MURDER AND MAYHEM IN SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY CAMBODIA Anthony van Diemen vs King Ramadhipati I, Alfons Van Der Kraan, Silkworm Books, 2009, 79pp, 395 baht, ISBN 978-9749511626New book traces first confrontation between Europe and mainland Southeast Asia
16/02/2009
By CHRIS BAKER
Bangkok Post
This is a nice, old-fashioned history book about kings, ships, great men and, most of all, blood. Its subject is a hitherto unknown incident in the murky history of Cambodia in the 17th century. But its significance and interest is much larger. Alfons van der Kraan claims it was the first confrontation between European might and local rulers in mainland Southeast Asia. It marks the point where European inquisitiveness about Asia turned to downright arrogance.
The confrontation involved two men. Ramadhipati became king of Cambodia in 1642 by murdering the former ruler, his cousin, slaughtering most of the rest of his family, and ordering a bloody purge of the nobility.
The Dutch had already set up a nice little operation in Cambodia to buy deerskins for trading to Japan. Shortly after the bloody succession, two Dutchmen were killed in the Cambodian capital of Oudong by Portuguese rivals. One was shot with poisoned arrows and the other run through with a sword. The Dutch complained to the king, who was not interested in these quarrels. In anger, the Dutch seized a Chinese junk leaving the Mekong on its way to Japan with a cargo of skins owned by the Portuguese. The king became enraged and demanded that the Dutch pay compensation. The Dutch countered that the Dutch and Portuguese were at war and thus the seizure was a legitimate act of war. They told the king he had no power over them on the sea "where the Netherlanders, next to God, are master".
Not surprisingly, the Cambodian king was not impressed by a legalistic argument about a conflict half a world away. The Dutch then tried something more practical. They offered the king a bribe to forget about the compensation. It worked.
Now enter the second protagonist, Anthony van Diemen. He had become governor-general of the Dutch Asian headquarters in Batavia (Jakarta) in 1636. He had overseen a massive expansion in Dutch trading, launched famous expeditions of exploration to the southern seas, and made his masters an enormous profit. Other rulers around Asia thought of him as a king just like themselves. And seemingly he did too. When he heard of the Cambodian incident, his reactions were a fascinating mixture of Europe's growing racial arrogance and the self-regard of Asian rulers. The first thing he thought about was face.
Van Diemen would not be bested by some inferior ruler. He mounted an expedition on a scale out of all proportion to the original incident or the value of Dutch business in Cambodia. Like an Asian ruler, he bribed Dutch troops to man the expedition by offering them half the booty. He also tried to tempt King Prasat Thong of Siam into the venture, and sent fake letters to sow dissension within the Cambodian court. He instructed the expedition leader, "You are to burn and destroy, without sparing anyone."
The punitive expedition with four ships and 350 men sailed up the Mekong in 1644. They landed and bought 25 large horses so that they could ride into the capital in style to deliver Van Diemen's missive demanding compensation. But Van Diemen had made two extraordinary errors. He had written a missive detailing the earlier bribe. This was to be read out in audience before the Cambodian nobility, to shame King Ramadhipati. But first it had to be translated into Khmer, and probably the translator leaked the contents to the king. The grand Dutch horse-borne procession never made it to the palace. They were slaughtered to a man in Oudong market square. Cambodian forces also massacred the Dutch trading post and captured one of the ships by first sending a boat full of beer, waiting a few hours, then going in with the sword.
Van Diemen's second mistake was strategic. The heavy and well-armed Dutch ships were formidable on the high seas, but in a narrow river the ships were clumsy and their weapons difficult to manoeuvre. The remains of the expedition had to fight their way back down the river with heavy losses. Over a third of the Dutch expedition forces lost their lives. So did a thousand Cambodians, including several high nobles.
On learning of this unmitigated disaster, Van Diemen's first thought was revenge. He began planning an even larger expedition, and lured Prasat Thong to cooperate in return for Siamese domination over Cambodia. But before the expedition could be launched, Van Diemen sickened and died.
Thereafter, the affair tailed away in anticlimax. The Dutch patched up a truce for the sake of trade. The Cambodian king was overthrown by his predecessor's surviving sons with Vietnamese backing. But the incident was significant in many ways. The Dutch dropped ideas of overthrowing rulers on the Southeast Asian mainland. Cambodia fell into the orbit of Vietnam rather than Siam.
As history, the incident confirms the viciousness of court politics in the region in that era, known from the Van Vliet's near-contemporary account of Siam. The incident also shows how important it was for mainland rulers to keep their capitals some distance from the sea and up winding rivers. Not until steam succeeded sail in the late 19th century did they fall to European gunboat diplomacy.
Finally, the book shows how much good stuff is still lying waiting in the Dutch archives. Alfons van der Kraan has dug out the details and told the tale with great verve. In particular, the account of the Dutch expedition's embattled escape down the river reeks of gunpowder. The book reproduces a beautiful contemporary sketch of the battle drawn on ricepaper.
16/02/2009
By CHRIS BAKER
Bangkok Post
This is a nice, old-fashioned history book about kings, ships, great men and, most of all, blood. Its subject is a hitherto unknown incident in the murky history of Cambodia in the 17th century. But its significance and interest is much larger. Alfons van der Kraan claims it was the first confrontation between European might and local rulers in mainland Southeast Asia. It marks the point where European inquisitiveness about Asia turned to downright arrogance.
The confrontation involved two men. Ramadhipati became king of Cambodia in 1642 by murdering the former ruler, his cousin, slaughtering most of the rest of his family, and ordering a bloody purge of the nobility.
The Dutch had already set up a nice little operation in Cambodia to buy deerskins for trading to Japan. Shortly after the bloody succession, two Dutchmen were killed in the Cambodian capital of Oudong by Portuguese rivals. One was shot with poisoned arrows and the other run through with a sword. The Dutch complained to the king, who was not interested in these quarrels. In anger, the Dutch seized a Chinese junk leaving the Mekong on its way to Japan with a cargo of skins owned by the Portuguese. The king became enraged and demanded that the Dutch pay compensation. The Dutch countered that the Dutch and Portuguese were at war and thus the seizure was a legitimate act of war. They told the king he had no power over them on the sea "where the Netherlanders, next to God, are master".
Not surprisingly, the Cambodian king was not impressed by a legalistic argument about a conflict half a world away. The Dutch then tried something more practical. They offered the king a bribe to forget about the compensation. It worked.
Now enter the second protagonist, Anthony van Diemen. He had become governor-general of the Dutch Asian headquarters in Batavia (Jakarta) in 1636. He had overseen a massive expansion in Dutch trading, launched famous expeditions of exploration to the southern seas, and made his masters an enormous profit. Other rulers around Asia thought of him as a king just like themselves. And seemingly he did too. When he heard of the Cambodian incident, his reactions were a fascinating mixture of Europe's growing racial arrogance and the self-regard of Asian rulers. The first thing he thought about was face.
Van Diemen would not be bested by some inferior ruler. He mounted an expedition on a scale out of all proportion to the original incident or the value of Dutch business in Cambodia. Like an Asian ruler, he bribed Dutch troops to man the expedition by offering them half the booty. He also tried to tempt King Prasat Thong of Siam into the venture, and sent fake letters to sow dissension within the Cambodian court. He instructed the expedition leader, "You are to burn and destroy, without sparing anyone."
The punitive expedition with four ships and 350 men sailed up the Mekong in 1644. They landed and bought 25 large horses so that they could ride into the capital in style to deliver Van Diemen's missive demanding compensation. But Van Diemen had made two extraordinary errors. He had written a missive detailing the earlier bribe. This was to be read out in audience before the Cambodian nobility, to shame King Ramadhipati. But first it had to be translated into Khmer, and probably the translator leaked the contents to the king. The grand Dutch horse-borne procession never made it to the palace. They were slaughtered to a man in Oudong market square. Cambodian forces also massacred the Dutch trading post and captured one of the ships by first sending a boat full of beer, waiting a few hours, then going in with the sword.
Van Diemen's second mistake was strategic. The heavy and well-armed Dutch ships were formidable on the high seas, but in a narrow river the ships were clumsy and their weapons difficult to manoeuvre. The remains of the expedition had to fight their way back down the river with heavy losses. Over a third of the Dutch expedition forces lost their lives. So did a thousand Cambodians, including several high nobles.
On learning of this unmitigated disaster, Van Diemen's first thought was revenge. He began planning an even larger expedition, and lured Prasat Thong to cooperate in return for Siamese domination over Cambodia. But before the expedition could be launched, Van Diemen sickened and died.
Thereafter, the affair tailed away in anticlimax. The Dutch patched up a truce for the sake of trade. The Cambodian king was overthrown by his predecessor's surviving sons with Vietnamese backing. But the incident was significant in many ways. The Dutch dropped ideas of overthrowing rulers on the Southeast Asian mainland. Cambodia fell into the orbit of Vietnam rather than Siam.
As history, the incident confirms the viciousness of court politics in the region in that era, known from the Van Vliet's near-contemporary account of Siam. The incident also shows how important it was for mainland rulers to keep their capitals some distance from the sea and up winding rivers. Not until steam succeeded sail in the late 19th century did they fall to European gunboat diplomacy.
Finally, the book shows how much good stuff is still lying waiting in the Dutch archives. Alfons van der Kraan has dug out the details and told the tale with great verve. In particular, the account of the Dutch expedition's embattled escape down the river reeks of gunpowder. The book reproduces a beautiful contemporary sketch of the battle drawn on ricepaper.
4 comments:
In the year 1930's, Who killed the Thai King before the current Thai King Aduljadech Bhumibol was crowned?
Among the goods, there are also some bad qualities in Cambodian culture. Times and times again, the history shows us that the leaders of the kingdom are willing to kill their relatives, shed their own blood in order to attain power. Khmers never learn from their mistakes!!!. Therefore, the result is the down fall of Cambodia kingdom from an empire to a small state. Tragic conspiracies among the leaders and manipulation of history make us more stupid, poorer, and more sufferings, we never gain anything positively.
9;17AM.
Some suspected CIA and some said KGB. There're a lot secret things are kept from the world.
His Majesty was just King during Cold War, and the Prime Minister was Pridi. He was educated in Soviet and a good friend of Ho Chi Minh.
US and Thailand have relationship since 1833. The US helped France to stay in S.East Asia, but the Soviet also wanted that region too, so the Soviet helped Vietnam.
Both Communist and Capitalist wanted to reign over S. East Asia. It could be a pressure from either KGB or CIA. Many thousand Thais were killed by CIA because the US refused to lose Thailand.
Since Pridi was Communist like Ho Chi Minh, who knows? His Majesty was shot in the head in his own bedroom. The morning the King was shot, his young brother, current King was there. He may have seen this execution, or he was threatned by the executioner that's why the King stop smiling.
Yes he began with the bloody usurpation of the throne in the early 1640s.
His real name was Chao Ponhea Cand, but he ruled under Rameathipadei, then he converted to Muslim under the name 'Ibrahim' after he married to a Khmer muslim.
More violence occured after Ibrahim or Rameathipadei embraced Muslim and the Muslims & Cham increased their political influence upon Cambodia according to Ducth source.
If the Muslims had their hands on Cambodia for a little bit long, the Khmers would be all killed by them. By now Cambodia may be only Muslims majority.
Post a Comment