How was the border created between Thailand, Laos Myanmar ?

[WilliamCave]

I read in a post here some time ago that the border between Laos and thailand that the river was once the border and during the indochina war that land was given to Laos

And woundering why Myanmar goes all the way south were thailamd has a strip and myanmar goes down the other side .

I was looking on the Internet for info on it ,

Can any one shed some history here would like to know a little more about the area .

Like I said in my first sentence I am not even sure about the Laos border .

[Seastallion]

Yes, the Burmese strip is intriguing. Hundreds of years ago the Burmese and Thais did fight major battles over land. It seems to me that once dominating the peninsular, that strip would have been easily cut off from the rest of Burma. Prime coastal land if you look at the greater scheme of things.

[DP25]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

[kaorop]

A mighty Thai warrior forced the marauding Burmese and Khmer further back into to their wastelands,

I read it in a Thai history book.

Its now quite obvious imo that the Lao border should have run to the Issan high plains,

but those canny colonists knew if you divided up countries

with a few opposing "tribes" they were more easily subjugated.

Lots a problems around the world now stem from that little bit of thinking.

Edited December 8, 2014 by kaorop

[WilliamCave]

Thanks

I thought that the the land on the coast side of Thailand was once part of Thailand

Thanks for the info

If any one has old maps of this before the land was given to Laos would like to see them thanks

[JusMe]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

Very simplistic but fundamentally correct explanation.

Obviously one could go on and on and begin a massive thread arguing the intricacies, but DP25 has the basic answer clear in his posting. Good on yer!

[kannot]

lots of fighting

[kannot]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

Very simplistic but fundamentally correct explanation.

Obviously one could go on and on and begin a massive thread arguing the intricacies, but DP25 has the basic answer clear in his posting. Good on yer!

Buy hey ,we were never colonised eh

[Robby nz]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

Very simplistic but fundamentally correct explanation.

Obviously one could go on and on and begin a massive thread arguing the intricacies, but DP25 has the basic answer clear in his posting. Good on yer!

Buy hey ,we were never colonised eh

You should really try reading a bit of history then you wouldn't have to post silliness.

Start with that and go from there http://www.ancient.eu/Khmer_Empire/

There were battles in many places and depending on the strength and courage of the monarchs, land was won and lost, Angkor Wat was once part of Thailand and at another the Khmer Empire covered most of what is now Thailand, Lao, Cambodia and Vietnam, while at another time Burmese armies occupied right across to the Chao Phraya river.

This was not colonization but spoils of war.

[Thongkorn]

Queen Victoria of Britain , and Germany stopped Thailand from being colonised by France, or they would have been colonised. But if you count the years Burma ruled Thailand then yes Thailand has been colonised.

[kannot]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

Very simplistic but fundamentally correct explanation.

Obviously one could go on and on and begin a massive thread arguing the intricacies, but DP25 has the basic answer clear in his posting. Good on yer!

Buy hey ,we were never colonised eh

You should really try reading a bit of history then you wouldn't have to post silliness.

Start with that and go from there http://www.ancient.eu/Khmer_Empire/

There were battles in many places and depending on the strength and courage of the monarchs, land was won and lost, Angkor Wat was once part of Thailand and at another the Khmer Empire covered most of what is now Thailand, Lao, Cambodia and Vietnam, while at another time Burmese armies occupied right across to the Chao Phraya river.

This was not colonization but spoils of war.

even funnier

[MikeENZ]

It would be against forum rules to give a full and accurate reason of why the borders are where they are for various reasons involving a big red banner across the top of the page.

But if you want to read about how the borders came about (It's very interesting and involves various "colonial" actions in the country that is famous for claiming it that it was never colonised, the fall out from world war two, the border disputes between the french in indochina pre WWII etc) I recommend the very excellent History of Thailand book that is available on Amazon.com or very cheaply at most university book stores (in English). Another interesting book is Siam Mapped which often comes as a bundle deal on amazon. It covers all of this and much, much more. It covers the issues accurately without the standard arguments of Thai exceptionalism and much of the inaccurate mythology that involves history lessons from locals.

Quite frankly anyone who has a long term interest in living in Thailand should read the first, and I'd buy it while excellently written history books such as it are still legal in Thailand.

[MikeENZ]

The borders were set by the British and French when Burma was a colony of Britain and Lao/Cambodia/Vietnam was a colony of France. Thailand used to claim part of Burma, Shan territories in the northeast of Burma, but was forced to give it up. Same with the land on the west side of the Mehkong river, France forced Thailand to give it to them, so it then became part of modern day Laos. The peninsula is split because there is a mountain range, one side is Thai the other side Burmese.

Very simplistic but fundamentally correct explanation.

Obviously one could go on and on and begin a massive thread arguing the intricacies, but DP25 has the basic answer clear in his posting. Good on yer!

Buy hey ,we were never colonised eh

You should really try reading a bit of history then you wouldn't have to post silliness.

Start with that and go from there http://www.ancient.eu/Khmer_Empire/

There were battles in many places and depending on the strength and courage of the monarchs, land was won and lost, Angkor Wat was once part of Thailand and at another the Khmer Empire covered most of what is now Thailand, Lao, Cambodia and Vietnam, while at another time Burmese armies occupied right across to the Chao Phraya river.

This was not colonization but spoils of war.

What a load of complete and utterly incorrect rubbish. Ankor Wat was NEVER part of Thailand.

Modern Thailand only existed post the Japanese occupation in the second world war, prior to this it was the Kingdom of Siam. This "Kingdom" was really a variety of Kingdoms (such as the Lanna Kingdom in the north and Malay Muslim sultanates in the south) until much of then Siam came under control of Central Thailand. There was never a concept of "Thailand" or even "Siam" until very recently (modern nation states are a very new concept really). Most people don't realise that there were multiple competing Kingdoms and principalities that were either wiped out or absorbed under Chulalongkorn's rule, and this was mainly due to a fear of being colonised, so while Thailand was never officially colonised by western powers - it's always been a state that has had some western influence over the last few hundred years and managed to "colonise" itself, from the central Autthaya kingdom which relocated to the current site of Bangkok after it was wrecked by the Burmese southwards and northwards to it's current borders.

But hey who needs accurate history when we can have fairy tales instead.

[MrMo]

Country borders tended to be based on natural lines of defence such as rivers and mountains or hills.

The Thai border with Myanmar is established along the higher points of the range of mountains between the two countries.

That with Laos is for the most-part based on the Mekong though at the north of Thailand where the Mekong comes out of the hills the border switches to the hills. Possibly this switch came about as the result of some conflict between the local groups in that are and when the borders were more firmly established as national borders the group(s) of that area where closer aligned with the Laos rulers than the Thai.

Google Earth shows this quite clearly not only for the borders you ask about but also the majority around the world. Why do you think Israel, having captured the Golan Heights refuse to give them back.

[wilcopops]

I think if you spend time on Google you'll find various times where people took surveys - notably the Brits in the West and the French in the East.

Needless to say when the Brits took over Burma, they wanted to know EXACTLY what they'd got. Nothing appears however to be set in stone.......there was considerable argument over the region around 3 pagodas after the war.

Thailand even now is not fully surveyed as anyone trying to buy property will find out . in many areas the actual lines and boundaries are not mapped...this lead to a lot of people losing the land and homes to developers after the tsunami.

Unfortunately poor surveying and rampant nationalism will continue to lead to border disputes for some time to come.

[kerrysum]

Borders, language, and culture.... Any questions?

[wilcopops]

It would be against forum rules to give a full and accurate reason of why the borders are where they are for various reasons involving a big red banner across the top of the page.

But if you want to read about how the borders came about (It's very interesting and involves various "colonial" actions in the country that is famous for claiming it that it was never colonised, the fall out from world war two, the border disputes between the french in indochina pre WWII etc) I recommend the very excellent History of Thailand book that is available on Amazon.com or very cheaply at most university book stores (in English). Another interesting book is Siam Mapped which often comes as a bundle deal on amazon. It covers all of this and much, much more. It covers the issues accurately without the standard arguments of Thai exceptionalism and much of the inaccurate mythology that involves history lessons from locals.

Quite frankly anyone who has a long term interest in living in Thailand should read the first, and I'd buy it while excellently written history books such as it are still legal in Thailand.

I haven't read Mapping Siam - looks interesting

I agree that history of Thailand is essential reading for anyone intending to stay here any length of time, and that the "official" interpretations of Thai history are risible......but which "History of Thailand" are you suggesting you don't cite the authors or ISBN?

the Baker/Phongpaichit is a great book, but the Wyatt in my opinion doesn't really even qualify as a proper history book.

[wilcopops]

Borders, language, and culture.... Any questions?

have I missed something here or is that a completely philistine post?

Edited December 9, 2014 by wilcopops

[dluek]

The attached photo if from the Museum of Siam in Bangkok, which does a good job of explaining this and many other aspects of Thai/Siamese history. As you can see, virtually all of present-day Laos and Cambodia, and parts of Burma and Malaysia, were part of Siam before the French and British coerced the Thais to give up these huge chunks of territory in exchange for retaining Siam's own sovereinty. (Some would say the Thais were lucky on this account -- the British and French could have almost certainly split the reamining country in half by force if they'd wanted to).

As I understand it, the dark blue slice on the Andaman coast and the two dark blue chunks in the far wouth were both ceded to the British... Contrary to what one poster said, that slice of what's now Burma was controlled by Siam and was very important due to a relatively short land transport route that made it so India/Sri Lanka bound goods didn't have to be carted all the way south of Singapore and back up. The lighter blue chunks of northwestern Cambodia and northwestern Laos actually bounced back and forth between the French and Siamese, and the two powers did fight a couple of short-lived wars over them. At one point around the turn of the 20th century, what's now Trat and Chanthaburi provinces in Southeast Thailand were both controlled by the French, while Siem Reap in what's now northwestern Cambodia was part of Siam. If the whims of the respective rulers had gone different ways, Thailand could today be touting Angkor Wat as its own tourist attraction, while the Cambodians would be promoting Ko Chang as theirs.

Edited December 9, 2014 by dluek

[wilcopops]

Country borders tended to be based on natural lines of defence such as rivers and mountains or hills.

The Thai border with Myanmar is established along the higher points of the range of mountains between the two countries.

That with Laos is for the most-part based on the Mekong though at the north of Thailand where the Mekong comes out of the hills the border switches to the hills. Possibly this switch came about as the result of some conflict between the local groups in that are and when the borders were more firmly established as national borders the group(s) of that area where closer aligned with the Laos rulers than the Thai.

Google Earth shows this quite clearly not only for the borders you ask about but also the majority around the world. Why do you think Israel, having captured the Golan Heights refuse to give them back.

"Country borders tended to be based on natural lines of defence such as rivers and mountains or hills. "

Of course if you look into it you'll see that that is NOT the case ..."

"Possibly this switch came about as the result of some conflict between the local groups in that are and when the borders were more firmly established as national borders the group(s) of that area where closer aligned with the Laos rulers than the Thai."

and much of this supposition is based on misconception too. - read up your history!

[wilcopops]

Borders like cultures are not static - When looking at borders, geography is a factor, but people cultures populations are not static and the ruling powers change and shift. Power - Colonialism, alliances and wars as well as economics and trade all affect how the borders are formed....and they are seldom 100% static even now.

If you want a well documented example Google a few maps of the North America over the last 400 years - much less time than in Thailand.

Check out Europe or worse still Africa if you want to get really bogged down.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wilcopops

[garyinhuahin]

There was quite a tussle with the French over the Laos border. Basically, the Thais were colonizing Issan and northern Laos at the same time the French were moving in from the other direction. It ended up with French gunboats poised to level Bangkok if the treaty was not signed.

It was, of course, and it divided the Laos people between two countries. Still today more Lao speakers in Thailand than in Laos'.

Here's a good book on the subject. http://goo.gl/Afniuz

Myanmar is another long story, with parts of the peninsula changing hand repeatedly. Final border negotiated with the British.

You didn't ask about Cambodia. Another long tale, which was only resolved in the aftermath of WWII

If you show a Thai a map of the country, with the surrounding territories, good chance they will point to this and that bit and say "This should be Thailand". This is what they're taught in school, that Thailand is an aggrieved nation that had it's lands stolen by the colonial powers.

[recycler]

lots of fighting

No No, this is Thailand, fighting was avoided...

[wilcopops]

Queen Victoria of Britain , and Germany stopped Thailand from being colonised by France, or they would have been colonised. But if you count the years Burma ruled Thailand then yes Thailand has been colonised.

OK - this has a germ of truth, but the problem is you seem to be equating colonisation with occupation.

Thailand loves to make the case for not being "colonised" but the truth is nearer to what you say - it wasn't because it didn't need to be as other powers had already "colonised" the economy or were using it as a buffer state. Remember the Japanese also "colonised" Thailand in WW2 and the US had almost direct control over establishing governments after the war.

[Ace of Pop]

And now its Owned by Rich Chinese Migrants ...

[gregk0543]

This only goes to prove how fluid the borders are. The borders change from era to era. You also have to check the history of each country. They all tell you from their own perspective. Chaing mai was burma the british gave it back. Present day border

[gregk0543]

Present day borders set by british and french. I meant to say.

[Docno]

Isaan is an interesting case also. I'd always assumed that the 'Laos' were there because it used to be Lao territory. But more recently I read that, at one point, Thailand had occupied Lao territory up to what is now Vietnam (borders not being so clearly demarcated in those days) and forcibly moved Lao people across the Mekong into what is now Isaan in order to increase the population and agricultural output of that area. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, of course.

[Gonekicking]

During colonial times, the major powers had this theory of the "buffer state" which would prevent two major colonial powers from fighting if they shared a border. This one of the main reasons that ALL of this region was not colonized by either France or England. Not sure where I read about it so sorry no cites.

I like to joke that the Siamese/Lanna/Thai/etc's were never colonized because they bent over for both sides to avoid it, and that's where the whole "avoid conflict" part of thainess comes from.

[Estrada]

A mighty Thai warrior forced the marauding Burmese and Khmer further back into to their wastelands,

I read it in a Thai history book.

Its now quite obvious imo that the Lao border should have run to the Issan high plains,

but those canny colonists knew if you divided up countries

with a few opposing "tribes" they were more easily subjugated.

Lots a problems around the world now stem from that little bit of thinking.

Don't believe most Thai History books or Thai movies. The land that is now called Thailand, was called Funan up until the 6th Century and belonged to the Khmer and Mon people. They gave part of the Khymer Kingdom to the Tai, Chinese immigrants that came from China and settled along the Chaophraya River, who called the area they were given "Siam". Now the descendants of the Chinese immigrants tell the Khymer to get back to their own country. Many Thais do not know their real history or even realise that the Thai people who speak Khmer around the Surin area are the descendants of the real owners of this Country so they cannot be referred to as "Marauding Khmer".