Published in Chiang Mai CityLife Magazine, Thailand – May 2003

Brothers in Arms – Part 1
Sibling rivalry in Medieval Thailand

CHIANG MAI, Thailand – 22 Mar 2003 - For centuries before the current Thailand was referred to as Siam, the region was a closely linked collection of major and minor kingdoms.  At the close of the 14th century, several were consolidating their power bases and borders, whilst at the same time experiencing internal struggles and rebellions similar to those of several west European nations of the period.

At that time, the region that became Thailand comprised of several firmly defined major kingdoms, and several minor ones, all with tributary states and “foreign” allies or vassals.  In the central region, Ayutthaya was approaching the most dynamic period of its growth and expansion, having pushed the declined Khmer Empire of Angkor Wat back into the Cambodian highlands, and kept the various Burmese kings west of the Kanchanaburi mountains.  A little north, the great golden utopia of Sukhothai was beginning its decline from the glory days when its growth shadowed that of Lan Na, its own northern neighbour.

Lan Na, still in its ascendancy had assimilated former allied states, Phayao and Nandapuri (modern day Nan), and the Chiangmai throne extended its rule far north into the Chinese Sipsongpanna, Burmese Shan States, and eastwards into the Luang Prabang and Vientiane regions of modern Laos.  But such growth was not without problems.

King Mengrai the Great, founder of the greater Lan Na of the 13th century, had first moved from the traditional Lawa peoples’ capital of Ngoen Yang to found Chiang Rai, then later through conquest and expansion to Fang, Lamphun, Wieng Kum Kam, and finally Chiangmai.  He had also brought Muang Roi, later renamed Chiang Saen into the realm (the one on the Mekong’s banks, not the earlier “inland” destroyed city of that name).  After Mengrai, the main seat of power often moved between Lan Na’s three dominant cities of Chiang Rai, Chiang Saen, and Chiangmai.  

Chiang, in these names, means city, but more than that, it encompasses a seat of royalty with strong, permanent defences, as opposed to a wieng, which was smaller and less strongly defended – normally using dry moats, embankments, and palisades, instead of wet moats and brick walls.

The Lan Na tradition of sibling and offspring rivalry for the throne dates back to records of the sons of Lan Na’s very first king, in the mid-600s AD, at Chiang Rao also known as Jayavaranagara and Muang Ngoen Yang, on the banks of the Nam Mae Sai.  King Lawacangkarat (and many other spelling variations) is attributed as the first king of Lan Na in Mon, Sri Langkan, and Tai chronicles that predate the Mengrai dynasty, which introduce the name Lan Na for this region even before the rise of the Khmers at Angkor.

Mengrai was not spared from family infighting, he had to execute his oldest son for attempting usurpation, and exile another for a similar offence.  By the time of the 8th king of his line, Cao Phraya (king) Ku Na, the tradition of family backstabbing for the throne was firmly established.  Thus when Ku Na died after 21 years of rule, leaving the kingdom to his son, Cao Pho Thao (crown prince) Saen Muang Ma, the dead king’s younger brother Pho Thao (prince) Maha Phrom, as ruler of Chiang Rai, decided to take the Chiangmai throne from his nephew.  (Cao Phraya Ku Na’s death is undated in the Chiangmai Chronicle but indications are it was in AD 1399 or 1400.)

Having moved his army southward from Chiang Rai and taken a few towns by stealth and royal command, Maha Phrom moved his army into the capital at Chiangmai supposedly for his brother’s funeral, but his intentions were discovered by a senior minister, Saen Pha Nong who was then governor/ruler of Nandapuri.  Saen Pha Nong raised the alarm and the army of the king, whereupon Maha Phrom withdrew with his army southward to Wieng Kum Kam.  There, he captured all of the women and valuables, crossed the Mae Nam Ping eastwards, and moved north, back towards Chiang Rai.  (This clearly indicates Mengrai did not abandon a flooded and destroyed Wieng Kum Kam as this was eighty years after his death – tour guides take note.)

Naturally, the men folk of Wieng Kum Kam were a little upset at such robbery and beseeched Saen Pha Nong to assist.  The minister, acting for the fourteen year old king-to-be, Saen Muang Ma, raised a garrison for the city, then set out with a 7,000 strong army to pursue the rebels.  Medieval chronicles are unclear if the men of Wieng Kum Kam were part of this force, or acted independently, but record that when they caught the rebels, the army and the husbands acted independently.  

The minister’s force caught the encamped Maha Phrom’s men in darkness, and the husbands crept into the camp to join their wives.  The women, hearing the approach of their men, took their captors’ weapons and began to slay the sleeping northerners.  The commotion awoke Pho Thao Maha Phrom who mounted his elephant and led the remains of his force east, then south to Ayutthaya where he sought refuge.  

Saen Muang Ma was crowned six months later after the funereal rites for his father were completed.  Meanwhile, the exiled prince seduced one of the wives of his southern royal protector and was banished from Ayutthaya.  At the time of his leaving, his lover stole an important Buddha image and gave it to him to take to Lan Na.  His nephew, the young king, was so thankful to receive the Sihinga Buddha that he returned Maha Phrom to rule Chiang Rai, where it appears he behaved himself, as he is not mentioned again in the chronicles.

The spirit of dead Cao Phraya Ku Na appears in a story that leads to the building of the large cetiya at Wat Chedi Luang in the centre of Chiangmai, and had other influences on the young king during his early rulership.  

At this point, all hope of sensible dating and chronology disappears in the Chiangmai Chronicle.  Assuming Saen Muang Ma was fourteen years old in AD 1400, we then learn he had a twelve-year-old son in AD 1401, and events jump backwards and forwards between the first, third, and fourth decades of the 1400s.  It also states that, in 1401, Saen Muang Ma’s thirteen year old son, Sam Fang Kaen became king when his father died aged thirty nine – thus Saen Muang Ma gained twenty five years from AD 1400 to AD 1401.  This is a firm indicator of turbulence in these times.  Scribes who recorded the original palm leaf manuscripts for the period may have collated several accounts many years after the events.

It’s recorded that Saen Muang Ma’s son, was called Sam Fang Kaen as he was born in the Fang Kaen Panna of the Sipsongpanna in Chinese Yunnan Province whilst his parents were inspecting their lands.  (Other records claim the Fang Kaen Panna was near Mae Taeng, Chiangmai Province.)  His mother was a lady-in-waiting of Saen Muang Ma’s mother, who had the two lovers marry after learning of the pregnancy.  The “inspection tour” may have been to remove them from the capital until the birth, thus avoiding scandal.  Sam Fang Kaen had an older brother.  

Thao Yi Kum Kam was born at Wieng Kum Kam and made to rule Chiang Rai when he was twelve years old (where did Maha Phrom go?).  In 1401, Sam Fang Kaen became Cao Phraya of Chiangmai and Lan Na at the age of thirteen, after his father died at age thirty-nine.  (This is debateable due to the ever-varying age of Sam Fang Kaen in these accounts, and more accurate dates (in the late 1430’s AD) later in the chronicles concerning other contemporary events.

Sibling rivalry returns.  Just after the coronation, the elder half brother (polygamy was permitted then) at Chiang Rai decided that he should be king.  Accounts of his initial rebellion are brief, only that he raised an army, attacked Chiangmai, and failed, then fled south to Sukhothai, a kingdom that lasted only another fifty years before collapsing.  There he took refuge with Phraya (king) Sai Lu Thai.  In the records, the differing titles of the “Cao Phraya” of Lan Na, and the “Phraya” of Sukhothai, imply that at this time the former were seen as being major to the latter.  A language point, but important for history students to note, especially given the “politically corrected” 20th century versions of Thai history, which appear in most modern guide books.  

Last year’s government instruction to rewrite Thai history in school textbooks, making it less nationalistic and toning down the aggression portrayed from Burma, may become a double-edged sword.  History and historical sites are one of Lan Na’s major assets for attracting international tourists.  Yet local and national government appears ignorant of the intellect and education previously acquired by international visitors who can smell a distorted tale easier than the scent of rotting durian.  Any literate person can identify when two books disagree with each other.

Wieng Kum Kam’s new visitors centre and museum is one such case.  Was King Chulalongkorn really Rama 4, as they say on the display boards?  Additionally, if Wieng Kum Kam was Mengrai’s first capital for Lan Na, what happened to the eight cities he built before that wieng?  Are Ngoen Yang, Chiang Rai, Fang, and Lamphun just imaginative figments from empire builders’ making capital(s) off historical narrative?

The first rule of marketing – find out what the customer wants.  Many have complained that locals don’t understand foreigners – and they’re not talking about the language barrier.  

History tourism may be a “Road to the Future” for the modern Lan Na economy, but only if local managers and planners are willing to obtain feedback from customers, and seek guidance from those who have a long record of promoting such programs.  

As my parents used to say, “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right”.