So yeah, Sirikittong was talking about uniting all Tai people in one of the Lao beauties thread. It was off topic so i decided to make a thread here. Im pretty neutral on this topic, seems like a cool idea but it would never work out.

the first thing that will happen is that people will want to preserve their culture (notwithstanding cultural differences, ancient rivalries etc). one key issue is language.

you know, where i come from we speak 3 languages. flanders: north belgium - dutch speaking. walloonia : south belgium - french but one area speaks german (and that is recognised). brussels : an island in flanders - french and dutch speaking region although english is used commonly since french/dutch speakers sometimes "get passionate". ethnic/cultural ties are non-existent - all we have in common is the fact we were put together as an artificial state - but as long as our languages are officially recognised we are happy (plus its not our job to argue - thats why we pay politicians. notice how politicians in brussels love to argue but your average belgian doesn't care). spain is another example : catalan has been given official status on the region of catalonia but castillian (standard spanish) is used on a wider scale. china uses mandarin but then you've got hokkien, cantonese blah blah.

why did i raise those foreign examples? well personally myself if say thailand, laos and the shan territories were to unify there's the issue of language. laotians will not want to lose their language, neither would shans and thais would certainly like to keep their/our "influentual stance" and i personally think that rather than adopting one big official language, might it not be easier just to adopt a tri-lingual/bi-lingual stance. its worked for us - kids up to the age of 18 still take french/dutch lessons even when they are from flanders/walloonia. of course the problem with that is i very much doubt that bangkok would allow such practices - even kam mueang, isarn, and southern thai languages, as far as i know, haven't been given some sort of status, i doubt that laotian would be given some sort of working language status.like said, it all has to be "thaified"

head of state : who on earth would be the head of this state? thai king is for thais, i don't expect laotians/shans to bow down to him. this is the main reason i think it would not work - thais don't want to give up the monarchy and create a federal republic, laotians (i think) don't want to bow down to a foreign ruler.

form of government : another issue - so what should happen then : laos, shan states and thailand all unify? what do you call this country then? thailand? how to choose who is the head of government? where would the government be based?

economics : what type of money to use? kip, baht, euro? monopoly money?

naming the state : thailand is the continuation of siam. i doubt everything coming under "thailand" would be accepted by laotians.


unification - speaking as a part thai person its much like marxism : a nice idea but it would never work.

Who will lead this country? The thais outnumber the Laotions, so any elections will obviously tilt towards the Thai side. Will we Lao have a fair say in this govt? Also who gets to control natural resources? Laotion run companies can not compete against the Thais so this may lead to the Thais monopolizing our resources. Also since Laos and Thailand have such a wealth gap, will Laos just burden THailand down? I'd like to see more Thais view Laotions in a better light, THai PR need to get onto this. I think that unification is extremely optimistic, the best we can do is an open border and strong trade alliances. The only common ground we all have is that we are Tai but that is an unrealistic reason as to unify.

Also, ive been reading up in this "Thaification" ive heard so much about recently, it seems worrying to me as a Laotion.

I'm against any unification with Laos. The Shan States is another matter, since they are struggling for independence and unification with Thailand. They are not a country and are still able to adapt to new leadership and reformation. Laos is a different matter. Be not so shallow as to state the similarity between culture, language and customs to be a reason for unification. Be it that we are of the same race, we are not the same people. There is a difference. We are politically not on the same scale.

"One country, one government and one head of state" is utter bull$hit in my opinion. People will say it's the way forward and the way to prosperity. I think it will lead to civil strife and be destructive in the long run. Laos needs to stand on her own and develop on her own. Unification will burden the Thai economy and slow down her own development. Thailand has people who are in need and people who are still living in poverty, and they need to be priortized first. Even the unification between East and West Germany caused dissatisfaction with the Westerners, despite that they were people of the same nation and flag. Laos is completely foreign in comparisson. Keep in mind that there will be Laotian radicals who will claim that the Thai have returned to occupy their lands and plunge us into a civil war (thus costing more money, lives and time). The Laotians have known nothing but occupation, colonialism and war, and have experienced virtually no act self-determination. Leave them be to their new-found freedom.

However, I do support the idea of sticking together. As Southeast Asians and as Tai people, Thailand needs to help Laos, if Laos is to help Thailand. Economic assistance and increase of trade and close ties are enough.

Unification is the dream of the idealist and the naïve.

I am a big believer in the "Lao identity". In other words, being Khon Lao comes first...South Korea and Singapore are both prosperous, and yet their countries are smaller than Laos.

All it takes is good leadership to improve Laos. It starts at the top level. If the people in charge really wanted to improve Laos, they can. Some years back, a lot of foreign countries was starting to invest more in Laos and Laos was starting to shape up quite a back, but the powers that be were too greedy...

As poor as it is, Laos is doing alright. People have enough to eat. Crime is virtually nonexistent. In this respect, Laos has many advantages...

I believe Laos is doing an outstanding job catching up. I dont think unification holds any real economic or any benefits for that matter. Laos is not in a critical position and we are not threatened by our neighbors. We should keep the status quo in our best interest.

bingo - thais sell out other thais, what makes you think you guys will be immunue. well actually the thai governement likes to sell out thai people - i doubt laotians will be a priority.




if laos and thai unifies on the basis of blood/history then sweden might as well get back with norway/denmark, germany might as well reunify with austria (and maybe holland/flanders) etc. this nationalism based on blood stinks of a certain other type of nationalism experienced in europe 60 years ago - unification of northern europe on a common heritage/language/blood. thailand has got enough problem handling the 70 million people there (or however many there are), adding on laos - well what kind of problems will that cause. ultimately speaking it would also, IMO, destroy laotian culture. like said, it all has to be "thaified"

germany is a good example. look at the rivalries between scotland and england despite being under the union jack for so long.

True, unification would not work out. Thailand still has problems such as issan , the poorest region in Thailand and possibly the south. Unifying would slow down Thailand. The best thing we could do is support each other in the future and hope that both countries and other neighboring countries become well developed in the future.

the thai government can't even handle thailand properly. i doubt they could handle adding laos back onto the map.

Unify with lao didn't make a benefit to both of us, as we. we will face a civil war, and for lao there will lose there power and identity forever. compare to the population , any elections will obviously tilt towards to our,and I'm sure that there have no laotian who want to unify with Thailand. all we should do tie up our relation , may be using EU system with lao. (free trade, border pass etc)

Shan
hey ,you know what taiyai in shan esteem to our king more than you think, they away adore to "Naresuan The great" every time when they go to the battle field.
http://www.shanland.org/resources/links/ar...o.5June2006.pdf

you can find there article in this web www.shanland.org
For shan it possible to unify, they feel good to be with us more than burma, and there choice for to day r like "Live or Die" ,be with burma they will obviously total devastation , they can't be independent , burma will not allow that , even if when they can free there land and claim to be independent I'm sure that burma will declare war to them immediatly, and with out Thailand. they can't compare to burma. so they have only one choice, to use our hand. and be sure that ,no one will give some thing for free.

A unification would be a loss for both Laos and Thailand, especially for the weaker Laos. On the other hand, the best and most realistic scenario would be a close-cooperation relationship between the two countries in terms of economic, cultural and political exchanges. A kind of special relationship. Culturally, there are not so many differences. Thai cultures have already flooded Laos through the medias, musics etc. Lao cultures and people need to be better promoted to Thai people, especially to Bangkokians, in a more positive way. Economically, Thailand is already the biggest investor in Laos. With Nam Theun II dam and other dams being currently contructed, Laos will be able to export electricity to Thailand that needs it for its economic development. There are other potential industries, including in cement, mining, food and sugers, etc., being invested by Thais in Laos for exportation. Thailand may further contribute to Laos development by help Laos improve its higher education and health care systems. Politically, the two countries may not be currently in their best situation, although the more-open and experienced Thailand can help Laos slowly get itself out of its isolation by increasing bilateral discussions and exchanges on political issues to gradually increase better understandings between the two countries. No doubts, the key issue here is that Laos needs to further improve its living standards so that there will be no longer such a big gap between the two countries. Thailand has a great potential to help, while Laos has to make a bigger effort in helping herself, and all this without the need for unification.

Interesting to see that warmongery still runs rife in SE Asia.

Butt out of Burma's internal affairs. We have made our own mess and it is up to us to sort it out. If you wish to aid then don't differetiate between ethnicities.

To help someone out simply because of race is positive racism . EVERYONE is suffering in BUrma.

( Why do I get the hint that some Thais still think there's a war on between these 2 nations.

ba ba ba ba )


There will always be ethnic minorities seeking independence in any country and this includes most of europe .


I for one would rather see the Shan States join togther with Laos and LanNa than with any lowlanders.


PS If I may ask ... Are most of you from the States? ( as in US not Shan )

Earnest bunch u are

EDIT

farang perspective of the day: (nobody cares farang bogg off!) but laos and thai people are very different it seems to me. i think it wouldnt be intheir interests.....but then what do i know?

^ its a bit like suggesting ireland and scotland unify on the basis of the celtic heritage.

I supports this idea

I don't like the idea of it. Personally, I think Laos should just keep its relations with thailand on a business only basies and nothing more. Laos has more to gain by improving her relations with nations like Japan, S.Korea, and western nations.

I think Shans should come back to Thailand.Period.

yes, our shan brothers. they should join thailand. too bad i dont understand their dialect.

actually that would probably be accepted by most celtic scots sing as they live under british law.

also dont forget that the british people ironically have more celtic DNA then the irish who possess briton DNA.........(not british)

please forgive my ignorance but ho did the shan states form?
i would appreciate any history here......

back ? history ? maybe we should all go back to Yunnan.

I won't go into a huge history lesson here but there are a few points worth mentioning .

Shan is a Burmese term . It is used to refer to anyone of Tai origin apart from central Thais who are seen as different .

This is based on observed phenotypical difference as well as observed cultural and linguistic difference.

The Shan know themselves as Tai ( of varying groups : main groups being Long , Lue , Khun ).

The Shan states are called Mong ( same as Muang in Thai ) and therefore the as a collective ( which is a misnomer because until recently they have been separate geo political polities with a degree of autonomy but very little unity ) the correct term would be Mong Tai. That is why many states are Mong this Mong that etc.

Shan ( Tai ) states are not limited to modern Burmese borders if you use the Burmese definition . They can be broadly grouped as :

Burmese shan states ( current State State previously comprised of about 30 or so - although only 12- 15 reasonable sized ones inc Keng Tung , Yaunghwe , Hsenwi et al ) ;
Chinese Shan States ( Sipsong Panna , Dehong ) ;
Thai shan states ( Lanna et al ) ;
Lao Shan states ( LanXang , Vien Chang et al ) ;
Viet Shan States ( 12 historical states in Dai Viet - can't remember names now ) ;
North West Indian Shan States ( Tai Ahom / Khamti Shan ) .

Although heterogenous they more or less share some cultural identity with some mutual intelligibility ( described succinctly by someone I know as similar to how the romantic languages are to a degree more or less intelligible eg French , Italian , Spanish etc ) . As I've explained before central Thais are classed differently as this culture is a product of Tai overlords intermingling with indigenous people to a greater extent than to the north or west. ( therefore they are not classed as SHan )

Firm crystallised borders were only drawn up by the British and French in the 19th - early 20th century. Before this the whole area from Assam through Burma to Yunnan / Dali to Laos , North Thailand to North Vietnam comprised of many separate polities paying tribute to larger polities and uniting occasionally according to political advantage .

The largest polities crystallised into Lanna and LanXang. The rest remained small . The polities within Burma's modern borders never properly united into a kingdom past the 16th century . In the southern Tai / Khmer hybrid nationalities formed the central thai kingdoms of Sukhotai and Ayutthaya ( neither considered Shan ) embracing Khmer culture as they did so.

The polities which united in Burma from 13th - 16th cntury forming kingdoms at Ava , Pinya and Sagaing more or less were comprised of Tai chieftains ruling over a Burman population who similarly embraced Burmaness as they did so . ( all inscriptions found during that period are in Burmese and these kings in order to legitimise their rule claimed lineage from Bagan and Tagaung and suppressed the smaller Shan states - something continued by Burman Ava kings subsequently ) .

The Shan are known by Thais as Tai Yai but only Shan in and near the Thai border call themselves this . They are often refered to as the Greater Tai or the Tai left behind in the acknowledgment that the Thai or Siamese are descended from them.

The Shan states a refered to in this thread refer only to the Shan states within present Myanmar . The rest have been similarly absorbed into modern Thailand , Laos , China , Vietnam and INdia .

Greater Tai unification would include uniting ( note NOT reuniting ) all Tai kadai speaking people . This would stretch from present day Assam in north west India to Guangdong , Guangsi in SE China .

The is a difference between reuniting peoples with a shared origin and uniting territory with different claims by different ethnic groups.

This is the case anywhere on this globe not just in SE Asia.



If you're still interested COrky I can give you a list of dates important in the history of the BUrmese Shan states .

I kinda agree with you on that one,zaw gyi,but the shans in myanmar now badly need their independence and what's better than to join with Thailand again ? Anyway,this is a video recorded in Muse of Shan state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n3gqLolhak

Thank you Erla . I have seen this video and can understand your sentiments.


It is however easy to confuse nationalist and partisan material as being the universal truth in the Shan state . The population is 5 or maybe as high as 8 million . Possibly 1/2 - 2/3 are ethnic Tai ( of several different , often very different groups ) . Many more ethnicities live there including Burman , karen , Kachin , Pa-O and Chinese . They are ALL oppressed by the junta . Some of these groups have longer claim to these lands than the Tai who largely migrated in the 13th century .

It is the nature of oppressed people to want something better . Many see "better" as joining with the largest most powerful Tai state in current existence . This is easy to understand but is not the wish of all Tai there or even the majority and certainly not the wish of the majority of inhabitants who live there .

A similar situation is present in all 7 national states in BUrma and in the 7 Burman divisions : although the BUrman cannot ask for independence so cry democracy and freedom from oppression instead. The underlying needs of ALL the inhabitants of Burma are humanity and security followed by democracy , autonomy and stability . This can only come about by the fall of the junta ( peaceful or otherwise)



A spot of history :


The Shan states all formed largely after the fall of Bagan and Nan Zhao to the Mongols in the 13th century . It is believed the Tai took advantage of this to free themselves from Nan Zhao suzerainty and headed south . The term Tai is believed to have been first used only then .

By the end of the 13th century they had formed various polities throughout south east asia . In what is now upper Burma with Bagan weakened and under Mongol control they established lordship over Burman subjects at Ava , Pinya and Sagaing in the Irrawaddy plains ( or BUrma proper ) . To legitimise their rule the kings of these kingdoms ( although tai ) adopted Burmaness , declared lineage from old Burmese Bagan and Tagaung kings and demanded tribute from the remaining smaller states on the Shan plateau . All literature of this period is in Burmese although the monarchs were Tai .

These states in turn warred with each other and later on in the 15th century Burmanised but Tai ruled Sagaing fell to different Tai chieftains . The diminished BUrman state at Toungoo eventually regained the whole of the irrawaddy basin in the 16th century and continued to demand tribute and vassalise the small highland Shan states until annexation by Britain in the 19th century .


Over the centuries 13th - 19th these poorly united and small states have largely been autonomous but paid tribute to :


A: Burma ( capitals based at Ava , Pegu etc ) with western states being heavily Burmanised and paying tribute twice a year : Burmese prines marrying Shan princesses etc and further states towards China paying tribute only once every 2 years . When man power was called upon they either provided or rebelled ( usually for that rebellion to be quelled by a neighbouring Shan state at the request of the Burman king )

B . China especially those east of the Salween and to the north . In the case of China the nearer states arguably paid more tribute but did not send manpower as they did to Burma . Some of these states are now within modern chinese borders . The Chinese still claim parts of northern Shan state as theirs even now .

C . Lanna : tribute from adjoining eastern states ( before Burmese rule from 1558 - 1775 ) . Ended with Siamese conquest and incorporation into present day Thailand.


D. Lan xang - esp those east of the mekong which are now absorbed into modern Laos .



Tribute to central Siamese ( Ayutthaya / Sukhotai ) was limited as until the 18th century Lanna was a separate state under BUrmese control which buffered the smaller Shan states from the Chao Phraya basin.


I find it amusing that I've come across some Thai ( especially on AF ) talking about the Shan states reuniting or coming back to Thailand as if this had ever been the case .





Siam exerted "control" over only small parts of this large area for three brief periods .

1. 1600 and 1660 Kings Naresuan and Narai conquered Chiang Mai and claimed suzerainty over the adjoining Mongs ( which make up about a quarter of the whole state ) only to be repulse quickly by the Burmese each time. Burma maintained control over Lanna either directly or as vassal for over 200 years ( 1558 - 1775 ) . Given that Lanna is now northern Thailand it would be improbable that over that time any Ayutthayan king could claim suzerainty over the states to the west of it. Look at the architecture , costume and culture in Chiang Mai and try to deny any Burmese influence . The identity is almost completely diferent to the Khmer influenced culture of central Thailand. I have not seen any Khmer / Siamese influence west of Lanna. Burmese influence extends into modern Thailand not vice versa.


2. 1775 when Taksin conquered Chiang Mai and the subsequent Chakri dynasty claims to suzerainty over 6 or so small adjoining eastern states . This claim becomes more pronounced after 1st Anglo BUrmese war of 1826 when the Burmese state was weakened . This claim ended in 1890s when Britain completed the annexation of Burma and established firm borders .


3. The "forgotten" invasion 1941-45 when Thailand invaded the eastern states east of the Salween when the japanese were occupying BUrma proper .



Any claims of taking back the Shan states is pure nationalist fantasy propagated by the same nationalism that claims Nan Zhao was Tai . The same nationalism also suppresses Lanna identity , Issan identity , Surin identity and Pattani identity amongst others.

The same nationalism makes eternal enemies of the BUrmese when all the invading armies ( including the 2 successful ones of 1567/9 and 1767 ) used huge numbers of Tai troops whether they'd be from the small Shan states , Lanna or even Phitsanulok.

Ironically ( similar to corky's comments about British DNA ) there are probably as many Tai descendants in Burma as there are in Thailand . All of what was left of Ayutthaya was repopulated in central Burma around Ava swelling the population by 20% . Many villages still bear names which are testimony to their origins . All Burmese monarchs married Shan princesses . Most people in Upper BUrma have at least some Shan blood .



It is interesting that in this modern era that linguistic similarities and pseudohistory are used to legitimise cynical claims to an area of land when the truth is that Thais have only recently given a f**k about their immediate western neighbours . Until annexation by the British the whole area was a largely autonomous but quarreling city states with ties to Burma or China NOT Siam . It was the British who started centralised government thereby ending their autonomy .


What is needed from our Thai brothers and sisters is support of the over throw of the junta followed by democracy , autonomy and stability . Currently all I see are Thai chinese businessmen determined to exploit what they can from Burmas natural resources and Thai nationalists determined to have hostile invasion with the pretext of freeing their enslaved brothers either to avenge Ayutthaya or to gain more territory .


( PS Since when have Tai given a f**k about other Tai ( look at Thai / Lao hatred ) . Do you want to also free the Dai and Zhuang from Chinese communism ? This argument has only come about because some people see the potential in taking advantage of a weakened state to gain land and resources . The situation in NE India is even worse . The Tai Ahom there do not even speak a Tai language anymore and have become Indianized speaking an Indoeuropean tongue similar to Hindi. The reason we are even having this debate in the first place is that the Burmese in the past have always allowed autonomy in the region and did not bother to completely Burmanize the Tai living on the plateau as happened with the Tai and Mon in central Burma )

absoultely facinating. thank you khun 'Zaw-Gyi', please do continue if its not too much work. as i said beofre my wife is ethnically Man (so burmese in a way). her knowldge of the history is poor so i really do appreciate this

I find this true and very funny how you said it Zaw. Especially this line " PS Since when have Tai given a f**k about other Tai ( look at Thai / Lao hatred ) ." I guess you are right about the Ahom speaking a different language and Burma letting the tai luang speak their native language. Why don't all citizens of Burma protest for more rights? The girls in the shan video are pretty. If I could I would take advantage of the situation and marry one of them as my wife. I would pick the one with the best attitude though lolz..

I agree with Bassak...Japan and S.Korea would be better for us than Thailand...besides, with the problems they're having in southern Thailand, I think it's in Laos' best interest to stay away from that whole mess. Also, since Thailand has to deal with the problems in the south first, I don't think they'd want to deal with the Lao government anyway.

Lao people are proud people and genuinely friendly...why would we want to lose these attributes?

A better alternative is for Laos and Cambodia to unite as Sovannaphum!! Both languages can be the official language its win win! Laos gets access to the sea and Cambodia gets direct access to China. Plus the economic levels are quite similar from what I know. Then the two countries can team up and take Issan ..

I kid I kid.

I think most ppl have a misunderstanding, yes there is a country called Laos and a country called Thailand,

but half the population of Thailand are Lao ppl, 30+ million ppl in Thailand are ethnic Lao,

the other half of thailand I believe are Khmer ppl,

so it would make more sense to unite Northern Thailand, parts of the Isaan region and Northern Laos, central and parts of Southern Laos, and Shan state burma, because they are all ethnicly the same, and share somewhat of a common language.

if u look at history all these area's i've mentioned, these regions were unified under Lanna and Lanxang,

even Ayuthaya shared a common bond between the Lanna and Lanxang regions, through the kings bloodline to the Lao Royal Bloodline King Mengrai, Kon Boron,

The Shan and the Lao ppl share a common history, both share and tell the same oral history that is as old as there were Lao/Tai ppl living in Southeast Asia,

so I agree with ur opinion that the Shan are the Lao are a more likely situation,

I believe the chinese refer to the Mountain range in Southern Yunan Province as the Ai Lao Shan fault,

The Shan state, was given to one of the sons of the Lao King Khun Bouron, (Khun Lok Khom), according to the oral history of Moung Hongsa present day region of the Shan ppl.

What i have found is this: im sure others know about the Royal Bloodline

Khun Bourom Maharasa dynasty - Khun Bourom had 9 sons and 7 of them became kings in different regions in the area of so called "Lamthong":

1- "Khun Lor" ruled Moung Sawa (Sua), (LuangPhrabang,Laos)
2- "Khun Palanh" ruled SipsongPanna, (China)
3- "Khun Chusong" ruled TungKea, (Muang HuaoPhanh to Tonkin,Vietnam)
4- "Khun Saiphong" ruled Lanna, (ChiengMai,Thailand)
5- "Khun Ngua In" ruled Ayuthaya, (Thailand)
6- "Khun Lok khom" ruled Moung Hongsa (Inthaputh),(Shan state,Burma)
7- "Khun ChetCheang" ruled Moung Phuan, (XiengKhouang,Laos)

according to the chronicles of Ayuthaya, Uthong claims to be the descendant of "Khun Ngua In" as shared in the Oral history of the Lao ppl, so what does that make the Kings of Ayuthaya?

as this was Oral history that is shared between the Lao of Laos, Shan of Burma, and Northern Thailand(Lao Lanna regions), making as it seems, the Royal Bloodline of Ayuthaya are Lao?

I believe this story is to the Lao ppl as the Bible or the Old Testiment are to Christians and Jews.

kop koon krup kun GraceJao

Here is the lineage of Luang Prabang(XiengThong)(muang Sawa) continued from Khun Lor to Fah Ngum of LanXang and a reference to back up GraceJao's claims

Laos must have existed since the most moved back times, but "the indigenous tradition does not know anything the period which extends between mythical Khoun Bourôm, wire of legendary Khoun Lo, and XIVè century. It preserves only one list of names of chiefs (List of Kings de Khoun Lo at F-Ngum: Khoun lo, Khoun Swa Lao, Khoun Soung, Khoun Khet, Khoun Khoum, Khoun Khip, Khoun Khap, Khoun Khao, Khoun Khane, Khoun Phèng, Khoun Phéng, Khoun Pheung, Khoun Phi, Khoun Kham, Khoun Houng, Thao Thèng, Thao Lang, Phagna Kham Phông, (P. the Baker, quoted C$op, pp. 39-40) and phagna Kham Ngiao, Phagna Kham Hiao, F-Ngum) initially indicated by the Khoun title, then by that of Thao, finally by that of Pragna (cf L Finot, Research on the Laotian literature, BEPEO, T XVIII, fasc. 5, p. 164).
cf A. Pavia, Mission E in Indo-China, Paris 1898, volume It, p. 193(French commissioner in Indo-China from 1886-1905)
Western authors Connus D.G. Hall (A history of South-East Asia, London, 1964); G Coedès (States hindouized of Indo-China and Indonesia, New Edition, Paris 1964).

I agree with what you are saying grace, its very true. The lao capitals been moving back and fourth from Chieng mai to luangprabang to viengchan. Chieng mai was the lao capaital when king Mengrai was in power. Chieng thong(luangprabang) was the capital of the second lao state when lanxang was born. When king Setthatirath was king of Lanna , Chieng thong was the capital of Lanxang. When king Setthas father died , king Setthatirath was going to make Chieng mai the capital of both Lanxang and Lanna since he thrown both kingdom. He decides to move his capital to luangprabang because he fear Chieng mai was tto close to Burma. King Setthatirath then move the lao capital from Chieng thong to viengchan because he felt Chieng Thong was still too close to the Burmese. Thats how the capital of the lao world during Setthatiraths time became Viengchan. Chieng mai was then considered the capital of the lao world again when the French came into southeast asia.

Eventhough King Sayasethathirath moved his capital from Luang Prabang to Vientiene in 1560 but the evidence of Lao living in those areas can be trace back long before King RamKhamHeaung. According to Chronicle of XiengMai "A stele set up in 1292 by king de SukhotHai, Rowed Kham Hèng, in Xieng May, mentioned for the first time the presence of Laos called by the name of its two large cities Vieng Chan-Vieng Kham which, in the east, closed the borders of its kingdom: They (Thais de Sukhothai) "(cf A. Pavia, Mission E in Indo-China, Paris 1898, volume It, p. 193).

I am so Peuk sometime I don't even know what I'm talking about.......

Before Funan was taken over by Jenla there were an Ai lao state in South east asia. When the state of funan was still in power there were a state called Ai lao/ liao nan . This kingdom was north of Funan. This kingdom then turned into khamu territory. I saw it on Time Line from the University of Sidney Australia. I'll try to find it again and link it here. It is just the existing kingdom of the Ai lao people that migrated into south east asia almost 2000 years ago.

Off topic now guys:

Lao need to turn her back on siamland permanently, so no unification.

Thailand don't need the poor Laos. Absurd to think that Japan and S.Korea would be better for Laos. How you know many Koreans -for example at asiafinest- doesn't consider brown Asians as Asians.

The Shan state should be a Thai area, because they want to be a part of us -not poor Laos!!- and the Shans have many problems with the Burmese military. I think it's important to support our brothers in Burma.

Laos don't need the crime infested, prostitution, and Falang-worshipping Thailand. It's ridiculous to think that Laos would want to be a part of Thailand when Laos has plenty of land, enough to eat, and a higher quality of life. Unlike Thailand whose people are killing each everyday just to eat.

Laoten haben schon einen urkomischen stolz.

Mah See Ma Mung.

Die laotische Sprache ist auch urkomisch.

Buc Na Ma Saat Sua.

dumb idea. siri must have been out of his mind.

good idea, hum. stay away!

since when have we been your brothers - just because we're fellow Tai . ( Thailand has an appalling track record of mistreating Shan refugees )



Please help all the Shan ( and other people ) who have fled to Thailand but please stop this cynical thirst for state expansion . You've been fed nationalistic bull$hit from your own junta for so long now you've forgotten that Lanna was ever a separate kingdom. I can understand why KengTung feels very affiliated with Chiang Mai but pur-lease ... it cares $hit about Bangkok .


HANDS OF SHAN TERRITORY - it does not belong to the minority who wants to join with Thailand ( actually it's Lanna they want to join with )

I grewin up in Germany where the people haven't pride of their nationality. That's the oppisit of your America. I can understand why you are so proud of your tribe or nationality. The reason is that you live in the States where everyone are very patriotic. Sad. I'm not a nationalistic Thai, because we haven't a good image here and I don't want to show the Germans here my ''blood'', when they can't do it too.

I know that Lanna was a seperate kingdom. Many countries today have the same history. for example: Preussen, Sachsen and other kingdoms were own states, but now they're one Germany or Silla, Paekche etc. for Korea.

i thought we establish that thai is mon/khmer -so that wouldn't make 'em tai.

yup hands off!