ABSTRACT
Until the reign of Theodosios II (408-450), the East Romans had relied upon one main line of fortifications on the western frontiers of Constantinople,2 the defensive wall of Constantine I the Great that had been modeled after the Servian Wall of Rome with its square towers.3 For more than eight decades after the formal dedication of the imperial
1 The most significant modern but brief histories of the Theodosian Walls remain: Van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople, pp. 40-51; A. M. Schneider, “The City-Walls of Istanbul,” Antiquity. A Quarterly Review of Archæology 11 (1937): 461-468; B. Meyer-Plath and A. M. Schneider, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, Denkmäler antiker Architektur, Band 8, 2 (Berlin, 1943): 2-7; Janin, Constantinople byzantine, pp. 32 ff.; Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographia Istanbuls, pp. 286-295, esp. p. 295 with extensive bibliography; and B. C. P. Tsangadas, The Fortifications and Defense of Constantinople (Boulder and New York, 1980), pp. 7-15, although each work has some shortcomings and errors in fact. Among recent Turkish studies, cf. D. Kuban, ‹stanbul, bir kent tarihi. Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, ‹stanbul [Istanbul, A History of a Unique City: Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul] (Istanbul, 1996), pp. 47-54. Of some value for the study of the Theodosian Walls, the gateways, and the gates, cf. K.-P. Matschke, “Tore, Torwächter und Torzöllern von Konstantinopel in spätbyzantinischer Zeit,” Jahrbuch für Regionalgeschichte 16/2 (1989): 42-57; repr. in idem, Das spätbyzantinische Konstantinopel. Alte und Neue Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte zwischen 1261 und 1453 (Hamburg, 2008), pp. 189-222. No attempt will be made in this chapter to analyze the construction methods and building materials utilized for the towers and curtain walls, but for notable discussions, cf. Meyer-Plath and Schneider, 2: passim; F. Dirimtekin, ‹stanbul’un Fethi [Istanbul’s Conquest] (Istanbul, 1949), pp. 95 ff.; and C. Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction (Pretoria, 1986), pp. 25-37 and 60-65. For general comments, cf. Freely and Çakmak, pp. 49-55. 2 Of significance for the study of the imperial city is the article of M. I. Pérez, “La geografia erudita de Constantinopla,” in A. M. Cortés, ed., Elogio de Constantinopla. Colecció 100 (Cuenca, 2004): 51-83; also of importance in a broader context is the work of C. Barsanti, “Costantinopoli e l’Egeo nei primi decenni del XV secolo: la testimonianza di Cristofor. Buondelmonti,” Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia d’arte 56 (2001): 82-253. Noteworthy as well is the study of A. Bilban Yalçın, “Byzantion’un Tarihsel Topografyası [The Historical Topography of Byzantion],” in O. Belli and B. BarısçKurtel, eds., 60. Yasçında Sinan Genim’e Armag®an Makaleler (Istanbul, 2005), pp. 673-697. 3 While there exist extensive references to the Walls of Constantine the Great, since the walls are hardly visible in modern times, little historical or archaeological research has been conducted on them and literary documentation, therefore, is meager. For a brief list of pertinent secondary works,
city in 330, this wall had well served the immediate needs of security. A second line of defense appeared with the construction of the Theodosian Walls in 413. The long wall of Anastasios I (491-518), initially constructed about 447 but rebuilt later in his reign, was more distant at sixty-five kilometers from the imperial city and stretched from Selybria to the Black Sea at a length of forty-five kilometers. Clearly remote in the defensive scheme of the city, the long wall was generally low, reaching a height of 5 meters with a breadth of 3.30 meters. The long wall proved insufficient for discouraging barbarian attacks.4 Other controlling factors, however, appeared in the first century of the imperial city and these altered circumstances warranted new defensive schemes. Perhaps the most significant consideration for the imperial authorities, aside from the concerns of repeated barbarian forays, was the rapid westward expansion of the suburbs with the concomitant creation of new communities and religious centers.5 This, undoubtedly, altered the initial character of the city and with westward urban expansion greater defensive needs arose.
