Talk:Capture of Ninh Bình

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force Vietnam Low‑importance Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serious concerns about exaggeration, bias, and reliability of the Capture of Ninh Bình narrative

The current description of the Capture of Ninh Bình, as sourced mainly from 19th-century French colonial writings, raises serious concerns regarding historical accuracy, neutrality, and plausibility. While some elements may be based on real events, the detailed narrative — especially the idea that a small group of seven sailors and a single officer captured an entire fortified city defended by over 1,700 Vietnamese soldiers without significant resistance — reads as heavily romanticised colonial propaganda rather than objective history.

Several points in the account stretch credibility:

Disparity of forces:

The story claims that 7 sailors, a local interpreter, and a guide — with a broken steam launch and a single small cannon — marched into a fortified city defended by over a thousand armed Vietnamese soldiers, seized the governor, tied up the mandarins, hoisted the French flag, and captured a massive stockpile of weaponry without facing violent resistance. This is militarily and logistically implausible unless the defenders were either completely unwilling to fight or had already deserted.

Stranded and vulnerable:

The steam launch was described as broken down and immobile, meaning the French force was isolated and extremely vulnerable. Any organized defense could have overwhelmed them easily. The story acknowledges that Vietnamese soldiers were present in large numbers yet insists they took no action — an unlikely scenario given the conditions.

Contradictory behavior of the Vietnamese defenders:

The defenders are described as simultaneously well-armed (with cannons, rifles, and thousands of spears) but completely passive and submissive to an extremely small enemy force. Real historical examples, including battles against French forces during the same period, show Vietnamese troops were capable of fierce resistance, especially when defending citadels.

Dramatic elements:

Details such as Hautefeuille pulling a pistol to the governor’s temple, giving a “fifteen-minute” ultimatum timed by a watch, and villagers offering gifts like oxen all resemble tropes found in colonial adventure literature rather than formal military reporting. These flourishes suggest an intent to portray the French as heroically dominant and the Vietnamese as cowardly or submissive. “The Lãnh binh proceeded to give them a guided tour of the fortress, while the 1,700 Vietnamese soldiers had been gathered in the courtyard, down on their knees, their head bowed down and their weapons on the ground besides them.” Seriously?

Colonial Bias and Propaganda Patterns

The entire account fits into a well-documented pattern of French colonial storytelling:

“Civilizing mission” mythology:

Stories where tiny numbers of Europeans “pacify” large native populations were central to colonial justifications, portraying colonized people as backward and incapable of self-rule.

Overemphasis on individual French heroism:

The focus on a young, bold officer achieving near-miraculous victories exaggerates personal bravery while ignoring broader military, political, and social realities.

Depiction of Vietnamese inferiority:

The Vietnamese defenders are not shown as strategic actors but as confused, passive participants in their own conquest, reflecting racist attitudes prevalent in 19th-century colonial literature.

Sources cited in the article (mostly all from the 1800s) are products of this environment and must be critically evaluated, not treated as objective accounts.

Absence of Vietnamese Perspectives

Crucially, the account relies entirely on French sources. There is no Vietnamese documentation or alternative narrative presented.

Vietnamese resistance during this period

(e.g., against the French and Spanish in Cochinchina) shows that the Vietnamese were capable of well-organized, determined military defense under other circumstances. No confirmation of events such as a governor’s immediate surrender, soldiers laying down weapons, or a massive arsenal being captured without resistance has been found in Vietnamese historical records. Without independent verification, especially from Vietnamese sources, the reliability of the French version remains highly questionable.

Alternative Explanations Ignored

There are plausible alternative explanations for why French forces faced little immediate resistance at Ninh Bình that the article does not explore:

Demoralization and isolation: News of earlier French victories (such as Garnier’s surprise capture of Hanoi) may have caused morale collapse among provincial defenders.

• Internal divisions: Political fragmentation within the Nguyễn dynasty and local power struggles could have weakened the chain of command, leading to disorganized or absent defense.

• Fear of French naval power: Even a single steam-powered vessel with a cannon, despite being stranded, could have intimidated defenders unfamiliar with Western artillery and tactics.

• Negotiated surrender: It is possible that some form of unofficial negotiation, bribery, or threat had already taken place among the mandarins and local elites, which the French later framed as a “heroic” seizure.

Impact on Reader Understanding

Presenting this highly biased and implausible version of events without any critical commentary misleads readers by Reinforcing outdated colonial narratives. Ignoring the agency and resistance of the Vietnamese people. Over-glorifying French actions during an imperialist war of aggression. Readers deserve to be warned that the current article is based on uncritical colonial-era sources and that modern historiography demands a more balanced, evidence-based approach. The Capture of Ninh Bình account, as currently presented, is an extreme example of colonial-era historical bias and propaganda. It mixes possible kernels of truth (e.g., an easy French occupation) with heavy exaggerations and dramatic fabrications designed to glorify imperialism. Until more neutral or Vietnamese sources are incorporated, and a critical historical analysis is added, the article should not be treated as an objective recounting of events. OutsidersInsight (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]