According the The Chronicles of Ayutthya, Pitsanulok was a Lao Kingdom, which makes King Naresuan the Great Lao.

Phraya Naresuan was Lao through his Fathers Side, his mother was Siamese through the Souwannapoum Dynasty.

We know the Child takes the identity from his fathers side, just as Samsanthai was a Lao King as the son of Phraya Fa Ngum, even though his mother was a Khmer princess. King Naresuan was Lao through his fathers lineage, even though his mother was Siamese.

Ayutthya was mostly a Siamese Kingdom that incorperated Lao regions like Pitsanulok and Lanna during the Reign of King Naresuan. even King Naresuan when talking about the Lao, did not distinguish between the ppl of Lao Lanna, Lao lanxang, or Lao Pitsanulok. thats just pure fact in the chronicles of Ayutthya during the Reign of King Neresuan. So King Nuresuan himself referred to his Home Kingdom of Pitsanulok as a Lao region, which would make him a Lao king of Ayutthya.

Both the Chronicles of Burma and Ayutthya confirm that Pitsanulok was a Lao region Not Siamese.

I don't mind people telling the truth about our History, but a twisted adn bias info. with an intention to Laofication our Thai history is unacceptable.

Just like you've said and I agreed on the part that we are related, but we are different branch of Tai. Just like King of Sukhothai had stated clearly the fact that He considered Himself, His people,Kingdom and even His script as Tai.

So in conclusion Sukhothai never considered themselves as Lao, but a Tai kingdom.


King Naresuan never considered himself as Lao neither.PURE FACT!!!! King Naresuan genetic is compose of Austro-Tai people. He spoke, lived and died as Siamese of Ayuttaya and I respect His identity.


BTW ,Burmese called "Tai Yai" as "Shan", but those Tai people considered themselves as "Tai" not Shan nor Lao.
I have the same feeling like Hari and would like to tell you the same thing that you have your Lanxang kingdom and kings to be proud of , stop claiming my King as yours.

Again, We are not talking about Tai, We are talking about Lao and Siamese.

Is Pitsanulok Lao or Siamese, Is Sukothai Lao or Siamese. Well according to the Burma and Ayutthya, Sukothai and Pitsanulok was Lao NOT Siamese.

I cant be more clear about it, Hari said Tai was used to mention their location. lolzzz, pure fact, why dont you go ask her, Zaw-gyi also said Tai was used to indicate their location, why dont you go ask him.

Burmese called all Tai who were Lao ppl Shan, Again, Ask Zaw-gyi, he said Burmese called Lanna ppl Shan, Lanxang ppl Shan, and Sokothai/Pitsanulok ppl Shan. He also said very cleary that The burmese Did NOT call Ayutthay ppl Shan because Ayutthya was Siamese not Shan=Lao.

The Burmese reference to the Shan is backed up by Ayutthya, who called the Shan ppl Lao. Ayutthya called the ppl of Lanna Lao, the ppl of Lanxang Lao and the ppl of Sukothai/Pitsanulok as Lao NOT Siamese. This is pure Fact.

So is Pitsanulok Siamese or Lao? Even Mordern Thailand and Siam confirm what i said, The Ethnic Thai ppl of Thailand is made up of Siamese and Lao ppl. The Goverment of Thailand wanted to unite the Lao region with the Siamese regions, so they came up with Thailand.

let me know if you want me to clear things up for you

Sukhothai - 12th C

Siam - 13th C

Sukhothai - only Phitsanulok n also had conquered/colonized/absorbed Southern Thai particularly Nakhorn Sri Thammarath or Tamraling... It had been a century or more we had been Taified by Sukhothai... So, how is
that we're not speaking in their language now? The period we've got Tai language is even earlier than Thaification and the reformation of Siam to Thailand.

Siam - had in alliance with Sukhothai, Southern Thai (Nakhon SI Thammarat), Central Thai (Suphannaphum)...

SUkhothai of 12th C was not Siam... Post 13th C is Siam period... There's no Siam pre-13th C... I am a Siamese becoz my ancestry is from Nakhorn SI Thammarath and I speak a form of Tai dialect and it's my mother tongue...

when i am talking about Sukothai I am talking about the actual Kingdom or region around Sukothai, and not the extented empire that went south into Siamese regions.

I understand what your saying however.

and The Acutal Sukothai as well as Pitsanoulok was Not Siamese.

Ya, that's correct and what you had said is truly true... It's not Siamese region, haha... I hope other natives like Cambodian don't simply bad mouthing us without understanding anything except that assuming Angkor is the empire that ruled SEA because they will be seen by us here as Colonizers because in my area, British dogs had been assumed as animals, so if they don't want to be animals, they have to understand their position first...

For those kids who are proud of their ancestral land, I think that it is a very good spirit and a good deed to remember their ancestor achievements. They deserve compliments, but their ancestors are not the only people who inhabit SEA mainland and the only native tribe that exist. In South Thai, we also accepted Tai people in the history line because that is the fact, nothing to be ashamed of when we are colonized by them in Southern Thai because our ancestors here did fights back although being defeated without any help by any other "powerful empire". We were suppressed even until 19th C by Burmese, Central Siam, and not to forget bastard British...

FYI, Burmese are not Mon people, Mon people are natives. Those of Suphannaphum dynasty in Central Siam were primarily live there before the attacks of Khmer empire or Angkor around 9th C. Their former civilizations were burnt and people were taken as slaves. Some of them have to seek refuge in lower Burma and that is how Lower Burma being related to the Dvaravadi people (Suphannaphum). Many researches being done by International scholars and actually they only realize the sisterhood of the Mon language of Lower Burma with those of Dvaravadi in Central Siam after 70 years of deep research... We call them in Dvaravadi in our language as Chao Bon, not Mon...

Suphannaphum is our rendition for Suvarnabhumi and it means Golden Land, while SUmatera in Indonesia part was known as Suvarnadvipa or the Golden Island... Suvarnabhumi covers up Central Thailand area today, Lower Burma and Southern Thailand and it continues to Singapore... Singapore was once under Nakhorn Sri Thammarat supervision. All of the Southern Thai states were supervised by Nakhorn Sri Thammarat, but the superior kingdom of Southern Thai was actually Langkasuka or Patani. Patani part became Muslim kingdom around 9th C when a group of Malays in refuge from Northern Sumatera preach the religion to the tribal king there who was a Mahayana Buddhist at that time... The king gave a piece of land to those Muslim Malay preachers in Patani known as Kampong Malayu, it is near the paknam port... And Patani is the Eastern part of Langkasuka. Muang Saiburee or Kedah which is now in Malaysia today was the Western part of Langkasuka and I was born in this part of state. It was broken apart from Langkasuka when an Indo-Aryan (Persian Hindu) king enters with his ministers into the land from Andaman sea after the previous dynasty king passed away. The locals had to appoint a king because they need to unify their people with a ruler. There are also chronicles which linked us to Sri Lanka tradition which is Mahawong chronicle and several Hindu Purannas and epic about Maurya Empire...

If some of you don't believe my history narration or thinking that I am a nationalishi-t, go on, I know about South Thai area even more than of those in Central Thai, but I also respect them and their local culture... I don't even care about Malaysia but I will kick the heads of people who insult South Thai states and my state in Northern Malaysia just like Nang Hari who is proud of here area and native kingdoms... Our kingdoms account of history too can be dug up in Indian sources, not only Chinese sources... Open up Pattinapalai poem in Tamil, Kathasaritsagaram in Sanskrit, Nagarakartagama in Javanese... Muang Saiburee name being mentioned as Kedah, Kadaram, Kataram, Kataha, and etc... There are also Arab accounts about us showing that our area being visited by people around the world for business and merchandise... I don't know about other areas in SEA except about my people...


Many events happened and you won't understand it only in a single day because you will have to learn about your ancestors glorious achievements too because it is important for your newly reformed countries in SEA, we normally don't bad mouthing Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and etc but in Malaysia, we have problems with Indonesia. You won't understand it too if you never learn about their past and bickerings of ancient kingdoms there and in here. We already learned to accept facts and also we know about others achievements as well...

I'm not licking Central Thai kingdom, I know the history part from our side here. We are not in Thailand and not everyone knows about this unless if you have contacts with Historical Associations...

Langkasuka Kingdom of 1st Century still survives in both Southern Thailand and Northern Malaysia today in the form of states, but those in Southern Thai royal system had been banished once general Thaksin banished the rebellions of the Southern royals, and it still continues after Chakri dynasty holding the mandalas... We won't blame Chakri dynasty, it's already happened, nobody to be blamed anymore... The native people of South Thai are divided to Buddhist and Muslim... Most deep South kings became Muslim and those in Lower Burma near sea too became Muslim, but those kings who remain Buddhist siding with Sukhothai in 12th C including Chaiyya king... Muang Saiburee king embraced Hinduism when Chola kingdom from South India helped them to be free from Srivijai in 10th C, they had also lighted the lamp in Chola kingdom temple in India, there are the record in Indian museum... but around 11th C, the Phra Ong of the state embrace Islam after Muslim missionary/merchant preach the religion to him, I had read their account of history called Marong Mahawong, last chapter... Ligor is the Malay name for Nakhorn Si Thammarat, it's from Portuguese mispronunciation...



Muang Saiburee... Consist of Kedah, Perlis, and Pulau Pinang (Koh Mak)... Central Thai kingdom still consider us as their citizen, last seven years I can enter South Thai to the area of Yala without passport, simply by filling the border-pass... Kedah, Kalantan, Terengganu, n North Perak were traded by British with Patani through Anglo-Siam treaty... We're not either British daddy's land or anyone belongings while Malaysia was formed under British suppression... We have our own kingdom which is Langkasuka...

First of all Tai Yai is not Lao. And Burmese called them Shan. Asked any Tai Yai or Shan people themselves if they are Lao.

Just like K. Sonofgunongerai have said; people of southern Thai were Taified by Sukhothai. Why? Because Sukhothai was considered as "Tai" not Lao.

Before 13 cen. Sukhotai was Tai region not Siam, true.

After 13 cen. Sukhothai was Siam.

King Naresuan is truely a Siamese, His hybrid blood of Praruang and Suphannaphoom lineage.

Lolzzzzzz, First of All Burmese Called ALL Lao ppl Shan, Zaw-gyi provided us this interesting detail.

Zaw-gyi made it clear that the Burmese called the ppl of Lanna as Shan, Lanxang as Shan, Pitsanulok as Shan and Sukothai ppl as Shan, Not just Tai Yai. ALL Lao ppl, the Burmese called Shan. I thought i made that clear, at least Zaw-gyi made it clear. (make note that i said all Lao)

There is Only one group of Tai they didnt call Shan and that was Siamese ppl. So you cant say, the Burmese called All Tai as Shan because they did not call Siamese Shan.

You have to conclude that the Shan equate to only the Lao, why else did they call all Lao regions as Shan, but not All Tai regions because of Ayutthya. The Burmese interpretation of who the Shan is and that they are Lao corresponds to the interpretations of the Chronicles of Ayutthya, which called all the Shan as Lao. The Burmese call this TaiYai, Lanna, Lanxang, Pitsanulok and Sukothai "Shan," the Siaemse called this same group as Lao.

Sukothai is not Siam region, never was. Sono and Zaw-gyi said otherwise buddy, so u need to do more research. A Historian studying the chronicles of Burma, Ayutthya, Lanna, Lanxang all suggest that the Lao is a term that describe the ppl of Lanna, Lanxang, Sukothai, and Pitsanulok. Not Ayutthya because only AYutthya is Siamese. Pure fact

King Nerasuan is from Pitsanulok, Pitsanulok is Lao according to Ayutthya and according to Burma he is Shan not Siamese.

lolzzzz, First of All Burmese called all Tai ppl Shan, Zaw-gyi provided us this interesting detail.

Zaw-gyi made it clear that Shan considered themselves as "Tai". While Siamese of Sri Ayuttaya are way way more hybrid thn those in the North. We have our own distinctive identiy of the Austro-Tai people and Kingdom.

See you're wrong agian!!! According to Chinese record,Sukhothai was Siam region since 13C.

Let's me repeat the FACT about King Naresuan again.... He is a hybrid Siamese to the marrow bone, His life style and even His soul. Burmese chronicle support this FACT!

Dude...stop swimming in a circle, will you?

Ok dude, let me ask you, Is Ayuthaya a Tai kingdom?

if so, then why did Burma Not call Ayutthya Shan?

now who is running in circles,

again, Lao call ourselves Tai also, care to explain? Zaw-gyi and Hari both said Tai refers to the region from where they are from. care to explain?

Sukothai reached all the way down to Siamese region, but doesnt mean the ppl of Sukothai region themselve are Siamese. Chinese? I am talking about Burma and Ayutthya who did not consider Sukothai as a Siamese region.

Again, Where is King Nerasuan from? let me answer that, He is from Pitsanulok, Pitsanulok is NOT Siamese region. The Burmese called Pitsanulok as Shan ppl, again even Sono a Southern Siamese person even said, Pitsanulok is Not Siamese, Lets ask Zaw-gyi if Pitsanulok a Siamese Region or is it a considered a Shan region by the Burmese.

lets see who is right. So does the Burmese Consider Pitsanulok as a LaoShan region like Lanna and Lanxang or Siamese region like Ayutthya. Then you will know if he is Siamese or LaoShan.

OK dude why do you keep asking the question I already answered?

Zaw-gyi also gave the same reason as I did in some of his post telling you that. Siameses are way way more Hybrid than other Tai in the North.Siamese have the identity of Austro-Tai people. I said that many time before haven't I. The northern Tai are more of the Tai/Mon mixed, while the Siamese of Sri Ayuttaya is much much more complex.

This same Fact also been explain by David K. Wyatt. A very high respected Historian.

Beside I already explained clearly a countless time before about the term "Tai" used by King Rarmkhamheang and other Tai as an ethnic term.

So you should stop thins cycling thing you're doing......

Thats not an answer, is Ayutthya Tai or Not? its a Yes No question.

If Tai was the defining term that decided if the Burmese called you Shan or Not is very important, because if Ayutthya are Tai ppl then Tai itself is not the reason why the Burmese Called All Tai ppl Shan, otherwise Ayutthya would of been called Shan also. It has to be something else, The term that unites both the Burmese perspective as well as the perspective of Ayutthya is Lao. What Ayutthya calls Lao in their chronicles the Burmese Call Shan, thats all you need to know.


Again lets see who is right. So does the Burmese Consider Pitsanulok as a LaoShan region like Lanna and Lanxang or Siamese region like Ayutthya. Then you will know if Nerasuan is Siamese or LaoShan.

Because you look at the world in either black or white, that's why you could never find the right answer.

The Answer is the same ...Ayuttaya composed of Lavo/Supphanaphoom/Ayodhaya Sri Rarmthep. Krungthep Dvaravati Sri Ayuttaya is an Austro-Tai kingdom in the eye of Burmese. And have it's own distinctive identity as Siamese Ayuttayan/Yodia.

Whereas those Tai in the North share this similarity of Mon/Tai identity.

which part of that answere you do not understand???

first of all, The Nothern Tai kingdoms is just as diverse as the South, there are just as many ethnic groups in the North as there is in the South.

Second That was not an answer, is Ayutthya Tai or Not? its a Yes No question.

If Tai was the defining term that decided if the Burmese called you Shan or Not is very important, because if Ayutthya are Tai ppl then Tai itself is not the reason why the Burmese Called All Tai ppl Shan, otherwise Ayutthya would of been called Shan also. It has to be something else, The term that unites both the Burmese perspective as well as the perspective of Ayutthya is Lao. What Ayutthya calls Lao in their chronicles the Burmese Call Shan, thats all you need to know.

Lest not wait for Zaw-gyi, since ur ignoring this question, so what is your answer to this, Do the Burmese Consider Pitsanulok as a LaoShan region like Lanna and Lanxang or Siamese region like Ayutthya. Then you will know if Nerasuan is Siamese or LaoShan.

First of all, eventhough the Northern Tai is as diverse as the South, but they all shared the same appearence of the lighter skin "Monize Tai".

While the Siamese are more hybrid with different feature and appearance. Siamese is an Austro-Tai,who have darker skin complexion with bigger eyes and higher nose. Being Tai itself is not the only key for the outsider to judged us.

So my answer to your question is....No,Burmese doesn't consider Pitsanulok as Lao. Just like The Tai yai themselves doesn't considered themselves as Lao.

Just like Tai Ahom doen't considered themselves as Lao.


Actually being Tai or Lao or etc. is depending on how each of this kingdoms idetified themselvs as. And it's crystal clear that Sukhothai doesn't considered themselves as Lao!!!

The answer is right here. You just decided to ignore it.....

Lolzzz, your a retard dude, thanks for not answering the question, again the question is, Do Burmese consider Pitsanulok Shan or Siamese?

try this one, does Ayutthya consider Pitsanulok Lao or Siamese? maybe you should read the study about the Lao who fled Burma, the historian stuyding all the historical documents from Burma, Ayutthya, Lanxang and Chiangmai said clearly, when Ayutthya talked about the Lao ppl, Ayutthya did not distinguish between the Lao of Chiangmai, the Lao of Lanxang, the Lao of Burma or the Lao of Sukothai or Lao of Pitsanulok. To distinguish these different Lao groups, the name of the Kingdom from which they came from was the only way to seperate the different Lao groups from one another. He is basicly saying, when Ayutthya talk about the Lao, you would not know what Lao they are talking about unless the kingdom from which they came from was indicated. Meaning, Ayutthya considered Lanna, Shan, Lanxang, Sukothai, and Pitsanulok as Lao Kingdoms.

so to answer my own question, Ayutthya considered Pitsanulok, Sukothai, Lanna, Shan kingdom and Lanxang as Lao kingdoms.

lolzzzz,you're a retard dude, you tried too hard to ignore the right answer, Burmese used to called Sukhotai as Shan. Now does Tai Yai (Shan) people considered themselves Lao?

You're just a hypocrites, you base your opinion over some selected sources and ignore others.

Try this one,Since 13C. both Chinese and Cambodian considered Sukhothai as Seim/Siam. While the King of Sukhothai Himself never considered his people, Kingdom,and even His script as Lao, but Tai.

King Naresuan, genetic and culture is truely a Siamese. He lived spoke and died as a Siamese of Sri Ayuttaya, never once a Lao man.

So again! Sukhothai was a Tai,Siam and Thai Kingdom; NEVER Lao. There is nothing wrong with being Lao, since Tai of Sukhothai and Lao of Lanxang surely related as Pi-Nong, but STOP!!! claiming my people and Kings as Lao. For they are NOT!!!!

Again, The Infomation is from Ayutthya, I am not talking about what shan call themselves, what Sukothai calls themselves, am not talking about what Lao call ourselves. even the Lao call ourselves as Tai idiot. i know you keep ignoring that point but i just wanted to remind you

Again According to AYutthya, I am talking about Ayutthya, According to Ayutthya Sukothai and Pitsanulok are LAO KINGDOMS. do u understand that

Sukothai Empire included Siamese regions because it reached all the way down to the Malaysia. The City of SUkothai itself is Not siamese and Never was Siamese. The Burmese did not consider Sukothai as Siamese, the Burmese considered SUkothai as Lao-Shan.

so what are the purpose of laos and cambodia trying to find negative stuff to thailand even though its true or not what did u get from this ,salary ?
i dont get it showing off whos better or worse not thai style...
cuz ...ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด...