|Naresuan has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Naresuan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 June 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/June.||
Biography assessment rating comment
The article is full of unsourced claims and legends, for such an important figure in the history of Southeast Asia. I urge editors to write a well-researched, balanced article worthy of this figure.
First, I can start with Burma-related claims:
- In the lead, "Siam reached its greatest territorial extent and influence" is demonstrably false. That title, I'm fairly certain, belongs to Rama III. (See Wyatt 2003: 155-159). In order for Naresuan to have controlled the largest Siamese empire, he must have, as per the Thai school books that Naresuan controlled all of Lower Burma up to Taungoo (Toungoo) and the entire Shan states. But that's not accepted history in academic circles. The part of Shan states he controlled was Lan Na, nothing else. Toungoo and Lower Burma? Just having marched into the lands doesn't equate to retaining control. If we follow the same logic, several Burmese kings could claim they controlled Siam, even though most of their invasions ended in failure. At Taungoo, Naresuan was driven back so severely that he wouldn't attempt another invasion. See (Harvey 1925: 183) and (Htin Aung 1967: 134). (Wyatt 2003: 88-91) covers Naresuan's story fairly close to the Thai version but Wyatt never crossed the line, and made any of the Thai school book claims--the largest Siamese empire or conquering Lower Burma.
- Ethnicity and Regionalism: The article is written as though the Thai and Burmese nations of the era had developed the kind of ethnic consciousness of the 20th century and present. Modern academic opinion (Lieberman 2003; et al) is that the wars in those days were fought between the ruling dynasties, not between ethnic groups. In both states, Burma and Siam, the concept of ethnicity was still very fluid down to the 19th century. The 16th century wars were between regional power centers (much less nation-states) since in the 16th century, neither Burma or Siam had developed a large enough functioning centralized administration. Especially before the 17th century, Burma and Siam really were still in what Lieberman calls Pattern B administration, which basically means decentralized states. Burma and Siam both had several regional power centers to first confront and unify. Naresuan was viewed by the Ayutthaya elite as a usurper from Phitsanulok for much of Siamese history until he was lionized by Damrong in the 20th century as the hero of the Thai people for having defeated the Burmese. The article's claims about ethnic Mons and Shans being happy to be liberated by Naresuan are clearly written from a present-day prism.
- IMO, the article serves as a prop to bolster Thai ethnicity and nationalism but shockingly little else. A more balanced article on this truly important figure should discuss academic viewpoints and cross-check other sources. He deserves better. Hybernator (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Reference sources are inadequate to corroborate any information given. Ref no.1 goes nowhere. Ref no.2 is in Thai. Ref no.3 is a newspaper article which in a nutshell says historians are still debating much of King Naresuan's life
This belongs here, not in the article. Current references as of today:
- goes to a Bank of Thailand article that explains the act of pouring water symbolizes "declaration of independence"
- Thai article containing Thai for "Declaration of Independence"
- definition to clear up confusion from when someone used the Sanskrit for the section heading, which then red-linked to an article of the same name
- Don't know who added that, and my Thai is only level-2, but it goes to an article from Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5, which hints that it is an important source of government propaganda
- article asserts he was a hero to the Shan, where "hero" should be understood in the context of a Greek hero cult
- links to Series 12 100-Baht note of April 6, 1978 which marks an important step in elevating Naresuan to cult-hero status. The other BoT link is to the 50-Baht series 16 of January 18, 2012, which indicates that Naresuan's cult-hero status was further enhanced just last year, with the added fillip of referring to Declaration of Independence
- Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.
- Biasing in electronics is the method of establishing predetermined voltages or currents at various points of an electronic circuit for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions in electronic components. My primary training is in electronics, so I'm biased to use "bias' without prejudice or bigotry, but for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions.
- Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. I propose this be considered without prejudice or bigotry, but for the purpose of establishing proper operating conditions when facing a real are perceived threat.
- Cult in current usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement, or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society.
- Greek hero cults were one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greeks, but may be considered abnormal or bizarre by many; I propose this term be used without prejudice or bigotry.
Addition reading presently gives two peer-reviewed journal articles that a mere electronics technician cannot figure out how to incorparate into the above parameters.
- Fernquist, Jon (Spring 2005). "The Flight of Lao War Captives from Burma back to Laos in 1596: A Comparison of Historical Sources" is by a Ph.D candidate at the Northern Thai Mae Fah Luang University. Fernquist's bias makes only oblique reference to prejudice and bigotry, and is written for purpose of establishing proper operating conditions in Naresuan's time, and those of reign of Rama V, to adopt a course independent of French and British pressure that had the king seriously fearful of losing his throne; and his people, their country.
- Sunait Chutintaranond (1992). "The Image of the Burmese Enemy in Thai Perceptions and Historical Writings" updates that in the context of 20th century concern for independence from perceived threats from communism.
Current news concerning Ho Chi Minh's 2 September 1945 Declaration of Independence of Vietnam make it clear that Declaration of Independence barely fit into Southeast Asian context at the time, and would have been incomprehensible in the context of the Southeast Asian political model of Naresuan's time — the water-pouring ritual can be found today in the context of a Buddhist funeral. —Pawyilee (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Elephant battle section
The section says:
'Naresuan was able to cut Mingyi Swa with his sword [...].
'Naresuan's sword, Chao Phraya Prap Hongsawadi or "Chao Phraya which defeated Bago", and helmet, Chao Phraya Sen Phonlaphai or "Chao Phraya which defeated a hundred thousand soldiers", still exist today.'
This is completely wrong, for the following reasons:
- He didn't use a sword, but a ngao (ง้าว; which may be translated as halberd, scythe, etc.; see Picture 1). A sword was never used on elephant.
- Chao Phraya Prap Hongsawadi (เจ้าพระยาปราบหงสาวดี) was an elephant, not a sword.
- Chao Phraya Sen [correctly Saen] Phonlaphai (เจ้าพระยาแสนพลพ่าย) was a ngao, not a helmet.
The section also lacks theories introduced by modern scholars that the killing of Mingyi Swa by Naresuan was invented (never took place for real).