DSpace at VNU: Siam''s and vietnam''s perceptions of teir diplomatic relations in the pre-colonial period(1780s-1850s)

DSpace at VNU: Siam''''s and vietnam''''s perceptions of teir diplomatic relations in the pre-colonial period(1780s-1850s) tài...

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

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YẺU h ộ i t h ả o q u ố c t é l ẩ n t h ủ t ư

to expand its territory to guarantee its overlordship of its region The prosperous dynasties established states and strengthened their claims to authority and sovereignty These states tried to demonstrate their power and grandeur through establishing formal politics and luxurious court ceremonies; as Clifford Cieertz commented, “Power serves pomp, not pomp power.” 1 Due to their contrasting levels of political and economic power, the states in Southeast Asia developed different interstate relationships, between the big states seeking to counter-balaice one another, and between suzerainties and tributaries

The diplomatic relationship between Siam under the Chakri dynasty ind Vietnam under the Nguyễn dynasty illustrate the shift of bilateral relations fbm friendship to antagonism, especially between the 1780s and the 18: Os Diplomatically, the relations between Bangkok and Huế were not only ai’fected by their direct interaction but also by the competition to gain influence ever neighboring states, in particular the Cambodian and Lao kingdoms, through different political and cultural policies The two states were competitors striving to

be the overlord of the region The relationship between Rama I (1782-1809) ind Gia Long (1802-1820) was most cordial The concerns of the threat from Burma during the reign of Rama II (1 809-1824) led to the expansion of Vietnamese po ver

in Cambodia and Laos during the reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1840) This marxed the beginnings of a shift of relations and perceptions from friends to rivals Wiile the earlv conflicts and misinterpretations between the two courts were resolved through diplomatic negotiation, the escalating tensions culminated in their shif ing from being rivals into becoming real enemies by the reign of Rama III (1824-1851), Minh Mạng and Thiệu Trị (1840-1847)

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 Bali (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1980), p 13.

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 received by each court, and the information it records, is the use of language which exhibits both hierarchical and non-hierarchical patterns In the original letters, the languages used between the two states were more polite or neutral, unlike the recorded version which tended to depict the diplomatic relationship in hierarchical terms of superiority and inferiority Court rituals and protocols followed by the diplomatic missions also revealed the cultural dimension of Siamese and Vietnamese foreign affairs The symbolic implications of the presents sent between Bangkok and Hue influenced each court’s interpretations of their counterpart’s intention

This paper explores the reciprocal worldviews of the Siamese and Vietnamese courts as their relationships shifted from amicable to inimical The rhetoric employed in the letters and chronicles of both courts evidenced their political and cultural perceptions Furthermore, the differences in the Siamese and Vietnamese cultural foundations accounted for the dissimilar rituals and ceremonies of courts, which led to different understandings among them

Political perceptions: the status of state and territory

The state’s power was measured in terms of size, political influence and authority The Siamese and the Vietnamese saw themselves as exemplary centers and powerful states, surrounded by junior states and lesser powers that had to accept their authority At the founding of both dynasties, Siam and Vietnam both sent emiss.aries and tributes to China asking for recognition from the Qing court This common identity as a tributary of China was one of the possible reasons for both states to consider each another as equally powerful states Although this was not mentioned in any Thai or Vietnamese text, both countries presumably conceptualized their hierarchical position in relation to China Siam and Vietnam, at least, knew that each other sent periodic tribute to China

Correspondence between the Bangkok and the Huế courts also illustrated their perceptions regarding the status of both states In these messages, both kingdoms addressed and referred to one another as equal, big, and powerful states The

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 Nguyễn Anh’s regime Siam considered Vietnam a vassal for a brief period btfore Gia Long’s restoration of the Nguyen’s power but changed its perception ifter Vietnam was founded in 1802 Rama I probably saw Prince Nguyễn Anh as a Vcssal but Emperor Gia Long as an equal

Siam’s conception of Vietnam as a vassal before Gia Long’s enthroneme.1t is

clearly shown in the Phraratchaphongsawadan Thai records suggest that the

Bangkok court displayed benevolence towards the Nguyễn ruler before the

1 C.H 11/22/1173 ( 1 8 1 1C.E.) Letter from Gia Long to Rama 11 [As given in Thai transition

in the same royal chronicles]

2 C.H 11/22/1173 ( 1 8 1 1C.E.) Letter from Rama II expressing his gratitude to Gia Long.

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

establishment of the Neuyễn court Rama I requested Nguyễn Ánh to send troops, ammunition and provision in the same manner as other vassals.1 A letter sent to Nguyền Anh in 1791 underlines Rama I’s assumed disposition of overlord As recorded in the Thai chronicle: “The King of Siam has been planning to support

Nguyễn Anh to be a ruler of Muang Yuan (Vietnam) Furthermore, Siam claimed

that Nguyễn Anh had said, in a letter he left before he departed from Bangkok to Gia Định, that: “ if I could restore my country, I would accede to becoming a

subject under Siamese authority (khakhopkhanthasima) and will not betray you

[Rama I].3 Nguyễn Anh’s message undoubtedly meant to Siam that he was willing

to become a protectorate of Siam Thai records additionally emphasized that:

■‘Nguyễn Ánh fulfilled his promise in his letter to be a vassal (Muang

Prathetsarath) of Bangkok.’'4

In the traditions of the states in Southeast Asia, golden and silver trees were a symbol of tributary admission According to Thai sources, Nguyễn Anh sent silver 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 of meaning “subject”, and

“khopkhanthasima” , which m eans “boundary”

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉU HỘI THẢO QUÓC TÉ LẦN TH Ứ T ư

go with Gia Long He perhaps speculated that Vietnam could become Siam’s vassal and this led him to send a crown to, and bestowed presents upon, Gia Lcng However, Rama I’s reply showed that he was disappointed with Gia Lorg's response, and avoided embaưassment by invoking cultural differences

Thè original correspondences sent between Gia Long and Rama I show hat Siam did not perceive Gia Long as a vassal ruler, unlike the Lao kingdoms ind Cambodia The language used in the letters exhibited a strong sense of friendship,

or a formal polite tone of equality between an elder king and a youneer emperor Although the two rulers did refer to each other in generational terms, i.e ‘an elder’ and ‘a junior’, which suggest a relationship of subordination, the relationship between Rama I and Gia Long was exceptional Gia Lona’s reference to himself as

a junior was intended to demonstrate his politeness and exalt Rama I, and no; to imply subordination or vassalship Gia Long, therefore, acted as a humble emperor

of a big country The emperor did not regard the assistance the Siamese rendered him as the benevolence demonstrated by an overlord to a vassal, but the natiral support friends rendered to each other This is different from the depiction in Thai chronicles which clearly presented a stronger sense of hierarchical status — between

an overlord and a dependency It was clear, especially after Gia Long’s success or!, that Siam defined Vietnam as its equal as a big state For example, a letter sent f'om Siam to Vietnam in 1806 highlighted how “Vietnam and Siam are situated in the same sea, the same sky Although, the two countries are far apart, we seem to live in the same piece of territory.” ỉn another letter, Rama I wrote: “ [I] the Siartese king also tried to maintain the royal tradition for both states to be in a long tirm relationship [I] wish that the two states retain their long-lived friendship and remain

the same piece o f territory (suwan pathaphee diew kan) forever.”2 This plrase

“sifwan pathaphee diew kan” implies equality for two separate countries.

After Gia Long’s ascendancy in Ỉ802, the Siamese regarded Vietnam at an

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 /r e 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.

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 correspondence was a vital and effective diplomatic tool In the coưespondence between Bangkok and Hue, the Siamese always mentioned that they cherished their sustained friendship, although the Bangkok court subsequently realized that Vietnam was an independent rival

Achieving balance - the Vietnamese attitude towards Siam

In the Nguyễn records, the Vietnamese never depicted themselves as Siamese vassals Even before Gia Long ascended to the throne, no Vietnamese official information acknowledged the status of Vietnam as a tributary of Siam No court text mentions the tribute missions Nguyễn Ánh sent to Siam even once, even though Thai records mentioned the submissive letter he sent with his tribute of golden and silver trees The Vietnamese considered their state as equal to Siam and this therefore entails that Vietnam denied that the sending of silver and golden trees represented their acceptance of tributary status

Gia Long merely wrote that he would always recognize Rama I’s support and would like to send the silver and golden trees as a gift.2 He was referring to a previous gift that he had sent while he was still a prince He wrote this when the Nguyển court once sent royal gifts to Siam consisting ten gold bullion, a hundred of silver bullion, a halberd, beeswax, granulated sugar and silk from Vietnam.3 The tributes that were sent from Gia Định (Sàigòn) while Nguyễn Ánh was still fighting with the Tây Sơn were their way of showing their gratitude for Rama I’s support

1 Ibid.

2 C.H.Ị/5/1166( 1804C.E) Letter from Gia Long to Rama I.

3 P.R.R I, p 179.

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 Bangkok court expressed its sratitude for Vietnamese friendship by sending heir thanks to Minh Mạng

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

Siamese and Vietnamese attitudes towards each other’s involvement in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms

Their attitudes influenced the diplomacy between the two courts and their tributaries, Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The Siamese and Vietnamese claimed their legitimacy and overlapping spheres of influence over their Cambodian and Lao peripheries Both states defined themselves as a center and a powerful authority From the Siamese perspective, Rama III tried to preserve Siamese authority over Anouvong of Vientiane and Chan of Cambodia, especially since they had grown 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 kingdo m s w ere seen as e q u a lly 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.

VIỆT NAM HỌC - KỶ YÉƯ HỘI THẢO QUỐC TÉ LẰN TH Ứ T ư

the cremation of Rama I and the coronation of Rama II, Gia Long asked to res'.ore

Hà Tiên as a Vietnamese protectorate, claiming that it used to be a Vietnarr.ese vassal and Rama II acceded to the request.1 There was no point for Siam to reject the request because Rama II was still concerned with the situation with Burma and did not want to provoke more enemies.2 Bangkok saw that it was losing authority over its vassals to the Nguyễn court gradually Thai sources wrote that after the 34 cities of Cambodia were solely under the Vietnamese kingdom for a few decades; Siam got them back during the reign of Rama III

Siam and Vietnam foreign relations became marked with distrust From the Vietnamese perspective, although the Bangkok court still sent missions to keep its friendship with the Hue court and to preserve peace, the Siamese still found a vay

to invade Cambodia, by conspiring with the people who were opposed to the Vietnamese court.4 Furthermore, they believed that even after Siam had lost its foothold in Cambodia, Bangkok still sought to expand its power in Cambodia and Lao kingdoms The Huế court saw that “the Siamese had unreliable minds like snakes.”5 Vietnamese records further suggested that after the Vietnamese trcops expelled the Siamese from Cambodia, the border area of Vietnam was peaceful and the territory of the Western protectorate (Trấn Tây) grew larger.6

Protocol, ceremony, and language as indicators of status

The dynastic chronicles contain the thoughts and attitudes of the Siamese and the Vietnamese courts about one another The royal correspondence shows low both courts made contact, indicated their goodwill and exchanged news betveen Bangkok and Huế Cultural assumptions shaped the political behavior of Siamese and Vietnamese rulers The cultural ceremonies between the two courts illustrate to

us the close relationship they shared, and were also used to make some strategic 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

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 model and practices from the Ayutthaya period The Hue court conversely modeled its rituals after the Qing court of China and also the Lê court of Vietnam The conspicuous luxurious royal court ceremonies and the bestowal of royal gifts to other countries implied the prosperity and greatness of the Siamese and Vietnamese vis-à-vis their neighboring states

The missions between Huế and Bangkok were sent in two ways, by land and sea The Vietnamese mission to Bangkok consisted of twelve people by land and fifty people by ship The Siamese mission to Huế consisted of fourteen people by land and fifty people by ship.1 The Nguyễn court established the rule that letters sent to Siam had to pass through Cambodia first Vietnamese records also describe that when the Bangkok envoy came to Hue, he had to stop at Gia Định (Sàigòn) before heading to Huế.2 The Nguyễn and the Chakri courts traditionally sent missions between Bangkok and Hue every year Their purpose was to maintain their friendship and to negotiate diplomatic issues The Hue court recorded the rules for welcoming Siamese emissaries and treated them as a close neighboring state because both states tried to maintain their friendship These features, such as the frequency of correspondence and the exchange of presents, and the warm welcomes extended to each others’ envoys, reflected each’s effort to treat the other as a close friend This mutual treatment was reflected in both Vietnamese and Siamese sources

Both courts arranged royal missions between Bangkok and Hue to participate

in important events such as the funerals of the royal family members, and the coronation of new rulers The cordial relations between Siam and Vietnam were shown through the warm welcome and good care of their respective missions For example, John Crawfurd described the warm welcome the Siamese gave to the

1 ĐNTL (Volume 1), p 691

2 Ibid.

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 disseminating orders and information to its tributaries At this point, the Vietnamese probably believed that the Siamese might think that the Vietnamese accepted Siam’s power should they send an envoy for the cremation However, Gia Long

1 John Crawfurd, Journal of an Embassy to the Court of Siam and Cochin China iLonJon:

Oxford University Press, 1967), p 146.

2 P.R R.2(Dam-l), p 78.

3 Anamwat, K h w a m Samphan, p 42.

4 C.H.II/18/1 173 (1 811 C.E.) Letter from Rama II to Gia Long.

5 ĐNTL (Volume 1), p 690.