SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IN THE PRE-COLONIAL
PERIOD (1780s-1850s)
Morragotwong Pftumplab*

This paper is a political and cultural history of the bilateral relations between
the Siamese and Vietnamese courts from the 1780s to the 1850s. Through the
examination of the diplomatic worldviews and outlooks of the respective courts, it
demonstrates how the Siamese and Vietnamese’s similar views towards interstate
relations affected their interactions. Both courts attempted to balance their equal
status as great kingdoms as well as joint-overlords. Their approach to diplomatic
relations with other countries largely followed a culturally hierarchical pattern between a superior and an inferior. Both courts defined themselves as a central and
powerful state dominating other small surrounding states.
Their diplomatic relationship, however, was the only exception to this
conceptualization of their geopolitical centrality, as Siam and Vietnam both
regarded and approached each other as equal great kingdoms. This was
contemplatable in principle, but hardly realizable in practice. Siam and Vietnam
struggled with this special arrangement because they both had never treated any
other foreign states as their equal. Siam and Vietnam maintained this diplomatic
relationship and understanding with great difficulty, especially when it came to
issues pertaining to the Cambodian and Lao kingdoms that became the peripheries
to the two states competing to be the center of the region.
This paper focuses on two aspects: (1) the political and cultural dimensions of
both courts’ perceptions of each other; (2) the entanglements between Bangkok and
Huế regarding court rituals and cultural strategies towards their vassal states that led
to shifts in their consciousness and attitudes within different contexts.
Introduction
The rise of powerful dynasties in Southeast Asia brought about interactions
among different societies with different kinds of politics and cultures, each desiring
* Lecturer, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand
595

A people’s worldview, as a collectively-held set of understandings and beliefs,
was a vital factor in shaping interstate diplomacy and determining the shifts in the
character of the relationship between Siam and Vietnam. The two societies hailed
from different cultural backgrounds - Indian cultural influences shaped Siamese
worldviews while China was a powerful influence on Vietnam. These divergent
influences contributed to the Siamese and Vietnamese conceptualization of tieir
identities and became the basis of each state's cultural expansion and political
formation. However, their worldviews were similar in spite of their diffe.-ing
cultural backgrounds and this similarity in turn led to diplomatic conflicts, which
escalated to military confrontation in some instances. Despite the cultural
differences, both thought that they were the center and the most powerful state in
1 Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century
Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 13.

596

Bali

(Princeton,


SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

the region. Additionally, they saw themselves as more superior to others. They
acted like a superior and treated others like inferiors; these were fundamentally
based on their own cultural identities.
Royal correspondence between Bangkok and Hue, as well as the courts’
records, showed the attitudes towards each other and their interaction. The
diplomatic rhetoric showed the evolution of their relations, attitudes and, in some
instances, hidden contradictions. The difference between the original letters



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

correspondence exchanged between the Siamese kings and the Vietnamese emperor
over incidents regarding the Cambodia and Lao tributaries also revealed that both
courts felt that, as joint overlords, they had to be benevolent towards their vassals.
For example, in the coưespondences between Rama II and Gia Long in 1811 over
Cambodia, the latter wrote that:
“The Vietnamese imperial court thinks that Cambodia was a subject (khc) of
the two great states (song phramahcinakhon yai). ... V ietnam could not ignore ind,

therefore, ordered Saigon governor to send troops to resolve the chaos in Cambtdia.
...Our Cambodian dependency can live happily.”1
Rama II replied:
“...As the desire to stop the chaos as the cause of the sending of troop; to
Cambodia by a governor of Saigon, Siam was not suspicious [of the intention OÍ the
Vietnamese court] since [both] are big states (song phramahanakhon) and we are
close friends. ...As we are big kingdoms, not like other small states [as it
guarantees], we can trust each other forever...”2
The Siamese and the Vietnamese courts acknowledged each other’s prestige as
benevolent overlords, especially when they had to deal with their vassals stites.
This significantly suggested the Siamese and Vietnamese mutual recognition of
equality, as indicated by the use of the term ‘sons, phramahanakhori (two big
states). However, in their court records, they recorded information about each ether
using hierarchically-toned language, attempting to demonstrate their )wn
superiority over the other.
From a vassal to a friendly peer: the Siamese perception of Vietnam
From a geopolitical perspective, the size of Siamese territory reachec its
largest during the reign of Rama I. Siam clearly defined itself as a suzerain over

and golden trees from Gia Định to Bangkok six times between 1788 and 1801.5 The
Siamese interpreted these gifts as tribute that evinced Nguyễn Anh’s acceptance of
his vassal status. After Nguyễn Ánh ascended the throne, Rama I initially sent a
crown to Gia Long in 1803, but Gia Long refused the conferment and returned it to
Bangkok. This shows Rama I’s perception of Gia Long as a vassal ruler, as this was
how the rulers of the other vassals were treated. When the new ruler ascended the
throne, the Siamese king would usually bestow a crown and/or make an oath of
allegiance. However, after Gia Long refused to accept the gift of a crown, Rama I
started to treat him as an equal and a close friend. Rama I replied to Gia Long thus:
“[The Emperor of Vietnam] accepted the presents for the Emperor, but [the
Emperor of Vietnam] arranged envoys to return a crown reasoning that a crown has
immeasurable; [I] have never been wearing it, I would like to return it [to you]. By
the way, the Emperor of Vietnam humbly to offer gifts [to me], it would hardly
arrange the returned presents following the correct traditional custom of [your]
country.”6 The Thai accounts did not exactly mention how Rama I felt to Gia
Long’s response. Rama I probably was just experimenting to see how far he could
1. P.R.R.I, pp. 121, 123, 131, 153.
2. The term “ khakhopkhanthasima” is a combination o f
“ khopkhanthasima” , which means “boundary” .

meaning “subject”, and

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

6. C.H. 1/2/1166 (1804C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long.

599


equal friend: “He [Gia Long] never sent silver and golden trees to Siam anymoie.”3
When Gia Long sent a letter to Rama I declaring that: “I finally could occupy -Iue
and ascend the throne as Gia Long,”4 Bangkok recorded that Gia Long defned
1. Lê Quý Đôn, Phủ biên tạp lục (Micellaneous Records of Pacification in the Border /re a )
(Hanoi: Social Sciences Publishing House, 1977), pp. 261-262. This letter was sent rom
Bangkok to Hue.
2. C.H.I/2/1 168 (1806C.E.) Letter from Rama I to Gia Long.
3. P.R.R.I, p. 174.
4.

Ibid.

600


SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

himself as a ruler o f a big state (Chao phean-din-yai).' Siam was, at first, careful
neither accept this definition nor to feel this change as Vietnamese arrogance. Siam
did not rush to pass a negative judgement on Vietnam because it waited to see how
Gia Long would behave. To Siam however, this implies that Gia Long had
distanced from Bangkok. Gia Long had made a transition, from being a dependent
vassal to a peer. In the records, Siam accepted that Gia Long’s ascension meant that
Vietnam would no longer be a Siamese vassal.
According to Thai records, the Nguyễn court took advantage of Siam’s
preoccupation with the war with Burma to expand its power over Cambodia and Lao
kingdoms. The growth of Nguyễn power in the region was swift and effective. No
conflict between Siam and Vietnam ensued, even though the Cambodian and Lao
kingdoms agreed to pay tribute to both courts, as they managed their diplomatic
relationship, based on mutual trust, honesty and prestige as big kingdoms, well. Royal

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

Although the Vietnamese court did not accept that Vietnam was a Siamese va:sal,
at that time he had to know what sending silver and golden trees meant.
In the Nguyễn chronicles, Nguyễn Anh defined Siam as a friendly peer. For
example, when Siam asked Gia Định to provide rice, he said: “To the Siamese, our
country is their friend. The people of Siam are also same as our people. The
Siamese are experiencing famine and hunger, how could we ignore them insteai of
giving them tenderly help’' 1
Vietnamese official records describe the attempt of Hue court to cstallish
good diplomatic relations with the Bangkok court. In 1809, Gia Lone mentioned to
his court that “Siam and our country have friendly relations.5'2 Similar to Sam,
Vietnam also employed the same concept as seen in the letter from Gia Lon; to
Rama II in 1811, which stated: “[Vietnam] sends this letter to Bangkok folloving
our friendly relations and seeks news about the Siamese king and Uparacha [I]
wish that both prosper more and more. And [I] give tribute (bannakan) tc an
ambassador for preserving our friendship; the two big kingdoms (phramahanah.on)
were on the same stretch o f territory (phaendin diew kan) and had long frieidiy
relations since the past till now.”3 Although the term bannakan suggested
submission, this case was perhaps an exception, especially since the mes;age
contained no other term or word acknowledging inferiority. There was no ether
example of such language except for this word.
Within a few decades, Vietnam expanded its territory to its largest ever,
especially during the reign of Minh Mạng. The rivalry with Siam over vassal.1 led
Vietnam to confirm its power and sovereignty in the region. In the court’s leters,
the Hue court showed its friendship to Siam by expressing concern about the
Siamese-Burmese war. In the eyes of Vietnam, Siam and Burma were longime
enemies of each other.4 Minh Mạng told the Siamese ambassador that “í t 'Birina
was invaded or fought with other countries such as Britain, it is good lor iiam
because the court will not be troubled with the Burmese threat anymore.”5 The

closer to the Hue court during Rama IPs reign. About this time, Minh Mạng
expanded Nguyễn power in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms. The personal attitudes
and leadership styles of the Chakri kings and the Nguyễn emperors partly
influenced the changes in the character of their relationship.
Vietnamese policies of expansionism led to new perceptions about each other,
which became marked by hostility, antagonism and rivalry. The reigns of Rama III
and Minh Mạng marked a turning point as their views of each other shifted from
friends to rivals, or in some instances, enemies. Issues over Cambodia and Lao
kingdoms led to distrust in their diplomatic relations.
From the perspective of the Siamese court, it was the vassal states’ rulers who
generally decided the level of their overlord’s involvement. The Bangkok court
thought that when Cambodia gravitated towards whichever of the two sides which it
assessed as m ore p o w e rfu l.1 B u t i f both kingdom s w ere seen as eq u ally pow erful,

Cambodia would accept being one vassal under two overlords. The Siamese was
agreeable to be joint-overlords with the Vietnamese.
Arguably, the main reason was that Bangkok was concerned with the Burmese
threat, even though the court also realized that the Nguyễn court tried to reclaim its
power over Cambodia and Lao states because the latter believed that these cities
used to be under Vietnamese domination. The Vietnamese expansion started after
Gia Long’s enthronement. He spread the news to Cambodia and other cities to show
that Vietnam had restored its territory, set itself free from the Tây Sơn and become
as powerful as before. However, Siam still believed that Gia Long dared not commit
any transgressions while Rama I was still alive.2
Prom the Siamese perspective, the events following the death of Rama I
clearly showed Vietnamese intention to reclaim suzerainty over Cambodia. During
1. P.R.R.2(Dam-l), p. 61.
2. Ibid., p. 72.

603

negotiations. The relationship between the two courts can be seen from the
diplomatic court rituals. The Siamese and the Vietnamese court created diplomatic
ceremonies to illuminate their status to as powerful states, for example through the
welcome ceremonies for envoys, the exchange of presents, the bestowal of regalia,
and the royal cremation.
1. P . R . R . Ỉ I , p. 19.

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

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

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

6 . ĐNTL (Volume 2), p. 6.
604


SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS...

Some issues about court rites and differing customs caused conflicts between
the Siamese and the Vietnamese courts. The differences between the Indianized and
Sinicized cultures affected the rituals of court and different ways of interaction
between them. In some ways, the manner in which diplomatic missions were treated
signified the warmth of relations between the two courts.
Protocol and ceremonies have a dual function: they can be used to honor
someone, but also to reinforce a hierarchical relationship or a position of superior
authority. This would certainly be true in the case of Siam and Vietnam. With
regard to court rituals and protocol, the Bangkok court mostly adopted the luxurious


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

Vietnamese envoy during Rama II’s reign and how Siam was very respectful and
towards the Vietnamese. He narrated that, “The Ambassadors were feasted on the
way, serenaded with Siamese music, and amused with gymnastic and theatrical
performances, wherever they rested.. .There were not less than twelve or thirteen
gilded barges, each rowed, or rather paddled, by twenty-five to fifty boatmen, vho
were uniformly dressed in scarlet, and who pulled with great animation, keeping
time to a Siamese song.”1 Thai sources also mentioned that “In 1810, Vietnamese
envoys were welcomed with full honors because the Siamese court arranged for a
welcome procession from Samutprakan and also allowed their ambassador to iT.eet
Rama II everyday like the Siamese officials.”2
For Siam and Vietnam, funeral ceremonies were important rituals '.hat
signified the goodwill between the two courts. Furthermore, the envoys for rcyal
funerals and coronations between Siam and Vietnam also engaged in diplomitic
discussion over issues and conflicts at these ceremonies, in what could be termed as
“funeral diplomacy”.
Royal funerals were an important occasion for both courts to reinforce their
respective diplomatic status. Gia Long sent a mission and presents from Hue to
express his sorrow and condolences upon the death of Rama I in 1809. The new, of
the death of Gia Long's mother in 18Ỉ1 was disseminated from Hue, and Rami II
showed his court's friendship by sending royal letters and presents to Gia L)ng
saying that Siam and Vietnam always shared their suffering and happiness.4
The cremation notifications from Bangkok were sometimes interpreted for
hidden meanings by the Nguyễn court. While the Nguyễn mandarins g'ew
suspicious about the death of the Siamese elites, Gia Long believed that the royal
announcement of their funerals did not bear any hidden meanings or implications.5
The reason why the mandarins were suspicious of these messages was possbly
because they thought the messages were written in the style of an overord

used this Chinese precedent as an excuse because it helped Vietnam to preserve its
sense of superiority. It was, therefore, a special exception Vietnam was making for
Siam as a purportedly inferior country. However, the Bangkok court never
reciprocated Minh Mang’s gesture for the funerals of Vietnamese emperors or
Vietnamese royal families.
The Huế court also reported the funeral of the previous emperor to Bangkok.
In 1820, Minh Mạng sent an envoy to Bangkok to announce Gia Long's death and
his succession to the throne. The Vietnamese ambassador was forced to accept the
Siamese court custom when Rama II made a generous gift of gold to express
bereavement. However, when the Vietnamese envoy returned to Hue, Minh Mạng
was furious at his acceptance of the gift as he thought it was against Vietnamese
court traditions which did not allow as the acceptance of presents in the color
yellow or gold. The presents must usually be wrapped in or made from red
material.4 The reason why Minh Mạng was very angry was perhaps these presents
were inappropriate for the Vietnamese emperor to accept as it implied that the
Emperor of Vietnam was following the Siamese royal rites. It was possible that
there was a misunderstanding, because yellow was the preferred royal color in Siam
but while it was red in Vietnam, and the ambassador was supposed to follow

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

Vietnam and the Chinese Model, p.

260.

4. Ibid.

607

the officials in Saigon reported to Hue that “The Vietnamese mandarins found .hat
the contents of the letter from Siam contained many boastful words. When that
Vietnamese mandarin told the Siamese ambassador that the Siamese ambassador
was being arrogant, the Siamese ambassador denied it and said that the Vietnanese
mandarin was harming Siam-Vietnam friendly relations.”2 Normally, for the
Nguyễn court, this type of letter would be rejected. Gia Long however accepted the
letter on the basis of the long friendship with Siam. On this issue, Gia Long replied:
“the Bangkok court could not write the Chinese script. It was entirely the mistake of
1.Đ N T L (Volume 2), p. 383.
2.

608

ĐNTL (Volume 1), pp. 770-771.


SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

the Chinese who came alone with the envoy. Actually, when the Siamese court
wrote to Vietnam, it used a Chinese translator who did not know the form of
Chinese court customs well.” This was possibly a convenient excuse for Gia Long
to explain the inappropriate terminology in the letter. He was probably being sincere
and wanted to justify the Siamese attitudes through his experience in Bangkok and
knowledge of the Siamese court rites. It shows that distortions and mistakes that
even the courts did not deliberately intend for might have occurred during the
translation of the letters. It is especially the use of the terminology which probably
has sensitive meanings and significant effects on the state of their bilateral relations.
To Siam, the written form of the letter required by the Nguyễn court became a
source of criticism. Rama III was very angry when Minh Mạng sent a letter
mentioning that, “From now on, whenever the Vietnamese emperor sends letter to

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

Other states who knew Chinese that Siam was afraid of Vietnam’s power. In the
eyes of the Siamese, if Rama III acceded to the request, the Siamese vassals would
possibly believe that Vietnam dominated Siam or, at the very least, that Siam was
eager to please Vietnam. That would entail an infringement of Siamese prestige.
Rama III also felt that this was only a matter of prestige for Vietnam.1
The two requests were important factors for Rama III to change his perception
of the Vietnamese court. The Bangkok court also expected that the Vietnamese
court would give honor and prestiee following the form that was practiced before
Minh Mang's request. Rama III stated: “I had never seen any ruler like the emperor
of Vietnam. He intended to break our diplomatic relationship.”2 Furthermore, Minh
Mạng also wished to alter the customary diplomatic rules. He compared Minh Mạng
with Gia Long by sayine that, “the previous emperor followed the rules of
diplomacy and was friendly and smooth in his treatment of Siam. In contrast, this
emperor seems to insult the Kingdom of Siam.”3
This incident caused much tension between the two courts. The Bangkok court
felt that Vietnam was condescending towards Siam, and no other state would treat
them like Vietnam had, not even Burma, the Western states and other vassals.4
Finally, Rama III concluded that Siam should no longer remain friendly v/ith
Vietnam.5
The exchange of presents between the two courts was part of the diplomatic
relationship. Gifts and royal regalia contained diplomatic meanings. For Siam, the
roval regalia w e e important in signifying the status of Siamese patronage. When
Rama I sent regalia to Gia Long, the Vietnamese emperor did not accept the crown.
He returned it to Siam. The Vietnamese court mentioned that the crown was exaited
and Gia Long had not been wearing it. Rama I mentioned: “Regarding the
Vietnamese emperor returning a present [a crown] back to Bangkok; [the Siamese
court] also found that it is difficult to choose a suitable present to send to the
Vietnamese court following. Vietnamese customs.

prescribed format. Furthermore, the royal message that Rama II sent to Minh Mạng
seemed to indicate his seniority vis-a-vis Minh Mạng.1 The gifts were decorated in
gold or yellow, i.e. a golden betel box, a golden spittoon, a golden pipe. All were
presents that the Siamese king customarily bestowed upon vassals and his officials.
The Bangkok court also sent money as donations to charities.2
This was a serious issue among the Nguyễn court. To the Vietnamese, it had
never happened before in diplomatic history. Finally, Minh Mạng allowed Lê Văn
Duyệt to make the decisions. Lê Văn Duyệt eventually won the argument, although
Minh Mạng did not agree with him. It was probably because Minh Mạng felt that
this big issue was unprecedented and because he did not want to get implicated as
the majority of Vietnamese mandarins in Hue court also criticized the Siamese. Lê
Văn Duyệt interpreted that the gifts as symbolizing Siamese condescension and
expression of superiority. He thought that, if the Vietnamese court accepted the
presents, Vietnam would probably lose prestige; but if the court did not accept, it
would harm the goodwill with Siam.3 Minh Mạng thought that Siam and Vietnam
were foreign countries, and the Nguyễn court should not disregard them. Finally, Lê
Văn Duyệt returned all the presents to the Siamese envoy.
1. Anamwat, Khwam Samphan, p. 40.
2. ĐNTL (Volume 2), p. 83.
3. Ibid.
611


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

The Siamese ambassador explained that Siam was a Buddhist kingdom. The
king felt that those were valuable and fit gifts to give to the Neuyễn emperor. As for
the money that the Bangkok court donated for charity, the ambassador answered
that this followed the customs of Siam because the Buddhists believed thev wculd
sain merit if they engaged in charity.1 From this incident, Minh Mane voiced his

3. Nhu viễn, p. 275 and Kulab, Anam-Siam Yuth, pp. 147-150.
4. Ibid., pp. 153-155.

612


SIAM’S AND VIETNAM’S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

Conversely, the Bangkok court arranged for the ambassadors of other countries to
meet Rama III.
From the Siamese perspective, Siam had remained magnanimous in honoring
their Iona relationship even thoueh Vietnam had invaded many Siamese teưitories
of Siam, and some of their vassals had also accepted Vietnamese overlordship.
Rama III thus thought that the generosity of the Bangkok court had led the Nguyễn
court to believe Siam was afraid of Vietnam and that the Vietnamese were deeming
their Kmperor to the greatest emperor in this world.1
Furthermore, Rama III mentioned that the Vietnamese actually denigrated
Siam as an inferior vassal, even though they behaved like a close friend.2 These
affronts gave Siam the pretext and opportunity to declare war with Vietnam. When
Vietnam sent a propaganda letter to publicize how Siam had initially severed the
diplomatic relationship with Vietnam and initiated the conflict, Siam defended itself
by sending a letter in both Chinese and Thai to the Cambodian and Lao vassal
cities, describing how Vietnam had slandered Siam.
Siam may have been the only country with which the Vietnamese had
relations with that was neither an overlord (China) nor a vassal (Cambodia and Lao
kingdoms). Officially, the Vietnamese did not call the Siamese “barbarians.”
However the term was used in exceptional occasions when, for instance,
Vietnamese emperor or generals were angry at them. For example, Minh Mạng
criticized Siamese troops before his army in 1834 during the war, remarking that
“the barbarian Siamese were many times defeated by our troops...”3 It was difficult

Khurusapha, 1968. [P.R.R.2(Dam-2)]
Kulab. Amm-Sayam Yuth (The Vietnamese-Siamese War). Bangkok: Khosit, 2007.
Krom Silapakorn (Fine Arts Department). Nangsu Prachum Phongsawadan Chabap
Kanjanaphisek, Lem 12 (The Collection of Thai Chronicles Kanjanapisek Edition, Volume
12). Bangkok: Khanakammakan Chalongphithi Kanchanaphisek, 2006. [P.C.K.12]
615


VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN THỬ TƯ

Thipakornw ongse. Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Rattcinakosin Ratchakcin Thi

Neung (Chronicles of the First Reign of the Rattanakosin Period). Bangkok: Khlar.g

Wittaya, 1962. [P.P.R.I]
Thipakoraw ongse. Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Rattcmakosin Ratchakan Till

Song (Chronicles o f the Second Reign of the Rattanakosin Period). Bangkok: Khrurusaphi,
1961. [P.P.R.II]
Thipakoraw ongse. Phongwadan Krung Rattanakosin Ratchakan thi 2 (tuci khien)

(Chronicles of the Second Reign of the Rattanakosin Period (manuscript version), edited
by Naruemon Thuravvat. Bangkok: Amarin, 2005.
Thipakorawongse. Phraratchapongsawadan Krung Ruttanakosin Ratchakan Tin Sam
(Chronicles of the Third Reign of the Rattanakosin Period). Bangkok: K hurusapha, 1961.
[P.P.R.Ill]

Krom Sinlapakorn (Department of Fine Arts). Prachum Phraratchaniphon
Phrabatsomdet Phranangklao Chaoyuhua (Collected of R a m a Ill's Royal Writings).


ĐỖ Thanh Bình and Nguyễn Am. “Quan hệ Đại Nam - Xiêm nữa cuối thế kỷ XIX
(The Reltaions betw een Đại N am and Siam in the second h a lf o f the N ineteenth Century),”
Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Đông N a m A (Journal of Southeast Asian Researchi), 2(1994).
L ê Q u ý Đ ô n . P h ủ b iê n tạp lụ c (M is c e lla n e o u s R e c o r d s o f P a c ific a tio n in the B o r d e r

Area). Hànội: Social Sciences Publishing House, 1977.
N gaosyvathn, M a y o u ry and Ngaosyvathn, Pheuiphanh. Vietnamese Source M aterials

concerning The 1827 Conflict between the Court o f Siam and the Lao Principalitues (Vol. I

Introduction, Translation, Han-nom text). Tokyo: Komiyama Printing Co., Ltd., 2001.
N guyễn Sỹ Tuấn, “N a m Bộ trong mối quan hệ giữa chúa N g u y ễ n với C hân Lạp và
Xiêm từ thế kỷ XVII đến thế kỷ X IX (Trong cách nhìn của m ột số tác giả C am puchia)
[The South in the relationship betw een the N guyễn lord with C am bodia and Siam from the
seventeenth century to th e nineteenth century (From the view o f som e C am bodian
s c h o la rs )]” , in

Một so van để lịch sử vùng đất Nam Bộ đến cuối thế kỷ X IX

[S o m e issues

about Southern history up to the end o f nineteenth century]. Hanoi: T he Giới Publishing
House, 2009.
Phạm N guyên Long. “ Cuộc khởi nghĩa chống ách thống trị X iêm La của C hân dân
Lào dưới sự lãnh đạo của Châu A -N u (1827-1828) (The Liberation o f Laos under the

Leading of Anouvong from Siamese Domination)”, in Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Lịch sử
(Journal of Historv of Research, 1(1972): 11-21.
Viện Sử học, V iệ n K hoa học xã hội Việt N a m (Institute o f H istory Studies,


Eiland, M ichael Dent. “ Dragon and Elephant: Relations betw een V ietnam and S ara,
1782-1847” . The G eorge W ashington U niversity, 1989.
Chapuis, Oscar. A History of Vietnam: from H o ng Bang to Tu Due. W estport, Ctnn.:
G reenwood Press, 1995.

Choi, Byung Wook. Southern Vietnam under the reign o f Minh Mạng (1820-1841):

central policies and local response.

Ith a c a ,

N ew

Y o rk :

S o u th e a s t

A s ia

P rogram

Publication, 2004.
Cooke, Nola. “ Southern R egionalism and the C om position o f the N g uyen Riling
Elite” in Asian Studies Review, 23,2 (1999): 205-231.
Crawfurd, John. Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochmcbina.
London: Oxford U niversity Press, 1967.
F i n l a y s o n , G e o r g e . The m issio n to S ia m , a n d H u e , the c a p ita l o f C o c h in C h in a in the

years 1821-1822 : from the journal of the late George Finlayson, Esq. with a memoir of
the author by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. London: J. M urray, 1826.