This thread is not specifically related to Vietnam but I figured I might as well pick one SE Asian forum to post this on as opposed to posting it in every one. Historically speaking why didn't any nation state in SE Asia emerge to become a Rome like empire? The reason I'm asking this is because historically, Rome's dominance was mainly through great access of the mediterranean sea. That enabled them great trade and a great way to develop into the military powerhouse of that region. Southeast Asia has many bodies of water in their region such as the Bay of Bengal, Gulf of Thailand, and the South China Sea among others to develop into a great power yet it never did. Why didn't ancient states currently residing in Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia, or Indonesia ever emerge to become a sea-faring powerhouse like Rome? They had the same advantages. I'm sure that geographically speaking, an ancient SE Asian state controlling the bodies of water in that region could have easily arisen and challenged the ancient Chinese powerhouse. Why didn't it happen?

Simple, SE-Asians and Europeans are totally different because we're not IMPERIALISTIC, especially the Vietnamese. Throughout its history, Vietnam is always under attack so we didn't have time to build an empire, plus the Vietnamese people seem to be happy where they are. As for the Khmer I think their empire was pretty big, but didn't know why they weren't as strong as China.

Can't say for the rest of SEA, but in Vietnam's case, Vietnam tried to have an Indochina Empire once in the 1970s-1990s but the UN kept on trying to condemn Vietnam on it.

Vietnam just took over Cambodia and Laos and here comes America,China and their UN buddies condeming Vietnam and launching wars to prevent it.

Vietnam was also very close to launching an invasion Thailand, but both America and China threatened to launch a team up war against Vietnam if that happened.

Basically ASEAN knew that all their forces combined would be no match for Vietnam and actually were planning on working with the US and China to try to prevent Vietnam from doing so.

http://www.gwu.edu/~sigur/publications/koong.htm



America was pretty much right on the domino theory that if Vietnam turned Commie they would try to make the rest of SEA become commie as well by attacking all those other countries, but the US was lucky that China decided to break the alliance with the Soviets and worked with the US against Vietnam.

Oh well at least Vietnam wasn't stupid enough to get the world in a war against Vietnam, so in the end Vietnam just kept Cambodia and Laos instead.

Boy this question is not at all easily answered. But your speculations are not bad at all.

Here's mine:

Rome was a "descedant" of Greece. The Greeks lived next to the Persians, who in turned lived next to the Egyptians, Sumerians, etc. These were all VIOLENT empires. The early Greek philosphers traveled extensively throughout the Mideast--so they were heavily influenced by them. The Greeks even fancied themselves to be direct descendants of Egyptians. No doubt this was due to the spectacular Pyramids and other structures they saw. (Why would anyone fancy themselves as descendants of Germanic barbarians who at the time where living in caves and climbing trees?)

Northern Vietnam was Vietnam for most of the last 2000 years, and that area is quite fertile. The older Viet kingdoms prior to the Han onslaught occupied the same realestate. It is quite possible that they just didn't didn't need to fight each other because the area is just quite fertile. Abundant crops from the land and the abundant fish from the sea right next door probably made it unnecessary to engage in imperialistic activities.

The Cham Kingdom that was overrun by the Viets just a few centuries ago was destroyed because they kept attacking, raping, pillaging & plundering the Vietnamese Kingdom. They occupied the central highlands of Vietnam which are not all that fertile. This made imperialistic activities an imperative.

I guess that this is a necessity is the mother of inventions explanation, or in the case of Viets, abundance makes violence unnecessary.

Is this theory right? Your guess is as good as mine...

---------------------------------------



The question is about ancient Vietnam, not modern Vietnam.

umm... the chams attacked your capital because they felt threatened and were attacked by the viets first. i don't know why you're trying to make vietnam sound like an angel and being only imperialistic when attacked first. the viets already had an ambition set to expand their kingdom southward known as "nam tien". for an educated viet such as yourself, i find it hard that you would not know this. you should know that the southward movement was more of a necessity and NOT because the chams were attacking,pillaging, and raping your kingdom. they did so to try and prevent the viets from annexing their territory.

btw, i believe champa would not have disappeared today if they allied themselves with the khmers and probably the chinese also. the cham king rather wanted to form "friendship" with dai viet rather than allying itself with the khmer empire to prevent vietnamese expansion.

Champa did ally with China, which is why China invaded Vietnam in 1400 something and took over the country for 20 years until they were kicked out, because the Cham asked China to do it.

Also Cham allied with Khmers to double team Vietnam once, but they were repelled.

they did not help defend champa from the viets though. i'm talking about going to war TOGETHER to defeat the annamese. the khmers and chams only fought against the viets on one occasion but when king suryavarman II wanted to start a campaign to chase the viets from getting to close to champa and khmer territory, the chams refused and suffered from a khmer invasion soon after.

So? The first war between Vietnam and Cambodia was in 1100 something, when they sent about 20,000 troops to invade Vietnam but were repelled, so does that mean Vietnam only took over Cambodia later, because Vietnam felt threatened for what Cambodia did in 1100 something?

some of these viets are really something.. VietGuy7: "They occupied the central highlands of Vietnam which are not all that fertile. This made imperialistic activities an imperative."

a common trait of the vietnamese hahahah... they are always looking for sorry @$$ excuses to justify their behavior/acts towards people.. how evil of them the land was "not all that fertile" but yet you viets are living on that land today and prospering from it right? like i said, the southward movement was a campaign that has long been planned by your ancestors. it was NEVER because of the chams who "attacked,pillaged and raped" your kingdom.

Then why do Cambodians never mention that they were on the ones who first launched a war against Vietnam, while trying to maintain that Vietnam took their lands, yet never talk about their attempts to take over Vietnam?

that's a whole different situation.. the chams attacked your capital because the viets were marching aggressively towards the south near their kingdom and they felt they were threatened. the viets taking over kampuchea krom had nothing to do with an invasion that happened 600 years ago. kampuchea krom was the last remaining obstacle for the viets to complete their southward movement called NAM TIEN.

I'm not talking about Kampachea Krom. I'm talking back in 1100 something, when the Khmer Empire was strong, they invaded and tried to take over Dai Viet, after the country just got independence from China.

Now can you tell me how Vietnamese are evil towards Cambodians, when it your ancestors that launched the first war between our peoples when your people attacked our country first? Also why don't you ever mention this part of history too?

SE Asia never had a rome like empire because of the Chinese world order that existed for thousands of years.

No, I read it somewhere. Northern Vietnam is a very fertile area. So is southern Vietnam. I read somewhere that the central highlands aren't as fertile. I'm trying to locate the source. But here some links on the war like nature of the Chams. My overall impression is that the Chams were indeed more war-like than the Viets.






The following is by a highly respected scholar.





The following is by a respected scholar:

the knowledge king suryvarmarn II received from china was that a group known as the annamese who settled along the red river delta region was planning an aggressive campaign to expand their kingdom southward. therefore, dai viet was a threat to the region. to prevent this from happening, king suryavarman had to launch several campaigns against dai viet. 2 of them was unsuccessful. the khmer army had not reached dai viet due to diseases they caught while marching up to dai viet and the other campaign was when they were repelled. then king suryavarman II realized that they needed assistance to prevent the annamese from reaching it's borders so they asked the cham king to assist them but he refused. the chams lost their kingdom because they were naive in thinking the vietnamese wanted to be their "allies" after both helped defeated the mongols.

LOL I'm not talking about modern day empire but an ancient one. In the modern day period, it would have been impossible for SE Asia to build a Rome like empire as the fact that the Roman empire itself collapsed centuries ago 2 . Southeast Asia IMO could have easily built a Rome like empire back in ancient times. As I've already mentioned, there were numerous bodies of water allowing trade between ancient southeast asian tribes/states. Had one tribe or state become imperialistic enough to conquer and form an empire, history would have been very different. IMO Southern Thailand or Northern Malaysia would have been the perfect location for a SE Asia's equivalent of Rome. Rome itself is located in the center of Italy which is a peninsula itself centered around the Mediterranean the same way Southern Thailand and Northern Malaysia have that narrow strip surronded by the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea. Even though it's impossible nowadays, I've always wondered what Asian history might have been like had the peoples of SE Asia been more violent and imperialistic simply to see how it would clash with an equally imperialistic and powerful China.

Boy, you're doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Anyway, like I said earlier, from my readings of neutral sources, it does seem that the Chams were the agressors.

Remember, this was the age of empires, so the rules were different then.

BTW, the topic of this thread really concerns not the Cham period, but rather the pre-Chinese period. So the question as to if the Viets are more warlike or the Cham are is irrevelvant to my theory as to why pre-Han Empire Viets were not imperialistic.

Well the point is, that Cambodia attacked Vietnam first. Doesn't matter if Vietnam was planning to or not, it was Cambodia that took first action, and thus launched the animonsity between Vietnam and Cambodia.

VietGuy7, the chams were indeed war-like but weren't ALL kingdoms in the past war-like??? the chams were constantly being threatened by the khmers and by annam. they were much smaller compared to their neighbors. like i said before, Nam Tien was a campaign to expand annam southward and the chams will of course do anything in their power to try and prevent that from happening. being war-like against the expansionist vietnamese is understandable and anybody would've acted in the same manner as the chams.

like i said, stop trying to make vietnam look like a pacifist nation and paint the chams as aggressive war-mongers because they were only trying to prevent your ancestors from destroying their country. if anything, the vietnamese are the war-mongers NOT the chams nor the khmers during that time. even recent history has shown that vietnamese are war-mongers but would you label your people as war-mongers for wanting independence from france or china 2000 years ago? would you label your people "war-like" for wanting to chase foreign occupiers such as the americans out of your country. come on.. it's common knowledge that vietnamese throughout their history has been in more wars than most asian nations..

You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. But you need to provide some reliable sources. The Thai, Khmer, Vietnamese, Cham empires all fought each other. None are innoncent.

But from what I've read, you've got it completely backwards with the Viet vs Cham situation. I'm claiming that based on what I've read that the Cham's were the main aggressors, and that this war-like behavior caused their downfall. You're of course claiming pretty much just the opposite. We both need to cite reliable sources on this debate. The Maspero's quote I included above tilts heavily in my direction.

Interesting you start such a topic. Personally I don't think a SE Asia equivalent to Rome would have ever taken place simply because of what you were arguing earlier, the bodies of water. SE Asia has many bodies of water and that's exactly the problem, too many. The Roman Empire had the Med. and yes it was huge but it still had it's limits in an enclosed, confined area. IT stretched from Spain and Northwestern Africa all the way to Syria and Israel. It encompassed Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East in which as someone mentioned earlier was the site or virtually high developed and violent cultures. The Romans in many ways inherited what the Greeks, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Persians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians achieved centuries earlier. Ancient Southeast Asian tribes/states were not as highly developed nor were they as imperialistic. Plus given the amount of bodies of waters and islands, it would have been virtually impossible for a single dominant SE Asian state to emerge and administer control over that whole region. For example, how in the hell could one single empire or state control all the Indonesian islands? Not to mention the Phillipines. The Roman Empire did not have as many islands (Unless you count all the small microscopic Greek isles which is still nothing compared to the Indonesian archipelago) and they were more confined to a specific area. Even at the height of the Roman empire, the islands under control were simply Britain (Which the Romans barely maintained control over), the Greek isles, Sardinia and Sicily. Also unfortunately for SE Asia, two very highly developed cultures such as India and China were in proximity. SE Asia would have had to compete with the highly developed Indian states and a hegemonic China. Indian culture historically was highly influential in the SE Asian region as in many ways the ancient SE Asian states were Indianized in culture, they were more influenced by Indian culture than Chinese culture in fact. Plus SE Asians throughout history were nowhere near as violent nor imperialistic towards their neighbors as Med. peoples.

VietGuy7,
i am using the sources you provided hahahaha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cham_people

i don't know what part you don't understand but vietnam was clearly the aggressor in this and you should know that. they annihilated the cham population and took over their territory. nam tien should explain it all.

Geeze, you can bet yer azz that this is TOTALLY the case. Great empires don't develop out of thin air. They are the result of lots of interaction with outher empires, both great and small.

The Romans were the beneficieries of thousands years of previous civilizations and empires within reasonable proximity to them.

Which is exactly why any notion of Roman supremacy used as a tool by racist white supremacists is complete nonsense. The supposedly superior white Romans and Greeks were simply inheritors and expanders of ancient darker skinned peoples reminiscent of modern day middle easterners in the form of Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Sumerians etc. Of course don't ever tell a white supremacist the truth, they can't handle the facts.

You need to go back to when Dai Viet started--which is nearly 500 years before 1471. Like I said, the initial aggression was committed mostly by the Chams. In today's slang, the Chams started it, the Viets finished it. 1471 is more like the end of the fight. Look for evidence prior to this time, i.e. who started it.

You seem to have this bias where all defeated peoples are victims. This is usually the case, but not always. If you as me: Were the Viets the aggressors against the Khmers in the last few centuries? My answer? Absolutely! Against the Khmers, the Viets were the aggressors. But this was the age of empires, so no one was entirely innoncent; the rules were different then.

I'm telling you that I read somewhere that the Chams were indeed the agressors against the Viets, in large part due to their less fertile, less productive lands. I'm trying to locate this now.

And hey, I'm going to repeat that Maspero quote:



Remember, people who start fights lose them too. The Khmer Rouge made border incursions into Vietnam massacring hundreds of Vietnamese civilians that lead to the invasion of Cambodia. It's not always the case that the victors started the fight.

BTW, I am against Vietnam taking or keeping, or stealing as you obviously prefer, any new lands from Cambodia. All lands recently taken should and must be returned.

-------------------------------------------



Know what? You're preachin' to the choir. Amen mah brotha.

and let me just quote this for you again..

i am surprised, for an educated vietnamese person such as yourself is having a hard time understanding the part i bolded. you're trying to manipulate what's being quoted here. clearly, the aggressors here were the vietnamese. what part of "territorial push to the south" don't you understand? wouldn't it be reasonable for the chams to protect their borders from the expansionist vietnamese? with the growing population of annam during that time, they needed more land to have their people settle on. faced with a growing population, the vietnamese emperors felt they needed to start a campaign against the chams. of course, just because there's a loser in a war doesn't automatically make them the victims but I AM looking at the history of your country and the policy they made which was to expand southward.

clearly, the vietnamese attacked champa first. http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-hi...viet_champa.htm

This historical analysis implicitly say that body of water necessarily place a nation in place ofpower. If such assumptions were true, then conversely how come civilization like Carthage, Gaul, Germanic did not rise to power also? Obviously, there were othe factors. The Roman rose to power because of their governance, their weaponry, and ability to adopt the know-hows of the people they conquered. Japan for example was able to effectively counter and rival the "ancient chinese powerhouse."

Why not Vietnam... or some other Southeast Asian nation...probably because the big powers in the region constrained the rise of these nations which could threaten their own security. China in the north and Japan to the east.

Look, we need to go back before 1471 to find out who started the fight in the first place. You seem to miss this point.

BTW, there is a great analogy here between the Cham and the Khmer Roughe aggression into Vietnam in 1978. Because the Khmer Rouge's murderous border incursions into Vietnam, it lead to directly to an invasion of Cambodia. Remember, the KR's actions gave Vietnam full justification for war. But then once the Vietnamese were in Cambodia, and the KR also went into Thailand to hide, the Vietnamese then planned an invasion of Thailand too. This invasion of Thailand never happened only because of threats from both the US and China--read Byron's first (way off topic) post of this thread.

The point is: The Khmer Rouge unleased the dogs of war that resulted in not just the invasion of Cambodia, but nearly the invasion of Thailand too.

The constant warfare by Chams ultimately lead to the Vietnamese "march southward."

Again, let me look for reliable sources on who started the fight between the Viets and the Chams. You keep insisting that it was the winners, the Viets, and not the ones who lost, the Chams. All we know from that Wikipedia link is that the Viets were the eventual winners. It says absolutely nothing about who started the fight.

The story is different with the Khmers of that time period: Against them, the Viets were indeed the agressors. Happy?

no need to look for sources. here's one.. king Le Hoan of the Le dynasty launched an attack against champa FIRST. this was right after they repelled a chinese invasion. so who started what first?

http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-hi...viet_champa.htm


clearly, your ancestors were the aggressors. they were very persistant also in their southward movement. the chams were basically fighting for their survival..

Okay, then tell me about the three provinces taken in 780 AD? "This time the Cham king, Rudravarman III, was chased into Cambodia, captured, and deported to Dai Viet. He had to surrender the three provinces taken in 780 to regain his freedom."

Apparently in 780 CE, the Chams got 3 provinces from the Viets who were still under Chinese rule.

Look, I'm telling you that I read somewhere that the Chams were constantly attacking, pillaging and plundering the Viets. I'm trying to find it now. Go back and read that Maspero quote/link. The other source that I'm trying to locate matches Maspero's words and then some.

here's another one for you VietGuy7:


http://berclo.net/page00/00en-sea-history.html

did you not read the source i provided to you?

http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-hi...viet_champa.htm


the chams pillaging viet villages happened way after. so this clearly shows that they were NOT the aggressors and have never started anything with the viets. nice try though VietGuy7 for trying to make vietnam look like peaceful saints.

First, the link is not complete in its coverage of the history Viet vs Cham wars.

Second, you still need to explain how they got 3 provinces from the Viets in 780 CE? So 500 years before Che Bong Nga, the Chams somehow got 3 provinces from the Viets who were still under Chinese rule. This is your own link. How can the Chams be victims, as you keep insisting, if they held 3 Viet provinces?

Third, you can see now from your own link that the pillaging of Viets did indeed occur.

Fourth, it's funny, but this link show how your ancestors, the Khmers, were the aggressors too. Prior to this, I thought that they were mostly the victims of Viets:

wow.. so you expect the link to cover the entire history of dai viet vs champa wars? as if the links you provided me with covered the entire history of champa. so reading the sources you provided me which mentioned that the chams campaigned against the viet kingdom and were known as pirates concluded that the chams were "war-like" people to you? so when i provided you with information that you needed to know, you say, "the link is not complete in its coverage"? please... that's all you need to know bro..

also, yes, the chams pillaged hanoi. and..? they did that to chase away your ancestors who were persistant in taking their lands which they have every right to defend. you first claimed the chams started this feud when they pillaged vietnam first but when i provided you with the source, you try to manipulate the information i gave you hahahaha. King Che Bong Nga came to power in 1360 buddy. that is way after the feud had started between champa and dai viet.

so what that my ancestors were the aggressors also. they NEVER planned to take over champa and destroy their kingdom unlike your ancestors. the khmers always withdraw from the territories they conquer but never planned to have their population settle on it.

let me quote this again:

http://berclo.net/page00/00en-sea-history.html#Champa

Its true that the Chams fought for their survival, only because they knew Vietnam was a wrong country to f-ck with. The Chams were the ones who started the fight with Dai Viet, they invaded our land and pillaged our kingdom, so the King of Dai Viet finally deicided to finish off the fight once and for all. And why?

Because at the time when Dai Viet faces a huge threat from the North, Dai Viet's economy is not equipped nor strong enough to fight continuous wars. And Champa's army REPEATEDLY making incursions in Dai Viet, so to finish off Champa was the only choice to be taken, if Dai Viet was to survive another Chinese invasion.

Look, how & why did Champa get it hands on 3 Viet provinces in 780 CE, when Viets were still under Chinese rule? Answer: They got it thru agression.

Repeat: In 780 CE, the Chams got 3 Viet provinces thru agression.

You can't keep saying that the Chams were defending themselves from the Viets when the whole time when they were taking Viet lands even before Dai Viet existed.

I'm going to repeat again: I read somewhere that said that the Chams were attacking and plundering the Viets due to the infertile lands.

Don't be so certain about the Khmers not hell bent on destroying Champa:


So Champa was completely annexed by the Khmers and would have died out over time if the Khmers had been stronger. The Chams were not the only kingdom that was wiped out. There were wars in Cambodia and peoples/kingdoms there that were wiped out.

the chams are no weaklings. they are ferocious fighters 2 they even threw off the chinese who established a kingdom around the 2nd century a.d. they finally threw off the chinese in the 6th century.. there are a few reasons why the chams ultimately was defeated by the vietnamese. one, they were not only fighting a war with the viets but also the khmers. two, they were outnumbered by the viets. the chams did not just fight the viets alone but the khmers also through most of their history. so the khmers can also be credit for the viets successful expansion.

Really? then I guess I have to say "thank you" to you and your ancestors, who helped Dai Viet to defend itself.

I don't think any other person said that the Chams were weak. I certainly never did. The Chams also beat the Mongols once--but I've never seen any troop numbers. The Viet defeat of the Mongols was extremely impressive. I seriously doubt that the Chams faced the same staggering numbers: 25,000(?), 300,000 and 500,000

Viets faced an even bigger enemy in the north.

BTW, you still haven't addressed/answered how the Chams got 3 Viet provinces in 780 CE?

VietGuy7.. the 3 provinces you were talking about were technically under chinese rule. your ancestors simply destroyed their kingdom. compared that to the 3 viet provinces they took from the chinese. this was at a time when chinese was feuding with the chams.

http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-history/vietnam.htm

umm... the chams also waged wars with the chinese. did you not read the sources i posted. they even attacked the chinese coastline. they were then under chinese rule in the 6th century and manage to throw them off. i think the chinese army is overrated. yes they had the numbers also... also, from what i read, the vietnamese only chased the chinese from their territory. throughout history, many nations that were subjected to being a vassal of a larger nation always manage to throw off their occupiers/invaders.

the war with the mongols isn't all that great in my opinion. the 3 victories the viets claim to have over the mongols isn't what i'd call a victory. the terrain is totally different from the steppes of northern and central asia. mongol army is comprised of only cavalrymen. it was difficult for them to wage war in the jungles and dense forests of north vietnam. not only that, vietnamese did not fight the mongols head on but instead used guerrilla tactics. this is when the viets became masters of guerrilla warfare. plus, the chams assisted the viets in chasing the mongols away using their naval fleet. now viets try to downplay the chams assistance. if it wasn't for them, the war might have been very different. the viets might have not been able to chase the mongols out. remember, hanoi was sacked 3 times by the mongols.

Yeah, so they were never just victims. Remember that. You keep painting them out to be.

And hey, thanks for finding that source that I was looking for:



Read the bold face lettering. I'll repeated below.

I told you so:

The Chams were more war-like than the Viets, they started the wars practically from the very start of their kingdom, their very existence, since their lands weren't sufficiently fertile.

again, you are trying to justify what your ancestors did to champa. so the viets needing more land for their population to settle on by campaigning southward called Nam Tien isn't war-like to you? if anything, the viets are more aggressive than the chams. the chams today are proven to be very peaceful unlike the viets who are still the aggressors for the past 1000 years.

Gimme a break, Cambodia would now be called Chamland if the Cham kingdom wasn't overrun by the Viets. The fact remains: the Chams started the fight, the Viets finished it.

oh really? i think the khmers were definitely capable of defending themselves from the chams. another typical trait of the vietnamese... giving credit to themselves when they actually do not deserve that much credit at all and claiming the khmers would not have existed if it wasn't for the viets destroying the cham kingdom or the khmers would have not existed if the viets had not invaded cambodia to overthrow the khmer rouge... the viets did it at the expense of others. so now, vietnamese actually saved cambodia from the chams? hahaha... the viets invaded cambodia but do you even know why they really invaded cambodia? the invasion was planned years before buddy.. but this is a different story.. if you wanna discuss about this, we can do it on a khmer forum. also, if the chams wanted to destroy cambodia, they would've done so. the only reason why they were able to sack the khmer capital, angkor, was because there was a civil war going on. a rebellion broke out in the country.. cambodia was unstable at the time which gave the chams the opportunity to sack angkor..

VietGuy7,
why do you even bother contending with this Cambodian guy, he's out to prove that Vietnam is the "aggressor" and he is doing it on a neutral subject. So I suggest that you ignore him and get back on the topic.

Well, I'm done with him for this thread. I proved my point and so he keeps moving the goal posts and changing the subject. His Cham/Khmer victimization is pretty one-sided (I'm deliberately using non-inflamatory words here). There are some things I agree with him based on humanitarian grounds, but his rhetoric and reasoning is pretty biased. Had the tables been turned, and Khmers controlled Vietnam, I'm pretty sure he'd take just the opposite position.

We faced the same sh!t from China, and we never really attacked China back. The wars between Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia & Champa, etc., were fought back and forth. We served as their buffer zone. We didn't fight China just for us, since everyone else in SE Asia benefitted too.

He refuses to see that Vietnam destroyed Champa in self-defense: They started it, and were constantly attacking Vietnam. If someone starts a viscious and ultimately mortal fight with you, there's nothing you can do but to defend yourself at the most primal level: Kill.

look VietGuy7, you seemed to be convinced that vietnam was only defending itself from cham and chinese aggression. but the fact remains, your ancestors had already planned an enormous campaign to expand dai viet into the southern territories and further south. i think the chinese military back then was overrated. if the chams were able to overthrow chinese rule, why can't khmers,laotians or thais defend their territories from the chinese? you act like the vietnamese are the only SEAsians who are able to defeat the chinese. it took you guys a whole millenia to finally overtopple the chinese rule. i am sure if the khmers,thai,laotians or chams were in the same position, they would have done the same or probably better.

nombaingsachko,

You need to consult history books and not talk from Khmer pride.

This is my last response to you on this thread. We way off-topic anyway.

i don't have a history book on vietnamese history. again like i said, it took the viets 1000 years to finally chase the chinese out of their territory. i am pretty sure, given that amount of time, anybody can chase the chinese out of their territory. the reason why viets refused to assimilate like other southern peoples was because they already had their own kingdom before chinese came and conquered them. they had a flourishing civilization already unlike the bunch of loose tribes in southern china that assimilated easily into chinese culture. the same thing can be said about the chams. they weren't going to let the chinese rule their country for long and they soon gained independence after a century of chinese rule.