1. A good account of the Vientiane Rebellion may be found in Walter Vella, Siam Under Rama III (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1957), 80, ff.

2. Paul le Boulanger, Histoire du Laos Francais (Paris, 1931) mentions no Thai involvement in Laos in the 18th century until after 1767.

3. Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong. Thai rop phama [Thai Wars With Burma] (Bangkok, 1962), 639, 784.Google Scholar

4. Wichaphun, Phraya Pramuan, Phongsawadan muang lan chang [Chronicles of Lan Chang] (2nd.ed., Bangkok, 1941), 56–7Google Scholar, gives a clear account of this expedition, hut dates it in 1756; while Prince Narathip Praphan. Phraratchaphon-gsawadan phama [Royal Chronicles of Burma] (Bangkok, 1962), 11, 117–8, gives 1766. I follow here Prince Damrong's Thai rop phama, 336, which shows evidence of having sifted all the relevant sources – Lao, Burmese, and Thai.

5. Texts of these and succeeding letters are translated in Maha Sila Viravong, History of Laos (mimeo., New York, 1958), 87 ff.

6. King Chulalongkorn, Chotmaihet khwamsongcham khong krommaluang narinthewi…lae phraratchawitchan nai phrabat somdet phra chunlachomklao chaoyuhua [Memoirs of Princess Narinthewi, With Commentary by King Chulalongkorn] (Bangkok, 1958), 131–2.

7. Hall, D.G.E., Burma. (3rd ed., London, 1960), 91.Google Scholar

8. Sinlapakon, Thailand Krom, comp., “Phongsawadan, muang luang phrabang [Chronicles of Luang Prabang],” in Prachum Phongsawadan [Collected Chronicles], vol.11 (Bangkok, 1919), 41.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as PMLP.

9. Sila, Maha, 89.Google Scholar The Luang Prabang chronicles state that Vientiane solicited aid directly from Ava; but Posuphala was commander of Burmese forces at Chiengmai, the only Burmese troops, in all probability, which could have come to Vientiane's rescue in time. This is borne out in the annals of Chiengmai, as presented Phraya Prachakit Korachak, Phongsawadan yonok [Chronicles of Yonok] (Bangkok, 1961), 472.

10. Le Boulanger, , 155, 196.Google Scholar

11. PMLP. 14; and Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, ed., “Phongsawadan muang luang phrabang [Chronicles of Luang Prabang],” in Collected Chronicles, vol.5 (Bangkok, 1915), 254Google Scholar.

Cited hereafter as Damrong-PMLP. Phraya Prachakit, 473, states that a Siamese attack in the Chiengmai area caused the sudden Burmese withdrawal from Luang Prabang.

12. For the date of the accession of Siribunyasan, Le Boulanger gives 1760, as does History of Laos (Mimeo., Bangkok, 1961), 58, 64. On the other hand, Phraya Pramuan, 36; Yim Punthayangkura, “Lamdap ratchawong kasat haeng prathet lao [Geneological Table of the Kings of Laos],” Sinlapakon 6:3 (Sept. 1962), suppl.; and Berval, 41, give 1767. Charles Archaimbault, in an admirable study of “Histoire de Campasak,” Journal Asiatique t.CCXLIX, fasc. 4 (1961), 558Google Scholar, indicates that the Wo-Ta tale related below could have taken place following the accession of Siribunyasan's predecessor in 1741. I am most grateful to M. Archaimbault for his kindness in discussing this article with me, although for the judgments expressed here I alone am, of course, responsible.

13. Singhathit, Toem, Fang khwa maenam khong [Right Bank of the Mekong River] (Bangkok, 1956), I, 141.Google Scholar

14. As Chulalongkorn, , 135Google Scholar, indicates. The sequence of events presented here follows Chulalongkorn. The main weakness of this version of the tale is that events move too rapidly for the geographical and human elements involved. Thus, following Chulalongkorn's version, it is but four years from the time of Wo's flight to Champasak in 1773 to his death in 1777 following the complex series of events related below. Archaimbault's 1741 date (p.558), on the other hand, moves too slowly, over a space of almost forty years, and must meet the additional objection that the Burmese were in no position in 1741 to be active in Laos, as they were established only in Chiengmai until early in the 1760's (see Damrong, Thai rop phama, 197–338, esp. pp.331–4; and Phraya Prachakit 454–6). The alternative to these two versions is that given by Mon Ammorawongwitchit, “Tamnan muang nakhon champasak [History of Champasak],” in Collected Chronicles, vol.70 (Bangkok, 1941 ), 30–33 (hereafter cited as TMNC), which dates Wo's flight from Nong Bua Lamphu in 1770 or 1771. If this date is correct, the Burmese would have arrived in Vientiane owing, not to the appeals of Wo and Ta for aid, but rather to the Luang Prabang invasion of Vientiane, Since, however, the Burmese are said to have rushed back to Chiengmai following their seige of Luang Prabang (see note 11 above), even this answer to the problem is not free from doubt. As that can be stated with any certainty is that Wo was expelled from Nong Bua Lamphu by a Vientiane-Burmese force, and at this time the Burmese forces returned to Chiengmai with hostages from Vientiane.

15. Text in Sila, Maha, 91–2.Google Scholar

16. Text in Sila, Maha, 92.Google Scholar

17. Sila, Maha, 95–7.Google Scholar

18. Sila, Maha, 99.Google Scholar

19. Maha Sila, 99–100.

20. Sila, Maha, 100.Google Scholar

21. Pages 155, 196–7.

22. PMLP, 44–5; Damrong-PLMP, 254.

23. TMNC, 29–30.

24. Chulalongkorn, , 135.Google Scholar Toem, I, 143–4, gives 1771. following TMNC, 32.

25. TMNC, 32.

26. TMNC, 33. Sila, Maha, 101–2Google Scholar, also states that Thao Kham suggested to Taksin that Vientiane was cooperating with the Burmese. Cf. also Chulalongkorn, , 128.Google Scholar

27. Vol. I, 145–6.

28. During the relatively quiet reign of King Singu in Burma, 1776–1782. Cf. Hall, Burma, 92.

29. For this invasion, a standard source is the Royal Autograph Edition of the phraratchahatlekha (Bangkok, 1962), II, 418–23. For an incomplete account of the procuring of the naval force in Cambodia, see J, Moura, Le Royaume du Cambodge (Paris, 1883), II, 91. Other accounts of the expedition may be found in Sila, Maha, 101–2Google Scholar; Le Boulanger, , 155–6Google Scholar; Toem, , I, 145–9; and TMNC, 33–4.Google Scholar

30. Which were, as the Thai sources put it, “invited” to Thonburi.

31. Sila, Maha, 103.Google Scholar

32. The Thai annals state that there were two military expeditions in the Champasak area during this period, but give Wo as the cause of neither. In addition to the major attack on Vientiane in 1778–9, in the course of which Champasak was taken, the Royal Autograph Edition, II, 414–5, and the Phraratchaphongsawadan thonburi, krung [Royal Chronicles of the Thonburi Period] (Collected Chronicles, vol.65, Bangkok, 1960), 83Google Scholar, mention a military expedition, in the Champasak area in 1777. This expedition was undertaken, they state to put down a revolt of a muang, Nang Rong, tributary to Khorat, whose ruler allegedly was conspiring with the Uparat of Champasak and the governor and Uparat of Attapu (tributary to Champasak). According to these accounts, the Thai sent an army to the area, led by General Chakri, which executed the governor of Nang Rong and then captured Champasak, Khong, and Attapu and executed the plotters. The Thai army returned home in April of 1777. This story is corroborated by the memoirs of a contemporary, Princess Narinthewi (Chulalongkorn, 6–7, 124 ff.), who remembered the army returning from Champasak in September and setting out again in December for Vientiane.

The Uparat of Champasak and the rulers of Attapu, mentioned in the Thai account as having been executed in 1777, were the reported grounds for another Thai expedition against Champasak early in the following decade, mentioned in TMNC, 34–5. The same people and events are thus reported by both sides, but the three Champasak annals Archaimbault used place the event after the 1778 invasion, while the Thai annals place it before the invasion. I have chosen to follow the Champasak chronology, primarily because of an editorial footnote to the Thonburi Annals, p. 83, which notes that as late as 1780 General Chakri was referred to, in a document still existent, as “Chaophraya Chakri,” and not “Chaophraya Mahakasatsuk,” the title which the Thai annals state was conferred on him following the 1777 invasion of Champasak, thus indicating that the expedition involving the Uparat of Champasak may not have taken place until the following decade.

33. PMLP, 45–6; Damrong-PMLP, 254–5.

34. Sila, Maha, 102–3.Google Scholar

35. Toem, , I, 496–7.Google Scholar

36. M.C. Sipphanphansanoe Sonakun, Prawatsat thai samai krung rattanakosin yuk raek … chabap rang [Thai History in the First Part of the Bangkok Period … Draft Edition] (Bangkok, 1958), 61.

37. For this section, see Mom Ammorawongwitchit, “Phongsawadan huamuang monthon isan [Chronicles of the Provinces on Monthon Isan],” in Collected Chronicles, vol.4 (Bangkok, 1915), 29–222, pasim.

38. He was the former General Chakri.

39. There is no mention of this episode in the Thai annals (see note 32 above). For this paragraph, see TMNC, 34–5.

40. TMNC, 35–6. Chao Prommathewanukhro, “Tamman muang nakhon champasak [History of Champasak],” Collected Chronicles, vol.70, 57–8 (cited as Phrommathewanukhro-TMNC). states that Saiyakuman died upon his return to Champasak in 1782 (see para, above), and that the Siamese were unable to choose a new ruler from among the three members of the ruling family they had romobed Bangkok. The lendershop vacuum was filled, the account relates, first by the “man with magical powers”, and then by the sons of Wo and Ta, out of whom Thao Fai Na, after a visit to Bangkok, was appointed chaomuang.

41. Hall, Both, A History of Southeast Asia (London, 1955), 381Google Scholar, and Le Boulanger, , 157Google Scholar, state that Siribunyasan, voluntarily returned to Vientiane and submitted to Siam on learning that his children were being well-treated in Bangkok. The “Short Chroncile of Vientiane” (Phongsawadan yo muang wiangchan,” Collected Chronicles, vol.70, 183) states only that Siribunyasan returned to the city in December of 1780. The chronicles of the First Reign of the Chakri Dynasty of Siam state that Siribunyasan returned to Vientiane and killed Phraya Supho, whom the Thai had left in control, and took over the city. Officials opposed to him then reported the event to Bangkok, whereupon the Thai king appointed Nanthasen ruler of Vientiane. “Not long afterwards,” the source reports, Siribunyasan died. Chaophraya Thiphakorawong, Phraratchaphongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi 1 (Bangkok, 1962), 45–6. Hereafter cited as First Reign Chronicle.

42. Damrong-PMLP, 255, states that tribute was sent to China every five years until 1782, when the interval was changed to ten years, at an increased rate of tribute. The dates given in the Chinese sources, however, indicate that this change took place before 1760. Cf. Fairbank, J.K. and Teng, S.Y., “On the Ch'ing Tributary System,” HJAS 6 (1941), 166–8.Google Scholar

43. Sila, Maha, 136Google Scholar: Damrong-PMLP, 256; and Rene de Berval, Kingdom of Laos (Saigon, 1959), 42.

44. Or perhaps still in 1791.

45. Both Le Boulanger, , 157, 198–200Google Scholar; and Hall, History, 381, state that the attack was made on the initiative of Nanthasen because of “dynastic troubles” in Luang Prabang. The Thai sources, on the other hand, state that the attack was made for the purpose stated and that it was authorized, First Reign Chronicle, 182–3. Cf. also Spphanphansanoe, , 61Google Scholar; and Sila, Maha, 110.Google Scholar

46. E.g. the Uparat of Champasak at an earlier date.

47. Sila, Maha, 110Google Scholar; Sipphanphansanoe, , 61Google Scholar; First Reign Chronicle, 183.

48. Berval, 42.

49. PMLP, 49–50; and Damrong-PMLP, 257–8 give this story in full, with some variations. The Chinese embassy seems unlikely, especially by the route mentioned. The First Reign Chronicle states only that Anuruttha was later restored to his throne.

50. The First Reign Chronicle mentions this event after discussing the restoration of Anuruttha, while the actual dates mentioned for the events would put them in reverse order. Le Boulanger states that Chao Nanshasen was recalled because of the attack on Luang Prabang, and at that time Anuruttha was restored to his throne.

51. E.g. Sipphanphansanoe, , 61.Google Scholar

52. First Reign Chronicle, 211–12; Sila, Maha, 110Google Scholar; and Chanthangonkham, Phraya, “Phongsawadan muang nakhon phanom sagkhep [Condensed Chronicles of Nakhon Phanom],” in Collected Chronicles, vol.70, 239.Google Scholar

53. Le Boulanger, , 159.Google Scholar On the content of this paragraph, see also Sila, Maha, 111.Google Scholar

54. And probably before. Cf. Grossin, Pierre, Notes sur l'Histoire de la Province de Cammon (Laos) (Hanoi, 1933), 17.Google Scholar

55. First Reign Chronicle, 177. This attack may have been provoked by a prior attack by Vientiane on Xieng-Khouang in 1787, occasioned by the latter's submission to Vietnam, although none of the other sources mention this. Maha Sila, 109–10. Cf. also Picanon, Eugene, Le Laos Francais (Paris, 1901 ), 174–5.Google Scholar

56. Maybon, Charles B., Histoire Moderne du Pays d'Annam (1592–1820) (Paris, 1919), 385Google Scholar; Khoi, Le Thanh, Le Viet-Nam, Histoire et Civilisation (Paris, 1955), 336Google Scholar; and, for the date of the accession of Anu, Chao, Tung, Bui Quang, “Chao Anou, roi de Vientiane; a travers les les documents vietnamiens” BSEI 33 (1958), 401.Google Scholar

57. First Reign Chronicle, 274.

58. To paraphrase Le Boulanger, , 159.Google Scholar

59. Maha Sila, 111; Short Chronicle of Vientiane, 181–204.

60. Bui Quang Tung, 401, Cf. also Le Boulanger, , 160–1 fn.Google Scholar

61. Maybon, 385; I.e Thanh Khoi, 336.

62. PMLP, 51.

63. TMNC, 37; Phrommathewanukhro-TMNC, 59, says 1810.

64. Sila, Maha, 144; TMNC, 37–8.Google Scholar

65. Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, ed. Phraratchaphongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi 2 [Royal Chronicle of the Second Reign of the Bangkok Period] (Bangkok, 1916), 270–4; TMNC, 38–9; Le Boulanger, , 160Google Scholar; Sila, Maha, 144–5.Google Scholar

66. TMNC, 39; Le Boulanger, , 161.Google Scholar

67. Le Boulanger, , 201.Google Scholar

68. Le Boulanger, , 201–2.Google Scholar

69. Damrong, -PMLP, 261–2. The five royal insignia are the golden slippers, the royall staff or baton, the sceptre or sword, the state crown, and the fly whisk. Cf. also Toem, 154. It is possible that Chao Mangthaturat stayed in Bangkok at this time to avoid any involvement in Anu's forthcoming revolt, and returned home only when the danger of revolt appeared past – perhaps when the rumor of a British invasion had died out.

70. Maha Sila, 113; and Chaophraya Thiphakorawong, Phraratchaphongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi 3 [Royal Chronicle of the Third Reign of the Bangkok Period] (Bangkok, 1938), 24.

71. Le Boulanger, , 166Google Scholar; Thailand, Krom Sinlapakon, comp., Chotmaihet ruang prap khabot wiangchan [Documents Concerning the Suppression of the Vientiane Rebellion] (Bangkok, 1926), 6; and Toem, I, 154–5.

72. Third Reign Chronicle, 24.

73. Cf. esp. Toem, , I, 154–5.Google Scholar

74. Sipphanphansanoe, , 63Google Scholar; Toem, , I, 155Google Scholar; and Vella, , 80.Google Scholar

75. A letter from John Gillies to John Crawfurd, dated 2 September 1825, notes the currency of the rumor in Bangkok during the former's stay there that year. Gillies states that the rumor was started by the Dutch, and that it caused some alarm in the Thai Government; but by the time he left Bangkok, he wrote, he had managed to discourage such reports. Thailand, Ratchabandit Sapha, trans. and comp., Khao ton ton ratchakan thi 3 [News of the Beginning of the Third Reign] (Bangkok, 1932), 5.

76. Chao Anu's use of this rumor is shown in a curious letter he wrote King Rama III from Nakhon Ratchasima dated 26 January 1827, in which he stated that he was on his way to Bangkok with a large army to defend the city against a joint British-Burmese attack. He admitted that he was doing so without the King's orders, knowingly risking the death penalty. Thailand, Krom Sinlapakon, comp., Chotmaihet nakhon ratchasima [Documents of Nakhon Ratchasima] (Bangkok, 1954), 1–3, I am grateful to Kachorn Sukabhanij for calling this letter to my attention.

77. Third Reign Chronicle, 38–9.

78. Vientiane Rebellion Documents, 64.

79. For events in Luang Prabang during this period, see PMLP, 52–4; and Damrong. PMLP, 262–4. The latter notes that in 1828 the Uparat of Luang Prabang was accused by the Thai of sheltering some fleeing Vientiane families, and was called to Bangkok where he soon died. Chao Suk Soem, the son of Mangthaturat who had carried the message to Bangkok concerning Anu's plans, was named to replace him. See also Vientiane Rebellion Documents, 64–6; and Le Boulanger, 164–70, 201–3.