Doing COIN Since 1066: William the Conqueror To Iraq
[Kat]
As a semi-history geek, it has been interesting watching the evolution of COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people in the know relate our modern COIN techniques in Iraq to more modern wars and successful or unsuccessful leaders. These wars and leaders are most often within the last two centuries.
Whether it is Vietnam and Westmoreland or Gulula in Algiers and occasional comparisons to both World Wars (TE Lawrence WWI), the Civil War and our own Revolutionary War, we seek comparison and continuity through those wars and leaders we can most relate to. We compare or dispose of those leaders and battles as we see fit in order to enhance our understanding of COIN.
Yet, modern COIN isn't so modern.
In fact, it compares favorably to a number of historical precedents. Take, for instance, the invasion of England in 1066 by William, Duke of Normandy and its eventual subjugation to the Conqueror's rule. William won the Battle of Hastings in 1066 through the strategic use of mounted heavy cavalry or "knights", the medieval version of the tank. First, he rained down arrows (artillery and air power), then he used his armor to break the line of the enemy.
Through both daring and the luck of battle, a group of mounted cavalry charged the line of huscarls then retreated, drawing them away from the main line to be decimated. William took advantage of the opening created and charged with his knights into the opening, destroying a number of forces and killing Harold Godwinson. That is after Godwinson had been forced to go north to defend against the invading vikings before making a hard march south after learning that the Duke was preparing to invade near Dover.
In Iraq, a feinted armor attack to the east and the potential of an attack from the north kept some forces stationary while others, the elite "Republican Guard" (huscarls?) maneuvered to defend Baghdad and the main forces stayed in their trenches. Then an armored column drove straight into the heart of Baghdad, causing the government to collapse.
Even William can't lay claim to having invented modern "armored cavalry" tactics since Alexander the Great had used a similar tactic to defeat Darius and the Persian Army.
Like Iraq, William's success at Hastings did not mean that the Anglo-Saxons were just going to roll over and hand him the kingdom without a fight. Neither could he rely on staying based in Dover or London, putting down rebellions through a mobile force that could route the enemy, but not control the land.
What William did next closely resembles COIN in Iraq.
After conquering London, William effectively had control of England. While international trade was relatively limited, goods and food would come from France and other Mediterranean nations through the Thames to London ports for distribution. Coastal English ships, carrying fish, mussels and other English commodities would wind their way to the markets of London. Even marble and other rocks to build homes and defensive walls would come from Wales and other parts of the country to London Town. Controlling London effectively controlled a large part of English commerce as well as the reins of political power. A veritable "green zone".
Still, the "tribes" of England were not ready to submit. William had to contend with a dedicated insurgency and multiple uprisings around the nation, often simultaneously. In 1067, Dover (Najaf) was attacked from Kent and Hereford from Shropshire with an alliance between Saxon Earls and Welsh princes (Anbar). Various rebels took refuge in neighboring countries from which they launched attacks, raided villages, stole food and cattle, killed any supposed collaborators, harassed Norman garrisons and attacked patrols with hit and run tactics.
It should all sound very familiar, including the involvement and assistance of various neighboring nations, up to and including viking raids and whole sale invasions. In reflection even of the current conflict, the most determined resistance came from the north where Saxons from Europe had pushed back the Anglos and controlled the area nearly autonomously with approval from then rulers in London for several centuries (Ba'athists, Tikritis-Saddam's tribe, Sunni's in Arab Joubar, etc).
To put down the rebellions and control the land, William pushed out from his main holds and castles, establishing castles and garrisons in the effected areas. These castles were largely "motte and bailey" or earthworks and wooden defenses (hesco barriers?) that later gave way to stone walls and keeps. This took on some renewed and determined energy, three years into the conquest as William threw up more and more "forward operating bases", establishing "liege lords" to hold the garrisons and control the area.
These liege lords, holding land and castle in William's name, would then establish combat outposts or smaller castles and demesnes with smaller garrisons pulled from the main FOB to patrol and control roads, establish a "presence" in remote areas and let the general population know that they were there to stay. The commanders or "barons" owed allegiance to the liege lord and so on up to the King (commander MNF-I).
Most historians tend to focus on the somewhat brutal, post Hastings military activities of the Norman conquest and give but passing recognition to three of William's most important and effective counter-insurgency strategies. Adopting local governance, establishing local relations and developing a complete census, commonly referred to as "the Domesday Book".
In the early days, William used the medieval equivalent of "total war". Wherever he met resistance, he would confiscate the lands, displace the local lords, destroy crops and burn down villages. He felt that this would destroy the insurgents' ability to survive and their areas of rest and re-supply from which they could attack. He also felt that, if the peasants were busy building shelters and scrounging for food, they wouldn't have time to foment rebellion. While this was true in many cases, it also led to large scale revolts. Particularly after the killing of some local notable.
William's local liege lords soon discovered that the survivability of their FOBs depended on the economic survival of the local citizenry. Of course, the survival of these entities was much more closely intertwined in William's day because the local garrisons depended on food, textiles, minerals and metals from the surrounding areas to maintain their own defenses, weapons and people. If the peasants weren't growing food and tending their cattle, the castle garrison would go hungry. Feudal grants of land and other economic ties began to weld the local population to the new lords who were called upon to settle disputes, control crime and punish the offenders.
Life as a peasant or serf was certainly no picnic, but it is difficult to believe that even the all powerful lord would not have developed an understanding and appreciation for their mutual survival. A survival that included caring for and defending the local population, up to and including bringing whole villages, their stores and cattle into the castle's bailey to defend against attacks. Continuous wholesale slaughter or driving off of the local population was barely an efficient, popular or proper way to ensure survival.
Many of these connections were sealed with inter-marriages with local Saxon nobility, adopting local laws and practices, while simultaneously overlaying them with Norman law and culture. While some contend that Saxon culture and language was all but wiped out under the Normans, English, an adaptation of Anglo-Saxon and Norman language, is the prevailing language of England today. Even the term "England" (Angle Land) is a reflection of an earlier name. Other cultural practices, modes of dress and foods, for instance, were adopted by both cultures. Of course, the Saxons had to learn Norman French to communicate with their lords, but somebody had to learn enough Anglo-Saxon to communicate with the locals or find a good interpreter. Resulting in modern English, spoken all over the world.
Second, William adopted the existing English form of governance over the multitudes of shires. The English system invested in "shire reeves" (sheriffs) the power to administer the shire, collect taxes and carry out the king's law among the citizens. Through strengthening various reporting mechanisms and appointing the "shire reeves" from the central monarchy, William tied these administrative areas more closely to the central government. Reducing some of their autonomy but strengthening over all governance. In fact, turning England from a loose confederation of minor principalities and petty kingdoms into a nation.
Something else that is often overlooked in the rather propagandistic history and military focus of the total Norman Conquest, is the recognition that, in order to administer this existing system, knowledgeable technocrats and bureaucrats had to be retained. While Normans were given control of much of the offices, existing technocrats and bureaucrats would have been handy in ensuring continuity. Particularly since the English type of governance and reliance on written documents would have been unfamiliar to even the most established and educated Norman lord.
Most of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and bureaucrats were able to read and write much better than their Norman counterparts. They could also speak the local language. This made them rather invaluable employees in the new government as administrators, clerks and the medieval version of the accountant.
Like the Marines in al Anbar, William recognized that, in order to control and administer his new, wide spread nation, he had to know "who, what, how many and where". William sent out men to take down the first large scale census since the rule of Rome. The event was essentially a "walking tour" of England with various clerks sent out all over England to count people, take down names, identify the land and quantify its worth (as well as possibilities) in a book called "The Domesday Book".
By knowing who and where, William could understand the relationship between people, places and the rebels. He could identify local leaders and their families. He also knew the wealth and potential wealth of the various areas, could establish taxes and make general economic plans with this knowledge of the current and the future possibilities. The book also codified some of the laws of the land and gave a fairly decent description of the local people, their language, mode of dress and eating habits.
These codified laws eventually became the basis for administrative and criminal law in England that eventually led to Henry II creating a strong legal administrative system and "trial by jury". The eventual basis for the American legal system.
Again, Anglo-Saxon law and culture did not simply disappear. It was "assimilated". So much, in fact, that the original idea of confederated states and consultative government (along with the growing economic and political power of the individual and confederated lords) led to the writing of the Magna Carta. This in turn led to the multiple attempts to force the various kings to recognize this document and power through multiple rebellions (King John, Henry III, James I, James III, Charles I, Charles II, etc, etc, etc).
One of these multiple rebellions (the Roundheads or Parliamentarians led by Cromwell v. the Royalists) that led to the writings of Locke, Hobbes, Burke, etc on the rights of the citizens, the divinity of kings (or lack thereof or, at least, shared by the people who were also the children of God), power deriving from and invested by the ruled people and, finally, their right to rebellion against an unjust ruler.
These writers influenced our own founding fathers who eventually rebelled and wrote various treatises, pamphlets, essays, books, the Declaration and the Constitution that formed the basis of modern concepts for freedom and democracy. They fought off numerous invasions, fought the first Barbary Pirates to protect their commerce (and their existence), fought amongst themselves over the definition of freedom and the reservation of rights to government and the people, fought various tyrants world wide and, eventually, has brought us here where we still fight the enemies of democracy and freedom, still fight amongst ourselves and still believe in the supremacy of those ideas to the degree that we still feel able to have those discussions without any real fear of imminent destruction or disintegration.
Almost 1000 years later, the Norman Conquest of England is still reverberating across our politics, our ideology and our conduct of war, both large and small.
[For the record, I do not discount the military counter-insurgency tactics that William employed nor their brutality. Medieval warfare and politics were particularly brutal and violent. Yet, anyone can read about those battles, but few focus on the very mundane aspects of developing control of disparate kingdoms and principalities to form a nation. Those mundane aspects being the creation of government, administrative offices, codifying law, establishing political and economic bonds and establishing the basis of security and control through the building of castles (FOBs) or their smaller garrisoned COPs (combat outposts).
All of this should look and sound very familiar to anyone that has followed the counter-insurgency in Iraq.
By the way, it took William over six years, 1066 - 1072, to finally subdue the island with a small force, largely outnumbered by the indigent population. He also eventually experienced two of his own "surges" of Norman and various other European lords and their armies. All this while contending with multiple rebellions, economic and political problems back in the home country of Normandy. Technology, it seems, has not made it any easier, shorter, less bloody, particularly for the civilians, or politically risky.]
