Kings & Emperors of Vietnam

Viet Nam began as two states, a northern one, Annam, Nam Viet, or Dai Viet, that was strongly under Chinese influence, and for long actually a part of China, and a southern one, Champa, where strong Indian influence can even be seen in the names of its kings (e.g. Rudravarman, much like the names of Cambodian kings). In time, having won its freedom from China, the northern kingdom conquered the southern one, and the Chinese cultural influence overwhelmed the Indian. From the small map, it can also be seen the the Mekong Delta region in the south was not originally part of the Vietnamese states. It was Cambodian and was absorbed by Vietnam as Cambodia declined.

Although powerfully influenced by Chinese vocabulary, the Vietnamese language is unrelated to Chinese. That they both uses tones to differentiate syllables is a character that Chinese itself may have picked up from Vietnamese’s own Austro-Asiatiac language group, or both of them may have gotten it from a neighboring group, the Thai-Lao, where every language is tonal, sometimes with up to 15 tones. It is a little hard to sort this all out in the Sprachbund of Southest Asia, where languages pick up features even from unrelated languages.

After a period of divison starting in the 16th century, Viet Nam was reunited by Gia Long, who proclaimed himself Emperor (Hoàng Ðê, Chinese characters and reading at right) in 1802. This was already with the help of the French, who by the end of the century had reduced Vietnam to a French dependency.

Several long term effects of the French dominion were a substantial Catholic population, a Francophile educated elite, and the abandonment of Chinese characters for a purely Latinized alphabetic system. The multiplicity of accents used for Vietnamese tones makes their reproduction in HTML impossible.

French rule in Indo-China was permanently shaken by Japanese occupation during World War II. The Vichy French regime was first bullied into allowing the Japanese in, and then the Japanese took over completely, allowing the Emperor Bao Dai to stay on as a figurehead. When they left in 1945, a takeover was engineered by the forces of Ho Chi Minh. At first, the United States had been reluctant to support the reimposition of French colonial rule, but the growing Communist threat made President Truman of the opinion that the French were the lesser of two evils. The revisionist argument is that Ho was just a good nationalist and an admirer of George Washington who would have been on our side if we had let him. None of this sort of thing, however, explains the vigor and consistency with which a Soviet style regime, economically and politically, was created. The Vietnamese revolutionaries, indeed, had learned their Leftism well in France itself; and Americian support alone, especially in the 1940′s or 50′s, would not have persuaded anyone that command economics and a police state were not good ideas.

They got their chance to apply their political philosophy by defeating the French, who at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 could not even be saved by the Foreign Legion. An international settlement divided Vietnam the way Germany, China, and Korea had previously been divided between Communists and Nationalists. Plebicites were mandated in both North and South. Never held in the South, in the North they were, of course, run in the typical totalitarian fashion, with predictable results. In pro-Communist propaganda, this put the South uniquely at fault. The Communist North then hardly hesitated in the business of taking over the South.

The subsequent war in Vietnam, with the full force of the United States thrown in, was lost more by defeats in public relations than by defeats on the battlefield. The Waterloo in that repect was the 1968 Têt (Chinese New Year, at the time confusingly called the “lunar new year,” which would apply to Rosh Hashanah just as well) Offensive. Communist units infiltrated South Vietnamese cities and attacked simultaneously across the country. That they were then annihilated, all but destroying Communist forces in the South, was irrelevant. On television it looked like Armageddon, and American military authorites had given everyone the impression that the Communists were already beaten and shouldn’t have been able to do anything of the sort. The fiasco dissuaded President Johnson from seeking reelection. President Nixon tried “Vietnamization” (bringing the South Vietnamese Army up to par) and a face-saving negotiated peace (“Peace with Honor”). After trying an all out invasion of the South 1972, the Communists accepted a peace settlement; but then, once American forces were safely at home, a general offensive in 1975 bagged the country. A weary American public and a defeatist Congress let South Vietnam (with Cambodia and Laos) fall, not even trying to get out all the people who wanted to flee (a peace undoubtedly with dishonor); and the “independent” South Vietnamese Communists quickly assented to the unification of the country under their peers in the North. The typical subsequent rigors of the Communist regime (concentration camps, “reeducation,” etc.) drove thousands of “Boat People” to sea, many finding their way to the United States but others, after years in internment camps in places like Hong Kong, were actually sent back to Vietnam.

Noteworthy in the course of the war were protests by the Vietnamese Buddhist community, whose most influencial figure internationally, until today, has been Thich Nhat Hanh. The protests initially were against anti-Buddhist measures by the Catholic President Ðiem. These included dramatic acts of self-immolation that captured the world’s imagination. Even after Ðiem was overthrown, however, protests continued against the war itself. This reflected what may have been widespread neutralist and pacifist sentiment in Vietnam. Thich Nhat Hanh himself went into exile rather than face arrest for anti-war statements. Unfortunately, while neutralist leaders never came to power in South Vietnam and so never negotiated for any such status with the North, it is obvious that the Communists were consistently never intent on anything but victory, which was achieved after a peace had supposedly been settled. There is a general lesson in this. The neutralist and pacifist movement in South Vietnam never had a counterpart in North Vietnam. This feature of the situation is usually overlooked. The Communists never allowed any protests or criticism of their policies, and when South Vietnam fell, the ideological rigors of Communism were immediately imposed in the South. The Buddhist community was immediately worse off than it had been even under Ðiem. Thich Nhat Hanh was never able to return from exile but today lives in France and the United States. Pacifism, indeed, will never have any attaction except to those who at least consider war an evil. Thus, American and international opinion was moved, and the resolve for war weakened, by the drama of Buddhist protests. But the Communists never considered war an evil and had no sympathy for pacifists, let alone Buddhists, except as psychological allies in pursuing their own goals. Like Hitler and Stalin before them, the Vietnamese Communists were perfect cynics in manipulating the naive.

With the handwriting on the wall about Communism, the Vietnamese Communists have tried the approach of allowing some economic liberalization but holding on to absolute political power — the Chinese “middle way,” rather than the brain dead conservatism of North Korean or Cuba or the complete political collapse in Russia and Eastern Europe. This has given the country, like China, a measure of development, and the young people are eating up Western influences, but the iron fist remains, ready at need. Thus, this site only displays the red and yellow flag of the Republic of Vietnam, not the Communist flag.

Recent American movies have leaned over backward to avoid anti-communist judgments about the war or the Communist regime in Vietnam. A book by Lt.Gen. Harold G. Moore, a Vietnam veteran, and Joseph L. Galloway, a reporter who met Moore at the time, We Were Soldiers Once… And Young [HaperTorch, 1991], has recently been made into a movie, We Were Soldiers [2001], staring Mel Gibson. An excellent movie, largely faithful to the book, We Were Soldiers goes out of its way to portray the (North) Vietnamese solidiers as human, brave, sincere, and dedicated. Nevertheless, the Vietnamese national actor, Don Duong, who played the Vietnamese commanding officer in the movie, has been denounced by the Vietnamese government as a “national traitor” for appearing in the movie, which did “not reflect correctly the truth of history or the just war by the Vietnamese people.” The government denied that he had been arrested, jailed, or barred from traveling, as originally reported, but some punishment is definitely being formulated. Many people are shocked, shocked, that a Communist government should try to silence dissent, crush opposition, or, as in this case, react with hositility to a sympathetic protrayal that is simply not, apparently, sympathetic or politically correct (in terms of Communist propaganda) enough. This would be surprising only to the “useful idiot” liberals upon whom the Vietnamese Communists have always counted. The penalties for failing to toe the ideological line are entirely familiar from Soviet or Vietnamese practice (and now on American college campuses dominated by “tenured radical” Stalinists), and nothing could be more predictable. Don Duong would be well advised to abase himself in whatever way is necessary so that he can just get out of the country and seek asylum.

Many Thanks to: www.friesian.com

Annam,
Thuc Dynasty
An Duong 257-207 BC
Nam Viet (Nan Yue),
Chieu Dynasty
Vo Vuong 207-137
Van Vuong 137-125
Minh Vuong 125-113
Ap Vuong 113-111
Duong Vuong 111
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to Han China,

111 BC-544 AD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early Li (Ly) Dynasty
Bon 544-548
Kuang Phuc 548-571
Thien Bao 549-555
Phat Tu 571-603
 

 

 

to Sui China,

603-939 

 

 

 

Ngo Dynasty
Kuyen 939-945
Duong Tam Kha 945-951
Suong Ngap 951-954
Suong Van 951-965
to China, 965-968
Dinh Dynasty
Dinh Tien 968-979
Dinh De Toan 979-981
Early Le Dynasty
Hoan 981-1005
Trung Tong 1005-1009
Later Li (Ly) Dynasty
Thai To 1010-1028
Thai Tong 1028-1054
Thanh Tong 1054-1069,
1069-1072
Later Le Dynasty
Nan Ton 1072-1127
Than Tong 1127-1138
Anh Tong 1138-1175
Kao Tong 1175-1210
Hue Tong 1210-1224
Tieu Hoang 1224-1225
Early Tran Dynasty
Thai Tong 1225-1258
Thanh Tong 1258-1277
Nan Tong 1278-1293
Anh Tong 1293-1314
Minh Tong 1314-1329
Hien Tong 1329-1341
Du Tong 1341-1369
Nghe Tong 1370-1372
Due Tong 1372-1377
De Hien 1377-1388
Tran Thuan Tong 1388-1398
Tran Thieu De 1398-1400
Ho Dynasty
Kui Li 1400
Han Thuong 1400-1407
Ming Chinese occupation, 1407-1428;
Later Tran Dynasty
Hau Tran Jian Dinh De 1407-1409
Hau Tran 1409-1413
vacant 1413-1428
Later Le Dynasty
Thai To 1428-1433
Thai Tong 1433-1442
Nan Tong 1442-1459
Thanh Tong 1460-1497
Hien Tong 1497-1504
Vi Muc De 1504-1509
Tuong Duc De 1509-1516
Tieu Tong 1516-1522
Kung Hoang 1522-1527
Mac Dynasty
Dang Dung 1527-1529
Dang Doanh 1529-1533,
d.1540
kingdom breaks up
Kings of Dai Viet,
Nguyen Dynasty
Kim 1533-1545
Civil War, 1545-1558
Hoang 1558-1613
Phuc Nguyen 1613-1635
Phuc Lan 1635-1648
Phuc Tan 1648-1687
Phuc Tran 1687-1691
Phuc Chu I 1691-1725
Phuc Chu II 1725-1738
Phuc Khoat 1738-1765
Phuc Thuan 1765-1778
Anh 1778-1802
absorbed rest of
Vietnamese kingdoms, 1802
Gia Long Emperor,
1802-1820
Minh Mang 1820-1841
Thieu Tri 1841-1848
Tu Duc 1848-1883
French protectorate, 1883-1940
Duc Duc 1883
Hiep Hoa 1883
Kien Phuc 1883-1884
Ham Nghi 1884-1885
Dong Khanh 1885-1889
Thanh Thai 1889-1907
Duy Tan 1907-1916
Khai Dinh 1916-1925
Bao Dai 1925-1945,
1949-1955,
d.1997
occupied by Japan, 1940-1945;
to France, 1945-1954;
Republic of Vietnam, 1954-1975;
Communist government, 1954-present
Champa
I Dynasty
Sri Mara 192- ?
?
?
Fan Hiong c. 270
Fan Yi c. 284-336
II Dynasty
Fan Wen 336-349
Fan Fo 349- ?
Bhadravarman I c. 377
Gangaraja
Manorathavarman
Wen Ti d.c. 420
III Dynasty
Fan c. 420-
Fan
Fan
Fan
Fan
Fan
Fan
Devavarman c 510
Vijayavarman c 526/9
IV Dynasty
Rudravarman I c. 529 ?
Sambuvarman c. 605
Kanharpadharma c. 629 ?
Bhasadharma ? -645
Bhadresvaravarman 645- ?
? (f) d. 653
Vikrantavarman I 653- ?
Vikrantavarman II c. 685-c. 730
Rudravarman II c. 749/58
V Dynasty
Prithindravarman ? 758- ?
Satyavarman c. 774/84
Indravarman I c. 787/801
Harivarman I c. 803/17 ?
Vikrantavarman III c. 854-875/89
VI Dynasty
Indravarman II c. 875/89
Jaya Sinhavarman I c. 898/903
Jaya Saktivarman
Bhadravarman II c. 910
Indravarman III c. 918-959
Jaya Indravarman I 959- < 965
Paramesvaravarman I < 965-982
Indravarman IV 982-980′s
Lieou Ki-Tsong,
of Annam
c. 986-989
VII Dynasty
Harivarman II c. 990-
Yan Pu Ku Vijaya c. 999/1007
Harivarman III c. 1010
Patamesvaravarman II c. 1018
Vikrantavarman IV ? -1030
Jaya Sinhavarman II 1030-1044
VIII Dynasty
Jaya Paramesvaravarman I 1044- ?
Bhadravarman III ? -1061
Rudravarman III 1061-1074
IX Dynasty
Harivarman IV 1074-1080
Jaya Indravarman II 1080-1081
1086-1114
Paramabhodhisatva 1081-1086
Harivarman V 1114-1129/39
X Dynasty
Jaya Indravarman III 1129/39-1145
XI Dynasty
Rudravarman IV
(Khmer vassal)
1145-1147
Jaya Harivarman I 1147-1167
Jaya Harivarman II 1167
Usurper
Jaya Indravarman IV 1167-1190
d. 1192
XI Dynasty
Suryajayavarman
(Khmer vassal in Vijaya)
1190-1191
Suryavarman
(Khmer vassal in Pandurang)
1190-1203
Jaya Indravarman V
(in Vijaya)
1191
To Cambodia, 1203-1220
Jaya Paramesvaravarman II 1220-c. 1254
Jaya Indravarman VI c. 1254-1265
Indravarman V 1265- ?
Jaya Sinhavarman III ? -1307
Jaya Sinhavarman IV 1307-1312
Che Nang
(Annamese Vassal)
1312-1318
XII Dynasty
Che Anan 1318-1342
Tra Hoa 1342- ?
Che Bong Nga ? -1390
XIII Dynasty
Ko Cheng 1390-1400
Jaya Sinhavarman V 1400-1441
Maija Vijaya 1441-1446
Moho Kouei-Lai 1446-1449
Moho Kouei-Yeou 1449-1458
XIV Dynasty
Moho P’an-Lo-Yue 1458-1460
P’an-Lo T’ou-Ts’iuan 1460-1471
To Annam;
small Cham State in south, -1720

 

The lists here are entirely from Bruce R. Gordon’s Regnal Chronologies. Vietnamese language information is from Nguyên Ðình-Hoà’s Vietnamese-English Dictionary [Tuttle Language Library, 1966, 1991] and Essential English-Vietnamese Dictionary [Tuttle Language Library, 1983, 1997].

Copyright (c) 2000, 2002, 2005 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)
Tags:

Use Your G+ or Fb Account to Comment

Leave a Reply

Loading Facebook Comments ...