'victors write history' is a load of old balls. The most famous of historians, Thucydides, was on the losing side. We have countles german accounts of the war.
Although you denied misunderstanding what this phrase means, looking at this statement of yours again, I suspect you really did take it literally.
That Thucydides quote is in relation to the growth of Athens, who very much lost the war. It was also the personal view of Thucydides over Melos. A personal view is not historical fact
To answer your request - 'point it out' - there ya go.
But i'll still ask what the point of the Thucydides quote is? you agee with his personal view that to be able to take something means you have the right to do so?
Does personal view = personal opinion? Or will you split hairs?
(And fwiw, that wasn't his thesis in the Dialogue. He was addressing the exigencies of war, and outside of war the first and central need of the state, i.e. to maintain power.)
The Athenian generals (of whom Thucydides was once one) said this to the Melians to explain why they felt they had the right to invade. You seem to think the Melian dialogue is some cosy political tool that somebody with a degree in ancient history wouldnt know about?
The Dialogue is a rumination on power in relations among states, not a tool. Thucydides was nowhere near the siege - it is a dramatised version of rational vs irrational responses to conditions of war, in the context of Athenian policy and relations with Melos at the time of the siege, during the wider Peloponnesian War. It's one of the literary(?) foundations of Realpolitik. You should know this.
One of the ironies of WW2 and Irish history is that the existence of NI meant that Britain did not have to invade Ireland, Athenian-style, in order to secure a useful base for Atlantic naval operations.
Wellington had an irish accent himself, was often seen in Catholic churches, had no issues with irish 'scoundrels', didnt say the 'born in a stable' thing. He was simply a Protestant irishman. 'Anglo-Irish' is copout nonsense.
Wellington himself would have taken issue with your assertion that he was 'simply a protestant Irishman'. But he would have agreed that ''Anglo Irish' is copout nonsense'.
I didn't claim he made the 'born in a stable' statement. That was a phrase used about Wellington by Daniel O'Connell, whose opinion it was that though Wellington was born in Ireland he was no friend of Ireland or the Irish, ultimately only concerned with furthering British interests in Ireland.
Wellington's disdain for the Irish and indeed his rejection of even the concept of Irishness is well documented. As far as he was concerned, he was a British aristocrat (not Anglo Irish) holding the line in hostile territory against people who would take any chance they were given to throw Britain out of Ireland, and who felt that the enemy of their enemy was their friend. His policy wrt Ireland as Prime Minister reflects this view of his. Reforms under his administration had the aim of pacifying the sections of Irish society that would provide leadership in any anti-British rebellion, informed by his experiences in India where the iron fist and the velvet glove were equally employed. 'Irish' meant 'untrustworthy' to him, especially in light of Irish hopes of a French army of liberation arriving. He was under no illusions about Ireland - his view was that if the British army was deployed there in the wake of a French invasion, it would be operating in a hostile foreign state.
I didnt say it never happened. Press gangs and enforced conscriptions were very rare because funnily enough people dont want untrained, desperate people hanging around ships and military situations. A wage was generally enough. Are you trying to say the 3rd of the british army that was irish at one point was entirely there against its will?
OK, a few issues here.
1 - Press ganging targeted experienced and skilled sailors on both sides of the Atlantic. The county Quota system produced untrained seamen from the prison population and was unsatisfactory for this reason and because nobody wants typhus spreading on a ship. Press ganging took place in seaports as opposed to inland towns for a reason. (Though cities on rivers were not immune - Quebec for instance.)
2 - Press ganging was done in order to man ships. Not the army.
You seem very sure of what I've read yet are consistently wrong about it. I didnt say it never happened.
You said it was widely considered to be a load of old bollocks. It was very rare. This apparently on the basis of just one book (which I too have read, btw). And I know I quoted from the abstract, which you linked. I mentioned this.
You are in the grips of Balmoralism if you are trying to make a case for enthusiastic Irish martial contribution to the Imperial dream. The army was a means of making a living for the very poor all over the islands of Britain and Ireland. Freedom of choice didn't really exist for a great many soldiers.