Rome or Constantinople?

>In AD 402, Emperor Honorius transferred the capital of the Western Roman Empire from Milan to Ravenna.
Rome was not even capital.

I miss it, lads

I'm a Byzaboo, but I'd say it definitely depends on the time period. It's not like both cities were at their heights at the same time. Constantinople was still pretty small compared to Rome circa 395 AD. Constantinople came into its own as a great city in the fifth century, and then I'd say it was equal to Rome. Both cities were great, but I think I'd have to give the edge to Constantinople because of the fortifications and for no other reason.

Is there any other city in history whose defenses held up for a thousand years like this?

Rome, first nation that BTFO pseuds

Probably. Those walls you have a picture of there are, unfortunately, reconstructed bits; the original walls are in pretty bad disrepair, so there are certainly more walls in better states of preservation than the Theodosian Walls.

I would say that Rome was a great city, and for much of its history, was greater than Constantinople, but at its height Constantinople was equal to Rome, and was in a much better strategic location.

Rome
>Constantly raided and sacked
>Dependent on other parts of the empire
>Full of crime and citizens were dependent on welfare
>Hadn't been a capital of Roman Empire since around 300 AD
>Econimically not very important by the time of the fall of Western Roman Empire
>Brought forth one of the greatest empires in history
>Full of great art and symbolic as well as religious importance

Constantinople:
>Roman capital for around 1200 years, longer than Rome actually was
>Nearly untakable, Only captured twice, first because it was still full of Crusaders when they decided to attack, and the second time because someone left the gates unguarded/opened them
>Economically important, connected eastern and western trade. Of such importance that it's loss forced Europeans to sail around the world for said trade
>Filled with riches and treasures, kept the Byzantine Empire afloat even tough they were always surrounded by enemies
>Self sustainable, as apparent by the fact that the empire in it's final years was just the one city and a small mountainous part of greece.
>Also a center of art and religion, but to (debatably) a lesser degree
I fucking love Rome and the Roman Empire, but the answer is pretty clear.

Why was Constantinople's fortification plan never copied by other cities and empires? Was having two defensive lines just too costly to man and maintain without the sea at your back?

Constantinople. Why? Because as much as Augustus and Agrippa tried, Rome was a fucking mess of a city with no city planning. Constantine and his successors had the luxury of properly planning out the city's layout when they expanded Byzantium, and so the city was allowed to look beautiful.

Oh yeah the dead 'city' with 50k population is better than the metropolis it became under the ottomans.

Byzantium was more powerful, and for a longer period of time.

Been to both cities istanbul is way more fun.

Yes. Theodosius II was able to pull resources of the world's richest empire to make those walls, and it helped that due to its geographical location, the land walls didn't need to cover as much of a surface area as say London or Paris would. By the time, European states had as much economic pull as Rome did at the time the walls were built, city walls were irrelevant due to the cannon.

Nah it wasn't, and many smaller towns and castles has double ranges of fortifications.

What was harder was to build fortifications with the same engineering standards as those used in the construction of the Theodosian walls. Now for the specifics you'd need an expert on what made them so unique, though I heard the gravel and cobblestone inside of the walls and made them quite resistant and sturdy.

Depends on the century.

>Pleb
Rome
>Contrarian
Moscow
>Patrician
Constantinople