SmarterthanYou
rebel
anyone who believes that the US should have an aristocracy as a ruling class is a class A moron
WHY AMERICA SHOULD ADOPT ARISTOCRACY AS ITS SYSTEM OF POLITICAL RULE
- Thread starter Dachshynddawg
- Start date
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
I am terminating this discussion because trying to explain even the basics of the history of the West to you would be like trying to teach the calculus to a cockroach- i.e; a total waste of my valuable time.
In short, you, Frank Apisa-poo, are one of the reasons that I think only persons who have passed a mandatory, US government - administered, IQ test (i.e; scored at least 100 points) should be legally allowed to vote in Presidential elections.
Dachshund
We essentially have an aristocratic leadership. Look at the rich people who are presidents. Trump claims he is a billionaire. Bush's were 2 presidents and they are super rich and super connected. But those are Republicans. They always run super rich fat old white men who are heavily connected. When the Repubs are in office they show you what an aristocratic leadership looks like.
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
How about YOU go away? You're a soft-cock leftist, Right (?), so America isn't really the ideal kind of place for you, is it? I mean, it has an oppressive, exploitative capitalist economy and it expects individuals to take responsibility for their own lives/livlihoods. I figure you'd be much better off living in a socialist political order like Venezuela (well, at least what's left of it) ! The only down-side is that you wouldn't be able to go on-line and post ignorant political posts on forums like this, because I hear the state is having trouble maintaining a regular supply of electricity.
Dachshund
Thought you were "terminating this discussion", Asswipe.
What's the matter...can't make up your mind if you want to play in the deep end of the pool with the adults...or to run away?
Either get the fuck going...or stick around and stop pretending you are terminating the discussion.
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
Nordberg,
I explicitly said in my OP that I was referring to the kind of Aristocracy that the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, conceptualised. (And) I was at pains to emphasise that Aristotle's Aristocracy was NOT one where the ruling class (the aristocrats) were wealthy; to the contrary, they were to possess only modest means. Rule by a rich elite is a form of oligarchy which is called a PLUTOCRACY. America in 2020 is a plutocratic state, and this is due to a number of factors; one is that the US has embraced a flawed political/economic ideology called neo-liberalism over the past 40 + years.
In my OP, I then went on the say that Edmund Burke the famous Conservative political philosopher/essayist was strongly influenced by Aristotle's writings on politics when he was a young man at college. Burke proposes a system of government called "Natural Aristocracy". (And) like Aristotle, Burke's ruling class aristocrats are NOT conceived to be a mega-wealthy/powerful "1%" elite. It is not their bank balance that matters to Burke, but their moral and intellectual prowess and their upbringing - how they were brought up, and that they were exposed to certain roles and circumstances, and so on. Burke's aristocrats would certainly have needed a REASONABLE amount of wealth, because he stipulated that they would be able to have time to read, converse, deliberate and meet with wise persons to learn from them wherever they might be, etc. In short, Nordberg, Burke's proposed "Natural Aristocracy" was NOT some kind of fancy PLUTOCRACY; it was NOT system of government where the aristocrats (the ruling class) were individuals who had a lazy $ 100 BILLION or so sitting in their savings account.
If you are interested in the kind of aristocracy I am talking about what you can do is read a very famous book called "Meditation" that was written by the ancient Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. It is a record of his deep innermost thoughts that was never intended to be read by anyone. If you read it, imagine that Marcus is not the Emperor of Rome, but one of the "Natural Aristocrats" that Burke talks about. When you read Meditations you will see that Marcus was a very just and kind man; that doesn't mean he was weak or lacked courage because he was also a very successful warrior on the battle field, he was a Stoic and very well self-disciplined; also, as a ruler, he had to accustom himself to dealing with all sorts of people (good, bad desirable, undesirable, trustworthy, untrustworthy) and making difficult decisions he, is intelligent, wise, and well-loved by the people of Rome for his fair treatment of those who had broken the law. Marcus had money, but it was not important to him, in fact, money was one of the least important things in his life.
One modern-era ruler, US President Bill Clinton, always said that "Meditations" was his favourite book, and that he would consult it for advice/strength in difficult times.
Dachshund
Last edited:
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
The Iceni got as bit wild (not difficult if your daughters get raped by a lot of bloody bossy foreign nasties) and rushed things. We Silures took it steady and managed to wipe out most of one of their legions, which caused them to swear to exterminate us. Here we still are, however!
Tacitus, the Roman historian said that the Welsh were 'orrible, little, aggressive troglodites with dark curly hair and swarthy complexions.Their darkish features were derived from Basque country in Spain. The Welsh are genetic cousins of the Basques and they originally came across the channel from the Iberian peninsula.
It's true that the Silures were a major pain in the neck for the Romans in Britain. They did manage to fight off many Roman attacks on their settlements for quite a long time, which means they were certainly good ( or very determined) warriors, as the Roman infantry and horse-mounted divisions were all professional, and, I would expect, quite well-trained for combat on the battlefield.
You neglect to mention that the Silures were eventually either militarily defeated OR came to terms ( a compromise) with the Romans (it is unsure which). A number of Roman sources, however, suggest that they were eventually subdued by Julius Frontinus in a series of campaigns around 78 AD. The Romans are then said to have accommodated them in a largish settlement that they built that had a surrounding stone wall, baths, housing and other such facilities). Perhaps that is why you (the Silures) are still around today ?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and you don't think that the weatlhy beyond wealthy clintons showed us the same thing?
Democracy (mobocracy) is a slipshod, second-rate form of government. It is little more than mob rule. (And) I would justify this criticism by asking you to recall that in the 2016 US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote. Any American, who takes the time to keep well- informed about events, past and present, in the national political life of the US (and I think that if you are a US citizen, then you have a responsibility to do this - i.e. to be well informed about what the most important political issues of the day are) knows that Hillary Clinton is a career criminal and corrupt politician ( a privileged, elite, liberal "swamp monster" par excellence), with a history of bribery, fraud, money-laundering, etc; going back to the late 1970's.
She also has a considerable history of involvement with the radical, "Second Wave" feminist movement which, generally speaking, was positioned towards the extreme, "lunatic" left pole of the political spectrum. Anyone who was mixed up in so-called "Second Wave" feminism was a rat - bag; these were the people who were saying that there is LITERALLY no psychological difference whatsoever between males and females; that all men are, implicitly, if not actually rapists, that the free-market, capitalist economic system of America was brutal, oppressive and exploitatory. Moreover, it was just one component of a tyrannical patriarchy ruled by WASP men (who are all revolting, greedy pigs) and so it (the Western patriarchy) must therefore be destroyed by women in a feminist revolution. This is all crazy talk of course, and Clinton was mixed up in it.
Anyway, how is it that millions and millions of Americans voted to have Hillary Clinton as the President in 2016, when any average White European American knew for sure that she was a "swamp creature" and a versatile, experienced crook (I mean, FFS, she was caught "red-handed" not that long before the election destroying evidence that had been subpoenaed in relation to a criminal investigation; i.e; the email scandal in which she was embroiled) I specified "average White European American", because I know that the vast majority of Blacks (African-Americans) Hispanics and other racial/ethnic minority groups automatically vote Democrat, because they know the Democrats will give them lots and lots of cash in Welfare handouts and grants and cash reparations. They are, of course, entitled to this money because they are all "victims" of one kind or another ( for example, trans-generational victims of Black slavery in the antebellum South who are so obsessed and tormented with the injustice done to their forefathers, they simply cannot get off their lazy, lard arses to go out and do and honest day's work).
So, if you were one of the millions who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, then you either did not know or care about the fact she was a criminally corrupt politician; or you were a bird-brained, young women who believed that she would benefit from Clinton's feminist sympathies, or you were a member of a racial minority group who knows that only a Democrat like Clinton can be relied upon to pump up the Welfare State balloon so that they can keep sucking happily on the teat (and let's not forget other leftist social engineering projects that Hillary will keep supporting for minority groups like the racist "Affirmative Action" program, or Identity Politics disasters like "Black Lives Matter"). None of these are good reasons for anyone to have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, yet, as I say, she won the popular vote. This is an example of why I believe Western democracy is a profoundly flawed political system. I mean, I don't want a political system where 18 year-olds are allowed to vote, because, for a start, the part of the human brain that is responsible for providing: competent self-control/self-regulation; the ability to deliberate rationally; effective emotional control; the capacity for foresight and hindsight; sound planning abilities, effective problem-solving capabilities and, in sum, prudential wisdom - the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC), does not fully mature until around the age of 25 (some neuro -scientists say, 30). At the age of 18 the PFC is still too immature to enable an individual to wisely weigh the complex issues at hand in a large Western nation like America. Nor do I want anyone in America with an IQ below the average for White European Americans to be allowed to vote; that average is 100 points, and I do not want individuals with an IQ score of 90 or 85 or 75 to have a say in how the country should be run, because as everyone knows low IQ is associated with stupidity, antisocial behaviour, criminality and immorality, all of which are dangers to the integrity of a civilised society. I mean, my IQ is above the average of 100 points,( not WAY above 100 points - I'm certainly no genius), but still, why should my vote in a Presidential election be deemed to have the SAME VALUE as that of some White-Trash, D**KHEAD with an IQ of 80 points, or some 20 year-old Black African-American from Detroit who has an IQ of 75 points and spends all of his time baiting the local police and smoking dope?
Winston Churchill, one of the 20th century's greatest Statesmen was no fan of democracy either; he said he regarded it as the best of a bad lot - a necessary evil. Churchill was an English Conservative - a high King and Country Tory - so he is one of my main political heroes. The only politician I rate above Winston Churchill is Edmund Burke, the brilliant 18th century British Member of Parliament who was the founding father of modern Conservatism. In the later decades of the 18th century when Edmund Burke was a Member of Parliament he was actually a member of the Whig party. It was the down-to-earth political philosophy and theory that he set down in his essays and held forth in his Parliamentary Speeches (which were all transcribed of course) that contained many the fundamental principles and ideals of modern-era traditional (or "classical") Conservatism. Burke's essays are fascinating because they are extremely eloquent but at the same time they are entirely free of any "rococco", flowery B*LLSHIT. Burke is a great master of the English language, so said S.T. Coleridge and T.S. Eliot (which is pretty high praise to say the least !) who was determined to "KEEP IT REAL". If you read any academic, political philosophy published today, it's almost sure to be written by some pretentious liberal/progressive, college professor and stuffed fully of so much postmodernist, technical jargon and "ten-syllable" words that it is basically incomprehensible; and when all is said and done you are left totally confused, wondering WTF were the main point/s, the author of this paper was trying to make? With Edmund Burke, while he is extraordinary eloquent (his prose truly is beautiful), reading some of his best essays is like being in a boxing ring with Muhammed Ali, the points that Burke makes hit you very hard "in the head" and they just keep coming, lightening-fast, until you say to yourself: " OK, OK, I've had enough ! You win, you've convinced me, I am now a Conservative for life." And that's how I first became a Conservative, (and still am in 2020), by reading the old essays a "dead, White, male" wrote in the 1770's, 1780's and 1790's.
Oh dear, I've strayed of task. Getting back to democracy (aka mobocracy), I think it stinks and so did Churchill and so did Edmund Burke. My reading of Burke is that he favoured Aristocracy as a system of government, but not the kind where a self-serving. very wealthy/powerful, hereditary peerage are the ruling class. Burke studied classics as a student at Trinity College in Dublin and he had a good knowledge of the works of Aristotle, the great, ancient Greek philosopher. Aristotle wrote on the subject of politics and looked carefully at different forms of government: tyranny, oligarchy; plutocracy; democracy; aristocracy and so on. I think his idea of an aristocracy is one that is still very feasible today, over 2000 years later.
For Aristotle, aristocracy was a form of government where only "the best" men, chosen by a careful process of selection would qualify to become rulers (members of the government/ ruling class). Aristoi meant "the best" in ancient Greek and "cracy" comes from an ancient Greek word that meant "power"; so aristocracy meant "power (political) to the best." "The best" were those men in a society ( let's use the ancient city-state of Athens as an example) who were the wisest, most intelligent ( had the highest IQs) and most morally superior (i.e; were the most virtuous, the bravest, the most just, the most charitable, the most noble and most dignified, the most righteous in their society). Aristotle's aristocracy was composed of a relatively small number of men ( women were not eligible to be aristocrats, which reconfirms for us that Aristotle was certainly no fool !). Aristotle does not provide any figures, but a number of modern classical scholars have estimated that for a society like ancient Athens there would perhaps have been 200 to 300 aristocrats in the ruling class.
The task of Aristotle's aristocracy was PURELY to work at ensuring the best interest of the state, or, if you like, PURELY to promote the common good/common interest. The members of Aristotle's aristocracy are not wealthy, they do not value wealth. To seek to acquire endless wealth is, says Aristotle, a misuse of our faculties and therefore unnatural. The aristocrats were to possess only moderate resources, (which are all that is necessary for life) and, in any case, in one way or another, nature provides for most of our needs in a sufficient quantity. What is of more importance to them (the aristocrats) are the goods of/concerning the soul.
EDMUND BURKE'S "NATURAL ARISTOCRACY"
Burke calls the ruling class of his ideal society a NATURAL aristocracy because he believes that we are all ("naturally") born with different attributes, characteristics, capabilities and sometimes valuable talents or "gifts". Beethoven was a naturally gifted musician, so is Sir Paul McCartney , Shakespeare was a naturally brilliant poet and playwright, Isaac Newton was born to be a great physicist, while Nietzsche was destined to become an outstanding philosopher, George Patton on the other hand was a great American warrior and so on. Burke believed it was inevitable that principle this also applied to the ability to govern, to be a good political ruler. Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, for example, were both good rulers - competent Emperors of the Great Roman Empire, that was their destiny from birth.
In discussing his idea of a "Natural Aristocracy", it seems quite clear that Burke has taken some of his main ideas from Aristotle. To begin with, Burke's conception of a Natural Aristocracy has nothing to do with the idea of a rule of the privileged or of the rich/powerful, or any type of oligarchy. Burke writes that he is "no friend of the aristocracy" of his era. He says he is, in fact, the enemy of the aristocracy when it is defined (as it largely was during his lifetime) as merely the self-interested rule of the privileged, rich and powerful; as a system of government, such an aristocracy is, Burke says, "an austere and insolent dominator." He is scathing on some occasions in his contempt for those among the nobility of his time who were, he writes in one passage: "...as perfectly willing to act the part of flatterer, tale-teller, parasites, pimps and buffoons, as any of the lowest and vilest of mankind can possibly be." (A description that would apply perfectly to Adam "Shifty" Schiff and other Democratic Party grandees like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi).
To put it in a nutshell, as opposed to all forms of aristocracy that are based on self-interested domination and oppression (through wealth or power), Aristotle and Edmund Burke's conception of an aristocracy, is that it is a system of government that exists SOLEY in the interests of society and not against them; SOLELY for the benefit of the common good.
I will finish with a famous quotation from Edmund Burke where he goes into some detail about who precisely the kind of person would need to be in order to qualify as an aristocrat in his ideal aristocratic system of government. To be chosen as one of Burke's aristocrats, a person would need, he says...
"To be bred in a place of estimation; to see nothing sordid from one's infancy, to be taught to respect one's self; to be habituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; to look early to public opinion; to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled to take a large view of the diversified combination of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse; to be enabled to draw and court the attention of the wise and learned, wherever they are to be found; to be habituated in armies, to command and obey; to be taught to despise danger in the pursuit of honour and duty; to be formed to the greatest degree of vigilance, foresight and circumspection, in a state of things in which fault committed with impunity and the slightest mistakes draw on the most ruinous consequences.To be led to a guarded and regulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor of your fellow citizens in their highest concerns, and that you act as a reconcilor between God and man; to be employed as an administrator of law and justice, and to be thereby amongst the first benefactors to mankind; to be a professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenious art; to be amongst rich traders, who from their success are presumed to have sharp and vigorous understandings and to possess the virtues of diligence, order, constancy, and regularity, and to have cultivated an habitual regard to commutative justice _ these are the circumstances of men that form what I should call a Natural Aristocracy, without which there is no nation." (1791)
Dachshund
Hillary is highly educated lawyer who worked for children after she got out of law school.In Arkansas, she worked for the Children's Defense Fund that fought discrimination in schools. She worked hard to reform Arkansas schools.
She fought for the Equal rights Act , even gave a highly respected speech on it in China.
She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children. and Families.
She served on the board of the children's hospital.
As first lady worked on trying to get universal healthcare.
In the 1980s her church founded the largest daycare center in Arkansas.
Show me a scintilla of that in Trump.
You have swallowed all the right-wing propaganda and it makes you blind and easy to manipulate.
Hillary was a highly educated candidate for president and had worked for the people her whole life.
I know she cannot match Trump University or his stealing from the Trump foundation, but somehow, in some way ,she is evil and Trump is a fine example of presidential timber.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Bit of a false equivalency, but yes, both candidates in every election are rich puppets for the 1%.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
We are not genetic cousins of the Basques - as far as I know we are the same people, having travelled north as the ice melted. I don't think you have read your Tacitus lately. All he says, as I re3collect it, is that we are shorter than some (though probably taller than Romans, on all the evidence) and had wavy hair like people in Spain. A lot of us do. We, the Silures, not 'the Welsh', obviously came to terms with the Romans. Go and see our old capital at Caerwent sometime - the walls are quite impressive even now. They are quite close to the very large legionary headquarters at Caerleon - we rated a whole legion all for ourselves, of the three in Britannia, itself high for a Roman province. The point I was making was that they vowed to destroy us: they couldn't.
Last edited:
The Clintons are pikers compared to the people the Repubs vote for. When Bill came into office he was middle class and he left that way. The Clintons made money after being president through successful books and speeches.
Trumpies think a guy who claims to have 10 billion dollars understands their problems and cares about them. How he pulled that off is amazing. The Bush's are an aristocratic family. They are extremely rich and have their fingers in everything from politics to defense money. They have done it for a long time.
The Clintons are poor when compared to the people you want in office.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well..........1. you're full of shit
2. you have no idea who I want in office................so you're just another partisan hack moron
You are dishonestly criticizing the Clintons. That gives me a clue. The Clintons were poor by presidential standards. really poor compared to Republican presidents. Don't call me names. defend your position.
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
I think Tacitus is a very reliable (usually) and intelligent historian, so I'll try to respond to your post using his account of the issues at hand whenever possible; (which also means that you can check what is stated for yourself, as his historical texts are easy to access free of charge on -line).
As to the Iron Age Silurean phenoype in Roman Britain, Tacitus writes...
"The swarthy faces of the Silures, the curly quality, in general, of their hair, and the position of Spain opposite their shores (in what is now called South East Wales), attest to the passage of Iberians in the old days and the occupation by them of these districts." (Tacitus Annals, Xi.ii).
Also, Jordenes, a Gothic 6th - century Eastern Roman bureaucrat who later became an historian wrote in his text, "The Origins and Deeds of the Goths", that...
"The Silures have swarthy features and are usually born with curly, black hair...They are like the Gauls or the Spaniards."
It's worth noting that Tactitus' hypothesis regarding the Spanish (Basque) ancestry of the Silures is, in fact, supported by some modern-era, mainstream, genetic science. In 2006, a research investigation team in the UK, for example, found that 81% of the genetic makeup of the Welsh people, - from the Y chromosome point of view -, comes from the Basque people. The lead scientist on this team was, BTW, Professor Stephen Oppenheimer who was based at Oxford University is a highly respected member of the scientific community. There are quite a few other studies as well that have drawn a similar" conclusion as Oppenheimer regarding the Basque genetics of the ancient Silure people . So you might be right in saying the Silures "were Basque.", or at least predominantly Basque (genetically speaking) as there naturally would have been some degree of inter-breeding between the Siler folk and other non - Silure Celts in Britain by the time the Romans arrived,
As my OP was to do with the issue of aristocracy, you might be interested to know - (if you do not know already) - that the Silures of Iron Age Roman Britain had put in place a strictly hierarchal social system that was centred on elite aristocracies. Each of the various Silurean settlement groups that were located in what we now call South Each Wales, (in particular: Glamorgan; Gwent and Monmouthshire on the North shore of the Bristol Channel), had its own aristocratic ruling class. These elite ruling classes took responsibility for providing their respective settlements' populations with the resources needed for their day-to-day and long-term welfare.Moreover, the elite Silurean ruling classes were warrior aristocracies similar to those that were characteristic of the neolithic/Bronz Ages Indo-European ethnic groups like the Yamnaya people and the related "Battle - Axe Culture" of Scandinavia, both which also structured their societies on warrior aristocracies. So, the life-style of the upper classes in Silurean society was strongly linked to battle/military prowess and the various appurtenances of warfare such as horses, chariots, weapons (spears, daggers, axes, shields etc) and other combat-related objects. Archaeologists have excavated gold and silver daggers and battle helmets, harness mounts from first century Silurean settlements along with bridle bits harnesses and other cavalry -related items that were lavishly adorned with opulent decorations and high-quality enamelling. These kind of objects were obviously not intended for use in actual battles, but probably played an important role in rituals and ceremonies or were worn/used by members of the Silures' aristocratic classes as status symbols. In real battle, the Silure warriors adopted the practice of painting anything that had military associations (chariots, horses, bridles, harnesses, etc.) in a blood red enamel; they are even said to have painted their own bodies red before going into battle.
When you say that the Romans vowed to exterminate the Silure people, I think you are referring to an announcement that is believed to have been made by the Roman governor, Publius Ostorius Scapula. (Ostorius was appointed second Govenor of Roman Britain by the Emperor Claudius and arrived in Britain around 48 AD). According to Tacitus, Ostorius publicly announced that the Silures were such a danger that he would exterminate them. This is probably true as the Silure people had been causing a lot of trouble for the Ostorius and the Romans in Britain. It seems that Ostorius had exercised poor political judgement in issuing his threat to annihilate the Silures, because rather than intimidating them into passivity or reducing or ceasing their provocations and attacks against the Romans, Ostorius' threat seems to have driven them into a desperate, frenzy of violence. Ostorius' threat, turned out to be a bad error of political judgement, that back-fired severely. It probably explains why in 51 AD, Silurean warriors surrounded and attacked a Roman legionary force (a Roman Legion consisted of about 5,000 troops) who were occupied in building forts in Silure territory. The Legion were ultimately rescued but only with great difficulty and a considerable loss of men. Tacitus wrote of the attack that...
"...the camp Prefect, with eight Centurions, and the bravest of soldiers were slain; and shortly afterwards, a foraging party of our men, with some cavalry squadrons sent to their support was utterly routed."
After this the Silure folk were further galvanised and they began taking Roman prisoners as hostages, distributing them among neighbouring tribes. The overall result of Ostorius' threat to exterminate the Silures had ultimately resulted in precisely what he wanted to prevent - a consolidation of Silurean warriors from different tribes into a new unified. resistance movement.
Anyway, a year later, in 52 AD, Ostorius died suddenly supposedly "worn out with care" according to Tacitus. (After what he'd been through battling the Silures and other Celtic tribes since his arrival in 47 AD I'm not surprised ![/I]
Ostorius was replaced, first by Aulus Didius Gallus, Aulus was then eventually replaced by Quintas Veranius, and after Quintas, Suetonius Paulinus took over the leadership of the Romans in Britain. By the time Suetonius died, 25 years had passed since Ostorius' death in 52 AD and the Silures had still not been conquered by the Romans. After Suetonius, General Julius Sextus Frontinus was put in charge by the Emperor Titus, as Governor of Roman Britain, and finally in 79 AD there was a breakthrough. Frontinus engaged the Silures in a major battles and it is not known whether he defeated them or if the Silures decided to cease fighting and instead work with the Romans. The only brief record of events that exists is from Tacitus who wrote that "In 79 AD Frontinus succeeded and at last subdued the strong and warlike nation of the Silures."
At the end of the war with the Silure tribes in 79 AD ,the Romans "forcibly transferred" the Silures at the hillfort of Llanmelin one mile to the south into a new Roman-styled town they had established in 75 AD this town was called Venta Silurum (or Caerwent). Venta Silurum covered 44 acres and eventually became the largest administration centre of the civilian population of Wales. The Romans were a very civilised people and almost always dealt moderately with the people that they conquered, thus the Silures were allowed to retain their political identity. I think, as well, that the Romans, who placed a high value on military prowess, had a genuine respect for the Silures' fierce determination and courageous conduct on the battlefield. There is evidence of this you can see today at Caerwent in the form of the "Civitas Silurum Stone" which was excavated about 100 years ago ( I think ?). The stone is dated 220 AD and its inscriptions confirm the existence of the Silure people as a "self-governing" body; in fact, the Silures became the only known self-governing body in Roman Wales. I have not visited Caerwent yet, but I would love to. I have read a lot about what has been excavated and it sounds amazing.
I guess it's fair to say, as you do, that Caerwent was the Silures' "old capital. But remember that Caerwent or Venta Silurum was very much a Roman town, with Roman-style houses, shops, baths, mosaic floors, basilica, heating systems, massive 5- metre- tall stone walls surrounding the town and so on. Before they moved to live in Caerwent, the Silure tribes lived on settlements where the standard domicile was a roundhouse, two of them were unearthed on a farmstead in Anglesey and have been reconstructed for display. If you go to St Fagan's National Museum of History (which is located on the outskirts of Cardiff) you can see them for yourself. These Silurean roundhouses are made of timber and clay, they have no windows, so they were very dark inside. What little light did illuminate their interiors came through the doorway or from the fireplace that was built into the centre of the building. They had cone-shaped thatched roofs.
Finally, on a political note (as this is a political forum) if you are proud of your Silure ancestry (and you obviously are) remember that the Silure people were very much Iron Age versions of "High King and Country" Tories ! They favoured a strictly hierarchical class structure with a ruling class "warrior" aristocracy at the top, they were extremely stubborn and self- righteous, intolerant, self-righteous and bellicose, patriarchal/patrilinial, and grounded their societies on the nuclear family.They were not Social Justice Warriors and I do not think they would be impressed with LGBTQI activists or multiculturalism or affirmative action or feminism or promoting diversity, Postmoderist ideology or the "Green New Deal". They would certainly think the modern British Labour Party were crazy and would probably probably put a Marxist socialist like Jeremy Corbyn to the sword on the spot. Alternatively, the Silure folk would have loved Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher (even though she was a woman !) and Ronald Reagan and ESPECIALLY Donald Trump !
Think about that next time you vote - don't betray your Silure blood ! Dachshund
Last edited:
