Yup that's right the country known as malaysia today was almost under thai control and were it not from the british they probably would be thai provinces today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burney_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_1909

Indochina of 1886...reduced resolution. The yellow coloured areas denote locations

under Siamese (Thai) control/administration. If anybody wants a full res copy PM me.

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

did you know if not for the English and Germans, Thailand would maybe speaking french now,

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

Thais came down to escape Gengas kan, think that's how you spell it, the came south to escape the constant fighting, They actually took land from most of the surrounding country's,

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

Pretty much agree. Thailand (the Thai) rose as the Khmer and Burmese empires sank. Thailand is not an epic story, it is rather a tale of "last man standing". Further, the first true Thai kingdoms owe everything to artisans and scholars of its neighbors, especially the Khmer (which the Thai never, ever credit). The old Thai's cities are nothing compared to Pagan and Angkor. This goes for the civilizations that developed around them as well.

Thailand is, historically a legend in its own mind.

Cambodia had been battered by the Viets and became a vassal state. The map does not show half of peninsular Malaysia in Thai hands, more like two provinces.

I seriously doubt Thailand was defending these southern borders at the time. Further, my hunch is that the brits were more than willing to allow and encourage stable Thailand to control what it did not want or could not control. Last thing wanted was a rougue Malay state.

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

really which regions?

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

well land was stolen from aborigines, native americans and mostly natives from the americas. Land stolen by native ppl by russians etc.

But Thailand was never colonialised, just gave away huge chunks of territory to the French and British, but still remained not colonised and are proud of the fact.

Yes did know and I am always amused they know that, but not that Penang once belonged to them, guess they would skip that part of the history lesson.

Since the french and Brits were nearly at war with each other it was agreed Thailand made a good buffer zone between them, had one taken over it would have just been another French v Britain battle.

Did you know that BKK used to be the French quarter before Chakri Dynasty? They were burned out and fled the country.

"First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century."

NOt true. There was one Kingdom long before the 20th century. There weren't all connected as easily until technology allowed it. When the trains started connecting the country, the provinces all had more of a voice.

"The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia"

Again another not full truth. Thai people are not the "thais" Thai people and the nation is a wonderful blend of many different ethnic minorities that have made one nation.

There was a migratory people known as the Thais, but that doesn't mean that was who Thai people come from. That is one of the influences.

If you actually track the migratory/trade patterns of different peoples, you would realize that all of these came together in Siam. There is no pure ethnicity. Thai people are not homegenious in their physical appearance for a reason.

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

EVERY country was established by conquest at some point.

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

well land was stolen from aborigines, native americans and mostly natives from the americas. Land stolen by native ppl by russians etc.

How much of Siam was Rama 5 forced to give up? I read somewhere 50% of the country but that seems to high

First of all, there was no "country" in the modern sense prior to the 20th Century. Second of all, most of that land had been stolen by the Thais in the first place, from people like the Malays, Khmers, Mon and later the Lao. The people we today call Thai are newcomers to Southeast Asia and only came down from southern China about 900 years ago. They rose to power and became the big colonizers of the region as the kingdoms that preceded them started to falter.

I think "stole" is a rather unfair word to use. Unless we want to use it to describe every nation still existing today.

I beg to differ,

But if it weren't for the British, they would all be under Japanese control now!

Listen up! The TV Sunday Thai history lesson has begun.

You can chose to join the mangling of what passes as Thai history and genealogy by the Thai lovers and Thai bashers alike, or you can google and wiki the truth yourselves.

OP. Lovely map by the way and courtesy of the Scottish Geographical Magazine of 1886 no less.

I beg to differ,

But if it weren't for the British, they would all be under Japanese control now!

Speaking as a Brit we Brits had a lot of help from the Americans at the time. This is not to say that we couldn't have done it without them but it would have taken a few yeras and many deaths longer.

Thanks to the USA for helping us out at that time.

I beg to differ,

But if it weren't for the British, they would all be under Japanese control now!

Speaking as a Brit we Brits had a lot of help from the Americans at the time. This is not to say that we couldn't have done it without them but it would have taken a few yeras and many deaths longer.

Thanks to the USA for helping us out at that time.

Bit of a side show really, Admiral Nimitz knew that. Oops we have crept into WW2

I beg to differ,

But if it weren't for the British, they would all be under Japanese control now!

Speaking as a Brit we Brits had a lot of help from the Americans at the time. This is not to say that we couldn't have done it without them but it would have taken a few yeras and many deaths longer.

Thanks to the USA for helping us out at that time.

Bit of a side show really, Admiral Nimitz knew that. Oops we have crept into WW2

But the post was all about Thailand and history anyway.

fifthcolumn post # 7

Thailand is, historically a legend in its own mind.

Priceless comment mate the best I've seen in years.

Keep 'em coming.

It seems like a strange thing to say, but much of the world should be grateful to Nazi Germany.

Before losing WWII the Germans financially broke England and forced them to abandon their "colonies" that they had been exploiting all over the world before the war.

It is the only positive thing I can think of that the Nazi did!

Avoid the knee jerk reaction to this and think about it.

Since WWII, the sun does set on the empire...and that's a good thing!

did you know if not for the English and Germans, Thailand would maybe speaking french now,

Agreed.

And if the Americans did not win the revolution against the Britts in 1776.

Americans would all be speaking English today!

did you know if not for the English and Germans, Thailand would maybe speaking french now,

Hahaha...even with english and germans, they still speak thai.

Listen up! The TV Sunday Thai history lesson has begun.

You can chose to join the mangling of what passes as Thai history and genealogy by the Thai lovers and Thai bashers alike, or you can google and wiki the truth yourselves.

OP. Lovely map by the way and courtesy of the Scottish Geographical Magazine of 1886 no less.

Did that Magazine have yellow covers and have good maps and photos of bare breasted locals too.

I think in this case google would have a hard time telling the truth with this as there have been many fisherman's stories told by all sides in this for generations. Hard to tell the truth from the fiction.