Michael Collins: Big Man or just a Man?

Many historians choose to highlight Collins importance by suggesting that had he live, Collins may have acted as a uniting force during the civil war, possibly making for a less protracted and bloody conflict between the pro and anti treaty forces. Yet, Collins had up until his death been trying to reconcile the two factions and had so far been unsuccessful. There is no evidence to suggest that he would have had anymore success than his successors, had he lived. Further, although the circumstances around his death remain clouded, it is most likely that he was killed by members of the anti-treaty faction. This clearly suggests that he would have been unable to be the uniting force suggested. Michael Collins was assassinated on the 22 of August 1922. Perhaps it is because ‘It is the martyrs who ultimately endure’, that Collins has been remembered as such an important figure in the Irish struggle for independence, a view which is almost certainly an exaggeration.

19th century philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle commented that "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." This attempt to explain history by the impact of “great men” (i.e.: highly influential individuals, either from personal charisma, genius intellects, or great political impact.) fails to take note of existing social and political conditions. A more popular theory these days, talks about events occurring in the fullness of time, or when an overwhelming wave of smaller events causes certain developments to occur.  In many situations, due to social conditions and prior events, it is not just likely that another person could have perceivably taken their place, it is impossible that someone else could not. People and events are triggers for change rather than the causes of it. Michael Collins, and most other famous Irish nationalists or republicans, did not create Ireland’s struggle for Independence, nor can they be attributed with achieving it. They were simply part of the movement. These leaders were figureheads, or focuses for the movement, or a generally held view. “The fields they work and the seeds they sow have been bequeathed to them more often than they are chosen by them”. The ever building anti-British sentiment and Nationalist feeling made the independence of Ireland inevitable, with or without such names as Michael Collins, Patrick Pearse or Eamon de Valera.

The nationalist feeling in Ireland had been on the build since Wolfetone’s failed uprising of 1798. One need only look at the series of risings (1798, 1803, 1848, and 1916) and the build of nationalist Movements to see this. Many of the Gaelic associations that were formed (such as the Gaelic Athletic Association-a place where Michael Collins had strong connections) became increasingly politicized. An embracement of all things Irish, and thus not British, became an increasingly popular method of expressing nationalism. Patrick Pearse, among others, had earlier been vocal about the virtues of maintaining the Irish language (a language that was rapidly falling into disuse). Further Anglo-Irish antagonism was caused by the Irish memory past wrongs perpetrated by the British. Of particular pain was the memory of the Great Famine. Although over half a century beforehand, the scars of losing 1 million to famine related deaths, and 1.5 million (2.5 million according to some) in the ten years from 1845-55 to emigration (plus the many more who continued to emigrate) ran deep. The British were widely blamed for not providing adequate aid and support at a time when Ireland was in a state of crisis, and was at that point a part of the Union. Some criticism went further still to claim that the British were responsible for the famine because of the way in which they had structured Irish society. The debate over home rule caused further division. This was built upon by the increasing formation of military organisations. These organisations permeated both the North and the South of Ireland. One of the most influential Nationalist organisations with military ties to emerge was ‘The Fenians’ or the ‘Irish Republican Brotherhood’. Fenianism sprang from the wreckage of the 1948 uprising and developed in the context of a fissile but active nationalist popular culture in the late 1850’s.The entertainment and recreational dimension of contemporary Fenianism cannot be ignored. Fenianism was, however, formed as a revolutionary conspiracy, and its leaders actively sought to promote the destruction of British rule in Ireland and the establishment of an Irish republic. An interesting point to note is that Fenianism was the only Irish revolutionary organisation which was committed to insurrection at the very moment of its foundation, whereas the United Irishmen and the Young Irelanders had begun life as purely constitutional bodies and only gradually and reluctantly turned to revolt. The IRB increasingly became a major force after the turn of the century. The Ulster Volunteer force, established in 1912, was the Protestant/Northern Irish answer to the increased militarism. Ireland was in a state of struggle and change. It would have taken more than one person to stop this, and it had certainly taken more than one person to get started and keep moving.

Just as propaganda machines create heroes during war, in a similar fashion, so too did Irish society. All history has a tendency to create heroes, but Irish history has seemed to do it over time. This tendency in Irish history is worthy of further examination. One possible explanation for this is the ongoing nature of the Irish struggle. To this day there are tensions over Northern Ireland. The Irish people thus needed, and perhaps still need, people to admire, and people to inspire. The Easter Rising of 1916 is one example of this hero-creation process. The initial loss of life and property by the average civilian during Easter week saw a good degree of hostility among the Dublin public towards the rebels. But the mid-term British response, both in political as well as military terms, helped to win a popular re-evaluation of the conflict. The execution of the sixteen leaders, a retribution of which it has been observed, created ‘maximum resentment, minimum fear’, helped to consolidate popular sympathies and perhaps even cause outrage. The execution of James Conolly as he sat tied to a chair, unable to stand or even sit up straight because of a severe injuries, caused particular disgust. And so, the Easter Rebels, initially thought of as troublemakers, became heroes, and the sixteen leaders became martyrs.

The early death of Michael Collins in 1922 leaves us asking many ‘what if?’ questions. Would events have played out differently had he not died? And if yes, how so? Furthermore, his death makes the arduous task of assessing his role in Ireland’s struggle for independence an even more difficult one. Many claim that the Irish civil war would have been a lot less bloody. Yet these speculations are virtually meaningless because we are unable to ever know what might have been. However, ‘what if’ statements do have one marked effect, and that is to further the myth of the man. Michael Collins is undeniably an Irish hero. This perception has been reinforced by books such as the biography written by Tim Pat Coogan, and the Hollywood movie of Neil Jordan ‘Michael Collins’. There is no need to deny that Collins was a great man, and in fact, evidence would hardly allow it. Further, his central role in the move towards Irish independence is also notable. However, Collins role in Ireland’s struggle has certainly been exaggerated. Interpretations of Irish history have a tendency to promote the role of certain individuals. This method of historical analysis is dated, and neglects to take account of the fact that history is more than simply ‘the biographies of great men’. Had Michael Collins been killed during the Easter Rising (1916), it is unlikely that the events of the next six years would have played out much differently. Admittedly Collins military genius (especially his ‘flying columns’ and guerrilla style warfare) and intelligence work (particularly his penetration of the Dublin castle) were exceptional, and certainly aided the struggle. Nevertheless, Collins role was not crucial, and his position could have been filled by another. It is all too easy for time to turn myth in to history and mere men to heroes. And it is all too easy for historians to over state the role of an individual in bringing about historical events. Doubtless there are occasions in history that would not have occurred without the involvement of certain individuals (e.g. Hitler and the Second World War, or Karl Marx and communism) yet, most events have multiple causes and cannot be realistically attributed to one individual. Irish history is a complicated web of events, people and organisations, to simplify it down to the biographies of a few ‘heroes’, and exaggerate the role of the individual, does not do justice to the complex nature of the topic.