Triệu Đà and the State of Nam Việt: How Vietnamese Histories Across the Eras Have Viewed the Triệu Dynasty

Who was Triệu Đà and how did the state of Nam Việt come into being?

Triệu Đà was a northerner from Chân Định who served the Qin as magistrate of Long Xuyên and then succeeded Nhâm Ngao as commandant of Nam Hải commandery, and took advantage of Qin's decline to carve out territory in the south. According to Trần Trọng Kim's Việt Nam sử lược, in the year Quý Tị (207 BCE) Triệu Đà defeated An Dương Vương, annexed the state of Âu Lạc into Nam Hải commandery, founded a state called Nam Việt, proclaimed himself king, taking the title Vũ Vương, and established his capital at Phiên Ngung, near present-day Quảng Châu^[1]. This date belongs to the old Vietnamese histories: the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư places Triệu Đà's attack on An Dương Vương in the Quý Tỵ year and counts the Giáp Ngọ year (207 BCE) as the first year of Triệu Vũ Đế^[3]. Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, however, has Triệu Đà bring Tây Âu and Lạc under his sway after Empress Lü died, that is around 180 BCE^[4]. The date of about 179 BCE found in present-day histories rests on that passage.

Two layers of issues must be distinguished. The first is the event: a Qin official founded a state in the south, ruling territory that included the old Âu Lạc. The second is the assessment: whether to call the Triệu dynasty a dynasty of the Vietnamese nation or a foreign occupying power. These two layers cannot be separated in Vietnamese historiography, because every national history must decide where to place the Triệu dynasty in the orthodox line.

Việt Nam sử lược records clearly the course of relations with the Han dynasty: when Liu Bang ascended the throne as Emperor, that is Han Gaozu, seeing Triệu Vũ Vương independent in the south, he sent Lục Giả to confer the title of king. In the year Ất Tị (196 BCE), the twelfth year of Triệu Vũ Vương and the eleventh year of Han Gaozu, Lục Giả arrived. Vũ Vương, being arrogant by nature, sat cross-legged in a circle and did not rise to receive him, so Lục Giả had to remind him that the king's ancestral graves and relatives were all in Chân Định, and that the Han could destroy the graves, kill the relatives, and then send troops to attack^[1].

Why did Triệu Đà have to accept the Han dynasty's conferral of the title of king?

The answer lies in the balance of forces and clan ties. Though the Triệu dynasty could carve out territory in the south, its origins and family members remained in the Central Plains, so it could not completely break with the Han. Accepting the title of king was a political compromise: the Triệu dynasty retained de facto rule, the Han retained nominal overlordship. Vietnamese histories record both sides of this, noting both Vũ Vương's investiture and his later proclamation as emperor followed by renewed submission to the Han, showing that relations between the two sides always fluctuated with the balance of power.

The table below summarizes the reigns of the Triệu kings according to Việt Nam sử lược, to show that this was a dynasty with internal succession, not merely a single incursion:

Where does Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư place the Triệu dynasty?

Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư by Ngô Sĩ Liên (1479) places the Triệu dynasty as a separate dynasty in the Ngoại kỷ section, after the Thục dynasty (An Dương Vương) and before the periods of Han and Tang rule^[2]. This is an important decision regarding orthodoxy: if the Triệu dynasty is recorded as a dynasty of the Vietnamese nation, then Triệu Đà is regarded as a successor in the line of Vietnamese kings, not a foreign invader. The quốc ngữ translation by Mạc Bảo Thần (Nhượng Tống) printed in 1945 also follows this layout, with the Ngoại kỷ section comprising the Hồng Bàng line, the Thục dynasty, the Triệu line, then Trưng Nữ Vương and the end of Northern rule^[3].

This placement is older than the Lê era: according to Việt Nam sử lược, the Đại Việt sử ký of Lê Văn Hưu, written under the Trần, already began with Triệu Vũ Vương^[1]. Lê Văn Hưu's comment, preserved in the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, praises Triệu Vũ Đế for having "opened up our land of Việt", made himself emperor of his own country to stand against the Han, and begun the imperial enterprise here; Ngô Sĩ Liên adds that the king gained throne, fame and long life through virtue^[3]. For these two historians, whoever ruled this land and claimed an imperial title equal to the north belonged to the orthodox line, whatever his origin. This arrangement also suited the continuous recording of history from Hùng Vương through An Dương Vương to the Triệu dynasty and then to Northern rule, avoiding an unexplained gap.

However, within this very history, the historians also criticised when they saw fit. At the end of the Triệu annals, Lê Văn Hưu blames Lữ Gia for killing his king and yet failing to hold the country, so that the land of Việt was carved up; Ngô Sĩ Liên regrets that the Triệu could not hold the Ngũ Lĩnh passes, so that the country was lost and later dynasties never recovered the old domain^[3].

How does Việt Nam sử lược view the Triệu dynasty differently?

Việt Nam sử lược by Trần Trọng Kim (1920) also devotes a separate chapter to the Triệu dynasty, titled "Nhà Triệu" with the dates 207 to 111 BCE, and lists five kings from Vũ Vương to Dương Vương^[1]. In structure, this continues the tradition of Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư: the Triệu dynasty is still regarded as a dynasty in the Vietnamese historical line.

But the focus of evaluation has changed. Trần Trọng Kim places the Triệu dynasty in the context of contemporary changes in China: at the end of the Zhou, feudal lords contended, the Qin unified the realm, abolished feudalism and established commanderies and districts, banned Confucian learning, burned books, and ruled by law. In that context, the author writes: "Triệu Đà founded the state of Nam Việt, brought Chinese civilization to spread in the south, so from then on our people were all imbued with that civilization"^[1]. This is the view of an early twentieth-century scholar, emphasizing cultural exchange over purely orthodox criteria.

It should be made clear that this is the author's interpretation in a specific context, not an archaeological or independent historical fact. Việt Nam sử lược is a history textbook written for general readers in the early twentieth century, influenced by the historiography of its time, in which the evaluation of a figure is often tied to that figure's role in the broader cultural process.

Do Vietnamese histories consider Triệu Đà to be Vietnamese?

No national history considers Triệu Đà to be Vietnamese. Both Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư and Việt Nam sử lược record clearly his Central Plains origin, from Chân Định, serving as a Qin official^[1][3]. What is debated is not Triệu Đà's ethnicity, but the position of the Triệu dynasty in the national orthodox line.

The issue can be separated into two questions. First: was the Triệu dynasty a dynasty of the Vietnamese nation? Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư answers yes, by placing it in the Ngoại kỷ. Second: was Triệu Đà Vietnamese? Both histories answer no, by recording his origin clearly. These two answers are not contradictory in the logic of annalistic history, because the criterion for placing a dynasty is land and throne, not the bloodline of its founder.

One notable point is Trần Trọng Kim's framing: he does not ask "Was Triệu Đà Vietnamese?" but rather "What did the Triệu dynasty leave for the Vietnamese nation?" This framing explains why the Triệu chapter in Việt Nam sử lược records both military matters and the spread of civilization.

Where do the legends of Mị Châu and Trọng Thủy fit into the story?

The legend of Mị Châu and Trọng Thủy is a folk narrative layer attached to the event of Triệu Đà's attack on An Dương Vương. Việt Nam sử lược records: tradition says that when An Dương Vương built Loa Thành, evil spirits harassed the work, and it could not be completed, so the king set up an altar and prayed, and the Kim Quy deity appeared to teach him the method to expel the spirits, and gave him a claw as a trigger for a crossbow. Thanks to that crossbow, Triệu Đà could not defeat him. Triệu Đà then sent his son Trọng Thỉ to marry Mị Châu, An Dương Vương's daughter, pretending to be a marriage alliance in order to spy. Trọng Thỉ asked his wife, Mị Châu told him about the crossbow and showed it to her husband, and Trọng Thỉ took the Kim Quy claw away and replaced it with a fake trigger^[1].

In folk tradition, this legend is told as an explanation for the loss of Âu Lạc, along with the detail of goose feathers scattered along the road and Mị Châu's prayer before her death. It must be clearly distinguished: this is legend, not a record of events. Vietnamese histories record this legend as part of the storytelling tradition, without confirming the supernatural details as historical fact.

Why has the view of the Triệu dynasty changed over time?

The view of the Triệu dynasty has changed because the criteria of orthodoxy have changed. In the Lê era, historians took the continuous line of dynasties on Vietnamese land as the axis, so the Triệu dynasty was placed in the Ngoại kỷ. In the early twentieth century, historians writing for general readers under the influence of new historiography emphasized cultural and exchange factors, so the Triệu dynasty was viewed additionally from the angle of spreading civilization. Not everyone accepted that placement. In 1936, in the newspaper Sông Hương, Phan Khôi published an article calling for Triệu Đà and his line to be removed from Vietnamese history: in his view a national history must be founded on the nation, Triệu Đà was a Qin official who seized Âu Lạc and ruled from Phiên Ngung, and so the period of northern rule should be counted from the moment Âu Lạc fell into Triệu hands^[5]. Present-day histories in Vietnam also count northern rule from that point. Each era chooses an axis for its narrative, and readers need to know which axis they are reading along.

One point to note regarding the level of evidence: Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư is a fifteenth-century original text, recording both the legends of the Hồng Bàng era and dated events. The original text only proves what that text says, not that everything it says is true. The Hồng Bàng section in this history is copied from legend, while the Triệu section can be cross-checked with the Records of the Grand Historian regarding relations with the Han, although the two sides give different dates for Triệu Đà's taking of Âu Lạc^[4].

Việt Nam sử lược is also an original text, not archaeological research. Trần Trọng Kim's assessments of the cultural role of the Triệu dynasty are the author's opinions in the early twentieth-century context, and should be read as such.

Nhật Nguyệt's suggestion: how should one read about the Triệu dynasty?

When reading about Triệu Đà and the Triệu dynasty, three layers of information should be separated. The first is events that can be cross-checked with Chinese histories: Triệu Đà founded the state of Nam Việt after the fall of Qin, in 196 BCE he was invested by the Han, in 111 BCE the Triệu dynasty fell; as for the year he took Âu Lạc, the old histories give 207 BCE, while the date based on the Records of the Grand Historian is about 179 BCE. The second is the orthodox placement by each history: Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư places the Triệu dynasty in the Ngoại kỷ, and Việt Nam sử lược also devotes a separate chapter. The third is the folk legend attached to the event, such as the story of Mị Châu, Trọng Thủy, and the magic crossbow.

These three layers do not replace one another. A reader who wants to understand how Vietnamese history views the Triệu dynasty needs to know all three, and needs to know that each layer has a different degree of reliability. What is notable is that both major national histories do not consider Triệu Đà to be Vietnamese, yet both consider the Triệu dynasty part of the Vietnamese historical line. The distinction between the bloodline of the founder and the position of the dynasty in the orthodox line is the key point for understanding how Vietnamese historiography operates.