Why did Aceh lose its Nineteenth Century Independence? Comparisons with Siam and other states
Author(s) -
Anthony Reid
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
heritage of nusantara international journal of religious literature and heritage
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2442-9031
pISSN - 2303-243X
DOI - 10.31291/hn.v5i2.219
Subject(s) - independence (probability theory) , agency (philosophy) , argument (complex analysis) , archipelago , economic history , history , political science , political economy , sociology , social science , archaeology , biochemistry , statistics , chemistry , mathematics
By the middle of the 19 th century fully independent states in Southeast Asia were few, and all felt threatened by the advance of competitive European imperialisms. By 1900 only Siam (Thailand) had retained its full formal independence, though arguably by yielding key levers of control to the British. Siam’s success is often compared with the failure of Burma and Viet Nam, conquered by Britain and France respectively in the late 19 th century. Archipelago states have seldom entered this comparison, although Aceh had unique advantages in the ability to play off British and Dutch. The argument here is that the Aceh leadership did have vital agency, and made some crucial choices that could be considered mistakes from a Siam perspective. Dutch and British choices and mistakes have been better studied, but Acehnese ones also deserve to be.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom