Nothing said here is wrong, per se. But it paints a misleading picture because it doesn't mention the nature of the "Great Game" at the time, where Siam was a Anglo-French buffer state (London Declaration of 1896 - Formalized the matter). It also understates just how much territory (by area, if not by cultural significance), it lost to the French and British in the later half of the 19th century.
Though, I like the irony that the article tacitly admits that the Thai performed colonialism on itself. (Eliminating Lanna, the Lao Principalities, and Patani.)
Ramkhamhaeng Stele: "Whoever wants to trade in horses does so, whoever wants to trade in silver and gold does so."
We shouldn't understate Mongkut's genius for creating the myth his nation needed, when they needed it.
One thing I appreciate this piece calling attention to is the ‘appreciation for the western idea of progress’. I’m curious what we think the main mechanic of change tends to be once that idea takes hold. Is it the active fostering of progress-adjacent institutions? Or is it the willingness to let go of (or reject, or let erode) status-quo-preserving instincts and intuitions that break the inflection of progress before it takes wing?
The survival of Siamese sovereignty against European imperialism serves as a masterclass in strategic statecraft, echoing several principles outlined in Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power:
1) Law 44 — Mirror Effect: Adopt the language, customs, and even the worldview of your powerful adversary to disarm rather than confront him.
2) Law 22 — Surrender Tactic: When too weak to resist, concede strategically, buy time and preserve what matters.
3) Law 18 — Don’t Isolate Yourself: Engage with the outside world, gather intelligence, cultivate relationships—and avoid giving a stronger power an excuse to define you as backward or hostile.
So far so good.
Thailand's alliance with the United States during the Vietnam War, and what happened to it after the Americans withdrew in the mid-1970s, raises the question: Was modern Thailand less successful at preventing economic and cultural dependence (read: colonialism) from taking root?
Nothing said here is wrong, per se. But it paints a misleading picture because it doesn't mention the nature of the "Great Game" at the time, where Siam was a Anglo-French buffer state (London Declaration of 1896 - Formalized the matter). It also understates just how much territory (by area, if not by cultural significance), it lost to the French and British in the later half of the 19th century.
Though, I like the irony that the article tacitly admits that the Thai performed colonialism on itself. (Eliminating Lanna, the Lao Principalities, and Patani.)
Ramkhamhaeng Stele: "Whoever wants to trade in horses does so, whoever wants to trade in silver and gold does so."
We shouldn't understate Mongkut's genius for creating the myth his nation needed, when they needed it.
Wow! This was a brilliant way to summarise development theory by way of example.
A fascinating article, there is too little written in the U.K. about Thailand’s history and politics.
One thing I appreciate this piece calling attention to is the ‘appreciation for the western idea of progress’. I’m curious what we think the main mechanic of change tends to be once that idea takes hold. Is it the active fostering of progress-adjacent institutions? Or is it the willingness to let go of (or reject, or let erode) status-quo-preserving instincts and intuitions that break the inflection of progress before it takes wing?
The survival of Siamese sovereignty against European imperialism serves as a masterclass in strategic statecraft, echoing several principles outlined in Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power:
1) Law 44 — Mirror Effect: Adopt the language, customs, and even the worldview of your powerful adversary to disarm rather than confront him.
2) Law 22 — Surrender Tactic: When too weak to resist, concede strategically, buy time and preserve what matters.
3) Law 18 — Don’t Isolate Yourself: Engage with the outside world, gather intelligence, cultivate relationships—and avoid giving a stronger power an excuse to define you as backward or hostile.
So far so good.
Thailand's alliance with the United States during the Vietnam War, and what happened to it after the Americans withdrew in the mid-1970s, raises the question: Was modern Thailand less successful at preventing economic and cultural dependence (read: colonialism) from taking root?
This article makes me wonder what is taught in UK schools today, about their history of imperialist conquest and colonialism.
What was significance of Siam's gift of an elephant to Photus Lincoln?
Trick em on their own terms. Brilliant.