🤗 Join our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

I love Rome. But my heart belongs to Constantinople. Not for any "which is most impressive" reason, simply because the story of Constantinople enthralls me. A peninsular city, supplied by land and sea, surrounded by its walls, the landward walls being the most amazing defenses devised by Roman engineers and successfully protecting the city for nearly a mellenium.  The Hagia Sophia, the Hagia Eirene, the Sacred Palace, the Mese, the aqueduct of Valens. Yes, Rome was the mother city...but Constantinople carried on the heritage when the mother city was lost...for a thousand years. That...is impressive.

Constantinople may be a beauty, but her existence is owed to Rome.

You can see why Constantinople was so better defended

Missed a chance to say,
Rome: ''where the story started''
New Rome: ''𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥''

Extremely interesting, well researched and fun. Both cities were no doubt fabulous to behold but my heart will always be with the old Imperial capital Roma, where it all began.

My vote is for Konstantinoupolis! There's a reason why it was called "The City of the World's Desire"! :)

I prefer Constantinople, though mostly for reasons you didn't mention in the video:
-Constantinople had much more romantic geography than Rome. Rome is located around a few hills near a small river inside mainland Italy. Aside from the hills, the geography isn't very captivating. Whereas Constantinople is located on a hilly peninsula next to the Sea of Marmara and the Bosporus. This not only allowed for stunning views from the sea, but also for great seaside views from the various villas and palaces, many of which were intentionally placed to get the most awe inspiring views possible.

-Constantinople actually had a city plan. Rome had expanded organically and while some Emperors attempted to impose a bit of order to the city, even in the 5th Century Rome was a complete mess with no proper grid to speak of aside from a few select portions. Constantinople on the other hand was (re)built from scratch in the Hellenistic style, and had its grid planned meticulously, which surely made for a much prettier and more navigable city than Rome was.

I also don't think the fact that Rome was bigger in size is necessarily that important when talking about which was more impressive. The vast majority of the city would be insulae, which were usually poorly built squatters that a time travelling tourist would surely avoid anyway. Also, from a time-travellers perspective, Constantinople is objectively more interesting simply for the fact that we know so much less about it than Rome, and compared to Rome far less has survived intact.

for me its Constantinople. It gives me the vibe of hiden paradise hidden from the colaps of the ancient world and from the medieval era. its like these cities like from the tales like Shangri-la and El dorado.

Being a greek, Iam emotionally inclined towards Κωνσταντινουπολη. However I wish I could walk in ancient Rome during Marcus Aurelius era.

Actually, City of Constantine is a nickname; the official name of the city is New Rome.  There's an urban legend about the modern name Istanbul:  as the Eastern Roman Empire diminished, the Romans took to calling New Rome simply "the City".  The phrase "to the City" is pronounced "ees tahn bulli" in modern Greek, which easily becomes Istanbul.

I served 20 years in the US Navy and I have visited both. Hands down I prefer Constantinople (I VERY rarely call it Istanbul). The landward defenses are amazing and the Hagia Sofia is breathtaking. I stood inside, as far as the they would let me (it’s was still a Mosque when I visited) and I could very well understand Emperor Justinian saying “Solomon, I have outdone thee!” The Moslem’s recently gave it back to the Greek Orthodox Church and they have been cleaning it up, uncovering the mosaics and frescoes. Not even the Sistine Chapel took my breath away like that, and I have not seen it since the Greek Orthodox Church began its restoration. The Markets of Constantinople are….overwhelming. You can purchase ANYTHING there. There is STILL Chinese Silk and Burmese Jade for sale - at least when I was there - which means the Silk Road still operates! I bought a woolen prayer rug I kneel on when I say my nightly prayers (I am a Christian).
The breads, the meats and vegetables served over rice, the spices - The COFFEE! (Did you know that during the Ottoman Empire Turkish Women could legally divorce their husbands if they didn’t ensure they had enough Coffee?! No Joke). There is NOTHING like Turkish Coffee & hot Turkish bread with spiced butter in the morning. No, I have seen Rome as well as Venice and Constantinople has both of them beat hands down!

While both cities must have been amazing; I've long had a 'thing' for the Byzantine-era of the Roman Empire.  Thank you, for a really interesting video and series. :)

I prefer Constantinople, yes it owes its history to Rome but its strategic location and powerful theodosian walls make it much more important than Old Rome.

13:29 Constantinople had the Aqueduct of Valens which was the longest water supply system in the entire ancient world but ok

Rome was a City of Marble, Constantinople was a City of Gold.

Both are magnificent in their own rights.

Compared to Rome that sprawls organically, Constantinople is more meticulously planned. If Rome is a city build to commemorate many events, Constaninople is a city build to accommodate the growing population and surging economy from its location alone. Rome triumphs in sourcing its water thanks to the Tiber river, but lose to Constantinople in strategic importance. Both lack the necessary heat and carbon sink that are green spaces. I've yet to read or hear about which one of them fares better in regards to this topic, but both cities possessed impressive gardens and parks of their own - albeit closed off exclusively to the nobility and the Imperial family.

Constantinople was a beautiful city but Rome in its peak was in a league of its own.

I've been asking myself this question for ages - thanks for doing the video!

Maybe another interesting factor would be longevity - how long each city was impressive for.
Rome was impressive and important for perhaps 600 - 700 years: from approximately 100 or 200 BC to 500 CE.

For Constantinople, the same figure would be roughly 900 years: from it's inauguration by Constantine until the Fourth Crusade.

Accordingly, Constantinople might have been smaller and less impressive, but it makes up for this by having centuries more lifetime.

If by architecture, Rome, if by natural setting, Constantinople. I really get the impression that late Roman and early Byzantine architecture wasn't so much oriented towards outward display. As impressive as the Haiga Sophia is on the inside and in shear size, it isn't the prettiest building on the outside.
My interest has always been in Byzantine History but I think Rome had such a long period of being heavily invested in since probably Julius Caesar and Augustus and probably continuing until Caracalla. Even up until Constantine more construction of monuments took place in Rome than anywhere else.
The Roman Empire was also considerably wealthier than the Byzantine Empire as it spanned a larger area and had a longer period of general and widespread peace. After Justinian I really struggle to find any major construction in Constantinople, and it would seem that there were large areas of farmland even within the area between the Theodosian walls and the old Constantinian walls.
I think Constantinople was probably more a working and productive city in comparison to Rome though. I believe that there were somewhere between 300 000 slaves in Rome and that it owed its existence in the Empire years more to the fact that it was the abode of the Emperors and Senate. Constantinople was also mostly a government town, but there seemed to be a healthy economy there, with trade and manufacturing actually having some sizable export component. I get the impression that Constantinople was actually an asset militarily and financially if for no other reason that it was a safe haven. I think Rome was a real drain on the Empire, so much so that several Emperors moved the capital away from there. I would be interested in that as a video idea.