i am the ignorant foriegner whern it comes to the past kings of thailand. for those that know me here know that i love the present king. but i have no knowledge of when and what condition the country was in under other majestics....
please advise---->looks to sirikittong...

Thailand's best king was the one who went insane

The Sukhothai Period

1. Sri-inthrathit (1249…)

2. Banmuang (…1279)

3. Ramkhamhaeng the Great : (1279 - 1298)

4. Loethai (1298…)

5. Nguanamthom (.... 1347)

6. Lithai or Thammaracha I (1347 - 1368/1374)

7. Thammaracha II (1368/1374 - 1399)

8. Thammaracha III (1399 - 1419)

9. Thammaracha IV (1419 - 1438)

The Ayutthaya Period

1. Ramathibodi I (1350 - 1369)

2. Ramesuan (1369 - 1370) First ruling term

3. Borommaracha I (1370 - 1388)

4. Thonglan (1388)

5. Ramesuan (1388 - 1395) Second ruling term

6. Ramracha (1395 - 1409)

7. Intharacha (1409 - 1424)

8. Borommaracha II (1424 - 1448)

9. Borommatrailokkanat (1448 - 1488)

10. Borommaracha III (1488 - 1491)

11. Ramathibodi II (1491 - 1529)

12. Borommaracha IV (1529 - 1533)

13. Ratchadathiratkuman (1533-1534)

14. Chairacha (1534 - 1546)

15. Kaeofa (1546 - 1548)

16. Mahachakkaphat (1548 - 1568)

17. Mahinthrathirat (1568 - 1569)

18. Mahathammaracha (1569 - 1590)

19. Naresuan the Great: (1590 - 1605)

20. Ekathotsarot (1605-1610)

21. Sisaowaphak (1610-1611)

22. Songtham (1611-1628)

23. Chetthathirat (1628-1629)

24. Athittayawong (1629)

25. Prasatthong (1629 -1656)

26. Chaofa Chai (1656)

27. Sisuthammaracha (1656)

28. Narai the Great: (1656-1688)

29. Phetracha (1688 - 1703)

30. Sanphet VIII (Sua) (1703 - 1708)

31. Phumintharacha (Thaisa) (1708 - 1732)

32. Borommakot (1732 - 1758)

33. Uthumphon (1758)

34. Ekkathat (1758 - 1767)

The Thonburi Period

Tak Sin the Great: (1767 - 1782)

The Rattanakosin Period

1. Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok the Great: Rama I (1782 - 1809)

2. Phraphutthaloetla Naphalai (Rama II) (1809 - 1824)

3. Phranangklao (Rama III) (1824 - 1851)

4. Phrachomklao (Mongkut or Rama IV) (1851 - 1868)

5. Phrachunlachomklao: (Chulalongkorn the Great or Rama V) (1868 - 1910)

6. Phramongkutklao (Vajiravudh or Rama VI) (1910 - 1925)

7. Phrapokklao (Prajadhipok or Rama VII) (1925 - 1935)

8. Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) (1935 - 1946)

9. Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great: (Rama IX) (1946…..)





King Taksin the Great was indeed a GREAT conquoror and general-monarch; however, he was not good at ruling. Overall, the greatest Thai King would have to be either:

1. Rhamkhamhaeng the Great

or

2. Rammatibodi II the Great (The Destroyer of Angkorian Empire)

or

3. Phranangklao RAMA III (Conquoror of Lan Xang/Khambujia)

If you are talking about king Taksin the great, no one is even sure if he really went mad. Although many historical records confirm that he was declared insane and a coup d'état removed him from the throne. We all know that Thai historians like the historians of any cultures in the past enjoy embellishing the facts rather than stating the factual incidence.

Edit:
the title the great (มหาราช) is not something that just comes by. If you would look into the long history of Thailand, there aren't many kings that actually receive the title -- the great.

I have been told the reasons why King Taksin the Great was removed from the throne; pray tell me Yokie, tell me your point of view.

Well, you gotta be more specific, bro. Which period, which century?

I think King Chulalongkorn the Great (Rama V, 1868 - 1910) is one of the greater Siamese Kings, for He was the one to have abolished slavery and officially was the one who took the first steps to truly modernize the Kingdom. And it was under His rule that the Kingdom stayed free from European colonialism.

And indeed, King Taksin is perhaps the greatest warrior King, a liberator and expander of the Siamese Empire, stretching the territory further than Ayutthaya ever had. Some say he went mad since the constant warfare took it's toll, while others say he was betrayed. But it is certain that many people within the Siamese court looked at him with suspicion, and due to the fact that he was of mixed blood (Thai-Chinese), it is possible that it further reinforced a need for his removal. Either way, the Siamese owe their freedom to this King.

But my fascination goes to Prince/King Naresuan, who's personal courage, dynamic leadership and boldness destroyed the Burmese invincibility and hostility towards Siam. The history surrounding him is epic and Shakesperean at best.

I personally would rank King Rama III as my favorite monarch because of his personal courage in handling the cambodian and laotian incident, which erupted into the 1826 Anouvong War, in which the Lao kingdom of Vientiane marched a 3 pincer army towards Siam; a total rebellion.

With the support of the Royal Siamese Army and the people of the Siamese Empire, His Majesty King Rama III marched the army and defeated the Laotian forces; forced it to retreat and then proceeded to take Vientiane, which the forces of Anouvong bravely defended, despite being liquidated at force. The city of Vientiane was razed to the ground by the Siamese army (estimated to be at 120,000 strong), which then eventually sacked and conquored all three Lao Kingdoms. The consolidation of the recently conqoured territories expanded Siam's domination beyond its borders as well as brought all of western Cambodia under Siamese administrative control.

Under King Rama III the GREAT, Siam reached this climax:

@siri: I hope I'm not going to jail for discussing with you on this topic. It's my believe that there was a plan behind king Taksin decoronation. Let me ask you this, if a man goes insane, what would you do to him? You either sent him to the hospital, right? or maybe somewhere isolated so he could not harm anyone including himself. But killing is out of the question. Why would there be a need to kill a mad man if he is really crazy -- unless he is not?

Look into the fact, king taksin was executed shortly after the coup despite of his request to be allowed to join the monkhood. Something inside me tells me that something is seriously wrong here. I don't know what exactly happened but the pieces of evidence don't seem to match up very well in the case of king taksin.

What do you think?

edit:
@Jia: Chao Phaya Chakri (king rama I) was himself of partly Chinese origin as well.

I think the Siamese Empire reached it's absolute peak in terms of territory under Phra Phutthayotfa (Rama I April 6, 1782- September 7, 1809). The entire Khmer, Lao and Shan territories were under Siamese protection. From Kedah and Trengganu to the South to Hsenwi in the North (which is today part of southern China), reaching all the way to Attopeu to the East, which is a few miles away from Hue in Vietnam. Parts of what is today Vietnam, China and Burma were once under Siamese protection during Rama I. And during Rama I's rule, a massive Burmese invasion 1785 under King Bodawhpaya, who commanded over 100,000 troops), was dealt with brilliantly by the Siamese forces and marked the end of the Burmese threat to the Kingdom.

Regarding King Taksin (warning, quite long...), it was French missionaries that first recorded his increasing odd behaviour. After his armies has established Siamese suzerainity over Champassak and Vientiane, he returned to Thonburi in April 1779, where is was clear that not all was well with the King. The French missionaries reported that Taksin was increasingly devoting himself to religious excesses:

"He passed all his time in prayer, fasting, and meditation, in order by these means to be able to fly through the air".

More seriously, he was provoking schism in Siamese Buddhism by requiring that the monkhood should recognise him as a sotapanna (a "stream-winner, a type of deity or God, who embarked on the first of four stages to enlightenment: a stream winner, once-returner, never-returner, arahat). Monks who refused to bow to him and worship him was a God were killed. It is natural that such developments would have upsetted many of the Orthodox Buddhists. But what was more threatening was King Taksin's aberrant behaviour, because many of the Siamese believed that the Burmese victory over Ayutthaya in 1767 was due to the Ayutthayan Kings not being properly pious and that the society was sinking into moral decay. So their current perception of Taksin's right to reign (by merit) was shaken by the King's increasing cruel and arbitrary actions. This is how the French missionaries from the book "Journal of M. Descourvieres", described it in 1780:

"For some years, the King of Siam has tremendously vexed his subjects and the foriegners who dwelt in or came to trade in his kingdom. Last year (1781), the Chinese, who were accustomed to trade with the Siamese, found themselves obliged almost to give it up entirely. This past year the vexations caused by the King, more than half-mad [plus qu à demi-fou], have become more frequent and more cruel than previously. He has had imprisoned, tortured and flogged, according to his caprice, his wife and his sons -even the heir-presumtive, and his high officials. He wanted to make them confess to crimes of which they were innocent".

King Taksin was, in many ways, an outsider. His roots in Siamese society were shallow, only a generation deep. Despite that he has risen to a high position in society he still felt outiside of it. The paranoia and irratic behaviour may have led him to insanity. King Taksin must have heard several of the Siamese disapproval of his actions and activities, and it was not long before he alienated everyone.

So King Taksin becoming insane is a possibility, and with the newly established Siamese independence, many powerful Siamese families and elites must've felt their security was at risk under a King who was apparently losing it.

uhm...but that doesn't explain the reason for his execution, does it?

King Taksin was a powerful person. His was gifted with charisma, and the ability to prove to others that he was a "man of merit", which was why he managed to rally so many dishearted Siamese to his cause and repel the Burmese. On top of that, he was an was unmatched military tactician and strategist.

As I said, the Siamese elite (who opposed him), must have felt threatened with him alive, both ruling as King or as an exile. Should he have ruled as King with his continued deterioration into insanity, the nation would collapse. And with him in exile, he could very well have rallied another army and plunged the Kingdom into a civil war. A "mad" king would have no doubtly sought to regain his power, with Taksin's apparent madness...there is no doubt that he would have done just that. And with the newly established independence from the Burmese, it is not so strange that the powerful Siamese family would do anything to keep the country stable.

Besides, execution were the most common means during those days.

uhm...I don't know about you dude, but to me I can not view the story that some schizophrenic man got killed simply to prevent a possible revolt against his successor without suspicion. If the man isn't crazy at all, then the execution would make more sense to me. Maybe putting him to jail would already be more than enough -- if he's really crazy นะ. I could not imagine how a dethroned schizophrenic patient can go out and gather men enough to call it an army. Maybe it's because i'm a doctor and I have seen way too many mental patients during my medical school years -- enough to say that if a man can do that, he may not be as crazy as we think he is.

Every person has their own opinion, and for sure...I'm totally open to the fact that he may actually have been betrayed. We will never know.

However, I didn't say he was "schizophrenic", not by a long shot. I was talking a mad man, a power-hungry person who would stop at nothing to achieve a goal. For example, Hitler was deluded and insane (and was also involved in odd religious and occult undertakings), and YET he rallied an entire nation to his cause. Taksin had nearly the same attributes, and whether or not he WOULD have rallied another army is another story, but I think the Siamese didn't wanna risk it. It would've been easy to have recruited many who opposed the Siamese rule: the Lao, the Khmer, etc. They've sided with Taksin in an instant. That was the type of madness I was implying.

And keep in mind, back in those days, anything would've gotten you killed. Think of the witch-hunts and other stuff that happened back then; many innocents were burned and beheaded because people thought that they were possessed.

There have been many rulers in Siamese history that have been executed and condemned for less significant reasons. And I personally do feel that Taksin's execution was justified, because it the long term, it was for the interest of the Kingdom.

This probably makes it seem that I see King Taksin the Great as an aweful king, I do not. I admire him and he indeed fuels my Siamese nationalism.

I used the terms schizophrenia usually to describe someone who obviously fails to come in touch with apparent reality. When you said that king Taksin require the monks to recognise him as a sotapanna, and that monks who refused to bow to him and worship him as a God were killed or that he wanted to fly through the air, the message you clearly sent is that the King's congitive ability was faulty signifying that he had suffered some form of mental illness. The only disease known to affect the cogitive function of an individual is schizophrenia. That's why I use it to describe king Taksin's insanity.

The whole history record from the french account (M. Descourvieres) merely states about the abberrant behavior involving religion but it said nothing about the insanity involving power hungry or narcissistic (hitler's like) personality that you have described. So I would bet that the terms insane was used specifically to describe king Taksin inability to keep in touch with reality. If hitlerlike madness was the case of his insanity, I doubt if a coup should succeed in dethroning him at all since he would be seriously paranoid and demand that all military be centered in Thonburi for him to command. Just like in the case of Hitler when the allied forces came up on the shore of europe but hitler refused to send in the additional troops to keep the allied force at bay.

The others rumour about King Taksin is he was escape to the southern part of Thailand.

@ siri tyhanks buddy knew i could rely on you.
to the rest interesting discussion showing me just how ignorant i am of the kingdoms history...please can i have some more sir?

I personally dont think King Taksin went mad, when I discussed this with my father and my grandfather and my uncles, they establish that King Taksin was unbearable to rule in the throne; he was too militant; no doubt a military genious, but if he had been allowed to rule, he would have plummetted Siam into a collision course with Britain or France, such as an example of Burmese fall to Britain and Vietnamese fall to France. Taksin's military-esque attitude and governance would have only alieneted the people within the realm into rebellion. King Rama I the Great was a great king in that he calibrated his kingdom and his successors legitimized the Chakri Dynasty with beautific buddhist occasions, temple building, public projects, military growth as well as economic and cultural growth.

Stability was needed, and Taksin, albet a great general, did not have that quality.

As what Jia stated, his removal was necessary and quite frankly it was common in that time to execute a deposed monarch.

Cheers.



Mai pben rai! Anytime my irish friend.

Naresuan the Great: the one who conquer Longvek Settlement... i think he did. In Khmer history, we know him as NORESO...

^
King naresuan story will bcome new Thai movie soon

REally: about the part that hes saved Thai or when he attacked Khmer...

^
Ofcause it not d part that he attack Khmer

What a relief??? i know his history... He fighted to save Thai from Burmese takeover and he also destroyed our main city at that time. I mean, he was good with Armies.

Can someone elaborate more on Ramathibodi I? I heard he was really an ethnic Chinese?

dude, king Ramathibodi I hasn't been mentioned even once anywhere in this tread, how can we elaborate any fact about him for you? King ramathibodi I was the first king of the Ayutthaya kingdom. But we have been talking about king Taksin and his successor king Rama I; they were born approximately 400 years apart from king Ramathibodi I. This tells me how much you know about Thai history. Please do some serious study before asking any question next time.

Im still waiting for your response, Yokie.

@PB. King Ramatibodi I was known as U-thong before he ascended the throne of Ayuthaya; he was the first Deva Raja of Ayuthaya. And yes he was of ethnic chinese background and is said to have been related to Khun Borom; he was from Chiang Saen or present day Chiang Rai province in northern Thailand.

กบฏนะครับ ถ้าคุณคิดว่าพระเจ้าตากสินไม่ได้เป็นบ้าจริง แต่คุณยังต้องการให้ท่านออกจากการดำรงตำแหน่งประมุขของประเทศนี่ เท่ากับว่าคุณเป็นกบฎนะครับที่ต้องการจะปกครองประเทศเอง และที่คุณบอกว่าท่านมีหัวคิดทางการทหารมากเกินไปจึงไม่เหมาะสมที่จะมาเป็นประมุขของประเทศเพราะยังไงเราก็สู้ประเทศทางตะวันตกในเรื่องทหารไม่ได้ นี่ผมก็ไม่เห็นด้วยนะ เพราะทหารสมัยก่อนเขาก็ไม่ได้โง่ เวลาสู้ไม่ได้เขาก็ถ่อยทัพหรือหลีกเลี่ยงการทำศึกสงครามไปเลย ไม่ใช่ว่าข้าเป็นทหารแล้วจะต้องสู้กันให้ตายไปฟรีๆ และถ้าเขาไม่เก่งจริงคงไม่ตีหัวเมืองกลับมาได้หมดหรอก

อย่าโมโหผมเลยนะ ผมก็มาแค่แลกเปลี่ยนความคิดเห็นกับคุณ

King Taksin story has taught thai people many things. A commoner of chinese father and thai mother fought hard to kick the enemy out, united his country and moved it forward.

A lot of people should learn from him.

Hey thanks Siri
So does that mean Chinese were in the region before Thais?

No. He was just a chinese ethnic, who came from a merchant family based in what was then Chiang Saen

kop khun maak krup Sirri. dtawn nee khun yuu tii ameriga ru muang thai? pra waa pom kit waa khun ja sonjai yuu tii nee dtawn nee pra waa mee kon wun wai samlap kun thaksin.......

พระเจ้าตากสินเป็นบุคคลที่เสียสละ ยอมให้ลูกหลานคิดว่าท่านเสียสติ เป็นบ้า
แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม เราไม่มีวันรู้ความจริงทั้งหมดได้จากบทเรียนประวัติศาสตร์ ไม่ว่าชาติไหนก็ตาม ผู้ชนะคือผู้เขียนประวัติศาสตร์

i jave started to learn to read and write but due to the size and functionlaity of it that could mean decades before i can read and understand your comments so if soemone could enlighten the farang.....

Yes he was good with armies; but his attack on Khmer settlements were substantiated; considering the Khmers were also on an offensive when the Ayuthayan Armies were away at war with Burma under Nareusan's banner. After Nareusan destroyed Burma, he reprimanded Kambujiya by raizing Lovek to the ground; typical military strategy in those days.

I am a king and grandmaster of kings . I am the kings of kings and a bloodline of the original king of Ayuthaya . I am the line of king Outhong (Ramatibodi the 1st) . All the kings in southeast asia needs to bow down to me the grandmaster of kings. kalp khun mak mak na krup. hehe

thats not a very nice thing to say dont you think

What I learn from King Taksin is all about ;we should keep on looking forward to the future ,instead of stuck with the past.

Hmmm..U-thong is a vey typical Teochew Chinese name. If I have to guess, this King is of Teochew Chinese ethnic.

King Nareso destroyed Lovek, and redistributed the Khmer people all over his war torn kingdom.

The same was done by King Rammatibodi II, he resettled Agkorian citizens all over is kingdown, about 3 times.

It was a great strategy in there part.

A yes, King Ramathibodi II the Great; my favorite of all Ayuthayan Kings; the man had pure central thai beauty and his tactical brilliance was known throughout the realm. Under his divine rule; no kingdom or nation state dared war with Ayuthaya; and under his mighty hand; he silenced Angkor completely..completely subjegating the whole (or what was left) of the Khmer Empire. Ramathibodi II...a sublime military genious and a true DEVA RAJA.

naa son jai jing jing.....
how many kings have the title the great and how is it awarded??

Its rare to have monarchs entited with 'The Great'. There are only several in the sukkothai dynasty as well as in the Imperial Court of Ayuthaya. Only 2 kings of the chakri dynasty have been revered as 'The Great'. It was HM Rama V and HM Rama IX.

was it general greatness that earnt them this honour...or were there specific acts?

its not commonly banded about its actually earnt i understand?

Yes. It was either their ability to build the nation or their military brilliance; particularly military victories. Some monarchs were utterly beloved during their reign that the people declared them deva rajas (divine king/god king--referring to the transcended belief that the monarch is the reincarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu). 'Great'. In one particular example would be King Ramkhamhaeng the Great--his codiefying laws that brought about the birth of modern Thai-lao script united Sukkothai and led to the growth of other tai states such as Lanxang, Lanna, Ayuthaya etc. Ramkhamhaeng was also a military tactician who defeated khmer forces outright and this complimented with his auspicious domestic rule earned him 'The Great' by his people and his enemies.

Another example of this would be in the 15th century in the Imperial Court of Ayuthaya when His Majesty Ramathibodi II rallied a great force to invade the Khmer Empire; only estimates remain to this day, but this great force was powerful enough to eliminate remaining armies of the Khmer Empire as well as siege and raize the great city of Angkor to the ground. Such stunning military brilliance on his part earned him the respect of his people and fealty with his subjects. His enemies feared him and dared not war with Ayuthaya while 'Ramathibodi II the Great' sat on the golden tierred umbrella. Ramathibodi II also began the first expansion southwards to modern day malaya. The title 'The Great' does suite him.

But then again there are monarchs who achieved the title 'The Great' only after their deaths; an example would be King Taksin (the only king of the Ratanoksin Dynasty), and His Majesty King Chulalongkorn Rama V. Im sure there are more, but you get the point now. eh?

I think that is sort of rude of you. Look at the thread title.

according to new psycoanalysis and evidence i recently read (i've forgotten the url of that site though), general taksin didn't actually do mad. the combination of the stress from ruling Siam, keeping our enemies at bay and family life added up to a midlife crisis. whether its true or not is something else, but it may explain why he became somewhat erratic. just a piece of interesting but probably useless information.

Can you please post a link to this evidence? Id like to learn more about it. Thanks.

i am the bearer of good news and bad news - the good news i have found a site citing this. the bad news - i don't know how reliable it is and its not the original website i found which was providing pages of psyco-analysis. try googling it.

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

lol wikipedia. thanks anyways, mate.

yes not the most trustworthy of sources.....
how do the stories go........

assuming they are indeed stories?

@ sirikittong..... thanks again mate.....excellent

It's as reliable as any British newspaper.

With Wikipedia you need to use your brains a little. If it says something like.. In 1910, the King of Siam offered 400 virgins each to France and Britain to remain an independent kingdom... then you'll know it's a lie. But otherwise it's generally an okay source.