No it is not a trick question A friend of mine has a grandson who is an Orthodox and he claims it is
Rome was sort of a back water compared to Constantinople which was a thriving Christian community of nearly 1 million people
I know that the schism was made definitive in 1054 , and there was a split
At the time of the Schism in 1054, the East did have a larger population then the West (not that overwhelming though). But, Constantinople wasn’t a Patriarchate until the 5th Century. The Canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381) dictated that Constantinople was to be second after Rome, but this wasn’t accepted until at least the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451).
The Church in Constantinople is claimed to have been founded by Saint Andrew (it was called Byzantium then).
The Church originated in Jerusalem, and then spread to Antioch, Alexandria, Asia Minor, and Rome. The hierarchy of the Patriarchs for the first millennium was Rome, Constantinople (after ~5th century), Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.
Aside from heresies, such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Marcionism, Arianism, etc. - and temporary Schisms, the first “permanent” Schism occurred with the Council of Ephesus and the rejection of it by the Assyrian Church of the East. This was shortly followed by rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Coptic Church, Armenian Church, Syriac Church, etc. Both of these were mainly due to miscommunication and errors in translation and show promise today of being healed.
The Great Schism of 1054 between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople would take too much space to comment fully on. It was caused by a combination of miscommunication, politics and nationalistic/ethnic pride.