Talk:First Anglo-Burmese War

Point of View issue

This article, like other two Anglo-Burmese war articles, seems to be pro-British.

207.200.116.68 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)This should not be a surprise, look down to see: Article incorporates text from 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

The article reads marginally POV - though I wouldn't say it was explicitly pro-British - and certainly doesnt meet Wiki standards; too much is derived from a dated historical source lacking sufficient comparative analysis.Simmyymmis 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For this particular war, its difficult to take the sort of comparative analysis you suggest seriously. The Burmese had by the time of the war invaded Arakan and conscripted a large part of its population as slave labour and were in the process of doing the same in Assam and Manipur. They were raiding over the British frontier. No credible source can really take the Burmese side because their behavior was indefensable. The second and third anglo-burmese wars can be successfully covered by compartive analysis, but not the first.

• I accept the point you are making here, and it does seem reasonable. In order to avoid a hapless conflict on the details, it would probably be a good idea if a few more historical sources could be listed to back up the narrative in general / dispel patriotic-inspired re-writes of history.Simmyymmis 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes

The causes of the first anglo burmese war seems to be factually inaccurate.

For this particular war, its factually accurate. The Burmese Kingdom was at war with almost everything around it. This war, on every basis, is much different than the two later wars with the british.

As historians views, there are immediate and remote causes. Burmese army attacking on the Arakan and Assam which is closed to the British India is assumed as one of the immediate causes.

This article is pro-British

In my opnion, this article is clearly pro-British.

Examples:

1) "Burmese had engaged in an expansionist ..." - British also did it on a much larger scale.

Yes. But in the case of this particular war the British were not the aggressive force. Its unreasonable to excuse what the Burmese were doing because the British were doing other things elsewhere. The Burmese were killing and enslaving Arakanese who were fleeing for safety to British controlled territory. To hold that somehow the Burmese are good people in what they were doing is wrong.

2) "They apparently were not aware of the tactics, discipline and resources of the Europeans, and thus were not cautious about entering a war ..." - implies European supremacy. It may be interpreted as - Europeans were so powerful, and Asians should never contend with them.

No. It implies the stupidity of attacking a neighbor far more powerful than you are and which you have little hope of

defeating. Burmans are not all Asians. If Asians are going to contend with Europeans, there are better alternatives than launching the country on an unwinnable war in the defense of the right of Asians to conquer and enslave other Asian peoples.

3) "its policy of demanding slave labour from Arakan for projects inside Burma ..." - seems like a British propaganda. No historical evidence. There is no large Arakanese settlement inside Burma (other than in Arakan State itself) today. If there were such enslavements and relocations of Arakanese, there should be some sizable Arakan communities inside Burma today. It was true U Than Dee and his people fled from Burmese-occupied Arakan. But it was/is natural for any defeated people/soldiers to run away and later plan to fight back the occupying forces from a friendly territory. It does not necessarily mean that they fled because Burmese tortured or enslaved Arakanese on a large sacle.

This is all historical fact. The destruction of the independent kingdom of Arakan was a catastrophy that is well documented. And I can guess whose propoganda on this matter what you are saying seems like. The thing about working people to death is that they don't tend to form communities afterward. They just leave an empty homeland behind them. From your comments, you seem to be far less concerned with the British than with taking the side of the majority in Burma against its other peoples.

4) "The British had for the previous thirty years attempted to negotiate some form of peace or stability ..." - gives an impression that British were the peace lovers and Burmese were the attackers. There is no historical evidence that the British had proposed a non-aggression pact or something like that before the war.

Have you ever bothered to read any books on the subject? The British left the Burmese alone to conquer and loot territories right up to the point where they started crossing into their territories before the war started. There is a lengthy historical record of the British attempting to negotiate over any number of issues between them for at least thirty years before the first war while the Burmese were conquering their neighbors.

In my opinion, it would be fair to say that both the British and the Burmese were to be blamed for this war. This was a conflict caused by greed. Both sides were interested and wanted to influence the areas of Assam and Manipur, and finally a dispute and a war ensued. (Zeyar Aung)

that doesn't work. There wasn't a British plan to expand into Burma. Even after the war, they argued among themselves over if they should keep the territories. The second and third wars are very different and it is reasonable to attack the British for their behavior there, but the first war was the direct result of a Burmese army attacking all the neighboring people in the region.

changes in causes of the war

Material was introduced into the article in an attempt to shift the reasons for the war to "anglo-french rivalry". The source provided (Hall) does not support making that claim in the way it appeared in the article. While French influence was of great importance in later wars, it was a marginal issue in the first one. It can be listed as "a" cause with proper support, but going so far as to call it the primary cause is inaccurate. The French were not even in Indochina as of yet. There was also an attempt to diminish the effect of the refugee crisis in the war.

The Burmese kingdom of the early 1800s was not some sort of peaceful country, it was an aggressive military state that attacked and conquered its neighbors including states such as Rakhine. Not every war that a country (including Burma) fights is a good war for the right reasons.

168.127.0.51 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself cos somebody's definitely pro-British. Nobody's trying to exonerate the Burmese and D G E Hall was cited correctly: see pp96-97 re Anglo-French rivalry at the time of Michael Symes's mission [1], and also pp78-82 at the time of Alaungpaya described in detail also by Michael Symes in the introduction to his own account[2]. What you did was nothing short of vandalism erasing Hall's "Burma" (1960,Hutchinson University Library) from References altogether. Getting rid of the evidence perhaps? Wagaung 22:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down and stop throwing around wild accusations. If we have to go through this point-by-point, I guess I will. First point:

• It is important to note that the Burmese in these wars were advancing into smaller states not ruled by the British or the subject of expansionary goals by the British before the war began, and the British were not so much preoccupied by the refugee problem initially than by the threat posed by the French until further incidents forced their hand.[2]

Please cite exactly where Hall says or implies that the "British were not so much preoccupied by the refugee problem initially".

As to your sources:

[3]

The Symes mission was twenty years before the war. You are also selectively ignoring material that is completely opposed to your ideas. For example:

• "Cox warned the Government of India that, if the Arakanese frontier question were not settled according to their wishes, the Burmese threatened to invade Bengal and that they were actually planning intervention in Assam".

In fact, the source goes on to show that the refugee problem was important. Look at pp 97-98.

I would suggest that you should also take a look at "Europe and Burma" by Hall (1945 - Oxford University Press). See especially Chapter 10 (Arakan Frontier Question) - Chapter 12.

A quote from Hall about the leadup to the war:

"Throughout the period leading up to the war the Burmese were busy intriguing with Indian princes with the object of making a combined attack on the British."

"It was in Assam that the really decisive steps toward war were taken"

(both p. 109 - Hall "Europe and Burma")

Hall does not support your ideas about the war and the current material on the page substaintially misrepresents his views as a historian.

As I said before, you need to find sources for what you put on the page backed by what the authors actually said. Show me where Hall blames the British for the 1820s war. Or where Hall says that the main cause of the war was anglo-french rivalry. 64.12.116.8 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you overreact despite your kind advice for me to calm down. A bit oversensitive perhaps about a perceived attack on the British. I have hoped I do not have to repeat myself saying nobody is trying to exonerate the Burmese; they did provoke the war and they paid for it literally and metaphorically.. Hall did not put the blame on the British and nor did I. And nobody said the main cause of the war was Anglo-French rivalry. So the lady doth protest too much. But some of us may not want to see the wood for the trees. And talk about selective citation:[4]

• Answer to your first point: the main body of p96 goes thus - "The Arakan frontier incident was seen mainly as a disturbing factor which might lead King Bodawpaya to grant the French the hospitality of his harbours, and thus open the way for an extension of their influence in his country. Calcutta either failed to grasp or deliberately shut its eyes to the fact that the presence of thousands of Arakanese refugees in the Chittagong area constituted a problem that must be firmly tackled, otherwise further difficulties were bound to arise which might ruin any diplomatic approaches to the Court of Ava. The experience of the War of American Independence was still fresh in Sir John Shore's mind. French activities had at one time seriously threatened the British position in India. French ships built or repaired in Burmese harbours had proved extemely dangerous to English shipping. And though during the war the French dockyard at Rangoon had had to be abandoned, it was known that Bussy had suggested to his home government that Burma was the best base from which the British in Bengal might be attacked."
• Again p97 - "But his (Symes's) main injunctions were to seek to remove the causes of misunderstanding over the Arakan frontier incident, and to deprive the French the use of Burmese harbours."

Granted Symes's mission to Ava was 25 years before the war and 35 years since Alaungpaya, but the paragraph concerned in the article begins with British efforts over a period of 30 years,no less, to achieve peace and stability on the eastern frontier of British India which merits some expansion, no pun intended. And I did say 'initially', and that the British had their hand forced in the end by further incidents. Wagaung 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Technology?

It would be interesting to know what kind of weaponry and tactics the combatants used. For the British that might be obvious, except for the amount of artillery they managed to get there. In the moment it reads more like a novel.Hirsch.im.wald 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---

It is amusing -and sad to come across a fine piece of British Hate tucked away here....

All anyone needs to now about the British whether in Burma India Ireland or anywhere is one simple fact....

All nations have lived under the rule of another nation or empire (the British were ruled by the Roman Empire for 400 years and by French kings for 200 years)

The only question that needs to be asked therefore is-which empire would you wish to live under?-the Turkish Persian Spanish Russian German French Portugese etc--or British?

Im afraid the answer is obvious and its that that makes people so angry!

And regarding Burma I wonder how many Burmese actually wish the British were back-and how many other people in Africa and the rest of the world have the same feelings!

Sorry,but thats how it is!Winston1911 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Winston1911, I don't know who the hell you are, but I've never heard it said better than that. You're my hero. Here here! [Ata] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.98.59 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in First Anglo-Burmese War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of First Anglo-Burmese War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rlf-112":

• From Maha Bandula: Myint-U, River of Lost Footsteps, p. 112
• From Nanmadaw Me Nu: Thant Myint-U (2006). The River of Lost Footsteps--Histories of Burma. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-374-16342-6, 0-374-16342-1. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• From Bagyidaw: Thant Myint-U (2006). The River of Lost Footsteps--Histories of Burma. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 112–113. ISBN 978-0-374-16342-6, 0-374-16342-1. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Wagaung (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)