The period 1527-1541 was crucial for the newly established Mac dynasty in Dai Viet (Vietnam). Facing internal conflict with the rival Lê dynasty and external pressure from the Ming dynasty in China, the Mac dynasty adopted a delicate diplomatic strategy. Historians have criticized their seemingly submissive stance on border and territorial issues, accusing them of surrendering national interests. This article questions this narrative, arguing that the Mac dynasty's actions were a calculated strategy for survival and the preservation of their rule, rather than a sign of weakness or collaboration with China. The central research question is to determine whether the Mac dynasty's modest approach to territorial matters compromised national independence or served as a strategic tool for maintaining peace and preserving their power. The Mac dynasty faced a trilemma: staunch resistance leading to war, unconditional surrender and complete dependence on China, or a calculated submission to appease the Ming while maintaining their independence. The author demonstrates that the third option was the most rational choice given the dynasty's precarious position and the severe consequences of the other options.

Existing scholarship on Sino-Vietnamese relations often portrays a simplistic narrative of Chinese aggression and Vietnamese resistance. This study challenges this narrative by examining the complexities of the Mac dynasty's diplomacy. It critically analyzes interpretations by prominent Vietnamese scholars like Ngo Si Lien and Le-dynasty historians in *Complete Annals of Dai Viet*, and Tran Trong Kim in *Outline History of Vietnam*, who have characterized the Mac dynasty as a puppet regime. The study further examines the existing historical analysis of the Mac-Ming relationship, paying close attention to the biases present in the sources and the limitations of interpretations based solely on one perspective. The author considers how the existing literature does not sufficiently account for the context of the time and the strategic considerations underlying Mac diplomacy.

The methodology employed is primarily historical analysis. The author uses a comparative approach, drawing on primary sources from both Vietnamese and Chinese archives. This includes examining official records, chronicles, and historical accounts from both the Mac and Ming dynasties. The author carefully compares and contrasts these sources to identify consistencies and discrepancies, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of events. The author specifically focuses on records from the *Complete Annals of Dai Viet*, the *Imperially Ordered Annotated Text Completely Reflecting the History of Viet*, the *Ming Shilu*, and the *History of Ming Dynasty*. The study critically examines the interpretations of these sources by various historians, comparing the accounts from both Vietnamese and Chinese perspectives to expose potential bias. Specific events such as the transfer of the Quy-Thuan lands and the return of lands in Qinzhou are meticulously examined by comparing different accounts and analyzing the underlying context. This comparative approach allows the author to build a comprehensive and balanced picture of the Mac dynasty's strategy in navigating its relationship with the Ming dynasty. The author assesses the relative power dynamics between Dai Viet and China during this period, examining the internal and external pressures on the Mac dynasty and determining how these factors influenced their diplomatic decisions. The author considers different interpretations of historical events and carefully evaluates them using historical evidence, geographical context, and the historical record of power dynamics in the region.

The study reveals that the Mac dynasty's seemingly submissive actions towards the Ming dynasty were a strategic maneuver rather than a sign of weakness. The author debunks the narrative of the Mac dynasty ceding territory to the Ming. Regarding the Quy-Thuan lands, the author demonstrates, through analysis of Vietnamese and Chinese sources, that these lands were already under Chinese control before the Mac dynasty and thus their “cession” was a misrepresentation. Similarly, the land returned in Qinzhou in 1540 was shown to be previously Chinese territory that had been temporarily under Vietnamese control. The analysis refutes the assertion that the Mac dynasty ceded these lands as a sign of submission. Instead, the author argues this action was strategically calculated to prevent a full-scale Ming invasion and maintain peace. The author also highlights the Mac dynasty's simultaneous preparations for war, despite their outwardly submissive stance. This included strengthening their military, engaging in espionage against the Ming, and constructing fortified border posts. The study demonstrates that the Mac dynasty maintained de facto independence, despite their tributary relationship with the Ming. They maintained their own court, made independent decisions, appointed their own officials, continued their own coinage, and ultimately continued their own dynasty for many years after the initial interactions with the Ming.

The findings of this study significantly challenge the existing historical narrative surrounding the Mac dynasty's relationship with the Ming dynasty. The author’s analysis reveals a more complex and nuanced picture of the Mac dynasty's diplomatic strategy, highlighting the pragmatic decisions they made given the challenging circumstances they faced. The author emphasizes the importance of considering the contextual factors, power dynamics, and internal struggles within both countries in order to better understand the historical interactions. The author's reassessment of the Mac dynasty's actions sheds light on their ability to maintain their independence while skillfully navigating their relationship with the powerful Ming dynasty. The study contributes to a better understanding of the complexities of early modern diplomacy and the agency of smaller states in dealing with larger, more powerful neighbors. It emphasizes the need for a more balanced and nuanced understanding of historical events that acknowledges the agency and strategic choices of the actors involved, rather than resorting to simplistic narratives of aggression and submission.

This study successfully challenges the long-held view of the Mac dynasty's relationship with the Ming dynasty as one of weakness and betrayal. The author demonstrates through careful analysis of primary sources that the Mac dynasty’s actions were strategic maneuvers designed to preserve the dynasty and the nation's independence. The seemingly submissive acts were calculated steps to avoid war and buy time. This research highlights the importance of considering all aspects of a historical interaction, drawing upon multiple sources, and avoiding inherent biases found in single sided analyses. Future research could expand upon this by examining similar diplomatic strategies employed by other smaller states facing powerful neighbors. Further investigation into the internal dynamics of both the Mac and Ming courts could provide even more insight into the motivations and decisions of the period.

The study primarily relies on written historical records from both Vietnamese and Chinese archives. These sources may be subject to biases and incomplete information. The reliance on written documentation is a inherent limitation of historical research in general. A wider range of sources may be necessary for a more thorough understanding. The focus on the period 1527-1541 limits the scope to a specific timeframe, and additional research could provide a more extensive analysis over time. The interpretation of certain events may depend on the chosen perspective, potentially necessitating further research to further clarify certain ambiguities found within the extant record.