Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
who were the silures?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
-
Message 2
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
? Ìý
They were the people occupying south east Wales in the pre-roman and roman period. Undoubtedly they were the same people in the post-roman period, but preferred to use words like "Gwent" instead of Silures (which was the romanized term). -
Message 3
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
Ive seen that they were a tribe occupying a part of south wales that is now modern day gwent. The romans described them as swarthy with curly hair.
When iasked who they were i should have said ,are they thought to have settled from somewhere else? -
Message 4
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
When iasked who they were i should have said ,are they thought to have settled from somewhere else?Ìý
Silurian DNA is almost exclusively bog standard western European DNA indicating that the Welsh settled Wales mainly from Spain during the mesolithic period. There's no indication of the Silures being any different to their Ordiovician or Demetian neighbours. -
Message 5
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
A look at Stephen Yeates' `The Tribe of Witches' might help. This is about the Dobunni and the Hwicce who inhabited the Severn Valley, the Cotswolds and the Forest of Dean from the Iron Age. These people would have bordered onto the Silures and so some context could be derived from Yeates' observations.
-
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:05 GMT, in reply to villamarce in message 1
They were conquered by the Second Augustan Legion in the latter part of the 1st century AD, the legion then establishing its base at Isca Siluria (modern day Caerleon).
They should not be confused with Silurians, who are Doctor Who monsters
-
Message 7
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Monday, 13th October 2008
The Roman writer who described their appearance speculated that they were of Spanish stock due to their appearance and the areas proximity to Spain.
-
Message 8
Posted by flipacross (U9997641) on Monday, 13th October 2008
The Roman writer who described their appearanceÌý
That would be Tacitus in 'Agricola':
"... the swarthy faces of the Silures, the curly quality, in general, of their hair, and the position of Spain opposite their shores, attest the passage of Iberians in old days and the occupation by them of these districts; ..."
(From the translation by Maurice Hutton)) -
Message 9
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 26th October 2008
I saw this in a recent booklist:
`In Search of the Silures' by Raymond Howell. Published 2006.
I am sorry that I cannot tell you the booklist but the book has started to be remaindered. -
Message 10
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Thursday, 30th October 2008
Its interesting that the Romans assumed that the Silures were from Spain, based on them being "swarthy" and having " curly hair". " "Swarthy" skin and curly hair are traits that could be found in a wide variety of people from different parts of the world. Does anyone have any more theories about the origins of these people?
-
Message 11
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 30th October 2008
I recal lreading somewhere that, after the defeat and capture of Caratacus, the Silures continued to fight the Romans and allegedly over-ran a Roman fort, th eonyl people ever to manage to do this. All a bit of an embarrassment to Osorius Scapula who had claimed that he had completed the pacification of Britannia.
-
Message 12
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
All a bit of an embarrassment to Osorius Scapula who had claimed that he had completed the pacification of Britannia.Ìý
Which aircraft carrier was he in at the time? -
Message 13
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 14th November 2008
<quote userid=</quote>the Silures continued to fight the Romans and allegedly over-ran a Roman fort, th eonyl people ever to manage to do this</quote>
I'm sure you don't mean this exactly as you wrote it,TonyG. Let's not forget Boudicca overran several Roman fortifications including a couple of major ones in Southwestern Britain before she was finally beaten. -
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
Erik,
Actually I did mean it. Napoleon allegedly wrote that nobody ever stormed a Roman camp when it was properly fortified. Boudica over-ran Camulodunum which had no defensive walls, Londinium, which did, but had no troops defending it because Paulinus made th etactical decision not to defend it, and Verulamium which was largely empty by the time she got there because th einhabitants were not hanging around to be slaughtered.
Spartacus famously caught the Romans in camp, but not a fortified one. (Any bets on how many posts will follow this one claiming, "I am Spartacus!" ?)
I am happy to be proved wrong, but as far as I know, the Silures are the only people who did storm a camp. Whether it was an actual legionary marching camp is debatable, but there seems a good chance that it was. The Romans were not silly enough to set up an undefedned camp in the middle of hostile territory. -
Message 15
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
I am Spartacus!
(you did rather ask for that, didn't you?) -
Message 16
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
I think the Alemanni overran the fortified camp at modern Heidelberg, and several Roman camps fell during the Social Wars (though whether you consider the opposisition "tribesmen" rather than "dissident Romans" is somewhat speculative.)
-
Message 17
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 19th November 2008
Boudica over-ran Camulodunum which had no defensive walls, Londinium, which did, but had no troops defending it because Paulinus made th etactical decision not to defend itÌý
Londinium did not have any walls at the stage - the city was founded around 50AD (dendrochronology on some wood found in a dig in early Roman London suggests 47AD) and Boudica's revolt occured about a decade later.
However, the walls round London were not built until over a century later, from c190AD to c230AD, and the wall along the Thames later still.
So Boudica's forces just walked/ran/drove into the city with no physical defences to stop them. -
Message 18
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 1st December 2008
Thanks, Stoggler. You are, of course,quite correct about the lack of walls at Londinium at that time. I got my time frames mixed up.. The lack of walls was one of the reasons Paulinus made no effort to defend Londinium. That, and the fact that his legions were too far away to get there in time.
-
Message 19
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Actually I did mean it. Napoleon allegedly wrote that nobody ever stormed a Roman camp when it was properly fortified. Ìý
Tony, I've no idea whether you're right or not, but Napoleon saying it smacks more of a moral for his own soldiers than any genuine historical fact. -
Message 20
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Oh, you cynic. Napoleon was a great man. Surely he would not stoop to such things. LOL.
My favourite quote from Napoleon is when he was told about the idea for creating steam ships which would help defeat the British Navy. He apparently replied, "You intend to make a ship sail against the wind by lighting a bonfire under the decks? I have no time for such nonsense!"
Perhaps not a man of great vision after all. -
Message 21
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Napoleon was a great man. Surely he would not stoop to such things. Ìý
Some might say he was a great man because he did stoop to these things!
He certainly knew how to get the best from his soldiers. -
Message 22
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
TO :
ERIK LIDSAY & STOGGLER/ TONY-G
Off hand:
BEFORE Caesar went to Britain in 50 bc
several mainlanders had allready done so.
Chaucivellanos Kents and Celts etc.
The SILURES may be a Media-shortening of:
SALIEN - FRANKS with a Latin inflexion.
These Salien Franks may have ebeen a West- Gothic tribe
The Germans were not just Theutons & Allemans
Rippuarians and Schwabians but ALSO" SAXONS + JUTES & Danes !
The FRANKS were Germans too but their Tribe
was sub- divided by SALIEN- Franks & Saxonian FRANKS.
Why the Germans were called Germani and NOT
FRANKS is a mistery to me someting to do with
an improbable sub-division by the scholar
PLINiUS into IS-GAVEONES & IST-VAGEONES.
The British used the IS- word the Goths IST instead.
The SILURES thus may have been contemporary,
with German GOTHS, that were roaming Spain or Germany
But as I said this is " off - hand "and I am
no expert on the matter.
I am sure that other British-History -Buffs will do better.
The multitude of pre-Roman Tribes that roamed
Northern Europe: CANINEFATES,(= Dutch Batavians,.) Eburones; Treviri; Nervii; Tuatucci; Tungri; Helvetii; Ambiorix; Ermanarik,
and whatever springs to mind
the standalone capital-Cities that were named after these" disapered" or amalgamated, Gaulic tribes,
is more intricated, than appears on first sight.
One needs a degree in ETHNOGRAPHY to understand. -
Message 23
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Monday, 8th December 2008
<>
Cloudyj
My information tells me that the Demetae were the descendants of Miletians from Southern Lebanon, the Phonecians who decided to colonise these softer gentler climes, of South West wales and South Eastern Ireland.
I don't suppose the DNA of the Iberians from Galicia and Portugal would be so very different from Lebanon any way being coastal people fairly near/on the Mediteranean basin.
There were no highways and by ways in those days on land; they were all sea lanes and wind power. -
Message 24
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
Hi Smiling, the DNA of Iberians is different from Lebanese and it's the Iberian DNA which predominates throughout south western England and Wales. That doesn't mean that the Demetae don't have a link to the phoenicians (they certainly traded with them), but in all likelihood it was probably a folk myth invented to distinguish themselves from their neighbours. Or possibly invented by their neighbours to show them as different.
-
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
I don't suppose the DNA of the Iberians from Galicia and Portugal would be so very different from Lebanon any way being coastal people fairly near/on the Mediteranean basin.
Ìý
DNA is not determined by geographical location - peoples being apart geographically but in coastal areas would not share similar DNA for that reason.
There were no highways and by ways in those days on land; they were all sea lanes and wind power.Ìý
Of course people travelled by land in those days. Not all land is near the sea or oceans, so there is not always the benefit of sea travel available. But even in coastal regions you find paths and roads that have been in use for millenia -
Message 26
Posted by CarmarthenshireHowell (U13674951) on Tuesday, 9th December 2008
<>
The Ebro valley had a traditional path going all the way over to Bilbao.
That would not have been much use to a Phonecian trader though. He had to carry his chattels with him, and that meant the sea route past Gibraltar.
It is arguable which route to Rome was the most dangerous, by sea or by land there being pirates by sea and robbers by land. Some winds would have got them there appreciably quicker by sea. -
Message 27
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 10th December 2008
Don't underestimate the use of river routes, either. Look at the 'Rus route to Miklagard for a late-ish example.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.