The Early Le dynasty developed the Penal Code of the Royal Court (commonly known as the Hong Duc Code) to rule the country as early as the 15th century. Although it was just a primitive beginning, this code provided a firm foundation for Early Le dynasty to train its generals and soldiers, build the army, and safeguard the country in that period of history.
Being driven by the idea that “country governance requires law; lawlessness will lead to disorder; following previous dynasties, the promulgation of law aims to teach generals, government functionaries, and people to distinguish good from bad, abide by articles of law, avoid bad things, and refrain from breaking law”, King Le Thai Tong ordered government functionaries to make the first draft of the Penal Code of the Royal Court - the Hong Duc Code on the basis of inheriting and improving previous dynasties’ penal codes. It can be affirmed that this is a complete code, an outstanding achievement of Early Le dynasty in lawmaking, serving as a mainstay of training the army, ruling the country, and developing the legal system of the country.
The rise and fall of a country are attributed to the king and officials. A talented general cannot win a battle with an undiscipline army. All the army will only submit to military discipline if the general is strict. If the general indulges himself, puts him above the law, makes arbitrary decisions at work, and fails to accomplish his assigned tasks, he will not be able to create confidence among his soldiers. A general who disciplines himself is an example to all of his soldiers. On clearly realising this issue, the Early Le dynasty, especially King Le Thanh Tong, used to attach importance to state affairs, lawmaking, and the role of generals in building the army and national defence. Therefore, there are 58 articles out of 722 articles of the Hong Duc Code specifying military training. Twenty-one out of 43 articles in the Military Affairs Chapter specify responsibility of the general. Only 8 articles are about responsibility of soldiers. Given the position of making and promulgating laws to admonish generals, soldiers, government officials, and all people instead of inflicting harsh punishment, kings of Early Le dynasty used the Hong Duc Code as the mainstay of training military generals and soldiers. Consequently, the Early Le dynasty military was a united, disciplined, invincible army. Dai Viet under the age of Early Le was such a powerful nation that its neighbouring countries had to send emissaries to foster friendship relations. The Northern Dynasties did not dare to provoke tensions. Any acts of encroaching upon the country were stopped successfully. What is taken from the Hong Duc Code by the Early Le dynasty to train its army is as follows:
1. Discipline in battle
In the military, discipline observance is compulsory for all generals and soldiers. Once a military order is given, all of them must obey unconditionally. Strict maintenance of discipline in combat is of utmost importance and provides a firm foundation for creating overall power to achieve all victories. A lack of military discipline undermines combat strength, thus failing to complete the tasks of fighting the enemy and protect the country. A strong army is the one which strictly obeys military orders and vice versa. Therefore, to build a powerful, invincible army, the kings of Early Le dynasty requested his generals and soldiers to strictly abide by regulations of the Hong Duc Code when fighting a battle. Accordingly, generals of Early Le dynasty used to attach importance to formulation of stratagems, increased vigilance, and lives of soldiers. The enemy would launch surprised attacks if they did not take any precautions. If they did not keep good order and assess situations to adjust strategies, they could not win their battles. If they let a soldier die, they would be punished or downgraded. If 10 soldiers or more lost their lives, the general would be downgraded or dismissed. If the general lost more than 20 soldiers, he would be a sinner. Any generals who lost their battles or failed to rescue a friendly army on the brink of collapse would be punished. When the vanguard had engaged the enemy, if the rear told a lie or hesitantly sent in reinforcements, the generals in charge of the rear would be beheaded. Articles 5 and 6 provided that, if soldiers failed to advance or retreat in order, defeated the enemy but did not take this opportunity to pursue and destroy the enemy, they would be beheaded. If the commander was captured by the enemy in battle, the whole military detachment would be beheaded, except for those achieving feats of arms. According to Article 12, those who did not obey their commanders’ orders would be beheaded. During a march, soldiers who deserted their units for one day would be downgraded to labourer. Tougher punishment would be inflicted on soldiers deserting their units more than one day. Article 24 provided that soldiers would be beheaded if they ran away from the enemy. Article 39 stated that, in combat, anyone who confiscated enemy soldiers’ belongings and let them escape would be punished or beheaded. Decapitation would also be applied to those who looted localities which had surrendered. Article 42 specified that generals would receive 70 strokes of the lash if they failed to command their units.
2. Discipline in military service
Apart from exercising strict discipline over its generals and soldiers in combat, Early Le dynasty also attached importance to discipline in military service because this would not only help to ensure sufficient strength for battles but also firmly maintain law and order across the country. Therefore, Early Le dynasty applied articles in the Military Affairs Chapter to train its generals and soldiers. Accordingly, Article 18 stated that anyone who told lies to avoid military service would be decapitated. The commanders of these units would be also punished less severely if they were deceived by their juniors. They would have to go into exile if ignored these violations. According to Article 20, if a soldier asked somebody to do the military service on his behalf, both of them would be beheaded. The commander of this soldier would be also punished if he was unintentionally unaware of this affair or deliberately ignored it. Additionally, Article 23 stated that if a soldier in active service ran away from his unit, he would be downgraded to local jobs. He would be forced to go into exile for repeat offences. Anyone who were involved in this offence would be punished. Soldiers in garrison duty would be downgraded, imprisoned or even beheaded if they deserted their units. According to Article 25, similar punishments would be also imposed on officials in charge of provinces, districts, and communes if they did not capture the deserters. As for people not fulfilling their military service, if they failed to register for military service three times, they would be imprisoned or forced to do hard work. They would be accused of deserting their units and had to pay full compensation for deserting units four times. Punishment would be tougher on large-scale gathering of the army. Article 31 provided that soldiers who pretended to have passed away to avoid military service would be forced to go into exile. If deputy commanders and commune officials tolerated such violations, they would be demoted or exiled depending on the severity of the violation.
3. Discipline in military training
Generals were those who were entrusted with military training by the court. If they do not pay regular attention to this task, they would have to take responsibility and be punished according to articles of this Code. Consequently, those who were in charge of from 50 to 30 thousand troops would be demoted or exiled if they failed to train their armies properly. According to Article 1, they would be decapitated if they committed these offences when confronting the enemy. In addition, Article 17 provided that the generals who did not throw themselves wholeheartedly into training soldiers or sent soldiers to do their private work would be imprisoned, forced to do hard work or exiled. According to Article 43, soldiers who were absent from mass military mobilisation would receive 80 strokes of the lash, downgraded to reserve, and paid a fine up to 3 quan. Commanders and deputy commanders of such units would receive 80 strokes of the lash and face a three-notch downgrade if they borrowed other people to fill the gaps.
4. Discipline in preserving military secret and enhancing vigilance
Protection of military secret is a matter of utmost importance and key to victories in combat because the release of military secret will do harm to combat mission and threaten national interests and survival of a country. If one side fails to keep secret in a battle, it is likely to be defeated and vice versa. All generals and soldiers are requested to increase vigilance and take strict security precautions. In fact, the Early Le dynasty’s success in building a powerful army to deter foreign aggressors from encroaching upon our country was largely attributed to applying the Hong Duc Code to training of its generals and soldier, especially in terms of enhancing vigilance and protecting military secret. Any violations were strictly punished, whoever they were. Article 3 specified that all generals and soldiers would be decapitated if they did not take precautions and let the enemy take them completely by surprise. According to Article 7, the generals would also be beheaded if they were not in harmony with each other, disclosed military secret, or undermined soldiers’ fighting spirit in a battle. Article 15 stated that anyone who gave secret information to the enemy would be accused of colluding with foreigners and beheaded. Articles 13, 22, 27, 30, and 40 in the Military Affairs Chapter specified the Early Le dynasty’s training of its generals and soldiers to have a strong sense of responsibility to preserve weapons and supplies.
The Early Le dynasty’s use of the Hong Duc Code, especially King Le Thanh Tong, as the mainstay of training military generals and soldiers demonstrates superior visions and thinking of kings and generals in charge of training soldiers. This is an invaluable lesson that needs studying, developing, and applying creatively to the training of cadres and soldiers and building of an adept, compact, strong, modern military, capable of meeting demand of national construction and defence in current period.
HA THANH