WI: Conservatives win Front Palace Crisis?

In 1874, there was an incident in Siam that culminated into a political crisis involving the conservative Price Vichaichan and the reforming King Chulalongkorn. In OTL, the latter won out and made a lot of changes to Siam's governance, as well as ultimately keeping the kingdom out from the many European powers surrounding it.

But what if Vichaichan and the conservatives win the Front Palace Crisis? Would the western-style reforms still be implemented? Would Siam still be independent or fall to another power?
 
I'm nowhere near an expert on this time and place, but a few quick thoughts:

First, either Chulalongkorn would be deposed or Siam would become a de facto shogunate with the Front Palace holding the real power. There would effectively be two dynasties, with the nominally junior one running the country.

Second, Siam would remain a decentralized feudal state, with adverse effects on the modernization of its government and army. It might have to give up more territory to Britain and France during the 1890s and 1900s, and it might be made an outright protectorate, depending on whether its value as a colony exceeds its value as a buffer. It would essentially follow the Ethiopian or Afghan track rather than the semi-successful modernization of OTL.

Third, speaking of colonial powers, the Front Palace would presumably need either British or French aid to win the crisis. Assuming that France puts him in place, would the UK consider Siam worth fighting over? And if it's Britain, a new regime put in place with foreign aid is much weaker than an established one kept in place with foreign aid, so the Front Palace would become a dependent of the British consul in Malaya - would this, too, lead to Siam being made a formal protectorate?
 
I'm nowhere near an expert on this time and place...

Same here. :eek:

First, either Chulalongkorn would be deposed or Siam would become a de facto shogunate with the Front Palace holding the real power. There would effectively be two dynasties, with the nominally junior one running the country.

I think both counts are possible, depending on how badly both sides saw each other. Vichaichan was seen as the more "mature" of the royal scions while western-educated Chulalongkorn was looked at as "young and radical". Considering how the latter and his brothers wanted to modernize Siam, though, I'd say the coming conflict had the chance to be a lot bloodier ITTL.

Second, Siam would remain a decentralized feudal state, with adverse effects on the modernization of its government and army. It might have to give up more territory to Britain and France during the 1890s and 1900s, and it might be made an outright protectorate, depending on whether its value as a colony exceeds its value as a buffer. It would essentially follow the Ethiopian or Afghan track rather than the semi-successful modernization of OTL.

Agree on the modernization part (or lack of) but I'm a bit iffy on the territorial part. From the Malay history books, it seems that a lot of powers wanted a piece of Siam and it's southern Malay vassals, which might spook the British and French to either get the vassals outright, annex more Siamese territory for themselves, or create an alt-Ethiopia or Afghanistan-like situation. Considering Siam's position between British Burma and French Indochina, I think the last would be most possible, especially if Vichaichan is

Third, speaking of colonial powers, the Front Palace would presumably need either British or French aid to win the crisis. Assuming that France puts him in place, would the UK consider Siam worth fighting over? And if it's Britain, a new regime put in place with foreign aid is much weaker than an established one kept in place with foreign aid, so the Front Palace would become a dependent of the British consul in Malaya - would this, too, lead to Siam being made a formal protectorate?

Hmm... this is the one thing I really have no clue. I know some of the Consuls and foreigners prefer Vichaichan and the conservatives for being more experienced in ruling, but Chulalongkorn - though young and radical - was already seen as the one who would ascend to the throne by 1874. If France helps, the size and power of the Siamese monarchy (and Siam itself) will probably prompt the British to fight. If it's Britain, they would have to really balance how much aid will they give to the monarchy, and that has a chance of backfiring in itself. Siam would probably be dependent on the British Straits Settlements or Singapore for support, but a special Consul could also be dispatched to handle Siamese affairs, like Brunei.

The Front Palace guard had been armed and trained with British help.

True, and that might give Britain an advantage in the Crisis. Still, the main point of the Crisis would have been the power struggle between the King and Front Palace, and that might shift the guards' (and their British helpers) loyalties.
 
Top