Talk:First Anglo-Burmese War

This article, like other two Anglo-Burmese war articles, seems to be pro-British.

207.200.116.68 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)This should not be a surprise, look down to see: Article incorporates text from 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica.[reply]

The article reads marginally POV - though I wouldn't say it was explicitly pro-British - and certainly doesnt meet Wiki standards; too much is derived from a dated historical source lacking sufficient comparative analysis.Simmyymmis 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this particular war, its difficult to take the sort of comparative analysis you suggest seriously. The Burmese had by the time of the war invaded Arakan and conscripted a large part of its population as slave labour and were in the process of doing the same in Assam and Manipur. They were raiding over the British frontier. No credible source can really take the Burmese side because their behavior was indefensable. The second and third anglo-burmese wars can be successfully covered by compartive analysis, but not the first.

Causes

The causes of the first angle burmese war seems to be factually inaccurate.

For this particular war, its factually accurate. The Burmese Kingdom was at war with almost everything around it. This war, on every basis, is much different than the two later wars with the british. The direct cause of

This article is pro-British

In my opnion, this article is clearly pro-British.

Examples:

1) "Burmese had engaged in an expansionist ..." - British also did it on a much larger scale.

2) "They apparently were not aware of the tactics, discipline and resources of the Europeans, and thus were not cautious about entering a war ..." - implies European supremacy. It may be interpreted as - Europeans were so powerful, and Asians should never contend them.

3) "its policy of demanding slave labour from Arakan for projects inside Burma ..." - seems like a British propaganda. No historical evidence. There is no large Arakanese settlement inside Burma (other than Arakan state) today. If there were such enslavements and relocations of Arakanese, there should be some sizable Arakan communities inside Burma today. It was true U Than Dee and his people fled from Burmese-occupied Arakan. But it was/is natural for any defeated people/soldiers to run away and later plan to fight back the occupying forces from a friendly territory. It does not necessarily mean that they fled because Burmese tortured or enslaved Arakanese on a large sacle.

4) "The British had for the previous thirty years attempted to negotiate some form of peace or stability ..." - gives an impression that British were the peace lovers and Burmese were the attackers. There is no historical evidence that the British had proposed a non-aggression pact or something like that before the war.

In my opinion, it would be fair to say that both the British and the Burmese were to be blamed for this war. This was a conflict caused by greed. Both sides were interested and wanted to influence the areas of Assam and Manipur, and finally a dispute and a war ensued. (Zeyar Aung)