Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Most Important Irish Person

  • 14-01-2013 2:11am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭


    Okay, I know I'm really new here but I remember a similar (titled differently but I can't remember the real name!!) poll done by both Britain and Ireland before...the Irish version, while John Hume won, included Ronan Keating and Louis Walsh were also in the top 20....

    So, to ask people interested in and with a knowledge of history sounds interesting! Who would you say is the most (I realise this is an almost impossible title, but who you believe impacted history the most) important person in Irish history...maybe even followed by, as I assume the most important will be those who did good, those Irish who caused the most damage to our nation! May even start this in AH if I feel brave enough, though I'm sure it's done.

    Most important: Michael Collins..YES an absolute cliche but I love the man, if he had lived I highly doubt he would've beaten dev to such positions of power and yet I feel his influence may have shaped a slightly less dev influenced early Ireland....Most negative influence I find obvious, ahead of any British monarch, Cromwell etc....Diarmuid MacMuragh!!! I don't see how this is up for dispute although I know very little about the time in question, more of a fan of twentieth century history.. :)


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 39 eoghan_85


    New to this as well but will give it a shot. Firstly I'll admit that I am a bit of a Dev apologist but for me he has to be the most important person in Irish history over the last hundred years. I suppose I'm basing this largely on his longevity in the heighest positions of power spanning fifty years at arguably the most crucial junctions of the Irish states lifetime. Without getting into the wrongs and rights of his lifetime (which I'm going to assume as topics for a different thread) I believe his most important legacy was to bring a militiaristic anti treaty force down the path of peace that created the current two party system that has shaped our country since. There are other elements of his legacy that have equally shaped Irish life - Neutrality, 1937 Constitution, etc - and although he's probably the most widely debated figure in Irish history, there can be no doubt that he has been a major figure and IMHO the most major figure. As Tim Pat Coogan aptly named his biography on De Valera - Long Fellow, Long Shadow!

    Other figures of note would be Daniel O Connell and Parnell for laying the foundation principles with a disengaged Irish public that they could achieve their goals through peaceful, democratic means.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Aodh Mór Ó Neill (c. 1550-1616).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Brien Brou was the first person who gave the Irish the sence that Ireland was a nation as opposed to a collection of Kingdoms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭dave2pvd


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Aodh Mór Ó Neill (c. 1550-1616).

    ^ +1

    Enormous influence on Irish and world history.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    goose1 wrote: »
    .... So, to ask people interested in and with a knowledge of history sounds interesting! Who would you say is the most (I realise this is an almost impossible title, but who you believe impacted history the most) important person in Irish history...maybe even followed by, as I assume the most important will be those who did good, those Irish who caused the most damage to our nation! May even start this in AH if I feel brave enough, though I'm sure it's done.

    Most important: Michael Collins.. if he had lived I highly doubt he would've beaten dev to such positions of power and yet I feel his influence may have shaped a slightly less dev influenced early Ireland....Most negative influence I find obvious, ahead of any British monarch, Cromwell etc....Diarmuid MacMuragh!!! I don't see how this is up for dispute although I know very little about the time in question, more of a fan of twentieth century history.. :)

    There are plenty Irish people who did good and bad to Ireland and it´s imo difficult to pick one of them for each term (good or bad).

    To stick on the 20th Century I think that most important for who did good are:

    - James Connolly - the Socialist and man of the Trade and Workers Unions
    - Patrick Pearse - the philosophic and foreseeing Republican
    - Arthur Griffith - the founder of SF but a pragmatic politician
    - Michael Collins - the multitalented leader who drove the British out
    - W. T. Cosgrave - the man who brought some stability after the Civil War
    - and Sean Lemass - the Taoiseach who led Ireland into modernity.

    The more bad ones are:

    - James Craig - the die-hard who is responsible for the partition
    - Cathal Brugha - the worst of the republican die-hards
    - Eamon De Valera - the "clergy-friend" who stirred up the Civil War
    - and Ian Paisely - the "Mr NO" for denying the Irish people in NI civil rights.

    The people I´ve picked there have in either way something in common which I regard by good doers as progressive and their hearts on the people and the country. The bad ones on selfishness, oppression and all of them were die-hards of their cause.

    As for Michael Collins, I´ve the same opinion as you about him but I also bear in mind that without Griffith there would be something missed.

    Inbetween these two categories is Charles Haughey. Although he did also some good for Ireland, this all is overshadowed by being branded as "corrupt".

    It´s impossible to me to pick just one of them to be the most important. The whole development that led to Irish Freedom starts with Wolfe Tone through O´Connell, Parnell to James Larkin, Arthur Griffith and so on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,722 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    dave2pvd wrote: »
    ^ +1

    Enormous influence on Irish and world history.

    Why so world history?

    World history id have to say wellington. Irish history perhaps parnell


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,557 ✭✭✭touts


    I'll put in a shout for Ernest Walton for his work in splitting the atom.

    Biggest Impact has to be Brian Cowen. His actions (or lack of) in the Department of Finance and then as Taoiseach lead to the destruction of the country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    touts wrote: »
    I'll put in a shout for Ernest Walton for his work in splitting the atom.

    Biggest Impact has to be Brian Cowen. His actions (or lack of) in the Department of Finance and then as Taoiseach lead to the destruction of the country.

    Throw in Brian Lenihan for his decision to save Anglo.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    touts wrote: »
    Biggest Impact has to be Brian Cowen. His actions (or lack of) in the Department of Finance and then as Taoiseach lead to the destruction of the country.
    Ipso wrote: »
    Throw in Brian Lenihan for his decision to save Anglo.

    Keep it to 20th century and before for the sake of discussion- otherwise this is politics rather than history.

    Moderator.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen imo...

    O'Connell could have been the most important Irishman ever if he wasn't a bottler.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭goose1


    Totally agree, aside from the Collins remarks, James Connolly was so important....to be honest I'm reading these replies half drunk but i intend on writing a proper piece on the advances made by Connolly, especially re women....Great man!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 297 ✭✭dienbienphu


    I think Gerry Adams contribution to Irish history has yet to be realised. I think hes probably the most overlooked living Irish patriot of our times. I think Adams has laid the foundations for Irish unity but selfishly it is not realised by Irish people, in the south at least.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    I think Gerry Adams contribution to Irish history has yet to be realised. I think hes probably the most overlooked living Irish patriot of our times. I think Adams has laid the foundations for Irish unity but selfishly it is not realised by Irish people, in the south at least.


    I suppose the fact that he fully supported the slaughter of innocent working class people in Birmingham Guildford Enniskillen La Mons etc blinds people to his "patriotism"
    I cant see how copperfastening partition has exactly laid the foundation of Irish unity(something hundreds of thousands of people on the island (north and South) dont ever want to see
    If you want to name a living patriot look no further than Seamus Mallon


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 297 ✭✭dienbienphu


    Luca Brasi wrote: »
    I suppose the fact that he fully supported the slaughter of innocent working class people in Birmingham Guildford Enniskillen La Mons etc blinds people to his "patriotism"
    I cant see how copperfastening partition has exactly laid the foundation of Irish unity(something hundreds of thousands of people on the island (north and South) dont ever want to see
    If you want to name a living patriot look no further than Seamus Mallon

    well i'm sure if irish people can come to terms with the likes of the famine where over 1 million people died, im sure historians will be able to see past a couple of bombings in England.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 574 ✭✭✭ZETOR_IS_BETTER


    My vote goes to the big fella ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    well i'm sure if irish people can come to terms with the likes of the famine where over 1 million people died, im sure historians will be able to see past a couple of bombings in England.

    If we dont mention the bombings in Ireland its allright so. Usual Provo guff as expected


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 297 ✭✭dienbienphu


    Luca Brasi wrote: »
    If we dont mention the bombings in Ireland its allright so. Usual Provo guff as expected

    take it to the politics forum if you have a problem. what the ira did during the 20th century is only a drop in the ocean compared to the atrocities carried out by the British in Ireland during their entire reign of terror.

    a couple of Brits blown up in a pub, come on now, lets not cry over spilled milk


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1



    a couple of Brits blown up in a pub, come on now, lets not cry over spilled milk

    Refer to forum charter "overly ... inflammatory comments will not be tolerated under any circumstances"

    Thus infraction for quoted comment. Watch your conduct in future.
    There is no need for any other poster to respond to this comment.
    Any problems with this can be sent by PM to me.

    jonniebgood1.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    I think Gerry Adams contribution to Irish history has yet to be realised. I think hes probably the most overlooked living Irish patriot of our times. I think Adams has laid the foundations for Irish unity but selfishly it is not realised by Irish people, in the south at least.
    Gerry himself wouldn't agree with that but would point to Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers I reckon as being more worthy of that praise

    Humility is a common trait with ex IRA members I've found, even the best ones who have done much


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,624 ✭✭✭SebBerkovich


    David Norris gets my vote.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    GRMA wrote: »
    Gerry himself wouldn't agree with that but would point to Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers I reckon as being more worthy of that praise

    Humility is a common trait with ex IRA members I've found, even the best ones who have done much

    I find it rather difficult to see a link from Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers to the peace process. They died for their recognition as political prisoners in the first place. Gerry Adams has been active on reaching the GFA.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Thomas_I wrote: »
    I find it rather difficult to see a link from Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers to the peace process. They died for their recognition as political prisoners in the first place. Gerry Adams has been active on reaching the GFA.
    The idea of focusing on politics, ending abstention etc all started in the jails and particularly with the hunger strikers... if you read the comms from the time thats clear... Adams was involved in that process too of course


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    GRMA wrote: »
    The idea of focusing on politics, ending abstention etc all started in the jails and particularly with the hunger strikers... if you read the comms from the time thats clear... Adams was involved in that process too of course

    The fact that he was never in the I.R.A. meant that the gullible young men behind bars doing life had that extra respect for him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Gerry Adams must be older than I thought, being as this thread's supposed to be for anyone around pre 20th Century.:P


  • Registered Users Posts: 39 eoghan_85


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Gerry Adams must be older than I thought, being as this thread's supposed to be for anyone around pre 20th Century.:P

    Who said the thread's supposed to be for anyone around pre 20th century?

    On the topic of Gerry Adams I think he has to go down as one of the most important people in Irish history over the last 50 years. Read Ed Moloney's book - The Secret History of the IRA recently and have to admit I finished it with a much greater level of admiration for Adams. Effectively Adams was the one who started the peace process, despite coming from a military background in the early 70s, with the initial talks with Alex Reid and the Irish Govt. which I did without army council approval or knowledge and risked quite a great deal to ensure that talks stayed open during some very heavy periods of violence. To dismiss Adams as merely a war mongering terrorist is overly simplistic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    eoghan_85 wrote: »
    Who said the thread's supposed to be for anyone around pre 20th century?

    On the topic of Gerry Adams I think he has to go down as one of the most important people in Irish history over the last 50 years. Read Ed Moloney's book - The Secret History of the IRA recently and have to admit I finished it with a much greater level of admiration for Adams. Effectively Adams was the one who started the peace process, despite coming from a military background in the early 70s, with the initial talks with Alex Reid and the Irish Govt. which I did without army council approval or knowledge and risked quite a great deal to ensure that talks stayed open during some very heavy periods of violence. To dismiss Adams as merely a war mongering terrorist is overly simplistic.

    Sorry, misread post Number 10 :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Brian_Zeluz


    Brian O'Driscoll


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 292 ✭✭Fooker


    I think discussion of Sand and Adam's etc. should wait another few decades yet. They certainly should not be discarded, to do so you would have to disqualify Wolfe Tone, Pearse, Collins, De Valera and so on from the discussion.

    Further, I would definitely put O'Connell in the mix and I am quite suprised that Grattan has not been even been mentioned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    How about Charles Steward Parnell, Land Reform and Home Rule Bills.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Ranelite


    Michael Collins.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 297 ✭✭dienbienphu


    Ranelite wrote: »
    Michael Collins.

    Ya I agree with Michael Collins to an extent but how much are peoples opinions of him influenced by the movie? I don't remember Collins been that popular prior to the movie and the timing of the movie had a lot to do with the 1994 IRA ceasefire and the eventual compromise which was reached. So you need to ask whether Collins deserves the reputation he maintains? I don't see that many statues or place names of him which says a lot about what people thought of him...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Fooker wrote: »
    I think discussion of Sand and Adam's etc. should wait another few decades yet. They certainly should not be discarded, to do so you would have to disqualify Wolfe Tone, Pearse, Collins, De Valera and so on from the discussion.

    Further, I would definitely put O'Connell in the mix and I am quite suprised that Grattan has not been even been mentioned.
    Why would you say O'Connell?

    The "liberator" did nothing of the sort, with the emancipation the lot of ordinary citizens was made even worse and a series of events set in motion which culminated in the famine. Most notably millions were disenfranchised, and thus useless to their landlords. Looked good on the surface but underneath it was a bad deal.

    He was a coward and an egotist, he felt threatened by the young Irelanders and spread all sorts of lies about them, he constantly strove to make sure he was never eclipsed.

    However he was very charismatic and he more than any other man in Irish history held the power in his hand to free Ireland, but he bottled it spectacularly, he wouldn't lead.

    I personally doubt he was ever genuine about repeal and just whipped up the repeal movement to keep relevant after his pals were no longer in government.

    What did he achieve? What legacy did he have?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭BobbyPropane


    Definites: Collins(Led our war to freedom and established our independence), Griffith(Founded the political party which would motivate the Irish people for complete independence), De Valera(Wrote the constitution and kept us out of World War 2 and showed the world that we were independent of Britain.However did start The Civil War.), Sean Lemass(Modernised Ireland). Mary Robinson ( Showed the world how humans should be treated).

    Mentions: Parnell, O'Connell, Cosgrave,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Ranelite


    Ya I agree with Michael Collins to an extent but how much are peoples opinions of him influenced by the movie? I don't remember Collins been that popular prior to the movie and the timing of the movie had a lot to do with the 1994 IRA ceasefire and the eventual compromise which was reached. So you need to ask whether Collins deserves the reputation he maintains? I don't see that many statues or place names of him which says a lot about what people thought of him...

    The movie pissed me off for many years with the romantic threesome yawnfest and also the historical inaccuracies (Harry Boland was killed in Skerries and didn't have a strong Dublin accent, car bombs etc). In hindsight it's not a bad flick considering Jordan had to keep the Yanks happy. The footage of his funeral still bring a tear.

    Also, there's not one mention of the IRB or any analysis of the Treaty negotiations in the whole film. The reason Collins is so revered is because he ran the secret IRB (which was the military spine of the IRA), the IRA itself and his role as Minister for Finance while also negotiating the Treaty. Getting Britain to smoothly pull out of Ireland was a massive achievement. He had military designs on the 6 counties - who knows what would have happened. I fear, if he had lived, he might have become a fascist dictator in the late 20s or 30s.
    What isn't well documented is that when Collins returned from London with the Treaty terms he brought it the Supreme Council of the IRB. Liam Lynch couldn't swallow the oath so Collins got him to reword it (according to Sean O Muirthile, Sec IRB). Lynch was the most important figure in the Civil War as he commanded the IRB and IRA in the south. So Collins made the changes and later Lynch turned on him which sparked war.

    The reason there are no statues of Collins or Dev etc is because Civil War politics made the issue too emotive.
    BTW: I still I find it ridiculous that Fine Gael consider Collins as one of their own!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭Luca Brasi


    Like Ranelite I dont think Collins would be the great democrat people say. We know that he was breaching the Treaty bu sending weapons to the North, He was aware Reggie Dunne and Sullivan were in London to plug Wilson and didnt call it off. I think that once the Free State was established that the next move would be an atatck on the Norht with an organised Free State army. Collins would still be running IRB as a governement within a government


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭BobbyPropane


    Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

    Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

    Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.
    Kinda left out the massive suffering and death that occurred in Ireland as a result of Collins, the Treaty and partition.

    Very skewed account of things you have there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭BobbyPropane


    GRMA wrote: »
    Kinda left out the massive suffering and death that occurred in Ireland as a result of Collins, the Treaty and partition.

    Very skewed account of things you have there.

    I didn't forget that. But it could have been a lot worse if we had a war taking place both north and south. The civil war was not Collins fault. He did not want to fight but was forced to after a free state general was captured. The only people who really wanted to fight were de Valera,lynch and Barry. The majority of Irish people wanted peace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭RebelRed90


    Michael Collins would get my vote too.

    Honorable mentions would be Liam lynch,Tom Barry, James Connolly, Wolfe Tone, Luke Kelly, George Boole (Probably more english than irish), WB Yeats, Michael Cusack.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Ranelite


    Collins was planning northern operations prior to his assassination with Frank Aiken etc. I think once the Civil War was done and dusted he would have focused on the North as he would have had plenty of arms and finances to do so.
    Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out. To think he would have attacked the north is ridiculous although he most definitely would have supported any military groups up there,

    Without Collins military tactics and ability to reason (The treaty) we could have stayed part of the British empire and even be in situation like northern Ireland today. De Valera wanted a war we could not win. In the end we won by making peace through a treaty Collins and Griffith took the initiative to sign. We may not have the north but we have a proud 26 county republic which has developed greatly over the last century and I thank everyone who fought in the war for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,302 ✭✭✭paul71


    I am surprised that no-one has given Rodger Casement an honourable mention. While I don't believe he is the outstanding candidate, his contribution on the world stage embarassed the British empire and other colonial powers into improving the rights of exploited workers in agricultural and mining death camps in many colonised countries.

    Another deserving of mention would be Edmund Burke, although not hughly recognised in Ireland he had a profound impact on Liberal thinking polictics internationally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Wintergreen


    I'd have to say Parnell. I've always thought that if personal life did'nt get in the way, Parnell could have achieved pretty much the exact same thing the as the War of Independence did but without the Civil War. Later the State could have broken the last few links with the United Kingdom like DeValera did with the Republic of Ireland Act in the late 40's.

    My second choice would be Lemass.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    Collins would not have gone near northern Ireland. The reason he signed the treaty is because he knew that the war could be sustained no longer. Finances and arms were running out.


    The idea that the IRA could not have continued the war if needed is something that was rejected by some of the most well know IRA field commanders. In fact, if you are to believe their account, the position of the IRA had never been stronger than when the Truce was called.
    There was a severe shortage of arms and especially Amunition on the IRA side, but that was true from day one of the conflict, and by the time the truce was called, plans to bring in arms and amunition were well advanced, they were actually landed during the Truce.
    On the British side however, the army was under pressure just to maintain troop numbers in Ireland, never mind find troops for a major increase in numbers.
    Add this to the growing domestic opposition to Government policy in the mainland UK and Personally I can only conclude that threats of immediate and terrible war were little more than bluff.

    Given that the truce happened in the middle of the summer, it was in reality to the IRA's advantage, time was on their side, had HQ done what most IRA commanders thought they were going to do and resumed hostilities after a week or two of the truce the worst of the summer would nearly have been over, the Nights would have started to get longer again, alowing greater freedom of movement for the IRA units in the field and put the IRA with its local knolowadge at a distinct advantage when engadgeing the enemy.

    The IRA would not by any means have driven the British out, but they would have grown in strenght, they could have (and planned to) spread the fight further throughout the country, especially given the opportunity to reorganise during the truce. They could have and did bring in arms and amunition. The longer into the dark winter months the war streached, the more pressure and losses would have mounted on the Army and the pressure on the British Government both domestic and international would have grown and grown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 thadiisgirl


    Going back a bit further, what about Robert Emmett?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭BobbyPropane


    An Coilean wrote: »


    The idea that the IRA could not have continued the war if needed is something that was rejected by some of the most well know IRA field commanders. In fact, if you are to believe their account, the position of the IRA had never been stronger than when the Truce was called.
    There was a severe shortage of arms and especially Amunition on the IRA side, but that was true from day one of the conflict, and by the time the truce was called, plans to bring in arms and amunition were well advanced, they were actually landed during the Truce.
    On the British side however, the army was under pressure just to maintain troop numbers in Ireland, never mind find troops for a major increase in numbers.
    Add this to the growing domestic opposition to Government policy in the mainland UK and Personally I can only conclude that threats of immediate and terrible war were little more than bluff.

    Given that the truce happened in the middle of the summer, it was in reality to the IRA's advantage, time was on their side, had HQ done what most IRA commanders thought they were going to do and resumed hostilities after a week or two of the truce the worst of the summer would nearly have been over, the Nights would have started to get longer again, alowing greater freedom of movement for the IRA units in the field and put the IRA with its local knolowadge at a distinct advantage when engadgeing the enemy.

    The IRA would not by any means have driven the British out, but they would have grown in strenght, they could have (and planned to) spread the fight further throughout the country, especially given the opportunity to reorganise during the truce. They could have and did bring in arms and amunition. The longer into the dark winter months the war streached, the more pressure and losses would have mounted on the Army and the pressure on the British Government both domestic and international would have grown and grown.

    And I suppose the one million unionists would have happily agreed to be part of the south. We would have ruined this country further had we kept fighting and god knows would be in power by the end of it. Cosgrave was the right man for the time when he came into power. He settled this country and many forget that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    I'd have to say Parnell. I've always thought that if personal life did'nt get in the way, Parnell could have achieved pretty much the exact same thing the as the War of Independence did but without the Civil War. Later the State could have broken the last few links with the United Kingdom like DeValera did with the Republic of Ireland Act in the late 40's.

    My second choice would be Lemass.

    I think he owes his success to Ken Whitaker who showed him what to do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,733 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Interestind question for me is who has been the most influential Irish person on the world stage as opposed to locally.

    I cant say that Collins/ DEV/ Parnell/ Hume/ and so on and so forth have made any big difference outside of Ireland......as for Aodh Mor O'Neill.......

    To be honest I'd say Bono has had more impact than that lot put together, but its just not fashionable to say so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    And I suppose the one million unionists would have happily agreed to be part of the south. We would have ruined this country further had we kept fighting and god knows would be in power by the end of it. Cosgrave was the right man for the time when he came into power. He settled this country and many forget that.


    Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

    It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    An Coilean wrote: »
    Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

    It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.

    I don't find the suggestion amazing.

    Had the British relented and allowed an independent Ireland, there would have been a civil war involving the loyalists on one hand and everyone else on the other, which would have led to significantly more casualties than the pro-treaty/anti-treaty civil war that actually took place.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭BobbyPropane


    An Coilean wrote: »


    Very unlikely, but that is not to say that the outcome of not continuing the truce and sighning the Treaty as it was would have lead to a worse outcome, certainly it would not have lead to the destruction of the IRA and a British victory in the War of Independance as is sometimes suggested.

    It was a dificult time and there were no easy solutions, but I find it amasing that you would suggest that the Treaty and resulting civil war was the best outcome Ireland could have hoped for at the time.

    I did not suggest its the best we could have hoped for. I believe the civil war could have been prevented had collins and Griffith pushed further for external association but the damage done by the civil war is small compared to what would years and years of guerilla warfare and then possibly civil war again


  • Advertisement
Advertisement