition was originally based on indigenous poetical forms such asrai (ร่าย),khlong (โคลง),kap (กาพย์) andklon (กลอน). Some of these poetical forms – notablykhlong – have been shared between the speakers of tai languages since ancient time (before the emergence of Siam).
Through Buddhist and Hindu influence, a variety ofChanda prosodic meters were received viaCeylon. Since the Thai language is mono-syllabic, a huge number of loan words from Sanskrit and Pali are needed to compose these classicalSanskrit meters. According to B. J. Terwiel, this process occurred with an accelerated pace during the reign of KingBorommatrailokkanat (1448–1488) who reformed Siam's model of governance by turning the Siamese polity into an empire under themandala feudal system.[164]: 307–326 The new system demanded a new imperial language for the noble class. This literary influence changed the course of the Thai or Siamese language, setting it apart from othertai languages, by increasing the number of Sanskrit and Pali words drastically and imposing the demand on the Thais to develop a writing system that preserves the orthography of Sanskrit words for literary purpose. By the 15th century, the Thai language had evolved into a distinctive medium along with a nascent literary identity of a new nation. It allowed Siamese poets to compose in different poetical styles and mood, from playful and humorous rimed verses, to romantic and elegantklong and to polished and imperiouschan prosodies modified from classical Sanskrit meters. Thai poets experimented with these different prosodic forms, producing innovative "hybrid" poems such asLilit (Thai:ลิลิต, an interleave ofkhlong andkap orrai verses) orKap hor Klong (Thai:กาพย์ห่อโคลง –khlong poems enveloped bykap verses). The Thai thus developed a keen mind and a keen ear for poetry. To maximize this new literary medium, however, an intensive classical education in Pali was required. This made poetry an exclusive occupation of the noble classes. However, B.J. Terwiel notes, citing a 17th-century text bookJindamanee, that scribes and common Siamese men, too, were encouraged to learn basic Pali and Sanskrit for career advancement.[164]: 322–323
Most countries in Southeast Asia share an Indianised culture. Traditionally, therefore, Thai literature was heavily influenced by theIndian culture and Buddhist–Hindu ideology since the time it first appeared in the 13th century.Thailand'snational epic is a version of the story of Rama-Pandita, as recounted by Gotama Buddha in the Dasharatha Jataka called theRamakien,[165] translated from Pali and rearranged into Siamese verses. The importance of the Ramayana epic in Thailand is due to the Thai's adoption of the Hindu religio-political ideology of kingship, as embodied by Rama. The Siamese capital, Ayutthaya, was named after the holy city ofAyodhya, the city of Rama. Thai kings of the current dynasty from Rama VI forward, and retroactively, have been referred to as "Rama" to the present day (relations with the west caused the crown to seek a brief name to convey royalty to both Thais and foreigners, following European styles).
A number of versions of the Ramakien epic were lost in the destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767. Three versions currently exist. One of these was prepared under the supervision (and partly written by) KingRama I. His son,Rama II, rewrote some parts forkhon drama. The main differences from the original are an extended role for the monkey godHanuman and the addition of ahappy ending. Many of popular poems among the Thai nobles are also based on Indian stories. One of the most famous isAnirut Kham Chan which is based on an ancient Indian story of PrinceAnirudha.
In the Ayutthaya period, folktales also flourished. One of the most famous folktales is the story ofKhun Chang Khun Phaen (Thai:ขุนช้างขุนแผน), referred to in Thailand simply as "Khun Phaen", which combines the elements of romantic comedy and heroic adventures, ending in high tragedy. The epic ofKhun Chang Khun Phaen (KCKP) revolves aroundKhun Phaen, a Siamese general with superhuman magical powers who served the King of Ayutthaya, and his love-triangle relationship between himself, Khun Chang, and a beautiful Siamese girl named Wan-Thong. The composition of KCKP, much like otherorally-transmitted epics, evolved over time. It originated as a recitation orsepha within the Thai oral tradition from around the beginning of the 17th century (c. 1600). Siamesetroubadours andminstrels added more subplots and embellished scenes to the original story line as time went on.[166] By the late period of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, it had attained the current shape as a long work ofepic poem with the length of about 20,000 lines, spanning 43samut thai books. The version that exists today was composed withklon meter throughout and is referred to in Thailand asnithan Kham Klon (Thai:นิทานคำกลอน) meaning a 'poetic tale'.
The Ayutthaya Buddhist temple falls into one of two broad categories: thestupa-style solid temple and theprang-style (Thai:ปรางค์). The prangs can also be found in various forms in Sukhothai, Lopburi, Bangkok (Wat Arun). Sizes may vary, but usually the prangs measure between 15 and 40 meters in height, and resemble a towering corn-cob like structure.
Prangs essentially represent Mount Meru. In Thailand Buddha relics were often housed in a vault in these structures, reflecting the belief that the Buddha is a most significant being, having attained enlightenment and having shown the path to enlightenment to others.[167]
| Name | Picture | Built | Sponsor(s) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Palace,Phitsanulok |  | Built during theSukhothai period (1238–1438) | KingLi Thai ofSukhothai | Former royal residence of theFront Palaces of Ayutthaya: KingBorommatrailokkanat, and KingNaresuan. Used as a royal residence from the Sukhothai period until it was abandoned by Naresuan. |
| Wat Phanan Choeng |  | 1324 | King Sai Nam Peung of Ayodhya | Built 27 years before the founding of Ayutthaya; revered temple, still in use |
| Wat Phutthaisawan | | Before 1351 | KingUthong | Built before Ayutthaya was founded; birthplace of Thaikrabi-krabong sword fighting |
| Wat Thammikarat |  | Before 1351 | ||
| Wat Phra Si Sanphet | %2c_Ayutthaya%2c_Thailand.jpg) | 1351 | KingUthong | |
| Wat Yai Chai Mongkhon |  | 1357[168] | KingUthong[168] | |
| Wat Phra Ram |  | 1369 | KingRamesuan | |
| Wat Mahathat |  | 1374 | KingBorommarachathirat I | |
| Wat Ratchaburana | .jpg) | 1424 | KingBorommarachathirat II | |
| Front Palace, Ayutthaya |  | Main residence of theFront Palaces of Ayutthaya. Restored by KingMongkut. Currently houses theChan Kasem National Museum.[169] | ||
| Elephant Kraal Pavilion |  | 16th century[170] | Royal elephant kraal formerly used by Ayutthaya monarchs, one of the few still existing in Thailand. Used as an elephant camp today. | |
| Wat Na Phra Men |  | 1503[171] | KingRamathibodi II | One of the best preserved Ayutthaya temples. Survived theFall of Ayutthaya in 1767. Restored during the reign ofNangklao (r. 1824–51).[171] |
| Chedi Phukhao Thong | .jpg) | 1587 (rebuilt in 1744)[172] | Prince (later King)Naresuan KingBorommakot[172] | Built to commemorate a battle victory following Ayutthaya's liberation from Burma in 1584[172] |
| Wat Phra Phutthabat,Saraburi | .jpg) | 1624[173] | KingSongtham | Pilgrimage site inThailand up to the present. |
| Wat Chai Watthanaram |  | 1630 | KingPrasat Thong | |
| Prasat Nakhon Luang |  | 1631[174][175] | KingPrasat Thong | Mostly reconstructed during the reign of KingChulalongkorn. |
| King Narai's Palace,Lopburi |  | 1666 | KingNarai | Palace of King Narai from 1666 until his death in 1688 |
| Wat Kudi Dao |  | Before 1711[176] | Prince, later KingBorommakot[176] | A good example of 18th-century Late Ayutthaya architecture. Partially restored.[176] |
| Wat Ko Kaew Suttharam,Phetchaburi | | 1734[177] | KingBorommakot[177] | One of the best examples of 18th-century Ayutthaya temple (wat) murals |
| Wihan Phra Mongkhon Bophit | | Heavily renovated during the reign of KingBorommakot (r. 1733–1758) | KingBorommakot | Heavily damaged by the Burmese sack in 1767, the wihan's current appearance is largely from KingBorommakot's major renovations of the temple in the 18th century. Largely reconstructed in the mid-20th century.[178] |
Three clothing styles were evident in the Ayutthaya period. Each style depended on social class.
1. Court clothing (worn by the king, queen, concubines, and senior government officials):
2. Nobles (rich citizens):
3. Villagers:
.jpg)
The Thais never lacked a rich food supply. Peasants plantedrice for their own consumption and to pay taxes. Whatever remained was used to support religious institutions. From the 13th to the 15th centuries, however, a transformation took place in Thai rice cultivation. In the highlands, where rainfall had to be supplemented by a system of irrigation[179] to control water levels in flooded paddies, the Thais sowed the glutinous rice that is still the staple in the geographical regions of the north and northeast. But in the floodplain of the Chao Phraya, farmers turned to a different variety of rice – the so-calledfloating rice, a slender, non-glutinous grain introduced from Bengal – that would grow fast enough to keep pace with the rise of the water level in the lowland fields.[180]
The new strain grew easily and abundantly, producing a surplus that could be sold cheaply abroad. Ayutthaya, at the southern extremity of the floodplain, thus became the hub of economic activity. Under royal patronage, corvée labour dug canals on which rice was brought from the fields to the king's ships for export to China. In the process, the Chao Phraya delta – mud flats between the sea and firm land hitherto considered unsuitable for habitation – was reclaimed and cultivated. Traditionally the king had a duty to perform a religious ceremony to bless the rice planting.[180]
Although rice was abundant in Ayutthaya, rice exports were banned from time to time when famine occurred because of natural calamity or war. Rice was usually bartered for luxury goods and armaments from Westerners, but rice cultivation was mainly for the domestic market and rice export was evidently unreliable.
Ayutthaya officially usedcowrie shells,prakab (baked clay coins), andpod duang as currencies.Pod duang became the standard medium of exchange from the early-13th century to the reign of KingChulalongkorn.
Trade with Europeans was lively in the 17th century. In fact European merchants traded their goods, mainly modern arms such as rifles and cannons, for local products from the inland jungle such assappan (lit. 'bridge')[citation needed] woods, deerskin, and rice.Tomé Pires, a Portuguese voyager, mentioned in the 16th century that Ayutthaya, orOdia, was "rich in good merchandise". Most of the foreign merchants coming to Ayutthaya were European and Chinese, and were taxed by the authorities. The kingdom had an abundance of rice, salt, dried fish,arrack, and vegetables.[181]
Trade with foreigners, mainly theDutch, reached its peak in the 17th century. Ayutthaya became a main destination for merchants from China and Japan. It was apparent that foreigners began taking part in the kingdom's politics. Ayutthaya's kings employed foreign mercenaries who sometimes joined the wars with the kingdom's enemies. However, after the purge of the French in the late-17th century, the major traders with Ayutthaya were the Chinese. The Dutch from theDutch East Indies Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC), were still active. Ayutthaya's economy declined rapidly in the 18th century, until the Burmese invasion caused the total collapse of Ayutthaya's economy in 1767.[182]
In 1511, immediately after having conqueredMalacca, the Portuguese sent a diplomatic mission headed byDuarte Fernandes to the court of KingRamathibodi II of Ayutthaya. Having established amicable relations between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of Siam, they returned with a Siamese envoy who carried gifts and letters to the King of Portugal.[183] The Portuguese were the first Europeans to visit the country. Portuguese mercenaries would also play a major role in the invasion of Lanna in 1539 by KingChairachathirat, and Portuguese soldiers would be considered a respected fighting force for the Kingdom across its existence.[97]: 37 Five years after that initial contact, Ayutthaya and Portugal concluded a treaty granting the Portuguese permission to trade in the kingdom. A similar treaty in 1592 gave the Dutch a privileged position in the rice trade.
Foreigners were cordially welcomed at the court ofNarai (1657–1688), a ruler with a cosmopolitan outlook who was nonetheless wary of outside influence. Important commercial ties were forged with Japan. Dutch and English trading companies were allowed to establish factories, and Thai diplomatic missions were sent to Paris and The Hague. By maintaining these ties, the Thai court skillfully played off the Dutch against the English and the French, avoiding the excessive influence of a single power.[184]
In 1664, however, the Dutch used force to exact a treaty granting them extraterritorial rights as well as freer access to trade. At the urging of his foreign minister, the Greek adventurerConstantine Phaulkon, Narai turned to France for assistance. French engineers constructed fortifications for the Thais and built a new palace atLopburi for Narai. In addition, French missionaries engaged in education and medicine and brought the first printing press into the country. Louis XIV's personal interest was aroused by reports from missionaries suggesting that Narai might be converted to Christianity.[185]
The French presence encouraged by Phaulkon, however, stirred the resentment and suspicions of the Thai nobles and Buddhist clergy. When word spread that Narai was dying, a general,Phetracha (reigned 1688–1693) staged acoup d'état,the 1688 Siamese revolution, seized the throne, killed the designated heir, a Christian, and had Phaulkon put to death along with a number of missionaries. He then expelled the remaining foreigners. Some studies said that Ayutthaya began a period of alienation from European traders, while welcoming more Chinese merchants. But other recent studies argue that, due to wars and conflicts in Europe in the mid-18th century, European merchants reduced their activities in the East. However, it was apparent that the Dutch East Indies Company or VOC was still doing business in Ayutthaya despite political difficulties.[185]
Between 1405 and 1433, the ChineseMing dynasty sponsored a series ofseven naval expeditions.Emperor Yongle designed them to establish a Chinese presence, impose imperial control over trade, and impress foreign peoples in the Indian Ocean basin. He also might have wanted to extend thetributary system. It is believed that the Chinese fleet under AdmiralZheng He travelled up the Chao Phraya River to Ayutthaya on three occasions.
Meanwhile, a Japanesecolony was established in Ayutthaya. The colony was active in trade, particularly in the export of deer hides and saphan wood to Japan in exchange for Japanesesilver and Japanese handicrafts (swords, lacquered boxes, high-quality paper). From Ayutthaya, Japan was interested in purchasingChinese silks, as well asdeerskins and ray or shark skins (used to make a sort ofshagreen for Japanesesword handles andscabbards).[186]
The Japanese quarters ofAyutthaya were home to about 1,500 Japanese inhabitants (some estimates run as high as 7,000). The community was calledBan Yipun in Thai, and was headed by a Japanese chief nominated by Thai authorities.[187] It seems to have been a combination of traders,Christian converts (Kirishitan) who had fled their home country to various Southeast Asian countries following the persecutions ofToyotomi Hideyoshi andTokugawa Ieyasu, and unemployed former samurai who had been on the losing side at thebattle of Sekigahara.[187]
PadreAntónio Francisco Cardim recounted having administered the sacrament to around 400 Japanese Christians in 1627 in the Thai capital ofAyutthaya ("a 400 japoes christaos")[187] There were also Japanese communities inLigor andPatani.[188]
_by_Loubere_1691.jpg)
The amount to which Ayutthaya texts were destroyed in the Burmese sack of 1767 varies greatly. Van Vliet's written records on Siam is the earliest written history of Siam and Ayutthaya, which date from the early to mid 17th century and likely used the religious temple chronicles as his source. The earliest surviving palace chronicle is theLuang Prasoet chronicle, which dates from 1681. The histories of Ayutthaya was not regarded as important until the age of commerce and peace in the 17th and 18th centuries. Early Ayutthaya did not write down its history. The religious chronicles are also important to understanding Ayutthaya, which date as early as the 16th century. Early Ayutthaya did not write down its history. A significant portion of written evidence must therefore come from outside accounts. Aside from Van Vliet, a number of Europeans in the 17th and early 18th century wrote surviving accounts of Siam. The Chinese palace chronicles are also instrumental in analyzing Ayutthaya's history.[98]
TheAyutthaya Testimonies are another important account of the Ayutthaya Kingdom. Based on the testimonies of the former inhabitants of the Ayutthaya Kingdom and survived by three different documents, these accounts attests to the description of the city of Ayutthaya and the Ayutthaya Kingdom prior to and during its fall in 1767.
The history of the Ayutthaya Kingdom overall has been a neglected period of historiography in Thailand, as well as abroad, characterized by well-researched and popular histories of subperiods of Ayutthaya.Chris Baker andPasuk Phongpaichit's "A History of Ayutthaya: Siam In the Early Modern World", published in 2017, was the first English-academic book to have analyzed the full four hundred years of the Ayutthaya Kingdom's existence. The historiography of Southeast Asia originated from post-colonial capitals. As Thailand had never been fully colonized, it never had a European patron from which national histories could be written about themselves until the arrival of the Americans in the 1960s.[4][98]
In the early Rattanakosin period, KingRama I compiled all surviving Ayutthaya law records and published theThree Seals Law in 1805. Early Rattanakosin period documents traced their "national" origins to the founding of Ayutthaya in 1351. In the early 20th-century however, Thai elites, influenced by Western ideas of European nationalism and the nation state, used that framework to create a nationalist history of Thailand, implementing it in ways deemphasized Ayutthaya's importance to Thai history by portraying the Sukhothai Kingdom as the first "Thai" kingdom or golden age of "Thai-ness" (Buddhism, Thai-style democracy, free trade, abolition of slavery), Rattanakosin as the "rebirth", and Ayutthaya as a period of decline between Sukhothai and Rattanakosin. This resulted in Ayutthaya being largely forgotten in the historiography of Thailand for half a century following the works ofPrince Damrong in the early 20th century.[4][189]
The nationalist-themed histories of Ayutthaya, pioneered byPrince Damrong, primarily featured the stories of kings fighting wars and the idea of territorial subjugation of neighboring states. These historical themes remains influential in Thailand and in Thai popular history up until the present, which has only been challenged by a newer generation of historians and academics in Thailand and abroad starting in the 1980s, emphasizing the long-neglected commercial and economic aspects which were important to Ayutthaya. New released sources and translations from a variety of historical records (China, the Netherlands, etc…) have made the researching of Ayutthaya history more accessible in the past two and three decades.[98][190]
Since the 1970s, newer generations of academics have come up and challenged the old historiography, paying more attention and publishing works about the history of Ayutthaya, prominently beginning withCharnvit Kasetsiri's "The Rise of Ayudhya", published in 1977.[4][191][192][193] Kasetsiri, in 1999, argues that, "Ayutthaya was the first major political, cultural, and commercial center of the Thai."[4][194]
The idea that Ayutthaya suffered a decline following the departure of Europeans in the late 17th century was an idea popularized, at first, in the Rattanakosin court, in an attempt to legitimize the new dynasty over the Ayutthaya Ban Phlu Luang dynasty, and more famously byAnthony Reid's book on the "Age of Commerce" in recent decades. However, more recent studies, such as byVictor Lieberman in "Strange Parallels in Southeast Asia" and by Baker and Phongpaichit in "A History of Ayutthaya", have mostly refuted Reid's hypothesis, in particular Lieberman criticizing Reid's methodology of using the example of Maritime Southeast Asia to explain Mainland Southeast Asia, citing the opening of Qing China's revocation of its maritime ban and the subsequent increase in trade between China and Siam and Ayutthaya's historical importance as a regional Asian trade center rather than one in which Europeans held any power or any significant influence for any extended period of time.[130][191][195][4]
6:14–6:40
50:02–50:52
The spot on which the present capital stands, and the country in its vicinity, on both banks of the river for a considerable distance, were formerly, before the removal of the court to its present situation called Bang-kok; but since that time, and for nearly sixty years past, it has been named Sia yuthia, (pronounced See-ah you-tè-ah, and by the natives, Krung, that is, the capital;) it is called by both names here, but never Bang-kok; and they always correct foreigners when the latter make this mistake. The villages which occupy the right hand of the river, opposite to the capital, pass under the general name of Bang-kok.
TA-HTAUNG TA_YA HNIT-HSE SHIT-KHU DWARAWATI THEIN YA – 1128 year (= 1766 AD) obtained at the conquest of Dwarawati (= Siam). One may note that in that year the Burmese invaded Siam and captured Ayutthaya, the capital, in 1767.
Ayutthaya, they still named the kingdom after its former kingdom as "Krung Thep Dvaravati Sri Ayutthaya".
14:53
34:00–1:13:00
The traditional government system and social structure in Siam during this period was known as theSakdina system. All land was owned by the ruler who granted land to members of the royal family and the nobility according to their ranks in the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy.
This was a system of direct control over humans, rather than the use of land ownership to control labour….
Nevertheless, the Ayudhya kings, as they are described in indigenous and foreign records, never successfully eliminated the hegemony of provincial governors.
11:48–14:31
56:05
There are 18 versions ofRoyal Chronicles of Ayutthaya (Phongsawadan Krung Si Ayutthaya) known to scholars. See:Wyatt, David K. (1999).Chronicle of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya. Tokyo: The Center for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO, The Toyo Bunko. pp. Introduction, 14.ISBN 978-4-89656-613-0.
Some of these are available in Cushman, Richard D. (2000).The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya: A Synoptic Translation, edited by David K. Wyatt. Bangkok:The Siam Society.
These are Burmese historical accounts of Ayutthaya.
—Royal house — Ayutthaya dynasty Founding year:1351 | ||
| Preceded by | Ruling dynasty of the Ayutthaya Kingdom 1351–1767 | Succeeded by |
| Antiquity | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch | |||||||||||
| Initial states |
| ||||||||||
| Regional kingdoms |
| ||||||||||
| Regional history | |||||||||||
| Topical history | |||||||||||
| National | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
_1770_Bellin_Schley.jpg)
