1
Constantinople, history
and monuments
SARAH E. BASSETT
Located on a hilly peninsula at the confluence
of the waters of the Golden Horn, the Sea of
Marmora, and the Bosphorus, Constantinople
covered an area of approximately 14 sq km at
its largest extent and was, by dint of its lavish
urban infrastructure, among the most impres-
sive cities of the later Roman world. This entry
outlines the city’s historical fortunes and
urban development from the period of its ini-
tial settlement as a Greek colonial outpost
in the seventh century BCE through its Late
Antique heyday in the sixth and early seventh
centuries CE. Three major phases, each inde-
pendently named, define this development:
Byzantion (seventh century BCE to second cen-
tury CE), Colonia Antonina (second to fourth
century CE) and, finally, New Rome or
Constantinople (fourth to seventh century CE).
Known formally as Istanbul from 1930,
the city has been continuously inhabited since
its initial foundation. Construction in the later
Middle Ages together with development as the
Ottoman imperial capital from 1453 and the
explosive growth of modern Istanbul in the last
fifty years means that, apart from scattered
monuments, very little of the ancient city sur-
vives. Reconstruction of its earliest develop-
ment therefore depends largely on textual
sources. These sources include a variety of
genres, among them histories and traveler
reports, and range in date from the fourth
through the sixteenth centuries.
BYZANTION (SEVENTH CENTURY BCE
TO SECOND CENTURY CE)
According to tradition, the legendary founder,
Byzas of MEGARA, not only established a colony
on the promontory at the tip of the peninsula
ca. 660/658, but also lent it his name.
Byzantion was the second Megarian settlement
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 1734–1740.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14075
in the area, the foundation of Chalcedon
having taken place around 674/672 on the
opposite, Asian, shore. Byzantion was proba-
bly designed as part of a two-pronged defen-
sive tactic that would secure Megarian access to
the rich fisheries and strategic trading lanes of
the Bosphorus by establishing a pair of settle-
ments at the entrance to the strait. However,
Herodotus (4.144) attributes the choice of
location to a pronouncement by the Delphic
Oracle bidding Byzas to settle “opposite the
land of the blind,” his belief being that the
Chalcedonians must have been blind not to
see the superior geographic advantages of the
peninsular site.
The natural defensive advantages of its geo-
graphic situation notwithstanding, Byzantion
often failed to defend itself effectively for the
first several hundred years of its history. By
the end of the sixth century, when Darius I
used it as the staging ground for a campaign
against the Scythians (512), the city and its
territories were under Persian rule. It remained
under Persian control until recaptured for
the Greeks by the Spartan general Pausanias
(478). At that time Byzantion emerged as one
of the richer members of the DELIAN LEAGUE, as
indicated by the hefty annual tribute payment
of 15 talents. During the PELOPONNESIAN WAR the
city allied itself alternately with ATHENS and
SPARTA. At the close of hostilities, the Spartans
occupied the town; however, the Athenians
subsequently retook the city in 390, holding
it until 355, at which time it emerged once
again as an independent city-state.
Throughout the Hellenistic period,
Byzantion expanded its territorial holdings
in European Thrace and Asian Bithynia, bring-
ing both Selymbria and Chalcedon into its orbit.
Invasions (Gauls in 279) and sieges (Philip II of
Macedon in 340–339; ANTIOCHOS II THEOS in
246; Rhodians and Prusias I in 220) nonethe-
less remained a mainstay of the city’s experi-
ence until 146, when Byzantion entered into
a formal alliance with Rome as a free, tribute-
paying city (civitas foederata) under Roman
protection. Subsequently, in 74 CE, Byzantion
2
Figure 1 Hagia Sophia, Constantinople. Photograph © José Fuste Raga/Corbis.
was formally incorporated into the Roman
Empire as a city in the province of Bithynia.
The Roman alliance proved fruitful until the
late second century, when the population
sided with Pescennius Niger, a challenger to
Septimius Severus (r. 193–211) for the imperial
throne. Between 193 and 196 the Severans laid
siege to Byzantion. Unstinting in their ven-
geance for this betrayal, the Romans razed the
city at its surrender.
Little is known of Byzantion’s physical
disposition or the chronology of its develop-
ment. Written sources and a modicum of
archaeological information indicate that the
acropolis on the high ground at the tip of the
peninsula included temples dedicated to Arte-
mis, Aphrodite, and Apollo. Lower down the
slopes there were temples to Poseidon and
Athena Ekbasia, while precincts sacred to
Apollo, Demeter and Kore, and Helios and
Selene rose on the hills at the western end
of the peninsula. Two natural inlets were the
basis for harbors that provided port facilities
in the waters of the Golden Horn, and
a military parade ground to the west of the
acropolis probably served as the original
agora or forum. Theaters, baths, and residential
quarters rose on the hills sloping down to
the sea, and a fortification wall ran from the
Golden Horn on the north to the Marmara
shore on the south.
COLONIA ANTONINA (ANTONINIA)
(THIRD CENTURY)
In the aftermath of its destruction, the
Severans relegated Byzantion to colonial
status, renaming it Colonia Antonina (also
Antoninia) in honor of their adoptive dynastic
line. Mention of the city is rare during the
third century, doubtless a reflection of this
demotion, and it is only at the beginning
of the fourth century, in the struggles between
first Maximinus and Licinius (312) and
then Licinius and Constantine (324), that the
city reemerges in the sources, besieged and
damaged.
Although diminished in importance, it was
during this period that Colonia Antonina

underwent a radical urban transformation. In
the wake of their destruction of Byzantion,
the Severans, possibly by Caracalla’s decision,
refurbished the ruined city with a set of new
buildings in the area south and west of the
old acropolis. This monumental construction
included three colonnaded streets (ombaloi),
the most important of which was the Mese,
a new forum known as the Tetrastoon, an
unnamed basilican complex immediately to
the north of the Tetrastoon, a public bath
called the Zeuxippos, and a hippodrome for
chariot racing. Evidence suggests that this
building nucleus conformed to planning and
construction traditions prevalent in western
Asia Minor and the east. With its colonnaded
porticoes the Mese resembled the great
avenues of such eastern cities as PALMYRA and
JERASH, and the plan of the Baths of Zeuxippos,
that of a bath-gymnasium, was of a type seen
in such cities as Aphrodisias and SARDIS.
CONSTANTINOPLE (FOURTH
TO SEVENTH CENTURIES)
In 324, after the defeat of his last major
rival to the imperial throne, his co-emperor
Licinius, Constantine I (305–337) occupied
the site of Colonia Antonina and re-founded
the city as New Rome. A formal dedication
on 11 May 330 reconfirmed this name; how-
ever, by the end of the century the city was
established both in popular and official
nomenclature as Constantinople.
The foundation of Constantinople created
a new seat of imperial government. This action
was consistent with the Tetrarchic policy of
decentralization that had established imperial
residences in such major cities of the empire as
Trier, Thessalonike, and Nicomedia. However,
unlike these earlier residences, and as the name
New Rome suggests, Constantine’s foundation
probably was intended to supersede the
functions of the capital at Rome. This intent
was also borne out by such administrative
choices as the establishment of a Constantino-
politan Senate and the institution of legislation
3
designed to attract the Roman aristocracy to
the city. That the project was a success is indi-
cated not only by the city’s increasingly impor-
tant role in government and administration
over the course of the fourth century, but also
by the growth in its population. Estimates sug-
gest a population of around twenty thousand
at the time of its foundation; Constantinian
arrangements for provisioning from the
Egyptian grain supply imply that the emperor
projected growth to approximately eighty
thousand.
A massive rebuilding campaign accompanied
this expansion. At its foundation Constantine
extended the city limit west and with it the
fortifications: a new land defense was built
from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmara,
and the existing sea-walls were extended to
meet this western perimeter. In the city itself
activity centered on the completion and
refurbishing of the Severan projects that had
been abandoned in the third century. An
imposing monumental core grew up around
the armature of colonnaded streets. Thus,
the Tetrastoon was enlarged and renamed the
Augusteion in honor of Constantine’s mother,
Helena Augusta, and the Hippodrome and the
Baths of Zeuxippos, both apparently opera-
tional in structural terms, were completed and
outfitted with sculptured decoration. At their
completion these spaces formed the major cer-
emonial stage on which the emperor presented
himself to his public.
New buildings also were introduced and
integrated into this armature, enhancing
the city’s ceremonial and ritual aspect. The
Great Palace, designed as the main imperial
residence and administrative center, rose as a
series of interconnected pavilions and court-
yards on the terraced slopes leading from the
Augusteion and the Hippodrome to the Sea of
Marmora. On the model of such Tetrarchic
imperial residences as those at Thessalonike
and Milan and, ultimately, the imperial
residence on the Palatine hill at Rome, direct
connection to the Hippodrome via a staircase
leading from the imperial apartments to the
imperial box (kathisma) created an analogy to
4
the relationship between palace and circus
in the western capital that was intended to
enhance the prestige of the emperor.
The analogy between Old Rome and New
Rome was borne out in the construction of
other monuments, among them the Milion,
a tetrapylon arch marking the confluence of
the colonnaded streets at the western edge of
the Augusteion. As the name suggests, the
Milion drew its name from the Milliarium
Aureum in Old Rome, and like its Roman
model it served as the mile marker for the
roads leading out of the capital.
Constantine also oversaw the westward
expansion of the city. These territories, which
were enclosed between the old Severan wall
and the new Constantinian defense, grew up
around the western extension of the Mese and
its northern spur, the road leading to the
Adrianople gate. At the juncture of the Mese
and the ruined Severan wall, Constantine
built the Forum of Constantine. Circular in
shape with a monumental porphyry honorific
column bearing Constantine’s statue at the
center, the Forum straddled the street and
marked the boundary between the old city
and the new territories. Further west, at the
bifurcation of the road, the emperor and his
planners erected a Capitolium, itself preceded
by a space known as the Philadelphion that
appears to have been an elaboration of the
Mese’s colonnade with porphyry columns.
On the Mese’s northern extension, an imperial
bath, the Thermae Constantinianae, and
Constantine’s mausoleum stood as the major
imperial monuments in neighborhoods that
were otherwise residential.
The Constantinian refurbishing of the city
also included ecclesiastical building. The city’s
first cathedral church, Hagia Eirene, was built
in the area immediately to the north of
the Augusteion, possibly on the site of an
old domus ecclesia. The building’s original
form is not known; however, it is likely that it
was a basilica. A second Constantinian foun-
dation, the cemetery church of Hosios Mokios,
rose outside the Constantinian walls to the
west at the supposed site of the saint’s burial.
Like Hagia Eirene, its plan is not known; how-
ever, analogy to the cemetery churches of
Rome suggests a use of the basilican form
here as well.
Of less certain date are the churches of
Hagia Sophia and Holy Apostles. Although
both buildings were constructed in the fourth
century and have been associated with the
name of Constantine, evidence suggests
that they should probably be understood as
the work of his son and successor CONSTANTIUS
II (337–361). Dedicated by Constantius in 354,
the first church of Hagia Sophia stood imme-
diately to the north of the Augusteion. Its
entrance was through an atrium off the colon-
naded street running between the Milion and
the Golden Horn, and like the earlier church of
Hagia Eirene, which was its neighbor to the
north, it was basilican in plan. Constantius is
also the likely patron of the church of the Holy
Apostles. Built at the site of Constantine’s
mausoleum and equipped by Constantius
first with the relics of the apostle Timothy
(356) and then with those of Luke and Andrew
(357), neither its plan nor its exact relationship
to the Mausoleum can be determined with any
degree of certainty.
Whether civic or religious, pagan or Christian,
the Constantinian architectural enrichment
of the Severan city created a monumental
set of interrelated yet independent buildings
and spaces. These not only accommodated
the institutions necessary to life in a Roman
city, but also created a visual setting that
expressed the idea of integration into the
Roman imperial project. This was achieved
through the construction on the one hand
of Roman building types such as the bath
and the hippodrome, and the use on the
other hand of the trabeated building systems
made of richly carved marbles that had been
characteristic of Roman imperial architecture
since the second century.
This architectural setting served as the
backdrop for one of the more important
aspects of the city’s Late Antique development,
its display of sculpture and other monuments.
Under Constantine, monuments from the

cities and sanctuaries of the Roman Empire
were brought to Constantinople for display in
the capital’s major public spaces. These dis-
plays, which included imperial portraits,
mythological sculptures, and votive offerings
such as the Serpent Column of the Plataian
tripod (a fifth-century BCE dedication from
the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi), dominated
such places as the Hippodrome, the Baths of
Zeuxippos, and the Forum of Constantine.
Together with the architectural décor that was
its backdrop, this great collection drew on the
Roman expectation that sculpture was an
essential ingredient in any great urban center,
as it not only lent the city an air of beauty and
majesty, but also, through the choice of subject
matter and theme, spelled out the history of
a place. In Constantinople sculptured displays
emphasized the city’s mythic links to Troy and
Rome, thereby making it a grand urban center
in the Roman manner.
The next great phase of Constantinopolitan
building activity took place under the aegis
of the Theodosian Dynasty. THEODOSIUS I
(379–395), his son Arcadius (395–408), and
his grandson THEODOSIUS II (402–450) made
the development of Constantinople a priority.
Public building continued the traditions of
Constantine, with the result that areas within
the old Severan walls were restored and newly
decorated. In part these projects represented
the work of on-going maintenance in the face
of the exigencies of urban life. Fires and earth-
quakes destroyed buildings and required their
reconstruction. This was the case with the
fourth-century church of Hagia Sophia,
which was substantially damaged by fire in
402 and reconstructed soon thereafter. In
other respects, however, the Theodosian
embellishment of the capital should be under-
stood as a response to the initial Constantinian
enterprise, in which the careful placement
and construction of buildings and monuments
were designed to invite first the comparison
between members of the Theodosian house
and their august predecessor, Constantine,
and then the final judgment of Theodosian
superiority.
5
In addition to construction in the older,
more established areas of the capital, the
Theodosians undertook a major westward
expansion. Three major fora intended to serve
as markets were constructed along the trajectory
of the Mese within the Constantinian walls: the
Forum of Theodosius, the Forum Bovis, and the
Forum of Arcadius. To a certain extent these
projects carried on the identification with Rome
established in the Constantinian development
of the city. In the Forum of Theodosius, for
example, elements of the plan were designed
to emulate and recall the Forum of Trajan in
Rome, an idea driven home by the inclusion of
an honorific column with spiral reliefs at the
forum’s center in the tradition of the Roman
Column of Trajan. Above all, however, these
monumental projects placed the stamp of
ownership on the city, claiming it for the
Theodosian Dynasty.
While the work of Theodosius I and
Arcadius took place within the established
city limits, that of Theodosius II was to oversee
the expansion of the capital. He did so with the
construction of a new defensive wall approxi-
mately 1.5 km west of the Constantinian wall.
This wall, which rose in response to the Gothic
invasions of the later fourth century, survives
in a massive if ruined state. In its original form
it consisted of a moat and a sequence of two
defensive walls that ran in an arc from the
Golden Horn on the north to the Sea of
Marmora on the south. The area added to
the city with this construction remained
a largely unpopulated greenbelt, in which
three of Constantinople’s largest cisterns –
Aetios (421), Aspar (459), and Mokios
(491–518) – were constructed, together with
monasteries such as St. John Prodromos of the
Studion (454–63).
A document known as the Notitia Urbis
Constantinopolitanae describes the capital
around 425, when the better part of the expan-
sion was complete. A cumulative notice at the
end of the text specifies the number of individ-
ual building types scattered throughout the city,
noting that in addition to such major public
works as the Capitolium, the Hippodrome,
6
and the Augusteion there were fourteen
churches, fourteen palaces, eight public baths
(thermae) and 153 private ones (balnea),
four major fountains, four cisterns, five mar-
kets, four ports, 322 streets, 52 porticoes, and
4,388 houses. As the Notitia indicates, ecclesi-
astical building had increased dramatically
from the time of Constantine, as had the num-
ber of aristocratic residences. The proliferation
of more humble housing options indicates that
this investment in the city by the aristocracy
took place within the context of general
growth. One hundred years after its founda-
tion, by the middle of the fifth century, some-
where between 300, 000 and 400, 000 people are
estimated to have lived in the capital.
The reign of Justinian (527–65) represents
the last major phase of development in Antiq-
uity. Although no significant alterations were
made to the plan, fires attendant upon
the Nika riots of 532 afforded the emperor
opportunities both for the development of
new projects and the renovation of old.
The initial focus of this activity was the area
devastated by the fires, the monumental
Severan core. PROCOPIUS of Caesarea (Aed. 1)
documented this project. According to his
account, work began with the reconstruction
of Hagia Sophia (532–7) under the direction
of the architects Anthemios of Tralles
and Isidoros of Miletos. Hagia Eirene was
also built anew, and subsequently the better
part of the old city center was restored or
reconstructed. The Hippodrome received
only minor damage and was repaired together
with the Baths of Zeuxippos. In the
Augusteion, Justinian rebuilt the porticoes
and the Senate House. He also dedicated a
major honorific column complete with eques-
trian statue to himself.
The Great Palace also was revamped.
Reconstruction of the building’s public face,
the monumental entrance known as the Chalke
(Bronze) Gate, was the most visible element of
this reconstruction. Remodeling also extended
to the interior, as indicated by the remains of
a sixth-century floor mosaic showing scenes
of pastoral life side by side with representations
of the hunt that survives from the peristyle of
one of the large palace courtyards.
In addition to these major display projects,
the emperor took on basic projects designed
to improve the urban infrastructures. He
upgraded the water supply with the addition
of a series of new cisterns in the center and
oversaw the construction of a new harbor and
renovation of the Baths of Arcadius.
As reported by Procopius, the bulk of
Justinian’s building activity was ecclesiastical,
with thirty-three churches in and around Con-
stantinople attributed to the emperor’s munifi-
cence. Some of these projects, such as the church
dedicated to the military saints Sergios and
Bakchos (ca. 527) predated the Nika rebellion.
Others were constructed to replace buildings
that had been damaged or destroyed in the
fires attendant upon the riots. This was the
case with Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene. Still
others, untouched by the fires, were remodeled
due to decrepitude. Holy Apostles, which was
given a major overhaul, was the outstanding
example of this type of enterprise.
Charitable foundations complemented
these ecclesiastical ventures. Procopius credits
Justinian with the foundation of three hospi-
tals and hospices. The best known of these, the
Sampson Hospice, stood in the center of
the city between Hagia Sophia and Hagia
Eirene. In addition to the hospices, the
emperor endowed a refuge for repentant
prostitutes on the Asian shore, and a hostel
for indigent visitors to the capital.
By the end of the sixth century Constanti-
nople was arguably the most important city in
the Mediterranean world. It had eclipsed Rome
as an imperial capital and was a successful cul-
tural rival to cities such as Alexandria and
Antioch. The city built by Constantine and
his successors at the end of Antiquity has
provided the template on which all subsequent
development of the peninsula has taken place,
from the later Byzantine period through the
Ottoman empire to the modern Turkish
republic.

Thus, although most of the capital’s
monuments have been destroyed long ago, the
ancient development of Constantinople has left
its imprint on the modern city of Istanbul. The
boundaries established with the construction
of the Theodosian defensive wall in the fifth
century remained essentially those of the city
until the later part of the twentieth century,
when urban growth leapfrogged over them in
a westward march, and within the walls them-
selves the modern street plan preserves that of
the ancient capital in broad outline.
SEE ALSO: Alexandria (Egypt); Antioch in Syria;
Aphrodisias (Ninoe); Augusta Treverorum
(Trier); Constantine I; Constantius II;
Rome, city of: 1–9; Septimius Severus Pertinax
Augustus, Lucius; Tetrarchy.
7
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Barsanti, C. (1990) “Note archeologiche su
Bisanzio romana.” Milion 2: 11–50.
Bassett, S. E. (2004) The urban image of Late
Antique Constantinople. Cambridge.
Beck, H.-G. (1973) Studien zur Frühgeschichte
Konstantinopels: 1–26. Munich.
Berger, A. (2000) “Streets and public spaces in
Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54:
161–72.
Dagron, G. (1974) Naissance d’une
capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à
451. Paris.
Janin, R. (1974) Constantinople byzantine. à
451. Paris.
Mango, C. (1985) Le développement urbain de
Constantinople, IVe–VIIe siècles. Paris.
Müller-Wiener, W. (1977) Bildlexikon zur
Topographie Istanbuls. Tübingen.