Home › Chronicles
What Are the Royal Chronicles, How Should You Read Them, and Why Does Each Version Tell King Naresuan's Story Differently?
The royal chronicles are year-by-year records of the kingdom and its dynasties, and they are the main evidence we use to tell the story of King Naresuan. But the Ayutthaya chronicles exist in many versions, each written or revised in a different era, so they tell the same events differently. This article explains which versions exist, how to read them, and why the stories we know so well come in more than one form.
Compare them event by event
What are the royal chronicles?
The Thai word phongsawadan means the story of a royal line and its realm, while phra ratcha phongsawadan, the royal chronicles, are the versions the court itself commissioned or compiled. The content runs year by year, and each entry usually opens with a date in the Lesser Era (Chulasakarat, CS); add 1181 to a CS year and you get the Buddhist Era (BE) year.
The chronicles are not diaries written as events happened. Most were compiled decades or even centuries later. Their main purpose was to record the deeds and glory of the kings, so they tell the story mainly from the court's point of view.
To "revise" (chamra) a chronicle meant taking an older text and correcting it, adding to it or rearranging it. Versions that went through several revisions therefore tend to grow longer, with more dialogue and more detailed scenes, but they may also drift further from the original story.
The key versions for the story of King Naresuan's time
The oldest surviving version is the Luang Prasoet Chronicle (Phra Ratcha Phongsawadan Krung Kao, Luang Prasoet Aksoranit version). Its preface says it was written by royal command in CS 1042 (1680), in the reign of King Narai. The manuscript was found in a private home and handed over to the Vajirañāṇa Library in 1907. Its text is very brief but gives dates in fine detail, and most scholars consider its dating the most reliable of all.
When Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese in 1767, a great many court documents were lost. In the Thonburi period and the early Rattanakosin (Bangkok) period, the chronicles were therefore gathered and revised anew several times, producing a number of versions whose content is similar but not quite the same.
- Phan Chanthanumat (Choem) version: revised under King Rama I; far more detailed than the Luang Prasoet Chronicle.
- Somdet Phra Phonnarat version, from Wat Phra Chetuphon: c. 1795; its text matches the two-volume edition printed by Dr. Dan Beach Bradley in 1863.
- British Museum version: CS 1169 (1807); the manuscript is in London, and its text is close to the Phonnarat version.
- Phra Chakkraphatdiphong (Chat) version: a palm-leaf manuscript, more concisely written than other versions of the same line.
- Royal Autograph version: King Rama IV had Prince Wongsathirat Sanit revise it and made corrections in his own hand; first printed in 1912.
Why do the versions disagree?
A difference does not mean that one version is lying. Most differences arise from the conditions under which texts were written and copied in each era, as follows.
- Lost originals: versions revised after 1767 had to rely on surviving copies and on memory, so some passages are missing and others are duplicated.
- Dating errors: a clear example is the elephant duel. The Luang Prasoet Chronicle dates it CS 954, but the text printed by Bradley gives the year as 941. Historians therefore use the Luang Prasoet Chronicle and the Burmese chronicles to correct the years in the later versions.
- Added scenes and speeches: the versions revised in the Rattanakosin period contain lively dialogue and scenes, such as Naresuan calling on the Burmese Crown Prince to come out and fight an elephant duel, none of which appears in the Luang Prasoet Chronicle.
- Different points of view: the Burmese chronicles were written at the rival court, and Europeans wrote from what they had heard from others. Each side chose to tell what it considered important.
- The old way of counting years: Siam once began its new year around April, so events in January were dated one BE year differently from today's count. For example, the elephant duel falls in BE 2135 by the old count but BE 2136 by today's count (that is, 1593).
Burmese and foreign sources
On the Burmese side there is U Kala's Maha Yazawin (Maha Yazawindawgyi), completed around 1724, and the Hmannan Yazawin (Glass Palace Chronicle), compiled by a royal commission in 1829–1832. For King Naresuan's time, the Hmannan Yazawin copies U Kala almost entirely, and scholars regard its sequence of events for the 16th century as fairly accurate.
The most important contemporary foreign writer is Jeremias van Vliet, the representative of the Dutch East India Company in Ayutthaya, who compiled a chronicle of Siam around 1640 from Siamese documents and oral accounts. There are also Portuguese and Spanish records that tell of events in Naresuan's time as stories passed from person to person.
Foreign evidence is not always more accurate. Michael Vickery's analysis found that the chronology in Van Vliet's work is confused in several places. Even so, these sources are very valuable for checking the Thai chronicles, especially on matters the Thai side may not stress, such as the role of firearms in the battle of Nong Sarai.
How to read the chronicles without getting lost
When you come across the phrase "according to the chronicles", try asking yourself the following questions in order. They will help you separate the core of a story from details added later.
- First check which version it is and when it was revised. The Royal Autograph version was revised about 250 years after King Naresuan's death.
- For years and dates, give most weight to the Luang Prasoet Chronicle and to contemporary evidence, but remember that this version is short and has gaps.
- Separate events from speeches. Long passages of dialogue are usually later compositions.
- Compare with sources from other sides. Where several sides agree on the core of a story, that part carries a lot of weight.
- Read scholarly studies alongside the chronicles, and be careful when converting dates from one era system to another.
- When you visit the ruins, notice whether the information on the signs comes from the chronicles, from legend or from archaeological evidence.
Comparing the key events one by one
This site has selected six events and set what each version says side by side, summarised in our own words and stating clearly which version tells the story in which way.
- Queen Suriyothai dies on elephant-back, 1548
- The declaration of independence at Mueang Khraeng, 1584
- King Nanda Bayin besieges Ayutthaya, 1586–1587, and the "sword in the teeth" assault on the Burmese camp
- The elephant duel at Nong Sarai, 1593
- King Naresuan dies at Mueang Hang, 1605
- Where was King Naresuan cremated?
Chronicles and records compared on this site
| Version | Written / revised | Highlights and caveats | Read the original |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luang Prasoet Chronicle (Royal Chronicles of the Old Capital, Luang Prasoet Aksoranit version) | CS 1042 (1680), in the reign of King Narai the Great, according to the manuscript's preface | The oldest surviving version. It is short and terse but gives precise dates, and most scholars consider its dating the most reliable. Luang Prasoet Aksoranit (Phae) found it in a private home and presented it to the Vajirañāṇa Library in 1907. Its limitations are that only a single copy has been found and that the text ends in CS 966 (around 1604), before King Naresuan's death. | English translation ↗ |
| Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, Phan Chanthanumat (Choem) version | Revised in the reign of King Rama I; some scholars date it to CS 1157 (1795) | One of the versions compiled anew after the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767. Its text is far more detailed than the Luang Prasoet Chronicle, and the volume contains two different recensions joined together. The Fine Arts Department published it in a single volume with the Phra Chakkraphatdiphong (Chat) version. Scholars cite this version for King Naresuan's final campaign. | — |
| Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, British Museum version | CS 1169 (1807), in the reign of King Rama I | The original manuscript was held by the British Museum and is now in the care of the British Library in London. Its text is close to the Somdet Phra Phonnarat version, telling events in detail and with dialogue. The Fine Arts Department published it in Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected Chronicles), Part 82 (1994). | — |
| Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, Somdet Phra Phonnarat version (Wat Phra Chetuphon) | c. 1795, in the reign of King Rama I | Its text matches the two-volume edition printed by Dr. Dan Beach Bradley in 1863, which was once believed to be the work of Prince Paramanuchit Chinorot, and it is the main foundation of the Royal Autograph version. It is detailed and includes dialogue, but in several places its dates differ from the Luang Prasoet Chronicle; for example, it puts the elephant duel in the year 941 instead of 954. | — |
| Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, Phra Chakkraphatdiphong (Chat) version | c. 1808, in the reign of King Rama I | The original is a palm-leaf manuscript. Its text broadly follows the Somdet Phra Phonnarat line but is more concisely arranged, and some passages contain details found only in this version. The Fine Arts Department published it in a single volume with the Phan Chanthanumat (Choem) version. | — |
| Royal Chronicles, Royal Autograph version | Revised in the reign of King Rama IV, c. 1855; first printed in 1912 | King Rama IV had Prince Wongsathirat Sanit revise it from older versions, then made further corrections and additions in his own hand. Most of its content comes from the Somdet Phra Phonnarat line. It is the most widely read version, and many later Thai history books tell King Naresuan's story following the outline of this line of chronicles. | — |
| Burmese chronicles: U Kala's Maha Yazawin (Maha Yazawindawgyi) and the Hmannan Yazawin (Glass Palace Chronicle, Hmannan Maha Yazawindawgyi) | U Kala's chronicle completed c. 1724; the Hmannan Yazawin compiled in 1829–1832, in the reign of King Bagyidaw (Sagaing Min) | Tells events from the point of view of the Burmese court. For King Naresuan's time, the Hmannan Yazawin copies U Kala almost word for word. Scholars regard its chronology for the 16th century as fairly accurate, and Thai historians have used it to correct the dates in the later Thai chronicles, but it too chooses to tell only what the Burmese side considered important. | — |
| Jeremias van Vliet's chronicle of Siam | c. 1640, in the reign of King Prasat Thong | Written in Dutch by the representative of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in Ayutthaya, from Siamese documents and oral accounts that have since been lost. It is therefore an account of King Naresuan's time that is older than any surviving Thai chronicle. But Michael Vickery points out that its chronology is confused in several places, so it should not be treated as more accurate than the Thai chronicles. | — |
| Testimony of the Old Capital's People (Khamhaikan Chao Krung Kao) | After the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767; recorded in Burma | Taken down from the accounts of people from Ayutthaya who had been carried off as captives to Burma, so it is memory passed down by word of mouth rather than a contemporary record. Many of its stories differ clearly from the royal chronicles; for example, it says that the person who died on elephant-back in 1548 was Princess Borommadilok, not Queen Suriyothai. | — |
| Contemporary Portuguese and Spanish records | c. 1595–1640 | These include the account of Jacques de Coutre, who came to Siam in 1595, a letter by Father Pimenta from 1602, and the work of António Bocarro. Most of what they report is hearsay, so fact and rumour are mixed together, but they are valuable because several of them mention the role of firearms and Portuguese soldiers, which the Thai chronicles say little about. | — |
Where historians still disagree
- The age of the Luang Prasoet Chronicle: its preface gives CS 1042, in King Narai's reign, but the handwriting of the surviving manuscript looks late Ayutthaya or early Rattanakosin. The surviving book is therefore probably a copy, not the volume actually written in Narai's time.
- Who compiled the two-volume edition printed by Bradley: it was once believed to be the work of Prince Paramanuchit Chinorot, though Prince Damrong Rajanubhab himself doubted this. Scholars today consider its text to match the Somdet Phra Phonnarat version revised under King Rama I.
- How reliable Van Vliet is: Barend Jan Terwiel gives it weight as the oldest surviving Siamese account, while Michael Vickery finds its chronology confused and argues it should not be treated as more accurate than the Thai chronicles.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between phongsawadan and phra ratcha phongsawadan?
Phongsawadan is a broad term for records of a dynasty and its realm. Phra ratcha phongsawadan, the royal chronicles, are the versions the court officially commissioned or revised.
Which chronicle is the most reliable?
On dates, most scholars give the most weight to the Luang Prasoet Chronicle. But it is very short and has gaps, so it has to be read together with the other versions and with Burmese or other foreign evidence.
Why are the years for the same event sometimes one year apart?
Because Siam once began its new year around April, events between January and March were given a BE year one lower than today's count. For example, the elephant duel is BE 2135 by the old count and BE 2136 by the new one (that is, 1593).
Where can I read the chronicles in full?
The Fine Arts Department has published several versions in its Prachum Phongsawadan (Collected Chronicles) series, and digital copies are available in a number of online libraries. The Luang Prasoet Chronicle also has an English translation from the Siam Society that you can read free of charge.
- The Story of the Records of Siamese History - Prince Damrong, Journal of the Siam Society
- “The Luang Prasoet Chronicle”: a key source that villagers once nearly burned? - Silpa Wattanatham (in Thai)
- Chroniken von Ayutthaya (Chronicles of Ayutthaya) - Wikipedia (in German)
- Hmannan Yazawin - Wikipedia
- Review Article: Van Vliet's Short History of the Kings of Siam - Michael Vickery, Journal of the Siam Society
- What Happened at Nong Sarai? Comparing Indigenous and European Sources for Late 16th Century Siam - B.J. Terwiel
Last updated 10 November 2026