Ancient History

At this time, I cannot provide any more proof then that which I have done so already. I will endevor to provide additional references later.
I believe that AP [the curriculum courses] World History texts was where I gathered some of my prior knowledge... I shall attempt to locate a text to verify it.

Though my provided proof is somewhat dated, my conclusion remains logically bound.
There is no reason to conclude that the population would have dropped.

Remember to do the same.
You have yet to provide any definite proof of the population of Tenochtitlan at any point in its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_population_of_Tenochtitlan
https://www.courses.psu.edu/anth/anth008_cmg149/aten.html
http://aztecs.mrdonn.org/tenochtitlan.html
http://history-world.org/aztecs.htm
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/latinamerica/a/tenochtitlan.htm
http://quezi.com/4953

When its Nationalist against Nationalist no one will win.

I think it's better to use the Romans, as Rome itself still was a very impressive city, although Constantinople was richer and larger (not sure though) at the time.

Yeah! Fuck that show, only fundamentalistic religious thought is allowed to shit on human accomplishments!

I use Byzantines because at the 10th century, them Romans were extinct by now, the Byzantines were more greek than anything else as well.

Ehh, yeah, of course, that was a fault on my part, I forgot when the Roman Empire was destroyed.

Unfortunately, thus far it seems that the Ming failed to keep up cesii of Nanjing... or any of their cities for that matter. I can't find the links anyways. I'll keep looking for that AP textbook I mentioned, but in the meantime I still stand by the logic of my original point.

They weren't Byzantine they were Roman.

True. The Byzantines called themselves Romans. Even Constantinople was named New Rome until the 11th century...

The byzantines were called romans, but the roman culture was long gone, they were more greek than anything, they spoke greek and all that, hell even that Greek Fire created by them was,well, greek. Plus the city known as Constantinople, before being called that, was known as Byzantium, so I still hold to my conclusion that the were greeks and not "romans"anymore.

They retained Latin, at least as an administrative language, until Heraclius came to the throne. And although Greek wasused in all situations from then on, they retained the Roman culture. Moreover, the empire continued to retain people from all sorts of cultures, even as its borders continued to shrink away.
On a side note, Greek Fire was invented by an Assyrian.

Weren't some Byzantine emperors Armenian?

Yes, including Heraclius.

Well, we could say as well that roman culture was derived from greek culture, the 2 were kind of, the same basically and the Latin thing I know, but it was not only them, the Christian Church retained latin as well for the bible and translating it was punishable by death until the reformation.

On that you are correct. It's no secret the Romans were great admirers of the Greek culture, and this was reflected in their architecture and religion amongst other things.
And it was only the Catholic Church who retained the Latin law, the New Testament was originally composed in Greek.

What the Romans liking the Greeks, No way your bullshiting me. Next you'll tell me that Julies Caesar looked up to Alexander the great or that the Catholic church only wrote the bible in Latin to undermine the Greek Byzantine empire and orthodox church. But there is no way right?

Sorry, what?

*Sigh* tried be sarcastic.

I figured that.

New suptopic: Sumer.

Hey lets all talk about them good all people we like to call the Persians.