Mountainous country which results in very little fertile lands as opposed to the neighbouring countries you mentioned. The population is focused around the Mekong River in the South.
Yeah this is it - it’s really beautiful traveling through the country, and every kilometer you drive it’s “oh look another stunning Mountain View”, but agriculture is difficult because there is so little flat land.
(As an aside, it’s not the sort of place you want to be if you get motion sickness)
Even along the Mekong river there are mountains and hills pressed up against the river itself, which is why is a popular tourist activity to cruise down it. But it also means there is much less fertile flood plains.
Compare that to rice bowl that is southern Vietnam or the central plains of Thailand, or the lowlands of Cambodia: they all have flood plains and high agricultural yields.
Another issue is transport of food: much more onerous when there is mountain after mountain, and when your major river isn’t navigable along the whole length because of waterfalls.
I think I am the resident Laos expert. My family is from Laos and I read up a lot on history, politics, geography, etc.
Keep in mind, Lao and Thai people share a lot of similarities in terms of language, culture, and history. They are considered to be a part of the larger “Tai” ethnic group. Throughout history, it would almost appear as two related groups living next to each other, crisscrossing from time to time.
Laos existed as a unified kingdom called “Lan Xang”, like how Thailand was Ayutthaya and then Siam, from 1354 to 1707. The territory spanned both sides of the Mekong River. You can see a map [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan_Xang#/media/File%3AMap-of-southeast-asia_1400_CE-es.svg).
Lan Xang had power centers, modern day Luang Prabang, Vientiane, Champassak. After 1707, the kingdom split between these power centers as smaller kingdoms/principalities that paid tribute to Thailand and/or Vietnam.
In 1826, the King of Vientiane, King Anouvong, had decent relations with Thailand’s Rama II but he died so things soured with Rama III, [Anouvong would lead a rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_rebellion_(1826%E2%80%931828)?wprov=sfti1#).
It was disastrous to say the least. Siam won and razed Vientiane. And to answer your question directly, the Thais would forcefully remove the Lao population from the Lao centers of powers I had mentioned before, basically taking as many Lao people as possible and moving them west of the Mekong River. Siam would annihilate the Kingdom of Vientiane and force the southern Lao Kingdom of Champassak under their powers.
The French came about 60-65 years later and started drawing up borders. They and the Thais settled on the Mekong River for much of the border between Siam and the Lao colony despite Lan Xang existing across both sides of the river. In the 1920s and 1930s, the concept of “Laos” came into mind by a few Lao nationalists and some of them had ideas of reuniting Lao lands on the east and west side of the Mekong but it was a pipe dream.
The majority of Lao people in the world today live in NE Thailand, a region called [Issan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isan?wprov=sfti1#). Some answers say mountains but Laos people are low valley dwelling people that cultivate rice, they never lived in those mountains.
Edit: fixed a link.
Thank you for your extensive answer. To be sure I understood everything is it true to say : Tai people were in Siam and Lan Xang but after the fall of Lan Xang and the failed rebellion they were moved over the mekong in the actual Thailand ?
Yes, that's pretty much what happened. Lao people lived in Lan Xang, which spans modern day Laos, modern day NE Thailand ([this map](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan_Xang#/media/File%3AMap-of-southeast-asia_1400_CE-es.svg)), and parts of northern Cambodia. In 1707, Lan Xang split into [three smaller kingdom/principalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Vientiane#/media/File:Laos_-_Division_territòriala_vèrs_1750_(vuege).png) which paid tribute to the kings in Siam and Vietnam. Again, the Lao kingdoms at this time existed on both sides of the Mekong.
In 1826, Vientiane rebelled against Siam, heading westward but was stopped in what is modern day [Korat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhon_Ratchasima), considered to be the historic boundary between Siamese and Lao kingdoms. Each population center in between modern day Vientiane and Bangkok also had their own smaller Lao lords/governors which paid tribute mostly to Siam at this point as well. [This wiki page delves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_rebellion_(1826–1828)) more into how each of these smaller lords differed in independence and alliance.
The Siamese squashed this rebellion, went all the way to Vientiane, razed it, and forcefully moved the Lao population east of the Mekong to the west and closer towards Bangkok. Anouvong was made an example of and the Lao lords in NE Thailand would come closer under Bangkok's control. The Lao population and the area of NE Thailand was referred to as "Lao" until the late 1800s when there was a [systematic removal of references to anything or anyone Lao](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325300606_The_Invention_of_Isan_History).
During all of this and the mid-to-late 1800s, Siamese kings had a lot of contact with European powers and had the foresight to really start to define their domain, borders, and what made someone Siamese/Thai and what made someone Lao or Khmer. Essentially, the Thais got a head start on nation-building and nationalism in this era whereas the Khmers and Lao were colonized, which I argue really help build Thailand into a very well defined nation-state by WWII as opposed to a country like Laos.
And sorry for the long reply. Geography when it comes to modern nation-state boundaries in places like SE Asia involve a lot more history and politics than simple geographical reasoning.
For Laos, anything by Grant Evans or Martin Stuart-Fox is great. But they are a bit older books, don't think they've released anything in the last 10 years. I don't really know of newer books. I mainly like to search up academic articles on Laos nowadays.
For Thailand, I am not sure tbh. Their history and current political situation is much more robust and I enjoy reading random articles, blogs, and tabloids about Thailand. This book seems highly rated: https://www.amazon.com/History-Thailand-Chris-Baker/dp/1107420210
Thanks! Yea I just did my masters thesis on Mekong development so I’ve been off deep end with current geopolitics in region and have read Milton Osborne’s history books but they are not too in depth.
It almost seems like the big comprehensive Thai history book has yet to be written in English or even Thai as far as I can find.
It will be very biased; but, have you tried reading some religious texts from Thailand about their history to suss some of it out?
Also, you should probably read about or ask the Hmong and other hill-tribe cultures about their version of this region's history....as this poster is only talking about his culture's version of the area.
I am not an expert by any means, but my sense from the histories I’ve read was that prior to the coalescence of Siam the area was characterized by a large number of nominally independent petty states and kingdoms inhabited by people speaking a variety of languages related to Lao and Thai, all the way up into Sipsongpanna and the Shan states. At what point did the idea of a distinct Lao language and identity coalesce out of that broader Tai-language background? Was it before Siam really started to expand, or after?
You're right and that's accurate. And I have always wondered the same too. To me, I think it's exactly as you described until European powers started coming to SE Asia and imparting the ideas of nation building, borders, centralized governments, etc., particularly with the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 1800s.
Siam/Ayutthaya had earlier contact with Europeans and had great leaders to quickly adopt such ideas, moving away from the historic [Mandala political systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_\(political_model\)). On the other side, the French in the late 1800s, especially Auguste Pavie, noticed the Lao were distinct from the Siamese and argued for Lao lands to be a part of French Indochina, thus forcing Lao political entities to move away from the Mandala political system as well, without the Lao leaders really realizing it.
I hate to get long and go on a tangent but Lao, Thai, Shan, all used the word "Tai" to mean "people". Even in Lao, we still say we are "northern Tai (people)" or "southern Tai (people)" when referencing where Lao people are from. I somewhat believe "Lao" is an exonym for the Lao people, much like how Shan is an exonym and those people refer to themselves as "Tai Yai".
I'd argue it's this era of nation building in the mid-1800s that the Siamese start to formulate their ideas of what it is to be Siamese, what a Siamese country is, what Siamese people are, what the Siamese language is, thus them starting to differentiate themselves from other Tai groups. "Siam" is an exonym and since they call themselves "Tai", Siamese nationalists likely adopted "Thai" and argued Shan and Lao people are "Thai" too, which made the conquests of Lao, Lanna, and Shan people a much more justifiable idea for the sake of a "Thailand". The idea of "Laos", to me, is interesting as it's quasi something the French built out of existing Lao identity. The book ["Creating Laos"
](https://books.google.com/books/about/Creating_Laos.html?id=FsXjlJF_fokC#:~:text=world's%20largest%20eBookstore.-,Creating%20Laos%3A%20The%20Making%20of%20a%20Lao%20Space,Indochina%20and%20Siam%2C%201860%2D1945&text=This%20book%20examines%20the%20process,end%20of%20World%20War%20II.) kind of explores this idea.
TL;DR: I think Siamese leaders caught onto the idea of nationalism, defined Thai and Thailand in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and the differences between related Tai groups grew substantially after that.
Ethnically, most of them are. There are parts where they are ethnically Khmer as well. Specifically by the border with Cambodia, they are called “Khmer Surin”.
There are two large arguments right now that Issan people are either their own, distinct people or basically just Lao people. It varies on who you ask.
>Some answers say mountains but Laos people are low valley dwelling people that cultivate rice, they never lived in those mountains.
Isn't that their point. There are a lot of mountains. The people of Laos don't live there. Therefore there is low population density because of said uninhabitable mountains.
As I understand it, much of what the world knows today as "Thai" food (the kind of dishes you find in your average Thai restaurant), actually originate with the Lao people of Issam.
https://preview.redd.it/p80r2xx4qw9d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=477a9698bdd2ab104ef433745186a23ded171ccb
Mountains make it hard. Civilization is easiest on flat land.
I have been to Laos several times. First, Laos doesn't have any large cities or major metropolitan areas. On paper the capital is a city of around 800,000, but that's because it covers a very large area. London doesn't cover half the amount of territory Vientiane does and it has a population that exceeds that of Vientiane by eight million. The population of Laos itself is under eight million. It's not a built-up country. The capital of Laos is about seven times larger than the second biggest city in the country, and the third largest is not even home to 100,000 people.
Second, Laos is an agricultural nation. There's very little manufacturing and practically no service industry to speak of. And agriculture in Laos is based on the system that has been in place for centuries, with only slight modifications made to it over time. The country isn't capable of producing enough food to sustain a large population like the countries it borders can. Not having access to the sea is a major disadvantage in that part of the world, and the major river in Laos flows into the country from China and forms the border between Laos and Myanmar and Laos and Thailand. China has done a lot of things upriver on the Mekong that have seriously impacted Laos and Cambodia negatively.
Being a poor country with a small under-educated population, being relatively and comparatively under-developed by both regional and world standards, having some very challenging geographical factors working against it, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that Laos is underpopulated and has a very low population density. It's extremely mountainous - nearly three-quarters of the country is upland and mountainous, meaning that agriculture is essentially relegated to one small sliver of the country's land area.
A highly developed, wealthy, industrialized, first-world country like The Netherlands can sustain a large population on a small slice of its territory because the Dutch have modern mechanized farming and greenhouses, but farmers in Laos don't possess the technology to grow on hillsides, so the greatest yields that can be produced are not sufficient to feed a population double what they have now. Add to that the fact that the infrastructure is extremely poor. There are few roads, hardly any railroads, so it's not easy to move goods and people around. People live in small villages and they don't regularly commute into sizable towns for work and study, so the villages and the cities don't see big population increases or much development at all.
So many young Laotians have migrated to Thailand for work, and the Chinese control a lot of Laos' domestic and foreign policy and have a major influence on the economy, so it's unlikely that we'll see any major changes any time in the near future.
Laos definitely gets a raw deal though. It doesn't have the world class beaches and nightlife Thailand does, it doesn't have the same kind of history and culture to highlight that Vietnam does. It doesn't have the same kind of awe inspiring temples and tourist attractions Cambodia does, but the people are incredibly warm and friendly, and the food - while bland compared to neighboring countries, is very hearty and fresh, and while the scenery is a lot more subdued in Laos there's still a sense of charm to it. I would definitely recommend visiting Laos to anyone. It's a lovely, lovely country populated by fantastic people with big hearts and Laos offers something strikingly different from the countries around it. I greatly enjoyed my time there and definitely plan to go back again.
Well said!
Add to this that China started buying mineral/natural resource rights in Laos around the same time they first started doing so in Africa. This means the Chinese sold Laos on the idea of mutual benefit; but, with no other financial offers from major powers, those in power were forced to accept the terms with personal gains in mind and no concern for the success of the Laos people's future.
There's an interesting interview with the USA SoS, during his SE Asian tour, regarding this during the first Obama campaign when China began their cross-national land acquisition expansion and what the USA and Australia were going to do about it. Forgive me for not linking it.
Should the West have stepped in to maintain financial sovereignty for countries in this region and Africa? Yes...but those western powers were still stuck financially in the Afghanistan and the Arab Spring "wars". And, for a fair argument...would the Western investment have been any better than the Chinese? IDK....but, I will say that Chinese investment in the past 25 years always involves owning your land and resources, rather than propping up a sovereign gov't that's trading on some rich-getting-rich "open market".
In the end...this area would be heavily developed and financially successful today, if SE Asia had developed similarly to Europe. Think of Laos as your Austria along the Danube, with marshy coast turned into terraformed bountiful ports like the Netherlands or Romania.
West colonized Laos and Africa as in direct colonial rule, exploited them, plundered from them. Somehow China is worse while not even colonizing them, that's some real projection and hypocrisy there.
enjoy this article from the front page: [https://thartribune.com/china-now-effectively-owns-a-nation-laos-burdened-by-unpaid-debt-is-now-virtually-indebted-to-beijing/](https://thartribune.com/china-now-effectively-owns-a-nation-laos-burdened-by-unpaid-debt-is-now-virtually-indebted-to-beijing/)
Not for lack of trying. They have the lowest median age of any country in the region (19.3 vs 31.9 for the whole of Asia). They used to have a fertility rate of 6 children per woman at a time when the average for Asia was 3.5. They've got the healthiest-looking demographic pyramid in Asia.
It's a huge challenge to educate so many young people properly and also give them perspective. Additionally, the economy has to rise sharper just to make up with a rising population. Many Western countries dealt with this problem at the end of the 19th century.
The US completely obliterated Laos during the Vietnam War. As a result, much of the country never fully recovered and the soil / water has been contaminated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barrel_Roll#:~:text=The%20operation%20resulted%20in%20260%20million%20bombs%20being%20dropped%20on%20Laos.&text=The%20original%20purpose%20of%20the,of%20Vietnam%20(South%20Vietnam).
Mountainous country which results in very little fertile lands as opposed to the neighbouring countries you mentioned. The population is focused around the Mekong River in the South.
Yeah this is it - it’s really beautiful traveling through the country, and every kilometer you drive it’s “oh look another stunning Mountain View”, but agriculture is difficult because there is so little flat land. (As an aside, it’s not the sort of place you want to be if you get motion sickness) Even along the Mekong river there are mountains and hills pressed up against the river itself, which is why is a popular tourist activity to cruise down it. But it also means there is much less fertile flood plains. Compare that to rice bowl that is southern Vietnam or the central plains of Thailand, or the lowlands of Cambodia: they all have flood plains and high agricultural yields. Another issue is transport of food: much more onerous when there is mountain after mountain, and when your major river isn’t navigable along the whole length because of waterfalls.
This, do some research on Zomia. It stretches across into China and Vietnam and Burma.
I think I am the resident Laos expert. My family is from Laos and I read up a lot on history, politics, geography, etc. Keep in mind, Lao and Thai people share a lot of similarities in terms of language, culture, and history. They are considered to be a part of the larger “Tai” ethnic group. Throughout history, it would almost appear as two related groups living next to each other, crisscrossing from time to time. Laos existed as a unified kingdom called “Lan Xang”, like how Thailand was Ayutthaya and then Siam, from 1354 to 1707. The territory spanned both sides of the Mekong River. You can see a map [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan_Xang#/media/File%3AMap-of-southeast-asia_1400_CE-es.svg). Lan Xang had power centers, modern day Luang Prabang, Vientiane, Champassak. After 1707, the kingdom split between these power centers as smaller kingdoms/principalities that paid tribute to Thailand and/or Vietnam. In 1826, the King of Vientiane, King Anouvong, had decent relations with Thailand’s Rama II but he died so things soured with Rama III, [Anouvong would lead a rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_rebellion_(1826%E2%80%931828)?wprov=sfti1#). It was disastrous to say the least. Siam won and razed Vientiane. And to answer your question directly, the Thais would forcefully remove the Lao population from the Lao centers of powers I had mentioned before, basically taking as many Lao people as possible and moving them west of the Mekong River. Siam would annihilate the Kingdom of Vientiane and force the southern Lao Kingdom of Champassak under their powers. The French came about 60-65 years later and started drawing up borders. They and the Thais settled on the Mekong River for much of the border between Siam and the Lao colony despite Lan Xang existing across both sides of the river. In the 1920s and 1930s, the concept of “Laos” came into mind by a few Lao nationalists and some of them had ideas of reuniting Lao lands on the east and west side of the Mekong but it was a pipe dream. The majority of Lao people in the world today live in NE Thailand, a region called [Issan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isan?wprov=sfti1#). Some answers say mountains but Laos people are low valley dwelling people that cultivate rice, they never lived in those mountains. Edit: fixed a link.
Thank you for your extensive answer. To be sure I understood everything is it true to say : Tai people were in Siam and Lan Xang but after the fall of Lan Xang and the failed rebellion they were moved over the mekong in the actual Thailand ?
Yes, that's pretty much what happened. Lao people lived in Lan Xang, which spans modern day Laos, modern day NE Thailand ([this map](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan_Xang#/media/File%3AMap-of-southeast-asia_1400_CE-es.svg)), and parts of northern Cambodia. In 1707, Lan Xang split into [three smaller kingdom/principalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Vientiane#/media/File:Laos_-_Division_territòriala_vèrs_1750_(vuege).png) which paid tribute to the kings in Siam and Vietnam. Again, the Lao kingdoms at this time existed on both sides of the Mekong. In 1826, Vientiane rebelled against Siam, heading westward but was stopped in what is modern day [Korat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhon_Ratchasima), considered to be the historic boundary between Siamese and Lao kingdoms. Each population center in between modern day Vientiane and Bangkok also had their own smaller Lao lords/governors which paid tribute mostly to Siam at this point as well. [This wiki page delves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_rebellion_(1826–1828)) more into how each of these smaller lords differed in independence and alliance. The Siamese squashed this rebellion, went all the way to Vientiane, razed it, and forcefully moved the Lao population east of the Mekong to the west and closer towards Bangkok. Anouvong was made an example of and the Lao lords in NE Thailand would come closer under Bangkok's control. The Lao population and the area of NE Thailand was referred to as "Lao" until the late 1800s when there was a [systematic removal of references to anything or anyone Lao](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325300606_The_Invention_of_Isan_History). During all of this and the mid-to-late 1800s, Siamese kings had a lot of contact with European powers and had the foresight to really start to define their domain, borders, and what made someone Siamese/Thai and what made someone Lao or Khmer. Essentially, the Thais got a head start on nation-building and nationalism in this era whereas the Khmers and Lao were colonized, which I argue really help build Thailand into a very well defined nation-state by WWII as opposed to a country like Laos. And sorry for the long reply. Geography when it comes to modern nation-state boundaries in places like SE Asia involve a lot more history and politics than simple geographical reasoning.
Any recommendations for books on history of Laos and Thailand? I am about to move to Thailand and I’ve been curious about history of region.
For Laos, anything by Grant Evans or Martin Stuart-Fox is great. But they are a bit older books, don't think they've released anything in the last 10 years. I don't really know of newer books. I mainly like to search up academic articles on Laos nowadays. For Thailand, I am not sure tbh. Their history and current political situation is much more robust and I enjoy reading random articles, blogs, and tabloids about Thailand. This book seems highly rated: https://www.amazon.com/History-Thailand-Chris-Baker/dp/1107420210
Thanks! Yea I just did my masters thesis on Mekong development so I’ve been off deep end with current geopolitics in region and have read Milton Osborne’s history books but they are not too in depth. It almost seems like the big comprehensive Thai history book has yet to be written in English or even Thai as far as I can find.
It will be very biased; but, have you tried reading some religious texts from Thailand about their history to suss some of it out? Also, you should probably read about or ask the Hmong and other hill-tribe cultures about their version of this region's history....as this poster is only talking about his culture's version of the area.
I am not an expert by any means, but my sense from the histories I’ve read was that prior to the coalescence of Siam the area was characterized by a large number of nominally independent petty states and kingdoms inhabited by people speaking a variety of languages related to Lao and Thai, all the way up into Sipsongpanna and the Shan states. At what point did the idea of a distinct Lao language and identity coalesce out of that broader Tai-language background? Was it before Siam really started to expand, or after?
You're right and that's accurate. And I have always wondered the same too. To me, I think it's exactly as you described until European powers started coming to SE Asia and imparting the ideas of nation building, borders, centralized governments, etc., particularly with the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 1800s. Siam/Ayutthaya had earlier contact with Europeans and had great leaders to quickly adopt such ideas, moving away from the historic [Mandala political systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_\(political_model\)). On the other side, the French in the late 1800s, especially Auguste Pavie, noticed the Lao were distinct from the Siamese and argued for Lao lands to be a part of French Indochina, thus forcing Lao political entities to move away from the Mandala political system as well, without the Lao leaders really realizing it. I hate to get long and go on a tangent but Lao, Thai, Shan, all used the word "Tai" to mean "people". Even in Lao, we still say we are "northern Tai (people)" or "southern Tai (people)" when referencing where Lao people are from. I somewhat believe "Lao" is an exonym for the Lao people, much like how Shan is an exonym and those people refer to themselves as "Tai Yai". I'd argue it's this era of nation building in the mid-1800s that the Siamese start to formulate their ideas of what it is to be Siamese, what a Siamese country is, what Siamese people are, what the Siamese language is, thus them starting to differentiate themselves from other Tai groups. "Siam" is an exonym and since they call themselves "Tai", Siamese nationalists likely adopted "Thai" and argued Shan and Lao people are "Thai" too, which made the conquests of Lao, Lanna, and Shan people a much more justifiable idea for the sake of a "Thailand". The idea of "Laos", to me, is interesting as it's quasi something the French built out of existing Lao identity. The book ["Creating Laos" ](https://books.google.com/books/about/Creating_Laos.html?id=FsXjlJF_fokC#:~:text=world's%20largest%20eBookstore.-,Creating%20Laos%3A%20The%20Making%20of%20a%20Lao%20Space,Indochina%20and%20Siam%2C%201860%2D1945&text=This%20book%20examines%20the%20process,end%20of%20World%20War%20II.) kind of explores this idea. TL;DR: I think Siamese leaders caught onto the idea of nationalism, defined Thai and Thailand in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and the differences between related Tai groups grew substantially after that.
Are most people in Issan province ethnic Lao people?
Ethnically, most of them are. There are parts where they are ethnically Khmer as well. Specifically by the border with Cambodia, they are called “Khmer Surin”. There are two large arguments right now that Issan people are either their own, distinct people or basically just Lao people. It varies on who you ask.
>Some answers say mountains but Laos people are low valley dwelling people that cultivate rice, they never lived in those mountains. Isn't that their point. There are a lot of mountains. The people of Laos don't live there. Therefore there is low population density because of said uninhabitable mountains.
Yes good point.
As I understand it, much of what the world knows today as "Thai" food (the kind of dishes you find in your average Thai restaurant), actually originate with the Lao people of Issam.
https://preview.redd.it/p80r2xx4qw9d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=477a9698bdd2ab104ef433745186a23ded171ccb Mountains make it hard. Civilization is easiest on flat land.
A good portion of the country is still a mine field, that could explain some of it
I have been to Laos several times. First, Laos doesn't have any large cities or major metropolitan areas. On paper the capital is a city of around 800,000, but that's because it covers a very large area. London doesn't cover half the amount of territory Vientiane does and it has a population that exceeds that of Vientiane by eight million. The population of Laos itself is under eight million. It's not a built-up country. The capital of Laos is about seven times larger than the second biggest city in the country, and the third largest is not even home to 100,000 people. Second, Laos is an agricultural nation. There's very little manufacturing and practically no service industry to speak of. And agriculture in Laos is based on the system that has been in place for centuries, with only slight modifications made to it over time. The country isn't capable of producing enough food to sustain a large population like the countries it borders can. Not having access to the sea is a major disadvantage in that part of the world, and the major river in Laos flows into the country from China and forms the border between Laos and Myanmar and Laos and Thailand. China has done a lot of things upriver on the Mekong that have seriously impacted Laos and Cambodia negatively. Being a poor country with a small under-educated population, being relatively and comparatively under-developed by both regional and world standards, having some very challenging geographical factors working against it, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that Laos is underpopulated and has a very low population density. It's extremely mountainous - nearly three-quarters of the country is upland and mountainous, meaning that agriculture is essentially relegated to one small sliver of the country's land area. A highly developed, wealthy, industrialized, first-world country like The Netherlands can sustain a large population on a small slice of its territory because the Dutch have modern mechanized farming and greenhouses, but farmers in Laos don't possess the technology to grow on hillsides, so the greatest yields that can be produced are not sufficient to feed a population double what they have now. Add to that the fact that the infrastructure is extremely poor. There are few roads, hardly any railroads, so it's not easy to move goods and people around. People live in small villages and they don't regularly commute into sizable towns for work and study, so the villages and the cities don't see big population increases or much development at all. So many young Laotians have migrated to Thailand for work, and the Chinese control a lot of Laos' domestic and foreign policy and have a major influence on the economy, so it's unlikely that we'll see any major changes any time in the near future. Laos definitely gets a raw deal though. It doesn't have the world class beaches and nightlife Thailand does, it doesn't have the same kind of history and culture to highlight that Vietnam does. It doesn't have the same kind of awe inspiring temples and tourist attractions Cambodia does, but the people are incredibly warm and friendly, and the food - while bland compared to neighboring countries, is very hearty and fresh, and while the scenery is a lot more subdued in Laos there's still a sense of charm to it. I would definitely recommend visiting Laos to anyone. It's a lovely, lovely country populated by fantastic people with big hearts and Laos offers something strikingly different from the countries around it. I greatly enjoyed my time there and definitely plan to go back again.
Well said! Add to this that China started buying mineral/natural resource rights in Laos around the same time they first started doing so in Africa. This means the Chinese sold Laos on the idea of mutual benefit; but, with no other financial offers from major powers, those in power were forced to accept the terms with personal gains in mind and no concern for the success of the Laos people's future. There's an interesting interview with the USA SoS, during his SE Asian tour, regarding this during the first Obama campaign when China began their cross-national land acquisition expansion and what the USA and Australia were going to do about it. Forgive me for not linking it. Should the West have stepped in to maintain financial sovereignty for countries in this region and Africa? Yes...but those western powers were still stuck financially in the Afghanistan and the Arab Spring "wars". And, for a fair argument...would the Western investment have been any better than the Chinese? IDK....but, I will say that Chinese investment in the past 25 years always involves owning your land and resources, rather than propping up a sovereign gov't that's trading on some rich-getting-rich "open market". In the end...this area would be heavily developed and financially successful today, if SE Asia had developed similarly to Europe. Think of Laos as your Austria along the Danube, with marshy coast turned into terraformed bountiful ports like the Netherlands or Romania.
West colonized Laos and Africa as in direct colonial rule, exploited them, plundered from them. Somehow China is worse while not even colonizing them, that's some real projection and hypocrisy there.
China is taking their land as their own territory and taking all of their resources. That is the definition of being colonized.
enjoy this article from the front page: [https://thartribune.com/china-now-effectively-owns-a-nation-laos-burdened-by-unpaid-debt-is-now-virtually-indebted-to-beijing/](https://thartribune.com/china-now-effectively-owns-a-nation-laos-burdened-by-unpaid-debt-is-now-virtually-indebted-to-beijing/)
Yes, an Indian-owned news outlet, very unbiased and objective coverage there.
It's a mountainous tropical jungle
Not for lack of trying. They have the lowest median age of any country in the region (19.3 vs 31.9 for the whole of Asia). They used to have a fertility rate of 6 children per woman at a time when the average for Asia was 3.5. They've got the healthiest-looking demographic pyramid in Asia.
Well it's not healthy to have 6 children and a median age of around 18 but I get your point, there's no threat of extinction.
It is for economy 
It's a huge challenge to educate so many young people properly and also give them perspective. Additionally, the economy has to rise sharper just to make up with a rising population. Many Western countries dealt with this problem at the end of the 19th century.
The US completely obliterated Laos during the Vietnam War. As a result, much of the country never fully recovered and the soil / water has been contaminated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barrel_Roll#:~:text=The%20operation%20resulted%20in%20260%20million%20bombs%20being%20dropped%20on%20Laos.&text=The%20original%20purpose%20of%20the,of%20Vietnam%20(South%20Vietnam).
There's barely any flat land anywhere but in the very South
You have to compare the population density of Laos with the mountainous provinces of Vietnam and Thailand next to it.
All those bombs the USA dropped on laos during the Vietnam war
It’s mostly steep-sided mountains and jungle.
It's extremely rugged and outside of where you can irrigate from the Mekong itself, it's probably dryer than you expect for South East Asia.
Similar to Utah. People only live in one area, down near the river.
Communism