THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
None of the great centres of the seventeenth century survived into
modern times. By the early 1800s new dynasties ruled in Burma, Siam and
Vietnam; in the island world Banten and Makassar had both lost their
status as independent entrepots, Mataram was divided into two, and Aceh
had been torn by two generations of civil strife.
• In tracing the reasons for these developments in mainland Southeast Asia,
it could be argued that the very process of centralization contained within
itself the seeds of fragmentation.
• Only a powerful centre could maintain its position in the face of the
cumulative tensions induced by continuing efforts to tighten supervision
of people and resources. Whenever the dominance of the capital was
questioned, it was reflected in the steady seepage of manpower away
from royal control. In societies where the king was heavily reliant on his
armies to maintain his own standing against potential opposition, this loss
of manpower was serious, especially if it coincided with conflicts over
succession or the sharing of power.
2. any decline in general prosperity or even an unusual and
unwelcome event was attributed to supernatural anger at the
failings of the ruler. Sickness, an eclipse, late rainfall, a
volcanic eruption, earthquake, the discovery of a deformed
elephant, disasters like drought or famine, warfare which
maintained a great state placed a heavy burden on peasant
society.
• It was the peasants who supplied the ranks of the armies, it
was their crops and cattle which were seized for supplies, and
it was they who could be carried off by opposing armies to be
sold as slaves in distant lands or to increase the manpower of
rival kings.