“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

Henry V. William Shakespeare, 1599

Independence and freedom is gained by those who are prepared to fight for it and defend it, whether by the sword (war in its many forms) or the pen (diplomacy and politics). Over the years, small bands of people have taken on the mighty empires and numerically superior enemies and won the day. How have they done this? History always provides us with examples and illustrations that illuminate our own plight and show us new ways of tackling problems, new ideas from ancient wisdom, inspiration from victories of the past. 

In the 5th century BC, Persia was a global superpower – covering the countries we now call Egypt to India, Arabia to Kazakhstan. Greece was a small collection of city states that spent much of their time fighting among themselves, on the western fringes of the Persian Empire that proved occasionally troublesome – troublesome enough for the Persians to send an army of invasion. With the prospect of failure meaning an end to their cities and families as well as their lives, the Greeks gathered at Marathon to face the enemy. As with most invading armies of the time, the Persians practised their own version of ‘the four cuts’ – once they defeated a tribe, they killed the men, castrated the boys, raped the women and took the survivors into servitude, relocated so the empire could keep them under control. Around 10,000 Greeks faced an army of possibly over 100,000 Persians. They stood in the heat, covered in sweat, their bowels loosening awaiting the beginning of battle. When the Persians sent half their force to the ships to bypass the Greek lines, the Greeks mounted a frontal attack. Clad in much stronger and heavier metal armour than the Persians used, arrows made no impact; the Greeks battered into the Persians and defeated the army so convincingly that it is doubtful if any survived – either killed by Greek sword and spear, or sunk into marshy ground behind the battleground. Then, realising that the Persian ships were making for Athens, the Greeks ran back the 26 miles to defend the city. The Persians withdrew, to lick their wounds. 

Eight years later, another much larger Persian army sought to invade Greece. It is said that the Persian emperor Darius took 1million troops to fight the Greeks. Fearing annihilation, the Greeks placed a holding force of some 300 Spartans and a few thousand other troops at a narrow strip of land locked in by mountain and sea - Thermopylae. The Spartans had a well earned respect and reputation for ferocity and military prowess in battle – only 300 arrived as their city was busy with an important religious festival and could only spare 300 men at the time. The Persians sent wave after wave of troops against the Greek line outnumbering them 10 to 1; for the remnants to return leaving the dead heaped on the battlefield. The Greeks held out against the Persians for 3 days, until a Greek traitor showed the Persians how to get over the mountain and attack the Greeks from behind. Most of the Greeks thus caught surrendered, to be slaughtered by the Persians. The 300 Spartans formed a circle and faced the enemy, fighting tooth and nail, using the hilt of their swords when the sword broke, and using their fists when they lost the hilt. All 300 Spartans died fighting, taking as many of the Persian troops as they could with them. The Persians were held long enough for the Athenians to evacuate their city and decamp to the island of Salamis before the Persians could arrive and sack the city. The Greek fleet defeated the Persians ships at Salamis, and in the next campaigning season, the Greeks again faced an enormous Persian army at Plataea – they defeated the Persians there too. The Persians went home to deal with insurrection – previously conquered tribes found new hope from stories of Greek heroism. 50 years later, Alexander the Great united the Greek city states and took the battle back to the Persians, defeating their forces and creating an empire as large as the one that the Persians had held.

At the onset of war with the Persian Empire, the Greek people were mostly afraid of the big bad enemy. Many sought to appease the Persians, or to collaborate, fearing that they, a small collection of squabbling city states, could not possibly defeat the mighty empire. Fortunately for the Greeks, the founders of democratic forms of government and of western civilisation, they had inspiring political and military leaders who could persuade the people to follow the path to freedom. They had armed forces who trained hard and held military discipline to be paramount. They had a unity of purpose and fought for the future of their families and their homeland. 

Moving on 2,000 years, warfare still came down to land disputes and hand-to-hand fighting. In 1415, Henry V of England set sail for France with 12,000 troops as part of his campaign to claim his inheritance – lands in France claimed by marriage into royal families; he already controlled Aquitaine in southwest France and Calais in the north. Although the royal families in England had descended from Normans who conquered England in 1066, the French did not accept his claim. Henry landed at the mouth of the Seine and besieged Harfleur, taking the town two months later. Having ejected the French citizens and installed a garrison, he and half his troops set off on foot for Calais – 13 days march through enemy territory, seeking food and shelter from a hostile population, through the cold October rains. Outside Agincourt they met a French army of between 30,000 and 60,000 – the French had so many soldiers that they sent some away. France was at the time in a civil war, and some of the knights preferred to fight one another than fight the English. But the cream of the French men-at-arms vied for a place at the front of the battle line. 

The opposing forces faced one another across the battleground – the French well-fed, fresh and eager for battle, the 6,000 Englishmen somewhat bedraggled from 2 weeks marching, little food, disease and dysentery rife. After 2 hours of nothing happening, Henry moved his troops forward to bring his archers in range of the French. The French cavalry charged the archers, knowing them to be England’s most potent weapon. They were cut down, horses collapsing on the field, rearing up at the barricade of sharpened stakes protecting the archers. The French cavalry fled the field in disarray, unable to get around the sides of the English because of the trees on either side. The French front line started their march, their armour slowing them down as they plodded across the field churned up by the cavalry charge, their visors lowered against arrows restricting their view. The English archers let loose a hail of arrows, most bouncing off the armour, but many reaching their target. The French reached the English line and pushed it back by sheer weight of numbers. The English rallied and pushed the French back – but not far, as the French were massing behind their own front line and pushing forward to get at the English. The French men-at-arms couldn’t move for their own troops, slipping over the dead through blood soaked mud. The English men-at-arms stood their ground and slaughtered the oncoming soldiers until the French conceded defeat. The English lost less than 1,000 men, the French possibly 10,000 – a humiliating defeat they find difficult to explain to this day. 

Henry’s part in the victory is undoubted – he organised the disposition of his army, put in place sound tactics, ensured the archers were protected by the barricade of sharpened stakes, imposed strict discipline and keep the code of conduct expected of the chivalric knights. Shakespeare’s rendering of the battle has Henry as the great leader – his rallying speech calling on the comradeship, patriotism and the rightness of his cause – made the difference. 

The French allowed pride and disdain for the small English army to cloud their judgement – and they had no great leaders to impose order or provide a cohesive battle plan. Their men-at-arms acted as individuals rushing in to defeat the English single-handed. The English fought as small united groups of friends; knights surrounded by their family and retinue of troops protecting one another in the gruelling hours of killing. 

In the years that followed, the English and French battled it out for control of lands – eventually the English were ejected from all the lands they had previously held. But the battle of Agincourt stands out as a glorious victory and one that resounds down the years of European warfare. When the allies of World War 2 were planning the Normandy invasion, Winston Churchill asked the great actor/director Lawrence Olivier to produce a film version of Shakespeare’s Henry V – he knew the positive propaganda effect that great speeches and great victories from history can have. Olivier delivered one of his masterpieces; the allied troops who landed at Normandy delivered Europe from fascism.

These stories from the past are intended to raise our spirits, and to help us realise that sheer weight of numbers does not always guarantee victory. More than this is necessary to win – a sense of purpose, comradeship, unity, leadership, patriotism (but not xenophobic chauvinism) discipline and self-confidence. These are human qualities that we can find in ourselves as well as in others. Numerical superiority and technology can help us in all aspects of life, but they are only tools that help us. We need those very human qualities to give us success and victory. I have no doubt that the Shan people have these qualities in abundance, some apparent, some as yet un-revealed. There are also many historical Shan figures who give voice to legends of victories past – Hso-khan-pha and Khun-sang Ton-huung – who Shan historians should be chronicling for posterity. Let us take pride in our human qualities and our heroes, and resolve to make the best possible use of the qualities that we possess here and now. Then success and victory will be ours.

Further reading

Persian Fire: The first world empire and the battle for the west.
Tom Holland, 2005. Abacus
ISBN-10:0-349-11717-9. ISBN-13:978-0-349-11717-1

Agincourt: The King, The Campaign, The Battle.
Juliet Barker, 2005. Abacus
ISBN-10:0-349-11918-X. ISBN-13:978-0-349-11918-2

Quote:

Marathon was in no sense a decisive victory over the Persians. However, it was the first time the Greeks had bested the Persians on land, and "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born." (J.F.C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World). John Stuart Mill's famous opinion is that the Battle of Marathon was more important an event for British history than the Battle of Hastings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon