King Taksin the Great
Chapter 5: Events After the Fall of Ayutthaya to Burma
5.1 When did Ayutthaya fall to the Burmese?
5.2 What did the Burmese do to Siam after the fall of Ayutthaya?
When the Burmese forces breached the capital, it was in the dead of night (the Burmese chronicles state that it was around 4 a.m. — Sunet Chutintharanon, 1998: p.68). Wherever they advanced, they set fire to the dwellings of the townspeople, all the way to the royal palaces. The flames spread rapidly, and the light from the blaze lit up the city as if it were midday. Seeing that there was no resistance, the Burmese began to plunder, loot, and collect treasures, while rounding up captives in chaos throughout the entire city. Yet, because it was still nighttime.
The chronicle records: “In the Chula Sakarat 1129, the Year of the Pig, Noppasok — on Tuesday, the 9th waxing day of the 5th lunar month, which was the middle day of Songkran, a Saturday — the Burmese set fire to the wood piled beneath the foundations of the city wall at Hua Ro, beside the Maha Chai Fort. By the second watch of the night (approximately 8 PM), a signal fire was lit. All Burmese forces from every direction, already prepared, laid ladders against the collapsed section of the wall and at other points encircling the capital. They then climbed over and entered the city simultaneously at that hour. Fires were ignited in every quarter, consuming dwellings, temples, and the royal palaces within the Grand Palace complex.” (Image courtesy of Muang Boran)
During the night, many townspeople managed to flee and escape the city. Nevertheless, the Burmese captured approximately 30,000 individuals, including King Uthumphon—who had entered the monkhood—along with members of the royal family, high-ranking officials, lower courtiers, and monks and novices who were unable to flee in time. All were taken and detained at the Phosaamton (Pho Sam Ton) encampment. The general populace who were seized were divided and assigned to the custody of various Burmese commanders across different military camps. Thereafter, the Burmese proceeded to thoroughly plunder all manner of treasures—both those belonging to the royal court and to private citizens. They seized gold and silver objects of sacred worship from every temple, regardless of whether such items ought to be taken or not. They even exhumed valuables that had been hidden by the people in monasteries and homes. The captured civilians were interrogated and forced to inform on one another. Anyone who could accuse another of hiding wealth would be granted release. As for the actual owners of the treasures—if they did not willingly reveal their possessions—they were beaten and subjected to brutal tortures. Some were driven to death under such torments, as the Burmese pressed for the full extent of hidden riches.
“The plight of the people fleeing the ravages of war”
(Image courtesy of Muang Boran)
The Fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 marked one of the greatest losses in the history of the Thai nation. The Burmese forces slaughtered countless civilians, leaving trails of death in their wake. Wealth and treasures were devastated or looted from every corner of the capital, with deliberate intent to leave Siam bereft of all riches. Even the most sacred and magnificent Buddhist temples, which stood not only as architectural marvels but also as symbols of the shared Theravāda faith between Burma and Siam, were not spared. The Burmese set fire to temples and melted revered Buddha images to extract gold. One such statue, the standing Buddha known as Phra Sri Sanphetdaiyan, cast in solid gold and weighing 53,000 chang (approximately 44,166 kilograms), stood enshrined in the central vihāra of Wat Phra Si Sanphet. The Burmese kindled fires around the statue to melt and retrieve the gold casing, seizing 286 chang (roughly 238 kilograms) of pure gold and carrying it back to Burma. Furthermore, they took thousands of people captive, enslaving them and deporting them to Burmese territory. For fifteen days, they razed homes and pillaged the city without cease. (Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 48–50)
“At that time, the King of Ayutthaya, along with his Queen, royal children, and members of the royal household, fled in all directions. The royal attendants led the king into a boat and hid him in dense thickets at Ban Chik, near Wat Sangharam, where the Burmese did not suspect. After approximately eleven or twelve days in hiding, the king passed away. The Burmese later captured the queen, princes, princesses, and remaining royals and brought them to the Pho Sam Ton encampment…” (Testimony of the Inhabitants of the Old Capital, Testimony of Khun Luang Ha Wat, and Royal Chronicle of the Old Capital, Luang Prasoet Aksornnithi Edition, 1972: 437–438).
The Burmese soldiers set fire to and heated the standing Buddha image, Phra Sri Sanphet Dayan (the Standing Buddha), in order to melt the gold casing. They then extracted and collected the gold casing, which weighed 286 chang, to be taken back for use in Burma.
(Image courtesy of Muang Boran)
Not only do Thai sources record the destruction of the capital and the massacre of its people by Burmese soldiers during the Second Fall of Ayutthaya, but foreign records and correspondence also describe similar behavior of the invading forces. According to Anthony Goyaton, an Armenian who once served as Head of the Foreign Europeans in “Siam,” and Seyed Ali, a Muslim priest residing in Ayutthaya, reporting to the Dutch harbor master P. van Der Voort, “The Burmese army utterly devastated Ayutthaya … and slaughtered many people fleeing the fires. They divided the survivors into groups and took them captive to Burma after setting fire to the warehouses of the trading companies.”
(“Dutch language records,” in Historical Annals and Archaeological Documents, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1968: 23)
Testimony of Anthony Goyaton (Palembang, 1768)
Anthony Goyaton was an Armenian and formerly Head of the Foreign Europeans in Ayutthaya, living alongside Moslem priest Seyed Ali.
This eyewitness account of Ayutthaya’s last days was officially recorded in handwriting on about two pages and signed by the Dutch Shabandar (harbor master) P. van Der Voort on April 26, 1768.
The credibility of Goyaton’s testimony rests on his position as Head of the Foreign Europeans in Ayutthaya, and on its official recording by P. van Der Voort. For the VOC (Dutch East India Company), such testimony was highly important, as it confirmed the destruction of major warehouses and company premises in Ayutthaya in 1767 (B.E. 2310). These locations were never rebuilt.
The following is the recorded testimony of Anthony Goyaton:
Eyewitness Testimony
(An official record of eyewitness accounts concerning the destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767 [B.E. 2310])
Anthony Goyaton, an Armenian and former Head of the Foreign Europeans in Siam, along with the Arabian priest Seyed Ali, who previously resided in Ayutthaya, related the following account to the Shabandar P. van Der Voort:
“… Shortly after the Company’s servants had departed in November 1765 (B.E. 2308), the Burmese laid siege to Siam in July or August 1766 (B.E. 2309), having first destroyed the surrounding towns. The Burmese then established small artillery positions encircling the capital to prevent anyone from entering or leaving.
This situation persisted until March 1767 (B.E. 2310), during the rising floodwaters surrounding the city. At night, the Burmese moved closer to the capital in numerous boats, setting ladders against the walls at several points and throwing earthenware pots filled with gunpowder into the besieged city. Upon capturing Ayutthaya, the Burmese collectively razed the city to ashes. They were greatly aided in this operation by approximately five hundred compatriots residing within the city (who had previously been captured by the Siamese) along with Burmese soldiers who had penetrated the city and maintained communication.
The account continues that after killing the majority of the populace who had fled the chaos, the Burmese divided the survivors into groups according to those still alive and took them captive. They then set fire to the Company’s lodge and offices.
The young king (King Uthumphon), together with members of the royal family including Berquelang, were among those taken captive. During the journey, the young king fell ill and died, and Berquelang took his own life by poisoning. The testimony further states that the elderly king (King Ekathat) was assassinated by his own Siamese people on the same night.
The witness and his party, numbering about one thousand individuals — Portuguese, Armenians, Mon, Siamese, and Malays, including men, women, and children — were escorted toward Bago under the guard of only fifteen Burmese soldiers. Midway, they seized the guards and escaped. After trekking through the wilderness, they eventually returned to the banks of the Chao Phraya River.”
The witness remained there for three months. Subsequently, he and his fellow Company members boarded a small Chinese vessel and traveled to Cambodia, then onward to Palembang. They finally arrived there on the 23rd day of the month aboard a ship belonging to Juraogan Inc.
The witness further stated that after the Burmese had withdrawn from the country, some Siamese settled at Bangkok — which was formerly the site of the French Lodge. They made their livelihood by trading with Cambodia. Meanwhile, approximately two thousand Chinese, led by one of their chiefs, resided at Paknam (the river mouth), continuing their agricultural and fishing activities.
This testimony was recorded on April 26, 1768 (B.E. 2311).
Considerations
The term Shabander or Shabandar originates from the Persian language, originally meaning “King of Heaven.” The primary duty of a Shabandar was to oversee the foreign merchants residing in his nation. Simultaneously, he managed the marketplace and warehouses. He was responsible for inspecting weights, measures, coins, and resolving disputes between ship captains and merchants representing the nations he served.
When the Company’s servants left in November 1765 (B.E. 2308), the Burmese army was conducting the second phase of their campaign. By July or August 1766 (B.E. 2309), when the Burmese laid siege to the capital, they were engaged in the third phase.
In March, the water level in the rivers surrounding Ayutthaya typically recedes. The testimony does not specify the exact date.
The Burmese entry into the city, according to the testimony, occurred sometime in March, though the exact day is unspecified. However, verified records show that the city was taken on April 7, 1767 (B.E. 2310).
The “young king” likely refers to King Uthumphon, and the “elder king” probably King Ekathat. The records of their deaths differ somewhat from other established sources.
The “Siam River” mentioned refers to the Chao Phraya River.
According to evidence, a Thai traitor named Phraya Phon Thep opened the city gates. The testimony also mentions Burmese collaborators inside the city, which may indicate separate or joint actions, or possible confusion in the accounts.
The French Lodge was located in Thonburi. (Janya Prachitromron, 1993: 196–199)
In the letters of the French missionary group, Monsignor Brigitte wrote to the Director of Foreign Missions:
“… After the Burmese entered the city, they set fire to houses and destroyed property for 15 days. They killed people indiscriminately, whether rich or poor, but the Burmese particularly targeted monks and killed countless numbers. I myself witnessed more than twenty monks being killed one morning at the same time…”
(Compiled Chronicles, National Library Edition, Vol. 9, Bangkok: Kaona, 1965 [B.E. 2508], p. 420)
M. Turpin, in the History of the Kingdom of Siam (translated by S. Siwarak in Social Science Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1967 [B.E. 2510], p. 57), described the chaotic aftermath of the fall of Ayutthaya and the brutal conduct of the Burmese as follows:
“… The city was devastated; treasures and possessions in the royal palace and various temples were reduced to ruins and ashes. The barbarians, having gained victory yet without spoils, vented their anger with even greater cruelty toward the townspeople, to the extent of roasting people alive by burning the soles of their feet.”
The Burmese soldiers abducted and committed acts of sexual violence.
(Image courtesy of Muang Boran)
The Burmese soldiers looted and killed without mercy.
(Image courtesy of Muang Boran)
They hid their treasures somewhere, but also brought daughters to be raped, their cries echoing in front of their fathers. The monks were accused of hiding treasures, so they were shot with arrows until their bodies were pierced, speared with lances or spear tips until full of holes, and many were beaten to death with wooden clubs on the spot. Temples and monasteries, as well as the surrounding areas, were filled with corpses. Rivers and canals were also full of floating bodies, emitting a foul stench that made breathing difficult, attracting large swarms of flies that became a great nuisance to the Burmese troops stationed there.
After the Burmese army took Ayutthaya, they stayed for about nine to ten days (it is recorded that the Burmese set fire to Ayutthaya for nine days and nine nights, Arthorn Chantawimol, 2003: 229). Once they had gathered all the captives and treasures, they disbanded and withdrew. They rounded up people, elephants, horses, precious gems, gold and silver jewelry, and took Khun Luang Hao Wat (King Uthumphon) with them. Nemyo Sithu, the Burmese commander-in-chief, appointed Suki Mon (a commander noted for his victory over the Bang Rachan camp) as a general, and Monyaphuma (a Burmese leader) as chief of army staff to lead the Burmese-Mon force of 3,000 troops stationed at Pho Sam Ton Camp, tasked with rounding up people and collecting valuables to send back. They also appointed Thong In (or Boonsong), a Thai who had allied with the Burmese, as the governor of Thonburi. The Burmese forces were divided into three armies: the northern army led by Nemyo Sithu took nobles, officials, captives, and valuable treasures back via Mae Lamao pass (in present-day Tak Province); the southern army, under the governor of Pagan, controlled the transport ships carrying heavy treasure via Thonburi and the Tha Chin River at Mae Klong; and the third army marched by land to Suphanburi to join the navy at Kanchanaburi before returning through the Three Pagodas Pass.
At that time, the Burmese captured 1,200 cannons, tens of thousands of firearms, including a pair of twin bronze cannons, each 12 sok (about 3.6 meters) long, and four royal barges called King (Arthorn Chantawimol, 2003: 230). Regarding the “Phra Pirun Saen Han” cannon, which was very large, near the fall of the city, when hope of defeating the Burmese was lost, this cannon was thrown into a pond in the old royal palace. Later, when the Burmese found out, they retrieved it, and the southern army commander transported it by boat, intending to bring it to Kanchanaburi to join the land forces. When they reached Talat Kaew market in Nonthaburi, the cannon was considered too heavy to continue transporting to Ava.
The commander Pakun Hwon had the large bronze cannon hauled ashore at Wat Khema. The cannon was loaded full of gunpowder, but when ignited, it exploded prematurely. This did not satisfy the Burmese, so they took the bronze parts back to Ava. (The Burmese army left Ayutthaya on June 6, 1767 (B.E. 2310), about two months after capturing the city. — Khajorn Sukphanit, 2002: 270)
The Burmese captured more than 30,000 Thai prisoners of war and divided them into two groups:
Group 1 included King Uthumphon, the royal family, and the townspeople, which Nemyo Sithu led back north with the northern army.
Group 2 consisted of the remaining commoners and Christian missionaries, who were sent under the command of Pakun Hwon, the southern general, traveling both by land and water through Tavoy and then joining the northern group at northern Ava.
Note:
According to old folk tales, the number of Thai captives was so great that chains and shackles were insufficient. The Burmese reportedly pierced the tendons above the heels of the prisoners and threaded rattan strips through, binding them together in a chain. Since then, the area above the heel tendon has been called “Roi Wai” (meaning “rattan-threaded”) by Thai people (Wiset Chaisri, 1998: 305).
The Thai captives taken by the Burmese were settled in the Pong Letai area (also called Tuk Pong Le), near the Cha Wa Ta Chong or Thong Kham canals, in the Raheng Mong Ti Market area, about 13 kilometers from Mandalay. Wat Rahai served as the village center, with a Yodia market and traditional Yodia dance performances similar to the four-faced Brahma dance of Thailand, still performed in Myanmar today.
King Uthumphon was forced by the war-obsessed King Mangrai to abdicate and live in a palace at Chakkai (Skaing), just outside Ava, along with most Thai nobles and officials who were gathered there. The Burmese interrogated them about Ayutthaya’s chronicles and royal customs, recording this in official documents that we now know as the “Khun Luang Hao Wat Testimony” or “Testimony of the Old City People.” As for the ordinary people taken as captives, the Burmese distributed them throughout various places. Some eventually escaped back home, but most were lost in Burma. King Uthumphon never returned to Thailand; the last evidence of his existence is a pagoda in Chakkai city. The Royal Chronicles of the Glass Palace also recorded about the captives taken to Burma after this war:
“… The royal family and court nobles of Ayutthaya who were taken to Ratnapura Ava had their queens, princesses, daughters, grandchildren, and female attendants reside in the royal precinct with full retinues, attended by servants according to rank. The princes, royal sons, grandchildren, and male attendants were housed outside the palace precinct but still received appropriate care. The Ayutthaya nobles and commoners taken captive were allotted places to live. Among the royal family was one called ‘Kyauk-bwa Tauk-to’ (the former name of King Uthumphon, see Chapter 2), who remained a monk after being taken to Ava, residing in monastic robes until his death in 1796 (B.E. 2339), after the capital was moved from Ava to Amarapura.” (Sunet Chutintharanon, 1998: 112)
The glorious kingdom of Ayutthaya was ruled by 33 monarchs, serving as the Siamese capital for 417 years until it fell to the disaster described above. (Janya Prachitromron, 1993: 185–186)
5.3 Why did the Burmese hastily withdraw their troops back to Ava, the capital of Burma?
The reason the Burmese army hastily withdrew back to Ava was because Nemyo Sithu received orders to return to Ava as the Burmese king was threatened by the invading Chinese army at the border towns. The Burmese army rapidly marched back and reached Ava in July 1767 (B.E. 2310).
The Hmannan Yazawin (Glass Palace Chronicle) further describes that, following the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, the Burmese army was occupied with repelling multiple invasions by Chinese forces over 2–3 years. These invasions were largely due to misunderstandings between Chinese merchants and Burmese officials in the border regions between China and Burma.
The Glass Palace Chronicle records that the Chinese invaded Burma four times but were defeated each time. This situation prevented King Hsinbyushin (King Mangra) from personally leading an army to attack Siam. This also aligns with historical events in Thonburi, where King Taksin liberated Siam within seven months and moved the capital from Ayutthaya to Thonburi in 1767 (B.E. 2310) (Rong Sayamanon, in Historical Annals and Archaeological Documents, Vol.18 No.1, 1984: 39-46).
When Nemyo Sithu returned to Burma, King Mangra appointed him as the governor (or viceroy) of Sri Ayudhya (Ayutthaya). However, due to the heavy karmic consequences of the Burmese aggression toward the Siamese, a great earthquake struck throughout Burma in the same year. Numerous pagodas and important structures collapsed. King Mangra was deeply troubled by these events and thus commissioned the creation of several golden Buddha images to atone for the sins committed. These images were enshrined within the newly restored stupas he had built.
(Source: http://www.worldbuddhism.net/buddhism-history/Burma.html, accessed 14 July 2004)
Consideration 1:
This war was protracted and prolonged (B.E. 2307–2310) due to the Burmese conducting continuous military operations without pause.
Objective: Throughout the campaign, the Burmese maintained a singular objective: to plunder and seize treasures, acting more like bandits than a formal army. This may explain why the Burmese king, King Mangra, refrained from personally leading the army, fearing the loss of royal dignity by associating himself with what was essentially a bandit force. Instead, he delegated command to his generals to carry out these raids.
Target: Driven by greed for wealth, the initial plan was to take whatever spoils they could. However, the objective soon escalated to a more ambitious target—the city of Ayutthaya itself. Since previous plundering had been relatively easy, the Burmese commanders decided to aim directly for the Siamese capital, leading to an extended preparation and campaign, both in distance and duration.
Burmese Intentions of Invasion: It is evident that Burma harbored continuous intentions to invade Siam. This is supported by historical acts of aggression, as Burma was a persistently expansionist power.
Burma sought to subdue neighboring states to assert dominance.
Conquering any state was not enough; subjugating Siam would make all other nations fear Burmese power.
Hence, the ambition to invade and conquer Siam was a constant, simmering objective.
4. The Burmese chronicles confirm that King Mangra ordered Nemyo Sithu and Mang Mahanara to lead the armies to attack Ayutthaya. This seems plausible, for without such an order, the two commanders would unlikely dare to do so. The question remains: when exactly was the order given? If it was before March 1764 (B.E. 2307), it is likely true. However, if it was after, the timing probably depended on favorable circumstances. Considering the logistics and timing, this aligns with the latter. Missionaries claimed the Siamese army was ineffective, but the Burmese considered it highly capable. The truth likely depends on the standards of judgment: missionaries probably used European standards, whereas the Burmese applied Asian ones.
5. At the fourth stage, the Burmese sent forces to encircle the city walls of Ayutthaya. Historical records mention battles occurring within Ayutthaya itself, but there is no information about forces stationed in Phitsanulok in the north, Nakhon Ratchasima in the northeast, Prachinburi in the east, or the coastal areas around Phetchaburi and others which could have provided assistance. Similarly, forces in Nakhon Si Thammarat and the naval fleet apparently did not come to aid. These forces could have assisted Ayutthaya, yet there is no record of their participation. It seems as if they waited for Ayutthaya to fall to seize power afterward. Had these forces united even with one regiment per town, the situation might have reversed, with the Siamese army holding the center and the Burmese encircled—similar to the war in 1648 (B.E. 2091) under King Tabinshwehti. Yet in this campaign, external forces offered no strategic support.
6. Regarding artillery use, the Siamese had an advantage because their cannons were stationary and of large caliber with long-range firing. They likely had many such cannons as they did not have to transport them far. However, this advantage was negated by limiting their use to spare the sensitivities of a few women (Mom Peng, Mom Man, and royal concubines), whose morale was protected by King Ekathat even over the survival of the nation. It was no surprise then that the capital eventually fell.
7. In the first war, King Ekathat requested King Uthumphon to leave monkhood and help defend the nation. This time, he did not summon Uthumphon to return from monkhood to assist. Possibly, Ekathat thought he could manage alone, having witnessed Uthumphon’s defense in the prior war. Uthumphon, not invited, remained in monkhood, contributing to the fall of the capital.
8. The chronicles record consistent accounts of Ayutthaya’s fall, but according to testimonies from old inhabitants, the treachery of Phraya Phon Thep (a Thai official) was involved. These testimonies came from fighters within the city; their truthfulness remains uncertain and warrants further investigation.
9. The Burmese chronicles do not mention the siege of outlying forts that Ayutthaya’s defenders established as defensive outposts. However, Thai sources and others confirm that the Burmese lost men and time besieging these forts. The Burmese took nine nights to capture Wat Chaiwatthanaram fort and another fifteen nights to take the Chinese Khlong Suan Phlu fort.
The northern and northeastern forts, located in the Wi Krit district, fell around February or earlier.
The southern forts were captured in the latter half of March.
The western forts were likely captured just before the southern ones.
10. The Burmese chronicles further state that after the army of Maha Montri retreated into Ayutthaya, the king ordered the sacred cannon named Thawarawadi (known in the Ayutthaya chronicles as the “Gun that Suppresses Hanthawaddy”)—an ancient and revered city defense cannon believed to be guarded by deities—to be brought out for ceremonial worship and fired from Mahachai Fort to intimidate Nemyo Sithu’s troops. However, the cannon failed to fire due to damp gunpowder caused by moisture ingress from cracks in the barrel. This cannon was not in regular use due to its old age and poor maintenance. Also, Phraya Srisuriyapha placed the great cannon Mahakarn Marutuyarat, loaded with double powder, at the rear fort to fire at the Burmese at Golden Mountain, but the cannon cracked after a single shot and became unusable.
11. Burmese chronicles report that the Siamese suffered severe famine, rationing rice at only one “thanan” (approx. 1 liter) per 20 people. Many civilians surrendered to the Burmese out of desperation, showing that the Burmese strategy relied heavily on inducing starvation to force submission.
12. Upon entering the city, the Burmese set fire to homes and scattered to loot at will. (Source: Chanraya Prachitromron, 1993: 186-190)
Consideration 2
The defeat of Siam in the war resulting in the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 (B.E. 2310) had a direct impact on the political and military strategy in at least two significant aspects.
Firstly, it made later Thai rulers recognize the necessity of firmly and continuously expanding the kingdom’s political influence to include Lanna, Luang Prabang, Vientiane, and Champasak. This was to prevent Burma from using these regions as strategic bases for attacking the capital, as Nemyo Sithu had successfully done in the war of 1767 (B.E. 2310).
Secondly, it compelled Thai rulers to revise their defensive strategy against Burma. Instead of relying on the capital city as the main defensive stronghold—which proved ineffective during the fall of Ayutthaya—they shifted to using key frontier towns along military routes as primary defense bases. In practice, the military leader—whether the king himself or the Front Palace—would personally lead the main army out of the capital to defend these towns. This was a phenomenon unprecedented in Thai history, as noted by Prince Damrong Rajanubhab. (Sunetra Chutintharanon, 2000: 191)
Consideration 3
- 1. When the first fall of Ayutthaya occurred in 1569 (B.E. 2112), before returning to Burma, the victors would appoint a royal prince or local governor—such as King Maha Thammaracha—to rule the city and its surrounding lands. Wherever battles were fought, the victorious side usually installed a local noble or one of their generals as ruler, thereby establishing a vassal state under the conqueror’s dominion. This arrangement brought order to governance, allowing the people to live peacefully, engage in agriculture and trade, and prosper.
However, in the second fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 (B.E. 2310), the Burmese did not follow this practice as other nations had done. Instead, they sought only to utterly destroy the capital and exploit its resources for their own gain.
- 2. The missions assigned by the Burmese to General Suki and Nai Thong-in were to search for remaining people and to recover treasures still left behind, then send them back to Burma.
From the two aforementioned points, it is evident that…
2.1 The treatment of the defeated enemy was brutal and degrading, carried out with ruthless cruelty and dishonor. Such conduct was unbecoming of a devout Buddhist kingdom like Burma, especially when inflicted upon a fellow Buddhist nation like Siam.
2.2 These actions clearly indicate that Burma did not wish to see Siam rise again as a competing sovereign state in the Malay Peninsula region. Even if temporary, King Mangrai’s desire was to suppress Siam’s resurgence as a rival, satisfying his ambitions for at least a time.
2.3 The behavior exhibited was that of bandits rather than a disciplined army of honorable warriors. After utterly destroying the capital and trampling it into ruin, the Burmese were still unsatisfied. Driven by insatiable greed, they established two offices within Siam to administer and extract resources, forcing tribute upon the conquered land—not as a formal indemnity between governments, but as a coercive plunder. Many of the spoils taken in this manner remain publicly displayed in Burma to this day.
- 3. As it has been said, the events that once occurred in the past—the first fall of the capital—are now repeating themselves. The enemy Burmese forces have once again surrounded the city, and the Thai people remain divided, on the verge of losing the capital. Now, the past has fully returned: the capital has fallen again, precisely mirroring the events of the earlier time. This marks the second occurrence of such an event—one that ideally should never have happened.
(Jannya Prachitromron, 1993: 185-186)
Note:
Suki Phra Nayok or Nai Thong Suk — The term “Suki” as mentioned in the chronicles is believed to be a Thai adaptation of the Burmese word “Zugyi,” meaning “commander.” During the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 (B.E. 2310), Suki Phra Nayok, recorded in the chronicles as Nai Thong Suk, was a Mon from Ban Pho Sam Ton in Ayutthaya. When the Burmese besieged Ayutthaya, Nai Thong Suk sided with them and fought vigorously. Nemyo Sithu then appointed him “Suki,” and he volunteered to lead the successful assault on the Bang Rachan camp. After the Burmese captured Ayutthaya and prepared to withdraw, Suki was appointed commander in charge of Burmese-Mon troops stationed at Pho Sam Ton to suppress local resistance and confiscate goods to be sent back.
When King Taksin later attacked the Burmese camp at Pho Sam Ton, Suki was reported to have died in battle. However, the Sangitiyawong chronicle compiled in King Rama I’s reign claims he escaped, while the Phan Chan Nu Mat (Chaeim) chronicle states that Phra Nayok submitted to King Taksin. Later, when Prince Thepphiphit’s rebellion in Nakhon Ratchasima was suppressed by King Taksin, Phra Nayok was captured and executed (Knowledge of Thonburi Era, 2000: 171).
5.4 After the fall of Ayutthaya, what resistance groups or gatherings emerged? Who were their leaders, and where were these groups based?
After the fall of Ayutthaya, the country was in a state of chaos and fragmentation. With no central monarch, various regional centers asserted their own power. Each leader gathered followers and formed factions or groups. There were six major factions in total, namely:
- 1. The Burmese faction:
After their victory over Ayutthaya, the Burmese did not directly govern the city. Instead, they divided their forces to control the Thai people, splitting into two groups:
1.1 The group led by Suki Phra Nayok, composed of Mon volunteers allied with the Burmese, commanded about 3,000 soldiers. They were responsible for confiscating valuables, capturing Thai people who fled the Burmese, and suppressing rebellious Thais. They were stationed at Pho Sam Ton, north of Ayutthaya.
1.2 The group led by Nai Thong In, a Thai collaborator with the Burmese, controlled Thonburi. Their duty was to round up people and gather treasures to send back to Burma.
- 2. The Phitsanulok faction (Rueang):
When Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese in 1767 (B.E. 2310), the Phitsanulok lord led his army from Phitsanulok to help defend the capital. However, while advancing to fight the Burmese at Sukhothai, he was betrayed by Luang Kosa and Prince Jeed, who seized his wealth and took control of Phitsanulok. Upon learning this, the Phitsanulok lord marched his army back to reclaim the city, captured Prince Jeed and drowned him, then held firm at Phitsanulok until Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese. The Phitsanulok faction controlled an area stretching from Phichai and Phitsanulok down to Nakhon Sawan. The lord of Phitsanulok commanded a large, capable army and was regarded as a strong hope for the northern Thais to restore the country, making this faction one of the most powerful.
- 3. The Assembly of Chao Phraya Fang:
- Chao Phraya Fang was the Sangharaja (Supreme Patriarch) of Sawankhaburi, or Fang City, which is currently in Uttaradit Province. His original name was Ruean. He was a northerner who traveled down to study the Tripitaka in Ayutthaya, where he received the ecclesiastical rank of Maha. Later, he became Phra Phakun Thera, a royal ecclesiastical dignitary of the forest-dwelling monastic order (Aranyavasi) (Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 59), residing at Wat Sri Yothaya. He was graciously appointed to be the Sangharaja of Sawankhaburi and was highly respected by a large number of people. Chao Phraya Fang was a monk reputed to have abilities in magic, spells, and occult practices.
- 4. The Assembly of Nakhon Si Thammarat (Noo):
This group declared independence and established itself as the ruling power over a territory stretching from the Malay Peninsula up to Chumphon. It was a faction with strong military forces and stable economic power.The Lord of Nakhon Si Thammarat (Noo) had previously served in the Ayutthaya court, achieving the position of Luang Sitthina Yawara Mahat Lek (a royal official title), before returning to serve as the governor (Palat) of Nakhon Si Thammarat.
After Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese and the throne was vacant, the Phra Palat (Noo), then acting governor of Nakhon Si Thammarat (as the previous lord Phraya Ratchsuphawadi was removed due to misconduct), proclaimed himself ruler of Nakhon Si Thammarat. The local people of the western southern provinces recognized his authority, making this faction one of the largest regional assemblies.
- 5. The Faction of Krom Muen Thepphiphit (or the Faction of Lord Phimai):
- The faction led by Krom Muen Thepphiphit, also known as Prince Kaek, was based in the city of Phimai. Their territory extended from Nakhon Ratchasima eastward to the lands of Krungsri Sattanakhanut (Ayutthaya) and Cambodia, reaching southwards to Saraburi along the Pa Sak River basin. Krom Muen Thepphiphit was a son of King Borommakot of Ayutthaya. His mother was the principal consort, though no specific records mention his official rank. It is presumed he was a prominent royal prince serving in important court positions, including roles within the royal household. When Krom Khun Phonphinit abdicated the throne in favor of Krom Khun Anurakmontri (Somdet Phra Thinang Suriyasamorin or King Ekkathat) and later ordained as a monk, Krom Muen Thepphiphit—who had been closely allied with Krom Khun Phonphinit (Prince Uthumphon)—also entered monkhood at Wat Krajom. (Wat Krajom was near Wat Nang Kham by the river, at the mouth of Khlong Sai and Khu Khuea in front of the Chan Kasem palace. East of it lay Wat Pradu where Krom Khun Phonphinit resided.) On one occasion, Krom Muen Thepphiphit and his followers petitioned for Somdet Phra Chao Uthumphon to return to the throne. Upon learning this, King Ekkathat punished Krom Muen Thepphiphit. S. Plai Noi (2003: 150–153) recounts that later, Phraya Aphairacha, Phraya Phetburi, Muen Thip Sena, Nai Chui, and Nai Pheng Chan conspired with Krom Muen Thepphiphit in rebellion. When suspicion arose, Krom Muen Thepphiphit fled from Wat Krajom but was captured at Na Nering forest outside the city gates. Phraya Aphairacha, Phraya Phetburi, and Nai Chui were sentenced to whipping and imprisonment under the fivefold restraint system: shackled ankles, feet tied to a wooden beam, chained neck, neck cangue over the chain, and hands confined in wooden stocks. Meanwhile, Muen Thip Sena and Nai Pheng Chan escaped. This account aligns with the Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya. The Royal Chronicles in the Royal Handwriting Edition provide further detail: Upon hearing of the danger, Krom Muen Thepphiphit fled from Wat Krajom to Wat Phanang Choeng (now known as Phanan Choeng). His loyal officers and retainers fiercely defended him by forming camps around the temple. The royal police failed to apprehend him. Upon hearing this, the king sent a wise official to negotiate with Krom Muen Thepphiphit, assuring him of pardon if he surrendered the head officer responsible for the rebellion. Fearing royal punishment, Krom Muen Thepphiphit agreed to surrender the officer. The officer fled and committed suicide by hanging. The king was unable to capture Krom Muen Thepphiphit, who fled westward with several sons. The royal officials later captured him at Pra Thaen Dong Rang forest and brought him and his sons to the capital. The king then had him defrocked and placed under custody. Regarding foreign relations, the English trading ship (as recorded in the Royal Chronicles) that had previously voyaged to Sri Lanka was refitted in the year of the Tiger, Samritsok (1761 CE). The king ordered a group of monks, including Phra Wisutthacharn and Phra Worayanmuni, along with three other monks and royal officials, to board the ship to Sri Lanka once again to recall monks left behind on the previous voyage and to deport Krom Muen Thepphiphit to exile there.
While Krom Muen Thepphiphit was residing in Lanka, the nobles and common people there greatly revered him, knowing him as a royal brother (younger brother) of the King of Ayutthaya. They believed he had come to Lanka out of sincere devotion to observe and support Buddhism, unaware that he had actually been exiled and banished. Consequently, a plot was formed to rebel: they intended to dethrone the King of Lanka from the white umbrella (symbol of sovereignty) and to elevate Krom Muen Thepphiphit as the ruler of Singhkhon Nakhon (Sri Lanka). This conspiracy was reported to the King of Lanka, who ordered the arrest of the rebels. As a result, Krom Muen Thepphiphit fled to a foreign land.
At that time, rumors spread that Ayutthaya had fallen to the Burmese. Upon hearing this news, Krom Muen Thepphiphit traveled by ship to reside in Mergui (Maerid). In the year of the Horse, Era 1124 (1762 CE), King Suriyasonorin (Ekkathat) appointed royal officials to govern Tanintharyi. When the Burmese captured Tanintharyi, Krom Muen Thepphiphit was sent to Chanthaburi.
Later, when the Burmese launched their siege of Ayutthaya, Krom Muen Thepphiphit took refuge in Prachinburi. The Burmese fleet then attacked and destroyed Prachinburi. Krom Muen Thepphiphit and Phraya Rattanathibet fled to the Khao Phra Ya pass in Nakhon Ratchasima, where they killed Phraya Nakhon Ratchasima. Luang Paeng, his younger brother, escaped and rallied the forces of Phimai to reclaim Nakhon Ratchasima.
Luang Paeng intended to execute Krom Muen Thepphiphit, but Phimai instead took him under protection and made him the Lord of Phimai. Krom Muen Thepphiphit then appointed Phimai as Phraya Srisuriyawong. Later, Phraya Srisuriyawong killed Luang Paeng.
When King Taksin of Thonburi failed to suppress the Phitsanulok faction, he turned to quell the weaker Phimai faction. He commanded Phra Mahamontri (Bunma) and Phra Ratchawarin (Duang) to lead a small army to attack Katoak pass, while the King himself led the main force to defeat the Chor Hor pass in 1768 (B.E. 2311), capturing Phraya Srisuriyawong and ordering his execution. They then proceeded to attack the Phimai faction. Phra Mahamontri and Phra Ratchawarin succeeded in defeating the Katoak pass, while Phraya Worawongtharacha (sometimes identified as a prince or Phraya), the youngest son of Phraya Srisuriyawong, retreated to Siem Reap.
Seeing no chance to resist, Krom Muen Thepphiphit and his followers fled Phimai, intending to go to Krungsri Sattanakhanut (Bangkok). However, Khun Chan, a native of Nakhon Ratchasima, captured him and presented him to King Taksin. Initially, the King intended to pardon him, but Krom Muen Thepphiphit displayed insolence and refused to show submission. Therefore, the King ordered his execution and appointed Khun Chan as Phraya Kamhaengsongkhram to govern Nakhon Ratchasima.
One daughter of Krom Muen Thepphiphit, named Mom Chao Ubon, was graciously taken care of by King Taksin as a royal consort. However, it later came to light that she was involved in an affair with a foreign page, for which she was punished by death.
- 6. The Tak Lord’s Faction was the smallest faction, consisting of only about 500 original followers. Lord Tak established this faction with strong patriotism, hoping to restore independence to the Thai nation. At that time, Lord Tak had established himself as a powerful ruler in Chanthaburi, governing from the border of Cambodia all the way to the eastern coastal towns along the Gulf of Thailand (see details in Chapter 6).
(http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45) - At that time, Lord Tak’s base was in Chanthaburi, which was considered the strongest in terms of military power and strategy against the Burmese, surpassing other groups. Moreover, he showed leadership qualities as a capable warrior who personally led his troops in every battle.
- This inspired deep respect, fear, and loyalty from his subordinates. Since he and his troops were constantly engaged in combat, the soldiers became highly skilled and disciplined. Additionally, he had contemporaries who were important combatants, known collectively as King Taksin’s Tiger Soldiers (Foundation for the Conservation of Ancient Monuments in the Old Palace, 2000: 51-55) (see details in Chapter 19). In summary, King Taksin first defeated the Burmese factions of Suki Phra Nay Kong and Nai Thong In shortly after Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese. This victory, especially breaking the fort at Pho Sam Ton, was considered a declaration of independence from Burma. The other four factions were defeated successfully after Taksin was crowned King and ruled Thonburi. He spent three years, from 1768 to 1770 (B.E. 2311–2313), consolidating the territories and reuniting them into a single kingdom as before (see details in Chapter 10).