From civil war to uncivil peace

Abstract

This article examines the role and prominence of the military as the key institution of the new Nguyen dynasty in Vietnam at the beginning of the 19th century. The military had brought the new regime to power during the wars with the Tay Son regime, and the end of the conflict did not end the military’s role. I argue, contrary to existing scholarship which emphasizes the Nguyen as a civilian bureaucratic regime, that the military remained critical to the survival of the new regime. While the Nguyen slowly began the transition to civil rule, the military remained the predominant institution of the dynasty well into the middle of the century. Moreover, I argue that the regime’s military orientation had profound effects on the Vietnamese populations who were subject to conscription and the associated hardships of labor projects and suppression of insurgencies.

• Armies
• conscription
• dynastic transition
• Nguyen dynasty

Notes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1. Those who argued the former include Maybon C (1919) Histoire Moderne du Pays D’Annam (1592–1820). Paris: Librarie Plon-Nourrit; Kim TT (1926) Việt Nam Sử Lược (A Summary History of Viet Nam), vol. 2. Los Alamitos, CA: Xuân Thu Xuất Bản. One scholar who espoused the latter view is Khôi LT (1981) Histoire du Viet Nam. Paris: Sudestasie, pp. 345–347.

2. Woodside A (1988 [1971]) Vietnam and the Chinese Model. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

3. Mantienne F (2003) The transfer of western military technology to Vietnam in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: The case of the Nguyen. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34(3): 519–534.

4. Taylor K (2013) A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 401–403.

5. Dutton G (2006) The Tay Son Uprising: Society and Rebellion in Eighteenth-Century Vietnam. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 200–202.

6. Pérez PL (1940) La révolte et la guerre des Tayson d’après les Franciscains Espagnols de Cochinchine. Translated by M Villa. Bulletin de la Société des Etudes Indochinoises XII(3–4): 85–86.

7. Kim (1926: note 1, vol. 2, p. 173).

8. Maybon (1919: note 1, pp. 365–370).

9. Details of the military orientation of the Nguyễn can be found in Tana L (1998) Nguyen Cochinchina: Southern Vietnam in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asian Program, pp. 37–46.

10. John Barrow (1975 [1806]) A Voyage to Cochinchina. London: Cadell and Davies; reprint, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints, p. 275.

11. Đại Nam Thực Lục (The Veritable Records of the Nguyễn Dynasty) (1962–) Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Khoa Học, vol. 3, p. 99. Hereafter ĐNTL (1962).

12. Minh Mệnh Chính Yếu (The Essential Records of the Minh Menh Reign) (1972–1974) Saigon: Bộ Văn Hóa Giáo Dục và Thánh Niên Xuất Bản, vol. 4, p. 1b. Hereafter MMCY. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 7, p. 7).

13. Đại Nam Thực Lục (The Veritable Records of the Nguyễn Dynasty) (2001–) Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục, vol. 1, p. 916. Hereafter ĐNTL (2001).

14. Maybon (1919: note 1, p. 357).

15. Chaigneau MD (1941 [1867]) Souvenirs de Hue (Cochinchine). Paris: Imprimerie Impériale; reprint, Shanghai: Editions Typhon, p. XII; Crawfurd J (1967 [1828]) Journals of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China. London: Henry Colburn; reprint, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints, p. 509.

16. Maybon (1919: note 1, p. 352).

17. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 2, pp. 147–148).

18. Thăng Long had periodically been (temporarily) displaced as the national capital, though the Lê had ruled from that city for several centuries. Under the Tây Sơn, a new, but never-completed, central capital had been established in Nghệ An, and Thăng Long had already been relegated to secondary status as Bắc Thành (the northern capital).

19. Ngaosyvathn M and Ngaosyvathn P (1998) Paths to Conflagration: Fifty Years of Diplomacy and Warfare in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1778–1828. Ithaca, NY: Cornell SEAP; Sok K (1991) Le Cambodge Entre Le Siam et Le Viêtnam (de 1775 à 1860). Paris: EFEO, p. 89; Phoeun M (1989) La frontière entre le Cambodge et le Viêtnam du XVII^e siècle à l’instauration du protectorat français présentée à travers les chroniques royales khmères. In: Lafont PB (ed.) Paris: L’Harmattan, 144–147; see also Wook CB (2004) Southern Vietnam under the Reign of Minh Mang (1820–1841). Ithaca, NY: Cornell SEAP.

20. See, e.g., ĐNTL (1962: vol. 4, pp. 52, 93).

21. Shiraishi M (1984) State, villagers, and vagabonds: Vietnamese rural society and the Phan Bá Vành rebellion. In: Turton A and Tanabe S (eds) History and Peasant Consciousness in Southeast Asia, 345–400. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 377–379; Mậu KO (1963) Bản Triều Bạn Nghịch Liệt Truyện (Ranked Tales of the Rebels of the Current Dynasty). Saigon: Bộ Quốc Gia Giáo Dục, p. 11a; Quốc Triều Chính Biên Toát Yếu (The Essential Summary of the Primary Records of the National Court) (1998) Huế: Nhà Xuất Bản Thuận Hóa, p. 177.

22. Quốc Triều Chính Biên (1998: note 24, p. 216 ff).

23. Shiraishi (1984: note 21, p. 346, note 1).

24. Shiraishi (1984: note 21, p. 347); McLeod MW (1991) The Vietnamese Response to French Intervention, 1862–1874. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 5–16.

25. Mục Lục Châu Bản Triều Minh Mệnh, Tạp II Năm Minh Mệnh 6 (1825) và 7 (1826) (The Official Records of the Minh Menh Reign, Vol. 2, The 6th and 7th Minh Menh Years) (1998) Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Văn Hóa, p. 621.

26. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 80).

27. Việt Nam Những Sử Kiên Lịch Sử (Từ Khởi Thuy đến 1858) (Vietnam: Historical Events (from its origins to 1858) (2001) Hà Nội: Nhà Xuât Bản Giáo Dục, pp. 424–425.

28. Choi (2004: note 19, pp. 97–98).

29. Finlayson G (1988 [1826]) The Mission to Siam and Hué, 1821–1822. London: John Murray; reprint, Singapore: Oxford University Press, p. 386.

30. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 27); Shiraishi (1984: note 21, p. 359).

31. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 325).

32. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 4, pp. 254, 316).

33. MMCY (1974: vol. IV, p. 30a).

34. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 491).

35. Cooke N (1995) The composition of the nineteenth-century political elite of pre-colonial Nguyễn Vietnam (1802–1883). Modern Asian Studies 29(4): 741–764.

36. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 263); Phương (1997) Tổ Chức Quân Đội Triều Nguyễn (1802–1858) Mấy Vấn Đề Đặt Ra Hiện Này (The establishment of the Nguyễn dynasty’s army (1802–1858): Some matters now being put forth). In: Doãn PD et al. (eds) Một Số Vấn Đề Về Quân Chế Triều Nguyễn (Some Matters Regarding the Nguyễn Dynasty Mandarinate). Hue: Nhà Xuất Bản Thuận Hóa, 228–241: p. 230; Kim (1926: note 1, p. 173); Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 491).

37. Quốc Triều Chính Biên (1998: 68).

38. Trương Hữu Quýnh (2001) Đại Cương Lịch Sử Việt Nam (A Broad Outline of Vietnamese History). 3 vols. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục, p. 443.

39. Chaigneau (1941 [1867]: note 15, pp. XII–XIII).

40. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, pp. 492–493).

41. Quýnh (2001: note 38, p. 443).

42. MMCY (1974: vol. 4: 26b; see also 11b).

43. This figure appears to be corroborated by Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 266). It should be borne in mind that this figure reflected registered, and not total, male populations. (Woodside, 1988 [1971]: note 1, p. 159).

44. Quýnh (2001: note 38, p. 443).

45. Nguyễn The Anh (1967) Quelques Aspects Economiques et Sociaux du Problème du Riz au Vietnam dans la Première Moitié du XIXe Siècle. Bulletin de la Société des Etudes Indochinoises XLII(1–2): 16.

46. Woodside (1988 [1971]: note 1, p. 159); Lieberman V (2003) Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in the Global Context, c. 800–1830, Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 223.

47. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, pp. 71–73).

48. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 263).

49. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 147).

50. e.g. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 332).

51. Although Gia Long thus did use a large percentage of soldiers in these works projects, it should be stressed that the general public remained liable for corvee labor, and was still employed to a degree that provoked considerable discontent.

52. Lamb A (1970) The Mandarin Road to Old Hue: Narratives of Anglo-Vietnamese Diplomacy from the 17th Century to the eve of the French Conquest. London: Archon Books, p. 225.

53. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 332); ĐNTL (1962: vol. 4, p. 354).

54. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 4, p. 366).

55. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 7, p. 15).

56. ĐNTL (2004: vol. 5, p. 50).

57. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 491).

58. ĐNTL (2001: vol. 3, p. 13).

59. ĐNTL (2001: vol. 5, pp. 322, 284).

60. ĐNTL (2001: vol. 5, p. 613).

61. ĐNTL (2001: vol. 5, pp. 522–523).

62. ĐNTL (2001: vol. 5, p. 464).

63. Finlayson (1988 [1826]: note 29, pp. 304, 386); Lamb (1970: note 52, p. 266); Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 498).

64. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 3, p. 132); Dutton (2006: note 5, p. 133).

65. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 2, p. 120).

66. ĐNTL (1962: vol. 7, p. 199).

67. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 522).

68. White J (1972 [1824]) A Voyage to Cochin China. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green; reprint, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints, p. 212.

69. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 493).

70. Phương (1997: note 36, pp. 234–235).

71. Crawfurd (1967 [1828]: note 15, p. 494).

72. Lieberman V (2003) Some comparative thoughts on premodern Southeast Asian warfare. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46(2): 215–225.