Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
First Toungoo Empire
View on Wikipedia
Key Information
| History of Myanmar |
|---|
| Timeline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The First Toungoo Empire (Burmese: တောင်ငူခေတ်, [tàʊɴŋù kʰɪʔ], lit. "Toungoo Period"; also known as the Second Burmese Empire in traditional historiography, or simply the Taungoo dynasty) was the dominant power in mainland Southeast Asia in the second half of the 16th century. At its peak, Toungoo "exercised suzerainty from Manipur to the Cambodian marches and from the borders of Arakan to Yunnan" and was "the largest empire in the history of Southeast Asia."[1] The "most adventurous and militarily successful" dynasty in Burmese history was also the "shortest-lived."[2]
The empire grew out of the principality of Toungoo, a minor vassal state of Ava until 1510. The landlocked petty state began its rise in the 1530s under Tabinshwehti who went on to found the largest polity in Myanmar since the Pagan kingdom by 1550. His more celebrated successor Bayinnaung then greatly expanded the empire, conquering much of mainland Southeast Asia by 1565. He spent the next decade keeping the empire intact, putting down rebellions in Siam, Lan Xang and the northernmost Shan states. From 1576 onwards, he declared a large sphere of influence in westerly lands—trans-Manipur states, Arakan and Ceylon. The empire, held together by patron-client relationships, declined soon after his death in 1581. His successor Nanda Bayin never gained the full support of the vassal rulers, and presided over the empire's precipitous collapse in the next 18 years.
The First Toungoo Empire marked the end of the period of petty kingdoms in mainland Southeast Asia. Although the overextended empire proved ephemeral, the forces that underpinned its rise were not. Its two main successor states—Restored Toungoo Burma and Ayutthaya Siam—went on to dominate western and central mainland Southeast Asia, respectively, down to the mid-18th century.
Background
[edit]Name of the period
[edit]The polity is known by a number of names. The prevailing terms used by most international scholars are the "First Toungoo Dynasty";[3] the "First Toungoo Empire";[4][5] and/or the "Second Burmese Empire".[6][7] In traditional Burmese historiography, however, the period is known as either the "Toungoo–Hanthawaddy Period" (တောင်ငူ–ဟံသာဝတီ ခေတ်), or simply the "Toungoo Period" (တောင်ငူ ခေတ်).[note 1]
Furthermore, in international usage, the terms "Toungoo Dynasty/Empire" cover both "First Toungoo Dynasty/Empire" and "Restored Toungoo Dynasty/Empire".[4][8] Traditional Burmese historiography treats the Restored Toungoo Dynasty/Empire period as a separate era called the Nyaungyan period (ညောင်ရမ်း ခေတ်).[9]
Place names
[edit]This article, for the most part, uses prevailing academic names for place names, not the current official English transliterations in use in Myanmar since 1989. For example, the official English spelling of the city after which the dynasty is named since 1989 has been "Taungoo", replacing the older spelling of Toungoo; likewise, the older spellings such as Ava, Pegu, Martaban are now Innwa, Bago and Mottama; and so on. However, the changes have not been adopted in international publications on Burmese history.[note 2]
History
[edit]Principality of Toungoo
[edit]
The earliest known record of administration of the region dates to the late Pagan period. In 1191, King Sithu II (r. 1174–1211) appointed Ananda Thuriya governor of Kanba Myint. In 1279, two great-grandsons of Ananda Thuriya—Thawun Gyi and Thawun Nge—founded a new settlement of 370 households, about 40 km farther south.[10] It was named Toungoo (Taungoo) (တောင်ငူ, "Hill's Spur") because of its location by the hills in the narrow Sittaung river valley between the Bago Yoma range and southern Shan Hills.[11]
The narrow valley at the southern edge of the dry zone was not easily accessible from Central or Upper Burma; the best access to the region was from the south, via the Sittaung. Its hard-to-reach location would shape much of its early history. In the 14th century, the settlement grew to be the principal city of the frontier region, which remained a lawless place. Toungoo's first rebellion of 1317–18 failed but its nominal overlord Pinya had little control over it. Usurpers routinely seized office by assassinating the governor—in 1325, 1344 and 1347—without incurring any reprisals by Pinya.[note 3] In 1358, Toungoo outright revolted.[12] Pinya's successor Ava (Inwa) regained Toungoo in 1367 but gubernatorial assassinations continued: 1375, 1376 and 1383, at times with Ava's own permission. Only in 1399 could Ava impose tighter control.[13]
By then, Toungoo, along with Prome (Pyay), had received waves of Burmese-speaking migrants, driven out of Upper Burma by the successive Shan raids in the second half of the 14th century, and both southern vassal states had emerged as new centres of economic activity as well as of Burman (Bamar) culture.[14] Toungoo's growth continued especially after the Forty Years' War (1385–1424) left Ava exhausted. From 1425 onwards, Ava regularly faced rebellions whenever a new king came to power, who then had to restore order, often by war. Toungoo's “relentlessly ambitious leaders” repeatedly tested Ava's resolve by staging assassinations (in 1440, 1452, and 1459)[15] and rebellions (in 1426–40, 1452–59 and 1468–70) at times with Pegu's help.[14][16]
Start of Toungoo dynasty
[edit]In 1470, King Thihathura of Ava (r. 1468–80) appointed Sithu Kyawhtin, the general who put down the latest Toungoo rebellion, viceroy-general of the restive province. A distant member of the Ava royalty, Sithu Kyawhtin remained loyal to Thihathura's successor Minkhaung II (r. 1480–1501), who was greeted with a wave of rebellions by lords of Yamethin (1480), Salin (1481) and Prome (1482). Sithu Kyawhtin died in action at Yamethin in 1481, and was succeeded by his son Min Sithu.[17]
In 1485, Min Sithu became the eleventh ruler of Toungoo to be assassinated in office. The assassin was none other than his nephew Mingyi Nyo (r. 1510–30). It would be yet another rebellion except that Nyo won Minkhaung's acquiescence by offering his full support to the embattled king.[18] Nyo turned out to be an able leader. He quickly brought law and order to the region, which attracted refugees from other parts of Central and Upper Burma. Using increased manpower, he sponsored a series of elaborate reclamation and irrigation projects to compensate for the Sittaung valley's modest agriculture.[14]
By the 1490s, Toungoo had grown, and a more confident Nyo began to test the limits of his authority. He built a new “palace”, replete with royal pretensions, in 1491.[19] He then, without Ava's permission, raided Hanthawaddy territory, during the southern kingdom's succession crisis. It was a disaster: Toungoo barely survived the 1495–96 counterattack by King Binnya Ran II (r. 1492–1526). At Ava, Minkhaung ignored Nyo's transgressions for he needed Nyo's support against Yamethin.[20]
Break from Ava
[edit]
Toungoo's inevitable break with Ava came soon after the death of Minkhaung II in 1501. The new king Narapati II (r. 1501–27) was greeted with a new round of rebellions. By 1502, Mingyi Nyo had already decided to break away despite Narapati's desperate attempt to retain his loyalty by granting the all-important Kyaukse granary.[21] In 1503, Nyo's forces began surreptitiously aiding ongoing rebellions in the south. In 1504, he openly entered into an alliance with Prome with the intention of taking over all of Central Burma. But Ava was not yet a spent force. It decisively defeated the alliance's raids in 1504–05 and in 1507–08.[22]
The setbacks forced Mingyi Nyo to recalibrate his ambitions. He formally declared independence from Ava in 1510 but also withdrew from participating in the internecine warfare.[note 4] Ava could not and did not take any action. It was facing an existential threat in the ongoing war with the Confederation of Shan States, and would ultimately fall in 1527.[23] In the meantime, Nyo focused on strengthening the economy and the stability of his kingdom. His policy of non-interference attracted refugees to the only region in Upper Burma at peace. By his death in 1530, Mingyi Nyo had successfully turned Toungoo into a small but strong regional power. History shows that the former vassal was about to "overawe the metropole".[24]
Rise
[edit]

The period between 1526 and 1533 saw power change hands in all of the major states of Burma. Three of the states were succeeded by weak rulers: Taka Yut Pi (r. 1526–39) at Hanthawaddy; Bayin Htwe (r. 1527–32) and Narapati (r. 1532–39) at Prome; and Thohanbwa (r. 1533–42) at Ava (Confederation). Two of the states were succeeded by ambitious and able rulers: Tabinshwehti (r. 1530–50) at Toungoo, and Min Bin (r. 1531–54) at Mrauk-U (Arakan). Though Arakan would become a power in its own right, its geographic isolation meant it would remain a marginal player in mainland affairs. This left the tiny Toungoo, which would bring war to much of mainland Southeast Asia till the end of the century.[14]
The initial impetus for Toungoo's military campaigns was defensive. The landlocked state was being encircled by the powerful Confederation, which by 1533 had defeated its erstwhile ally Prome. Fortunately for Toungoo, the Confederation's paramount leader Saw Lon was assassinated a few months later, and the coalition suddenly ceased to be a coherent force.[8] Tabinshwehti and his court decided to take advantage of the lull, and break out of their increasingly narrow realm by attacking Hanthawaddy, the larger and wealthier but disunited kingdom to the south. In 1534, Toungoo forces began annual raids into Hanthawaddy territory. They finally broke through in 1538, capturing Pegu (Bago) and the Irrawaddy delta.[25] In 1539, Tabinshwehti moved the capital to Pegu where it would remain until the end of the century.[25]
Toungoo went on to conquer all of Lower Burma by 1541, gaining complete control of Lower Burma's manpower, access to Portuguese firearms and maritime wealth to pay for them. And Tabinshwehti would quickly exploit these newfound assets for further expansions.[26] By incorporating Portuguese mercenaries, firearms and military tactics as well as experienced former Hanthawaddy military commanders to the Toungoo armed forces, the upstart kingdom seized up to Pagan (Bagan) from the Confederation by 1545.[27] The campaigns against Arakan (1545–47) and Siam (1547–49), however, fell short. In both campaigns, Toungoo forces won all major open battles but could not overcome the heavily fortified defences of Mrauk-U and Ayutthaya.[28]
Despite the setbacks, Tabinshwehti had founded the most powerful polity in Burma since the fall of Pagan in 1287. The king attempted to forge a "Mon–Burman synthesis" by actively courting the support of ethnic Mons of Lower Burma, many of whom were appointed to the highest positions in his government and armed forces.[29]
Expansion
[edit]
But the nascent empire fell apart right after Tabinshwehti was assassinated in 1550. Several vassal rulers immediately declared independence, forcing Tabinshwehti's chosen successor Bayinnaung (r. 1550–81) to reunify the kingdom in the next two years. Bayinnaung then pushed up the Irrawaddy in an effort to join Upper Burma and Lower Burma for the first time since Pagan. Victory in the north "promised to strengthen control over interior gems and bullion, and to supply additional levies."[1] In 1555, Upper Burma fell to the southern forces. Over the next decade, a series of “breathtaking campaigns” reduced Manipur and the entire Tai-Shan world to tributary status: cis-Salween Shan states (1557), Lan Na (1558), Manipur (1560), Keng Tung (1562), the Chinese Shan States (1563), Siam (1564) and Lan Xang (1565).[1]
The victories were enabled by a more martial culture and greater military experience of Toungoo armies, Portuguese firearms, and the greater manpower that came with each successive victory. The conquests ended at a stroke, over two centuries of Shan raids into Upper Burma, and "extended lowland control much farther than Pagan had dreamed possible:" Pegu now “exercised suzerainty from Manipur to the Cambodian marches and from the borders of Arakan to Yunnan.”[1]
Bayinnaung's authority would be vigorously contested in the following decade. His forces never quite vanquished the Lan Xang resistance in the Laotian hills and jungles, and in 1568, Siam, the most powerful vassal state, revolted.[30] Leveraging the manpower of much of the western and central mainland, he managed to defeat the Siamese rebellion with great difficulty in 1569.[31] Yet defeating the guerrilla resistance at the remote hill states—Mohnyin and Mogaung in the extreme north also revolted in 1571—proved far more difficult. Toungoo armies suffered heavy casualties from disease and starvation in their fruitless annual campaigns in search of elusive bands of rebels. Pegu reestablished some semblance of control over Lan Xang only in 1575[32] and Mohnyin and Mogaung in 1576.[33]
No sooner than the Tai-Shan world finally became quiet, the king turned his attention to Portuguese Goa and the advancing Mughal Empire in the west. In response to competing requests by the Ceylonese kingdoms of Kotte and Kandy for military aid, he finally sent an elite army in 1576 to Kotte, which he considered a protectorate, ostensibly to protect Theravada Buddhism on the island from the Portuguese threat.[34] Goa considered it was technically at war with Pegu although no war ever broke out.[35] Closer to home, he responded to the Mughals' 1576 annexation of Bengal by claiming the entire swath of lands in present-day northeast India, as far west as the Ganges[36][37] and by sending an invasion force to Arakan in 1580.[34]
Bayinnaung's empire was "probably the largest empire in the history of Southeast Asia,"[38] and what the Portuguese regarded as "the most powerful monarchy in Asia except that of China".[39] The king standardized laws, calendars, weights and measurements, and Buddhist religious practices throughout the land.[40][41] But he introduced administrative reforms only at the margins. The "absurdly overextended" empire was largely held together by his personal relationships with the vassal rulers, who were loyal to him and not to Toungoo Burma.[42]
Decline and fall
[edit]In the tradition of the prevailing Southeast Asian administrative model, every new high king had to establish his authority with the vassals all over again. This was already a difficult task when vassals were situated in the same geographic region but nearly impossible with faraway lands, given inherent difficulties in bringing serious warfare to those lands.[2][42]

King Nanda (r. 1581–99) never gained the full support of his father's chosen vassal rulers. Within the first three years of his reign, both Ava and Ayutthaya revolted. Though he managed to defeat the Ava rebellion in 1584, the king never did establish firm control over Upper Burma and the surrounding Shan states. He could not get the most populous region in Burma to contribute much to his war effort in Siam. (His best troop levels were never more than a third of his father's.) He should have focused on reestablishing his authority in Upper Burma, and let Siam go—but he could not see it.[43] He feared that acknowledging Ayutthaya's independence would invite yet more Tai rebellions, some perhaps closer to home.[44] Nanda launched five major punitive campaigns against Siam between 1584 and 1593, all of which failed disastrously. With each Siamese victory, other vassals grew more inclined to throw off allegiance and more reluctant to contribute military forces. By the late 1580s and early 1590s, Pegu had to lean ever more heavily on the already modest population of Lower Burma for the debilitating war effort. Able men all over Lower Burma fled military service to become monks, debt slaves, private retainers, or refugees in nearby kingdoms. As more cultivators fled, rice prices in Lower Burma reached unheard of levels.[45][46]
The empire's precipitous collapse ensued. Siam seized the entire Tenasserim coast in 1595, and the rest of the vassals had broken away—de jure or de facto—by 1597. The breakaway state of Toungoo and the western kingdom of Arakan jointly invaded Lower Burma in 1598, and captured Pegu in 1599. The allies thoroughly looted, and burned down the imperial capital, “one of the wonders of Asia”, in 1600.[46] The First Toungoo Dynasty, “the most adventurous and militarily successful in the country's history”, ceased to exist; it was also the "shortest-lived" major dynasty.[2] The First Toungoo Empire was "a victim of its own success." Its "stunning military conquests were not matched by stable administrative controls in the Tai world or outlying areas of the Irrawaddy basin," and the "overheated" empire "disintegrated no less rapidly than it had been constructed".[47]
Aftermath
[edit]
Even before the fall of Pegu, the breakaway states of the empire had been engaged in a series of “confused, many-sided wars” since the mid-1590s.[48]
Prome attacked Toungoo in 1595.[49] Prome and Ava fought for central Burma in 1596–97.[50] Prome and Toungoo later agreed to attack Ava in 1597 but Toungoo broke off the alliance and attacked Prome in 1597.[51] In the central mainland, Lan Xang and Lan Na went to war in 1595–96 and again in 1598–1603.[52][53] Siam supported a Chiang Rai rebellion against Lan Na (Chiang Mai) in 1599.[54] By 1601, Lan Na was divided into three spheres: Chiang Mai, Siam-backed Chiang Rai, Lan Xang-backed Nan. Chiang Mai defeated the Siam-backed rebellion in Chiang Rai in 1602 only to submit to Ayutthaya later that year.[55] Chiang Mai retook Nan from Lan Xang in 1603.[52] In the western mainland, Siam invaded Lower Burma in 1600, and went on to attack Toungoo only to be driven back by Toungoo's ally Arakan.[56] The Portuguese garrison at Syriam switched allegiance from Arakan to Goa in 1603.[57] Siamese vassal Martaban then entered into an alliance with Portuguese Syriam.[57] Ava had seized cis-Salween Shan states by 1604. Siam planned to invade Ava's vassal southern Shan states in 1605 before cancelling it because of the sudden death of its warrior king Naresuan (r. 1590–1605).[58][59] Ava conquered Prome (1608), Toungoo (1610), Portuguese Syriam (1613), Siamese Martaban and Tavoy (1613), and Lan Na (1614).[60][61]
Still, in contrast to 250 years of political fragmentation that followed Pagan's collapse, this interregnum proved brief. As ephemeral as the overextended Toungoo Empire was, the underlying forces that underpinned its rise were not. By 1622, a branch of the fallen house (known retrospectively as the Restored Toungoo Dynasty or Nyaungyan Dynasty) had succeeded in reconstituting a major portion of the First Toungoo Empire, except for Siam, Lan Xang and Manipur. The new dynasty did not overextend itself by trying to take over Siam or Lan Xang. This was a more “realistic and organic” polity that would last until the mid-18th century.[62] The new dynasty proceeded to create a political and legal system whose basic features would continue under the Konbaung dynasty (1752–1885) well into the 19th century.[48]
Government
[edit]The Toungoo Empire was “in theory and fact, a poly-ethnic political formation.”[7] The Toungoo kings largely employed then prevailing Southeast Asian administrative model of solar polities in which the high king ruled the core while semi-independent tributaries, autonomous viceroys, and governors actually controlled day-to-day administration and manpower.[63] The system did not work well even for mid-size kingdoms like Ava and Siam. Now, because of the sheer size of the empire, the system was even more decentralised and stretched thinner still. At any rate, it was the only system the Toungoo kings knew, and they "had no choice but to retain it."[64] The kings attempted administrative reforms only at the margins, which proved insufficient to hold the empire after Bayinnaung. Indeed, "Bayinnaung's goal of controlling virtually the entire mainland from Pegu proved utterly mad."[65]
Administrative Divisions
[edit]Core Region
[edit]The dynasty's original home was the Toungoo region, with the capital at Toungoo. But from 1539 onward, the High King, styled as “King of Kings”, moved the capital to Pegu (Bago), and governed only what used to be the Hanthawaddy Kingdom.[25][41] This was the first time in Burmese history that a capital, which had the authority over the entire Irrawaddy basin, was located near the coast.[25] The Toungoo kings retained the traditional three-province structure of the old Hanthawaddy Kingdom;[41] Bayinnaung later annexed the Siamese Province of Mergui into the core administration for its maritime revenues.[66][note 5]
| Province | Present-day regions | Key cities |
|---|---|---|
| Bassein | Ayeyarwady Region | Bassein (Pathein), Myaungmya |
| Pegu | Yangon Region, southern Bago Region | Pegu, Syriam (Thanlyin) |
| Martaban | Mon State, northern Tanintharyi Region, southern Kayin State | Martaban, Ye |
| Mergui | Southern Tanintharyi Region, Phuket Province[66][67] | Mergui (Myeik), Junkceylon |
The provinces and their constituent divisions were ruled by vassal rulers,[note 6] who lived off apanage grants and local taxes. The core region's bureaucracy was a continuation of the old Hanthawaddy court. Most local governors as well as most officials and ministers at the Pegu court—e.g., Saw Lagun Ein, Smim Payu, Binnya Dala, Binnya Law, Daw Binnya, Binnya Kyan Htaw—were most probably ethnic Mons.[note 7] The word used by European visitors to describe a court official was semini, Italian translation of smim, Mon for lord.[68]
Kingdoms
[edit]Surrounding the core region were the tributary kingdoms. The vassal rulers were still styled as kings, and were allowed to retain full royal regalia. They were required to send tributes to the crown but they generally had a freehand in the rest of the administration. Pegu generally did not get involved in local administration; its remit was national. The court launched standardisation drives to unify laws, weights and measurements, calendars, and Buddhist reforms throughout the empire.[39][40][41] The court also drew the borders between the vassal states.[note 8] But the centuries-old disputes never went away. They resurfaced as soon as Pegu's authority waned, and resulted in the confused, multi-party wars of 1590s and 1600s.
| State | Present-day regions | Key provinces | King (reign as vassal) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ava | Northern Myanmar (Sagaing and Mandalay Regions) | Thunaparana (Sagaing, Tagaung) Tammadipa (Ava, Pagan, Pinya, Myinsaing, Nyaungyan, Pakhan) |
Thado Minsaw (1555–84) Minye Kyawswa II (1587–93) |
| Prome | Western central Myanmar (Magway Region, northwestern Bago Region) | Prome, Salin, Tharrawaddy | Thado Dhamma Yaza I (1542–50) Thado Dhamma Yaza II (1551–88) Thado Dhamma Yaza III (1589–95) |
| Toungoo | Eastern central Myanmar (northeastern Bago Region, northern Kayin State) | Toungoo | Minye Thihathu I (1540–49) Minkhaung II (1549–50; 1551–84) Minye Thihathu II (1584–97) |
| Lan Na | Northern Thailand | Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Chiang Saen, Nan — 57 provinces in total | Mekuti (1558–63) Visuddha Devi (1565–79) Nawrahta Minsaw (1579–97) |
| Siam | Central and Southern Thailand | Ayutthaya, Phitsanulok | Mahinthrathirat (1564–68) Mahathammarachathirat (1569–84) |
| Lan Xang | Laos, Northeastern Thailand | Vientiane, Luang Prabang, Champasak | Maing Pat Sawbwa (1565–68; 1570–72) Maha Ouparat (1574–88) Sen Soulintha (1589–91) Nokeo Koumane (1591–95) Vorapita (1596–99) |
The Pegu court did not possess a centrally run bureaucracy, as Restored Toungoo and Konbaung dynasties would attempt, to administer the vassal states. Unlike in later periods, Pegu even at the height of the empire maintained no permanent military garrisons, or representatives in the vassal states to keep an eye on the local ruler in the peacetime.[note 9] As a result, the High King heavily depended on the vassal king to be both loyal and able. Ineffective vassal rulers, who did not command respect from their local sub-vassal rulers, such as those in Lan Xang and in Upper Burma after 1584, only brought constant trouble for the crown. On the other hand, able kings such as Maha Thammarachathirat (r. 1569–90) of Siam and Thado Minsaw of Ava (r. 1555–84) kept their kingdoms peaceful for the High King they were loyal to: Bayinnaung. The downside was that the able rulers were also the most likely to revolt when the High King was not Bayinnaung; and they did.
Princely states
[edit]A rank below the vassal kingdoms were the princely states, ruled by sawbwas (chiefs, princes). Except for Manipur, they were all Shan states that ringed the upper Irrawaddy valley (i.e. the Kingdom of Ava) from the Kalay State in the northwest to the Mong Pai State in the southeast. Manipur was not a Shan state, and its ruler styled himself raja (king). Nevertheless, Pegu classified the raja a "sawbwa", and treated Manipur as another princely state, albeit a major one. Two other major states were Kengtung and Mogaung, whose rulers retained the full royal regalia.
For administrative purposes, the court grouped the states into provinces (taing (တိုင်း)). During Bayinnaung's reign, Ava served as the intermediary between Pegu and the hill states. But in Nanda's reign, the court became concerned by the overly close relationship between Thado Minsaw and the sawbwas. From 1584 onwards except for 1587–93, Nanda pursued a policy of devolution in the upcountry in which Ava's role was essentially eliminated. The direct rule did not work as evidenced by the near total absence of contribution from the Shan states and Manipur towards Pegu's war effort in Siam.
| Province | Present-day region(s) | Key states |
|---|---|---|
| Manipur | Manipur | Manipur |
| Mawriya | Northwestern Sagaing Region, Chin State | Kalay, Thaungdut, Myet-Hna-Me (Chin Hills) |
| Mohnyin–Mogaung | Kachin State | Mohnyin, Mogaung, Khamti (Putao), Bhamo |
| Thiri Rahta | northern Shan State | Hsenwi |
| Gantala Rahta | northwestern Shan State | Mong Mit |
| Kawsampi (Ko Shan Pyay) | Southwestern Yunnan (Dehong, Baoshan, Lincang) | Kaingma, Maing Maw, Mowun, Latha, Hotha, Sanda, Mona, Maing Lyin, Sigwin |
| Maha Nagara | Southern Yunnan (Xishuangbanna) | Keng Hung |
| Khemawara | Eastern Shan State | Keng Tung |
| Kanbawza | Western Shan State, Kayah State | Hsipaw (Onbaung), Nyaungshwe, Mong Nai, Mong Pai |
Bayinnaung considered control of the Shan states of utmost strategic importance for his hold of the upcountry. Raids by nearby highland Shan states had been an overhanging concern for successive lowland regimes since the 14th century. The most feared were Mohnyin and Mogaung, the twin Shan states, which led most of the raids. Bayinnaung introduced a key administrative reform, which turned out to be his most important and most enduring of his legacies.[69] The king permitted the sawbwas to retain their feudal rights over their subjects. The office of the sawbwa remained hereditary. But the incumbent sawbwa could now be removed by the king for gross misconduct although the king's choice of successor was limited to members of the sawbwa's own family. The key innovation was that he required sons of his vassal rulers to reside in the palace as pages, who served a dual purpose: they were hostages for good conduct of their fathers and they received valuable training in Burmese court life. His Shan policy was followed by all Burmese kings right up to the final fall of the kingdom to the British in 1885.[69]
Spheres of influence
[edit]According to contemporary sources, Pegu also claimed lands far beyond the princely states as tributaries or protectorates. Scholarship does not accept the claims of control; the states were at least what Pegu considered within its sphere of influence. The claims include:
| State(s) | Present-day regions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tammaleitta Taing | Cachar and Northeastern India | The Province of Tammaleitta reportedly stretched as far west as the Ganges.[36] Chronicles say rulers of Cachar, Calcutta, and Golkonda paid tribute.[37][70] The expansive claims may have been Bayinnaung's attempt to check the advancing Mughal Empire.[note 10] Later Restored Toungoo kings claimed only to Manipur, which they never controlled in any case.[71] |
| Sein Taing | Southern Yunnan | The Province of Sein ("Chinese Province") reportedly included lands beyond Kawsampi (Ko Shan Pyay).[36] The exact border was not mentioned during Bayinnaung's and Nanda's reigns (although the Mekong presumably could have served as the natural border).[note 11] After 1594, China established eight frontier “Iron Gates” inside Yunnan,[72] which Restored Toungoo kings came to regard as the de facto border.[note 12] To be sure, Ming China did not view the gates as the extent of its realm, and continued to claim lands beyond the gates. Chinese records show that eight out of nine states of Ko Shan Pyay paid tribute to China down to the 19th century.[note 13] |
| Dai Viet and Cambodia | Vietnam, Cambodia | Chronicles claim states as far east as Dai Viet paid tribute.[73] According to Harvey, Dai Viet and Cambodia may have paid “propitiatory homage”.[74] According to Thaw Kaung, the armies received tribute from border vassal states of Lan Xang, which are now part of Vietnam.[75] At any rate, the tribute, even if true, most certainly did not translate into any lasting control. Indeed, Pegu's authority dissipated as soon as the armies departed. The lack of firm authority over Lan Xang was the reason why the fruitless campaigns had to be undertaken year-after-year in the first place. |
| Ceylon | Sri Lanka | Chronicles say Bayinnaung considered Kotte a protectorate and got involved in the affairs of the island only because the king wished to protect Theravada Buddhism on the island from the Portuguese.[note 14] He competed with Portuguese Goa for influence on the island with other Ceylonese kingdoms. After 1576, Goa considered it was technically at war with Burma for her interference in Ceylon.[35] |
The expansive spheres of influence shrank greatly after Bayinnaung's death. Nanda, according to a 1593 inscription, continued to claim his father's realm even after his latest defeat in Siam.[36] In reality, he never had full control of the upcountry, let alone the peripheral states.
Legal and commercial standardisations
[edit]In Bayinnaung's reign, the king introduced a measure of legal uniformity by summoning learned monks and officials from all over dominions to prescribe an official collection of law books. The scholars compiled Dhammathat Kyaw and Kosaungchok, based on King Wareru's dhammathat. The decisions given in his court were collected in Hanthawaddy Hsinbyumyashin Hpyat-hton.[41] According to Huxley, the 16th-century Burmese legalism was "quite different from those of its neighbors in East and South Asia", and some aspects "are reminiscent of Western European approaches to law and kingship."[76] Bayinnaung promoted the new law throughout the empire so far as it was compatible with customs and practices of local society.[69] The adoption of Burmese customary law and the Burmese calendar in Siam began in his reign.[40] He also standardised the weights and measurements such as the cubit, tical, basket throughout the realm.[39][41]
Military
[edit]
The First Toungoo Dynasty was "the most adventurous and militarily successful in the country’s history."[2] It founded the largest empire in Southeast Asia on the back of “breathtaking” military conquests. The success has been attributed to a "more martial culture" of Toungoo, incorporation of Portuguese firearms and foreign mercenaries, and larger forces.[1] But even at its peak, the vaunted Toungoo military had trouble dealing with guerrilla warfare, and faced severe logistic issues in suppressing rebellions in remote hill states.
Organisation
[edit]The Toungoo military organisation drew on its Upper Burma precedent. The military was organised into a small standing army of a few thousand, which defended the capital and the palace, and a much larger conscript-based wartime army. The wartime army consisted of infantry, cavalry, elephantry, artillery and naval units. The navy was mainly river-borne, and used mostly for transportation of troops and cargo. Conscription was based on the ahmudan (အမှုထမ်း, "crown service") system, which required local chiefs to supply their predetermined quota of men from their jurisdiction on the basis of population in times of war.[64] The ahmudan were a class of people, who were exempt from most personal taxes in exchange for regular or military service of the crown. The quotas were fixed until the 17th century, when Restored Toungoo kings instituted variable quotas to take advantage of demographic fluctuations.[77]
The earliest extant record of organisation of the Royal Burmese Army dates only from 1605 but the organizational structure of the earlier First Toungoo era is likely to be similar, if not essentially the same. A 1605 royal order decreed that each regiment shall consist of 1000 foot soldiers under 100 company leaders called akyat (အကြပ်), 10 battalion commanders called ahsaw (အဆော်) and 1 commander called ake (အကဲ), and all must be equipped with weapons including guns and cannon. A typical 17th-century regiment was armed with 10 cannon, 100 guns and 300 bows.[78]
The ability to raise more conscripts depended greatly on the High King's grip over his vassals. Bayinnaung required newly conquered states to provide their quota of manpower for the next campaign. According to scholarship, at the peak of the empire, the imperial army could perhaps raise about 100,000 troops,[79] and the largest initial troop level for a single campaign was about 70,000.[80][note 15] A major weakness of the system was that the vast majority of the potential levy hailed from outside the capital region. In 1581, only 21% of residents within a 200-km radius of Pegu were ahmudans (whereas in 1650 in the Restored Toungoo period, over 40% of the ahmudans were within 200 km of the capital Ava).[81] It meant that the High King of the First Toungoo period needed to rely far more on his vassal rulers to raise the troops. The weakness was brutally exposed when the High King was not Bayinnaung. Nanda's troops most probably never totalled more than 25,000.[80]
Firearms
[edit]One crucial factor in Toungoo's success was the army's early adoption of Portuguese firearms (arquebus matchlocks and cast-metal muzzleloader cannon), and formation of musket and artillery units. Portuguese weaponry proved superior in accuracy, safety, ballistic weight, and rapidity of fire than Asian-made counterparts.[82] The first special musket and artillery units, made up mostly of Portuguese and Indian Ocean (mostly Muslim) mercenaries, were formed in the late 1530s.[1] The Burmese later learned to integrate matchlocks into both infantry and elephanteer units. In some late 16th-century campaigns, as high as 20–33 percent of the troops were equipped with muskets.[78][83] But artillery units continued to be manned by foreign mercenaries throughout the 16th century. Toungoo artillery corps never acquired massive siege guns of Europe but they "used Portuguese cannon to good effect by mounting them on high mounds or towers, and then shooting down into besieged towns".[82] Portuguese firearms proved particularly effective against interior states like the Shan states. However, the advantage of firearms was neutralised against Siam, a prosperous coastal power with its own well-equipped military.[82][83]
Martial culture
[edit]Another key factor was Toungoo's "more martial culture" and "more aggressive leadership".[84] Toungoo was a product of Upper Burma's ceaseless wars of the prior centuries. In the age of rampant gubernatorial revolts, any rulers hoping to rule a kingdom needed to take command of the army. All senior princes of the House of Toungoo received a military style education since childhood, and were expected to take the field in person.[85] Several Toungoo leaders of the era, including Tabinshwehti, Bayinnaung, Nanda, Thado Minsaw, Minye Thihathu, Thado Dhamma Yaza III and Natshinnaung, first took the field in their teenage years. This kind of martial tradition simply did not exist in "far larger, more secure" kingdoms like Siam.[84] (Indeed, the same kind of complacency afflicted later Restored Toungoo kings, who from 1650 onwards stopped taking the field as the country became largely stable.) Their more martial culture and battlefield successes gave the Toungoo command an increasingly greater field experience, which their rival commands in the region simply could not match. According to Lieberman, this was a key factor that enabled a western mainland polity "to conquer the central mainland rather than vice versa".[84]
Limits of military power
[edit]Even at the peak of its might, the Toungoo military had the most difficult time controlling remote hill states. They never solved the sheer logistical issues of transporting and feeding large numbers of troops for sustained periods of time. Bayinnaung's persistence in sending troops year after year cost an untold number of lives, which at one point caused his senior advisers to murmur loudly.[86][87] The conqueror king was fortunate that a charismatic guerrilla leader like King Setthathirath of Lan Xang (r. 1548–72) was assassinated by a local rival. After Bayinnaung, Lower Burma lost the manpower advantage over a far more populous Siam. Ayutthaya's larger, well-equipped armies not only repulsed Nanda's undermanned invasions but also ended up seizing the Tenasserim coast in the process.
Legacy
[edit]The First Toungoo dynasty's military organisation and strategy were adapted by its two main successor states: Restored Toungoo and Siam. Restored Toungoo kings used the First Toungoo's formula of greater military experience, modern firearms and (comparatively greater) manpower to partially restore the empire in the following two decades. Likewise, Siam's military service system, phrai luang, was reorganised, modelled after the ahmudan system in the 1570s—indeed to fulfill Bayinnaung's demands for conscripts. Likewise, the First Toungoo dynasty's military strategy and tactics were likely adopted by Siam's new generation of leadership, Naresuan and Ekathotsarot, who grew up in Pegu, and were most probably exposed to Toungoo military strategy. By 1600, Siam had not only regained the Tenasserim coast from Burma but also expanded deeper into Cambodia.[88] After 1614, an equilibrium of sorts prevailed between the two successor states. Neither state extended in any direction to a point her supply lines were more extended than those of her nearest rival.[62]
Culture and society
[edit]Demography
[edit]Size of population
[edit]Estimates[note 16] of the population of the empire point to over 6 million. In 1600, the most populous region of the erstwhile empire was Siam (2.5 million),[89] followed by Upper Burma (1.5 million),[90] the Shan high lands (1 million)[91] and Lower Burma (0.5 million)[92]—for a total of at least 5.5 million. Estimates for Lan Na, Lan Xang and Manipur are not known. The size of the population of the empire before the devastating wars of 1584–99 was probably over 6 million. The population of the Pegu capital region, according to a 1581 census, was only about 200,000.[92]
The low population spread across a comparatively large region meant that the rulers prized manpower more than land. Winners of wars never failed to deport the local population to their capital region where they can be controlled closer. The deportations also deprived the defeated regions of valuable manpower with which to revolt.
Ethnic groups
[edit]The First Toungoo Empire was a multi-ethnic society although the concept of ethnicity was still highly fluid, heavily influenced by language, culture, class, locale, and political power. Still, by the 16th century, broad “politicized” ethnic patterns had emerged. In the western mainland, four main politico-ethnic groups had emerged—Mons in the region south of 18:30N, known in contemporary writings as Talaing-Pyay or Ramanya-Detha (“land of the Mons”); Burmans in the region north of 18.30N called Myanma-Pyay (“land of the Burmans”); Shans in the hill regions called Shan Pyay (“land of the Shans”); and Rakhines in the western coastal region called Rakhine Pyay (“land of the Rakhines”).[93] Similarly, in the central mainland, nascent politico-ethnic identities of Tai Yuans in Lan Na; Laotians in Lan Xang, and the Siamese in Siam had emerged.[94]
Alongside the main politico-ethnicities were several smaller ethnic minority groups. In predominantly Mon-speaking Lower Burma, a sizeable number of Burmans, Karens, and Shans (as well as a host of Europeans, Jews, Armenians, Persians, etc. at key ports) came to settle in this period.[95] Several deportees from the conquered states as far away as Lan Xang were settled in Lower Burma. In Upper Burma, Shans, Kadus, Karens, Chins and other minorities still occupied dry zone fringes.[96] The Shan states had Chins, Kachins, Was, Palaungs, Karennis, etc. Over in the central mainland, several linguistically distinct Tai groups coexisted alongside sizeable numbers of Mons, Khmers, and a host of hill minorities.[97] The entrepôt of Ayutthaya hosted significant communities of Bengalis, Arabs and Persians.[98]
To be sure, the ethnic definitions were loose categorisations. Overarching politico-ethnic identities were still in their early stages of development. In the western mainland, even the so-called major ethnic groups—such as Burmans, Mons, Shans—were themselves divided into rival centres, with distinctive local traditions and in many cases different dialects.[99][100] The same was true for smaller minorities still—indeed, terms like Kachins, Karens, and Chins are exonyms given by Burmans that summarily group several different groups. In the central mainland, the main Siamese, Lao and Yuan ethnicities were still in an embryonic stage, and a chiefly elite concept.[97] In Siam, the Siamese language and ethnicity were the “preserve” of the aristocracy called the munnai, and most commoners in Ayutthaya, according to an early 16th-century Portuguese observer, still spoke Mon dialects rather than still emerging Siamese, and cut their hair like the Mons of Pegu.[101]
Effects of fluid ethnic identities
[edit]Weak or embryonic ethnic identities had broad geopolitical implications. One key result was that patron-client structures often preempted ethnic identity, giving rise to frequent political alliances across ethnic lines.[102] The same phenomenon was also prevalent in states as diverse as Vietnam, Russia and France during this period. Not surprisingly, all armies and courts of the era consisted of significant minority ethnicities. Frequent cross-ethnic defections "bore no particular stigma." States large and small readily shifted alliances with little regard to ethnic loyalties.[103]
This is not to say that neither wars nor population movements had little effect. In the Irrawaddy valley, for example, north-to-south migrations "pitted newcomers against established populations and encouraged stereotyping both as an emotional response to an alien presence and as a (perhaps unconscious) strategy of group mobilization. Shan raids on Upper Burma, which bred bitter anti-Shan diatribes, offer the most dramatic example."[104] But the weak link between ethnicity and political loyalty meant patron-client relationships remained the single most important factor in state building. One figure who successfully exploited this at the grandest scale was Bayinnaung. The emperor formed patron-client relationships based on universal Buddhist cultural concepts—alongside the threat of massive military reprisals—to hold the empire. He presented himself as cakkavatti, or World Ruler, par excellence,[105] and formed personal relationships based on the concepts of thissa (allegiance) and kyezu (obligation).[106] The tradition of cross-ethnic patron-client relationships continued to thrive, albeit at smaller scales, in mainland Southeast Asia down to the 19th century.
Social classes
[edit]The First Toungoo society in the Irrawaddy valley followed Pagan and Ava precedents.[83] At the top of the pyramid were the immediate royal family, followed by the upper officialdom made up of extended royal family members. Royalty and officials— known collectively as “rulers” or min—were "divided into numerous sub-grades, each with its own sumptuary insignia".[107] The majority of the people belonged to one of four broad group of commoners (hsin-ye-tha, lit. “people of poverty”).[108][109]
| Commoner social class | Description |
|---|---|
| ahmudan | Royal servicemen who received land grants from the crown, and were exempt from most personal taxes in exchange for regular military service. They were called kyundaw in the Pagan period. Their authority crosscut the territorial jurisdictions of local governors and headmen. They provided the crown with labour on a fixed or rotational basis. Besides military service, ahmudans also supplied the palace with a “variety of specialized services ranging from bird-shooing to perfume-making to the painting of magical signs.”[110] In the late 16th century, the ahmudan system broke down as people fled to avoid military service. Early Restored Toungoo kings had to rebuild the ahmudan system from ground up by deporting large number of prisoners to lowland areas, close to the capital.[110] |
| athi | The commoners who did not live on royal land. They paid substantial taxes but owed no regular military service.[108] |
| kyun | Bondsmen who owed labour to individual patron, and outside of royal obligation. The debt was not hereditary. They paid no taxes.[108][111] |
| paya kyun | Private bondsmen who owed labour only to monasteries and temples but not to the crown. They paid no taxes, and could not be conscripted into military service.[108][111] |
A similar system was in place in Siam.
| Social class | Description |
|---|---|
| munnai | Tax-exempt administrative elite in the capital and administrative centres.[112] |
| phrai luang | Royal servicemen who worked a specified period each year (possibly six months) for the crown.[113] They were normally prevented from leaving their village except to perform corvees or military services.[101] Similar to the ahmudan in Burma.[114] |
| phrai som | Commoners with no obligation to the crown. They vastly outnumbered the phrai luang.[113] Similar to Burmese kyun (private retainers).[114] |
In both sectors of the empire, the society was deeply stratified: the division between the elite and the commoners was stark. In the Irrawaddy valley, min males on balance were more likely to study for long periods in monasteries, to be knowledgeable in Pali, even Sanskrit; to wear Indian and Chinese textiles, to be familiar with foreign conventions than their hsin-ye-tha counterparts.[107] In the Chao Phraya valley, the munnai like the aristocrats in Lan Xang and Lan Na "were a kind of a caste." Marriage between capital and provincial munnai was possible but between social classes was "out of the question." What subsequently became known as Siamese language, culture and ethnicity were their more or less exclusive preserve.[101]
Literacy and literature
[edit]Literacy throughout the empire remained essentially the preserve of the aristocrats and the monks. In the Irrawaddy valley, the system of near-universal village monasteries and male education characteristic of later centuries was not fully yet developed. Unlike in later periods, monks continued to staff the modest royal secretariats of the regional courts, and most of the Burmese (and certainly Pali) literature of the era were produced by the aristocrats and the clergy.[115] Because scribal talent remained rare, the cost of Tipitika transcriptions as late as 1509 may not have been much lower than in the 13th century.[115]
Burmese orthography continued to follow the antique square format developed for aristocratic stone inscriptions, rather than the cursive format that took hold from the 17th century, when popular writings led to wider use of palm leaves and folded papers known as parabaiks.[115] The Burmese language and script continued to affect other languages and scripts in the Irrawaddy valley. Since the 15th century, Mon inscriptions had adopted Burmese orthographic conventions and to incorporate, consciously or not, large numbers of Burmese loan words.[104] Various Tai-Shan scripts were developed based on the Burmese script.[116]
Low literacy rates notwithstanding, this period saw the continued growth of Burmese literature both in terms of quantity and genres—a trend that began in the Ava period (1364–1555). Chiefly through the efforts of monks and aristocrats, a new generation of chronicles, law codes, and poetry were written in vernacular Burmese, or in addition to Pali.[117] Some of the chronicles such as Razadarit Ayedawbon and Hanthawaddy Hsinbyushin Ayedawbon have survived to this day. A new form of poetry, called yadu, first pioneered in the Ava period, flourished. Indeed, some of the most well-known yadu poets such as Shin Htwe Hla, Yaza Thara, Nawaday, Hsinbyushin Medaw, and Natshinnaung hailed from this period.[118]
In the Chao Phraya valley, literacy in Siamese, not to mention Pali, were strictly the domain of the elite. Monastic education for the commoners (phrai) remained "quite a luxury.".[84] In Lan Xang and Lan Na too, the literacy in Lao and Lan Na scripts was the preserve of the aristocrats.[119] The Siamese language (central Thai), a mixture of a more northerly Tai dialect with Khmerized Tai from the Ayutthaya area, was coalescing. The Siamese script too underwent several modifications before achieving its final form by about 1600.[65]
Religion
[edit]Buddhist reforms
[edit]
An enduring legacy of the First Toungoo Dynasty was the introduction of a more orthodox version of Theravada Buddhism (Mahavihara school of Ceylon) to Upper Burma and the Shan States.[1] The Toungoo reforms were modelled after those instituted by King Dhammazedi of Hanthawaddy (r. 1471–92).[120]
The state of religious practices in western and central mainland Southeast Asia before the rise of the empire was highly fragmented. In general, the lowland areas were largely—nominally—Theravada Buddhist, and highland regions were a mix of Theravada Buddhist and animist to strictly animist.[103] Pre-Buddhist rituals remained part and parcel of accepted religious practices throughout the mainland. For example, on the Shan highlands, as late as 1557, Shan sawbwas' favourite servants and animals were customarily killed and buried with him.[121] Even in predominantly Buddhist lowland Upper Burma, down to the 16th century, animal sacrifices were still regularly performed and distilled liquored was consumed in Buddhist-sanctioned events (often attended by Buddhist abbots and the royalty).[note 17] Even in Lower Burma, where Theravada Buddhist practices had become more orthodox since the 1480s, "monastic practices were deficient by later standards, and spirit propitiation was a dominant local concern."[121]
Bayinnaung brought Dhammazedi's Sinhalese-style orthodox reforms to lands throughout his domain. Viewing himself as the "model Buddhist king," the king distributed copies of the scriptures, fed monks, and built pagodas at every new conquered state from Upper Burma and Shan states to Lan Na and Siam. Some of the pagodas are still to be seen, and in later ages the Burmese would point to them as proof of their claim to rule those countries still.[120] Following in the footsteps of Dhammazedi, he supervised mass ordinations at the Kalyani Thein at Pegu in his orthodox Theravada Buddhism in the name of purifying the religion.[120] He prohibited all human and animal sacrifices throughout the kingdom. The ban also extended to the foreign settlers’ animal sacrifices such as the Eid al-Adha.[122]
Many of Bayinnaung's reforms were continued by his successors of the Restored Toungoo Dynasty. The Forest dweller sect virtually disappeared.[123] Over time, Theravada practices became more regionally uniform, the hill regions were drawn into closer contact with the basin in the 17th and 18th centuries.[124]
Other practices
[edit]Various animist practices remained alive and well, not just hill regions but even in the lowlands. Bayinnaung's attempts to rid of animist nat worship from Buddhism failed.[69] Adherents of Abrahamic faiths also came to settle. The foreign merchants and mercenaries brought their Islam and Roman Catholicism. In the 1550s, the Muslim merchants at Pegu erected what appears to have been their first mosque.[125] The descendants of Muslim and Catholic mercenaries continued to fill the ranks of the army's elite artillery units.[126]
Economy
[edit]Agriculture, and maritime trade dominated the economy of the empire. Maritime trade was most prevalent in Lower Burma and southern Siam. Agriculture was dominant in Upper Burma and surrounding highlands. The Ayutthaya region also had a strong agriculture-based economy.
Agriculture
[edit]In the western mainland, the three principal irrigated regions were all located in Upper Burma: Kyaukse, Minbu and Mu valley—as had been the case since the 13th century. Lower Burma's agriculture was not well developed—less than 10% of the acreage of the mid-1930s in the British colonial period was under cultivation in the 16th century.[127] Upper Burma had about 730,000 hectares (1.8 million acres) under cultivation c. 1600, divided even between rice and dry crops.[128] In addition to rice, New World peanuts, tobacco and maize were grown. Cotton became the major crop in dry zone areas ill-suited for rice, as in Meiktila, Yamethin and Myingyan districts. Cotton was Burma's principal export commodity to China, and drove domestic handicraft industry.[91]
Trade
[edit]The coastal region instead relied heavily on trade. The main ports were Pegu, Martaban, Tavoy, and Mergui. Products and goods from the interior—rice, and other food stuffs, as well as a variety of luxury goods (rubies, sapphires, musk, lac, benzoin, gold)—were exported to Malacca, Sumatra, the Coromandel Coast (Portuguese Pulicat, Masulipatam), Bengal and Gujarat.[129] In return, Pegu imported Chinese manufactures and spices from Malacca and Sumatra, and Indian textiles from the Indian states; and indeed highly sought after state-of-the-art firearms from the Portuguese.[129][130] Pegu established maritime links with the Ottoman Empire by 1545.[131]
The crown closely supervised trade, and collected duties on any trade that touched the coasts of Lower Burma and Siam. At Pegu, overseas trade was in the hands of eight brokers appointed by the king. Their fee was two percent.[132] The crown appointed officials at Mergui, a former Siamese dependency, to supervise lucrative trade between Siam and India.[133] His majesty's government was actively involved in the import-export business. The crown exported luxury products (musk, gold, gems) obtained through the tribute quotas from the interior states. Bayinnaung built a fleet of oceangoing vessels in the 1570s to undertake voyages on behalf of the crown.[39][133]
Overland trade was principally with China. Burma's principal export to China was cotton. Based on Sun Laichen's analysis of Chinese sources, exports to Yunnan of Burmese raw cotton by c. 1600 had reached 1000 tonnes annually. Burma also exported finished Indian (and possibly Burmese) textiles as well as spices, gems, and salt to Yunnan. These goods were moved by boat to the upper Irrawaddy, where they were transferred to north-bound trains of oxen and ponies. In the opposite direction flowed Chinese iron and copper vessels, weapons, tea, and silk as well as copper and silver from Yunnanese mines.[134]
Currency
[edit]The Toungoo empire had no official coinage. According to European company records, non-barter trade was chiefly conducted in lumps of copper-lead alloys called ganza (ဂင်ဇာ, [gɪ̀ɴzà]) to the 1560s. But New World silver began arriving via the Spanish Philippines and India in the last centuries of the 16th century, and silver gradually overtook ganza, which an "inordinately bulky medium",[135] and became the standard medium of exchange by the early 17th century. The greater availability of silver greatly aided commercial expansion throughout the empire.[136]
Conditions
[edit]Maritime trade wealth sustained Pegu's military might, enabling Pegu to pay for Portuguese firearms and mercenaries.[129] Contemporary European travellers reported immense wealth of Pegu during Bayinnaung's reign.[132] By the 1570s, Pegu's “wealth and power were now unequaled”, and regarded by the Portuguese as “the powerfullest Monarchy in Asia, except that of China”.[39][133] The prosperous life at the capital, however, was probably not replicated at the countryside. Annual mobilisations of men greatly reduced the manpower necessary to cultivate the rice fields. Even during at the peak of the empire, harvests at times fell perilously low, causing severe rice shortages such as in 1567.[87] By the mid-1590s, constant warfare left Lower Burma severely depopulated and rice prices at unheard of levels.[45][46]
Legacy
[edit]The First Toungoo Empire left no monumental architecture as the Pagan Empire did. The grandeur of Pegu was forever lost, and is known only from contemporary European accounts. Unlike the Ava period, few literary innovations came out. Its main legacies were political and cultural consolidations in both western and central mainland Southeast Asia.
The empire marked the end of the period of petty kingdoms in mainland Southeast Asia. Not only did the dynasty successfully reunify the Irrawaddy valley for the first time since the late 13th century but it also absorbed the surrounding highlands into the lowland orbit for good. Toungoo came of age in a period when the arrival of European firearms and an increase in Indian Ocean commerce enabled lowland polities to project power into interior states.[3] The advantages of the lowland states persisted even after the monumental collapse of the empire. Of the successor states, Restored Toungoo and Siam were the two winners that emerged to dominate the western and central mainland Southeast Asia, respectively, although Ayutthaya's sway in the central mainland was less complete than Restored Toungoo's near complete domination of the western mainland. (Whereas only Arakan escaped Restored Toungoo's restoration, Lan Xang and Cambodia remained independent, albeit greatly weakened, out of Siam's grasp till the 19th century. On the other hand, Lan Na's loss of independence was permanent: after 1558, she remained a Burmese province for the better part of two centuries whereupon Lan Na entered the Siamese empire.) Still, the accelerated thrusts towards regional hegemony were comparable in both sectors.[88]
Another key legacy was the 17th-century administrative reforms that addressed the empire's numerous shortcomings. In both Restored Toungoo Burma and Siam, monarchs worked to reduce the power of viceroys and governors. Similarities between Burmese and Siamese reforms “reflected, in part, independent responses to similar challenges” but they also suggest “a degree of squint-eyed mutual borrowing.” In both sectors, the crown reduced or stopped the appointment of senior princes to provincial towns, and obliged them to reside at the capital in special palaces where they could more easily be monitored. The actual administrators of the provinces went to commoner officials with no claims to the throne.[88]
As a result of political and economic integration, the cultural norms in the Irrawaddy valley continued to synthesize in the 17th century. More orthodox practices of Theravada Buddhism of Hanthawaddy and Ceylon spread to the upcountry and the Shan states. The Burmese language and customs pushed outward of Upper Burma in all directions in the following centuries.[137]
The memories of the First Toungoo Empire still loom large not just in Myanmar but also in Thailand and Laos. In Myanmar, Tabinshwehti's and Bayinnaung's exploits are widely recounted in schoolbooks. According to Myint-U, Bayinnaung is the favourite king of the present-day Burmese generals, who often see themselves "as fighting the same enemies and in the same places... their soldiers slugging their way through the same thick jungle, preparing to torch a town or press-gang villagers. The past closer, more comparable, a way to justify present action. His statues are there because the ordeal of welding a nation together by force is not just history."[138] On the opposite side of the same token, warrior kings Naresuan of Ayutthaya and Setthathirath of Lan Xang remain the most celebrated kings in Thailand and Laos respectively—Naresuan for returning Siam to independence and Setthathirath for his pesky resistance to the empire.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Some historians of Burmese origin have used “Toungoo Dynasty” in English language publications to mean just the First Toungoo period as used in Burmese historiography. See (Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012: 129) for example.
- ^ See (Lieberman 2003), (Myint-U 2006), (Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012). Even historians such as Michael Aung-Thwin and Thant Myint-U, who use Myanmar to refer to the country, nonetheless use older terms such as Ava, Toungoo, Pegu, etc.
- ^ (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 19–20): Pinya responded to the first assassination, of Thuwun Gyi in 1317 by Thawun Nge, by sending an army there. Even then, the army returned when Thawun Nge agreed to submit, and allowed Thawun Nge to remain in office. Similarly, later assassin-turned-rulers per (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 20–22) may have nominally submitted to Pinya.
- ^ (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 103–106): Though Toungoo stayed out of the warfare, for the most part, it continued to aid Ava's enemies. It even seized Yamethin and Taungdwin in March 1523. But Ava counterattacked and retook the lands in early 1526.
- ^ The province was annexed at least by 1568 per (Maha Yazawin Vol. 2 2006: 295) when the governor of Tenasserim built a gate at the new Pegu city. Since the construction of the city began in 1565, the annexation may have taken place in 1565.
- ^ One exception was that the Martaban Province had a viceroy, Minye Sithu between 1552 and 1556 and another, Thiri Thudhamma Yaza, between 1581 and 1584.
- ^ These were ethnic Mon titles, and the majority of them were likely ethnic Mons. But not all officials with Mon titles were ethnic Mons. For example, per (Maha Yazawin Vol. 2 2006: 280), the leader of the 1565 rebellion at Pegu, was styled as Binnya Kyan Htaw but was an ethnic Shan. Similarly, about two hundred years later, kings Smim Htaw Buddhaketi and Binnya Dala of the Restored Hanthawaddy, despite their Mon titles, were ethnic Burman and Shan, respectively.
- ^ Pegu kept Prome and Toungoo, traditional vassal states of Ava, as separate kingdoms. It also annexed Tennaserim from Siam to Hanthawaddy. The court also placed much contested regions between Lan Na and Lan Xang under the Chiang Mai administration.
- ^ Pegu maintained garrisons only for short durations: e.g., at Chiang Mai (1558–59, 1564–65), at Ayutthaya (1569–70), at Ava (1593–97). Vientiane was a costly exception. Pegu kept a garrison there throughout the 1560s and 1570s when the garrison was not overrun (1568, and 1571/72), or kept out (1568–69; 1572–74).
- ^ (Phayre 1967: 118–119): Bayinnaung sent an embassy to Emperor Akbar in 1579 after Mughals' annexation of Bengal in 1575–76. The 1580–81 Toungoo invasion of Arakan may have been in response to the Moghul takeover of Bengal.
- ^ See the maps in (Harvey 1925: 151) and (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 44) both of which mark the border with Ming China on the Mekong at Kenghung. Sein Lwin Lay's border goes farther up along the Mekong's than Harvey's.
- ^ (Than Tun Vol. 1 1983: 18–19, 181–182): The royal order dated 14 November 1598 (1st waning of Tazaungmon 960 ME) by King Nyaungyan says that the extent of Nyaungyan's domain included the Iron Bridge in the east, Siam in the south, the sea coast in the west, and Manipur and northern Shan states (Kachin State) in the north.
- ^ (Yule 1857: 88–89): The "Nine Shan States" (Ko Shan Pyay) paid tribute to both China and Burma down to the 19th century. Only Kaingma (north of Theinni, in China today) was absent from the Chinese list.
- ^ (Harvey 1925: 172–173) Bayinnaung had been greatly concerned about the Portuguese effect on the health of Theravada Buddhism since the Portuguese Archbishop of Goa grounded the Buddha Tooth Relic of Ceylon to powder in 1561.
- ^ Chronicles claim over 500,000 troops for a single campaign. But (Harvey 1925: 333–336) rejects the claim, saying that Bayinnaung at most could have raised 300,000 men, based on the size of the population but such "so high a figure is improbable: he had no transport, and could not have fed them." (Lieberman 1984: 98) concurs: "Military mobilizations were probably more of a boast than a realistic estimate. Modern industrial states have difficulty placing 10% of their people under arms."
- ^ (Lieberman 1984: 18): No large-scale censuses of any kind were conducted. Extant censuses from the period cover just four corridors of settlement in Lower Burma: Bassein-Myaungmya in the western delta; Martaban-Moulmein littoral; Myan Aung to Danubyu in the eastern delta; Pegu-Syriam-Dagon—capital region. (Lieberman 1984: 21–22): In 1581, a regional census of the 16 leading townships of Lower Burma showed a combined population of less than 28,000 households (~200,000 people). (Lieberman 1984: 20): The first-ever Irrawaddy valley-wide census was conducted only in 1638, and the results did not survive.
- ^ (Lieberman 2003: 135–136): The soldiers of King Mohnyin Thado (r. 1426–39) celebrated their king’s access by sacrificing horses and cattle to the Mahagiri spirit. Still in Upper Burma, down to the 16th century, forest dweller monks presided over land-transfer rituals in which distilled liquor (ayek) was consumed, and cattle, pigs, and fowls were slaughtered. Princes and even Buddhist abbots attended these ceremonies.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g Lieberman 2003: 151–152
- ^ a b c d Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012: 137–138
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: 13
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: 15
- ^ James 2004: 1291
- ^ Htin Aung 1967: 104
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: transcriptions, dates
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 153
- ^ Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012: 143
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 18
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 15
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 22
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 23–25
- ^ a b c d Lieberman 2003: 150
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 30, 33, 34
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 28–30, 33–35, 37
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 37–38
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 51–52
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 57
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 59–61
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 64
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 66–67
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 107
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 150–151
- ^ a b c d Lieberman 2003: 151
- ^ Harvey 1925: 154–155
- ^ Hmannan Vol. 2 2003: 220–222
- ^ Harvey 1925: 158–160
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 199
- ^ Harvey 1925: 168–169
- ^ Harvey 1925: 170
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 44–45
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 48–50
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 174
- ^ a b Phayre 1967: 118–119
- ^ a b c d Yazawin Thit Vol. 2 2012: lxxxx
- ^ a b Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 76
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 152
- ^ a b c d e Tarling 1999: 72–73
- ^ a b c Htin Aung 1967: 127
- ^ a b c d e f Harvey 1925: 171
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 154–155
- ^ Harvey 1925: 181
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 39
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 180
- ^ a b c Lieberman 2003: 156
- ^ Liberman 2003: 155–156
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 158
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 96
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 97, 112
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 112–113
- ^ a b Ratchasomphan 1994: 68–69
- ^ Simms and Simms 2001: 92
- ^ Fernquest 2005: 50–51
- ^ Fernquest 2005: 52
- ^ Htin Aung 1967: 134
- ^ a b Than Tun 2011: 135–136
- ^ Maha Yazawin Vol. 3 2006: 128
- ^ Fernquest 2005: 53
- ^ Htin Aung 1967: 139
- ^ Harvey 1925: 185–189
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 161
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 35
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 154–156
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 275
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: 31
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 44
- ^ Harvey 1925: 178
- ^ a b c d Htin Aung 1967: 117–118
- ^ Hmannan Vol. 3 2003: 67
- ^ Than Tun Vol. 1 1983: 18–19
- ^ Harvey 1925: 323
- ^ Than Tun 1985: xiv
- ^ Harvey 1925: 151
- ^ Thaw Kaung 2010: 113
- ^ Huxley 2012: 230
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 185
- ^ a b Dijk 2006: 35–37
- ^ Harvey 1925: 164
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 334
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 163
- ^ a b c Lieberman 1984: 28–29
- ^ a b c Lieberman 2003: 153
- ^ a b c d Lieberman 2003: 274
- ^ Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 109
- ^ Phayre 1967: 116
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 177
- ^ a b c Lieberman 2003: 275–276
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 295
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 52, 175
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 175
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: 21
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 132
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 267–268, 271
- ^ Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012: 131
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 134
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 267, 273
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 254
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 134–135
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 17
- ^ a b c Lieberman 2003: 273
- ^ Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2012: 132-133
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 135
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 133
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 154
- ^ Thaw Kaung 2010: 115–116
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 194
- ^ a b c d Lieberman 2003: 113
- ^ Aung-Thwin 1985: 71–73
- ^ a b Lieberman 1984: 97–98
- ^ a b Aung Thwin 1985: 87–91
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 272
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 271
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 280
- ^ a b c Lieberman 2003: 136
- ^ Aung Tun 2009: 27
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 131, 134
- ^ Harvey 1925: 170–171
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 266, 269
- ^ a b c Harvey 1925: 172–173
- ^ a b Lieberman 2003: 135–136
- ^ Harvey 1925: 166–167
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 159
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 191–192
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 28
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 166
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 18–19
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 174
- ^ a b c Lieberman 1984: 27–28
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 168
- ^ Casale, Giancarlo (2010). The Ottoman Age of Exploration. Oxford University Press. p. 74.
- ^ a b Harvey 1925: 175
- ^ a b c Lieberman 1984: 31–32
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 145
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 121
- ^ Lieberman 1984: 121–122
- ^ Lieberman 2003: 188–192
- ^ Myint-U 2006: 71
Bibliography
[edit]- Aung-Thwin, Michael A.; Maitrii Aung-Thwin (2012). A History of Myanmar Since Ancient Times (illustrated ed.). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-1-86189-901-9.
- Aung Tun, Sai (2009). History of the Shan State: From Its Origins to 1962. Chiang Mai: Silk Worm Books. ISBN 978-974-9511-43-5.
- Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (1928). Chris Baker (ed.). Our Wars with the Burmese: Thai–Burmese Conflict 1539–1767. Translated by Aung Thein (2001 ed.). Bangkok: White Lotus. ISBN 974-7534-58-4.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - Dijk, Wil O. (2006). Seventeenth-century Burma and the Dutch East India Company, 1634–1680 (illustrated ed.). Singapore: NUS Press. ISBN 9789971693046.
- Fernquest, Jon (Spring 2005). "The Flight of Lao War Captives from Burma back to Laos in 1596: A Comparison of Historical Sources" (PDF). SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research. 3 (1). ISSN 1479-8484. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 January 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
- Harvey, G. E. (1925). History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd – via archive.org.
- Htin Aung, Maung (1967). A History of Burma. New York and London: Cambridge University Press.
- Huxley, Andrew (2012). "Lord Kyaw Thu's Precedent: a Sixteenth Century Law Report". In Paul Dresch; Hannah Skoda (eds.). Legalism: Anthropology and History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191641473.
- James, Helen (2004). Keat Gin Ooi (ed.). Southeast Asia: a historical encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-770-5.
- Kala, U (1724). Maha Yazawin (in Burmese). Vol. 1–3 (2006, 4th printing ed.). Yangon: Ya-Pyei Publishing.
- Lieberman, Victor B. (1984). Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest, c. 1580–1760. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05407-X.
- Lieberman, Victor B. (2003). Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830, volume 1, Integration on the Mainland. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80496-7.
- Maha Sithu (2012) [1798]. Kyaw Win; Thein Hlaing (eds.). Yazawin Thit (in Burmese). Vol. 1–3 (2nd ed.). Yangon: Ya-Pyei Publishing.
- Myint-U, Thant (2006). The River of Lost Footsteps—Histories of Burma. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-16342-6.
- Phayre, Lt. Gen. Sir Arthur P. (1883). History of Burma (1967 ed.). London: Susil Gupta.
- Ratchasomphan (Sænluang.) (1994). David K. Wyatt (ed.). The Nan Chronicle. SEAP Publications. ISBN 9780877277156.
- Sein Lwin Lay, Kahtika U (1968). Mintaya Shwe Hti and Bayinnaung: Ketumadi Taungoo Yazawin (in Burmese) (2006, 2nd printing ed.). Yangon: Yan Aung Sarpay.
- Simms, Peter; Sanda Simms (2001). The Kingdoms of Laos: Six Hundred Years of History (illustrated ed.). Psychology Press. ISBN 9780700715312.
- Smith, Ronald Bishop (1966). Siam; Or, the History of the Thais: From 1569 A.D. to 1824 A.D. Vol. 2. Decatur Press.
- Stuart-Fox, Martin (2008). Historical Dictionary of Laos. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810864115.
- Tarling, Nicholas (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Vol. 2 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521663700.
- Than Tun (1983). The Royal Orders of Burma, A.D. 1598–1885. Vol. 1. Kyoto: Kyoto University.
- Than Tun (2011). "23. Nga Zinga and Thida". Myanmar History Briefs (in Burmese). Yangon: Gangaw Myaing.
- Thaw Kaung, U (2010). Aspects of Myanmar History and Culture. Yangon: Gangaw Myaing.
- Thein Hlaing, U (2000). Research Dictionary of Burmese History (in Burmese) (2011, 3rd ed.). Yangon: Khit-Pya Taik.
- Yule, Capt. Henry (1857). Dr. Norton Shaw (ed.). "On the Geography of Burma and Its Tributary States". The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society. 27. London: The Royal Geographical Society.
First Toungoo Empire
View on GrokipediaEtymology and Historiography
Terminology and Periodization
The designation "First Toungoo Empire" refers to the initial expansive phase of the Burmese polity originating from the Taung-ngu (Toungoo) principality, conventionally dated from 1510, the start of Mingyinyo's reign as its independent ruler, to 1599, when the empire fragmented following the defeat of its last effective king, Nanda Bayin.[4][5] This periodization distinguishes it from the subsequent "Restored Toungoo Dynasty" or Nyaungyan era (1599–1752), during which a rump state reconsolidated power from a new base at Ava, reflecting a break in territorial coherence and administrative continuity after over a century of Pegu-centered rule.[6][5] In Burmese-language historiography, the polity is termed the Taung-ngu Sit-thaung ("First Taung-ngu" or simply "Toungoo Dynasty"), emphasizing its origins in the southern hill region of Taung-ngu, with chronicles like the Hmannan Yazawin tracing dynastic legitimacy to Mingyinyo's establishment of autonomy amid the Ava kingdom's decline around 1510.[7] Scholarly debates persist over the onset of its "imperial" character: some anchor it to Mingyinyo's defensive expansions against Shan incursions (c. 1524–1527), viewing these as foundational to later conquests, while others defer to Tabinshwehti's unification campaigns from the 1530s, when Toungoo transcended petty-state status to dominate the Irrawaddy delta and beyond.[4][6] Neighboring Southeast Asian sources, such as Thai and Lao chronicles, employ alternative framings that prioritize episodic military interactions over Burmese dynastic continuity, often denoting the era through references to "Pegu" (Hanthawaddy) overlordship or specific invasion cycles—e.g., the 1540s–1560s thrusts into Siam and Lan Na—rather than a unified "Toungoo" timeline, reflecting a peripheral view of Burmese hegemony as disruptive raids rather than enduring imperial structure.[8][2]Primary Sources and Scholarly Debates
The primary sources for the First Toungoo Empire consist mainly of Burmese royal chronicles, including the Maha Yazawin (compiled in the early 18th century) and the later Hmannan Yazawin (1829–1832), which narrate conquests under Tabinshwehti (r. 1530–1550) and Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581) with emphasis on divine kingship and vast territorial gains. These texts, however, exhibit characteristic hagiographic tendencies, routinely inflating army sizes—such as claims of 800,000 troops for Bayinnaung's campaigns—to symbolize royal might rather than reflect logistical realities, a pattern critiqued by scholars for prioritizing dynastic legitimacy over precision.[1] [2] Foreign accounts offer counterpoints, with Portuguese observers—many serving as mercenaries who supplied matchlock firearms and artillery—providing eyewitness details on military tactics and scales, often estimating forces at tens of thousands rather than hundreds, while noting dependencies on imported technology. Siamese royal annals, such as those of Ayutthaya, record Toungoo invasions (e.g., 1548–1549 and 1568–1569) from the defender's viewpoint, emphasizing Burmese logistical overreach and local resistance, though they too embed nationalist biases by minimizing vassalage durations. These external records, less encumbered by Toungoo glorification, highlight chronic supply issues and the role of coerced levies, yet their reliability varies due to participants' stakes in trade or survival.[9] [1] Modern scholarship debates the empire's cohesion, challenging chronicle-driven portrayals of a monolithic domain by invoking the mandala paradigm of Southeast Asian polities, wherein Bayinnaung's suzerainty relied on tribute extraction and periodic rituals rather than direct administration, allowing substantial vassal autonomy in Shan states, Laos, and Manipur that fueled rebellions after 1581. Critics of Burmese-centric historiography argue this loose structure, combined with relentless expansion, precipitated overextension—evident in failed integrations and resource drains—rather than inherent "greatness," with post-Bayinnaung anarchy (1581–1599) exemplifying administrative fragility absent robust bureaucratic controls. Recent analyses integrate inscriptional and archaeological data, such as firearm remnants at Pegu and evidence of forced resettlements via settlement shifts in conquered zones, to underscore coercive deportations (e.g., tens of thousands from Siam and Lan Na) as a core policy for manpower, countering romanticized notions of voluntary allegiance with proof of demographic engineering and resistance.[10] [11] [4][12]Pre-Imperial Context
Fragmentation of Ava Kingdom
The Kingdom of Ava, which had consolidated control over Upper Burma following the collapse of earlier polities, entered a phase of marked decline from the 1480s onward, characterized by repeated Shan incursions, internal revolts, and the erosion of authority over vassal territories.[4] This weakening was exacerbated by the kingdom's inability to quell rebellions in peripheral regions, such as the southern Prome Kingdom and northern Shan principalities, which asserted independence in the 1480s and 1490s, fragmenting Ava's nominal suzerainty.[13] By the early 16th century, Shan states like Mohnyin under Salun had expanded aggressively, capturing territories in the Mu Valley by 1506 and culminating in the sack of Ava itself in 1526, which installed a Shan-aligned ruler and paved the way for a confederation of Shan sawbwas to dominate Upper Burma from 1527 to 1555.[13][4] Internal dynamics further accelerated this disintegration, as court intrigues and succession disputes—evident in chronicled quarrels around 1528—undermined royal legitimacy and military cohesion.[4] Ava's vassal system, reliant on local governors (myosas) in garrison towns, devolved into de facto autonomy for these commanders, who prioritized regional power over central directives, a process traceable to provincial rulers gaining effective sovereignty as early as 1368.[13] Rebellions proliferated with each new reign from the 1420s through the 1480s, reflecting the kingdom's exhaustion from prolonged conflicts like the Forty Years' War and its failure to reimpose tribute or loyalty from distant lords. Structurally, Ava's fragmentation stemmed from institutional frailties, including overreliance on the myosa apparatus, which incentivized local warlordism by devolving fiscal and military control without robust oversight mechanisms.[14] Weak central authority manifested empirically in neglected infrastructure, such as the destruction or abandonment of irrigation dams in areas like Yelwe, which disrupted agricultural output and levy systems essential for sustaining armies and allegiances.[13] Military defeats, including those in 1524 against Shan forces, compounded these issues by depleting manpower and resources, allowing petty states and autonomous enclaves—such as those in the Shan hills and southern fringes—to emerge unchecked, creating pervasive power vacuums across the Irrawaddy valley.[4][13] This disarray, rooted in both immediate contingencies and long-term governance failures, rendered Ava vulnerable to external pressures and internal fission by the early 1520s.[14]Rise of the Toungoo Principality
The principality of Toungoo, situated in the narrow upper Sittaung River valley south of Ava, emerged as a minor inland vassal state under the nominal suzerainty of the Ava Kingdom during the late 15th century.[1] Prior to the reign of Mingyinyo, its rulers were often appointed by Ava and contributed forces to the kingdom's wars, though instances of rebellion and alliances with rival powers like Pegu indicated limited central control.[1] Mingyinyo ascended to power around 1510 and ruled until 1531, marking the principality's transition toward autonomy through defensive fortifications and opportunistic military maneuvers.[1] He strengthened Toungoo's defenses to repel incursions, including Shan attacks amid the broader instability following the Shan confederation's invasions of Ava from 1524 to 1527.[4] Small-scale raids targeted neighboring territories, such as the seizure of Pyinmana, incursions into Kyeikthasa, and expeditions into Mon regions in 1491/1492, yielding captives who bolstered manpower for troops and agriculture.[1] These actions, combined with a 1504 alliance with Prome to plunder Ava's southern domains, eroded Toungoo's vassal obligations without provoking decisive retaliation from the weakening Ava court.[1] Toungoo's geographic position, shielded by the Pegu Yoma hills to the west, provided natural barriers against invasions while facilitating control over the surrounding valley's resources.[1] This defensibility, coupled with influxes of refugees from Ava's turmoil—driven by repeated Shan raids in the 1490s to 1520s—spurred rapid urban and demographic expansion, enabling Mingyinyo to amass a levy-capable population and position Toungoo as an emerging regional power by the early 1530s.[4][1]Unification under Tabinshwehti
Conquests in Lower Burma
Tabinshwehti began his conquests in Lower Burma by launching raids into Hanthawaddy territories in 1534, targeting the fragmented Mon kingdom weakened by internal strife. By 1538, Toungoo forces had secured key positions in the Irrawaddy Delta, advancing to the capital Pegu, which surrendered without significant resistance in early 1539, yielding control over the prosperous coastal heartland.[15] This bloodless capture of Pegu provided immediate access to delta rice surpluses and maritime trade revenues, bolstering Toungoo's logistical base.[16] To consolidate eastern flanks and ports, Tabinshwehti besieged Martaban starting in late 1540. The stronghold, fortified and defended by Portuguese adventurers with matchlock firearms and supported by European-manned ships, resisted for seven months until a Toungoo naval squadron under admiral Smim Payu shattered the seaward defenses in May 1541, prompting the city's fall.[17] [18] Capturing Martaban not only neutralized Mon resistance in the Tenasserim coast but also allowed Tabinshwehti to recruit Portuguese mercenaries and acquire their gunpowder weapons, enhancing Toungoo firepower.[18] These victories completed Toungoo dominance over Lower Burma by mid-1541, overcoming Mon opposition through combined arms tactics including war elephant charges that disrupted infantry lines and rapid infantry assaults exploiting breaches.[19] The annexed delta regions' agricultural output—yielding abundant rice from monsoon-irrigated fields—and port duties from Indian Ocean commerce generated resources to swell army ranks from several thousand to over 10,000 troops, funding further campaigns.[4]Break from Ava and Consolidation
Tabinshwehti's efforts to subdue the remnants of the Ava kingdom in Upper Burma during the 1540s met with repeated failure, despite initial successes in consolidating Lower Burma. Campaigns northward, including attempts to capture key strongholds like Prome in 1542, stalled amid logistical challenges and resistance from Ava-aligned forces, prompting a strategic pivot southward rather than prolonged northern entanglement.[18] This effective break from Ava's orbit allowed Tabinshwehti to prioritize maritime-oriented consolidation, relocating the capital from inland Toungoo to Pegu (Bago) in 1539 following its conquest. The move exploited Pegu's coastal position for access to international trade routes, European firearms, and Portuguese mercenaries, enhancing economic and military resources amid growing global commerce.[20][10] Internal stabilization required harsh measures against unrest in core territories, particularly among the ethnic Mon population in the south. Following defeats in northern campaigns and amid Tabinshwehti's increasing reliance on alcohol—introduced via Portuguese intermediaries—Mon-led rebellions erupted in 1550, exploiting perceived Burman overreach and cultural tensions.[18] Bayinnaung, Tabinshwehti's brother-in-law and viceroy, was tasked with suppression while the king hunted in the Irrawaddy Delta; tactics included rapid military response, deportations of disloyal elements to dilute resistance, and fortification of key ports like Martaban and Moulmein to secure supply lines.[20] These actions underscored the empire's dependence on personal loyalty and ad hoc coercion, lacking robust institutions to sustain unity beyond the ruler's direct oversight. On April 30, 1550, Tabinshwehti was assassinated in his Pegu tent by disaffected guards, including figures like Smim Sawhtut, amid the ongoing Mon revolt and his personal decline.[20] The kingdom fragmented immediately, with Pegu falling to rebels and vassals defecting, revealing the fragility of conquests reliant on a single charismatic leader without entrenched administrative depth. Bayinnaung assumed regency-like authority, recapturing Pegu by 1551 and methodically restoring order over the next two years through targeted campaigns, though full northern integration awaited his later reign.[18] This transition highlighted causal vulnerabilities in pre-institutional monarchies, where succession hinged on individual prowess rather than systemic resilience.Peak Expansion under Bayinnaung
Campaigns in Upper Burma and Shan States
Bayinnaung's campaigns in Upper Burma began with the reconquest of the fragmented heartlands following the collapse of the Ava Kingdom under Shan incursions. In January 1555, his forces captured Ava (Innwa) on the 22nd, restoring Burmese control over the traditional northern capital after its fall to Shan forces in 1527.[3] This victory, achieved through a siege supported by armies mobilized from Lower Burma including Mon recruits and war elephants, eliminated rival claims from southern Hanthawaddy factions and consolidated authority in the Irrawaddy Valley.[21] Contemporary inscriptions, such as the Bell Inscription, corroborate the date and outcome, though Burmese chronicles like the Ayedawbon, while valuable as near-contemporary accounts, tend to inflate military details.[3] Subsequent operations targeted the Shan States to neutralize threats from saophas (Shan princes) and secure northern frontiers. Launching from Ava in late 1556, Bayinnaung's expedition subdued key principalities, capturing Momeik and Thibaw on January 25, 1557, Mohnyin on March 6, and Mogaung on March 11.[3] Between 1555 and 1562, systematic pacification extended to states including Onbaung, Momeit, Bhamo, Kale, Monei, Nyaungshwe, Hsipaw, Mong Pai, and Ko-Shan-Pyi, with Chiang Tung submitting tribute by 1562.[1] Armies, drawn primarily from Lower Burmese manpower centers like Pegu, numbered in the tens of thousands according to chronicles, supplemented by allied Shan contingents from newly conquered areas.[21] Pacification emphasized indirect rule, with defeated saophas often retained under Burmese oversight, compelled to provide tribute in elephants, silver, and manpower while garrisons enforced compliance.[1] This approach facilitated control over vital overland trade routes linking southwest China to Burmese coastal ports, channeling commodities like tea and horses southward.[1] However, operations in rugged terrain incurred high attrition from supply shortages and environmental hardships, as northern passes lacked reliable provisioning compared to riverine advances in the valley; chronicles report massive mobilizations exceeding 100,000 but scholarly analysis highlights logistical limits reducing effective strength.[21][1]Invasions of Siam, Lan Na, and Laos
Bayinnaung's eastern campaigns began with the subjugation of Lan Na in 1557–1558, motivated by control over Shan border regions and access to regional trade routes. Burmese forces, leveraging alliances with Shan principalities, crossed the Salween River and besieged Chiang Mai, the Lan Na capital. King Mekuti, facing overwhelming numbers and Burmese artillery, surrendered in early 1558, incorporating Lan Na as a vassal under Burmese oversight. This conquest provided Bayinnaung with additional manpower and a strategic base for further expansions, though local rulers retained nominal autonomy in exchange for tribute and military support.[1] The invasions of Siam followed, driven by the need to neutralize Ayutthaya's interference in Burmese affairs and to plunder resources for sustaining the empire's military apparatus. In late 1563, Bayinnaung mobilized an estimated 40,000 troops, including war elephants and early firearms acquired via Portuguese intermediaries, advancing through Sukhothai and Phitsanulok, where the local ruler defected to the Burmese side. The subsequent siege of Ayutthaya lasted five months but ended in failure due to stout Siamese defenses, scorched-earth tactics, and effective counterattacks using war elephants, forcing a Burmese withdrawal in 1564 without capturing the capital.[1][22] A second major offensive commenced in 1568, exploiting internal Siamese divisions and renewed defections from Phitsanulok. Bayinnaung's army, bolstered by Lan Na and Shan auxiliaries, encircled Ayutthaya after subduing northern outposts. The siege intensified in 1569 with heavy bombardment from cannons, breaching the walls after prolonged assaults; the city fell in August 1569, leading to the sack, execution of King Mahachakrapat, and mass deportation of tens of thousands of artisans, elites, and laborers to Pegu for economic and military reinforcement. A puppet king, Mahinthara, was installed, establishing nominal Burmese suzerainty, though this relied on continuous garrisons and tribute extraction rather than administrative integration.[1][22] Parallel efforts targeted Lan Xang to secure eastern flanks and prevent alliances between Laos and Siam. An initial incursion in 1564–1565 captured Vientiane temporarily, but King Setthathirath evaded capture and waged guerrilla resistance. Following Setthathirath's death in 1571 and Ayutthaya's subjugation, Bayinnaung launched a decisive campaign in 1574–1575, overwhelming Vientiane with superior firepower and numbers; the city submitted in 1575, with Lao elites deported and a Burmese viceroy appointed. These operations emphasized plunder of rice, elephants, and skilled workers to fuel imperial logistics, yielding short-term vassalage but straining overextended supply lines.[23][1]Limits of Territorial Control
The First Toungoo Empire exercised direct rule primarily in the core territories of the Irrawaddy Basin and Pegu region, where royal appointees oversaw administration, while outlying areas functioned as semi-autonomous appanages or vassal states governed by local princes under obligations of tribute, military service, and personal oaths to the Burmese king.[1] This hierarchical structure, dependent on patron-vassal ties rather than institutional bureaucracy, extended nominal suzerainty over diverse peripheries including the Shan states, Manipur, and Arakan's coastal fringes, but precluded deep integration or permanent garrisons in remote zones.[1] Bayinnaung's appointees, such as puppet rulers in conquered cities like Ayutthaya, maintained local governance while remitting resources to Pegu, yet this model emphasized episodic enforcement over continuous oversight.[1] Practical limits manifested in the empire's western extensions, where influence over Manipur followed Bayinnaung's 1576 invasion and extraction of tribute, but devolved to intermittent submissions without sustained occupation, allowing Manipuri rulers to assert independence post-subjugation.[24] In Arakan, Toungoo reach was confined to peripheral outposts like Sandoway, beyond which the Mrauk-U kingdom preserved sovereignty despite Burmese raids and diplomatic pressures in the 1540s.[1] Raids into Bengal under Tabinshwehti during the 1540s procured plunder from Chittagong but yielded no territorial foothold, hampered by naval overextension and local resistance.[25] These dynamics highlighted a reliance on prestige and coercion, with tribute flows—such as elephants and silver from Siam—sustaining the center without transforming vassals into administrative provinces.[1] Scholarly assessments question the "empire" designation for Toungoo's domain, portraying it as a fragile hegemony vast in scope yet unstable due to geographical distances, ethnic heterogeneity, and deficient mechanisms for loyalty beyond the monarch's lifespan.[26] Victor Lieberman's analysis of administrative cycles underscores how even Irrawaddy Basin principalities evaded firm control, with recurrent vassal rebellions in Shan territories and Laos exposing overreach beyond the core's taxable heartland.[26] [1] Empirical records, including royal chronicles, reveal that while Bayinnaung's 1580 extent encompassed regions from Manipur to Cambodian borders, effective dominance hinged on military prestige, crumbling amid logistical strains and local autonomies.[1]Governance and Administration
Central Bureaucracy and Royal Authority
The royal authority in the First Toungoo Empire embodied an absolutist monarchy, with the king at Pegu exercising supreme executive, judicial, and religious powers as a self-proclaimed cakravartin (universal ruler). Decision-making was highly centralized under the monarch's personal direction, bypassing formalized institutions in favor of ad hoc appointments of ministers and advisors drawn from loyal kin, generals, and former vassals. Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581) exemplified this by convening councils of ministers to deliberate on fiscal policy, military strategy, and palace affairs, prioritizing unwavering personal allegiance over bureaucratic expertise or merit-based selection; key figures like the First Minister Binnya Dala handled administrative duties under direct royal oversight.[3][20] Bayinnaung promulgated royal edicts to impose standardization on weights, measures, coinage, and corvée labor quotas, intending to streamline taxation, commerce, and labor mobilization across diverse territories for enhanced central revenue and control. These decrees mandated uniform imperial standards enforceable by royal inspectors, reflecting an ambition to transcend the decentralized mandala model of Southeast Asian polities, though enforcement relied on the king's itinerant presence and oaths of fealty rather than permanent agencies. However, such centralizing efforts were constrained by the delegation of executive autonomy to royal princes in key regions, who retained de facto control over local revenues and levies, diluting the edicts' efficacy and fostering latent centrifugal forces.[27] The system's strength derived from the charisma and relentless campaigning of rulers like Bayinnaung, which compelled obedience through demonstrated prowess and Buddhist merit-making, yet its causal vulnerability lay in the absence of hereditary or meritocratic bureaucracies to sustain authority beyond the individual king. Upon Bayinnaung's death on 10 October 1581, his successor Nanda Bayin (r. 1581–1599) inherited a structure overly dependent on paternalistic loyalty, precipitating immediate revolts by princes and vassals; by 1599, Pegu's central apparatus had collapsed amid civil strife and external incursions, underscoring how unchecked princely independence eroded royal prerogatives absent a dominant sovereign.[18][1]Provincial Divisions and Vassal Management
The First Toungoo Empire directly administered its core territories along the Irrawaddy River valley, encompassing Lower Burma with Pegu as the capital from 1552 and Upper Burma following the 1555 conquest of Ava, marking the first unified control of the basin since the Pagan era.[28] This central region featured appointed governors (myo-wun) overseeing revenue collection and local militias, ensuring tighter integration compared to peripheral areas.[29] Frontier divisions, such as the Shan states, operated under a looser system where local rulers (sawbwa) or viceroys paid annual tribute in goods, slaves, and war elephants while retaining internal autonomy, a structure rooted in the mandala model of overlordship.[10] Vassal kingdoms beyond, including Siam, Lan Na, and Laos, functioned similarly with indigenous princes maintaining thrones under nominal suzerainty, compelled to dispatch tribute missions and auxiliary forces during campaigns but free from direct Burmese officials in daily governance.[1] Bayinnaung employed mass deportations to manage loyalties and demographics, relocating populations from subjugated lands—such as thousands of Siamese artisans, soldiers, and laborers after the 1569 fall of Ayutthaya—to Pegu, where they contributed to urban expansion and agricultural output.[18] These transfers, numbering in the tens to hundreds of thousands across campaigns, diluted ethnic concentrations in vassal territories, reducing revolt risks by scattering potential insurgents, while augmenting the capital's multi-ethnic workforce and fostering economic growth in the core.[18] Empirical shifts included a diversified Pegu populace, blending Mon, Burmese, Thai, and Lao elements, though this bred underlying tensions without full cultural assimilation. Vassal management faltered due to inadequate oversight mechanisms, relying on Bayinnaung's personal deterrence rather than institutionalized controls; post-1581, peripheral rulers exploited succession chaos, with Ayutthaya's Naresuan declaring independence in 1584 and repelling Burmese incursions, exposing coercion's fragility absent deeper administrative embedding.[29] Such revolts across Shan polities and Laos similarly fragmented the empire by 1599, revealing indirect rule's unsustainability for vast, heterogeneous domains without sustained military presence or loyalty incentives.[26]Legal and Fiscal Reforms
The First Toungoo Empire under Bayinnaung (r. 1551–1581) pursued legal standardization by adopting and adapting the Wareru Dhammathat, a 13th-century Mon legal code that served as the foundational framework for justice until its integration into Burmese imperial administration in the mid-16th century. This code, rooted in Theravada Buddhist principles and customary law, blended Mon and Burmese elements, prioritizing royal adjudication over localized tribal or feudal customs to centralize authority across diverse territories from Upper Burma to vassal states in Siam and Laos. A key illustration of this royal-centric legalism is the Shin Kyaw Thu Pyatton (Lord Kyaw Thu's Precedent), a documented 16th-century case under Bayinnaung involving a disputed inheritance among a Tai noble family, where the king personally resolved the matter through precedent-based reasoning, underscoring the emperor's role as ultimate arbiter and the emergence of a more systematic jurisprudence distinct from earlier decentralized practices.[30] Fiscal reforms emphasized revenue extraction to sustain expansive military campaigns, with land taxes assessed on agricultural yields—typically 10% of produce in core Burmese territories—and supplemented by trade duties on maritime commerce through ports like Pegu, which generated income from exports of teak, rice, and textiles to Indian Ocean traders.[31] War levies, including corvée labor and ad hoc tribute demands from vassals, were intensified, often exceeding standard rates to finance armies numbering up to 100,000 men, while Portuguese mercenaries introduced silver coinage elements, facilitating monetized payments over pure barter systems prevalent in pre-imperial Burma. Ecclesiastical lands, however, remained largely exempt under the oversight of royal land commissioners, preserving monastic support for the regime's Theravada legitimacy.[32] These measures enabled short-term imperial funding but imposed heavy burdens, as evidenced by provincial revolts in the 1580s following Bayinnaung's death, where over-taxation and forced levies eroded loyalty among Mon and Shan elites, contributing to the empire's rapid fragmentation by 1599 despite initial unification gains.[18] Empirical patterns from inscriptional records across Taungoo-era sites indicate that while core revenues supported conquests yielding further tribute, the lack of institutionalized fiscal restraint—relying instead on charismatic royal enforcement—fostered resentment, as local assemblies petitioned for relief amid campaigns that diverted labor from agriculture.Military Apparatus
Army Organization and Tactics
The Toungoo army was organized under the ahmudan system, inherited from the Ava Dynasty, whereby local villages and chiefs were obligated to supply fixed quotas of troops, including specialized hereditary units for infantry, cavalry, and elephant handlers (mahouts).[2][33] This structure featured hierarchical layers, with royal guards and elite forces drawn from core regions around Pegu (Bago), supplemented by provincial levies mobilized by myosa (city-state rulers) and vassal lords under a patron-client framework.[1] Manpower relied on conscription from diverse ethnic groups—Burmese, Mon, Shan—and included deportees resettled for labor and service, enabling rapid scaling to over 200,000 troops in major campaigns, such as the 40,000-strong force in the 1548 invasion of Siam or exaggerated chronicle figures exceeding 500,000 by the 1560s under Bayinnaung.[2][1] However, high desertion rates plagued extended operations, particularly during sieges, due to supply strains and the levies' part-time nature.[1] Infantry formed the backbone, comprising pikemen, swordsmen armed with dha (curved blades) and shields, and supporting hypaspists, often organized into regiments of around 1,000 men per 10 war elephants for mutual protection.[2] War elephants, numbering dozens to hundreds (e.g., 80 in 1548, up to 500 tuskers in 1563 campaigns), served as shock troops, each crewed by three mahouts and four accompanying infantrymen, emphasizing close-quarters charges over ranged engagements.[2][1] Cavalry remained auxiliary and limited, typically 800 or fewer per expedition, suited for skirmishing in varied terrain with light ponies and spears rather than heavy shock tactics.[2] Mercenaries, including small contingents of Portuguese adventurers, augmented elites but were not central to the force.[2] Tactics adapted Ava-era traditions toward mobility and overwhelming numbers—the "man sea" approach—favoring rapid advances through fragmented enemy territories, such as quick marches via passes like Three Pagodas to outflank divided polities, rather than prolonged sieges.[2][1] Formations positioned infantry in dense centers with elephants for breakthrough charges, supported by archery and melee to exploit chaos against disorganized foes, proving effective in conquering disunited Shan states and Lan Na but vulnerable to attrition in cohesive defenses.[33][1] This emphasis on velocity and mass conscription facilitated expansion but strained logistics, contributing to overextension by the late 1580s.[1]Integration of Firearms and Technology
The adoption of gunpowder weapons marked a significant technological shift in Toungoo military capabilities, beginning in the 1540s under King Tabinshwehti through alliances with Portuguese traders and mercenaries at the port of Pegu. These contacts facilitated the importation of matchlock arquebuses and cast-bronze muzzle-loading cannons, which supplemented traditional arms like bows, spears, and war elephants.[2] The weapons were initially operated by Portuguese gunners, providing an edge in breaching fortifications during sieges, as evidenced by their use in the conquest of Prome in 1542 and subsequent campaigns.[33] Under Bayinnaung, from the 1550s onward, these firearms were deployed on a larger scale, particularly in the invasions of Siam. In the 1563 assault on Ayutthaya, Burmese forces employed cannons to bombard defenses from elevated positions, though initial efforts faltered due to Siamese countermeasures; heavier artillery in the 1568–1569 siege contributed to the city's fall after months of attrition.[1] Burmese chronicles, while potentially exaggerating quantities, indicate substantial stockpiles by the 1560s, with Portuguese-supplied pieces numbering in the hundreds at key bases like Pegu.[12] Firearms enhanced Toungoo expansion by neutralizing elephant charges—effective against massed infantry but vulnerable to concentrated musketry—and enabling assaults on stone-walled cities that elephants alone could not overcome. Yet their impact was not unilaterally decisive; reliance on imported powder and expertise led to supply disruptions, while inadequate training for native troops limited volley fire effectiveness against disciplined foes. This partial integration underscored firearms' role as a force multiplier rather than a standalone revolution, complementing numerical superiority and logistical mobilization.[1][2]Naval Forces and Logistics
The First Toungoo Empire lacked a standing navy but employed paddled war boats for riverine warfare, enabling control of delta regions and support for overland campaigns after the conquest of Lower Burma in 1541.[33] These vessels facilitated troop transport, supply conveyance along rivers such as the Irrawaddy, and combat operations during flash floods or seasonal high water.[33] Portuguese mercenaries bolstered naval effectiveness by providing firearms expertise, with matchlock arquebuses and sakers mounted on small warships that cooperated in assaults like the 1547–1549 siege of Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya during the invasion of Siam.[2] Around 400 such mercenaries participated in the 1548 Siam campaign, serving as gunners and artillerymen to enhance firepower on these river-borne assets.[2] This integration marked an early adoption of European military technology, though the navy remained primarily ad hoc and river-focused rather than blue-water capable.[33] Logistical operations hinged on riverine supply lines for provisioning distant armies, often supplemented by war elephants hauling artillery and goods.[33] However, extended engagements exposed vulnerabilities, as evidenced by the Ayutthaya siege's failure after four months due to depleted supplies and inability to breach fortified defenses without adequate ordnance.[2] The empire's post-unification emphasis on continental expansion neglected sustained naval investment, fostering reliance on temporary mobilizations and exposing forces to disruptions in prolonged wars where river access proved insufficient for famine prevention or rapid resupply.[33]Martial Ethos and Manpower Mobilization
The martial ethos of the First Toungoo Empire emphasized the glorification of kings as courageous battlefield leaders, as portrayed in royal chronicles like the Hanthawadi Shinbyumya Shin Ayedawbon, which depict Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581) personally commanding troops in conquests to inspire loyalty and reward meritorious service with promotions and land grants.[34] This propaganda reinforced a culture where warfare was tied to royal merit accumulation, motivating Burmese elites and commoners to participate in campaigns under the promise of status elevation.[35] Manpower mobilization hinged on systematic deportations from subjugated regions, relocating large populations—often numbering in the tens of thousands—as forced laborers and conscripted soldiers to augment royal armies and resettle depopulated areas.[36] Following victories over Lan Na in 1558 and Siam in 1569, Bayinnaung deported thousands of ethnic Mons, Tai, and Siamese to Pegu and other core territories, integrating them into hybrid forces while depriving conquered lands of potential insurgents.[37] These policies enabled fielding armies exceeding 100,000 for major expeditions but prioritized quantity over cohesion, blending diverse groups under coercive oversight. However, dependence on such involuntary recruitment fostered chronic disloyalty, as deported communities harbored resentments that surfaced in defections and uprisings during succession crises.[29] After Bayinnaung's death, overextended control unraveled amid rebellions by vassals and mass desertions, exemplified by the 1599 sack of Pegu where allied forces exploited internal fractures, leading to the empire's collapse by 1600.[36] This vulnerability underscored the limits of coerced mobilization, contrasting with more stable merit-based incentives for native Burmese troops.Society and Demography
Population Estimates and Ethnic Dynamics
The population of the Pegu capital region, encompassing the imperial center under Bayinnaung's rule, stood at approximately 200,000 inhabitants according to a census taken in 1581, reflecting urban concentration amid broader territorial expanse. This figure likely swelled due to systematic deportations from conquered territories, a policy Bayinnaung employed to consolidate control by relocating populations—such as thousands from Siam and Lan Na—to the core Burmese heartland, thereby augmenting manpower for agriculture, military service, and infrastructure while depleting rebel bases in peripheries.[33] Such influxes contributed to demographic pressures in urban hubs like Pegu, fostering growth but straining resources in a pre-modern agrarian economy with limited carrying capacity. Ethnically, the empire exhibited Bamar predominance in administrative and military elites, expanding from Upper Burma strongholds into Mon-dominated Lower Burma via conquests that integrated diverse groups including Mons, Shans, and Tai peoples.[18] Bayinnaung's resettlement strategies—displacing and redistributing conquered communities into Bamar-majority areas—promoted assimilation through intermarriage, shared labor, and adoption of Burmese linguistic and administrative norms, yielding fluid identities where peripheral groups gradually merged into the dominant ethno-cultural framework.[38] Yet this integration bred underlying frictions, as empirical evidence from post-Bayinnaung revolts in Mon and Shan regions links eruptions of resistance to resentments over imposed Bamar cultural hegemony and exploitative deportations, underscoring how coercive unification sowed seeds of instability despite short-term cohesion.[4]Social Hierarchy and Mobility
The social hierarchy of the First Toungoo Empire placed the king and royal princes at the apex, wielding absolute authority over a stratified system that included nobles, military elites, commoners, and slaves. While birth determined initial status for most, the structure allowed limited permeability, particularly through military service where capable warriors could rise via demonstrated loyalty and battlefield success, often supplanting hereditary nobles. Slaves, comprising a significant portion of the lower stratum, were largely war captives deported en masse during conquests, such as the thousands of Siamese relocated following Bayinnaung's invasions in the 1560s and 1570s to bolster labor and military reserves.[37] Gender roles remained patriarchal, with formal power concentrated in male hands, yet queens and elite women wielded informal influence through kinship networks, marriage alliances, and advisory roles that shaped court politics and dynastic stability. In the Toungoo context, royal women enhanced their status by leveraging familial connections to kings like Bayinnaung, participating indirectly in decision-making while reinforcing legitimacy as co-rulers in public perception. Advancement often prioritized personal allegiance to the sovereign over noble lineage, enabling low-born individuals to attain high command if they proved indispensable in campaigns.[39] Empirical evidence from Bayinnaung's deportations highlights selective integration of conquered elites into the hierarchy, as seen in the incorporation of Shan saophas as vassals after 1557–1563, granting them semi-autonomous roles in exchange for tribute and troops, while the broader masses endured corvée obligations that extracted resources for imperial maintenance. This dynamic reflected an extractive order reliant on coerced labor from non-elites to sustain elite mobility and expansion, with limited upward paths beyond martial valor.[37]Religious Practices and Reforms
Theravada Buddhism served as the official religion of the First Toungoo Empire, with the king positioned as its chief patron and protector of the sasana (Buddhist dispensation). King Bayinnaung (r. 1551–1581) actively standardized Theravada practices across Upper Burma, the Shan States, and conquered territories, banning animal sacrifices and spirit worship to align regional customs with orthodox principles.[40] He sponsored mass ordinations at the Kalyani Ordination Hall near Pegu, reviving a tradition from the Mon kingdom to bolster monastic purity and Vinaya adherence.[40] Bayinnaung's sangha reforms included resolving doctrinal disputes, such as debates over toddy juice consumption, restricting it to freshly harvested forms to enforce stricter discipline among monks.[40] These purification efforts purged lax elements from the order, enabling the king to accumulate merit through royal patronage, which legitimized his expansive conquests and imperial authority. He commissioned the construction of monasteries numbering equivalent to the years of his lifespan and built the Mahazedi Pagoda in Pegu (1560s), crowning numerous stupas with jewels from his regalia to elevate Buddhism's material and symbolic prestige.[40] Such initiatives supported scholarly works by the Mon sangha on grammar and Abhidhamma, fostering intellectual rigor within the faith.[40] Syncretic folk beliefs, including animism and nat spirit worship, coexisted with Theravada Buddhism among the empire's diverse ethnic groups, particularly in rural and peripheral areas. Bayinnaung's suppression of nat cults and pre-Buddhist rituals sought to integrate these elements into a unified Buddhist framework but ultimately failed to eliminate them, as nat veneration persisted as integral to local practices.[40] In vassal peripheries, learned bhikkhus were deployed to propagate Theravada and convert non-adherents, using religion as ideological cohesion amid political subjugation; this enforcement of orthodoxy in regions like the Shan States and Lower Burma aimed to consolidate imperial unity but risked alienating subjects tied to indigenous traditions.[40]
Cultural and Intellectual Life
Literacy, Literature, and Chronicles
Literacy during the First Toungoo Empire was largely mediated through monastic education systems, which provided free instruction to boys starting from ages six or seven, emphasizing reading, writing, basic arithmetic, and moral precepts drawn from the Tripitaka and other Buddhist texts.[41] These institutions, run by monks, represented the primary avenue for acquiring literacy skills, accessible across social strata but predominantly benefiting males, thereby cultivating a foundational level of scriptural knowledge among the populace without formal state compulsion.[41] While exact literacy rates remain unquantified due to limited demographic records, monastic emphasis on the three Rs contributed to broader dissemination of Burmese script usage, an adaptation of earlier Mon and Pyu influences refined for Pali and vernacular recording.[41] Royal patronage significantly bolstered literary production, particularly under Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581), who constructed monasteries numbering equivalent to the years of his reign and sponsored ordinations at the Kalyani Sima Hall to purify the Sangha.[40] [41] This support extended to the Mon Sangha in the Irrawaddy delta, fostering advancements in Pali scholarship, including treatises on grammar and Abhidhamma philosophy, as well as standardization of legal codes derived from earlier Mon precedents like Wareru's.[40] Secular Burmese literature also emerged alongside religious works, featuring poetic forms such as pyo (epic narratives) and e-khyan (didactic verses), often translated or adapted from historical texts to reinforce Theravada orthodoxy and court values.[41] Court-sponsored chronicles, exemplified by the Toungoo Yazawin and components of later compilations like the Maha Yazawin-thit covering 1531–1609, served as key historiographical tools, methodically recording conquests, administrative reforms, and dynastic lineage while interweaving mythological origins to elevate Toungoo rulers as Buddhist world-conquerors (cakravartin).[42] [43] These texts, produced under royal oversight, prioritized legitimizing the dynasty's expansion—such as Bayinnaung's campaigns unifying Upper and Lower Burma by 1555—over impartial empiricism, often amplifying troop sizes and victories for propagandistic effect, as inferred from their alignment with monarchical self-presentation rather than corroborated by contemporaneous foreign annals or archaeological yields like inscriptional steles.[40] [44] Cross-verification with non-Burmese sources, such as Ayutthaya records, reveals a factual core to reported events but underscores the chronicles' causal bias toward ascribing successes to divine favor and royal prowess, a structural feature of premodern Southeast Asian royal historiography.[1]Artistic and Architectural Developments
During the reign of Bayinnaung (1550–1581), the First Toungoo Empire witnessed significant architectural patronage, with war spoils from conquests funding merit-making projects such as pagoda refurbishments and new constructions centered in Pegu, the Mon-influenced capital.[21] Bayinnaung refurbished major stupas including the Shwedagon in Yangon and the Shwemawdaw in Pegu, enhancing their structures and enshrining relics to legitimize imperial rule through Buddhist piety.[45] He also initiated the Mahazedi Pagoda in Pegu around 1562, intended as a monumental stupa surpassing the Shwedagon in height to symbolize Toungoo supremacy, though it incorporated traditional Mon brickwork and terracotta elements.[46] Architectural styles blended Mon traditions—prevalent due to Pegu's location—with earlier Indian-derived forms from the Pagan era, featuring multi-tiered pyathat roofs, stucco ornamentation, and vaulted interiors adapted for stupa enclosures.[45] Gold-leaf gilding emerged as a hallmark of imperial material culture, applied extensively to pagoda umbrellas (hti), palace roofs in Pegu, and Buddha images, reflecting the regime's amassed wealth from tributary states and conquests while signifying divine favor and royal power.[21] Sculptural works, often in wood or bronze, showed Mon stylistic traits like elongated proportions and crowned Buddha forms (e.g., Jambupati variants), influenced by Indian Pala iconography for ritual efficacy.[45] Following Bayinnaung's death in 1581, architectural endeavors declined amid overextension and incessant warfare, diverting resources from construction to military logistics under successors like Nanda Bayin (1581–1599).[21] The Mahazedi Pagoda remained unfinished, its ambitious scale abandoned due to fiscal strain and rebellions, exemplifying how imperial priorities shifted from monumental displays of wealth to sustaining fragile conquests, resulting in fewer gilded projects and reduced artistic output.[46] This period marked a transition from Toungoo's peak patronage to the Restored Toungoo era's more restrained efforts, with no comparable stupa ensembles erected thereafter.[21]Economic Foundations
Agricultural Systems and Irrigation
The agrarian economy of the First Toungoo Empire centered on rice as the staple crop, with cultivation expanding across dry-zone interiors and newly conquered wetland deltas to sustain growing populations and military mobilizations. In the core Sittaung valley homeland, where natural fertility was limited, rulers invested in state-directed irrigation to enhance productivity; King Tabinshwehti (r. 1530–1550) oversaw the construction of the Ngakyi irrigation works between 1546 and 1552, extending water control in central Burma's traditional rice-producing districts and compensating for modest baseline agricultural capacity through organized labor and engineering.[47] These efforts, driven by royal initiative during early reunification, marked a brief intensification of hydraulic infrastructure amid territorial consolidation. Conquests southward into the Irrawaddy delta under Tabinshwehti by 1539 incorporated expansive paddies suited to rain-fed and flood-based wet rice farming, yielding surpluses that underpinned tribute flows and urban provisioning in Pegu.[48] Dry-zone expansions relied on canal networks repairing and augmenting pre-existing systems, enabling double-cropping in irrigated plots and supporting army logistics, as rice output in controlled valleys like Kyaukse historically generated excesses for state needs. However, the empire's agricultural base proved fragile; extended campaigns under Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581), which diverted labor from maintenance, disrupted seasonal planting and canal upkeep, fostering localized scarcities that strained core regions' capacity to feed mobilized forces exceeding 100,000 men in peak years.[47] This reliance on hydraulic rice systems fueled imperial growth by amplifying food availability—delta yields potentially doubling under stable governance—but exposed vulnerabilities to wartime neglect, where unmaintained works led to siltation and reduced flows, causal precursors to yield declines amid overextension.[49] Empirical records from inscriptions highlight governmental oversight in apportioning irrigated lands to villages, yet the absence of sustained investment post-1550s underscores how military priorities eroded the very surpluses that enabled expansion.[47]Internal and Maritime Trade
The First Toungoo Empire facilitated internal overland trade through routes linking the Shan states to central Burma, where commodities such as silk and teak were transported southward for processing and export.[50] Teak, harvested from Shan highlands, supported shipbuilding and construction, while silk contributed to regional exchange networks extending toward India and China.[50] These routes, secured by military campaigns under Tabinshwehti (r. 1530–1550) and Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581), integrated peripheral resources into the empire's core economy around Pegu.[51] Maritime trade centered on Pegu and subordinate ports like Martaban, Cosmin, and Syriam, serving as entrepôts for exchanges with India and, to a lesser extent, China.[50] Exports included rice, teak (often as finished ships from Syriam), rubies, gold, and benzoin, while imports featured Indian textiles from Bengal and Coromandel coasts, with 4–5 ships arriving annually at Cosmin around 1516 to barter textiles for silver rings and gems.[50][52] Pegu's position enabled re-export of eastern spices acquired via Malacca, alongside textiles, to Indian and Chinese markets, generating royal customs duties of 12% on general goods and 6% on rice shipments.[51][50] Portuguese merchants, active since 1512–1513, played a pivotal role by exchanging firearms and military expertise for Burmese rice, teak, and war elephants, thereby stimulating port activity at Pegu, Martaban, and Bassein.[51][50] This arms-for-resources trade, conducted largely by private Portuguese adventurers rather than crown-sanctioned voyages, bolstered Toungoo military campaigns and enhanced southern port revenues, contributing to the empire's unification efforts by 1569.[51] Trade expanded markedly in the mid-16th century amid imperial stability, with Pegu emerging as a premier regional hub under Bayinnaung's expansions, drawing merchants from across the Indian Ocean.[50] However, post-1581 insecurity from overextension and rebellions disrupted routes, clogging overland and maritime arteries and precipitating a sharp decline by the late 1590s, as evidenced by reduced shipping and the 1599 sack of Pegu, underscoring the empire's vulnerability to political instability.[50][52]Currency, Taxation, and Resource Extraction
The First Toungoo Empire lacked a formal system of minted coinage, relying instead on silver bullion and imported metals for transactions, with the tikal serving as a primary unit of account equivalent to roughly 14 grams of silver. [53] Rulers occasionally issued irregular silver pieces, ranging from full kyat-sized denominations (about 16.3 grams) down to fractions, but these were not standardized until Bayinnaung's reign (1550–1581), when he implemented reforms to unify weights and measures across the empire, facilitating commerce and administrative efficiency. [21] This included efforts to curb debasement by regulating silver purity amid influxes from Japanese trade, though enforcement remained inconsistent due to decentralized minting by local elites. [54] Taxation centered on land assessments tied to agricultural output, with core provinces yielding fixed quotas of rice, cloth, and labor to the crown, while vassal states delivered tribute in kind—elephants, timber, and precious metals—to sustain military campaigns. [55] Bayinnaung expanded royal monopolies over key commodities like salt, iron, and areca nuts, channeling revenues directly to the Pegu court and restricting private trade to maximize extraction for imperial expansion. [52] These measures, while enabling conquests that peaked the empire's extent by 1580, imposed escalating burdens, as chronicled accounts attribute post-1581 revolts to overexploitation, where war-driven demands outpaced productive capacity and eroded vassal loyalty. [56] Resource extraction extended beyond taxation to forced levies on forests and mines, with crown agents overseeing teak logging and silver prospecting in peripheral territories, often through corvée labor from ahmudan servicemen exempt from personal dues but obligated to supply materials. [57] This fiscal model, prioritizing short-term mobilization over sustainable yields, amplified inflationary pressures from silver imports and debased local issues, contributing to economic disequilibrium that undermined the empire's cohesion after Bayinnaung's death. [55]Decline and Disintegration
Overextension and Rebellions
Following the death of Bayinnaung in November 1581, the First Toungoo Empire's administrative structure, reliant on centralized coercion and limited garrisons, buckled under the strain of governing territories stretching from Arakan in the west to the Shan states in the north and Ayutthaya in the east, encompassing roughly 2 million square kilometers. Logistical challenges intensified as supply lines over extended distances—often hundreds of kilometers through jungles and mountains—proved inadequate for sustaining large-scale reinforcements, leaving isolated Burmese outposts vulnerable to attrition from disease, desertion, and local guerrilla tactics.[37] These garrisons, typically numbering in the low thousands per major vassal city like Chiang Mai or Vientiane, lacked the manpower to suppress coordinated native resistance without the rapid mobilization Bayinnaung had orchestrated through forced levies and deportee labor. In the 1580s, peripheral regions exploited these weaknesses, with Siam under Prince Naresuan declaring autonomy in 1584 amid simmering animosities from Bayinnaung's policies, including the deportation of tens of thousands of Siamese artisans, soldiers, and civilians to Pegu to bolster the core territories and dilute local loyalties.[58] Naresuan's forces repelled Burmese incursions, culminating in decisive victories such as the 1593 Battle of the Salween River, where Siamese elephants and infantry overwhelmed disorganized Toungoo columns, reclaiming the Chao Phraya basin and severing eastern supply routes.[59] Similarly, in Lan Xang (modern Laos), vassal rulers leveraged deportation-induced resentments—Bayinnaung had relocated thousands of Lao elites and laborers northward—to foment uprisings around 1582–1585, fragmenting control over the Mekong valley and enabling local princes to reassert independence through hit-and-run campaigns against undermanned garrisons. Burmese chronicles, such as the Maha Yazawin, document how these peripheral fractures eroded the empire's cohesion, as weakened central authority—exacerbated by competing princely ambitions—diverted resources from frontier stabilization to internal containment, allowing further autonomy bids in Manipur and the Shan states by the late 1580s.[12] Empirical evidence from the period underscores causal overreach: Bayinnaung's conquests had prioritized territorial gains over institutional depth, with no durable provincial bureaucracies to replace ad hoc military oversight, rendering the empire brittle once personal rule faltered. This pattern of revolt, driven by logistical collapse and policy backlashes, marked the onset of systemic disintegration rather than isolated setbacks.Succession Crises and Internal Conflicts
Following the death of Bayinnaung on May 10, 1581, his grandson Nanda Bayin ascended the throne in Pegu, inheriting an empire reliant on the late king's personal authority and patron-client networks among vassal rulers.[58] Unlike his predecessor, Nanda Bayin struggled to command equivalent loyalty, as regional lords and viceroys had pledged fealty primarily to Bayinnaung's charisma and military prowess rather than the central Burmese monarchy itself.[20] This structural weakness manifested in immediate succession disputes, including a rebellion by Nanda Bayin's uncle, the viceroy of Ava, which the new king suppressed by 1584 through decisive military action.[58] The victory over Ava, however, proved pyrrhic, as it diverted resources and emboldened peripheral vassals; in the same year, 1584, Siam under King Naresuan declared independence, reclaiming Ayutthaya and severing Toungoo control over the Chao Phraya basin after a protracted Burmese siege failed amid logistical breakdowns.[60] Nanda Bayin's subsequent campaigns to reassert dominance, including punitive expeditions against rebellious Shan states and Lan Na, yielded only temporary gains but exhausted imperial reserves, fostering widespread discontent. Court intrigues intensified, with Nanda Bayin resorting to ferocious purges of suspected disloyal elites to consolidate power, yet these measures eroded administrative cohesion without restoring vassal fidelity.[60] In the Mon-speaking regions of lower Burma, particularly around Pegu and Martaban, ethnic tensions escalated due to the burdens of heavy military levies and corvée labor imposed to sustain endless campaigns, compounded by periodic famines and food shortages that ravaged agrarian productivity in the Irrawaddy delta.[12] These levies, often exceeding sustainable levels to field armies numbering in the tens of thousands, disproportionately affected Mon communities, who had been integrated as subjects following Bayinnaung's conquests but retained cultural and linguistic distinctiveness; uprisings in these areas, though suppressed initially, signaled the fraying of imperial control.[60] The personalist nature of Toungoo governance—centered on the sovereign's ability to balance coercion and patronage—collapsed without Bayinnaung's unifying presence, precipitating a cascade of defections and civil wars that fragmented the empire into rival polities by the late 1590s.[58]Collapse of Pegu and Aftermath
In April 1599, a coalition comprising the viceroys of Toungoo, Prome, and Ava—brothers of King Nanda Bayin—along with Arakanese forces supported by Portuguese mercenaries, laid siege to Pegu (Bago), the imperial capital.[18] This alliance exploited ongoing internal rebellions and external pressures, including prior Siamese incursions that had weakened Toungoo defenses.[61] Nanda Bayin, unable to sustain the defense amid depleted resources and Mon unrest in the city, surrendered in December 1599; he was subsequently taken captive to Toungoo and executed.[62] The ensuing sack devastated Pegu: Arakanese troops and allies systematically looted the palace and city, burned structures including the Kanbawzathadi Palace, and perpetrated massacres of Burmese residents, with reports of unparalleled violence targeting the population.[20] [62] Surviving Burmese elites and administrators fled northward to upper Burma, abandoning the Lower Burma heartland that had anchored the empire's administration and economy. This exodus empirically terminated the First Toungoo Empire's cohesive structure, as the loss of Pegu severed control over the Irrawaddy Delta and coastal trade hubs.[61] The immediate aftermath plunged Lower Burma into fragmentation, with local warlords, Mon chieftains, and foreign adventurers—such as Portuguese factions at Syriam (Thanlyin)—carving out autonomous enclaves amid anarchy and desolation.[61] Arakan annexed coastal territories, while opportunistic Siamese raids further eroded remnants of central authority. This vacuum of power in the south contrasted with the consolidation of Burmese resistance in the north, where figures like Nyaungyan Min began regrouping forces at Ava, laying groundwork for a northern-based restoration without Lower Burma's resources.[18]Legacy and Historical Assessment
Influence on Successor Burmese States
The Restored Toungoo Dynasty, founded by Nyaungyan Min in 1599 following the empire's collapse after Bayinnaung's death in 1581, drew on the First Toungoo's foundations to reunify core Burmese territories, prioritizing a smaller, more defensible kingdom centered at Ava over the predecessor's vast overextension. This shift emphasized partial decentralization and administrative reforms that mitigated the centrifugal forces of peripheral vassal states, enabling Anaukpetlun to consolidate Upper and Lower Burma by 1622 while avoiding the rapid disintegration seen post-1581.[10] Military traditions from the First Toungoo, including alliances with Portuguese mercenaries for firearm procurement and mass conscription of levies, were preserved and refined in the Restored era, forming the backbone of reunification campaigns against Shan and Mon rebels. These innovations in gunpowder weaponry and logistical mobilization influenced Konbaung forces, which adapted Toungoo-style siege tactics and vassal levies for campaigns like the 1767 sack of Ayutthaya.[2] Bayinnaung's expansionist model, integrating diverse ethnic polities through networks of loyal vassals, became the paradigmatic blueprint for Burmese imperial ambitions, emulated by early Konbaung rulers who invoked Toungoo precedents to justify conquests and administrative hierarchies. This legacy facilitated population stabilization and trade recovery in the Irrawaddy valley by the mid-17th century, building on Toungoo-era maritime connections without repeating the overreach that fragmented peripheral holdings.[1]Regional Impacts and Rival Narratives
The sack of Ayutthaya in August 1569 by Bayinnaung's forces resulted in the temporary subjugation of Siam as a Burmese vassal, with the city suffering extensive destruction, including the burning of temples and palaces, and significant loss of life among defenders and civilians, estimated in the tens of thousands from battle and subsequent famine.[1] This event weakened Ayutthaya's administrative structure and economy, facilitating Burmese extraction of tribute in rice, war elephants, and artisans for over a decade until King Naresuan's rebellion in 1584.[22] In Lan Xang, Bayinnaung's invasion following Setthathirath's death in 1571 culminated in the 1575 capture of Vientiane, where forces razed parts of the city and imposed direct rule, leading to depopulation through enslavement and relocation of Lao elites to Pegu, disrupting local succession and agricultural systems.[23] Burmese chronicles, such as the Hanthawaddy Shinbyumya Shin Ayedawbon, portray Bayinnaung's campaigns as righteous expansions that unified fractious regions under Theravada Buddhist kingship, emphasizing his merit in conquering "the nine umbrellas" of Southeast Asian powers and bringing stability through administrative reforms like reducing hereditary lords' autonomy.[63] In contrast, Siamese royal autographies depict the invasions as acts of barbarous aggression, with Burmese troops accused of massacring non-combatants and looting sacred sites, framing the era as a humiliating yoke that spurred Siam's militarization under Naresuan.[64] Lao oral traditions and later histories highlight cultural impositions, including forced adoption of Burmese administrative scripts and monastic hierarchies, viewing the conquests as eroding indigenous sovereignty rather than benevolent oversight. These conquests altered regional power dynamics by demonstrating the efficacy of Portuguese-influenced gunpowder tactics—arquebuses and field artillery—which compelled neighboring states like Siam and Lan Xang to accelerate their own adoption of firearms and fortified warfare, transitioning from elephant-based melee to hybrid gunpowder armies that defined late-16th-century Southeast Asian conflicts.[1] While Burmese unification extracted resources that fueled Pegu's prosperity, the asymmetric devastation in vassal territories—evidenced by archaeological layers of burn in Ayutthaya and Vientiane—fostered long-term resentments that undermined imperial cohesion, as revolts exploited overextended supply lines. Mutual exchanges, including trade in textiles and spices via coerced tribute routes, provided incidental economic links, but causal evidence points to net disruption outweighing integration until the empire's retraction post-1580s.[22][23]Evaluations of Achievements versus Failures
The First Toungoo Empire attained remarkable military successes, forging the largest contiguous polity in Southeast Asian history by 1580, spanning approximately 2 million square kilometers across modern-day Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and parts of Cambodia and Vietnam.[65] This expansion, driven by King Bayinnaung's campaigns from 1550 to 1581, unified fractious Burmese principalities and subdued neighboring states through innovative use of Portuguese-supplied firearms and war elephants integrated with infantry tactics.[1] These achievements temporarily centralized power in the Irrawaddy Delta, fostering short-term economic integration via tribute extraction and maritime trade routes.[29] Yet, the empire's administrative apparatus failed to institutionalize control over its heterogeneous territories, relying instead on ad hoc vassal loyalties enforced by repeated punitive expeditions rather than enduring bureaucratic or legal structures.[66] Overextension strained logistical capacities, exacerbating ethnic resentments among Mon, Tai, and Shan populations subjected to forced labor and deportations, which undermined long-term stability.[12] Following Bayinnaung's death in 1581, these deficiencies manifested in swift rebellions and territorial losses, with core regions fragmenting by 1599 under his successor Nanda Bayin.[12] Historical analysis, grounded in chronicles and archaeological evidence, reveals that the empire's martial innovations enabled transient dominance but could not compensate for causal vulnerabilities in governance, such as the absence of merit-based administration or fiscal reforms to sustain distant garrisons.[36] This disparity highlights the limits of conquest-driven statecraft in premodern Southeast Asia, where empirical patterns of collapse—evident in the rapid reversion to local autonomies—prioritize structural realism over narratives of enduring grandeur.[66] The Toungoo experience thus illustrates how unchecked expansion, without corresponding integrative mechanisms, inevitably yields to fragmentation, informing assessments of imperial viability beyond ideological glorification.References
- https://handwiki.org/wiki/History:Mon_kingdoms
.png)