Khmer-Ayutthayan bloodline
Need to zoom in a bit, quality not great, but this shows Sihanouk and Bhumibol were very distant cousins, not that that should be surprising.
Hahaha. I had to deeply zoom into your chart.Steeeeeveeeeeeee wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:28 pm
Need to zoom in a bit, quality not great, but this shows Sihanouk and Bhumibol were very distant cousins, not that that should be surprising.
That chart is quite interesting. So both sides have a bit of ethnic Mon. The Khmer-Ayutthayan chart I have above was from a book I got, it's 300-page. The last King of Angkor was Ponhea Yat who is the Great-great grandson of King U-Thong the Ayutthaya king. U-Thong is married to a Khmer Princess and her brother is Khmer Prince. Her Brother ousted Ramesuen out.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
[/quote]
Hahaha. I had to deeply zoom into your chart.
That chart is quite interesting. So both sides have a bit of ethnic Mon. The Khmer-Ayutthayan chart I have above was from a book I got, it's 300-page. The last King of Angkor was Ponhea Yat who is the Great-great grandson of King U-Thong the Ayutthaya king. U-Thong is married to a Khmer Princess and her brother is Khmer Prince. Her Brother ousted Ramesuen out.
[/quote]
Actually, the last king of Angkor was a Hinduist king named Jayavarman Paramesvera. During his reign the last Snaskrit inscription was written, and he built a small Shivaist temple. This was in the middle of the 14th century. Then there is no information what happened to Angkor, except for some information from a Thai royal chronicle that they conquered Angkor twice at the end of the 14th century. If this was really the case, we don't know, but it explains how Ayutthaya suddenly was able to write ancient Cambodian inscriptions in Ayyuthataya in the 15th century, and why the kings of Ayutthaya suddenly used the Devaraja-god-kingship from Angkor.
From the Chinese official records we can see that the capital of Angkor moved to the South at the end of the 14th century, and that the Cambodians sent a lot of missions to China with request for help against the Siamese. Also, there are described a number of reign-changes with the names of different kings, indicating that different kings were succeeded in a rather short time.
Then the first evidence we have is the Michael Vickery-chronicle (2k.105 chronicle if I'm not mistaken). This tells of a certain king becoming the new king of Ayutthaya in the beginning of the 15th century, while the old king was exiled to Angkor to become a vassal king. Apparently, this old king of Ayutthaya married into the Pearic elite community, while his son Yat did the same. Yat became the new king and built a unified Cambodian kingdom, but he was conquered by Ayutthaya in 1431. Yat then incorporated different ethnic groups of Cambodia into his army, and reconquered Angkor around 1441.
The first evidence we have from then, are the inscriptions of the 16th century. Somewhere in the beginning, and somewhere in the middle of the 16th century, do we find the Khmer inscriptions that talk about reinstating the temple of Angkor, and about doing work to repair and finish some construction of the great temple. At the end of the 16th century, apparently Lovek was conquered at the end of the 16th century.
Hahaha. I had to deeply zoom into your chart.
That chart is quite interesting. So both sides have a bit of ethnic Mon. The Khmer-Ayutthayan chart I have above was from a book I got, it's 300-page. The last King of Angkor was Ponhea Yat who is the Great-great grandson of King U-Thong the Ayutthaya king. U-Thong is married to a Khmer Princess and her brother is Khmer Prince. Her Brother ousted Ramesuen out.
[/quote]
Actually, the last king of Angkor was a Hinduist king named Jayavarman Paramesvera. During his reign the last Snaskrit inscription was written, and he built a small Shivaist temple. This was in the middle of the 14th century. Then there is no information what happened to Angkor, except for some information from a Thai royal chronicle that they conquered Angkor twice at the end of the 14th century. If this was really the case, we don't know, but it explains how Ayutthaya suddenly was able to write ancient Cambodian inscriptions in Ayyuthataya in the 15th century, and why the kings of Ayutthaya suddenly used the Devaraja-god-kingship from Angkor.
From the Chinese official records we can see that the capital of Angkor moved to the South at the end of the 14th century, and that the Cambodians sent a lot of missions to China with request for help against the Siamese. Also, there are described a number of reign-changes with the names of different kings, indicating that different kings were succeeded in a rather short time.
Then the first evidence we have is the Michael Vickery-chronicle (2k.105 chronicle if I'm not mistaken). This tells of a certain king becoming the new king of Ayutthaya in the beginning of the 15th century, while the old king was exiled to Angkor to become a vassal king. Apparently, this old king of Ayutthaya married into the Pearic elite community, while his son Yat did the same. Yat became the new king and built a unified Cambodian kingdom, but he was conquered by Ayutthaya in 1431. Yat then incorporated different ethnic groups of Cambodia into his army, and reconquered Angkor around 1441.
The first evidence we have from then, are the inscriptions of the 16th century. Somewhere in the beginning, and somewhere in the middle of the 16th century, do we find the Khmer inscriptions that talk about reinstating the temple of Angkor, and about doing work to repair and finish some construction of the great temple. At the end of the 16th century, apparently Lovek was conquered at the end of the 16th century.
Hahaha. I had to deeply zoom into your chart.
That chart is quite interesting. So both sides have a bit of ethnic Mon. The Khmer-Ayutthayan chart I have above was from a book I got, it's 300-page. The last King of Angkor was Ponhea Yat who is the Great-great grandson of King U-Thong the Ayutthaya king. U-Thong is married to a Khmer Princess and her brother is Khmer Prince. Her Brother ousted Ramesuen out.
[/quote]
Actually, the last king of Angkor was a Hinduist king named Jayavarman Paramesvera. During his reign the last Snaskrit inscription was written, and he built a small Shivaist temple. This was in the middle of the 14th century. Then there is no information what happened to Angkor, except for some information from a Thai royal chronicle that they conquered Angkor twice at the end of the 14th century. If this was really the case, we don't know, but it explains how Ayutthaya suddenly was able to write ancient Cambodian inscriptions in Ayyuthataya in the 15th century, and why the kings of Ayutthaya suddenly used the Devaraja-god-kingship from Angkor.
From the Chinese official records we can see that the capital of Angkor moved to the South at the end of the 14th century, and that the Cambodians sent a lot of missions to China with request for help against the Siamese. Also, there are described a number of reign-changes with the names of different kings, indicating that different kings were succeeded in a rather short time.
Then the first evidence we have is the Michael Vickery-chronicle (2k.105 chronicle if I'm not mistaken). This tells of a certain king becoming the new king of Ayutthaya in the beginning of the 15th century, while the old king was exiled to Angkor to become a vassal king. Apparently, this old king of Ayutthaya married into the Pearic elite community, while his son Yat did the same. Yat became the new king and built a unified Cambodian kingdom, but he was conquered by Ayutthaya in 1431. Yat then incorporated different ethnic groups of Cambodia into his army, and reconquered Angkor around 1441.
The first evidence we have from then, are the inscriptions of the 16th century. Somewhere in the beginning, and somewhere in the middle of the 16th century, do we find the Khmer inscriptions that talk about reinstating the temple of Angkor, and about doing work to repair and finish some construction of the great temple. At the end of the 16th century, apparently Lovek was conquered at the end of the 16th century.
[/quote]
So the old king you referring to is Ramaracha that went into exiled and married to Mneang which you say is pearic. If I'm correct? Correct me, if I'm wrong. The book I have got references from Michael Vickery.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
[/quote]
So the old king you referring to is Ramaracha that went into exiled and married to Mneang which you say is pearic. If I'm correct? Correct me, if I'm wrong. The book I have got references from Michael Vickery.
[/quote]
Does the book you use refer to any of the Royal Chronicles of Cambodia? A lot of information is false and corrupted, so personally I only believe the information that can be backed up by historical evidence.
Since the 2k./125-fragment is backed up by an inscription, and can be compared to another Thai royal chronicle, called the Luang Prasoet Chronicle, which agrees with the 2k./125-fragment, therefore we can be pretty sure it is reliable information. This is what the two chronicles say:
The father of Baña Yat is described as Cau Baña Ram. He was exiled to govern Phnom Penh in 1409. His son Yat was captured when Angkor was conquered in 1431 by the king of Ayutthata, together with two Pearic rulers of Angkor, called Baña Kaev and Baña Dai. These two Pearic rulers of Angkor tried to start an insurrection from Ayutthaya, where they were placed together with the inhabitants of Angkor that were captured. They were caught, and then executed.
The Ayutthayan prince Yat was captured in Cambodia, but aided by the Pearic people who knew his father. He gathered an army of Pearic people from Western Cambodia, together with other ethnic groups from Cambodia, and recaptured the city of Angkor around 1441.
Source: 2k./125 fragment + info Luang Prasoet Chronicle
So the old king you referring to is Ramaracha that went into exiled and married to Mneang which you say is pearic. If I'm correct? Correct me, if I'm wrong. The book I have got references from Michael Vickery.
[/quote]
Does the book you use refer to any of the Royal Chronicles of Cambodia? A lot of information is false and corrupted, so personally I only believe the information that can be backed up by historical evidence.
Since the 2k./125-fragment is backed up by an inscription, and can be compared to another Thai royal chronicle, called the Luang Prasoet Chronicle, which agrees with the 2k./125-fragment, therefore we can be pretty sure it is reliable information. This is what the two chronicles say:
The father of Baña Yat is described as Cau Baña Ram. He was exiled to govern Phnom Penh in 1409. His son Yat was captured when Angkor was conquered in 1431 by the king of Ayutthata, together with two Pearic rulers of Angkor, called Baña Kaev and Baña Dai. These two Pearic rulers of Angkor tried to start an insurrection from Ayutthaya, where they were placed together with the inhabitants of Angkor that were captured. They were caught, and then executed.
The Ayutthayan prince Yat was captured in Cambodia, but aided by the Pearic people who knew his father. He gathered an army of Pearic people from Western Cambodia, together with other ethnic groups from Cambodia, and recaptured the city of Angkor around 1441.
Source: 2k./125 fragment + info Luang Prasoet Chronicle
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
When Angkor was captured, the two Pearic rulers called Baña Keav and Baña Dai of Angkor were brought to Ayutthaya together with all the inhabitants and statues. According to the information, the people of Angkor were used as soldiers and guardians in Ayutthaya. They didn't become loyal to their new monarchy in Ayutthaya, and tried to conspire against the king with other officials. They were caught and executed. It seems their execution triggered the Pearic people of Western Cambodia to become united under the prince Yat, and they were able to reconquer Angkor in 1441.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Why I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Yes, I read the book many years ago. It's completely wrong. Why? Because the writer just used all the information from the Royal Chronicles, but assumed that all information is correct. Actually, some of the information is correct, and some of the information is incorrect, and much of the information we only have to speculate if it's correct or incorrect.kke802 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:06 pmSEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
I'm going to write my own book, and present the information that can be proven. Also, I will address the information that can not be proven, and also showcase why some of the information is incorrect, since we have actual evidence to disregard much of the information from different Chronicles.
My book will be a compilation of all the available historical sources and an analysis of which information can be trusted and which information can not. It will tell the story of Khmer history solely based on historic evidence.
I guess it's time to revise the history of Cambodia as we know it, because people just keep making claims without evidence or sources to back up the claims.
I mean, you should write a blog though with the information you got. It's not hard to set one up.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:57 pmYes, I read the book many years ago. It's completely wrong. Why? Because the writer just used all the information from the Royal Chronicles, but assumed that all information is correct. Actually, some of the information is correct, and some of the information is incorrect, and much of the information we only have to speculate if it's correct or incorrect.kke802 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:06 pmSEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
I'm going to write my own book, and present the information that can be proven. Also, I will address the information that can not be proven, and also showcase why some of the information is incorrect, since we have actual evidence to disregard much of the information from different Chronicles.
My book will be a compilation of all the available historical sources and an analysis of which information can be trusted and which information can not. It will tell the story of Khmer history solely based on historic evidence.
I guess it's time to revise the history of Cambodia as we know it, because people just keep making claims without evidence or sources to back up the claims.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:09 am
Any idea where I should make this blog? I have no idea..kke802 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:35 amI mean, you should write a blog though with the information you got. It's not hard to set one up.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:57 pmYes, I read the book many years ago. It's completely wrong. Why? Because the writer just used all the information from the Royal Chronicles, but assumed that all information is correct. Actually, some of the information is correct, and some of the information is incorrect, and much of the information we only have to speculate if it's correct or incorrect.kke802 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:06 pmSEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
I'm going to write my own book, and present the information that can be proven. Also, I will address the information that can not be proven, and also showcase why some of the information is incorrect, since we have actual evidence to disregard much of the information from different Chronicles.
My book will be a compilation of all the available historical sources and an analysis of which information can be trusted and which information can not. It will tell the story of Khmer history solely based on historic evidence.
I guess it's time to revise the history of Cambodia as we know it, because people just keep making claims without evidence or sources to back up the claims.
SEAhistory just sign up at blogger.com you can sign in with an email account whether it's gmail or Yahoo mail.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:07 amAny idea where I should make this blog? I have no idea..kke802 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:35 amI mean, you should write a blog though with the information you got. It's not hard to set one up.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:57 pmYes, I read the book many years ago. It's completely wrong. Why? Because the writer just used all the information from the Royal Chronicles, but assumed that all information is correct. Actually, some of the information is correct, and some of the information is incorrect, and much of the information we only have to speculate if it's correct or incorrect.kke802 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:06 pmSEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
I'm going to write my own book, and present the information that can be proven. Also, I will address the information that can not be proven, and also showcase why some of the information is incorrect, since we have actual evidence to disregard much of the information from different Chronicles.
My book will be a compilation of all the available historical sources and an analysis of which information can be trusted and which information can not. It will tell the story of Khmer history solely based on historic evidence.
I guess it's time to revise the history of Cambodia as we know it, because people just keep making claims without evidence or sources to back up the claims.
Another great one would be wix.com it's free. All you gotta do is select the design and add text.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:07 amAny idea where I should make this blog? I have no idea..kke802 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:35 amI mean, you should write a blog though with the information you got. It's not hard to set one up.SEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:57 pmYes, I read the book many years ago. It's completely wrong. Why? Because the writer just used all the information from the Royal Chronicles, but assumed that all information is correct. Actually, some of the information is correct, and some of the information is incorrect, and much of the information we only have to speculate if it's correct or incorrect.kke802 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:06 pmSEAhistory wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:55 pmWhy I can see the chart you posted is based on false information, is because the false information is used from false Cambodian Chronicles. For example, the information about Neay Trasak Paem is incorrect. Neay Trasak Paem (Samré king) was not the king in 14th century. His story and legend is false. It was copied from Burmese legend.
This is the book I got and they have a 2nd volume. So yeah if you get this book just read it. You can agree and disagree what's in the book.
I'm going to write my own book, and present the information that can be proven. Also, I will address the information that can not be proven, and also showcase why some of the information is incorrect, since we have actual evidence to disregard much of the information from different Chronicles.
My book will be a compilation of all the available historical sources and an analysis of which information can be trusted and which information can not. It will tell the story of Khmer history solely based on historic evidence.
I guess it's time to revise the history of Cambodia as we know it, because people just keep making claims without evidence or sources to back up the claims.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
What Would Happen If a Khmer Punched a Khmer Shopkeeper On the Nose for Trying To Cheat Him?
by Aseriousman » Sat May 18, 2019 6:36 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 30 Replies
- 13304 Views
-
Last post by RainMan
Fri May 24, 2019 1:02 pm
-
-
- 0 Replies
- 1848 Views
-
Last post by Khmeroldmemory
Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:10 am
-
- 13 Replies
- 4152 Views
-
Last post by Orichá
Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:18 pm
-
- 2 Replies
- 1516 Views
-
Last post by newnewnewbie
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:02 am