Fedor

PS What are mixed martial arts? Mixed martial arts in the form we are used to seeing is a rather new sport. The Ancient Greeks practiced a form of fighting called Pankration which involved striking (punching/Kicking) and grappling. It bears many similarities to modern mixed martial arts. The Romans also practiced this sport until it was banned for it was a "pagan" practice. Ever since there was no sport that combined different fighting styles. The Greeks are the first people to have fighting tournaments that combined different disciplines into one sport. Until the modern era we only had boxing, kick boxing and karate that only focuses on one specific thing in the fight game and only fight people who practice the same discipline as they. When the UFC started in 1993 it was a show to figure out which discipline had the best overall fighters. There was basically no rules at all. The few rules in the first few ufc was no biting, no small joint manipulation and no eye gouging. Fights often went to the ground because the stand up fighters like karate or boxing had no training for take down defense which resulted for many was to be ground and pounded or choked out. The first few mma events like the ufc the fighters at that time did not cross train. Cross training= Training in many different discipline like sambo for your ground game and boxing for your stand up game. That is why today it's called mixed martial arts because the fighters train in many fighting disciplines. Today we have many rules for mma. In USA we follow something called the unified rules. All events in the USA must have the same rules like 5 min rounds etc... short history of the ufc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjKOeVSQ1C4 History of Pride fighting Championships... I highly suggest anyone that is new to the sport watch this documentary. When Pride was around it had the best fighters in the world. 3 Former Pride fighters are now champions in the UFC. Pride Decade Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9N-nf2wChs...feature=related Pride Decade Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTxSGCRVsXQ...feature=related Pride Decade Part 3 A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMlkGR8IFk...feature=related Pride Decade Part 3 B http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk1sHAW_cpw...feature=related Pride Decade Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5RYlsMjAHI...feature=related Pride Decade Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAiMzV6NCkE...feature=related Pride Decade Part 6 A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R75VXg2rBtc...feature=related Pride Decade Part 6 B http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EMd8_riAK0...feature=related Pride Decade Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge6jioRpg60...feature=related Pride Decade Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUR2f0lKpBU...feature=related Pride Decade Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63W7ysvWHlc...feature=related Pride Decade Part 10 A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dsANmLznis...feature=related Pride Decade Part 10 B http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCDQjGdtv8...feature=related Pride Decade Part 11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSeybf-wU0E...feature=related Pride Decade Part 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Tb41LCcSE...feature=related Pride Decade Part 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSGdNTy5vc...feature=related Pride Decade Part 14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnmg0wvUofU...feature=related

Someone just edited the fall of the Roman empire. The last edit I checked was 27 BC -1453AD which I think is the correct date. Now the date is 27BC-395AD. Man, If I only knew how to edit the wiki page for the Roman Empire I would change it to 27BC-1453AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire EDIT: I just found out how to edit the page. I changed the date from 395 AD to 1453 AD.

What a great find. I wonder if this bust is more accurate about Caesar's appearance? Because it looks slightly different from the bust we are all used to seeing. In this bust Caesar to me looks more war like.

I doubt that many UNRV members believe that. How did you come to the 400 years number? It does not make sense regardless of the date of the fall. I was talking about the people that edit the wiki page of the roman empire. That post was basically directed to the wiki people under the talk section. It was not directed to the good people of unrv. My post came from the wiki talk page when I wanted to voice my opinion that the Roman Empire lasted from 27BC-1453AD instead of the 476AD date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire

I just ordered Arthur Ferill's book called The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. What is your opinion on this book if anyone read it?

Gooooo Indians!

http://www.afflictionclothing.com/banned_july19/ http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/05/14/aff...-for-next-week/ "Affliction Clothing issued a press release on Wednesday afternoon to formally announce its first-ever mixed martial arts promotion, titled

I was sick of people changing the date of the fall of the roman empire to 476AD. I just gave my opinion why it should be 1453AD. It seems someone edited the page and agreed with me. Here is what I said on the wiki page. It's nothing special. I'm just happy someone changed it from 476AD TO 1453AD. Whoever is changing the fall of the Roman empire to 1453 AD please keep it up. No need for the outdated date of 476AD when the eastern side survived for another 1000 years and continued to call themselves ROMAN! Byzantines= Romans. "The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived." How do I edit the true date of the fall of the Roman Empire? Funny that some people here still believe in the myth that the roman empire only lasted 400 years or fell in 476AD. The Eastern Roman empire lasted another 1,000 years but they are not roman when they the people called themselves roman? They continued the roman past and HAD the same borders but we modern people have to invent a new word to describe an empire that they never knew nor used the words byzantine. They called themselves roman and so shall we for the correct history of this empire from 27bc-- 1453AD. I urge the people to change the date from 476AD to the correct date of 1453AD. Enough of the propaganda that the empire fell in 476AD when the eastern roman empire survived for another 1,000 years. I suggest you read the link I gave about the "Byzantines". It is also a joke that the "Holy Roman empire" is even mentioned in this wiki page. They should be removed. http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire Fedor=Titus001

Hmmm Someone beat me to it. Sorry about that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24604623/ "This marble bust of the founder of the Roman city of Arles constitutes the most ancient representation known today of Caesar," the ministry statement said, adding that it "undoubtedly" dates to the creation of Arles in 46 B.C.

Rome And Romania 27 BC- 1453 AD Emperors of the Roman and the so- called Byzantine Empires.... John S. Romanides. http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm Only about half way through the whole thing. I must say the maps are very interesting, actually the whole thing is very interesting. This is from the end of the link...... "The Fall of Constantinople, on May 29, 1453, is one of the most formative, epochal, colorful, and dramatic episodes in world history. As the final end of the Roman Empire, it was a much more revolutionary and catastrophic change than the "fall" of the Western Empire in 476, in which power remained in the same hands of the current magister militum. That the greatest Christian city of the Middle Ages should pass to Isl

This page is basically correct. (I haven't checked all the details, just the main points.) People in what we call the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" (Romaioi, Romei) and thought of their Empire as Roman. In medieval times the name Romania meant "the territory of this same eastern Roman Empire, especially the southern Balkans and Greece". Added later: I notice that this is a different author from the other three pages. This page is by Clifton R. Fox, and his stuff looks OK to me. I agree also with Clifton R. Fox about the Byzantine empire. The people that lived in the empire called themselves Romans. It was a mistake for me to post this link since most people on here agree with many of the points that were made by the professor. Here is a short insight by George D. Metallinos "After the Frankish alteration of Western Europe it's social development was carried out on a racial basis. The rights of the conquerors were imposed through the feudal system, which however was not based on land-ownership as in the East, but of racial character. A class of nobility was created and was considered "noble by nature". The barbaric conquerors declared themselves "nobles". The other class was that of the subjects, those enslaved to the nobles. This very small minority conquers the entire west and transforms the Romaic people into slaves on their own land."

The man that wrote this is either insane or genius. You decide. Franks, Roman, Feudalism, and the doctrine. Long read.... http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.fran...doctrine.01.htm Charlemagne's Lie of 794 And the Primitive Greek Romans. http://www.romanity.org/romans.htm Examples of the science of ethnic cleaning of roman history. http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_..._history.01.htm What, If Anytihing, Is A Byzantine? http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what...yzantine.01.htm

Here is the link Pertinax and anyone else interested. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...amp;q=byzantium

Only 1 such thread is necessary. The general consensus around here is that the Byzantines were indeed an extension of the Roman Empire but it maintained a distinctly more eastern culture. "Byzantine" is an invented word, they referred to themselves as Romans (Romaion) This post has been merged. Sorry for making a whole new thread when we have a thread like this one. But does anyone have a opinion on the link i posted? I would like to pick your brain Primus Pilus and anyone else on this subject. What is your opinion on the link i gave and also my comments?

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place for this discussion. I apologize to the moderators. Here is a link to the disscusion that has been going on for maybe 5 days or so. I just want some opinions from people on unrv.com about the relation of Rome and the "Byzantine Empire". I'm in a disscusion with a Greek person who lives in Greece. I think he is getting annoyed with my view on history about this subject in history about the Roman empire errr... or what he calls The Byzantine empire. So what are your opinions about the Byzantines? Was it the Roman empire in the East? Was it called the Byzantine empire? Or is my view of history just plain wrong? What date is correct? 476AD or 1453AD which i believe was 1453AD. Again i apolgize to the moderators if this is in the wrong forum. I would read page 4 when i commented on this subject about the "Byzantines". My name is Titus on civfantics.com. The guy i have been debating with is ww2commander. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224206

Here is some funny links with civilization 4. The first link includes Genghis Khan, George Bush and Tony Blair in a teleconference. Here is a teleconference with George Bush, Tony Blair and Hannibal. Bush, Blair and The who. Civ 4 Warlords Teleconference 2- The Who Here is a teleconference with George Bush, Tony Blair and Ragnar Lodbrok. It's just too funny with these teleconferences. Civilization 4 conquest victory movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDPXNuvMpMM...ted&search=

Forget all the jumbled mess, just know that the people of classical and medieval Greece to the time of mid 20th century never even used the word Byzantine. Now as to the correct term, it depends on the time period. The ancient Greeks around the time of Roman dominance would call themselves people of Hellenes. The Christian Greeks meanwhile would term themselves Romaioi, and if you used the term Hellenes, the Romaioi would hate you even if he acknowledge his pagan past=Hellenes because to a Christian Greek, Hellenes was a forbidden and pagan past. Since the Romaioi was extremely assertive of the fact that his empire was the true Roman Empire/Basileia Romaion, so yes, a Romaioi, considered himself Roman. Now why do we have the creation of different terms like Byzantine? Blame Western European politics and probably the pope who crowned Charlemange. Since Charlemage was supposed the new Roman Emperor of the [Holy] 'Roman Empire', however, what do you do when there was an already existing empire in the East? Simple, you discredit them and call them the Greek Empire. Soon, Western Europe was calling the Greeks a bunch of things, and one of them was Byzantine because it became popularized by the West. [Note, Byzantine was the equivalent of saying the Greek Empire]. Well said Valerius!