what did the British think of a Roman nose?
492571
Roman nose is thought to be very thin, with a sharp point, and a large hump lyk
308799
Sadly, as far as I know there is no direct mention of Stonehenge in the primary works written by the Romans.  The site really didn't start getting that much attention until the renesance, when scholars flush with reading about the Romans and the Druids (and romantisising the heck out of both) becan to argue over which group of people built it.
797562
Has it got anything to do with Hadrians wall?\n\nJust a guess, but the Monkey was hung somewhere around Wallsend, or Tyneside, or that neck of the woods. Wasn't it?\n\nOK, I give up. What is the connection?
970462
There were people in Britain long before the Celts came across, which I think was around 500 BC, but we don't know much about them, like what language they spoke. In fact people have been in Briatin continuousy for thousands of years.\n\nWhen the Romans came, they found people speaking a language similar to Welsh, and also similar to Gaulish spoken in France and Belgium. Many of the Celtic tribes still had connections with their cousins on the European mainland. In the North of Scotland were the Picts, who may have spoken a Celtic language - no-one knows for sure.\n\nThe Romans came and went, even though they were here for four hundred years it doesn't seem that they left many descendants in Britain. It was always a bit of an outpost of the Roman Empire, cold, remote, unattractive to settlers.\n\nThen betwen about 450-600 AD, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians came from Holland, Northern Germany, and Denmark; they fought many wars with the (Welsh) Britons, overwhelming them. It seems that they were largely ethnically cleansed from most of England - many refugees went to France, to the area that came to be known as Little Britain, now Brittany. But Wales remained Welsh speaking, while Scotland was invaded by the Scots, an Irish tribe.\n\nLater, from around 800 AD, the Danes and Vikings came from Scandinavia. Originally they were just raiders, but they ended up settling much of Northern England.\n\nOf course, in 1066 we had the Normans coming from Northern France. They took their name from "Northmen", as Normandy had been conquered by Vikings previously, but they spoke a French dialect, and were probably descended more from Gauls and Romans than from Scandinavians.\n\nThankfully, that was the last serious invasion of Britain. Since then, there has been constant interchange of people with nearby countries, and those countries too with all their neighbours, so it is nothing surprising to find a little Mongol blood dating from their incursion into Europe, for example.\n\nWe had a large number of Protestant refugees from France - the Huguenots - in around 1680 - check \n\nhttp://www.huguenotsociety.org.uk/history/\n\nJews had also been present for hundreds of years, before they were expelled in 1290 - they were allowed back by Cromwell in about 1650. There were Italian merchants, and even Blacks were present in Shakespeare's time. More Blacks arrived as servants and freemen as Britain's Empire began to grow.\n\nMany Jews arrived from Eastern Europe from about 1880; there were also communities of Yemenis and Chinese, that originally arrived as seamen. In the 1930s we had Jewish refugees from Germany, and Basque refugees from Spain.\n\nDuring the Second World War, a large number of Poles came to fight against the Germans, and couldn't go back after because they couldn't accept the Communist regime. \n\nBecause of labour shortages, the British government recruited Italians and West Indians to work here; then people came from India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh. And since then, as the world has become a smaller and smaller place, people have come from all parts of the world, just as people have gone from here to all over.\n\nThere's nothing new about immigration, and nothing new about people's fears and hostility. But each wave of migrants gets absorbed into the population.
124330
Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?\n\nBy Tom Holmberg\n\nAlthough popular legend blames Napoleon and his troops during the French campaign in Egypt (1798-1801) for having shot the nose off the Great Sphinx, in fact this story just isn't true. I have yet to locate an original source for this myth. The idea that Napoleon was to blame for the Sphinx's missing nose dates at least to the beginning of the twentieth century.\n\nOne traveler to Egypt around the time of World War One wrote the following: "To take our photos sitting in front of the Sphinx on a camel was the aim of another. ...And so, repulsing the hordes of robbers on all sides, we came to the wonderful, inscrutable, worth-millions-of-pounds-to-authors Sphinx. The great riddle of the mysterious East. How many reams of rubbish have been written about this misshapen block of stone. Napoleon, a practical man, fired a few cannon balls at its face. High explosive shells were not invented in those days." [From: Sommers, Cecil. Temporary Crusaders. (London: John Lane, 1919) Chapter VI. "19th April."] Another book from about the same time (In the Footsteps of Napoleon (1915) by James Morgan, p 85) states "There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert..." Though the Arab guides may have spread this tale, this myth has been perpetuated over the years by countless teachers the world over who have passed this bit of "history" on to their students.\n\nA poll conducted on the Internet found that fully 21% of respondents believed Napoleon was responsible for the Sphinx's missing nose. One of the most recent examples of the persistence of this falsehood was Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March" speech where he said: "White supremacy caused Napoleon to blow the nose off the Sphinx because it reminded you [sic] too much of the Black man's majesty." And the perpetuation of this myth in "Afrocentric" circles was even the subject of a segment of the U.S. television investigative journalism program "60 Minutes."\n\nThis error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia Americana> (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx", which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P. Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."\n\nEuropean visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when Dr. Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London : Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say: "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target." The charge against Napoleon is p
471296
I think that they would like to think that it's a mix of London in the swinging 60s and Oxford, an image helped by the likes of The Spice Girls and Richard Curtis films. Much of the Daily Mail-reading swathe of Britain would like to think that it is like The Antiques Roadshow. \n\nThe truth is that much of Britain is mundane with pockets of greatness. There are few great eccentrics- those that are have to keep it hidden for fear of being thought abnormal by the beery, swearing, sweaty majority.
281670
Isn"t that when germany was attacking them? I have friends in England, she's english, he's polish and it was in that time period that he came as a tank driver from poland  to england to help defend from the germans, and that's when they met and fell in love & got married.  He told me the germans were trying to blow up the old historic sites in particular. Sorry, that's all I know, which isn't much.
835401
I think it might be difficult to find a website, but a history book about the area and time that includes a cultural section might help.  You can find websites that have Roman hygiene practises from that era, and since Rome owned much of the Middle East at the time, they might be one in the same.  The Romans used a sponge attached to the end of a stick for you know what and that's where the expression, "Getting the sh.....y end of the stick." comes from.  The Roman army also knew that putting the latrine too close to their camps caused disease, but they didn't know why.  Cities also had an elementary sewer system for the same reason and the Romans built common bathrooms with the famous outhouses on every corner over these sewers.  People were expected to use the public outhouses or chamber pots and were required to take their donations in the public outhouse for disposal.  If a person took a journey they had to take a bath before they were allowed entrance to any Roman city and everyone who lived in a Roman city, including slaves, had to take a bath on a regular basis.  I think it was on a weekly basis, but it may have been more than one time a week.  The Romans also built some baths along their main road system.  Roman baths had three stages, steam, warm water, and cold water.  The Minoans who lived on Crete (the capital was Knossos) was one of the very first civilizations also built a water channel to carry away you know what from the city and small stone bath tubs with head rests have been excavated in the ruins of Minoan houses but it is not known how often they bathed and what they used for soap.  Archeologist have found clay bottles filled with a mild form of lime and they theorize that they just soaked until the felt clean.  The bath tubs also have salt deposits so it is known they used sea water, not fresh.  As for the Celtic people, Roman conquers described that the Celts bathed in half barrels and in mineral springs, cold or hot.  The Gaelic word for mineral spring is spa.  Also medieval writing describes that the average working stiff took a bath using a barrel cut in half almost every day, so when you see those movies with medieval people looking all grimy, it wasnt' true.  This myth comes from stories of few people who didn't bathe because it washed off holy water from the Mass.  The Roman conquerers also record that the ancient celts made soap basically the same way natural soap is made today.  This soap lathered and was easily wiped off.  The Romans used olive oil mixed with ashes which did not lather and had to be scraped off.
510560
The popular image of a frenchman (especially used in tv advertising that I can remember from the 1970s - possibly for cheese?) was always a man on a bicycle, wearing a stripey jersey and a beret, with a string of onions round his neck.  This is the image that springs to mind when the average brit thinks about a french person.
442364
In Rome, a public restroom at the Roman Forum infromation booth was just a hole in the ground.  You have to squat over it to go.  And what a wonderful smell coming up from it!!!
937109
If it doesn't lather-up and when you rinse it off it feels slippery, not squeaky clean.\nThe Romans used lead pipes for there drinking and bathing water.  Lead poisoning has been offered as one of the reasons for the fall of the empire.  Hatters used mercury in curing the hides and would be susceptible to mercuric poisoning.
848224
Igstrike is basically right, but that's not the whole story. When the Romans came to Scotland, they found two distinct populations, the Britons, speaking some dialect related to early Welsh, and the Picts in the far North, speaking a language unknown to us, which may or may not have been Indo-European - perhaps develpoed from the language of the pre-Celtic inhabitants.\n\nAfter the Romans left, thse two peoples were joined by Anglo-Saxons in the South, and Scots in the West, a tribe who crossed from Ireland, bringing with them the Gaelic language.\n\nSo the "Scots" were from Ireland; but today's Scottish people are descended from a mixture of all four peoples (plus newcomers).\n\nWorth noting that Gaelic, still spoken in the Western Isles, has never been spoken in more thatn half the country; Scots English is at least as authentically Scottish. The Picts and the Welsh were absorbed by the others.
884847
I nominate "FIZZ' for BEST ANSWER  because it is historically correct.  And he barely scratched the surface of the Roman Empire.  No matter, he is right.  Also, thvannas@verizon.net is well-read and educated and I never expected to hear Gibbons name here in immigration.  Doesn't anyone read world civilizations histories?  Our entire USA government is based upon the Roman's.  I could go on and on because my better half is an expert at Roman History and has engrained it into my mind for the last 16 years, but if you research the Roman Empire thoroughly, there was very little that their civilization did not touch on and improve, right down to indoor plumbing, heating, clean city streets with sewer systems, the extraordinary aqueducts that mastered water hydraulics over many miles to erupt in glorious city fountains clean enough to drink from and a new art form that has never been duplicated, right up to the legendary Roman Roads, built to last forever, all leading into the city of Rome which unfortunately was their undoing after the government was corrupted and the mass invasions of the Barbarians led them right down their own paths to the Fall.  \nIt lasted 2000 YEARS--not 200 and has never been out-done or duplicated since.  They had the British Empire as a part of their captured countries and the Great Hadrian built his Roman villas and walls there and actually lived most of his entire life in the British Isles; his ruins are still in existence.  They even had Africa.  And when they overtook a country, they gave the people Roman citizenship which came with great benefits while still enabling them to retain all of their culture.  They weren't like the Spaniards who screwed up the Aztecs totally for gold.\nThey had diplomacy, respect, a working government which they developed and even their bad sides were exciting and bizarre.  Like The Vestal Virgins.  Research them.  If you were a condemned criminal on your way to be cruxified and crossed the path of a Vestal Virgin, she had the power to simply say, "Stop. No.  Release him on my word" and that was that.  They were a blow-out of greatness and might and to try and compare our homeland that's still in it's infancy to these bad-a$$es who invented the very things that our modern age uses everyday--like cement, that could harden under water, the list is too long. I'm in no way putting down our own great nation, we've achieved a place in history too.\nBut the world has never had a military without benefit of modern weapons, bombs, tools, computers, just a wall of marching gladiators going into hand war combat like the legions of the Roman Armies.  They did not go into battle or wage war to lose.  Period.  They even staged battles and killings within their own ranks for public entertainment at the Colesium as a form of pride.  \nI'm serious here, now--I want you to really check out the Roman Empire and give credit where credit is due, and that HAS TO BE TO GIVE FIZZ "BEST ANSWER".  \nThe others are great too and well noted, but his is the truth.  \nPS.  Your question is the best question I've come across yet in the Immigration category since February, so kudos to you too for ingenuity.   Excellent inquiry.
340562
There is a game, like the Sims in principle, called "The British Empire" that invoivles the same play as The Sims but in Roman Britain. it invovles pretty much the same thigns as you were describing, uilding houses and aqueducts. I hope that fits the bill, though am not certain it is exactly the same game as was very old, there have been a couple of others in much earlier epriods that invovled, for insatcme killing eelphants for food with hunters etc.
754580
They wud both say that he a great and generous leader, owing to the fact that he donated all his "walks" and all his money to the people, they would also say he was the eagle of the empire, the embodiment of thne roman ideal \nand the "hart"(note the pun, heart of rome and the hart(dear(animal))) of the forest that is rome.\noh and Brutus was not an honorable man and 'we will now go burn his house for killing ceaser and kill the traitor'\n \n\ngood luck.....\nhope this helped\nread anthoy's speech in the 2nd act(or 3rd) not sure its been 9 months since i did it.... it'll help
778755
"No-one knows for sure, but passport-like documents were used within the Roman Empire.\n\n"The Greek "porta" means "gate"and the Latin "portus" means "harbour", and so the first passports may have been for land or sea travel. In medieval Europe passports could be issued to travellers by local authorities and generally stipulated the places which the traveller was allowed to visit or pass through. But as far back as Roman times, many Roman citizens were issued with documentation identifying them as such. British passports began to be issued prior to 1772 (individually, by the Secretary of State). Pictures of the passport holder began to be attached to French passports in the late 19th century, but were not in common usage until 1914, after which passports bagan to become an international requirement. After World War 1 the League of Nations convened the International Conference on Passports, Customs Formalities and Through Tickets, (1920). And after World War 2 the UN and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) set the guidelines for the modern international passport."
811518
I have an opinion and this is it:\n\nI, for one, would be honored of someone from another country or culture chose to learn about my history.  It is a matter of record and is learning the knowledge, anyway.  If you learn all about a topic,  particularly history that is set in stone so to speak and will not change, you can sure be an authority on it whether you are originally involved in it or not.  I think your ornery Englishman sounds a bit jealous and definitely pompous.