Thailand and Europe, Comparing Societies in History

By Ronin Brennan

An acadrmic book, delving into overall structure and operation of the society of the Thai people, compared to Europe (and China and others). It concerns the "shape" and relations in society, dynamics of change, effects of urbanization, religion, and other overall forces. Obviously a huge subject, and a time frame of a millennium (to 1957), but the book aims to find key points. Society is one vital way to describe history, and to understand the present. Thailand comes out the most stable case in this study. Topics include individual focus vs conformity, verticality, cohesion, government dominance, effects of antecedents, openness to change vs stability.
The book is intended to be useful in graduate studies, and possibly to contribute to constructive discussion of Thailand’s society, past and present.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ronin Brennan
• Release date: May 31, 2024
• ISBN: 9798215029183

Ronin Brennan

Ron Brennan worked in social and economic development in Asia and Africa for thirty years, and found these societies fascinating. Spending nine years in Thailand, he came to appreciate the complex society and how it was affected by history. "Freedom and dependence" studies that history.

Book preview

Thailand and Europe,

Comparing Societies in History

Ron Brennan

Smashwords Edition

Thailand and Europe,

Comparing Societies in History

Ronin Brennan

Copyright © 2024 by Ronin Brennan

All rights reserved.

License Notes

This e-book is licensed for your use only. It may not be sold or given to other people. They must obtain their own copy.

This e-book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission, except for brief quotations. The scanning, uploading and distribution of this e-book via the Internet or any other means without the permission of the author is illegal.

Published in the United States of America

ISBN -- 9798215029183

Cover photo: A cultural serpent in Bangkok...

but it would fit in a fountain in Rome.

Table of Contents

Preface

1. Introduction

2. Feudalism in Europe

2.1 Basic description of feudalism; the three periods

2.2 Serfdom and slavery

2.3 Comparison with Siam

3 Development of European society in feudalism and beyond

3.1 Government, control

3.2 Military dimension

3.3 Economy

3.4 Society

3.4.1 The basic characteristics

3.4.2 Development beyond feudalism: the individual level

3.4.3 Development beyond feudalism: the society level

3.4.4 How society would hold together

3.4.5 The later society development in Siam

3.5 The 1800s and the ending of feudalism

4. Feudalism and, state consolidation in other nations

4.1 China

4.2 India

4.3 Japan

4.4 Russia

4.5 Islamic states and Byzantium

4.6 General patterns in national consolidation

5. . Urbanization

5.1 Europe

5.2 China

5.3 Japan

5.4 The late urban development of Bangkok

6. . Enlightenment

6.1 Introduction and its background

6.2 Societal content

6.3 Its effects

6.4 Comparison with China

7. . Concluding ideas

7.1 Society structure and operation

7.2 The individual level

7.3 Government as a factor in society

7.4 Urbanization and private sector as factors

7.5 Rural society

7.6 Thai society in the 1950s

References

About the author

Preface

This book results from years of interest in the operation of Thailand’s society at present, and consequently in its historical background. One approach to studying the society in the past is to compare it with others.

The content here is all secondary research based on sources, with many specific references. The contribution of this book is thus not in delving into new records and evidence. It is in making useful comparisons and finding useful synthesizing ideas from previous historical research.

The case of Thailand is discussed in more detail in Freedom and dependence, Thailand’s society in history, 2021, the previous book by the author. This book fills out the comparisons, which are briefly given there in chapter 9. This book started as an Annex to chapter 9.

Most of the Preface of the previous book applies here ̶

̶ Histories do not usually focus on society; it is a very broad subject equiring more extrapolation from documents and references.

̶ It is necessary to select parts of this subject for emphasis, and other areas certainly deserve attention.

̶ The approach is western, aiming to be logical, objective and credible. It has no political or ideological aim, but it does differ from conformity with official history.

̶ It is an academic book for the graduate level, but It has not been passed by official reviewers and smoothed by editors. Some professors may not consider it a proper reference to cite.

The result is a proposed picture of this vast subject. Hopefully the reader will find it balanced, perceptive and useful; but it is just a stimulus for further thought, maybe a step in understanding this endless subject. History of society is worth investigating; it is a vital part of understanding history of nations. It shines light on the lives of the people. In the Thai case it is a positive history ̶ the Thai society comes out well in the comparisons here.

Technical points

For simplicity, there are no maps here. Locations are given clearly, and can be found in maps in many of the references.

Thailand is called Siam here, up to the 1930s, just to emphasize that the topic is the nation in the past, which was different in character from the current Thailand.

General and political history of Thailand cannot be included, nor of the other nations. Readers will admittedly need to know the basics of these histories.

References to other sections of this book are in square brackets: [4.3] means there is related discussion in section 4.3. References to sections in the previous book are given in . Thai words are written in English letters, and underlined.

Royal names, in Europe and Thailand, are given with modern numerals for clarity, e.g. Louis 14 (not Louis XIV), Rama 4. (Written Thai does not use Roman numerals for kings either.) Use of he and his naturally includes women where logical, and is just for efficiency.

Acknowledgments

The previous book was nourished by inspiration and ideas from many Thai people of all social levels. Their friendship and contributions to my education were wonderful. This book is more a library exercise, consulting studies of different countries; but their inspiration is still in the background. Since some ideas may be controversial, no names are given here; but they know my gratitude and appreciation of their thinking.

Cornell University Library has provided a major input for both books. Their welcoming facilities (open to the public) were a wonderful resource and stimulus for study.

1. Introduction

This book compares societies over the past millennium as a part of social history ̶ Thailand and Europe, plus China and a few others to a degree. The society is simplified to the overall national level and its main components (urban, rural). It discusses general behaviors related to one’s position in society, the informal structure of society, mobility in it, people’s attitudes toward other parts of society, and such. Government is included, but just as a force interacting with the society. A main interest here is the development of these general characteristics over time, and how the process results in differences between societies. It is a fascinating field, but a vast one that can only be addressed to a modest degree, and in selected aspects. The conclusions in chapter 7 are rather proposed ideas for further consideration.

Three topics of focus are chosen: feudalism and monarchy, urbanization and economic development, and the Enlightenment. They are key topics in European history, and are sometimes discussed in relation to Thai history. They usually have a political coloring when they are raised as a topic in Thailand, but not here.

European society occupies the most space here, with interesting contrasts to the Thai case. One might not expect any of these three topics to be similar, between Europe and Thailand. Obviously, the historical backgrounds of the two societies are quite different. And they had different religious foundations, and physical conditions. But similarities are also found.

The histories are quite different; but where they differ, the reasons may cast useful light on the Thai case. And in the background they show our common human nature and societal aims. The various comparisons bring out ideas on the Thai case which hopefully are useful new angles for understanding Thai society in the past, leading to the present.

2. Feudalism in Europe

Much of European society in the period around 700 AD had become feudal; and over a period of a thousand years it then became a set of states, societies under monarchy. It was an extensive, multi-step change in society, involving troubles and stumbles at each period, right up to the 1800s. The timeline of government for Siam was different: informal mini-states (with some feudal character) becoming a loose sort of monarchy in Sukhothai, and then a formal monarchy model in Ayudthia from 1450, with little change until the 1900s. This story of society growing out of feudalism and changing to royal government is the initial topic for making comparisons, chapter 3. This chapter gives an overview of feudalism, the starting point, and comparison to Ayudthia. This topic is rather focused on government, but actually aims to discuss society: government is not the main interest here. ,By section 3.3 the text gets away from mentioning government so much.

Feudalism can be a sensitive topic in Thailand, sometimes raised as the question whether Thailand was, or still is, feudal ̶ painting it as a bad form of society. The motivation is often to criticize Thai society, from a modern leftist angle. Certainly that is not the intention here. It is actually useful to look into feudalism, minus the condemning tone, as a society model that does relate to Thai history. Of course feudalism is a huge subject, and had a wide variety of forms ̶ only an overview will be attempted here. There is a pile of descriptions of feudalism, from the general Cambridge History books, and Coulborn (1956), to specific cases (the references below).

2.1 Basic description of feudalism; the three periods

This section gives background and generalities on European feudalism, with mention of other cases. Readers familiar with feudalism can skip along, or just look at the summaries in bold. The basic picture of feudalism in Europe is a ladder of vassals serving lords, up to a top regional lord, who will be called here a duke, and then in some cases to a sort of weak king. A king was useful for regulating conflicts among the dukes, for facing large-scale war, and for symbolic greatness... and he often had the advantage of being supported by the Church. At each level the vassals attended ceremonies showing their loyalty and deference to their lord; and at the top there were often showy ceremonies of serving and submitting by the vassals. A strong personal vertical link was central to the system: a linkage of upward serving, obeying, showing loyalty; and downward protection and assistance. Each level controlled land (a fief, granted by the level above), and the people on it ̶ the two foundations of lordly power. The king and the dukes awarded land as fiefs to loyal servers, but retained large estates with direct vassal-peasants. Below the duke was often a more local lord, and below him a manor-lord. The base was the vassal-peasant, under the control of his manor-lord. This simplified set of terms, and levels, will be used for all of Europe.

At the base ̶ called the manor, seigneurie, casa padronale, Landgut, podere, etc. ̶ the vassal-peasants lived and tilled their allocated land plus the lord's land (the demesne). They also paid goods and services and sometimes money to the manor-lord. In addition, there was the crucial service: fighting when called by the lord.

The lord could have received a fief with peasants on it from a higher lord through success in battle, or as a deal to pay him taxes and food; or he could start a manor on unoccupied land, and attract land-stressed peasants. Conquered populations became vassals, e.g. in Austria and Hungary, and the Norman conquest of England.

Every level had fighting responsibility: basic feudalism was a defense system against barbarians. Many manor-lords were knights (designated by a higher lord), qualified as a skilled fighter with weapons and horse. Their manors were their resource base to maintain them equipped and ready to fight, and to be their infantry contribution if also needed. That is, feudalism had this proud, professional fighting class. This knight system also operated strongly in Japan.

This feudalism is a quite natural decentralized system in a disorganized, war-prone situation. It has occurred around the world, as Coulborn (1956) describes. It is a simple, personal-vertical linkage system fitting human nature. If successful, it has usually evolved into a formally structured state with paid officials and armies as that society advances economically. On the other hand, states could break down into feudalism, a fateful cycle. This happened a couple of times in Japan, several times in China, and a few relapses in Europe (Germany 1150, France 900), and of course the Roman empire.

Feudalism emphasized vertical relations, leaders and followers, with obedience, loyalty, status given to leaders at each level. It made a hierarchy of personal power. Lords set rules for vassals, had monopolies, had their own courts. People did not expect to be equal; they wanted order and defense.

But some ideas of basic equality, a few rights, bureaucratic processes and such were also built into European feudalism. Such ideals were generally vestiges from Roman systems and also from the German community system (below). There were rules, traditions, laws providing standards for the lord-vassal link, and protections for vassals. The deal with one's lord was sometimes written, and could even be a written contract; it usually included a limit on the amount of fighting service. Lords were to consult with their vassals in meetings for making decisions. Lords felt responsible for vassals, helped them when in trouble.

The superior levels, including the king, justified their powers in the feudal system by some sort of legal or traditional reference, not just personal will. Even the king’s top vassals had rights and traditional protections against him. Charlemagne (800) had bureaucratic rules; King John (1215) could not suppress his top lords and signed the Magna Carta.

Feudalism had the two antecedents, which affected its character. The Roman antecedent gave it structure, focus on law and rights, military methods, and a concept of a large state and king. The Roman system was a highly organized and impressive state; but of course by 400 AD it was badly breaking down. Armies were taking over regional control; officials were getting so oppressive that peasants gathered under armed lords in vassal style to rebel; barbarian invasions were uprooting order in some areas. Roman ideas of order and society became a vision of past greatness, a vague aim; they were not generally rejected. But the formal structure, the complex institutions, were broken and gone.

The Germanic antecedent refers to the Celts and others in Germany, England and northern France, who were partly conquered by Rome but kept their traditions and eventually re-took their land from the Romans. Generally their society had traditions of informal cohesion, less vertical separation and more warmth in leadership, and community-type considerations. These all appeared in feudalism. The Germanic communities or tribes had leadership by ability, but also by kinship. This simplification, trusting just kin and not all leader aspirants, was a kind of pre-feudalism. But it continued on in feudalism in hereditary lords and kings. The Germanic format was decentralized, only weakly organized at higher levels ̶ feudalism was a building up of its scale. See the description by Anderson (1974a, p.108). Feudalism was more organized, a larger pyramid society that could defend itself. Eberhard (1965, p.25) describes this character of feudalism; and notes that both of the antecedents showed a general valuing of all persons (discussed later).

Various characteristics of society are appearing here, that fit together in the European feudal system. The interest here is that they will mostly be contrasts with the Ayudthia era society (compared below). The government was different, but the topic here is that the society was different.

Feudalism was a positive enough society, more humane than the remnants of Roman estates, less exploitative and slave-based. It was a vertical style, but also a cooperative feeling, valuing all levels of people, a new basis for stability. It became a part of culture, deeply rooted and even loved, and romanticized in poems and ballads. Naturally some lords could stray into unfairness; and there were complaints, court cases, even uprisings. See the assessment by Bloch (1966, p.170).

The description of feudalism here is not oppression and limitation of people, but a natural, practical, personal, vertical social structure that was widely liked and answered central needs.

Two other general attributes of feudalism can be mentioned, also different from Siam. The Catholic Church institutions were a component of feudal structures in Europe. They could be churches, abbeys, monasteries, or separate components like the Knights Templar. There was adjustment and tension between the Church and the lords, and the kings, but generally it fitted itself in, and gradually became an important component of feudalism. Heads of monasteries and abbeys acted as manor-lords with vassal-peasants, and even as second-level lords: Duby (1966, p.70). Their resident monks shifted to study and prayer while their vassal-peasants produced the food and goods. They provided tax to the dukes and kings, and even provided knights to them; and they operated their own lord-courts (church courts). Kings or dukes liked to give them estates, with vassals, expecting political support... and paving their own way to heaven. The faithful peasants near an abbey sometimes gave or willed their land to it as well. Local lords would give some land and help build a church, and receive a share of the tithe-income from it. In the 1300s the Church owned 25 percent of rural land in England, and more in France. Thus the Church benefited strongly from the system and was an integral part of it. Kings sometimes appointed bishops and even popes; and popes sometimes deposed kings. It was a very worldly drama. It was all too worldly for some. Reformers wanted less elitism and riches; they took up austerity and self-sufficient labor as a cleansing life for monks (Dominicans, Cistercians, etc., and Benedictines earlier). Finally the Protestants really rebelled.

There is a slight parallel in Siam, with kings giving land to royal temples, with peasants on it <4.8>. But in general Thai Buddhist monks (who similarly produced little food) depended on generosity, not on controlled vassals. The temples were not allied to the government system... and they did not provide fighters. They were practically an alternate world, of individual spiritual development <4.8>.

Second, feudalism was a variable system, even within each country, and did not cover the whole territory. There was usually unclaimed land, and allodial land owned by free peasants, who owed service only theoretically to a king. And some vassal-peasants became freeholders through inattention from their lord. Free peasants could still face some pressures and monopolies by a nearby lord, and were deprived of the protections and help of a lord. See Duby (1966, p.171). France had some free peasants, also some parts of Switzerland, Germany and north England. There were also pre-feudal estates in some peripheral areas, operated using more private labor (and slaves) living and eating in the household: Duby (1966, p.52).

Such variation is relevant because it meant that people were aware of alternatives and could think about possibilities of making changes. Feudalism was not a fixed or universal system in their world, as the system in Ayudthia was.

Northern Italy was a variation with powerful cities: it was rather post-feudal. Its economy did not completely break down after Rome, its cities continued as trade centers linked to the avid trading world of the Middle East. It had areas producing specialty products. Life was more money-based; there were always rich families, that fought over political power. The papacy added another political force. The result was a competitive set of mini-states and city-states such as Genoa and Venice, with economically active rural hinterlands, with practical administrations, rather than feudal simplicity. See the description by Anderson (1974a, p.91-98).

The three periods of feudalism

The feudalism above is described in detail by Bloch (1961), from the 600s on. It was a structure for security, built up from the local level. The threat was from frightening barbarians: Huns, Vandals, etc.. It came to its strongest, clearest form after 850 in France and Germany, and after 1066 in England.

But it changed around 1100, and again after roughly 1500. In most of the discussion below, it will be necessary to separate these three periods in the character of feudalism, and in society.

By the second period, society was beginning to grow out of feudalism and kings were taking over more government at the expense of lords. Feudalism was stretching and cracking, being jostled as conditions changed. Security was improving, few barbarian attacks, markets and money were spreading, and it was a good weather period, good harvests. Peasants felt more secure, thought about improving their life. See North (1981, p.133). These trends induced both peasants and lords to think about ways to move out of feudalism. However this second period had a good part (1100 - 1300), and a bad part (1300 - 1500) with plagues and starvation and war. These three curses caused much suffering, and some reversion to simpler feudalism. By 1450 the system was somehoe adjusting and moving again. Then in the final period after 1500, feudalism shrank and compromised and was eventually terminated. The basic forces for change were the stronger central royal governments, growth in urban business. land shortage, colonies, new technologies, and intellectual momentum [chapter 3]. See Cantor (1993, p.562). Feudalism became an anachronism, defended by some lords but causing frustration for peasants. A modified society was being built on top of this decrepit structure. All the steps of change were complex, uneven, contentious, stumbling, and some were violent.

Urban development was a pervasive factor in feudalism's demise. It created an alternative world for peasants and lords, with possibilities of economic and social gain... that feudalism denied. Urban society grew in new ways, a new shape. It was not just a change out of feudalism which then settled down; it was continuous change thereafter, in society and in government. The total society changed from just a rural hierarchy in feudalism, to three distinct components: urban, rural, and royal officialdom... all continuing to change.

Feudalism was not designed to be permanent or universal. When conditions changed, people bypassed its boundaries and it shrank. Society became a current of changes in many ways ̶ a moving target for comparisons with the more stable Siam.

2.2 Serfdom and slavery

Serfdom is the tougher version of vassalage in a feudal-type system. It is not mentioned so much in Thailand, but is also relevant. In a system with serfdom, the bottom level had few or none of the rights and laws of protection, were treated more as chattels. Lords gave less benefits to serfs, and used their labor more heavily on demesnes (even in factories in Russia). Some of them had to give more than half their time to the lord in labor. Serfdom was not an agreement; peasants were pushed into it by wars and poverty. See the description by Blum (1978, p.39).

Serfs were mainly found in eastern Europe (starting at the middle of Germany) and Russia, where Roman traditions of government and rights had not reached. Before about 800 these areas were community-tribal, rather like the original Germans. But then wars started pushing them under control by warlords... and gradually into serfdom as inhumane wars for booty and enslavement continued. For example it came to Russia during the crises of Swedish and then Mongol invasions. Anderson (1974a, p.227-237) summarizes this history and the degradation of the peasantry.

In Russia it was formalized in law in 1593, and further by the Romanov tsars after 1613. In practice serfs could not own land, move, do business, have debt contracts... even marry without permission; see Williams (1970, p.415). Lords controlled courts, set punishments; and the serfs were forbidden to complain. The serfs were more part of the land, the vital basis of life, and they could be transferred with it... even be gambled away. Serfs were under a lord, but 40 percent of peasants were serfs on royal estates, for labor and military call-up directly by the tsar.

In Russia the serfs were not always the same ethnic group as the lords, and in other areas it could be foreign lords, e.g. the Slavs in eastern Germany, serfs under German dukes who conquered eastward in the 900s and 1100s... treated even more roughly because they were not Christian.

Serfs were also numerous in western Europe alongside vassals ̶ in a large part of the French system up to 1050, in some Saxon areas, and in later times in Savoy. Serfs in an estate or manor had been landless, or were peasants driven under lords in more desperate conditions, or were war captives. In England, William the Conqueror (William 2 of Normandy) reduced most of the English peasants (formerly loose vassals under Saxon lords) more or less to serfs. The Normans had taken up feudalism but without its niceties (being tough Scandinavians, not imbued in Roman traditions). These serfs or villeins (slightly better off) were owned by the lord, could be moved or sold, had no access to courts above the manor court, had no automatic inheritance of their land. Martin (1983, p.72-99) describes the system.

As with the rest of the system, serfdom in Europe began to look dysfunctional in the middle period, and was gradually reduced in western Europe by elevating serfs to vassal status. The whole system was becoming more flexible, and some lords figured that serfs would be more productive and useful as vassals. Still, vassals could drop to serfdom by criminal conviction, by marrying one, etc.. Some upgraded serfs misused their greater freedom and fell into