RICHARD A. O'CONNOR  – Ph.D.  Cornell University – Professor at Sewanee University

Dr. Kolkey,

Speaking generally I can say, yes, decisions were self-interested, but that's the nature of SEAn politics.   I've set this out -- the idea of interestedness -- in the following: Founder Cults in Regional and Historical Perspective.  In, Founder's Cults in Southeast Asia:  Ancestors, Agriculture, and Polity, ed. by Nicola Tannenbaum and Cornelia Kammerer.  New Haven:  Yale University Center for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph Series.  2003.
 
At least for SEAsia what complicates your distinction between war 'for the common good' and the interests of elites was the pattern of sovereignities within sovereignities and how any one of these could be equated with its leader/ritual head.  In that thinking, what served the leader served everyone they ruled.  I realize, of course, that might not have been what the conscripts actually believed, but it's hard to get at these issues....

RAO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTHONY REID – Ph.D. Cambridge University – National University of Signapore

Dear Jonathan,

I think we discussed before the project of Mogens Herman Hansen, now published, to do a sweeping global comparison of city-states.  I was involved in documenting Malay city-states for him, and I believe I was more supportive than most of the idea that city-state cultures have arisen at various times as a more open, necessarily plural, prelude to the modern nation state.  If I remember rightly you are already aware of this and have read that comparative dimension.
 
As for you specific question, there seems no hiding the factionalism of Malay city-states, though I am less sure that makes them modern.  I suppose Macchiavelli plays a role in your argument, as might the Warring States philosophers of China.  Because foreign trade and traders were important in all Malay port-states, and our sources are often from them, there is quite a lot of evidence of the different factions at the Malay courts siding with or against Portuguese, Dutch, English, Gujeratis, etc. But even the Malay court chronicles designed to gloify and legitimize the ruling house, make clear the factions there are at court.  See e.g. the Malay Annals (Sejarah Melayu) or the Tuhfat al-Nafis as edited by Virginia Matheson.
 
Specific wars.  Probably,  The Sejarah Melayu makes its great theme that Melaka fell to the Portuguese (1511) not because Portuguese were well-armed, evil or unfair, but because the Sultan had executed his wonderful Bendahara for treason.  The idea is defeat as cosmic retribution for the sins of the Sultan.
 
Good luck with this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEONARD ANDAYA -- Ph.D. Cornell University – Professor at University of Hawaii 

Dear Jonathan,

Your questions are ones that need to be answered by examining the resources on the subject, and there are ample resources on the city=states in SE Asia.  I suggest that you begin by looking at Anthony Reid's, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, vol. 2.  It has some interesting comments about things that you are interested in.  Then look at his bibliography for future references.

Good luck,

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES A. ANDERSON -- Ph.D. University of Washington – Professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro

Jonathan,

I don't disagree with the main point of your argument, ...”

Sources on Sri Vijaya (mostly Chinese, as far as I know) do not say much about individual debates over issues of warfare, although the Chinese courts do indicate the names of rulers and supposedly high-ranking officials (the Chinese rulers likely believed claims from the envoys themselves) who brought tribute missions to China from the Malay Peninsula.  Sri Vijaya was a sprawling maritime empire, and not a "city state" in the Mediterranean sense, and its inner working are difficult to fathom.  The classic texts on the polity are Wolters, O. W. Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of Sri?vijaya. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967 and Wolters's second book, Wolters, O. W. The Fall of Sri?vijaya in Malay History. London: Lund Humphries, 1970.

I would look at the conflict between Sri Vijaya and the Tamil empire of Chola as the primary episode in Sri Vijaya's war-making history.  There are references in Wolters and plenty of South Asia references to the conflict from the Cholan rulers point of view.  For general info, you could refer to re-published works such as Hunter, William Wilson. The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2005.

Melaka, Brunei and Aceh are mentioned in Chinese and (for the later period) European sources.  You can find the Mind Dynasty's court records on SEA as an e-text at http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/.  Geoff Wade has produced a wonderful translated and annotated (in places) resource, which should be very helpful in your research.  References to Malacca (Melaka) are full of good info, but I don't know whether or not you can trace individual events of decision-making even with these details.

Although I don't know anything about the authors' other work, this book looks as though it might be useful for you; Blanton, Richard E., and Lane Fargher. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. New York: Springer, 2008.

Please let me know, if you have any other questions.  You're engaged in an interesting and very ambiguous project!
 
Best wishes,

Jamie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFIRMATIONS WILL BE POSTED AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED