Talk:Sukhothai Kingdom

message: Please cite sources. LordAmeth 12:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Cut things that are either not true or incomprehensible:
1. at the expense of neighboring civilizations. For the first time a Thai state became a dominant power in Southeast Asia. 
2. The Stele provides almost all the information we have about Sukhothai. 
3. Ramkhamhaeng’s government characterized the governance of Sukhothai kingdom – the patrocracy – in which the king is considered “father” and the people “children”. He also encouraged free trade, stating those who wish to trade elephants, trade them then. Those who wish to trade horses, trade them then.
Most of the other statements can be backed by reputable sources that I will provide, but the distinction between inscription-based history and chronicle-based history which often reads like a folktale, and has about the same level of veracity, has to be made. 
Also providing some of the key sources in references at bottom. 
Also please note the map is not accurate for two reasons: 
1. Borders were not well-defined like this (See Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped, for a thorough discussion).
2. The period is much too big (1238–1583). The Burmese state morphed into all sorts of different shapes during this period. (See the historical papers I have published on my user page).
The map should just be erased. It is is completely inaccurate. 
Fernquestjon (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --Pawyilee (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The map does state that it's circa 1300 CE, and is sourced fairly well. Since the borders issue is a general restriction for all maps, I'm not sure what the best alternative would be. I don't think the other changes you suggest will be disputed - please do go ahead. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

text: To clarify, my suggestion is to use  as a hatnote, which will render as above. It might even be a good idea for all pre-19th century kingdom articles. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First step in improving 

message: The Journal of the Siam Society has released all their journals as free PDFs going back to 1904]. I'm overwhelmed and need some help! For instance, comparing a Communist state with the Khmer Empire is a valid comparison, for both were command economies. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of the Siam Society 

message: Is there any source for the claim that the Sukhothai Kingdom coexisted in personal union with Ayutthaya until 1583 (or the 16th century at all)? Two of three English-language standard works on Thai history—Wyatt's Thailand: A Short History and Baker/Pasuk's A History of Thailand—tell a different story: Wyatt speaks of a "northern expanse" of Ayutthaya with Borommaracha installing his son as viceroy of Sukhothai in 1438 "presumably with a corps of administrators and a military garrison". That sounds like an annexation rather than a personal union of the two kingdoms. A few sentences later he continues "With the kingdom now incorporating larger territories and many more people..." So the Ayutthaya Kingdom incorporated the territories and people of Sukhothai – this is more than just a unification of the two crowns. 
Baker's and Pasuk's account is a little more nuanced: "Over the 15th and 16th centuries, Ayutthaya extended its power over the northern cities. Yet this was not a simple conquest and incorporation, but a more subtle merging of traditions. (...) The ruling families of the northern cities became entwined in marriage links with the Ayutthayan dynasty. Northern warriors served as Ayutthaya's troop commanders. Northern nobles settled in the port capital, and blended into the official elite." They further speak of an "enlarged federation" with Ayutthaya as its capital and Phitsanulok as a "second capital" and report that contemporary Portuguese sources referred to them as "twin states". But they merely speak of the Northern cities, nowhere do they mention that the Kingdom of Sukhothai still existed, and all the less do they state an exact date when the "merging" of the two "traditions" (traditions, not kingdoms!) was completed, as this was, as they write, a "subtle" and slow process and not an abrupt change of status. And nowhere do they confirm that this complicated relationship and "merger of traditions" was to be categorised as a personal union (which is a rather European concept). So, on what base does the article claim that the Sukhothai Kingdom continued to exist until the exact year 1583?
I do not have a copy of Terwiel's Thailand’s Political History present, so I cannot check if he supports the idea of a personal union till the 16th century. But as of now, the article does not state a source for this account at all.
Unfortunately, User:Biggie 943 845 39 who set the "end year" at 1583 seems to be no longer active. --RJFF (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the specific answer to your question, but I wonder if it's a good idea to try to apply these Western concepts to Southeast Asian history. I doubt that such distinctions were made by the contemporary local cultures. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not think that we have to necessarily use terms or concepts that were used by the contemporary local cultures; it is okay to use terms and concepts that are applied by modern historians. But I could not find any source for this claim, neither contemporary nor modern. Yet, if we want to use the infobox template, we have to indicate a certain end date. The year that is usually stated as the end of Sukhothai (as a separate kingdom) is 1438. I think it is impossible to state a certain date or year when Sukhothai disappeared as a cultural and political sphere as this was a gradual process that cannot be described in an infobox but only in continuous text in the article's body. --RJFF (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence until 16th century 

message: It does mention it in the historiography but shouldn't it be summarized at the top of the article too? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Sukhothai as the "first Thai capital" at the top? 

message: The Thai article for the Sukhothai Kingdom uses this seal in the infobox. It also seems to be legit, however I can't seem to import this from its Thai Wikimedia Commons page? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal/symbol?