Published in Chiang Mai CityLife Magazine, Thailand - June 2003

Brothers in Arms – Part 2
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.

Continued from last month …
Thao Yi Kum Kam, ruler of Chiang Rai and elder brother of Cao Phraya Sam Fang Kaen of Chiang Mai, had fled to Sukhothai in the early AD 1400s.  Together with the northern prince’s remaining forces, Phraya Sai Lu Thai of Sukhothai raised an army with the aim of capturing Chiang Mai.  Thao Yi Kum Kam’s rebellion illustrates the fickleness of allegiances – a century earlier, an undying oath of friendship had been sworn between King Mengrai of Lan Na, and King Ramkhamhaeng of Sukhothai. 

The city of Phayao was formerly capital of a kingdom of that same name, contemporarily part of Lan Na (voluntarily or otherwise is not known for sure), and one of the triumvirate of states making the oath of allegiance just mentioned.  This attack, led by an attempted usurper of the Chiang Mai throne in league with the ruler of Sukhothai – formerly Lan Na’s strongest ally – marks an important indicator of why the Burmese could capture the whole of northern Thailand and western Laos a century and a half later.  It also shows how the Ayutthayan ascension could come into dominance over post-medieval Siam.

The invaders built an observation tower south of Phayao at Nong Tao. It is said to have been twelve fathoms high (72 feet) and wide enough for seven hundred men to stand on the top. It is likely that this was constructed largely of bamboo – a traditional local building material in plentiful supply and not time consuming to erect – and therefore not planned as a permanent structure.

In response, the people of Phayao melted the copper covering of Wat (temple) Mahaphon and ‘cast a cannon of 6 kamnak units of gold with a base four fathoms wide’ then sacrificed an albino buffalo before firing the cannon.  Given the state of artillery science in the early 1400s, the sacrifice was probably seen as a prudent precaution against mishaps by the deeply religious townspeople.  When preparations were completed, they started volley firing at the invaders’ tower.  Records only indicate one cannon being made, however a cannon base twenty-four feet wide, coupled with ‘volleys’ of fire would indicate several, and should not be immediately discounted by sceptics – cannon were then small, more akin to West European bombards and mortars of the early Hundred Years War period.

The defenders were lucky and hit the tower several times.  In doing so, they killed at least two hundred invaders, and the devastation forced Phraya Sai Lu Thai and Cao Pho Thao Yi Kum Kam to withdraw their forces to Chiang Rai.  The first siege in Thailand to use cannon thus ended quickly, with victory going to the defending side – the one with the decisive weapon; unlike the drawn out sieges in western France during the same period, where cannon were also deployed, and buildings were of brick and stone rather than wood and bamboo.

In Chiang Rai, the southern king had his northern ally march via Fang to Chiang Mai. The army arrived in Chiang Mai’s Chiang Ruak market on 7th March 1439, “terrified the people there”, then camped in a wood outside the city.  (Note the exactness of dating in comparison to the confusions described last month.)  Cao Pho Thao Yi Kum Kam sent emissaries to his younger brother, Cao Phraya Sam Fang Kaen, and to the city’s people, demanding that the older brother be made king.  The people refused and stated they would fight to the death to keep the chosen king who now led them.

Perhaps recognising the pointless loss resulting from a long siege, or perhaps due to the imminence of the rice harvest, both sides agreed that the dispute should be settled by a duel between the two claimants best warriors.  The duel took place in the Chiang Khwan quarter of Chiang Mai (i.e. in the Royal Apartments compound) between Han Yot Cai Phek of Chiang Mai, and an unrecorded opponent from the aggressor army.  The Chiang Mai man cut off the toe of his opponent and that decided the fight, which was fought two-sworded by both men.  (This is another interesting anecdote in the chronicles of this period – it seems to introduce an earlier than expected date for this two weapon style of fighting than that generally promulgated.  Popularist modern Thai historians claim King Taksin introduced the two-sworded fighting style in the mid AD 1700s, when ousting the Burmese after the sacking of Ayutthaya, because it doubled his fighting force.)

The invaders broke the terms of the duel and prepared a prolonged siege to capture Chiang Mai. During the siege, a Chiang Mai man called Phek Yot, with around two hundred men aged sixteen to thirty years, began patrolling the surrounding area, attacking southern stragglers and foragers.  After overpowering them, he beheaded the captives, and presented their heads on a daily basis to the king. Sam Fang Kaen liked these tactics (remember he was supposedly a teenager at the time) and arranged another four teams of two hundred men to do likewise.  These teams, referred to as the “boys”, later became high ranking military men.

Some records then confuse events. It’s written that ‘seven days after Phraya Sai Lu Thai joined the siege’ he moved his personal camp to the Seven Fountains Mountain (a small hill situated to the northwest of the city adjacent to Chiang Mai University).

At the same time, villagers from the Lawa and Kachin villages in the region arrived to live in Chiang Rua, and Cao Saen Pha Nong sent them to ‘set up a fort from Hua Lin to the foot of Seven Fountains Mountain’.  (If it were the same Cao Saen Pha Nong who fought Thao Maha Phrom, he would have been nearly eighty years old in AD 1439 – see last month’s issue about date confusions and whether this was really the first or fourth decade of the 15th century).  Hua Lin is the northwest corner of the Chiang Mai moat – almost three kilometres from Seven Fountains.

Cao Saen Pha Nong also had two hundred carts arranged in a line, with a black, red, white or yellow banner in each cart.  Phraya Sai Lu captured and interrogated a Chiang Mai man and was told the carts were for ordering the forces of Chiang Mai and Chiang Rua before attacking the southern king (disinformation tactics via a decoy captive?).  Phraya Sai Lu considering this, and the attacks by the ‘boys’, announced that next day his army would withdraw south and cross the River Ping to east of Com Thong.  He posted three groups of rear guards at Nong An – a lake or pond of unknown location – but given proximities may be the rebuilt medieval reservoir inside Chiang Mai University.

The same night, Cao Phraya Sam Fang Kaen sent four officers of high rank to attack the southern king (possibly the four leading ‘boys’).  Not knowing they had already split into groups, many died in the fighting at a pond called Nong Saen Thon (location unknown).  Events imply a counter-disinformation maneuver by King Sai Lu.  Instead of marching south to Com Thong, he moved north along the Ping valley to Nong Phai (near Ngae Ngao) and crossed the Ping there, before moving northwards through a forest.  He moved independently of the main army as Prince Yi Kum Kam led the army to Chiang Rai by stages, and having arrived, rested there for seven days.

When the Sukhothai king arrived in Chiang Rai, he noted the city’s design and layout, and ordered Yi Kum Kam to collect all the people, animals, and valuables, and take them south to Muang Sak in Sukhothai where the prince would rule them, and that was where his lineage ended.  This may have been the first evacuation of Chiang Rai, which left it deserted, and could have prompted Sam Fang Kaen to mount raids into neighbouring countries to bring back populace for the city.

King Mengrai’s line continued in Lan Na via the younger half brother, Cao Phraya Sam Fang Kaen, conceived outside marriage in Chiang Mai, and born to his grandmother’s servant in the Chinese regions of the Lawa Tai Sipsongpanna.  This favoured son thinking of the actions of the Sukhothai king during the siege, believed Sai Lu had washed his hair at Seven Fountains out of fear of the Chiang Mai people.  He then built Seven Fountains City on the hill used as the southern king’s campsite.

Today called Wieng Jet Lin, its walls and moat can still be seen either side of Huay Kaew Road near Chiang Mai University and the zoo.  They are a consolidation of the earlier Lawa city of Chetaburi, which was maybe there as early as BC 500.

Thus four of the five original Lawa cities from before the Tai, within Muang Chiang Mai, had been built over by the Mengrai dynasty – sequentially – Noppaburi (Chang Man), Chiang Ruak (west Tha Pae Road), Suan Dok, Chetaburi (Jet Lin) – only Doi Kham remained (soon to become a night safari park?)

The fort described as built from Hua Lin to Jet Lin implies a walled (embankment or palisaded) ‘roadway’ rather than a classical fort and was a feature typical of expanding Tai wiengs.  Different city wards, enclosed within their own banks and palisades, would be linked by new linear wards similarly protected and thus the city would grow.  (I have been unable to locate or identify remains of these walls on early aerial photographs (i.e. before Huay Kaew Road and Tambon Suthep were covered with buildings) but from ‘field walking’ believe there may be some evidence remaining in the many embankments running through the Faculty of Humanities and Sala Daeng areas in Chiang Mai University.)

Despite specific dating to AD 1438/39 of several events in Yi Kum Kam’s rebellion, the next entries in the Chiang Mai Chronicle, as an introduction to the defence of Chiang Saen against the Ho (Chinese), say that Phraya Sai Lu’s attack was in 1402/3.  That fits with the earlier stated coronation date of Sam Fang Kaen, and continuity in the successions of the Mengrai lineage, but does lend confusion to the chronology of these turbulent times, not to mention the ages and birth dates of royal offspring, which makes ongoing high quality archaeological study all the more important.

Whilst the ongoing excavations and heritage preservation/promotion developments at Wieng Kum Kam, and the growing number of museums, are valuable to the growth of tourism and archaeological knowledge, we should not become complacent.  All parts of greater Muang Chiang Mai have vast tracts of historical architecture and earthworks that need to be preserved and protected.

As previously surveyed, after beaches and islands, historical sites and correctly presented history are tourists’ favourite attractions.  Without developing ‘Costa del Huay Tung Tao’ or ‘Ko Nam Mae Ping’, taking decisive and prompt action in favour of our earliest historical sites may be another ‘Road to the Future’ for Lan Na’s eco-tourism growth and economic survival.