Talk:Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549)

The first fall

I guess this belongs in another article but the first fall of Ayutthaya was in 1564. The 1564 fall wasn't a mere stern rebuke. The Siamese king Mahinthrathirat was brought back to Pegu, and kept under house arrest. In 1568, He under the guise of joining the sangha was allowed to go back to Ayutthaya where he promptly threw off the robe and declared himself king of Siam again. This provoked another invasion which resulted in the second fall in 1569.Hybernator (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the war in 1563-64 was when Ayutthaya first surrendered and became a vassal of King Bayinnaug. But it wasn't until 1569 that the city really fell to Burmese control, and Bayinnaung installed Thammaracha as King and took Naresuan as prisoner. The 1563-64 War was called the 'War of the White Elephants' which is my next project! Sodacan (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're parsing the words. The word "fall" doesn't have to mean the physical fall of the city but can also mean the loss of sovereignty by any means. As you said, in 1564, Ayuthhaya became a vassal of Toungoo. I don't see how it's different from 1569. Even after 1569, the city was continued to be ruled by the Siamese themselves. As far as I know, the Burmese administration after 1569 wasn't any different from that after 1564--that is, it was still rule by proxy through the local ruler. I don't see a difference between the Burmese "rule" between 1564-1568 and 1569-1584. Do you?Hybernator (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with both Thai and Burmese historical tradition the fall of 1569 is considered the 'First Fall' of Ayutthaya as in the physical taking of the city as well as the unconditional loss of sovereignty. The war of 1563 did not result in the physical taking of the city, but did result in indemnity (Prince Ramesuan being taken prisoner as well as four white elephants) and loss of some sovereignty (the King was allowed to keep his throne and his officials and dynasty remained as it were pre-1563). But the War in 1569 meant a complete upheaval of crown and dynasty and the addition of Siam as part of Bayinnaung's empire. After the physical taking of the city in 1569 Bayinnaung had the power to appoint anyone he wanted to the throne (which he duly did). We can argue all day, but I agree with you completely that the 1563 war was a 'fall' in all sense of the word, but its just not what it is usually called in history, google with attest to this that the First Fall of Ayutthaya happened in 1569. The war of 1643 is usually referred to as the 'War of the White Elephants'. The Second Fall of Ayutthaya was in 1767. I guess my point is that I don't see the difference as you said, but that is not what I'm arguing for, I need to parse for words, because that is what I thought we were discussing over, your history is all good to me. Sodacan (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Burmese history, the first conquest of Ayutthaya was 1564. (The invasion began in 1563.) Google search results merely point to the prevalence of Thai emphasis on the latter date (and indeed, Thai economic power; good for you!). But let's be serious and look at the facts. It wasn't only after 1569 that Bayinnaung was able to select a ruler. He did select a ruler after 1564, and it wasn't the former king. According to Burmese history, the Siamese king was brought to Pegu where he later became a monk. It seems his return in 1568 isn't emphasized in Thai history books. But as you said, there was no difference in the manner of Burmese rule (rule by proxy) between 1564-1568 and 1569-1584, why wouldn't the first "fall" be 1564? I will reword the article.

Also, the Queen Suriothai story is not corroborated by Burmese sources.

Overall, it's a great effort to put together this article.Hybernator (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all thank you, but when I do come to writing the next article on the 1563-64 War I will try and mention your point, or to the very least try to emphasize it (that Ayutthaya has in all manner of speaking: fallen). And the Wikipedia:Search engine test is legitimate, really! Finally I'm really interested in the absence of Queen Suriyothai in Burmese sources, if you can somehow find a credible source that emphatically states this, then we should add it in this article. I tried really hard when I was putting this article together to make it as balanced as possible, as to not make it seem one sided and especially NOT Siam-centric. If you could help me in this, please do so. Thanks for the discussion it was very interesting. Sodacan (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Suriyothai or any story of that sort isn't mentioned at all in Burmese sources (at least those I've come across.) It's not just because the war of 1548 was lost. Unflattering pieces of information did make it into Burmese chronicles (though they do deemphasize them). For example, Naresuan's single combat victory over the Burmese crown prince or Bodawpaya's disastrous invasion of 1785-86 are all made it into Burmese records. Hope to see more articles from you.Hybernator (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to sort of... undo your change. I think I'm going to support the best known name 'First Fall of Ayutthaya' (refering to the physically fall, not poltical), despite our concurrent opinions. Since many of the sources and books on the subject uses that name I must refer to it as such, if there is another source with a definitive name please state them here otherwise the name should remain. Sodacan (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. For now, I've reworded the sentence and put it under an alias.Hybernator (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

I guess Burmo-Siamese War is technically correct but I hardly ever see the term "Burmo" used. What about the wars that the Siamese started? The Siamo-Burmese Wars of 1599, 1787, 1792-1793, 1852-1854? I vote for the more common Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (Most Burmese-Siamese war articles should start with "Burmese" as they started the majority of them.)Hybernator (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, move it as you see fit. By the way the name was thought-up not as a nationalistic thing (Please don't accuse me of that, it's things like this that put people off contributing on here). Plus I've tried very hard to include many Burmese-based sources as I can in this article and thought I've been pretty neutral in the article. The name is merely an alphabetical thing. Sodacan (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved, sorry for being impatient Sodacan (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Great piece of work! May still need some copy-editing to correct the few grammatical errors/typos still existent, though. I've placed a DYK nomination for the article, FYI. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Please take a look at a proposed revision in my sandbox. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the changes in the intro, but do we need Thai scripts after the names? The ones that I have included were ones that does not have their own articles and is unlikely to be found elsewhere. Also because we might have to insert Burmese scripts for all the names as well, which will make the article too cluttered (Burmese & Thai). Sodacan (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revise it to take out Thai script where readers can find it by clicking on an article link, and also change dashes in dates to en dashes. But later - I don't have the time write now as my wife is waiting for me to take her to town. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks take your time Sodacan (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look in my sandbox now, particularly the Intro. To paragraph 2, I added, "The war is notable for the introduction of Early Modern warfare by Portuguese mercenaries," and moved Prince Damrong's historical remark up there as it seems that's where it belongs, but I can't be sure as I haven't read it. The Burmese script may be messed up, but I'll keep the script in the current article if I move the rest. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revision is great, but please be careful when you apply them, there has been some cosmetic changes since. Try not to upset them. Sodacan (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Caught as many as I could find, Like P. to p., hyphenated dates to n-dashed dates, Damrong page no. changes, and the flipping of some references; left the Burmese in the heading untouched and added the legacy image. But I'm sure I overlooked something! --Pawyilee (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes are good, but the quote by Prince Damrong referred to the Skirmish at Chiang Kran, not the actual invasion. Sodacan (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I see you moved the quote to where it belongs. To end the confusion that use of the word "conflict" can cause, I changed it to skirmish. The link redirects to Skirmisher where is says, in part, "The aims of skirmishing were to disrupt enemy formations by causing casualties before the main battle...." Apt? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed skirmish to battle. Sodacan (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That works. I caught the BOT complaint about the bad link to Phaya (Thai royal and noble titles) and change it to Phraya. Then I went to Chao Phraya River and linked its name to titles. Fun! Had similar fun with "Khun" Worawongsathirat and his earlier rank of "Phan". --Pawyilee (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully now it can become a B class article, shame there isn't more pictures though. Sodacan (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessed as B-class for WikiProject Thailand. I took the liberty to implement some edits for grammar and style. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

reason for 1569 invasion

Dear Sodacan,

If the intro is to mention the 1569 invasion it has to mention why since the prior statement mentions Siam becoming a Burmese vassal in 1564. If it was already a vassal, why the need for another invasion? It was a revolt (rebellion, insurrection). If you can come up with a better description, do so. I haven't said much on the Suriothai *legend* which is prominently displayed in the intro because it is what is known in Thailand. But if the 1563/64 invasion and the suppression of rebellion in 1569 are follow-ups to the 1548 invasion, and fits in with the narrative. You said you wanted write a non-Siamese-centric article, well here's your chance. It's a historical fact. I can put in the citations in the lead, if need be. Be fair.Hybernator (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection dropped! Sodacan (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I've looked over the article again, and its very well done. It's written well, had good references, and the addition of pictures has made it much easier on the eyes. I've upgraded it to B status, and I think it could easily be ready for a GA nomination with just a little more work. That said, I have one thing I'd like to nitpick about right now: the last picture (of the Queen's memorial) should probably be moved up in the article. I'd suggest in the Legacy section, though this will require some careful maneuvering with the other picture in that section to keep it from looking too strange. Feel free to add any further comments/questions here, as I've added this page to my watchlist. Cromdog (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply! decided to leave both pictures in the legacy section. I was going to GA nominated it this weekend. Is there any other particular issues you think needs more work? Sodacan (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The only other thing I see based on my cursory glance is redlinkage. Having gone through the GA process in the past myself, I know that while having red links is not a real problem, a lot of them are sometimes consider a drawback, and its easier to take care of them now instead of waiting til later. Even if you have to create stub articles, its better than nothing. You definitely want to make sure the two other wars between Burma and Siam (red linked in the article introduction) following this one have cursory articles and infoboxes. I'd also suggest creating a few articles about the important people worthy of an article and arrange redirects as need as well.Cromdog (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take care of some of the red links, but the other two wars are massive undertakings themselves and would take a while to complete, maybe the links to them could be taken out or minimized? Sodacan (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OD To start, you can create them. A short explanation of when, who, and what with an infobox is fine. If you create them, and then tag them with the MilHist and other projects, while you continue with this one others might pick up the other two articles. Even if they don't, they are important articles that will need creating eventually. If you get this one along far enough, you might want to take another under your wing as well, after all. I'm not trying to push you into anything, just pointing out that its something worth doing.Cromdog (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I was planning to do them eventually anyway, Burma and Siam fought 25 wars overall, I am rather busy right now, but will do the rest during the summer. But I definitely understand your point with the stubs. I think I will start the next one (the one in 1563-64, I have already finished the introduction). Thanks for all the help! Sodacan (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Number

The number of Burmese troops is too large indeed. According to logistic capabilities, Burma needed at least two millions population to rise 300,000 active combat troops for five months. I don't think Burmese had such at that times considering they only had 1 million population even at 1885 (British census).. Soewinhan (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed quite improbable now that you mentioned it, but I have a source with this number thought (quoted exactly). Do you think it should be deleted? or should there be a clearer disclaimer? (example: According to W. A. R. Wood's book the Burmese forces were this number etc. etc.). Sodacan (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WOW so fast reply :) I don't think it should be deleted since Siamese chronicles mention it. But, it would be nicer if we have information about Siamese army as well. Soewinhan (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try my hardest to find some Siamese numbers (I looked before but there was very little info on this particular war), just have a lot of schoolwork in the way right now! :D but I think I will modify the sentence to make it clearer though, that it is just from one source. Sodacan (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Domingos Seixas

Has anyone read the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine? Does anybody know where the report is kept? I've recently interacted with user:Chris.urs-o who is Portuguese and fluent in English. His primary interest is in vulcanism and geology, but maybe we can get his help here. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Google reports Domingos was mentioned in an unrelated report as having killed an elephant and that in Décadas (Decades of Asia 1552-1615), João de Barros relied extensively for his treatment of Siam on Domingo de Seixas, who had spent over two decades in the countryTHE CASTILIANS DISCOVER SIAM. ==Pawyilee (talk)

Seixas ==

Would you know how to get hold of the report by Portuguese mercenary Domingos de Seixas to John III of Portugal, said to have been consulted on introduction of early modern warfare and medicine in the making of the movie, The Legend of Suriyothai? The question arises in the context of the Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49), where she's mentioned in Siamese chronicles, but not those of the Burmese. The only thing Google tells me about Domingos is that he was mentioned in an unrelated report as having killed an elephant[1] and that in Décadas da Ásia (1552-1615), João do Barros relied extensively for his treatment of Siam on Domingo de Seixas, who had spent over two decades in the countryThe Castilians Discover Siam.

Décadas da Ásia in Portuguese:Décadas da Ásia

--Pawyilee (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

While from the Thai nationalist and the feminist POVs, the war is notable for the supposed intervention of a women in defensive of her husband -- and possibly justifies a Wikipedia category for same; from the POV of military history, it is notable for the introduction of Early Modern warfare to conflicts between the combatants. While I won't do it myself, I do recommend considering revising the lede. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

PS

I note she is included in Category:Women in 16th-century warfare. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for point this out. Just added it. Hybernator (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues, inconsistencies

I've only recently read deeper into other sources about this, and here are what I've found so far. Let's figure out how to deal with it.

Date of war!

I hadn't noticed but apparently, the war occurred in late 1547-1548, according to Burmese records. Not 1548-1549 as stated here. Prominent historians of Burmese history (Phayare, Harvey, Htin Aung, Kyaw That) all give the date as late 1547/early 1548. Harvey (History of Burma, p. 158) gives it as 1547-1548, and has a whole section on why Siamese dates aren't trustworthy (Harvey, History of Burma, p. 343, Siamese chronology). (Main reason: The Burmese burned down the records in 1767, and the Siamese chronicles are mainly later reconstructions). Harvey states that "Prince Damrong and other leading Siamese authorities now accept the Burmese chronology for these years". "It is also confirmed by the Portuguese writers and European travellers". Again, to be precise, the fighting happened in early 1548 alone. Late 1547 was the preparation period.

If there's agreement, I propose we change it Burmese-Siamese War of 1548. (drop 1549).

Agreed, Burmese and British sources are must more trustworthy than Thai ones (for more reason than one). Most of the dates that the article was based upon, comes from an English translation of Prince Damrong (whose book is actually based on a Burmese chronicle, he talks about this text at length in the foreword), with others gleamed off various other sources (including many from British ones that you have mentioned above). I am afraid that I have no access to any of these sources at the moment, however I would really like to help with any changes, since these are quite serious issues. However I think the most difficult problem would be the reconciling of all the dates from the various sources, both Burmese, British and Thai. If we were to assume that all Thai dates are wrong, then they should all be removed and disregarded altogether, however on the other hand some useful historical info (which are all verifiable) would be lost. This really is the main issue that must considered, whether sourced information is followed or original research. Wikipedia policy is clear on this, but I believe a balance could be struck to accommodate both (without giving too much away), in light of the historical issue you stated above. Sodacan (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I think I know where Damrong got his dates from. Based on my (amateur) research of Burmese history books in English and Burmese, the 1548 date comes from Burmese chronicles, and it is the later historians (Harvey, Hall, Htin Aung and Kyaw Thet) that re-calibrated it to 1547-1548. (Thanks for the tip that Damrong cross-checked the Siamese dates with Burmese ones. I followed the lead and found at least one of the Burmese chronicles (Hmannan Yazawin or the Glass Palace Chronicles (GPC)) placed the war to have occurred in the Burmese year 910 (1548-1549). But the GPC doesn't include anymore specific dates, so other dates must have come from other sources like stone inscriptions, and the writings by European writers as Harvey writes.)

But Harvey's cross-checking places the war to have begun a year earlier (Burmese year 909, 1547-1548 AD). The date is accepted by DGE Hall (Burma, 1960ed., Chapter V, p. 40), Htin Aung (A History of Burma, 1967, p. 112), Kyaw Thet (History of Burma, 1962, p. 176). I want to correct my earlier statement that Arthur Phayre also accepted the 1547-1548 date. A more careful reading shows that Phayre states late 1548, which implies the Burmese chronicle date 1548-1549 though 1549 is not mentioned. This makes sense since Phayre wrote the book in 1883, and probably simply repeated what the chronicles state without cross-checking.

(Side note: This date issue extends to the Maha Chakkraphat article too. According to Harvey, the reconstructed Siamese chronicles place Maha Chakkraphat's first regnal year to 1529, and that the Siamese (Damrong, et al) reconciled that date with the Burmese sources, and placed it to 1548. But that date should really be 1547! I'm not sure if any modern Thai historians have revisited this issue. They will need help from Burmese historians to cross check the dates.)

I propose that we change the article's title to 1548 alone (since the main battles were fought in 1548). We can have a small section in the article about the date of the war. I also propose that we remove specific date references like 3 February 1549. You cited Wood's 1924 book but where did he get them? I'd just say early February if need be. I'm open to other suggestions. But we shouldn't keep the title as 1548-1549. Hybernator (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Found another specific date. These specific dates should be removed, given all the uncertainty of the dates.

1. 11 November 1548 -- King Worawongsathirat's accession date
2. 3 February 1549 -- in the "Death of the queen" section.

These dates give a false sense of certainty when in the war most likely occurred a year earlier. Hybernator (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle at the border

Along the same lines, the "battle at the border" couldn't have happened in 1538. Not between Toungoo Dynasty and the Siamese anyway. In 1538, Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung still were smalltime warlords of a tiny kingdom raiding Hanthawaddy's (Pegu's) territory. They hadn't won any territory in 1538. Even after Pegu fell in 1539, which they won only by stratagem, they still didn't control Martaban, which came only in 1541. If such an event did occur, then it must have been after 1541.

The Siamese and Portuguese source on this is clear that it happened in Chairacha's reign, and definitely not after this war. Its notability and inclusion in the article is based on the fact that it was the first time Burma and Siam actually fought, and only a few years preceding the war. However if it has no relevance to the larger subject of this particular war, concerning Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung's invasion, then it should be removed (maybe its own article?). Sodacan (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't place a lot of credibility on Siamese dates or the narrative for this era since they are reconstructed works of later writers. If the first clashes happened in 1538 as the Siamese sources say, then, it must have been with the forces of Saw Binnya who was the ruler of Martaban at that time. As mentioned earlier, in 1538, Tabinshwehti was still raiding Hanthawaddy territory, much less control it. If the clashes were really with Tabinshwehti then the earliest date must have been 1541 since Tabinshwehti didn't take Martaban until 1541 to even have a chance encounter with the Siamese. But the Burmese sources don't say anything about going south of Mawlamyaing after Martaban was sacked. We know that they couldn't have since they still had to deal with their enemies from Upper Burma (Prome Kingdom and the Confederation of Shan States). In fact, they went on attacking Prome right after Martaban, and took it in 1542 and for the next two years had to fight off the Confederation of Shan States (1542-1544) from the north. Then they went off to Arakan 1546-1547, right before the Siamese war. So, I don't have much faith in the veracity of 1538 clash between the Siamese and Tabinshwehti's forces. The text should be removed from the article. Hybernator (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "battle at the border" section per this discussion, and a reference to it later in the article. I've also rewritten the Burmese political situation prior to the war. Hybernator (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Burmese invasion force

The invasion force couldn't have been "300,000 foot soldiers, 3,000 horses and 700 war elephants"; it's clearly an exaggeration. Toungoo Dynasty in 1547/1548 still controlled only Lower Burma, and couldn't have raised even a tenth of that. All of Lower Burma probably had a little over half a million people at the time. Per Harvey, even Bayinnaung with his huge empire raised 70,000 men for his 1568 invasion of Ayutthaya. Still per Harvey, Konbaung kings with a larger empire than Tabinshwehti's could have mobilized no more than 60,000 at most. Hybernator (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue was raised by another user before. Although I am in complete agreement with the sentiment above, it seems that Wood is the only one with any numbers at all (Burmese or Siamese), so it was either him or nothing at all. I have really tired to find any Siamese numbers, but there seems to be no source that refer to it in any capacity. I have no attachment either way to the number, if it is too fantastical (which it surely is) then it should go, but I will leave that to you. Sodacan (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the statement. Not to belabor the point but even today's Burmese army has only about 400,000 troops (with press-ganged child soldiers and all) from a population of 50 million plus. Even though we may think the numbers like 60,000 as small, don't forget what an enormous number that was for the size of population at that time. To have raised even 60,000 men in the Konbaung era's population of nearly 2 million (1784 census) translates to mobilizing 1.5 million troops out of 50 million people today. Since Tabinshwehti in 1548 controlled only Lower Burma (with 500,000 to at most 700,000 people), even 10,000 men would have represented a serious act of mobilization.) Hybernator (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I've expanded the article with info from Burmese sources. It still has a few issues:

• Duration of war: The war actually began in 1547, not 1548, as discussed before. I've put down c. October 1547 as the start when the Tenasserim campaign likely began, although the Burmese chronicles say the Siamese started the war in Jan 1547. The war most likely ended in late Jan/early Feb 1549. I found a Burmese source (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 232) that shows when Tabinshwehti arrived back at Pegu (1 March 1549), which means the truce likely took place about a month earlier. If no one objects, I will rename the article as Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49).

• Siamese troop strength: Are there any numbers? I found a Portuguese source [2] but it gives Ayutthaya's defenses as 60,000 men and 4000 cannon. Then again, it also says the Burmese king had an army of 1.5 million, which of course, is impossible. Hybernator (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Luzon, Tondo involvement

User:Philipandrew2, please provide reliable sources. I've never seen Philippine (excuse the anachronistic term) involvement in the war in academic sources. If you have them, please cite them. It's not out of the realm of possibility as a number of foreign mercenaries fought in the wars between Siam and Burma. But even then, did they fight as part of their own regiments to be listed in the campaign boxes? AFAIK, I haven't seen Luzon warriors in Burmese sources -- both chronicle and academic. Let's not extrapolate some possible participation into something larger. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• According to the book by Pigafetta[1] (cited on the article we discussed)

That the Lucoes (Luzon warriors) been had a Aids and campaigns to their neighboring countries (Including the first wave of the Burma-Siam wars. Thank you! ([[ᜉ ᜀ| ໑]] P.A-II (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC))

References

Links to Blogspot removed

The link is a blog post and not reliable under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which states,

"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." Please don't add it back without consensus. Thanks.

SWH^{® talk} 12:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I now realize that the real source may not have been the blog but may be an old memoir about war. Please don't add links to the blog, but cite the old book directly instead. Thanks.SWH^{® talk} 12:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

book citations

Its okay if a blog was removed from the cites ...but theirs a book referenced on the part which written by Antonio Pigafetta during the 16th century. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the blog site and left the citation from book, ihope this might be helpful to steady the tension regard this area of concern. Thank you!

({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC))

Dear @Philipandrew2: I understand your eagerness. Makes me smile. But please pay attention to when Pigafetta wrote the book-- in 1524, and his memoirs covered 1519 to 1522. And he was dead by 1531. How could he have witnessed this war which took place in 1547–49? Hybernator (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Involvement of Filipino warriors

@JournalmanManila:, @Philipandrew2:, et al. Originally, it was Pigafetta; now it's Pinto. I don't see anything about the war of 1547−49 in the book [3]. Where's the page? Besides, Pinto isn't a reliable source. GE Harvey called him "not so much a liar as an inveterate rhetorician." You can read Harvey's assessment online here: [4] Hybernator (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that Philipandrew2 was already banned here a long time But in my case, I just shared that statement here because the in some Philippine articles particlarly lucoes,it was mentioned that the lucoes fought those wars, but you said it was uncertain, So i better check them to verify these conflict. (JournalmanManila (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

• • @Hybernator Actually they are Mercenaries as i reading them , In fact Untold Mercenaries they i just over write by portuguese nor the national prides hide them. (JournalmanManila (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burmese–Siamese War (1547–49). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612115921/http://rebound88.net/sp/ngb/sthai5.html to http://www.rebound88.net/sp/ngb/sthai5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@JournalmanManila:, @Darwgon0801:, please use reliable sources. See WP:RS. The Soils of the Philippines may be a reliable source for the soil history of the Philippines but not one for the history of Southeast Asia--especially when it liberally uses various Wiki articles for sourcing. I've assumed good faith but it's getting ridiculous. Again, read: WP:RS. Hybernator (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)