9:43 …A decaying Empire: 1261-1453 By the fourteenth century, the J’3ωι5Η question of Byzantium seemed to be most concerned with Venetian J’3ω5. Venetians had come to reside in the Empire in large numbers by the early 14th century, and treaties between the Empire and Venice granted the Venetians living in the empire, including J’3ω5 of Venetian origin, special privileges, though they also carried certain minor economic prohibitions. Under the aegis of these treaties, Venetian J’3ω5 could buy, sell or rent land anywhere in Constantinople. They also enjoyed a more favorable tax structure than Byzantine citizens, as well as the freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in the Empire.[47] Further complicating this legal status, some J’3ω5 obtained Venetian citizenship either "by coming from areas subject to the Republic or by purchasing naturalization", thus obtaining the same privileges as Venetian nationals in the Empire.[48] At this time, the Empire was in rapid decay, and could not seriously enforce laws intended to curtail these rights and regain economic control within its borders. Thus, an exception to the general trend of Byzantine history emerged during this century, whereby J’3ω5 were entitled to a broader set of rights than Christians…. (ωικιρεδια)
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.
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.
Fair point brother. Another interesting interpretation is that by founding Constantinople, right next to where Troy was, Constantine was going back to where Aeneas (Romulus' father) got started, so coming full circle. Of course that's a mythologized interpretation :)
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.
Exactly. Constantinople was so breathtaking that even the sight of these mega buildings from a distance was enough to convert other civilizations to Christianity let alone the magnificent interiors within them, especially the Hagia Sofia. The Theodosian walls around the city were so intimidating that even the sight sent great conquerors home such as Attila the Hun. And if you were brave enough to attack those walls you’d witness what was described by outsiders as “the dragons” (Greek Fire) that had the “wrath of God”.
@Constantine VII You're right, of course, "Greek" fire is probably a western conceit, as the Romans of the east called it "Sea Fire" in the surviving documentation, referring to its property of burning on sea water. But either appellation, Greek or Sea Fire, brings to mind the same vision...a brutal and effective weapon that was devastating to the Empire's enemies. Have to feel even a tiny pang of empathy for Arab or Rus sailors who's ships were smothered in the shooting flame of the dragon mouthed ships of the Romans in those days. Must have been a hellish way to die.
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!
9:43 …(Speaking of Venice)…A decaying Empire: 1261-1453 By the fourteenth century, the J’3ωι5Η question of Byzantium seemed to be most concerned with Venetian J’3ω5. Venetians had come to reside in the Empire in large numbers by the early 14th century, and treaties between the Empire and Venice granted the Venetians living in the empire, including J’3ω5 of Venetian origin, special privileges, though they also carried certain minor economic prohibitions. Under the aegis of these treaties, Venetian J’3ω5 could buy, sell or rent land anywhere in Constantinople. They also enjoyed a more favorable tax structure than Byzantine citizens, as well as the freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in the Empire.[47] Further complicating this legal status, some J’3ω5 obtained Venetian citizenship either "by coming from areas subject to the Republic or by purchasing naturalization", thus obtaining the same privileges as Venetian nationals in the Empire.[48] At this time, the Empire was in rapid decay, and could not seriously enforce laws intended to curtail these rights and regain economic control within its borders. Thus, an exception to the general trend of Byzantine history emerged during this century, whereby J’3ω5 were entitled to a broader set of rights than Christians…. (ωικιρεδια)
@@thatisme3thatisme38 I wouldn’t be so sure. Constantinople was here way before the Turks where, and it influenced the world, like no other. The Turks were overwhelmingly influenced by Constantinople, not the other way around.
I know that its called b***c Constantinopolis because unlike Europe it does not keep Aristocratic families in Management for generations. Only meritocracy can survive.
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.
Constantinople is way more romantic and beautiful city but Rome is where it all started and witnessed lots of great moments of history ❤ Upon his entrance to the Boukoleon Palace in Constantinople as a Roman and Classicism enthusiast Mehmet II quoted that: The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars The owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab. Sad
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.
@@sufficientmagister9061 why? Constantinople is the reason the last light of Rome managed to hold out for so long otherwise the entire empire would've collapsed by late antiquity. The City is like the #1 reason in the top 10 reasons why the Roman Empire lasted for so long, even after losing Old Roma. Yes the Romans lost their mother city but Nova Roma made sure the culture and spirit of Rome would endure behind the mighty Theodosian walls.
@@zippyparakeet1074 After Heraclius' death, Nova Roma lost much of its Italic Latin culture which defined Roman civilization. When the Latin language ceased (language is a vital part of a society to function) to be spoken in the Eastern part of the culturally-fading Roman Empire, some of the traditions were kept. But even many of those traditions also ceased when newer traditions (which did not emerge out of Italic Latin Roman concepts and methods) removed them from Byzantine society. By the 8th century CE, that civilization was only Roman in name, especially during the 1200s, that city and civilization were something nearly foreign. The Roman language and much of Roman traditions were gone... Beginning in the 8th century, then really separating itself from its Latin Roman heritage after 1000 CE. Yes, cultures evolve, but those cultures can still have values and core concepts that can be found from the older cultures in which they evolved from; Romantic languages, Roman methods, Roman law, etc. Byzantine culture did not evolve much from old Roman culture, but a newer culture(s) replaced the Byzantine's Roman culture. Judaic-Hebrew culture, ideas, and its religiosity mixed with minor Greek culture (among other things) replaced the Italic Latin Roman elements of what made Nove Roma Roman. Constantinople is a beautiful city, but it is bland and inferior compared to Rome itself.
@@sufficientmagister9061 what are you talking about bro. You can't expect a civilisation to just stagnate for a thousand years. Even the Unified Roman Empire of late antiquity was incredibly different from that of the Principate and the Republic. They followed a lot of Roman traditions, they studied Roman history, honoured old Roman Emperors, held Roman triumphs, enjoyed chariot racing, followed Roman law, obviously many old Roman traditions were discarded due to their pagan origins but that is owed to the Christian nature of the Empire. The Unified Empire was undergoing a similar process which the Byzantines simply continued due to their longer survival. Other cultures and traditions also influenced Roman culture as time marched on and they encountered more cultures but that's something the Latin Romans did too so hardly anything you're saying makes the Byzantines not Romans since what they did is what was done and would have been done by the Greater Empire as well if it managed to survive.
@@zippyparakeet1074 Surely, other traditions and cultures influenced Rome, but the Italic Latin elements were still there. Many concepts were originally Italic Latin Roman, even if other cultures did influence Rome, the ancient Romans evaluated those concepts to create something new, which can be considered unique inventions related to Italic Latin Roman. So Rome did get influenced by cultures they continued to come across, but the Italic Latin core was still there (along with particular Latin Roman traditions) for it to still be considered Roman. The Imperium Romanum of late antiquity was somewhat different from the Principate and Republic, but the culture, language, and many traditions were still Italic Latin in nature; something that can be considered Roman in practice and in execution. A lot of those Roman traditions were not practiced anymore (by the Byzantines) as time went on; the later Byzantines studying Roman history does not necessarily make them Roman, especially if the Italic Latin language and cultural customs were greatly diminished. By old Roman emperors, did you mean Constantine, Theodosius, and others during the late Roman period? Because a lot of Byzantine emperors were critical of the Roman emperors before Constantine (mostly due to their persecutions of Christians, which Christians themselves were partially responsible for). Also, the late-Byzantine emperors were still not Romans simply because they admired some Latin-Roman emperors from the older Roman period; the Latin language and Latin-Roman culture were mostly gone (or in the process of being mostly gone) during the Byzantine period of the 8th century CE-15th century CE. Besides the chariot-racing, practice of some forms of Roman law, and minor Roman triumphs (were not completely Roman in practice), many other major traditions were not kept. Some of those things you had mentioned ought to not be considered sufficient for the Byzantines to be considered Romans; the Byzantines did not keep much of the other cultural customs of Latin Roman civilization... Including the Latin language (and other things relating to Latin Roman culture). You are right that many old Roman traditions were discarded due to the Christian nature of the late Roman Empire; older does not necessarily mean better; however, there ought to still be some core values and concepts kept to continue the process of preserving Latin Roman heritage (like maintaining the Latin language and particular "pagan" traditions exclusive to Italic Latin Roman elements). It is okay to borrow from foreign societies to create something new and uniquely beneficial to that society's longevity. Christianity was an oriental, Judaic religion that quickened the decline of an already declining civilization, unfortunately. With Rome having to constantly fight non-Roman forces outside of its borders, Christianity hastened its decline within its borders due to its constant cultural-religious war on Roman society. Greece, Egypt, and Carthage were foreign civilizations worth borrowing ideas from because they actually contributed to Roman civilization regarding warfare, agriculture, art, politics, practical philosophy, and among other things. Judea was a desert wasteland that made no major contributions to society besides being able enough to barely function as a kingdom (when they were not getting constantly conquered); when some of the late-Romans borrowed ideas from Judea, they were religious in origin (Christianity); with Christianity influencing the late-Roman empire, it became an insult to injury regarding a crippled Rome; Rome's decline quickened more so (as well as many of the more important "pagan" elements being removed that were vital to Rome's survival). Roma under the Judaic influence of Christianity was one of the most unfortunate events that happened in world history. Christianity strayed Rome further away from the important factors of what made Rome, Rome. So with this foreign (of no natural benefit), viral, Judaic memeplex already straying Rome away from its more beneficial, cultural customs, the Byzantines' later transition from Latin Roman language and culture to mostly Hebrew and some form of Greek cultures put the nail in the coffin of destroying much of the Eastern part's Latin Roman roots. As for the cultural, linguistic process of the unified, late Roman Empire (if it was still one empire for the next three centuries), then it is unknowable if the empire's preferred language would have been switched to Greek; if the Italic Latin elements would have still been dominant over the Greek, Hebrew, and other elements. Different events happened under different circumstances, but there could have been different emperors who had different motives apart from Heraclius. Some may have turned to Greek as the preferred language of law, administration, and official documents; however, with the unified Latin Roman Empire still thriving, then many emperors could have continued to issue decrees, documents pertaining to law and administration in Latin. The unified empire was not undergoing a similar process because by the time of Theodosius, Latin still had a very strong influence in law, administration, politics, military, and even in the Eastern part of it (yes, Greek was the more widely spoken langauge, but Latin under the unified empire had a great presence in that region too). The thing is this: we do not know what would have happened to the status of Latin had the unified Imperium Romanum continued to exist for the next few centuries; the Greek langauge may have or may not have had a greater influence within the Roman Empire (including its Western territories, I doubt it, but it is possible). The honest answer to this is: I do not know. Now, for your comment, "you can't expect a civilization to just stagnate for a thousand years", preserving something does not mean it cannot change, but it ought to be closely related to that other something it descends from for it to be still considered a part of it. The Latin langauge since the founding of Rome to the late Roman Empire was able to be preserved while undergoing changes in its pronunciation, grammar, and syntax; however, the core structure and its close relation to its earliest lingusitic form is why it is still the Latin langauge. Just because a civilization's language, its core values, its suffcient methods, and its important concepts from some time ago, are still spoken, held, practiced, and admired does not mean that civilization is going to "stagnate"; it simply means the main factors of what defines that civilization are being preserved. By that type of thinking, the Greeks, Jews, and Arabs preserving their languages and cultural customs are also going to "stagnate" because there is supposedly no room for change; the Greeks, Jews, Arabs (and other genetic-ethnic groups) preserve the most important factors relating to them, their history, because these things define who (and what) they are. Change can still happen within a civilized society, but the factors of what defines that civilized society can still be greatly preserved, connected, and adapted. To put this simply: the later Byzantines were not Romans, no matter how much they wanted to keep deluding themselves into believing they were Romans; after the death of Heraclius, the Italic Latin elements were quickly fading. By the 8th century CE to the 15th century CE, the Roman identity was greatly diminished; Constantinople/Byzantium and the Byzantines developed into a civilization of their own. It was no longer Nova Roma and the Romans; they were Constantinople/Byzantium and the Constantinopolitans/Byzantines. Constantinople soon became a center of a civilization that had a hodgepodge of cultural influences with a major Hebrew factor to it, not completely Greek or Roman (as the later Byzantines even despised many things associated with Greek culture and customs, not just religious "paganism"). The later Christian-Byzantines disliked the many concepts, methods, and traditions that were vital to Rome and Greece; concepts, methods, and traditions that made Rome and Greece sufficient. Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire, Christianity, and the legacy of the Byzantine Empire all constitute a major insult to the Romans and Greeks of antiquity; their accomplishments relating to Greece's and Rome's great legacies. May ancient Greece and ancient Rome be remembered; may Christian-Constantinople and its weak empire be forgotten.
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 think Contantinople must have been amazing as a center of culture possibly more interesting than Rome at times. The libraries of Constantinople were Greek libraries containing many rare books that have not been preserved because of the 1204 siege and fire. Certainly Rome had important libraries but in its peak is hard to say whether Romans were interested in rare Greek works (they certainlyhad huge interest in the classical period of Rome). Constantinople for many centuries had extraordinary workshops which produced incomparable artistic treasures while it's difficult to say if that happened in Rome because often the Romans were importing from Greece statues and paintings. Constantinople had been decorated with statues from ancient Greece in its beginning so also was hosting masterpieces... But if we look at the number of statues recovered in Rome, they are so numerous that hardly any other city in the world could have a number even close to that. Hagia Sophia is an extraordinary building but the cupola of the Pantheon is much larger. Rome also had the so called Minerva Medica temple which is possibly the precursor of Hagia Sophia. The constantinian basilicas of Rome, St Peter, St Paul and the basilica of the Saviour (St John Lateran) with the baptisterium were perhaps not as interesting as Hagia Sophia but nevertheless wonderful and massive churches. It should be noted that Rome had an appendix in the port of Ostia and almost every rich Roman family had villas all around especially on the coastline.
Rome, then, now and forever. You can still feel the might of the Roman Empire while walking there. While Constantinople must have been beautiful, nothing could ever match the splendour and might of the eternal city.
It's because very little of Constantinople managed to survive :( It was destroyed incredibly thoroughly by the Crusaders and the Turks while Rome, although subjected to many sacks of its own, was never sacked this brutally due to it being the heart of Catholic Christendom and the seat of the Pope thus giving it a holy status.
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 have never called it “The Late Roman Empire” or “The Medieval Roman Empire”. For me it will ALWAYS be “The Byzantine Empire”. A perfect amalgamation of Hellenistic Culture, Roman Law and Military Might and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. A curse on the Venetian Doge who lead the Fourth Crusade! A PLAGUE on those who sacked Constantinople!
I love both cities but imo Romes quantity of pagan temples, their architecture and placement to each other is unmatched. The view of the roman forum from the bottom looking up at the hill with the temples while surrounded by the columns and pediments of the buildings in the foreground is so iconic and awe inspiring, it conjures up a similar aesthetic and feeling to that of the acropolis in Athens seeing the Parthenon and all the buildings on its hill. Constantinople's mix of byzantine and late roman architecture is beautiful but it feels a bit muted in contrast since there are less temples. I will say though the interior of the Hagia Sophia is unmatched and the hippodrome is one of my favorite buildings though I love the circus maximus in Rome too.
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.
Hello Ibrahim, thanks, and yes, that is an excellent point you raise here. Maybe we can do a rematch in the future, then I will add this comparison metric.
Cities near a large body of water tend to be a lot more interesting and impressive than inland cities even if on a river and the Tiber is quite a modest little stream.So I think Constantinople would have been more spectacular.One need only visit harbor cities like Sydney,Australia,Hong Kong or Rio de Janeiro to realize this.
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.
These are fantastically detailed and well researched videos. The amount of work these must have taken to produce is staggering. They are a feast for the senses on many levels. Thank you, so much for doing them.
If you ask me where i would choose to go if i had a time machine i would tell you this: I would go to Rome after the Hadrian's reign in 140 AD, i would go to Rome after Caracalla's reign in 225 AD lets say and i would go to Rome after Constantine's reign in the 330's. These are the periods where according to me Rome had a unique splendour and huge building projects that made the city magnificent. But my big obsession would be Constantinople. We know about the immense amount of loot that crusaders took from Constantinople and we know how much of Classical Antiquity was preserved in that City. I would go to Constantinople in different periods. First it would be in 330's when the city had its first shape and was mixed with pagan and christian monuments. Then i would go in 460-470 just to see the Palace of Lausius who was a man who had collected crazy amounts of statues from pagan monuments among them it is said Athena Parthenos too. Then i would go to see Constantinople in 540, in the calm before the storm the moment the city was shining during Justinian.. and lastly i would visit during the reign of Manuel Komnenos, the last strong emperor. During his reign Constantinople was the jewel of the world the richiest city, full of relics, gold, statues, and marble monuments. For me Rome was very rich but Constantinople went unconquered for 900 years. So in the long term Constantinople had more accumulated wealth than Rome. But either city would be marvelous. I would be happy to be back in time to witness greatness from both of them.
I am amazed by the wonderful comments here. This shows that people watching this video are really as fascinated by Rome and Constantinople as I am. Makes me really happy to see :) Very nice description, and very good choosing points for a fictitious time machine travel. I would choose similar points. But I would also choose 400 AD and then in 20 year steps for Rome, as I am fascinated by urban decay and I would love to find out how Rome looked in its different states of decay, not only during its prime. I would do the same for Constantinople, I would also want to see the looted city after 1204, even in 1453, when many old monuments had already lain in ruins. It would be so fascinating to see this.
After seeing those cities in their primes, it would be so sad seeing them as ruins so i would prefer not to. Its like seeing someone you love being young and strong and then after some time seeing them old and sick. Its very difficult.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Benim ingilizcem yok Tarih kanallarını seviyorum Sizden bir Ricam var Mümkünse Bu belgesellerde Türkçe dublaj yada Altyazıli yapabililirmisiniz
Been waiting for this. Thanks Maroianus. Excellent video!!! My taste as regarding architecture leans towards medieval architecture so I would go with Constantinople although I must say ancient Rome looks amazing to. Really though call.
Rome was kind of a grand accident. It was an ancient city, even by the 4th century, and much of it's urban growth did not benefit from the otherwise famous Roman urban planning sciences. This meant that you had some truly magnificent architecture, but also vast areas of slums and chaotic streets. The Tiber was not desirable waterfront property, being an open sewer and the coast was inconveniently far away from the city proper. This was in large part why so many of the upper class preferred to have villas well outside of the city so as to avoid the crowding, stench, diseases and fires to which Rome was prone. Constantinople was a planned city. The great cisterns were meant to provide a secure water supply in the event of a siege that severed the aqueducts. The city's layout was more modern and in line with Roman advances in urban planning. Even the green belt within the city walls likely served a secondary purpose as pasturage for food animals if a siege were to limit access to the lands outside of the walls. It's position on the Bosporus and with the Golden Horn not only provided incredible views, but made it a strategic trade gateway between the Mediterranean/Aegean and the Black seas. You cannot make simple judgements in matters such as this. But I suspect that Constantinople was nicer city to actually live in.
Considering that rome was dirty. The plants, streets and buildings shouldn’t look so great. tho their buildings structures were magnificent but the city may not have looked as beautiful as Constantinople.
I think that Rome was probably more splendorous by default due to it’s location of undulating landscape and abundance of vegetation, that was the primary reason for attracting people to the area. The natural environment that lends itself to creating parks and escape sanctuaries within the context of a civilised city, can’t be underestimated in contributing to the attractiveness of a city. For example Nero’s palace, that was built after the fire of Rome, stood amid a vast landscaped park that was open for public use. The fire of Rome would have probably not have happened had the city centre not been so congested. Hadrian’s villa was also set into a sanctuary. Byzantium would have been well planned also, based on Rome having already set a precedent, also well landscaped with palms and exotic vegetation native to the area. I imagine that Byzantium had new found wealth due to oil trade, a commodity native to the Middle East. Middle Eastern architecture is strewn with obelisks that I imagine might have been symbolic for wealth.
"...Palms and exotic vegetations native to the area." Come on Tonie, this is 21st century. I reckon you've never been to this part of earth but knowledge is only one click away. The climate and flora around Istanbul are more like Milan, ie it's cooler and wetter than Rome LOL. It's now a concrete jungle over 15M inhabitants within, but I'm sure it was lush green around 6th century A.D. By the way, there are palm trees now, all been planted for landscaping purpose, in last 20 years ; none of them are native. "Middle Eastern architecture". It might have some Middle Eastern influence due to the geoghraphical facts, but there is a concept of Bysantine Style in art history. What I meant by 'geographical facts' is the proximity to Middle East, but Thrace and Asia Minor is not Middle East, which is another geographical fact. Actually western half and northern shores of Anatolia is a part of Helenic residential area until Turks' arrival. Only one obelisk has been brought by Theodocius from Egypt. This is like there's another in Washington D.C. "Byzantium had new found wealth due to oil trade, a commodity native to the Middle East." There are several resources of Bysantium's wealth, overall it was the mightiest empire of its time; It was Eastern Roman Empire. Cheers!
I think both cities were impressive in itself and is impossible to compare one to the other for the simple fact that both represents an evolution in construction and defense methods. Rome was the first "playing ground" for architects and Konstantinoupolis was the final step for the same develop. Both were magnificent cities. So I'm agree with you Maiorianus, is impossible to compare. Greetings and keep going with this awesome channel and content.
Hi Cristian, thanks for your positive comment, I really appreciate it :) Yes, it is almost impossible to choose a victor here. Both cities were too different, yet magnificent, so it's really hard to choose a winner.
Splendid and fair enough! Both were incredible,each in a different era. You said it,it can't be a clear winner, because these cities were evolved in a timeline of 1700 years,thus we can't compare them like two cities of the same era,like London and Paris of Belle Epoque....
Constantinople and Byzantium - its features, culture, splendor and hetitage - is now my focus of interest (sort of) after many years of interest focued on Roman Imperium and Latin heritage. Thank you for this film 👍
both of them are my babies but while rome was a tad bit of a random city in a random location that growed randomly and gained importance, konstantinoupolis was strategically selected and engineered to be the perfect capital for an empire.
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.
I prefer Rome. Rome was the centre of the republic and the early empire, and has a richer history. If there was no Rome, then there would be no Europe. Sure,Constantinople was more planned out, but I think Rome just has that kind of magic that would even amaze those after the fall of the west.
Richer history in your opinion only though. Richer Christian history and richer Eastern history? Certainly not. I am sorry you cannot see "the kind of magic" Constantinople has. Both of them are great and cannot be compared apart from size and population. Prefer one instead of the other is only subjective and dependent on your background. I grew up in Rome and visited Constantinople only once but its role in Eastern Christianity and Greek culture is enormous. Again, they are different and cannot be compared objectively apart from a few quantifiable parameters which are of minor importance.
@@CrazyBrosCael I don't think so. Your opinion of Rome having a richer history than Constantinople reflects the history you know about Rome and about Constantinople that survived another thousand years after the fall of Rome. So, you need to qualify your statement that Rome has a richer history because it is crap.
But Constantinople/Istanbul today is the larger city than Rome. Filled with interesting history being capital of powerful state of Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire.
I have always had substantially more interest in Rome over Constantinople as well as for the unified Empire over the later divided Empire, and even after it was divided the Western Empire over the Eastern Empire. In the end I would have been much more impressed by being in Rome.
For some reason Constantinople fascinates me more, perhaps because it seems there is less left of it, so it is more of a mystery. The more picturesque geography and the spiritual allure of Eastern Orthodox Christianity also count in its favour. I've been to Rome twice, but haven't actually been to Istanbul. Ravenna is also very fascinating, and I'd like to go back to see Ravenna at before Charlemagne carried off all the best stuff.
I love both of them, but something that separates them is history. In 540ad Constantinople was still only a couple of hundred years old. On the other hand, Rome in 320ad was the greatest city in the world with a thousand years of history behind it. That doesn't make Rome more impressive to behold, but it would have just been more historic in the way London or Paris is today.
Another superbly interesting and well-made video on a fascinating topic, and I love how you use that old "Time Machine" footage when talking about going back in time :) I also love the word 'splendorous', we don't use it enough in English, it's much more evocative than dull old 'splendid'.
Miklagard with its Varangian guard! Maybe you can tell more about the Varangians in Constantinople? I only remember vaguely Harald Hardraade was there. Did they try to take the city at any point, like the barbarians with Rome? Oh, and I remember there's still "runes" in Haga Sofia :-)
Constantinople would be the more interesting to visit because it was the port city of the world. Lying at the end, or start, of the great east-west trade routes and at the intersection of two continents, as well as closely linked by sea lanes to Egypt. It is the last city of the West, or the first city of the East. It was exotic in a way Rome wouldn't be. I also don't think Rome's sprawl is a positive. Houston may be larger than San Francisco, but concentration and density creates an atmosphere of its own.
@@ibrahimsulaiman9047 bro are you kidding me? are you saying constantinople now istanbul has a better legacy than rome literally nicknamed "la citta eterna" or the eternal city`??
@@squirtlesreee2457 Possibly. Rome bequeathed to the world the Latin script, the Romance languages and the Catholic Church - i.e. Western civilisation. Constantinople bequeathed the Greek/Cyrillic script and the Orthodox Church - i.e. Eastern Orthodox civilisation. Which of the the two is the greater legacy? This question is not as easy to answer as you may think. What's happening in Ukraine right now is very relevant to this.
Well there is not more Constantinople, the change between Constantinople and Istambul was almost total, at less Rome had some cultural continuity, is like say that the Tenochtitlan peak is 2022, yeah is the same territorry but is not the same city at all, that was absolutelly erased by the spaniards, similar to Constantinople.
Aside from the fact that you are comparing Constantinople metropolitan city to Rome inner city (rome metropolitan population being 4.3m). Although I do think Istanbul has more potential in the modern age, Rome might be a shadow of it’s former self, however when compared to Istanbul… Rome is not only far richer than Istanbul (which isn’t saying much), according to the world bank Rome is twice as rich. Considering Rome is not even close to being one pf the richest cities of Italy, and the fact that it is far poorer today than it was even a few decades ago… Istanbul does not look good. With this data come virtually ever other measurement of development. Life expectancy, education, infrastructure, ect.. Rome is also somewhat more important. Not only the capital of Italy, a country which although it does it’s best to avoid meddling in international affairs (bordering neutrality at times), boasts nontheless a GDP more than twice that of Turkey (both per capita and total). Again for a country that has had 2 decades of crisis. Rome is also home to important international institutions, a key place for international diplomacy (thanks in part to the catholic church) and a key city in the European Union. I believe Istanbul has potential, and that at times it has outshined Rome. However it has fallen from grace, more so than even Rome.
constantinople had the connection to anchient greece. it possesed many outstanding monuments, arts,books, and more. it was a mystical city that connects the world to anchient heritage and all its mystery. but all of her beauty was destroyed in 1204 when latins and crusaders sacked the city. for me, i always go with constantinople
As a Constantinopolitan myself, I have to agree with you. Both of them are jewels of civilization. I have never visited Rome but I would love to one day. I'm sure there are marvelous pieces of Roman civilization since it's the birthplace. The ancient capital of the world... Constantinople however is always at my heart. Even against the test of neglection, conversions and overlaps you can still follow the footsteps of medieval Romans looking longingly towards their lost western brothers. Buildings, writings, streets, art all of them tell the hidden story. It's never lost.🙏🏻
For around a thousand year, when you referred to "The City" anywhere in the western world, they knew you were speaking of Constantinople. There had to be a reason. What I really wish was that the Empire had endured, and both cities had a chance to compete. Or that Constantinople had lasted another hundred years and been taken by Spain or some other Empire of the Christian West. In reality, it's impossible to say. They are both too grand.
Christian West is the reason it got destroyed lol. Read about the fourth crusade. If it wasn't for it I suspect the Romans would've managed to make it to the modern period in some form.
Impossible the Spanish empire was nowhere near as powerful and rich as the ottoman empire, the ottomans kicked their ass several times, the Spanish instead of fighting the ottomans instead went to the Americas to "fight" primitive weaklings
I think, as much as I admire longevity and beauty of Constantinople, that Rome was by far the most glorious city. The simple fact that it was NOT on the coast lends a greater zeal and determination to the city's many Emperors to beautify and protect it. Plus, Rome was protected for centuries by might of its Legions, whereas Constantinople was largely protected by it walls and location.
My vote is for Constantinople because it remained among Europe's leading cities all the way up to our time, being Europe's largest city again today. While Rome was practically a smalltown inside a sea of ruins during much of the middle ages, Constantinople has never seen such a hiatus. It has seen bad times but it always bounced back. Among all major European metropolises, Constantinople aka Istanbul holds the title for being that for the longest time without true interruption (second place goes to Paris i guess). Looking at the Roman Empire, i wish to do another comparison with its third megacity, the one which reached a similar size even without being imperial capital: Alexandria!
Really fun video. Thanks for making. My vote is for Constantinople. Just the location alone is so unique. (you should tell people to vote by thumbs up or thumbs down - thunbs up for Rome, down for Constantinople)!
It is generally more likely that a city such as Constantinople with water surrounding it is more impressive than a city surrounded by land. Also, those attacking Constantinople - before large cannons were invented - would have been far more impressed by its strategic location & walls than by Rome's defenses. For me, it's a toss up as Rome had so much beauty including all those Greek artifacts plundered over the centuries. I would like to have visited both Rome & Constantinople at their height. Thanks for this thought-provoking video.
A very exciting topic, indeed, and a very entertaining exposition. However, and on the basis of your own approach, I would vote for the supremacy of Rome. A city is alot more than a material rwality: it has a histórica richness behind it, so that in this and axial feature Rome overpasses Constantinople. Thanks.
As I have (had) only the opportunity to visit both cities in our times I can only say I think current Istanbul as I visited between 1985 and 1995 is the most beautiful city of the world. But that is primarily because of the splendorous islamic architecture and the current atmosphere. Based on the remnants of the Roman era Rome would win that contest as of course it is still very much characterised by that.
I am weary of RU-vid videos that propose side-by-side comparisons but do not end with a conclusive decision. Why does the title propose a question that is NOT answered by the video?
Rome in its 14 sq km and an alleged 1 million population, had probably the appearance of a big slum, with the exception of the grand imposing public buildings and the villas out of the walls. Having a large population was definitely not an advantage, something that medieval Romans knew. During the Arab wars, no citizen without the ability to store 2-years of provision was allowed in the city, hence the decline until late 8th century. Ukraine substituted Egypt as source of grain, agriculture evolved especially in places such as Tracey and Cosntantinoples peak must have been under Komnenians in 12th century, not 6th. There must have been numerous villas on the western walls of the city as well. But the sea, is always an extra bonus.
I suspect Constantinople was more grand because it had more planning involved as well as its ports and waterfront. On the other hand, the historical slender of Rome will always place that city first for me. When I walk around the city or Rome I feel like I have a spiritual connection with it, almost as if I had lived there in a former life. I can follow an ancient wall and know that around the next corner there should be a gate or a temple... and sure enough I find exactly what I envisioned. I love Constantinople/Istanbul, but it just doesn't have the same feel.
Loving your in-depth analysis of Late Roman cities @Maiorianus ! My preference is with 11th to 12th century Constantinople, with its unique middle Byzantine monuments, multicultural society and many deeply rooted cultural layers. It would also be very interesting if you would make a video about the other late medieval Roman capitals: Trebizond, Nikaia, Arta and Mystras at their prime. All these cities saw themselves as the capitals of the Roman Empire in exile in the 13th century and had their own period of cultural flourishing. (Except for Mystras, which was the capital of a semi-independent despotate). Trebizond continued with the Komnenos dynasty who even as late as the 15th century claimed the title of "Faithful Emperors of the Romans", and outlived Constantinople by 8 years.
Legacy of Constantinople lasted way longer than rome. Speaking about ottoman Constantinople, the emperors claimed themselves as rulers of rome. Tho the legacy of rome had moved from one religion to other, but their architecture, clothing and rules had many commons which ottomans lacked. But their architecture somhow slightly has some commons with eastern rome. That's like having royal family blood from grand grand grand father but like 0.09% DNA matches the royal family blood.
Hehehe, nothing can beat Detroit :) Detroit is a great example of Urban decay. In one of my next videos, I will compare Rome after the Fall to Detroit, might be an interesting case study.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Does this sound familiar, …..A decaying Empire: 1261-1453 By the fourteenth century, the J’3ωι5Η question of Byzantium seemed to be most concerned with Venetian J’3ω5. Venetians had come to reside in the Empire in large numbers by the early 14th century, and treaties between the Empire and Venice granted the Venetians living in the empire, including J’3ω5 of Venetian origin, special privileges, though they also carried certain minor economic prohibitions. Under the aegis of these treaties, Venetian J’3ω5 could buy, sell or rent land anywhere in Constantinople. They also enjoyed a more favorable tax structure than Byzantine citizens, as well as the freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in the Empire.[47] Further complicating this legal status, some J’3ω5 obtained Venetian citizenship either "by coming from areas subject to the Republic or by purchasing naturalization", thus obtaining the same privileges as Venetian nationals in the Empire.[48] At this time, the Empire was in rapid decay, and could not seriously enforce laws intended to curtail these rights and regain economic control within its borders. Thus, an exception to the general trend of Byzantine history emerged during this century, whereby J’3ω5 were entitled to a broader set of rights than Christians…. (ωικιρεδια)…There is way more to this, than meets the eye, our initial reaction is deceiving, but it should motivate us to ask questions.
Hello, thanks a lot :) This is also my obsession and it's why I started this channel. By speaking about these obsessions and finding like-minded people, maybe we can share our wonderful obsessions with Rome after 400 AD.
I prefer Rome as a capital. 800 years of safety. The epitome of the state’s strength since the borders were so secure the barbarians couldn’t even dream of getting close to the capital.
It's not only the grandiosity of the buildings, it's the spirit that pervades a city. Constantinople is equally Christian, Greek and Roman, whereas Rome nothing but Roman. I would definitely favour the former.
Rome had better architecture and glory, while Constantinople had better location and individual structures. One could say that Constantinople wouldn't exist without Rome, but you could also say that Rome wouldn't exist without Athens. I personally find the history of Constantinople more intriguing; if only the Fourth Crusade didn't happen. I'd say both are great.
It doesn’t matter which one is better only which one survived. Constantinople outlasted Rome by a wide margin and even saw a rebirth as Istanbul, the capital of a new empire. But even it fell and now both cities host the pillaged ruins of their esteemed past. I think we should judge them by what ruins of theirs survive over imagining what no longer exists. Focus on the present. Does Rome have greater ruins than Istanbul?
Both Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) and Rome, Italy are historically significant cities with rich cultural heritage and stunning landmarks. However, some people may argue that Constantinople (Istanbul) has unique characteristics that make it beautiful in their eyes. Here are some possible reasons why some individuals might find Constantinople (Istanbul) to be more beautiful than Rome: 1)Unique Architecture: As the capital of the Byzantine Empire and later as the center of the Ottoman Empire.) 2)Breathtaking Scenery: Istanbul is located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, with the Bosphorus Strait running through the city, providing stunning views of the water, bridges, and skyline. 3)Rich Cultural Heritage: Istanbul has a diverse and rich cultural heritage, having been the capital of three great empires - the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires. 4)Vibrant Markets and Street Life: Istanbul is known for its vibrant markets, such as the Grand Bazaar and the Spice Bazaar, where you can find a variety of colorful spices, textiles, and other goods. 5)Melting Pot of Cultures: Istanbul is known for its cultural diversity, with influences from various civilizations and religions, including Roman, Greek, Byzantine, Ottoman, and modern Turkish cultures. It's important to note that beauty is subjective, and others may have a different opinion. Rome, with its ancient ruins, classical architecture, and rich history, is also considered a beautiful city by many. Ultimately, whether Constantinople (Istanbul) or Rome is considered more beautiful would depend on individual perspectives and preferences. Greetings from Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) :)
500s Constantinople has more impressive buildings because it was in the 500s and construction never stopped advancing in Rome getting better and better even as the Empire was collapsing economically and socially.
Thanks for another great presentation! May I ask why you use "A.D." incorrectly? I realize most people don't know the correct way to use it, but I'm sure you do.
Hello :) Yes, I realize it's BCE and CE correctly, but I personally just like the sound of it XD But I understand your point. Maybe I will start using CE and BCE at some point.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian -- well, that's an option as well. But that wasn't my point; rather, the point I was making was that A.D. goes first, as in Anno Domini 2022: the year of our Lord 2022. You may be surprised to learn that many people think AD means "After Death" -- i.e., of Jesus -- which I just wonder might be connected to the frequent placement of A.D. after the date, rather than before.
@@sep2mus . Well I’ve always known how traditional dating works, and it’s easy. Never have I heard anyone say they think AD means after the death of Christ. Perhaps modern education is even worse than I believed.
When did the convention of BC and AD occur? I know that BCE and CE is a very much more recent, politically correct nomenclature. Did Rome ever move away from dates referring to the numbers of years into the reign of each individual emperor (ie in the forth year of X)? How did they project dates into the future (eg building a large building would most likely take years, how did the Romans provide a date for completion other than saying four years time) I’d also be interested how the provinces marked time. Did they follow the Roman system of years into the reign of emperors or did they use another method such as ten years since the battle of x, something locally significant, more significant provincially that the coming to power of an emperor in a far off city. This I think could be an interesting video.
Hi! I have a question: if the land area inside the walls was 15 square kms, how was it possible to have a population of 600.000 people inside a so tiny area? The population density would be as high as 33.000 people per square kms, and I think it’s highly improbable. How is it possible?
Hello Ivan, this is an excellent question. Most would fall into decay, then after an earthquake or fire, when they were damaged, their building material was reused to build new buildings, where people were still living, in the inner core of the city. I will make another video on that topic. Actually, I will make many videos on that topic, hehe.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Thanks ! I think the story is incredible: A city of former 1 Mio people, and, at its low …only 3% remained… Must have been a ghost town experience.. Looking forward to learn more, the channel is really excellent !
Modern Detroit might be a good analogy. Parts of the city reverting to agricultural use or empty green spaces. And many blocks of empty buildings in stages of dilapidation.
Constantinople was also known for its many Christian monasteries, many of which like the churches were grandiose, though obviously fewer and smaller in the 6th century than in the 10th.
The Roman mindset was to build in order to impress the eye, therefore being Old Rome or Constantinople, the sheer sight of monumental architecture and the numbers of it, surely stunned foreign visitors. The huge number of inhabitants also contributed to impact said visitors, just imagine it!!
The main feeling listening to Sebastian is sadness.... How did we allow these gems to decay. In particular Rome: we cannot blame the Muslims/Turks/Persians directly for that one.
I like that you end with no conclusive judgement. I think that's fair, because direct comparisons are always nigh impossible. My own heart lies with Rome - because I've never been to Istanbul and seen what remains of Constantinople. And I could probably never experience Istanbul as I can experience Rome, because I don't speak a word of Turkish - whereas I can at least speak a little Italian quite badly. But I do dream of seeing the Hagia Sophia one day...
When it comes to the biggest ancient/early medieval religious building, biggest (or at least most effective) wall system, and maybe largest palace, Constantinople wins. It also wins when comparing the biggest school. But that's it. The bigger city overall was ancient Rome, which easily had Constantinople beat in terms of baths, basilicas, theaters, and circuses. Even the Hippodrome of Constantinople didn't match the Circus Maximus, and I don't know if there were any purpose-built theaters in Constantinople; there were certainly no large one. No amphitheater either, but given how unchristian gladiator fights are, I get that. Rome also likely had more and large palaces and mansions for the rich inhabitants, more monuments overall, probably more parks and gardens, and definitely more temples of great size than Constantinople had sizeable churches.
I can never make sense of ravenna on a modern map, cant find anything on it its annoying i can find heaps on rome, constantinople ect. Where is the original city located ? The cannals and river dont match up is it where the docks are today ?
