Sonderdrnckaus

BYZANTINISCHE
ZEITSCHRIFT
BEGRUNDETVONKARLKRUMBACHER

MITUNTERSTUTZUNGZAHLREICHERFACHKOLLEGEN
INSBESONDEREVON
HANSBELTINGUNDIHOR SEVCENKO
HERAUSGEGERENVON

PETER SCHREINER

fG
84./85. BAND

199111992

HEFT1

B. G. TEUBNER STUTTGART UND LEIPZIG

T. F. Madden, The fires in Constantinople, 12031204

73

The First Fire: 1718 July 1203 (Table J)

THE FIRES OF THE FOURTH CRUSADE

IN CONSTANTINOPLE. 12031204:
A DAMAGE ASSESSMENT'"
T. }'. MADDEN/URBANACHAMPAIGN
With one map

LookingbackonthefallofConstantinoplein1204,NicetasChoniatesdeclared,"Thus
itwas thatConstantine'sfaircity,thecommondelightandboast ofall nationswas
laidwastebyfircandblackenedbysoot,takenandemptiedofallwealth,publicand
private,aswellasthatwhirl!wasconsecratcdtoGod..."I ConvincedthatByzantinesins were
ultimatelytoblamefortheeapital'sruin,Nicetaselsewherecomparedthefireswhieh
devastatedthecity beforeitscapturetotheflameswhichdestroyedSodomandGomorrah,
andjudgedtheformer"farmoredrastic."2 Firewasnotan uncommonhazardinacityas
tightlypackedwithwoodenstructuresasConstantinople. 3 Butnopreviousblazecould
comparewiththethreeinfernossetbytheLatincrusadersduringtheirprotraetedstayon the
Bosporusin1203and1204.TheywerethefirstofColl8tantinople'sassailantsabletoexploit
thecity'sinflammabilityasameansofi tsconquest.ltisthepurposeofthisstudytoattemptto
describe,mapout,andassessthedevastationwhichtheFourthCrusade'spyrotechnic
strategiesvisitcdonthegreatcitybeforeitsfall. Ineachcase,thefire'signitionand
spreadwill beanalyzed;thelatterby identifyingstructureswhichweredestroyedaswellas
thosenearby whichwerenot.Morespeculativeisan assessmentof thehuman costsofthefires.
Butthesecanbeestimatedbasedonthescopeofdevastation,populationdensity,and
comparativedatafromsimilar,yetbetterdocumented,catastrophes.Bf:yondtheelucidation
ofan important elementin thehistoriesofboththeFourth CrusadeandtheByzantinecapital,
Ihopethisstudywill assistandprompt futureresearchintot hemechanicsofConstantinople's
seeminglyincongruoussurrenderin1204 toarelativelysmall,fraetious,andpoorlysupplied
Latinforce.Thisisaneglectedareaof studyinotherwiseextensiveworkontheFourth
Crusade. 4
Mythanksto DonaldQuellerwhoread andcommented ona previous draftofthisstudy;and
to Karl Lorenz for his insights onthe archaeologicaland comparative data.
I Nicetas Choniates. Historia, (ad. J.L. van Dieten) 585; all English translations in this study
from H. J.Magoulias (t.rans.). 0 City ofByzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit 1984),
here 322.
2 Nicctas, 576; Magoulias 317.
3 SeeA. M. Schneider, Brandein Konstantinopel, BZ 41 (1941) 382403.
4 There is a tendency among some to find in actuality inevitability. Thus, Constantinople's fall
in 1204 proves that no other outcome was possible. The events ofthe previous year, or even the
previouscentury,are readbackwardfrom thecrusader conquest. Cf. for example. G. Ostrogorsky,
History ofthe Byzant.ineState, rev. cd. J. Hussey (trans.) (New Brunswick NJ. 1969) 417; E. H.
McNeal and R. Lee Wolff, The FourthCrusade, in: K. Setton(cd.), A History ofthe Crusades, II
(Madison1969) 185. Thereasoningtransformswealthy,powerful, andpopulousConst.antinopleinto
a doddering and decrepitrelic ofa failed empire. simply marking time untilits impending demise.
It alsocharacterizestheprofessedamazementofcrusader.Byzantine,pope,andkingatthcoutcome
ofthe events into simple foolishness, affectation. or insincerity. I am currently preparing a study
whichwill placetheeventsof 1213 April 1204 intotheconte"tofConstantinople'slarger history,
ande"amineByzantineoptions anddecisions duringthose fateful last hours.

Thefirst fire wassetbyVenetiancrusaderson 17 July1203 duringthe assaultto

putyoungAlexiusonthethrone.AftercapturingalargeportionoftheGoldenHorn
wall,theVenetiansprobablybeganmovingintothecityitself, butwereforced baek
byfierce Byzantine resistance. To covertheirescape, the Italians puta number of
buildingstothetorch.ThesamestrongwindswhiehdrovetheRepublicofSt.Mark's
galleys onto the shore ofConstantinople also fanned their small tactieal fire into
a massive and uncontrollable blaze. It spread quickly, destroying everything it
touched. Residents in the area fled for theirlives.5
TheVenetianseoncentratedtheirattacknearthePetrionGateand,aftercapturing
onetower,quieklyspreadoutacrossa goodpartofthedefensiveworks.Theirships
werestilldockedclose tothegateso, whenthetimecame,theynaturallyretreated
toit. The ignition ofthe first fire, then, probably occurred very nearthere.
Aceording to Nicctas, the blaze reduced to ashes everythingbetween the hill of
Blaehernae and the Monastery ofEvergetes, extending into the city as far as the
districtofDeuteron. 6 Crusadersources, obviouslyless familiarwiththecity'stopography, provide no additional detail, although Robert de Clari did claimthat the
destroyedregionwas thesize ofArras.7 Evergetesdoisteris generallyconsideredto
havebeenassociatedwiththechurchtodaycalledGulCamii. It lies a shortdistanee
westsouthwestofPetrionGate(PetrikapI).8 If thefire wereindeedsetnearPetrion
Gate.thentheeasterlywindswhiehfueledtheVenetianseaborneassaultwouldhave
driventheeonflagrationintotheareaNieetasdescribed.Indeed,withfewexceptions,
therearenostructuresinthatgeneralareatodaywhicheanpositivelybeidentified
aspredatingthe catastrophe.
Despiteitscourse,thefiredidnotconsumePammacaristosmonastery,whichlayalmost
dueeastofP etrionGate.'Ibisisimportantsinceonewouldexpectthemonastery tohavcbeen
amongthefirstcasualties.Itssurvivalmustbeattributedinlargemeasuretoitselevationhigh
ahovethefire.That theblazehaltedatBlachernaehill suggeststhatthewinds,whilepowerful,
werenotsufficientlystrongtodrivethefireupaverystcepslope.FromPetrionGate,then,the
flamesconsumedresideneesandchurehesonthelowergroundalongthewallandthenmade
theirwaytoDeuteronacrossthemildergradebetweenParnacaristos'hill(partoftheFifth
Hill) andBlaehernaehill,inthePetravalleybetweenthetwo.ThisexplainsNieetas'
description ofthedevastation,thedestruetionofOdalar Camn(TableI),andthesurvivalof
Pammacaristos.The lastmayalsohavebeenhelpedbyitscisternfromwhiehmonkscould
nIshwatertotheencroachingfirebelow.Similarly,thegreatopencisternof Aetiustothewest
undoubtedlywasresponsibleforhaltingthefIre'sprogressatDeuteronandsavingthe
Monastery ofProdromos andtheConventofSt. Nieholas.
5 Nicetas.545;GeoffreydeVillehardouin.LaCon{IuetcdeConstantinople(ed. E. Faral,Paris1938)
sec. 1746. 1769; Rohcrtde Clari, LaConquetcde Constantinopleed. Ph. Lauer, (Paris 1924) sec.
46,47; Devastatio ConstantinoJlolitana. in: Ch. Hopf(ed.), Chronique8 Grecoromainesinedites ou
peu conllue, (Paris 1873) 89; LetterofHugh deSt. Pol. G. L. }:Tafel G. M. Thomas, Urkundcn
zuralterenStaaten undHandclsgeschichtederRepuhlikVenedigI (Wien1856)309.Theonlysonrces
for a Venetian advance into Constantinople are Villehardouin, who only implies it hy descrihing
a retreat, and Alberic ofTroisFontaines (MGH, SS 23, 881), who claims they advanced onehalf
league.All other sources describe onlythe takingofthewall, theignitionofthe first fire, andthe
retreatto t.he boats.
6 Nicetas, 545; cf. 568.
7 Clari. sec. 46,47; cf. Villehardonin, sec. 176, L 178; Dcvast.atio, 89.
8 H.Schafer,DieGulCamiiinIst.anbul:EinBeitragzurmittelhyzantinischenKirchenarehitektur
Konstantinopels, IstanbulerMitteilungen. Beiheft. 7(1973) 134.

T. F. Madden, The fires inConstantinople, 12031204

73

The First Fire: 1718July 1203 (Table I)

THE FIRES OF THE FOURTH CRUSADE

IN CONSTANTINOPLE. 12031204:
A DAMAGE ASSESSMENT*
T. F. MADDEN/URBANACHAMPAIGN
With one map

LookingbackonthefallofConstantinoplein 1204,NicetasChoniatesdeclared,"Thus
itwasthatConstantine'sfaircity,thecommondelightandboastofall nationswas
laidwastebyfireandblackenedbysoot,takenandemptiedofallwealth,publicand
aswellasthatwhichwasconsecratedtoGod..." I ConvincedthatByzantinesinswere
toblameforthecapital'sruin,Nicetaselsewherecomparedthefireswhich
devastatedthecitybefore itscapturetothe flameswhichdestroyedSodomandGomorrah,
andjudgedtheformer"farmoredrastic."2 Firewasnotanuncommonhazardinacityas
tightlypackedwithwoodenstructuresasConstantinople.3 Butnopreviousblazecould
comparewiththethreeinfernossetbytheLatin crusadersduringtheirprotractedstayonthe
Bosporusin1203and1204.Theywerethefirstof Constantinople'sassailantsabletoexploit
thecity'8inflammabilityasameansofitsconquest.It isthepurposeofthisstudytoattemptto
describe,mapout,andassessthedevastationwhichtheFourthCrusade'spyrotechnic
strategiesvisitedonthegreatcitybeforeitsfall. Ineachcase,thefire'signitionand
spreadwill beanalyzed;thelatterbyidentifyingstmctureswhichweredestroyedaswellas
thosenearbywhichwerenot.Morespet,"lllativeisan assessmentofthehumanCAlstsofthefirt,'S.
Butthesecanbeestimatedbasedonthescopeofdevastation,populationdensity,and
comparativedata fromsimilar,yetbetter documented,catastrophes.Beyondtheelucidation
ofan important element in thehistoriesofboththeFourth f..rusadeand theByzantinecapital,
Ihopethisstudywillassistand promptfutureresearchi ntothemechanicsofConstantinople's
seeminglyincongruoussurrenderin1204 toarelativelysmall,fractious,andpoorlysupplied
Latinforcc.Thisisaneglectedareaof studyinotherwiseextensiveworkontheFourth
Crusade. 4

* My thank. to Donald Quellerwho read andcommentedona previousdraftofthis study; and

to Karl Lorenz for his insightson the archaeological andcomparative data.
I Nicetas Choniates, Historia, (ad. .l.L. van Dieten) 585; all English translations in this study
from H. J. Magoulias (trans.), 0 City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit 1984),
here 322.
Nicetas, 576; Magoulias 317.
3 See A. M. Schneider, Brande in Konstantinopel, BZ 41 (1941) 382403.
4 There is a tendency among some LO find in actualityinevitability. Thus, Constantinople's fall
in 1204 proves that no other ontcome was possible. The evenls ofthe previous year, oreven the
previollscentury,areread backward from thecrusaderconquest. Cf. forexample. G. Ostror""skv
Historyof lhe Byzantine State, rev. ed. J. Hussey (trans.) (New Brunswick NJ,
McNeal and R. Lee Wolff, The Fonrth Crusade, in: K. Setton (cd.), A History ofthe Lrusaues,
(Madison 1969) 185. Thereasoningtransformswealthy,
a doddering and decrepit relic ofa failed empire, simp!
_
It alsocharacterizestheprofessedamazementofcrusader,Byzantine,pope,andkingattheoutcome
ofthe events into simple foolishness, affectation. orinsincerity. I amcnrrently preparing a study
whichwill placetheeventsof1213 April 1204 intothe context ofConstantinople'slargerhistory,
andexamine Byzantineoptionsanddecisions during those fateful last hours.

Thefirst fire wassetbyVenetian crusaderson17July 1203 duringtheassaultto

putyoungAlexiusonthethrone. AftercapturingalargeportionoftheGoldenHom
wall,theVenetiansprobablybeganmovingintothecityitself,butwereforcedback
byfierce Byzantineresistance. To covertheirescape, the Italians put a numberof
buildingstothetorch.ThesamestrongwindswhichdrovetheRepublicof St.Mark's
galleys onto the shore ofConstantinople also fanned their small tactieal fire into
a massive and uncontrollable blaze. It spread quickly, destroying everything it
touched. Residentsinthe areafled for theirlives.5
TheVenetiansconcentratedtheirattacknearthePetrionGateand,aftereapturing
onetower,quicklyspreadoutacrossa goodpartofthedefensiveworks. Theirships
werestilldockedclose to the gateso,whenthetimecame,theynaturallyretreated
toit. Theignitionofthefirst fire, then, probably occurred very nearthere.
According to Nicetas, the blaze reduced to ashes everything between the hill of
Blaehernae and the Monastery ofEvergetes, extending into the city as far as the
districtofDeuteron.6 Crusadersources, obviously less familiarwiththecity'stopography, provide no additional detail, although Robert de Clari did elaim that the
destroyedregionwas thesize ofArras. 7 Evergetescloisterisgenerallyconsideredto
havebeenassociatedwiththechurchtodaycalledGiilCamii. It lies a shortdistance
westsouthwestofPetrionGate(Petrikapl).8 If thefirewereindeedsetnearPetrion
Gate,thentheeasterlywindswhichfueledtheVenetianseaborneassaultwouldhave
driventheconflagrationintotheareaNicetasdescribed.Indeed,withfewexceptions,
therearenostructuresinthatgeneralareatodaywhichcanpositivelybeidentified
aspredatingthecatastrophe.
Despite itscourse,thefiredidnotconsumePammaearistosmonastery,whichlayalmost
dueeast of Petrion Gate.Thi"is importantsinceonewouldexpectthemonasterytohavebeen
among thefirstcasualties.Ttssurvivalmust beattributed in largemeasuretoitselevationhigh
abovethefire.Thatthe blazehaltedatBlachernaehillsuggcststhatthewinds,whilepowerful,
werenotsufficientlystrongtodrivethefireupaverysteepslope.FromPetrionGate,then,the
flamesconsumedresidencesandchurchesonthelowerf,rroundalongthewallandthenmade
theirwaytoDeuteron acrossthemildergradebetweenPamacaristos'hill(partoftheFifth
Hill)andBlachernaehill,inthePetravalleybetweenthetwo.ThisexplainsNicetas'
descriptionofthedevastation,thedestructionofOdalarCamii(TableI),andthesurvivalof
Pammacaristos.Thelastmayalsohavebeenhelpedbyitscisternfromwhichmonkscould
rushwatertotheencroachingfirebelow.Similarly,thegreatopeneisternofAetiustothe west
undoubtedlywasresponsibleforhaltingthefire'sprogressatDeuteronandsavingthe
Monastery ofProdromos and the ConventofSt. Nicholas.
5 Nicelas,545;GeoffreydeVillehardouin,La
deConstantinople(ed.E. Faral,Pans19:'18)
sec. 1746,1769; Robert deClan, LaConquete
Constantinopleed. Ph. Laner,(Paris 1924) sec.
46,47; DevastatioConstantinopolitana.in:Ch. Hopf(cd.), ChroniquesGreeoromaines ineditcs ou
peueonnues (Paris 1873) 89; LetterofHughdeSt. Pol.G. L. J:.'. Tafel G. M. Thomas, Urkunden
zuralterenStaaten undHandelsgeschichtederRepublikVenedigI (Wicn1856)309.Theonlysources
for a Venetian advance into Constantinople are Villehardouin, who only implies it hy describing
a retreat, and Alberic ofTroisJ:.'ontaines (MGH, SS 23, 881), who claims they advanced onehalf
Allothersources describe only the taking ofthe wall, theignition ofthe first fire, and the
retreatto the boats.
6 Nicetas, 545;cf. 568.
7 Clari, sec. 46, 1.7; cf. Villehardouin, sec. 176, I. 178; Devastatio, 89.
8 H.Schafer,DieGiilCamiiinIstanbul:Eirl BeitragzurmittelbyzantinischenKirchenarchitektur
Konstantinopels, lstanbulerMitteilungen, Beiheft 7 (1973) 134.

T. F. Madden, Thetuesin Constantinople, 12031204

1. Abtcilung

74

Afterone daythefire subsided and itslastembers wereextinguished. Approximately125acres(50.5ha.)werereducedtorubble.Thedevastationwouldlaterprove

useful to the Latins. Whentheyentered the city on 12 April 1204 the main body
of thecrusaderforcespitchedtheirtentsinthe"greatopenspace"whichtheVenetians
had cleared with theirfire the previous July.HI Protected from street fighting and
guerrilla raids, the Latinsplannedtohold anddefend theburnedregion, accepting
battleonly there. Infact, ifthe Byzantinesrefused combat, thecrusaders planned
toincreasetheopenspacebyagain settingthecityablaze.II TheFrankishform of
warfarerequired wide, clearareas which theirfires provided forthem.

The Second Fire: 19-20 August 1203 (Table JI)

Around,orprobablyon 18 August1203a Byzantinemob,inafrenzyofantiLatin
hatred, descended on the Latinquarters along the Golden Horn.12 Nicetas bitterly
condemnedthe"cityrabble"who"senselesslyrazedandreducedtoashesthedwellingsofthe Western nations ... making no distinction between friend and foe." The
friends were the Almafitians and the Pisans, many ofwhom fled the carnage and
joinedthecrusadinghostinGalata.13 Thefoes,obviously,weretheVenetians. While
locallydamaging these smallfires did notrage outofcontrol. Theywere probably
confinedtoindividualshops,houses, orsmallneighborhoods. Despitetheirseething
frustration,theByzantinearsoniststookcaretoavoidspreadingflameswhichmight
destroytheirownhomes.
Onthefollowingday,19August,agroupof armedFlemings,Pisans,andVenetians
crossed the Golden Horn onfishing boats and descended ona seaside mosque. The
Moslem worshippers fought back, calling also to their Byzantine neighbors for assistance.Thewesternlootingpartyretreatedbut, accordingtoNicetas,used fire to
eover their escape. An ill wind from the north whipped the flames into a roaring
anddeadlyinferno.AccordingtoNicetas,thetireragedfortwodaysandtwonights.
Villehardouin,watchingfromGalata,recordedthatthefirelastedeightdays.14 Both
areprobablycorrect. Nicetas mayhavebeenreferringtothe greatfire whichswept
so quickly throughthecity,whileVillehardouinwasrecordingthedurationoffires
hewitnessedstillraginginthecityonfollowing days. The GreatFireofLondonin
] 666,whichbearsmanysimilaritiestothesecondfire inConstantinople,burnedfor
alittleoverthreedays.Onthefourthdayfallingwindsstarvedthemonolithicinferno,
9

Devastatio, 89.

244, II, 46, calls the area "unesplacesgranz." Nicetas 568, statesthatthe
crusadcrs occupied a region "whichhad beenset on fire, the buildings withinrazed to the ground
... " (Magoulias 312).
II Clari, sec. 78, 789.
12 The dating ofthis riot and the subsequent setting ofthe second fire has caused some minor
confusion. Nicctas 553. states precisely that Flemings. Venetians, andPisans crossed the Golden
Hornon 19 Augustandsetthesecondfire. Intheprecedingparagraph (552), herelatesthespecifics
ofthe earlier
butprovidesnodate. The Devastatio, 89, puts theriot between the Greeks and
Latins"inoetavabeateassumptionisMarie."Ch. Brand,ByzantinmConfrontstheWest. 11801204
(Cambridge,Mass. 1968)247, readthisasontheOctaveDayoftheAssnmption,whichis 22 August.
However,itshouldbereadwithintheOctaveoftheAssumption,whichistheweekof1522August.
Brandthenreversedthedates,puttingtheriotaround 19 Augustandtheraidonthemosquearound
22 August. Subsequenthistorians haveused Brand'sdates. Cf. D. E. Queller,TheFourthCrusade.
TheConquest ofConstantinople, 1201 1204 (Philadelphia 1977) 118.
13 Nketas 552; Magoulias (as n. 1) 302; Villehardouin, sec. 205, I 210.
14 Nicetas553;Villehardouin,sec. 204, I 208; theB manuscriptofVillehardouinreadssevendays,
O. Derniame,etal. cds. Laconquestede Constantinoble (Nancy 1978) 46.
10 VilIehardouin, scc.

75

butweresufficienttokeeplocalizedfiresburning.WitnessesacrosstheThames,nevertheless,stillmarveledattheawesomefire, especiallyatnightwhenitlitupthesky.
Butthose inside thecityknewthatitwaswaning. TheLondonfire still smoldered
andoccasionallyeruptedforweeks afteritwas officially extinguished.15
Nicetas vividly deseribed the flames ofthe second fire which "rose unbelievably
highabovetheground"spreadingeverywhere."Whileinthepastmanyconflagrations
hadtakenplacein theCity...,"hecontinued,"thefires ignitedatthis timeproved
alltheotherstobebutsparks."The shiftingwinds urgedthefire first onedirection
andthen another. Like a riverit brokeintotributaries andthenreconverged upon
itself.Columns,statues,greatstructures"wentupinsmokelikesomuchbrushwood."
"Nothing," Nicetas lamented, "could stand before those flames."I/} The crusaders
acrosstheGoldenHornalsolookedonthedeadlyblazeinaweandsorrow.Geoffrey
de Villehardouinrecorded thatthe barons "were extremely grieved andfilled with
pity,seeingthegreatchurchesandtherichpalaces meltingandcollapsing,andthe
great streets filled with merchandise burningin the flames, but they could do nothing."17
According to Nicetas, the "first kindling" ofthe second fire was the mosque of
the"'Agarenes'called 'Mitaton'in popularspeech." He laterdescribed themosque
as "situatedin the northern section ofthe City sloping toward the sea nextto the
churchbuiltinthenameofHal;,.ia Eirene."18 Thismosquewasoneof Constantinople's
newest.Sometimebeforehisdepositionin1195,Isaac11 Angeluserectedtheworship
placeasagesturetoSaladin.19 Nicetascarefullydistinguishedthismosquefromothers
situatedfurtberwestintheMoslemquarterbyidentifyingitsneighbor,HagiaEirene:
Nicetaswasnotreferringtothefamous churchofthatname nearHagia Sophia,as
somehavestated,butrather"HagiaEirenebythesea,"locatedontheshoreofthe
20
Golden Horn. This chureh was sometimes identified byits district, Perama. The
originalchurchwasbuiltinthefifthcentury,outsidethecitywalls.Infact,itstood
so close to the water' s edge that waves often washed through the church doors.
Afteritlaterburneddown,itwaspartiallyrebuiltbyManuelComnenu8afewdecades
beforetheFourthCrusadearrived.Thenewbuildingwaserectedona quaytoavoid
waterdamage.21 Itseemstohaveremainedunfinishedin1203. 22 ThePeramadistrict
lay between modern Bahkpazar and Odunkapl. We know from a reference to the
churchin 1136thatthestructurewas in thePisanquarter.23 Since Peramaandthe
Pisan quarter overlapped only at the far eastern edge of the former and western
edge ofthelatter, Hagia Eirene by the sea must have stood there. The neigboring
"Mitaton"mosque,then,wasoutsidetheeitywalls,eitherinPerama,thePisanquarter,or(moreprobably)both.It likelystoodnotfarfrom modernYeniValideCamii.
W. G. Bell, The Great Fire ofLondonin 1666 (London 1920) 1624,175.
Nicetas 5534; Magoulias (as n. 1) 303.
17 Villehardouin, sec. 203, J 208.
18 Nicetas 553, 554.
IS

16

19 R.Janin,Constantinoplebyzantine. Devcloppementurbainetrepertoiretopographique.(Paris
21964) 258.
20 Nicetas 206. Inbis commelltary, MagouIias, (as n. 1) 385, n. 554, makes this mistake. Sce H.
Janin,La geographie ecclesiastique de I'empire byzantin (Paris 21969) 1067. Magoulias 117. also
glosses the church'sfounder as the emperor Marcian. Itwas actually St. Marcian, who was a contemporary oftheemperor. Sec Janin.GE 106.
21 Janin,GE. (as n. 20) 107.
22 Nicetas, 206.
23 Janin,GE (as n. 20) 107.

T. F. Madden, The fires in Constantinoplc, 1203-1204

I.Abteilung

74

Mterone daythefire subsided and itslastembers were extinguished. Approximately 125 acres (50.5 ha.) were reduced to rubble. The devastation would later prove
useful to the Latins. When they entered the city on 12 April 1204 the main body
of the crusader forces pitched their tents in the "great open space" which the Venetians
had cleared with their fire the previous July.1O Protected from street fighting and
guerrilla raids, the Latins planned to hold and defend the burned region, accepting
battle only there. In fact, if the Byzantines refused combat, the crusaders planned
to increase the open space by again setting the city ablaze. II The Frankish form of
warfare required wide, clear areas which their fires provided for them.

The Second Fire: 19-20 August 1203 (Table II)

Al'Ound, or probably on 18 August 1203 a Byzantine mob, in a frenzy of anti-Latin
hatred, descended on the Latin quarters along the Golden Horn. 12 Nicetas bitterly
condemned the "city rabble" who "senselessly razed and reduced to ashes the dwellings of tbe Western nations ... making no distinction between friend and foe." The
friends were the Almafitians and the Pisans, many of whom fled the carnage and
joined the crusading host in Galata. 13 The foes, obviously, were the Venetians. While
locally damaging these small fires did not rage out of control. They were probably
confined to individual shops, houses, or small neighborhoods. Despite their seething
frustration, the Byzantine arsonists took care to avoid spreading flames which might
destroy their own homes.
On the following day, 19 August, a group of armed Flemings, Pisans, and Venetians
crossed the Golden Horn on fishing boats and descended on a seaside mosque. The
Moslem worshippers fought back, calling also to their Byzantine neighbors for assistance. The western looting party retreated but, according to Nicetas. used fire to
cover their escape. An ill wind from the north whipped the flames into a roaring
and deadly inferno. According to Nicetas, the fire raged for two days and two nights.
Villehardouin, watching from Galata, recorded that the fire lasted eight days. 14 Both
are probably correct. Nicetas may have been referring to the great fire which swept
so quickly through the city, while Villehardouin was recording the duration of fires
he witnessed still raging in the city on following days. The Great Fire of London in
1666. which bears many similarities to the second fire in Constantinople, burned for
a little over three days. On the fourth day falling winds starved the monolithic inferno,
Devastatio, S9.
Villehardouin, sec. 244, II. 46, calls the area "unes places granz." Nicetas 568, states that the
crusaders occupied a region "which had been set on fire, the buildings within razed to the ground
..." (Magoulias 312).
II Clari, sec. 7S, 7S-9.
12 The dating of this riot and the subsequent setting of the second fire has caused some minor
confusion. Nicctas 553, states precisely that Flemings, Venetians, and Pisans crossed the Goldcn
Horn on 19 August and set the sccond fire. In the preceding paragraph (552), he relates the specifics
of the earlier riot, but provides no date. The Devastatio, 89, puts the riot between the Greeks and
Latins "in oclava beate assumptionis Marie." Ch. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 11So-1204
(Cambridge, Mass. 1968) 247, read this as on the Octave Day of the Assumption, which is 22 August.
However, it should be read within the Octave ofthe Assumption, which is the week of 15-22 August.
Brand then reversed the dates, putting the riot around 19 August and the raid on the mosque around
22 August. Subsequent historians havc used Brand's dates. Cf. D. E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade.
The Conquest of Constantinople, 12011204 (Philadelphia 1977) 11S.
II Nieetas 552; Magoulias (as n. 1) 302; Villehardouin, sec. 205, I 210.
1< Nicetas 553; Villehardouin, sec. 204, I 20S; the B manuscript of Viliehardouin reads seven days,
O. Derniame, et al. eds. La conqueste de Constantinoble (Nancy 1978) 46.
9

10

75

but were sufficient to keep localized fires burning. Witnesses across the Thames, nevertheless, still marveled at the awesome fire, especially at night when it lit up the sky.
But those inside the city knew that it was waning. The London fire still smoldered
and occasionally erupted for weeks after it was officially extinguished. 15
Nicetas vividly described the flames of the second fire which "rose unbelievably
high above the ground" spreading everywhere. "Wbile in the past many conflagrations
had taken place in the City ...," he continued, "the fires ignited at this time proved
all the others to be but sparks." The shifting winds urged the fire first one direction
and then another. Like a river it broke into tributaries and then reconverged upon
itself. Columns, statues, great structures "went up in smoke like so much brushwood."
"Nothing," Nicetas lamented, "could stand before those flames."16 The crusaders
across the Golden Horn also looked on the deadly blaze in awe and sorrow. Geoffrey
de Villehardouin recorded that the barons "were extremely grieved and filled with
pity, seeing the great churches and the rich palaces melting and collapsing, and the
great streets tilled with merchandise burning in the flames, but they could do nothing." 17
According to Nicetas, tile "first kindling" of the second fire was the mosque of
the '" Agarenes' called 'Mitaton' in popular speech." He later described the mosque
as "situated in the northern section of the City sloping toward the sea next to the
church built in the name of Hagia Eirene." !8 This mosque was one of Constantinople's
newest. Sometime before his deposition in 1195, Isaac II Angelus erected the worship
place as a gesture to Saladin. 19 Nicetas carefully distinguished this mosque from others
situated further west in the Moslem quarter by identifying its neighbor, Hagia Eirene:
Nicetas was not referring to the famous church of that name near Hagia Sophia, as
some have stated, but rather "Hagia Eirene by the sea," located on the shore of the
20
Golden Horn. This church was sometimes identified by its district, Perama. The
original church was built in the fifth century, outside the city walls. In fact, it stood
so close to the water' s edge that waves often washed through the church doors.
After it later burned down, it was partially rebuilt by Manuel Comnenus a few decades
before the Fourth Crusade arrived. The new building was erected on a quay to avoid
21
water damage. It seems to have remained unfinished in 1203. 22 The Perama district
lay between modern Bahkpazar and Odunkap1. We know from a reference to the
church in 1136 that the structure was in the Pisan quarter. 23 Since Perama and the
Pisan quarter overlapped only at the far eastern edge of the former and western
edge of the latter, Hagia Eirene by the sea must have stood there. The neigboring
"Mitaton" mosque, then, was outside the city walls, either in Perama, the Pisan quarter, or (more probably) both. It likely stood not far from modern Yeni Valide Camii.
IS
16
17

18

W. G. Bell, The Great Fire of London in 1666 (London 1920) 162-4,175.

Nicetas 5534; Magoulias (as n. 1) 303.
Villehardouin, sec. 203, J 20S.
Nicetas 553, 554.

19 R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine. Developpement urbain et repertoire topographique. (Paris

21964) 258.
20 Nicetas 206. In his commentary, Magoulias, (as n. 1) 385, n. 554, makes this mistake. See H.
Janin, La geographie ecclesiastique de l'empire byzantin (Paris 21969) 106--7. Magoulias 117, also
glosses the church's founder lis the emperor Marcian. It was actually St. Marcian, who was a contemporary of the cmperor. See Janin, GE 106.
21 Janin, GE, (as n. 20) 107.
22 Nicetas, 206.
23 Janin, GE (as n. 20) 107.

I
II

76

1. AbteiJung

There the mosque was plainly visible to the I.atins on the opposite shore, conspicuouslylackinganysubstantivedefenses.Thetemptationtoplunderitmusthavebeen
greatforangryandfrustratedcrusadersanxioustoprovetheirworthagainstMoslems.
Withoneexception, historians'ofthe FourthCrusade whodescribe inany detail
the"firstkindling" ofthesecondfire misplaceit. Donald E. QuellerandDonaldM.
Nicol,assumethatthedestroyedmosquewasoneofthoseinConstantinople'sMoslem
quarter, situated further up the Golden Horn. The errorleads them to transform
theplunderingofoneseasidemosqueintothepillagingofanIslamicneighborhood.24
Charles Brand simply puts the mosque, rather ambiguously, "midway between
BlachernaiandtheBosporus,"whichisprobablyalsoareferencetotheMoslemquarter. 25 AlthoughEdwinPears'reasoningwasflawed,heneverthelesscamecloser,putting the structure inthe Pisan quarter. Taking Nicetas' reference to Hagia Eirene
tomeanthechurchadjacent to Hagia SophiaratherthanitsnamesakeinPerama,
heplacedthemosquebetweenHagiaEireneandthesea,insteadofnearHagiaEirene
bythe sea. 26 This puts the building deep withinthe Pisan quarterrather thanon
its outskirts,where itbelongs. More recently, John Godfrey, probably using Pears
and Nicetas (his footnotes are inadequate), described the mosque as resting on the
shore ofthe Pisan quarter. 27 Whilethis lacks reference to Perama, itis essentially
correct.
The "Mitaton" mosque may have beenthe "first kindling" ofthe blaze, but so
large an inferno would require much more. The fire from the mosque, fanned by
sufficientwinds, could have ignited nearby Hagia Eirene, as well as a few landing
platforms nearby. But the mosque and churchwere outside the greatwalls ofthe
city.AlexiusIIIhadalreadyrazedmostofthebuildingswhichhuggedtheseashore,
leaving very little tinder for the fire to consume. 28 The immense second fire must
have been set inside the walls as well. Nicetas suggested this, sayingthatthe marauders set the fire ina "goodly number" oflocations.29 The Devastatio ConstantinopolitanaalsodescribedalargenumberofLatinsoldierssettingfiresinthecity.30
EdwinPearslongagosuggestedthatthePisanswereimportantactorsinthispyrotechnic drama.31 The correct placement of the mosque makes this case doubly
strong.Onlyveryrecently, PisansandVenetianswere expelledfrom theirquarters.
Manylost their homes, shops, orwarehouses to theirGreek neighbors. The Pisans,
Nicetas notes, were long time residents in thedty.Theyhad shed blood to defend
itonlyonemonthearlier.Nowtheywerebereftofall.FortheFranksinthemarauding
party, the mosque must have been the primary goal. For Latinformer residents,
theGreekswerethe purposeofthe venture. It seems likelythatwhile Franks plundered Islam, Pisan and Venetians took torches to their quarters, paying their old
friends in full for theirlosses.

T. F. Madden, The fires in Constantinople, 1203-1204

77

According to the Devastatio, the expedition's goal was to aid Latinresidents in

thecitywhowereunderGreekattack. 32 ButtheByzantineriothadabated,probably
thedaybefore.Most oftherefugeeshad alreadyfled toGalata.We mustremember
thatafterthesecondfiredevastatedthegreatcitya heavymantleofguiltdescended
onmanyofthecrusaders. Villehardouindescribedthe greatsorrow and pitywhich
33
filledtheleaders'hearts. Oneyearaftertheembershadcooled,thecourtpoetand
fellowcrusaderRaimbautdeVaqueiraswasstillremindingBaldwinofFlandersthat
"heandwe alike bearguiltfor the burning ofchurches and palaces." Heimplored
thenewemperortopressontotheHolyLandlest"ourguiltbeforeGod...begreater
still."34 Asmen do, some eased their consciences by blaming their victims. Greek
persecutions, they reasoned, forced the chivalricwarriors to set the cityablaze. So
greatwasthedesiretosanitizetheeventsleadinguptothegreatfire,thatnoLatin
sourceevenalludestotheraidonthe smallmosque. Thecrusaders understandably
wantedtoforget theembarrassinglittleincidentfromwhichso muchmiserywould
flow. According to ViIlehardouin, the second fire poisoned relations between the
FranksandGreeks "forneitherside knew onwhom to casttheblamefor thefire;
andthisrankledinmen'sheartonbothsides."35 TheDevastatioprovidesone, probablythe most popular, excuse for the crusaders' complicity inthe ignition ofthe
secondfire inside a citytheyhadbeencontractedto protect. Thereis noreasonto
doubt that the author ofthe Devastatio sincerely believed the story he reported,
butweshouldnot.CertainlyRaimbautandVillehardouindidnotfully acceptedthe
whitewash.Angered and embarrassed by the tragedy, the Marshal ofChampaign
affirmed that he did notknow the menwho setthesecond fire, butthatthey did
so "outofmalice."36
AccordingtoNicetas,thesecondfirespreadquicklythroughConstantinople'smost
populousregions.InnorthernConstantinople,thefirereachedonlytonearbyPerama,
butinthesouthernregionsit wouldstretchallthewaytothedistrictofEleutherius.
To the south the inferno continueduntilit"expended its fury" on the mightysea
walls ofMarmara. Nicetas repeatedly remarked on theerratic behavior ofthe fire,
zigzaggingacross thedensemidcity:sparingsomebuildings,destroyingthosenext
door,thenturningagainonthesurvivors. Thefire wasso greatthatitoftenhurled
burningembersacrossthesky,somelandinginotherareasofthecity,onedestroying
a ship sailing downthe Bosporus.37
Nicetas, ViIlehardouin, and the Chronicle of Novgorod all noted how close the
flames cames to Hagia Sophia. Nicetasreportedthat"allthe buildingslyinginthe
directionoftheArchoftheMilionandadjoiningthegalleryof MahonandthestructurealsocalledTheSynodscamecrashingtotheground..." 38 WhatbuildingsNicetas

32 Devastatio 89. The authorseems to collapse theevents of18 August and 19 Augustintoone
dayalthoughitis notclearthat he meantsucha reading.
33 Villehardouin. see. 203, I 208.
24 Queller,FourthCrusade(asn.12)119;D.M. Nicol,ByzantiumandVenice.AStudyinDiplomatic
34 J. Linskill,ThePoemsofThcTroubadour RaimbautdeVaqueiras (TheHague 1964)226, 228.
andCultural Relations (Cambridge1988) 139;cf. Magoulias (as n. I) 405, n. 1472.
This is usually taken as a reference to the sack of1204 (ibid., 232, nn. 412). But Constantinople
25 Brand,ByzantiumConfrontstheWest(as n. 12)247. TheMoslemquarterwaswestofPerama.
Placing the burned mosquc there makes Nieetas' claim that the fire spread west to Perama non- wasnotburnedbythecrusadersafteritsurrendered.Burningtheirnew propertywouldmakelittle
scnse. Theonlycnlsaderfire which we knowdestroyedbothchurches andpalaceswas the second.
sensical.
35 "Sinca'ensorent a cui plaindrequ'i1lorpesad'uneparte d'autre."Villehardouin, sec. 205, I.
26 E. Pears, TheFall ofConstantinople(New York1886) 327.
205. The translation is from F. T. Marzials (trans.), Memoirs ofthe Crusades (New York 1958) 52.
27 J. Godfrey, 1204. The UnholyCrusade (Oxford 1980) 114.
While liberal, itis essentially accurate.
28 Queller, FourthCrusade (as n. 12) 8990.
Villehardouin,sec. 203, I 208.
29 Nicetas 553; Magoulias (as n. I)303.
37 Nicetas 554.
'0 Devastatio 89.
Nicetas 554; Magoulias (asn. I) 303; Villehardouin, scc. 204, I 208.
31 Pears, FallofConstantinople(asn. 26) 327.

3.

By....t. Zeitochrift 84/85. 1

76

I. Abteilung

T. F. Madden,Thefires in Constantinople, 12031204

77

There the mosque was plainly visihle to the Latins on the opposite shore, conspicuAccording to the Devastatio, the expedition's goal was to aid Latinresidents in
thecitywhowereunderGreekattack. 32 ButtheByzantineriothadabated,probably
ouslylackinganysubstantivedefenses.Thetemptationtoplunderitmusthavebeen
greatforangryandfrustratedcrusadersanxioustoprovetheirworthagainstMoslems.
thedaybefore. Most oftherefugeeshadalreadyfled toGalata.We mustremember
Withoneexception, historians'ofthe FourthCrusade who describein anydetail
thatafterthesecondfire devastatedthegreatcityaheavymantleofguiltdescended
the"firstkindling" ofthesecondfire misplaceit.DonaldE.QueUerandDonaldM.
onmanyofthecrusaders. Villehardouindescribed the greatsorrow and pitywhich
33
Nicol,assumethatthedestroyedmosquewasoneofthoseinConstantinople'sMoslem
filled theleaders'hearts. Oneyearaftertheembershadcooled,thecourtpoetand
quarter, situatedfurther up the Golden Horn. The error leads them to transform
fellowcrusaderRaimbautdeVaqueiraswasstillremindingBaldwinofFlandersthat
theplunderingofoneseasidemosqueintothepillagingofanIslamicneighborhood.24
"heandwe alike bearguiltfor the burning ofchurches and palaces." Heimplored
Cbarles Brand simply puts the mosque, ratber ambiguously, "midway between
thenewemperortopressontotheHolyLandlest"ourguiltbeforeGod...begreater
BlachernaiandtheBosporus,"whichisprobablyalsoareferencetotheMoslemquarstill."34 As men do, some eased their consciences by blaming their victims. Greek
ter. 25 AlthoughEdwinPears'reasoningwasflawed,heneverthelesscamecloser,putpersecutions, theyreasoned, forced thechivalricwarriorsto setthe cityablaze. So
ting the structure in the Pisanquarter. Taking Nicetas' reference to lIagia Eirene
greatwasthedesiretosanitizetheeventsleadinguptothegreatfire,thatnoLatin
tomeanthechurch adjacent to Hagia Sophiaratherthanits namesakeinPerama,
sourceevenalludes to theraidonthe small mosque. Thecrusadersunderstandably
heplacedthemosquebetweenHagiaEireneandthesea,insteadofnearlIagiaEirene
wantedtoforget theembarrassinglittleincidentfromwhichsomuchmiserywould
bythe sea. 26 This puts the building deep withinthe Pisan quarter rather than on
flow. According to Villehardouin, the second fire poisoned relations between the
Franksand Greeks "forneither side knew onwhom to cast theblamefor thefire;
its outskirts, where itbelongs. More recently, JohnGodfrey, probably using Pears
andthisrankledinmen'sheartonbothsides."35 TheDevastatioprovidesone,proand Nicetas (his footnotes are inadequate), described the mosque as resting on the
shore ofthe Pisan quarter. 27 While this lacks reference to Perama,itis essentially
bablythe most popular, excuse for the crusaders' complicity in the ignition ofthe
second
fire insidea city theyhad beencontractedtoprotect. Thereis noreasonto
correct.
The "Mitaton" mosque may have been the "first kindling" ofthe blaze, but so
doubt that the author ofthe Devastatio sincerely believed the story he reported,
large an inferno would require much more. The fire from the mosque, fanned by butweshouldnot.CertainlyRaimbautandVillehardouindidnotfully acceptedthe
sufficientwinds, could have ignited nearby Hagia Eirene, as well as a few landing whitewash. Angered and embarrassed by the tragedy, the Marshal ofChampaign
platforms nearby. But the mosque and church were outside the greatwalls ofthe affirmed thathedid notknow the men who set the second fire, butthatthey did
city.Alexius III hadalreadyrazedmostofthebuildingswhichhuggedtheseashore, so "outofmalice."36
leaving very little tinderfor the fire to consume. 28 The immense second fire must
AccordingtoNicetas,thesecondfirespreadquicklythroughConstantinople'smost
populousregions.InnorthernConstantinople,thefirereachedonlytonearbyPerama,
have been set inside the walls as well. Nicetas suggested this, sayingthatthe marauders set the fire in a "goodly number" oflocations. 29 The Devastatio ConstanbutinthesouthernregionsitwouldstretchallthewaytothedistrictofEleutherius.
tinopolitanaalsodescribedalargenumberofLatinsoldierssettingfiresinthecity.30 To the south the inferno continueduntilit"expended its fury" on the mightysea
EdwinPearslongagosuggestedthatthePisanswereimportantactorsinthispywalls ofMarmara. Nicetas repeatedly remarked on theerratic behaviorofthe fire,
rotechnic drama.31 The correct placement ofthe mosque makes this case doubly zigzaggingacrossthedensemidcity:sparingsomebuildings,destroyingthosenext
strong.Onlyveryrecently, Pisans andVenetians were expelledfromtheirquarters. door,thenturningagainon thesurvivors. Thefire was so greatthatitoftenhurled
Manylosttheir homes, shops, orwarehouses to theirGreek neighbors. The Pisans, burningembersacrossthesky,somelandinginotherareasof thecity,onedestroying
Nicetas notes, were long time residents in the city. Theyhad shed blood to defend a ship sailing downtheBosporus.37
Nicetas, Villehardouin, and the Chronicle of Novgorod all noted how close the
itonlyonemonthearlier.Nowtheywerebereftofall.FortheFranksinthemarauding
party, the mosque must have been the primary goal. For Latin former residents, flames cames to Hagia Sophia. Nicetasreported that "allthebuildingslyinginthe
theGreekswerethepurposeoftheventure. It seems likelythatwhile "Franks plun- directionoftheArchoftheMilionandadjoiningthegalleryof Makronandthestruc-
dered Islam, Pisan and Venetians took torches to their quarters, paying their old turealsocalledTheSynodscamecrashingtotheground... " 38 WhatbuildingsNicetas
friends infull for theirlosses.
32 Devastatio 89. The authorseems to collapse theevents of 18 August and 19 Augustintoone
dayalthoughitis notcleartbat he meantsucha reading.
3' VilJehardouin, sec. 203, I 208.
24 QueUer,FourthCrusade(asn.12)119;D.M. Nicol,ByzantiumandVenice.AStudyinDiplomatic
34 J. Linskill,ThePoemsofThcTroubadour Raimbautde Vaqueiras (TheHague 1964)226, 228.
and Cultural Relations (Cambridge 1988) 139; cf. Magoulias (as n. 1) 405, n. 1472.
This is usually takenas a reference to tbe sack of 1204 (ibid., 232, nn. 412). But Constantinople
25 Brand,ByzantiumConfrontstheWest(as n. 12)247. TheMoslemquarterwaswestofPerama.
Placing the burned mosque there makes Nicetas' claim that the fire spread west to Perama non- wasnotburnedbythecrusadersafteritsurrendered. Burningtheirnew propertywouldmakelittle
scnse. Theonly crusaderfire which we knowdestroyedbotbchurches and palaceswas the second.
sensical.
35 "Sines'ensorent a cuiplaindrequ'iJ lorpesad'uneparte d'autre."Villehardouin, sec. 205, I.
26 E.Pears, The FallofConstantinople (New York 1886) 327.
205. The translation is from F. 1: Marzials (trans.), Memoirs ofthe Cnlsades (New York 1958) 52.
27 J. Godfrey, 1204,. Tbe Unholy Crusade (Oxford 1980) 114.
Whilel iberal, itis essentiallyaccurate.
28 QuelJer, FourthCrusade (as n. 12) 8990.
,.VilJehardouin,sec. 203, I 208.
29 Nicetas 553; Ma goulias (as n. 1) 303.
37 Nicetas 554.
,0 Devastatio 89,
3. Nicetas 554; Magoulias (as n. 1) 303; Villehardouin, scc. 204, I 208.
31 Pears,FallofConstantinople(asn. 26) 327.

By....t. Zeitochrift 84/85.1

78

I. Ahteilung

. . . .- - - - - - ------T."F. Madden,'l'Iie ftres fn

12031204

79

was referring to is unclear. What is certain is that he did not mean to include the
Inany case, the damage to the atrium could not have been extensive. Thesacred
Milion itself, nor the gallery of Makron, nor probably the "Synods" among the strucfountainappearstohavesurviveduntilatleastthePalaeologanrestoration. 48 Nicetas'
turalcasualties.ThefamousByzantinemilestoneandthegalleryofMakron(aportion
lostbuildings, then, musthavestoodjustwest ofHagia Sophia.
ofthepatriarchalpalacecomplex borderingthe Augusteion) survived untiltheOtAmong the structures reduced to ashes, Nicetas also included "the two covered
toman period.39 The identification ofthe "Synods" is more problematic. Guilland
streetsoriginatingattheMilion,oneofwhichextendedtothePhiladelphion."49 One
hassuggestedthatitwasanothernamefortheThomaites,alargebuildingoriginally
of thesestreetsprobablyfollowedmodernHilaliAhmerCaddesi.Theother,extending
addedtothepatriarchalpalacebyThomasI(607610)andlaterrebuiltafteritburned
to the Philadelphion, was Mese, which, in fact, streched all thewayto the Golden
downneartheendoftheeighthcentury. 40 It probablystoodonthenorthwestcorner
Gate. Nicetas must have been referring only to the covered portion ofthe street.
oftheAugusteion.Thepatriarchalcomplexstretchedallalongthatcourtonitsnorth
Buttheentirecoveredportioncouldnothavebeendestroyed.NotonlydidthePhil.
side, adjacent to the south facade ofHagia Sophia. A significant number oflater
adelphion, home to the four dark tetrarchs soon to be attached,to San Marco in
witnessesattestthatthepatriarchalpalacegenerally,andtheThomaitesandMakron
Venice, avoidtheflames, butthe ForumTaurialso appears tohaveescapedlargely
galleryinparticular,survivedthisfire.41 What,then,were"allthebuildings"which
unscathed. One ofits most conspicuous monuments, the reliefcovered Column of
Nicetasclaims were lost?
Theodosius,experiencednofiredamage.It wasprobablythiscolumnwhichByzantine
AccordingtotheNovgorodChronicle"theporchofHagiaSophiawasburnt,where
citizens mutilated, believing its pictures foretold a crusader conquest by sea. 50 It
allthepatriarchsarepainted."42 WhiletheChronicleis a verypoorsourceformost was also from the top ofthis column that the emperorMourtzouphlus was forced
events,itsdates andtopographical informationareusuallyreliable. The "porch"is
toflinghimselftohisdeathin1205. Clariinforms usthata fallingemperorwas yet
surelya reference to Hagia Sophia's open atrium onits northwest side. 43 Itis reaanother ofthe column's prophecies.51 The column survived until ca. 1504 whenit
sonableto assume, although I know ofno otherreference to them, that images of was demolished and SultanBeyazid's bath builtinits place.52 It stood, therefore,
important patriarchs may have appeared inthe courtyard, perhaps in the covered very nearMese street. The survival ofan ancient bronze equestrian statue in the
walkways.Still,PaultheSilentiary'ssixthcenturydescriptionofthewestenlatrium ForumTauri,perhaps, as Nicetassuggested,depictingBellerophontesandPegasus,
mentioned no such figures, nor did the later Llll1YT)(HI;; 1tepi 'tfit; AYlat;
44 AcfurtherconfIrms thattheareaavoided thesecondfire. Thepiecewas laterremoved
cordingto anOttomanversion ofthelatter, the atrium'sfountain was covered by bythecrusadersandmelteddown.53 Similarly,thesocalledBeyazidchurcheswhich
a cupola decorated with the images ofJesus, the Apostles, and the emperors from stoodin theforumalsoappeartohaveavoidedanydamageinthisperiod,although
ConstantinetoJustinian. 45 If thisis accurate,theauthorofthe Novgorodchronicle thisis not as certain. 54 Finally,theremainsofthegreat arch ofTheod08ius which,
couldeasily haveconfusedemperors,ifnot apostles,with patriarchs.The defectin until558, spannedMesestreet, alsoshownoevidenceofsevereburns. Someportion
allofthisisthatHagiaSophia'satriumsurviveduntilthenineteenthcentury.Never- ofthemassivestructuremayhavestoodin 1203, butwhetheritdidornot,thenas
theless,partof itmayhavebeendamagedin1203andlater restoredbytheLatinswho nowitsruinslittered thearea.55
undertooka numberofrepairsonthechurchduringtheiroccupation. 46 Archaeology
How far, then, did the fire progress along Mese? Just west ofthe Forum Tauri
provides noevidence for a great cataclysm in the courtyard, although itswestern- stood the Porticoes ofDomninoes which Nicetas relates was destroyed. Very near
most sectionlies underCaferiye Sokakand,therefore, has never beenexcavated. 47 this structurewas thefairly newMonasteryofthe Resurrection(Anastasis) as well
asthefamouschurchofSt.Anastasia,originallydedicatedinthelastquarterofthe
fourthcentury.
56 Themonasterysurvivedtheblaze,butthefate ofthegreatchurch
39 F. Dirimtekin, I.e localdu Patriarcata SainteSophie, IstanbulerMitteilungen 1314(196364)
islesscertain.TherearenoclearreferencestoSt.AnastasiaatthePorticoesofDom1145.
40 R. Guilland, Etudcsdctopographiede Constantinople byzantine (Amsterdam 1969) II 145.
ninoes in Byzantine or Latin sources after the second fire. It is possible that the
41 Dirimtekin,Lalocal du Patriarcat a SainteSophie 11327, esp. 1145; cf. R. Janin, Le palais
churchwasconsideredpartofthemuch newermonasterynextdoorand, therefore,
patriarchal de Constantinople byzantine, REB 20 (1962) 13155; C. Mango, The Brazen House.
wasnotspecificallymentionedagain.Thedifferencebetweenthenames"Anastasis"
A Study of the Vestibule ofthe Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen 1959) 523; G.
and
"Anastasia"seems tohave beenlostontheLatins.
Majeska,RussianTravelerstoConstantinopleintheFourtheenthandFifteenthCenturies(Washington, D.C. 1984) 2023.
42 R. Michell and N. Forbes (trans.), TheChronicle ofNovgorod, 10161471 (London 1914) 45.
43 Queller, Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 120, identifies it as the narthex. But that portion ofthe
buildingis stillquite whole.
..P. Friedlander (ed.), Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiariu8 (I,eipzig/Berlin 1912) 244;
Th. Preger (ed.), Seriptoresoriginum COllstantinopolitanarnm(Leipzig 1901) I 103.
05 F. Tauer, "1,e8 Versiollll persane;; de la legende surla construction d'Aya Sofya." ByzSlav 15
(1954) 14. The RussianAnonymousalso described thecupola,butomitted anyreferencetodecorations. Majeska, RussianTravelers to Constantinople(asn. 41) 139, 201.
E.H.Swift"TheLatinsatHagiaSophia," AmericanJournalofArchaeology39 (1935)45874.
47 ThelastexcavationstherewereunderthedirectionofA. M. Schneider,DieGrabungimWesthof
derSophienkircbezu Istanbul,IstanbulerForschungen 12 (1941) seeesp. 228, Taf. 1. Thebestand
mostrecentcomprehensivediscussionof theatriumisbyChristineStrube,DiewestlicheEingangsseite
der KirchenvonKonstantinopelinjustinianischerZeit (Wiesbaden 1973) 1371.

46 GeorgePachymeres,DeMichaeleetAndronicoPalaeologis!ibriXIII,rec.1. Bekker(Bonn 1835)

v.24, 258; Russian Anonymous, Majeska, RussianTravelersto Constantinople(as n. 41) 139.
'9 Nieetas 555; Magoulias (as n. 1) 304.
SO Gunther ofPairis, Historia Constantinopolitana, in: P. Riant (ed.), Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae(Paris 18771904) I 112; cf. Clari, sec. 92, 8990.
51 Clarl,sec., 109, 1034; Villardouin, sees. 3078, 701; Nicetas 6089.
52 P. Gilles, DeTopographia Constantinopoleos(Lyon 1561)160; E.Effendi, NarrativeofTravels
inEurope, Asia, and Africa, Joseph von Hammer(trans.) (New York 1968) 18.
53 Nicetas643
54 Th. F. Mathews, TheByzantine Churches ofIstanbul (University Park 1976) 2835.
55 St.ClI8son andD.TalbotRice, Second Report UpontheExcavations CarriedOutinand Near

theHippodrome ofConstantinoplein 1928 (London 1929) 3248.

56 Janin,GE(asn. 20) 2225.
6

78

I. Ahteilung

""T,"Y. Madden,TJie i'lres inC;'nstantinople, 12031204

79

was referring to is undear. What is certain is that he did not mean to include the
Inany case, the damage to the atrium could not have beenextensive. The sacred
Milion itself, nor the gallery of Makron, nor probably the "Synods" among the strucfountainappearstohavesurviveduntilatleasttheI)alaeologanrestoration. 48 Nicetas'
turalcasualties.ThefamousByzantinemilestoneandthegalleryofMakron(aportion
lostbuildings, then, musthavestoodjustwestofHagia Sophia.
ofthepatriarchalpalace complex borderingtheAugusteion) surviveduntilthe OtAmong the structures reduced to ashes, Nicetas also included "the two covered
toman period. 39 The identification ofthe "Synods" is more problematic. Guilland
streetsoriginatingattheMilion,oneofwhichextendedtothel)hiladeIphion."49 One
hassuggestedthatitwasanothernamefortheThomaites,alargebuildingoriginally
ofthesestreetsprobablyfollowedmodernHilaIiAhmerCaddesi.Theother,extending
addedtothepatriarchalpalacebyThomasI (607610)andlaterrebuiltafteritburned
to the Philadelphion, was Mese, which, in fact, streched all theway tothc Golden
downneartheendoftheeighthcentury.40It probablystoodonthenorthwestcorner
Gate. Nicetas must have been referring only to the covered portion ofthe street.
oftheAugusteion.Thepatriarchalcomplexstretchedallalongthatcourtonitsnorth
Buttheentirecoveredportioncouldnothavebeendestroyed.NotonlydidthePhilside, adjacent to the south facade ofIIagia Sophia. A significant number oflater
adclphion, home to the four dark tetrarchs soon to be attachcd,to San Marco in
witnessesattestthatthepatriarchalpalacegenerally,andtheThomaitesandMakron
Venice, avoidtheflames, buttheForumTaurialso appearstohaveescapedlargely
galleryinparticular,survivedthisfire.41 What,then,were"allthebuildings"which
unscathed. One ofits most conspicuous monuments, the reliefcovered Column of
Nicetasclaims were lost?
Theodosius,experiencednofiredamage.It wasprobablythiscolumnwhichByzantine
AccordingtotheNovgorodChronicle"theporchofIIagiaSophiawasburnt,where
citizens mutilated, believing its pictures foretold a crusader conquest by sea.50 It
allthepatriarchsarepainted."42 WhiletheChronicleis a verypoorsourceformost was also from the top ofthis column thatthe emperorMourtzouphlus was forced
events,its dates and topographical informationare usually reliable. The"porch"is
toflinghimselftohisdeathin ] 205. Clariinforms usthata falling emperorwas yet
surelya reference to IIagia Sophia '8 openatrium onits northwest side. 43 It is reaanother ofthe column's prophecies.51 The column survived until ca. 1504 whenit
sonable to assume, although I know ofno otherreference to them, that images of was demolished and SultanBeyazid's bath built in its place.52 It stood, therefore,
importantpatriarchs mayhave appeared inthe courtyard, perhaps in the covered very near Mese street. The survival ofan ancient bronze equestrian statuein the
walkways.Still,PaultheSilentiary'ssixthcenturydescriptionofthewesternatrium ForumTauri, perhaps, as Nieetassuggested, depictingBellerophontesandPegasus,
mentioned no such figures, nor did the later
11:&1'1

44 Acfurtherconfirmsthatthearea avoidedthesecondfire. Thepiecewaslaterremoved

cordingto anOttomanversion ofthelatter, the atrium'sfountain was covered by bythecrusadersandmelteddown.53 Similarly,thesocalledBeyazidchurcheswhich
a cupola decorated withthe images ofJesus, the Apostles, and the emperors from stoodintheforumalsoappeartohaveavoidedanydamageinthisperiod,although
ConstantinetoJustinian. 45 If thisis accurate,theauthoroftheNovgorodchronicle thisis notas certain. 54 Finally, theremainsofthe great arch ofTheodosius which,
couldeasilyhaveconfused emperors, ifnotapostles, with patriarchs.The defect in until558, spannedMese street, alsoshownoevidenceofsevereburns. Someportion
allofthisisthatHagiaSophia'satriumsurviveduntilthenineteenthcentury.Never- ofthemassivestructuremayhavestoodin 1203, butwhetheritdidornot, thenas
theless,partof itmayhavebeendamagedin1203andlater restoredbytheLatinswho nowitsruins litteredthearea.55
undertooka numberofrepairsonthechurchduringtheiroccupation. 46 Archaeology
How far, then, did the fire progress along Mese? Just west ofthe Forum Tauri
provides noevidence for a greatcataclysminthe courtyard, althoughits western- stood the Porticoes ofDomninoes which Nicetas relates was destroyed. Very near
mostsectionlies underCaferiyc Sokakand, therefore, has never beenexcavated. 47 thisstrncturewas the fairly newMonasteryofthe Resurrection(Anastasis) as well
asthefamouschurchofSt. Anastasia,originallydedicatedinthelastquarterofthe
fourthcentury.
56 Thcmonasterysurvivedtheblaze,butthefate ofthegreatchurch
39 F. Dirimtekin, Lelocaldu Patriarcata SainteSophie,IstanhulcrMitteilungen 1314 (196364)
islesscertain.TherearenoclearreferencestoSt.AnastasiaatthePorticoesofDom-
1145.
ninoes in Byzantine or Latin sources after the second fire. It is possible that the
R. Guilland, Etudesdetopographicde Constantinople byzantine (Amsterdam 1969) II 145.
.,Dirimtekin, Lalocaldu Patriarcat a SainteSophic 11327, esp. 1145; cf. R. Janin, Le palais churchwasconsidered partofthemuchnewermonasterynextdoorand, therefore,
patriarehal de Constantinople byzantine, REB 20 (1962) 13155; C. Mango, The Brazen House.
wasnotspecificallymentionedagain.Thedifferencebetweenthenames"Anastasis"
A Study of the Vestibule ofthe Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen 1959) 523; G.
and" Anastasia"seems tohavebeenlostontheLatins.
Majeska,RussianTravelerstoCon8tantinopleintheFourtheenthandFifteenthCenturies(Washing.
ton, D.C. ]984)2023.
.2 R. Michell and N. Forbes(trans.),TheChronicle ofNovgorod, 10161471 (London 1914) 45.
'3 Queller, Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 120, identifies it as the narthex. But that portion ofthe
buildingi8 stillquitewhole.
..P. Friedlander (cd.), Johanne8 von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius (Leipzig/Berlin 19]2) 244;
Th.Preger(ed.), Scriptoresoriginum Constantinopolitanarum (Leipzig 1901) I 103.
4S F. Tauer, "Les Versions persanes de la
sur la construction d'Aya Sofya." ByzSlav ]5
(1954) 14. TheRussianAnonymous alsodescribed thecupola,butomittedanyreference todecora
tions. Majeska, RU8sian Travelers to Constantinople (as n. 41) 139, 201.
AmericanJournalofArchaeology39(1935)45874.
6 E.H.Swift"TheLatinsatHagia
7 ThelastexcavationstherewereunderthcdirectionofA.M. Schneider,DieGrabungimWesthof
derSophienkirchezu Istanbul,IstanbulcrForschungen 12 (1941) seeesp. 228, Taf. 1. Thebestand
m08trecentcomprehensivediscussionof theatriumi8byChristineStrube,DiewegtHeheEingangsseite
der Kirchen von KonstantinopelinjustinianischerZeit (Wiesbadcn 1973) 1371.

48 GeorgePachymeres,DeMichaeleetAndronicoPalaeologislibriXIII,rec. l. Bekker(Bonn1835)
v, 24, 258; Russian Anonymous, Majeska, RussianTravelerstoConstantinople (as n. 41) 139.
49 Nicetas 555; Magoulias (as n. 1) 304.

50 Gunther ofPains, Historia Con8tantinopolitana, in: P. Riant (ed.), Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae (Paris 18771904) I 112; cf. Clari, sec. 92, 8990.
51 Clari,sec., 109, 1034; Villardouin, secs, 3078, 701; Nicetas 6089.
S2 P. Gilles, DeTopographiaConstantinopoleos(Lyon 1561) 160: E.Effendi, NarrativeofTravels
inEurope, Asia, and Africa, Josephvon Hammer (trans.) (New York 1968) 18.
S3 Nicetas 643

Th. F. Mathews, TheByzantineChurchesofIstanbul (University Park 1976) 2835.

s. St.Cassonand D. Talbot Rice, Second Report UpontheExcavationsCarriedOutinandNear

theHippodrome ofConstantinople in 1928 (London 1929) 3248.

56 Janin,GE (as n. 20) 2225.
6'

I. Ahteilung

80

On 22 December 1389, Ignatius of Smolensk "kissed the holy relics of St. Anastasia ..." Since22 Decemberwas a feast dayofSt.AnastasiaofSirmium, andtraditionally a day ofrelic veneration in the church at the Porticoes of Domninoes,
Majeskaconcludes thatIgnatiusvisited the ancientbuilding. 57 However, there was
atleastoneotherchurchdedicatedtothissaint,locatednearthePantocratorMonastery.58If St.AnastasiaatthePorticoesofDomninoeshadbeendestroyed,itwould
be naturalfor another ofthe saint'schurchesto continue thefeast and evenclaim
tohavesomeofherrelics.TheonlyotherreferencestoSt.AnastasiaattheI>orticoes
ofDomninoes after 1203 comesfrom Pierre Gilles' topographic studyof 1544. Attemptingtodefinetheseventhregion,heclaimedtohavediscoveredsomestepsbelongingto thechurch. 59 Gilles himself,however,seemstohavehadlittleconfidence
inhis identification. Inhis subsequentdiscussion ofSt. Anastasia, heomitted any
reference to the steps, offering instead a number ofpossible sites for the ancient
church. 60
There therefore, noclearevidenceforthecontinuedexistenceofthe churchof
St. Anastasiaafterthesecondfireof1203.Basedonthenumerousreferencestothe
importantchurch before the crusaders arrived, the silence ofsubsequent travelers'
accountsisominous.Oneotherbitofevidenceprovidesanimportantclueconcerning
itsfate. Shortly aftertheconquestofthecity,the Latincanonswho took over the
nearbyMonasteryofthe Resurrectioncomplainedto Innocent III about Patriarch
Thomas Morosiniwho, theycharged,had takenmarble columnsfrom theirchurch
and used them to decorate the altar in Hagia Sophia. In 1208 Innocent absolved
Morosiniofthecrime againstthecanons,whomInnocentreferred toasthe"clerics
ofSt.Anastasis."61 Thewordinghere, andinotherpapaldocumentsconcerningthe
monastery,suggestssomeconfusionbetween"Anastasis"and"St.Anastasia."62 But
the purloined marble columns could not have comefrom anexisting churchinside
the monastery. It is usually not possible and never profitable to remove columns
fromanexistingstructurewithoutcausingitscollapse. Inanyevent,COIL"ltantinople
had an abundance ofbuildings with marble columns; there was no reason to steal
from a small, relatively new, and otherwise undistinguished monasticchurch. It is
muchmore probablethatthechurchof"St. Anastasis", as Innocentcalledit, was,
infact, theburnedruinsofadjacentSt.Anastasia.Assumingthatthebuildingwas
notcompletelyincinerated,therewouldhavebeenmuchworthsalvaginginthewreckage ofthesplendidchurch,including,nodoubt,marblecolumns.TheLatincanons'
complaint against Morosini, then, was thathe removed the expensive pillars from
a ruined church over which they claimed ownership. We may, therefore, conclude
thatthechurch ofSt. Anastasiawas lostinthe greatfire of1203.
FurtherupMese,towardHagiaSophia,wasthegreatcircularforum, builtatthe
city'sfoundationanddedicatedtoitsfounder. It wassurroundedbycoveredcolon-

Majeska, RussianTravelerstoConstantinople(as n. 41) 289.

lanin,GE(asn. 20) 256.
59 Gilles, Topographia(asn. 52) III, 5 158.
60 Ibid., III,6, 165.
61 Innocent III, Epistolae, XI, 76; PL, 215, col. 1392 (Potthast 3:{85).
62 Evena distinguishedscholarlike RaymondJanincouldfallpreytothisconfusion;in14essanc'
tuaircsdeByzancesousladominationlatine (12041261), Etudeshyzantines 2(1944) 1623,under
the heading"St.Anastasis," heidentifiedthechurchofSt.Anastasia andthenattributedtoit the
history ofthe Monastery ofthe Resurrection. All other papal references to the monasterycan be
found inthis article. Janincorrectedthiserrorinhislaterwork: GE (as n. 20) 202, 24.
57

58

onstantinople, IM3=1204

81

nades, adornedwith ancient art, and dominated bythe massive porphyrycolumn

that formerly held the bronze likeness of Constantine as Apollo. In Nicetas'
a simplecrossadorneditssummit. 63 SincetheForumofConstantinestoodonMese
streetbetweentheMilionandthePorticoesofDominoes,itis notsurprisingthatit
sufferedfromtheflames.Nicetasprovidesnoadditionaldetailconcerningtheforum's
damage. Hesimplystatesthatthe areawas "similarlydestroyed," comparingitto
the two covered streets and the Porticoes of Domninoes which were "reduced to
ashes."64
The Column ofConstantine, ofcourse, still exists. That this porphyry colossus
survived is not surprising since ithad and would continue to shrug offthe city's
fIres, donning only the soot of their passing. It thus earned its Turkish name:

theburntcolumn.Butother,rathermoredelicate monumentsinConstantine's forum also survived the fire. Nicetas reported further on in his history
thata Byzantinemob destroyed anancient colossal bronzeAthenawhichstoodin
theforum, believing herhandwas posed ina gesture ofbeckoningthe Latins. 65 In
hisDeSignis,ashortlamentforandinventoryofartworkdestroyedbythecrusaders
in the sack of 1204, Nicetas also described in the Forum of Constantine a bronze
Herawhichwas meltedinto coinbythewesterners. Its headwas so largethatfour
yokes ofoxenhaddifficultycartingitoff. Inthesameparagraph, thesenatormentioned another bronze depicting Paris Alexander offering the apple of Discord to
Aphrodite. It was thrown, he wrote, on top ofHera. 66 That bronze statues could
survive, suggests that Constantine's forum was not as completelydestroyed inthe
second fire as Nicetas recorded. Probably the covered galleries were lost, but the
largeopenareawithinmayhaveactedasa firebreak,protectinga fewarttreasures
inside.
"Noteven the Hippodromewas spared," Nicetas lamented, "butthe whole section towards the demes [the western stands] as well as everything leading down
tothe[harborof] Sophiawasengulfedinflames ... " 67 HereagainNicetas' meaning
is not clear; what is meant by "whole section towards the demes,,?68 It is often
asserted that the entire western side of the race course was lost in the second
fire, and, indeed, the absence of any further reference to the demes in later
travelers' accounts does seem to bear this out. 69 The hypothesis is troubled, however, by the survival ofthe church ofSt. Euphemia, which stood adjacent to the
hippodrome's west side. How could this small church, which stood between the
fire and the hippodrome, have avoided a blaze which destroyed its much larger
neighbor?
ArchaeologicalworkinthedemesislimitedtotheexcavationsoftheBritishAcademyin 1927. Theirtwo crosssectionaltrenchesfailed toreveal anash layerwhich
63 W. MiillerWiener, BildlexikonzurTopographieIstanhuls(Tiihingen 1977) 255257; Janin,CB
(as n. 19) 624.
64 Nicetas 555; Magoulias (as n. 1) 3034.
65 Nicetas 5589; R. J.Jenkins, The Bronze Athena at Byzantium, JHS 67 (1947) 313, pI. X;
idem, Further Evidence Regarding the Bronze Athena at Byzantium, The Annual of the British
School at Athens 46 (1951) 724, pI. II. The last convincingly argues that the beckoning gesture
resulted from anemptyupraisedhandwhich once grasped the shaft ofa spear.
66 Nicetas,De Signis (cd. vanDieten) 648.
67 Nicetas 555; Magouhas (asn. 1)
<ill "eXAla Kat 1:oirtou 1:0 npoi,; 1:0U';; 0TtIlOUi,; linav Il!:POi,;
... " Nicetas 555.
69 Cf. MiilIerWiener, Bildlexicon (as n. 63) 67; Guilland, Etudes sur l'bippodrome de Constantinople: I,adecheance etlaruine de I'hippodrome, ByzSlav 30 (1969) 214.

I. Abteilung

80

On 22 December 1389, Ignatius of Smolensk "kissed the holy relics of St. Anastasia ... " Since 22 Decemberwas a feast dayofSt.Anastasia ofSirmium,andtraditionally a day ofrelic veneration in the church at the Porticoes ofDomninoes,
Majeskaconcludes thatIgnatiusvisited the ancientbuilding. 57 However,therewas
atleastoneotherchurchdedicatedtothissaint,locatednearthe PantocratorMonastery.58If St.AnastasiaatthePorticoesofDomninoeshadbeendestroyed,itwould
be naturalfor another ofthesaint'schurchestocontinuethefeast and evenclaim
tohavesomeofherrelics. TheonlyotherreferencestoSt.AnastasiaatthePorticoes
ofDomninoes after 1203 comesfrom Pierre Gilles' topographic stndyof 1544. Attemptingtodefinetheseventhregion,heclaimedtohavediscoveredsomestepsbelongingtothechurch. 59 Gilleshimself,however,seemstohavehadlittleconfidence
inhis identification. Inhis subsequentdiscussion ofSt. Anastasia, he omitted any
reference to the steps, offering instead a number of possible sites for the ancient
church. 60
Thereis,therefore,noclearevidenceforthecontinuedexistenceofthe churchof
St.Anastasiaafterthesecondfire of1203. Basedonthenumerousreferencestothe
importantchurch before the crusaders arrived, the silence ofsubsequent travelers'
accountsisominous.Oneotherbitofevidenceprovidesanimportantclueconcerning
itsfate. Shortlyafterthe conquestofthe city,the Latincanonswho took over the
nearbyMonasteryofthe Resurrectioncomplainedto Innocent III about Patriarch
Thomas Morosini who, theycharged, had taken marble columnsfrom theirchurch
and used them to decorate the altar in Hagia Sophia. In 1208 Innocent absolved
Morosiniofthe crime against thecanons,whomInnocentreferred to asthe"clerics
ofSt.Anastasis."61 Thewordinghere,andinotherpapaldocumentsconcerningthe
monastery,suggestssomeconfusionbetween"Anastasis"and"St.Anastasia."62 But
the purloined marble columns could not have come from anexisting churchinside
the monastery. It is usually not possible and never profitable to remove columns
fromanexistingstructurewithoutcausingitscollapse. Inanyevent,Constantinople
had an abundance ofbuildings with marble columns; there was no reason to steal
from a small, relatively new, and otherwise undistinguished monastic church. It is
muchmoreprobablethatthechurch of"St. Anastasis", as Innocentcalledit,was,
infact,theburnedruinsofadjacentSt.Anastasia.Assumingthatthebuildingwas
notcompletely incinerated,therewouldhavebeenmuchworthsalvaginginthewreckageofthesplendidchurch,including,nodoubt,marblecolumns.TheLatincanons'
complaintagainst Morosini, then, was thathe removed the expensive pillars from
a ruined church over which they claimed ownership. We may, therefore, conclude
thatthe churchofSt. Anastasiawas lostinthe greatfire of 1203.
Furtherup Mese, toward HagiaSophia,wasthegreatcircularforum, builtatthe
city'sfoundationanddedicatedtoitsfounder. It wassurroundedbycoveredcolon-

Majeska, RussianTravelers to Constantinople(as n. 41) 289.

Janin,GE (asn. 20) 256.
59 Gilles, Topographia (as n. 52) Ill, 5 158.
W Ibid., III, 6, 165.
61 Innocent III,Epistolae, XI, 76; PI" 215, col. 1392 (Potthast 3385).
62 Evena distinguishedscholarlike RaymondJamncouldfallpreytothisconfusion;inLessanc'
tuaircsdeByzancesousladominationlatine (12041261), Etudesbyzantincs 2(1944) 1623,under
thebeading"St. Anastasia,"he identified the churchofSt.Anastasiaandthenattributedtoitthe
history ofthe Monastery ofthe Resurrection. All other papal references to the monasterycan be
found in this article. Janincorrectedthiserrorinhislaterwork: GE(asn. 20) 202,24.
57

58

onstantil1ople,

81

nades, adorned with ancient art, and dominated by the massive porphyrycolumn
that formerly held the bronze likeness ofConstantine as Apollo. In Nicetas' day
a simplecrossadorneditssummit. 63 SincetheForumofConstantinestoodonMese
streetbetweentheMilionandthePorticoesofDominoes, itis notsurprisingthatit
sufferedfromtheflames.Nicetasprovidesnoadditionaldetailconcerningtheforum's
damage. Hesimplystatesthatthe areawas "similarlydestroyed," comparingitto
the two covered streets and the Porticoes of Domninoes which were "reduced to
ashes."64
The Column ofConstantine, ofcourse, still exists. That this porphyry colossus
survived is not surprising since ithad and would continue to shrug offthe city's
fires, donning only the soot of their passing. It thus earned its Turkish name:

theburntcolumn.Butother,rathermoredelicate monumentsinConstantine's forum also survived the fire. Nicetas reported further on in his history
thata Byzantine mob destroyed an ancientcolossal bronze Athenawhich stoodin
theforum, believingherhandwas posed ina gesture ofbeckoningthe Latins. 65 In
hisDeSignis,ashortlamentforandinventoryofartworkdestroyedbythecrusaders
in the sack of 1204, Nicetas also described in the Forum of Constantine a bronze
Herawhichwas meltedintocoinbythewesterners. Itsheadwassolargethatfour
yokesofoxenhaddifficultycartingitoff. Inthe sameparagraph,thesenatormentioned another bronze depicting Paris Alexander offering the apple ofDiscord to
Aphrodite. It was thrown, he wrote, on top ofHera. 66 Thatbronze statuescould
survive, suggeststhat Constantine'sforum was not as completelydestroyedinthe
second fire as Nicetas recorded. Probably the covered galleries were lost, but the
largeopenareawithinmayhaveactedasa fire break,protectinga fewarttreasures
inside.
"Noteventhe Hippodrome was spared," Nicetas lamented, "butthe whole section towards the demes [the western stands] as well as everything leading down
tothe[harborof] Sophiawasengulfedinflames ... " 67 HereagainNicetas' meaning
is not clear; what is meant by "whole section towards the demes"?68 It is often
asserted that the entire western side of the race course was lost in the second
fire, and, indeed, the absence of any further referen<:e to the demes in later
travelers' accounts does seem to bear this out. 69 The hypothesis is troubled, however, bythe survival ofthe church ofSt. Euphemia, which stood adjacent to the
hippodrome's west side. How could this small ehureh, which stood between the
fire and the hippodrome, have avoided a blaze which destroyed its much larger
neighbor?
ArchaeologicalworkinthedemesislimitedtotheexcavationsoftheBritishAcademyin 1927. Theirtwo crosssectionaltrenches failed torevealanashlayerwhich
63 W. MiillerWiener, BildlexikonzurTopographieIstanbuls(Tiibingen 1977) 255257; Janin,CB
(as n. 19) 624.
M Nicetas 555; Magoulias (as n. I) 3034.
65 Nicetas 5589; R. J. Jenkins, The Bronze Atbena at Byzantium, JHS 67 (1947) 313, pI. X;
idem, Furtber Evidence Regarding the Bronze Athena at Byzantium, The Annual ofthe British
School at Athens 46 (1951) 724, pI. II. The last convincingly argues that the beckoning gesture
resultedfrom anemptyupraised hand whichonce graspedtheshaft ofa spear.
66 Nieetas,De Signis(ed.vanDieten) 648.
67 Nicctas 555; Magouhas (asn. 1) 304.
6a "aA.Ml Kai tOtl'tOU toltpo.; tou.; oftJ.l.ou,; ultav J.l.l;pO'; i';1;
1tupro911 ... " Nicctas 555.
69 Cf. MiillerWiener, Bildlexicon (as n. 63) 67; Guilland. Etudes sur l'hippodrome de Constantinople: I,adecheanceetlaminedel'hippodrome, ByzSlav 30 (1969) 214.

82

I. Abteilung

might suggest a large scale destruction of the demes. 7o Coin finds in the internal corridors ofthe western hippodrome further suggest that, while the demes were frequented increasingly less often after the period ofJustinian, they still saw traffic
wellafter1204.71 Thereis nodoubtthatthehippodromesufferedbadlyintheyears
oftheLatinEmpire,leavingitinruinsbythePalaeologanperiod.Butmuchofthe
damage,thenandlater,wasa resultoftheinhabitants'useofthemassivestructure
as a stone quarry.Thereis little evidencethat the hippodrome enduredanysevere
damage as a result ofthe secondfire.
Perhapsby"whole sectiontowards the demes" Nicetas did not meanto include
thedemesthemselves. Intheprecedingparagraphhesimilarlydescribedthedevastation of"all the huildings" lying in the direction ofthe Arch ofthe Milion ...,"
whilenot meaning toinclude theMilioninthe area ofdestruction.72 Inthecase of
the hippodrome, then, the section "towards the demes" may refer to a portion of
theperipheralhippodromecomplexflankingthemainstruetureonitswesternside.
Perhaps the demes themselves also suffered somelimited damage, but it could not
havebeenextensive.Thegreatfire certainlydidnotprogressintotheinteriorofthe
stadiumwherethespinaoftheracecoursewasheavilyadornedwithancienthronze
artwork. All ofthose treasures survived to be either melted down orborne away
afterthe crusaderconquestthefollowing year.
From this catalog ofdestroyed and spared structures, it is clear that from the
Golden Hornto Mese street theblazewas, as Nicetas calledit, a "riveroffire."To
thewestitstretchedfromPeramatothePorticoesofDomninoes.Theeasternextent
ofthefire'snorthernmarchismoredifficulttoassess.Basedontherelativelystraight
northtosouthprogressofthefire '8 westernedge,itseemslikely thatthelineonthe
easternside,respondingtothesamewinds,wouldbesimilar.Sincewe aretoldthat
Hagia Sophia narrowly escaped destruction, this leads to the conclusion that the
northeasternextent ofthe fire was somewhere in modern Sirkeci. Arguing against
thisfirelineisthetroublesomesurvivaloftheChalkoprateiachurch(TableII),which
appears to havebeen directlyinthe fire's path. Since itrequired some restoration
underthePalaeologans,itis possiblethatthechurchsufferedsomelimiteddamage.
Butthereis nodoubtthatitwasfunctioningduringtheLatinoccupation. If Chalkoprateiawas nearthefire's edge,itssurvival couldbeattributedtothefickle wind
whichNicetasdescribed.ButiftheeasternextentoftheblazestretchedfromSirkeci
toHagiaSophia,Chalkoprateiawouldhaverestedsquarelyinthefire'sdestruction.
Chalkoprateiawasnottheonlystructureverynearthegreatchurchwhichescaped
destruction.TheMilion,the Augusteion,andthepatriarchalpalaceallsurvived.To
thesecanbeaddedNicetas'secondhomewherehelivedin1204.Thesenatordecribed
itas"convenientfrom [there]toentertheGreatChurch,asitwassituatednearthe
templeprecincts."73 Indeed,HagiaSophiaisflankedbysomanysurvivingstructures
oneis tempted todoubt the reportsofits narrowescape. Butthe concurringtestimonies ofa Frankishknight,a Russianpilgrim,and a Byzantinesenatorcannotbe
dismissed. The relative positions ofthe spared buildings strongly suggest that the
firedidnotapproachIIagiaSophiafromthenorth.Theonly,althoughnotaltogether

theExcavationsCarried Outinthe HippodromeofCon

stantinople(London 1928) 38, trenchno. Lb onPlan I and Plan II,trenchno. IV on Plan 11.
n A. H. M. lones, Preliminary Report (as n. 70) 478, 50.
72 Nicetas 554.
73 Nicetas 587; Magoulias (as n. I) 323.

satisfactory,explanationis thatthe fire extendeda thintendrilalong the northern

coveredstreetwhich,afterdestroyingthecolonnadeandadjacentshops,terminated
at the far western corner of Hagia Sophia's atrium. This would account for all of
Nicetas'observationsaswellasthetestimonyoftheChronicle ofNovgorod. Bythe
timethefirereachedHagiaSophiaitmusthaveheenverysmall.Windswhichdrove
thelargerinfernosouthwarddidnotdrivethislocalizedblazeintothehippodrome's
carceres where the four hronze horses, soon to grace Venice's St. Mark's, stood. It
maybe that the damage near Hagia Sophia occurred onthe second daywhen the
hulkofthefire ragedtothesouth,thenorthernblazewassubsiding,and thewinds
were from theeast.
Without doubt the areasurrounding the Forum ofConstantine, as well as much
ofthe forum itself, was leveled bythe fierce hlaze. However, the open areawithin
the forum preserved at least a few ofits art treasures. East ofthe Forum ofConstantine,fireextended to thePorticoesofDomninoeswhereitdestroyedthechurch
ofSt. AnastasiabutsparedtheMonasteryoftheResurrectiona littlefarthernorth.
South ofMese street, the fire continued southward, while shifting slightly towards
the southwest. To the east the blaze narrowly missed the church ofSt. Euphemia
and may have done some damage to the hippodrome's periphery. It concluded its
progressatthePortofSophia.Tothewestthe fire's boundaryprobablycontinued
torunparalleltotheeasternextent.However,atsomepoint,probablyonthesecond
day,a strongwindurgedthefirewestward. NorthofMese, muchofthehlaze'sfury
musthave beenexpended and, insome areas, had probably beenextinguished. To
thesouth,however,wherethefirehadonlybeguntoburn,itmovedwestwardalong
the Marmara wall until it reached the Port ofTheodosius. Myrelaion church was
destroyed (Table II), although this was probahly the northernmost extent ofthis
westernarm oftheinferno.
Thesecondfire wasadevastatingblow.Approximately450acres(182ha.)ofthecity'smost
opulentandmostcongestedareaswerereducedintwodaystoashesandrubble.Againthe
similarity withLondon'sGreatFirearestrikingand useful.In1666,Londonlost436acresof
itsmostpopulousregions.74 LikeLondon,Constantinople'sdensestareawasfilledwith
heautifulchurchesand homes,as wellaspitifulsqualor.Overcrowdedtwinstorywoodenslums
setalongn arrow windingroadsafflictedboth capitals.Thetwogreatfireswerealsoofsimilar
temperament.LikeConstantinople,fiercewindswhipsawedLondon'shlazeandoften
propelledburningdebrisacrossthesky,thussettingthefire'sseedelsewhere.75 Theerratic
natureofbothfiresmadetherelocationofgoodsadifficulttask.Nicetas,whoselosseswere
severe,notedhowthosewho movedvaluablestoseeminglysafeplacessoonlearnedtheywere
not safeatall."The fire,takingawindingcourseandmovinginzigzagpaths...destroyed the
goodsthathadbeeumoved."76 InLondonit wasthesame.Streetswerefilledwithpeople
movingtheir possessions,many tothewrongplaces.ADutchobserver wrotethat"Many
people transferred theirgoods from place toplace three times."77
Thenumerous parallels betweenthegreatfires of1666 and 1203 facilitate anestimate ofthe physical damage sustained by Constantinople during its much more
poorly documented catastrophe. In London the great fire elaimed 87 churches, 6

74 According to the report issued bythe London City

n.15) 174.

Ibid.98.
76 Nicetas 555; Magoulias (as n. 1) 304.
77 Bell, Great Fire ofLondon (as n. 15) 319.
75

Surveyors. Bell. Great FireofLondon (as

82

I. Abteilung

might suggest a large scale destruction of the demes. 7o Coin finds in the internal corridors ofthe western hippodrome further suggest that, while the demes were frequented increasingly less often after the period ofJustinian, they still saw traffic
wellafter 1204.71 Thereisnodoubtthatthehippodromesufferedbadlyintheyears
ofthe LatinEmpire,leavingitinrninsbythePalaeologanperiod.Butmuchofthe
damage,thenandlater,wasa resultoftheinhabitants'useofthemassivestructure
as a stone quarry.Thereis little evideucethatthe hippodromeenduredanysevere
damage as a resultofthe secondfire.
Perhapsby"whole sectiontowards the demes" Nicetas did not meanto iuclude
thedemesthemselves. Intheprecedingparagraphhesimilarlydescribedthedevastation of"all the buildings" lying in the direction ofthe Arch ofthe Milion ... ,"
whilenot meaningtoinclude the Milioninthe area ofdestruction.72 Intheease of
the hippodrome, then, the section "towards the demes" may refer to a portion of
theperipheralhippodromecomplexflankingthemainstructureonitswesternside.
Perhapsthe demes themselvesalso suffered somelimiteddamage, butitcould not
havebeenextensive.Thegreatfirecertainlydidnotprogressintotheinteriorofthe
stadiumwherethespinaoftheracecoursewasheavilyadorned withancieutbronze
artwork. All ofthose treasures survived to be either melted down or borne away
afterthecrusaderconquest thefollowing year.
From this catalog ofdestroyed and spared structures, it is clear that from the
Golden Hornto Mese street theblazewas, as Nicetascalledit, a "riveroffire." To
thewestitstretchedfromPeramatothePorticoesofDomninoes.Theeasternextent
ofthefire'snorthernmarchismoredifficulttoassess.Basedontherelativelystraight
northtosouthprogressofthefire's westernedge, it seemslikelythatthelineonthe
easternside,respondingtothe samewinds,wouldbesimilar. Sincewe aretoldthat
Hagia Sophia narrowly escaped destrnction, this leads to the conclusion that the
northeastern extent ofthe fire was somewhere in modern Sirkeci. Arguing against
thisfirelineisthetroublesomesurvivaloftheChalkoprateiachurch(TableII),which
appears to have been directly inthe fire's path. Since itrequired some restoration
underthePalaeologans,itispossiblethatthechurchsufferedsomelimiteddamage.
ButthereisnodoubtthatitwasfunctioningduringtheLatinoccupation. If Chalkoprateiawas nearthe fire's edge,itssurvivalcouldbeattributedtothefickle wind
whichNicetasdescribed.ButiftheeasternextentoftheblazestretchedfromSirkeci
toHagiaSophia,Chalkoprateiawouldhaverestedsquarelyinthefire's destrnction.
Chalkoprateiawasnottheonlystructureverynearthegreatchurchwhichescaped
destruction.TheMilion,the Augu8teion, andthepatriarchalpalace allsurvived.To
thesecanbeaddedNicetas'secondhomewherehelivedin1204.Thesenatordecribed
itas"convenientfrom [there]toentertheGreatChurch,asitwassituatednearthe
templeprecincts."73 Indeed,HagiaSophiaisflankedbysomanysurvivingstructures
oneis tempted to doubtthe reportsofits narrowescape. Butthe concurringtestimonies ofa Frankishknight,a Russianpilgrim,and a Byzantinesenatorcannotbe
dismissed. The relative positions ofthe spared buildings strongly suggest that the
firedidnotapproachHagiaSophiafromthenorth.Theonly,althoughnotaltogether

II
III

Ji

70 St.Casson, Preliminary ReportUponthe ExcavationsCarried Outinthe HippodromeofCon

stantinople(London 1928) 38, trenchno. T.h onPlan I and Plan II, trenchno. IV on Plan 11.
n A. H. M. Jones, Preliminary Report (asn. 70) 478, 50.
72 Nicetas 554.
73 Nicetas 587; Magoulias (as n. I)323.

T.F.Madden.Thefhes In Constantinople, 12631264

8!i

satisfactory,explanationis thatthe fire extendeda thintendrilalong the northern

coveredstreetwhich,afterdestroyingthecolonnadeandadjacentshops,terminated
at the far westerncorner ofHagia Sophia's atrium. This would account for all of
Nicetas'observationsaswell asthetestimonyoftheChronicle ofNovgorod. Bythe
timethefirereachedHagiaSophiaitmusthavebeenverysmall.Windswhichdrove
thelargerinfernosouthwarddidnotdrivethislocalizedblazeintothehippodrome's
carceres where the four bronze horses, soon to grace Venice's St. Mark's, stood. It
maybe thatthe damage near Hagia Sophia occurred onthe second daywhen the
bulkofthefire ragedtothesouth,thenorthernblazewassubsiding,andthewinds
were from theeast.
Without doubt the areasurrounding the ForumofConstantine, as well as much
ofthe forum itself, was leveled bythe fierce blaze. However, theopenareawithin
the forum preserved at least a few ofits art treasures. East ofthe Forum ofConstantine,fireextendedtothePorticoesofDomninoeswhereitdestroyedthechurch
ofSt. AnastasiabutsparedtheMonasteryoftheResurrectiona littlefarthernorth.
SouthofMese street, the fire continuedsouthward, while shifting slightly towards
the southwest. To theeast the blaze narrowly missed the church ofSt. Euphemia
and may have done some damage to the hippodrome's periphery. It concluded its
progress atthePortofSophia.Tothewestthefire's bouudaryprobablycontinued
torunparalleltotheeasternextent.However,atsomepoint,probablyonthesecond
day,a strongwindurgedthefirewestward. NorthofMese,muchoftheblaze'sfury
musthave beenexpended and, insome areas, had probably been extinguished. To
thesouth,however,wherethefirehadonlybeguntoburn,itmovedwestwardalong
the Marmara wall until it reached the Port ofTheodosius. Myrelaion church was
destroyed (Table II), although this was probably the northernmost extent ofthis
westernarm oftheinferno.
Thesecond fire wasa
blow.Approximately450acres(182ha.)ofthecity'smost
opulentandmostcongestedareaswerereducedintwodaystoashesand rubble.Againthe
similarity withLondon'sGreatFirearestrikingandnseful.In1666,London lost436acresof
itsmostpopulousregions.74 LikeLondon,Constantinople'sdensestareawasfilledwith
beautifulchurchesand homes,aswellaspitifulsqualor.Overcrowdedtwinstoryw oodenslums
setalongnarrowwindingroadsafflictedboth capitals.Thetwogreatfireswerealsoofsimilar
temperament.LikeConstantinople,fiercewindswhipsawedLondon'sblazeandoften
propelledburningdebrisacrossthesky,thussettingthefire' 8 seedelsewhere.75 Theerratic
natureofbothfiresmadetherelocationofgoodsadifficulttask.Nicetas,whoselosseswere
severe,noted howthosewhomovedvaluablestoseeminglysafeplacessoonlearnedtheywere
not safeatall."The fire,takingawindingcourseandmovingin zigzag paths. " destroyedthe
goodsthathadbeenmoved."76 InLondonit wasthesame.Streetswerefilledwithpeople
movingtheir possessions,manytothe wrongplaces.ADutchobserver wrotethat"Many
peopletransferredtheirgoods from place to placethreetimes."77
Thenumerous parallels betweenthegreat fires of1666 and 1203 facilitate anestimate ofthe physical damage sustained by Constantinople during its much more
poorly documented catastrophe. In London the great fire claimed 87 churches, 6
74 According to the report issued hy the London

n. 15) 174.

Ibid. 98.
76 Nicetas 555; Magoulias (as n. I) 304.
77 Bell, Great Fire ofLondon (as n. 15)319.
7S

Surveyors. Bell, Great Fire ofLondon (as

84

+. F. laHen, He lires In Constantinople, 1203-1204

chapels, and 13,200 houses in over 400 streets and courts. 78 The total value of lost
property in the British capital was approximately ten million pounds. 79 The number
of houses and churches destroyed in Constantinople must have been comparable. The
city on the Bosporus, of course, had many more monasteries than its sister on the
Thames. But iu Constantinople the total value of lost property must have been much
greater than in London. The Byzantine capital was immensely wealthy, its churches
and monasteries were filled with many kings' ransoms. As for the palaces destroyed,
Nicetas tells us that they were "filled with every delight, abounding in riches, and
envied hy all." 80 To these we must add Constantinople's storehouse of priceless art
treasures and ancient manuscripts, many of which were incinerated in the second
fire. London had very little to compare with such losses-even John Donne's St. Paul's
had fallen on hard times hefore its fiery demise. 81 In 1666 the Restoration was only
six years old. Puritan disdain for opulence was still very active in London. In Constantinople, such a concept was foreign in the extreme. The value of lost property,
then, was many times greater in Constantinople in 1203 than in London in 1666.
Because of the differences in types of goods and property lost, and the currencies in
which they were valued, fixing a modern monetary equivalent to the destruction in
Constantinople would he very difficult, and prohahly meaningless. Nevertheless, it
would he a figure measured in hillions, not millions, of American dollars.
The citizens of Constantinople reacted to the great fire just as Londoners would
do four and a half centuries later: they hlamed foreigners. In London the culprits
were the French, Dutch, and any Catholic. Despite royal attempts to cool British
heads, moh rule meted out harsh injustice to memhers of those groups unfortunate
enough to be living in London in 1666. 82 In Constantinople it was the Latins who
were blamed and persecuted. The difference was that Londoners were wrong: their
fire was an accident; Byzantines were right: Latins had indeed set their city aflame.
While the fire raged, Latins of every stripe packed their hags, gathered their families,
and fled across the Golden Horn to the welcoming arms of the western knights. According to Villehardouin, the refugees numhered 15,000, "and it was to he a great
hoon to the crusaders that they crossed over." 83 Nicetas grieved that the fury of his
countrymen unwittingly achieved the previously impossihle, reconciling Pisans with
Venetians. 81 As a result, those Pisans who valiantly helped defend Constantinople
in 1203 would enthusiastically help conquer it in 1204.

The Third Fire: 12-13 April, 1204

The third and last fire set by the crusaders in Constantinople was ignited on the
night of 12-13 April 1204. That day the Latins had successfully entered the city
near Petrion Gate, routed the Byzantine defenders there, and made camp in the deso78 Ihid.174, 334-5. Three ofthe 87 churches were partially dest.royed and, after suhstantial repairs,
ret.urned to use. Similar huildings in Constantinople, like the Myrelaion cburch, would have to wait
until the Palaeologi for their restoration.
79 Estimates, of course, vary. The hest informed put it at eitber 9.9 million or 10.8 million pounds.
This includes only immediate loss of property, not suhsequent loss of rents and taxes, or charitahle
outlays. Bell, Great. Fire in London (as n. 15) 223-9.
80 Nicetas 555; MagouIias (as n. 1) 304.
81 Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 4.
82 Ihid., passim, esp. ]91-209.
83 Villehardouin, sec. 205, I 210.
84 Nicetas 552.

85

lation left behind by the first fire. 85 Villehardouin recorded that some of the crusaders
who had eneamped with Boniface of Montferrat, further east along the Golden Horn
wall, were fearful of a nighttime Byzantine attack and, therefore, put nearhy huildings
to the torch. Again Villehardouin claimed he did not know the men who set the
fire. Gunther of Pairis hlamed "a (:ertain German count."S6 Nicetas confirms some
of this, recording that the third fire broke out not far from Evergetes monastery,
which is prohably where Boniface himself was quartered. 87 The wind was blowing
from the west.
The third crusader fire was the smallest blaze set hy the Westerners. According to
Nicetas, the flames spread from near Evergetes through the lower elevations along
the Golden Horn up to the Droungarios Gate, modern Odun Kapl. There it met the
desolation left behind by the second fire in Perama and could progress no farther.
Nicetas recorded no physieal casualty of the fire, although the damage to the effected
area was surely profound. The Moslem quarter lay somewhere in that region. Beyond
that it is impossihle to identify with certainty any specific structures which were lost. 88
Unlike its predecessor, the third fire was not favored hy strong winds which could
drive it up the steep hillsides to the south. The Monastery of Christ Pantocrator and
its complex of churches survived unscathed only to he looted hy the crusaders the
next day.89 It was, nevertheless, quite fierce. Since it destroyed a port area, the property damage must have been great. The area devastated hy the hlaze was approximately 25 acres (10 ha).

Human Costs
With the exception of one remark hy Villehardouin, witnesses descrihed only structural, not human, casualties of Constantinople's three fires. We should not be surprised. Buildings are the most visihle victims and the easiest to account for. Contemporary accounts of the fires in London in 1666 and in Chicago in 1871 also spent
little ink on human losses, saving their bitterest laments for the smoldering ruins of
90
their prized structures. For Constantinople, the second fire was far and away the
most destructive of the three it suffered. The first and third occurred as results of
attacks on the city during clearly defined hostilities. Residents, therefore, had some
warning that disaster might come. The second fire, however, caught everyone by
surprise. The crusaders and their hosts were still technically on good terms. With
the exception of some understandahly disaffected former residents of Constantinople,
no one on either side of the Golden Horn wanted the second fire to happen. To assess
the human cost of all three fires, then, we must first turn our attention to the most
destructive.
Bound up in this prohlem is the size of Constantinople's pre-conflagration population. Villehardouin tried his hand at estimating the number twice. His figures multi85

Queller, Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 143-8.

Villebardouin, sees., 245, 247, II 46-50; Gunther of Pairis (ed. Riant) I 101; see also Queller,
Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 216, n. 76.
87 Nicetas 570.
86

88 Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West (as n. 12) 380, n. 56, suggests that Mesarites' family
home was destroyed in the third fire.
89 Gunther of Pairis (Riant) I 105-6.
90 Cf. Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 210--29, and passim; J. W. Sheaban and G. P. Upton,
The Great Conflagration. Chicago: Its Past, Present and Future (Chicago et al. 1871), passim. The
latter devotes only a few pages to human costs.

--------84

chapels, and 13,200 houses in over 400 streets and courtS. 78 The total value of lost
property in the British capital was approximately ten million pounds. 79 The number
of houses and churches destroyed in Constantinople must have been comparable. The
city on the Bosporus, of course, had many more monasteries than its sister on the
Thames. But in Constantinople the total value of lost property must have been much
greater than in London. The Byzantine capital was immensely wealthy, its churches
and monasteries were filled with many kings' ransoms. As for the palaces destroyed,
Nicetas tells us that they were "filled with every delight, abounding in riches, and
envied by all." 80 To these we must add Constantinople's storehouse of priceless art
treasures and ancient manuscripts, many of which were incinerated in the second
fire. London had very little to compare with such losses-even John Donne's St. Paul's
had fallen on hard times before its fiery demise. 81 In 1666 the Restoration was only
six years old. Puritan disdain for opulence was still very active in London. In Constantinople, such a concept was foreign in the extreme. The value of lost property,
then, was many times greater in Constantinople in 1203 than in London in 1666.
Because of the differences in types of goods and property lost, and the currencies in
which they were valued, fixing a modern monetary equivalent to the destruction in
Constantinople would be very difficult, and probably meaningless. Nevertheless, it
would be a figure measured in billions, not millions, of American dollars.
The citizens of Constantinople reacted to the great fire just as Londoners would
do four and a half centuries later: they blamed foreigners. In London the culprits
were the French, Dutch, and any Catholic. Despite royal attempts to cool British
heads, mob rule meted out harsh injustice to members of those groups unfortunate
enough to be living in London in 1666. 82 In Constantinople it was the Latins who
were blamed and persecuted. The difference was that Londoners were wrong: their
fire was an accident; Byzantines were right: Latins had indeed set their city aflame.
While the fire raged, Latins of every stripe packed their bags, gathered their families,
and fled across the Golden Horn to the welcoming arms of the western knights. According to Villehardouin, the refugees numbered 15,000, "and it was to be a great
boon to the crusaders that they crossed over."!!3 Nicetas grieved that the fury of his
countrymen unwittingly achieved the previously impossible, reconciling Pisans with
Venetians. 84 As a result, those Pisans who valiantly helped defend Constantinople
in 1203 would enthusiastically help conquer it in 1204.

I'he Third Fire: 12-Ul April, 1204

The third and last fire set by the crusaders in Constantinople was ignited on the
night of 12-13 April 1204. That day the Latins had successfully entered the city
near Petrion Gate, routed the Byzantine defenders there, and made camp in the deso78 Ibid. 174, 334-5. Three of the 87 churches were partially destroyed and, after suhstantial repairs,
returned to use. Similar buildings in Constantinople, like the Myrelaion church, would have to wait
until the Palaeologi for their restoration.
19 Estimates, of course, vary. The best informed put it at either 9.9 million or 10.8 million pounds.
This includes only immediate loss of property, not subsequent loss of rents and taxes, or charitable
outlays. Bell, Great Fire in London (as n. 15) 223-9.
so Nicetas 555; MagouJias (as n. 1) 304.
81 Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 4.
82 Ibid., passim, esp. 191-209.
83 Villehardouin, sec. 205, I 210.
"., Nicetas 552.

21

+ F. Wa3:ten. fte Hres in Constantinople, 1203-1204

85

lation left behind by the first fire. 85 Villehardouin recorded that some of the crusaders
who had encamped with Boniface of Montferrat, further east along the Golden Horn
waH, were fearful of a nighttime Byzantine attack and, therefore, put nearby buildings
to the torch. Again ViIlehardouin claimed he did not know the men who set the
fIre. Gunther of Pairis blamed "a certain German count." 86 Nicetas confirms some
of this, recording that the third fire broke out not far from Evergetes monastery,
which is probably where Boniface himself was quartered. 87 The wind was blowing
from the west.
The third crnsader fire was the smallest blaze set by the westerners. According to
Nicetas, the flames spread from near Evergetes through the lower elevations along
the Golden Horn up to the Droungarios Gate, modern Odun Kapl. There it met the
desolation left behind by the second fire in Perama and could progress no farther.
Nicetas recorded no physical casualty of the fire, although the damage to the effected
area was surely profound. The Moslem quarter lay somewhere in that region. Beyond
that it is impossible to identify with certainty any specific structures which were lost. 8l!
Unlike its predecessor, the third fire was not favored by strong winds which could
drive it up the steep hillsides to the south. The Monastery of Christ Pantocrator and
its complex of churches survived unscathed only to be looted by the crusaders the
next day. 89 It was, nevertheless, quite fierce. Since it destroyed a port area, the property damage must have been great. The area devastated by the blaze was approximately 25 acres (10 ha).

Human Costs
With the exception of one remark by Villehardouin, witnesses described only structural, not human, casualties of Constantinople's three fires. We should not be surprised. Buildings are the most visible victims and the easiest to account for. Contemporary accounts of the fires in London in 1666 and in Chicago in 1871 also spent
little ink on human losses, saving their bitterest laments for the smoldering ruins of
90
their prized structures. For Constantinople, the second fire was far and away the
most destructive of the three it suffered. The first and third occurred as results of
attacks on the city during clearly defined hostilities. Residents, therefore, had some
warning that disaster might come. The second fire, however, caught everyone by
surprise. The crusaders and their hosts were still technically on good terms. With
the exception of some understandably disaffected former residents of Constantinople,
no one on either side of the Golden Horn wanted the second fire to happen. To assess
the human cost of all three fires, then, we must first turn our attention to the most
destructive.
Bound up in this problem is the size of Constantinople'S pre-conflagration population. Vil1ehardouin tried his hand at estimating the number twice. His figures multiQueller, Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 143-8.
Villehardouin, secs., 245, 247, II 46-50; Gunther of Pairis (ed. Riant) I 101; see also Queller,
Fourth Crusade (as n. 12) 216, n. 76.
87 Nicetas 570.
85

86

88 Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West (as n. 12) 380, n. 56, suggests that Mesarites' family
home was destroyed in the third fire.
89 Gunther of Pairis (Riant) I 105-6.
90 Cf. Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 210-29, and passim; J. W. Sheahan and G. P. Upton,
The Great Conflagration. Chicago: Its Past, Present and Future (Chicago et al. 1871), passim. The
latter devotes only a few pages to human costs.

I. Ahteilung

86

T. F. Madden,Thefires in Constantinople, 12031204

87

91

ply out to 1,600,000 and 4,000,000; both excessive. Modern estimates are aU over
the map.92 A. Andreades calculated it to have been between BOO,OOO and 1,000,000. 93
Josiah Cox Russell asserted that no more than 200,000 people lived in the medieval
city.94 Peter Charanis put the population between 500,000 and 1,000,000. David
Jacoby figured it to be perhaps 250,000 but never more than 400,000. 95 This is not
the place for an exhaustive analysis of the city's population size in 1203 or the propositionofyet another figure. There is a need for a study which would take into
accountallcontemporarywitnesses,suggestivecommercialdocuments,demographic
factors,comparativedata,andpreviousscholarship.Untilthatanalysisisdone,J will
acceptfor the sake ofthis discussion the relatively conservativefigure of400,000.
I aminclinedtobelieve,andhaveelsewhereargued,thatthepopulationwasactually
twicethatormore. Nonetheless, adoptingtheless controversialfigure will, I hope,
facilitateamoregeneralacceptanceof thefollowingfatalitiesandhomelessestimates.
If future studies produce a different population figure, the following numbers can
be adjustedsomewhat.
PreviouslywehavenotedthestrikingsimilaritiesbetweenConstantinople'ssecond
fire in 1203 and London's Great Fire of 1666. We can now add population size as
anotherprobable parallel. Londonin 1665 hadapproximately 600,000 inhabitants.
A plague that year killed 56,000, thus reducing the population to around 540,000
onthe eveofthe fire.96 London's conflagrationragedfor threedays, wanedonthe
fourth,andwaslargelyextinguishedonthefifth.It devastatedanareaalmostexactly
the size ofthe destructionin Constantinople. Thefinal deathtol1 in Londonis not
exact, but the estimates are very close. The casualty figure reported to Charles II
ofthose killed by fire or being trampled to death was zero. The London Gazette
likewisereported thatthe Great Fire claimed nolives. Whenthe Bills ofMortality
werepublished,sixpeopleappearedonthem. WalterGeorge Bellestimatedthatfar
morediedofexpoureinLondon'srefugeecampsthanintheactualfire.Hesuggested
thatperhapsonehundreddiedduetosecondarycauses. 97 Thismayseemmiraculous,
as itdid to Londoners atthetime, butitis, infact, not unusual. Unlikebuildings
andgoods,peoplecanmove,andwhenfireapproachestheyusuallydo.InChicago's
Great Fire of 1871 the death figures were higher, but that blaze was much fiercer
thanthefireswhichhitLondonandConstantinople.ItragedacrossChicago'sdensest
91 Villehardouin,sec. 251, II54, statesthatmorethan400,000 menlivedinthecity. If wcinclude
womenandchildrenthefigure wouldapproach 1,600,000. Elsewhere(sec. 163, I 164), hestatesthat
there were 200 people in the city for every onc crusader. The crusaders numbered approximately
20,000 (ihid., sec. 251, IIS4), thussuggesting a populatiouof4,000,000.
Q2 An excellent compilation ofmodernestimates canhefound in: David Jacoby, La population
deConstantinople l'epoquebyzantine:unproblemededemographieurbainc, Byz 31 (1961) 823.
and accompauying notcs.
93 A.Andreades,DelapopulationdeConstantinoplesouslesempereursbyzantins,Metronl(1920)
99, 101.
94 J. Cox Russell, IJate AncientandMedieval Populations (Philadelphia 1958) 99.
95 P. Charanis, A Note on the Populationand Cities ofthe Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth
Century,in:TheJoshuaStarrMemorialVolume(NewYork 1953) 1378;Jacoby,Lapopulationde
Constantinople(asn. 92) 1079.
96 Bell,GreatFireofLondon(asn. 15) 15. Londonwasinarealess thanhalfthesize ofConstantinople,hadanumberofopenareas,andusedtwinstoreystructuresasitsdominantmeansof housing.
Itslargepopulation, therefore,cripplesJacoby'sdensitycoefficientcalculationsforConstantinople.
La populationde Constantinople(as n. 92) 1029, esp. 105.
97 Bell,GreatFireofLondon(asn.] 5) 1767;J.Bedford,London'sBurning(Londonetal. 1966)
1867.

sectioninonly thirty hours, covering 2,000 acres (B09 ha). Chicago's population in
1871 was334,000;totalknowndeadnumbered250.98 Mostofthesewereconcentrated
in areas fIrst hit by the fire, where it swept down on residents "so suddenly and
unexpectedly."99
InConstantinople the majorityofthe deathsresultingfrom thesecondfire must
haveoccurredintheLatinquartersalongtheGoldenHornwherethefirefirststruck.
This may explain Villehardouin's assertion that many men, women, and children
100
were killed in the blaze.
From his position on the otherside ofthe river, those
areaswere themostvisible,Buthewasnot,however,closeenoughtowitnessactual
deaths;thosehemusthaveinferred.NicetasandthesourcefortheNovgorodChronicle,bothof whomwereinsidethecity,refertonofatalitiesataILEventheconsciencestrickenRaimbautdeVacqueirasworried thatthecrusaderswould be punished by
God,notforanylossof humanlife,butratherfortheawfuldestructionofproperty.101
Total fatalities in the second fIre, then, were probably somewhere between thefire
in London which took four days to do its work and that ofChicago which raced
throughthecityinonlyone.Thedeathtollin1203,then,probablystoodatsomewhere
nearone hundredfifty people.
The first andthird fires did not add much to this figure. Both were acts ofwar
andbothwere muchsmallerthanthesecondfire. Thefirstfire, whichragedatleast
partiallyinalessdenselypopulatedarea,probablydidnotkillmorethanfiftypeople.
ThethirdfIre,whichdestroyedtheMoslemquarterandsomesurroundingcommercial
areas,caughtnoonebysurprise.Thefirewieldingcrusaderswerecampedinsidethe
city.Everyonewasalivetothedanger.Manywerealreadypackingawaygoodsand
preparingforflight evenbefore Latintorcheswere putto buildings.102 It would be
odd, therefore, ifmore than tenpeople died in the third fire. Itseems more likely
that no one did. All in all, then, we can postulate that the three crusader fires in
1203and1204claimed,bothdirectlyandindirectly,approximatelytwohundredlives.
Thehomelessfiguresweremuchgreater.Afterdescribingtheoutbreakofthelast
fire, Villehardouinestimatedthat morehouseswere losttoflames thanstoodinthe
103
threelargestcities inFrance. It is undearwhetherVillehardouin meantthatall
threefires obliteratedthatmanyhomes orjustthelast. Seholars havereaditboth
ways,AndreadesbelievedthemarshalwasreferringonlytothelastfIreand,therefore,
concludedthatbetween300,000and400,000weremadehomelessinallthreeblazes.104
Russell assumed that Villehardouin was describing the losses ofall the fires and,
basedoncurious populationestimatesfor thethreelargest French cities, suggested
that no more than 50,000 ConstantinopoIitans lost theirhomes.l05 Neitheranalysis
issatisfactory. If Villehardouinmeanttoincludeonlythethirdfireinhiscomparison
withFrenchcitiesthenhewasgreatlyexaggerating.Atonly25 acres,thethirdfire

98 H. Kogan, Grander and Statelier than Ever ..., Chicago History 1 (1971) 236; E. L. Pierce,
AHistoryof Chicago(NewYork1957) III(asn.90)56;SheahanandUpton,TheGreatConflagration
501.
99 Th. Mosher, Jr.,A Trained Obscrver Sees the Fire,Chicago History I
100 Villehardouin, sec. 204, 120810.

(1971) 215.

101 Linskill, PoemsofRaimbaut(as n. 34) 226.

102 Nicetas 571.
103 "Etcefu Ii tierz feus qui fn en Constantinople des que Ii Franc vindrent el plaia. Etplus ot
arsmaisonsqu'iln'aites troisplusgranzcitezdel roialmedeFrance."Villehardouin,sec. 247, II50.
I.,. Andreades, Dela population de Constantinople(as n. 93) 1001.
lOS Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Populations(as n. 94) 99.

'III

'11

86

I. Ahteilung

ply out to 1,600,000 and 4,000,000; both excessive. 9] Modern estimates are aU over
the map.92 A. Andreadcs calculated it to have been between 800,000 and 1,000,000. 93
Josiah Cox Russell asserted that no more than 200,000 people lived in the medieval
city.94 Peter Charanis put the population between 500,000 and 1,000,000. David
Jacoby figured it to be perhaps 250,000 but never more than 400,000. 95 This is not
the place for an exhaustive analysis of the city's population size in 1203 or the proposition of yet another figure. There is a need for a study which would take into
account all contemporary witnesses, suggestive commercial documents, demographic
factors, comparative data, and previous scholarship. Until that analysis is done, I will
accept for the sake of this discussion the relatively conservative figure of 400,000.
I am inclined to believe, and have elsewhere argued, that the population was actually
twice that or more. Nonetheless, adopting the less controversial figure will, I hope,
facilitate a more general acceptance of the following fatalities and homeless estimates.
If future studies produce a different population figure, the following numbers can
be adjusted somewhat.
Previously we have noted the striking similarities between Constantinople's second
fire in 1203 and London's Great Fire of 1666. We can now add population size as
another probable parallel. London in 1665 had approximately 600,000 inhabitants.
A plague that year killed 56,000, thus reducing the population to around 540,000
on the eve of the fire. 96 London's conflagration raged for three days, waned on the
fourth, and was largely extinguished on the fifth. It devastated an area almost exactly
the size of the destruction in Constantinople. The final death toll in London is not
exact, but the estimates are very e1ose. The casualty figure reported to Charles II
of those killed by fire or being trampled to death was zero. The London Gazette
likewise reported that the Great Fire claimed no lives. When the Bills of Mortality
were published, six people appeared on them. Walter George Bell estimated that far
more died of expoure in London's refugee camps than in the actual fire. He suggested
that perhaps one hundred died due to secondary causes. 97 This may seem miraculous,
as it did to Londoners at the time, but it is, in fact, not unusual. Unlike buildings
and goods, people can move, and when fire approaches they usually do. In Chicago's
Great Fire of 1871 the death figures were higher, but that blaze was much fiercer
than the fires which hit London and Constantinople. It raged across Chicago's densest
91 Villehardouin, see. 251, II 54, states that more than 400,000 men lived in the city. If we include
women and ehildren the figure would approach 1,600,()()0. Elsewhere (sec. 163, I 164), he states that
there were 200 people in the city for every one crusader. The crusaders numhered approximately
20,000 (ihid., sec. 251, II 54), thus suggesting a population of 4,OOO,()()0.
92 An excellent compilation of modern estimates ean he found in: David Jacohy, La population
de Constantinople II. l'epollue hyzantine: un probleme de demographie urhaine, Byz 31 (1961) 82-3.
and accompanying notes.
93 A. Andreades, De la population de Constantinople sous les empereurs hyzantins, Metron 1 (1920)
99, 101.
94 J. Cox Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Populations (Philadelphia 1958) 99.
95 P. Charanis, A Note on the Population and Cities of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth
Century, in: The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume (New York 1953) 137-8; Jacoby, La population de
Constantinople (as n. 92) 107--9.
96 Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 15. London was in area less than half the size of Constantinople, had a number of open areas, and used twin storey structures as its dominant means of housing.
Its large population, therefore, cripples Jacohy's density coefficient calculations for Constantinople.
La population de Constantinople (as n. 92) 102-9, esp. 105.
97 Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. ]5) ]76-7;.T. Bedford, London's Burning (London et al. 1966)
186-7.

T. F. Madden, The fires in Constantinople, 1203-1204

87

section in only thirty hours, covering 2,000 acres (809 ha). Chicago's population in
1871 was 334,000; total known dead numbered 250. 98 Most of these were concentrated
in areas fust hit by the fire, where it swept down on residents "so suddenly and
unexpectedly." 99
In Constantinople the majority of the deaths resulting from the 8econd fire must
have occurred in the Latin quarters along the Golden Horn where the fire first struck.
This may explain Villchardouin's assertion that many men, women, and children
were killed in the blaze.]oo From his position on the other side of the river, those
areas were the most visible, But he was not, however, close enough to witness actual
deaths; those he must have inferred. Nicetas and the source for the Novgorod Chronicle, both of whom were inside the city, refer to no fatalities at all. Even the consciencestricken Raimbaut de Vacqueiras worried that the crusaders would be punished by
God, not for any loss of human life, but rather for the awful destruction of property. 10]
Total fatalities in the second fire, then, were probably somewhere between the fire
in London which took four days to do its work and that of Chicago which raced
through the city in only one. The death toll in 1203, then, probably stood at somewhere
near one hundred fifty people.
The first and third fires did not add much to this figure. Both were acts of war
and both were much smaller than the second fue. The first fire, which raged at least
partially in a less densely populated area, probably did not kill more than fifty people.
The third fue, which destroyed the Moslem quarter and some surrounding commercial
areas, caught no one by surprise. The fire-wielding crusaders were camped inside the
city. Everyone was alive to the danger. Many were already packing away goods and
preparing for flight even before Latin torches were put to buildings. \02 It would be
odd, therefore, if more than ten people died in the third fire. It seems more likely
that no one did. All in all, then, we can postulate that the three crusader fires in
1203 and 1204 claimed, both directly and indirectly, approximately two hundred lives.
The homeless figures were much greater. After describing the outbreak of the last
fire, Villehardouin estimated that more houses were lost to flames than stood in the
three largest cities in France.103 It is unclear whether Villehardouin meant that all
three fues obliterated that many homes or just the last. Scholars have read it both
ways. Andreades believed the marshal was referring only to the last fire and, therefore,
concluded that between 300,000 and 400,000 were made homeless in all three blazes. 104
Russell assumed that Villehardouin was describing the losses of all the fires and,
based on curious population estimates for the three largest French cities, suggested
that no more than 50,000 Constantinopolitans lost their homes. l05 Neither analysis
is satisfactory. IfVilIehardouin meant to include only the third fire in his comparison
with French cities then he was greatly exaggerating. At only 25 acres, the third fire

98 H. Kogan, Grander and Statelier than Ever ..., Chicago History 1 (1971) 236; E. L Pierce,
A History of Chicago (New York 1957) III (as n. 90) 5-6; Sheahan and Upton, The Great Conflagration
50-1.
99
100
101
102
103

Th. Mosher, Jr., A Trained Ohserver Sees the Fire, Chicago History] (1971) 215.
Villehardouin, sec. 204, I 208-10.
Linskill, Poems of Raimhaut (as n. 34) 226.
Nicetas 571.
"Et ce fn Ii tierz feus qui fu en Constantinople des que Ii Franc vindrcnt el plais. Et plus ot
n'ait es trois plus gram! eitez del roialllle de France." Villehardouin, sec. 247, II 50.
De la population de Constantinople (as n. 93) 100-1.
Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Populations (as n. 94) 99.

IUS waisons qu'il

104 Andreades,
lOS

I. Ahteilung

88

was too small. Paris alone far outsized it. If, on the other hand, he meant that all
three fires produced such devastation, then he may not have been far from the mark.
The population of the three largest cities in France in 1204 was somewhere between
150,000 and 200,000. 106 These figures compare favorably to the number of homeless
generated by the great fires of London and Chicago. According to John Evelyn, who
surveyed the damage in London, "200,000 people of all ranks and degrees ... rwere]
lying along by their heaps of what they could save from the fire, deploring their loss
" 107 This was an estimate; Evelyn made no headcount. Some of those he saw were
undoubtedly not really homeless, but rather refugees of dangerous situations in which
their homes could have been destroyed, but in the end were not. A figure for London
of 125,000, then, is not unreasonable. In Chicago the homeless were counted; they
numbered around 90,000. 108 The second fire in Constantinople, then, probably claimed
the homes of approximately 100,000 people-Nicetas was one ofthem. The two smaller
fires in less densely populated areas probably added an additional 30,000 or so. Altogether, then, we can estimate that the three crusader fires left approximately
130,000 citizens homeless. If the total population was 400,000, then roughly one-third
of the city had lost their primary residence as a result of Latin pyrotechnics. But if
Constantinople was more populous, the homeless figures themselves would not rise
in direct proportion. Like London, Constantinople's densest regions were filled to
capacity. A larger population would mean wider dense regions, not more tightly
packed ones. Therefore a more populous city would mean more whose homes escaped
the blazes because the fires did not reach them. The number of homeless would, of
course, be greater in a larger city, but not by a one-to-one ratio. The exact relationship
would require precise density figures for the city. Nonetheless, rough estimates are
possible. If Constantinople's population was 600,000, then perhaps one-quarter were
made homeless, at 800,000 about one-fifth, and at 1,000,000 approximately one-sixth.
Some of these left the city after their loss, but most, as in London, would have set
up make-shift shelters in the ruins of their old neighborhoods. When the crusaders
entered the city on 12 April 1204, the residents of these tent villages would have
been the first to flee. Their sparse possessions and transient lifestyle gave them a mobility which their more fortunate neighbors lacked. They had little to lose and nothing
to fight for. Much of Constantinople's legendary will to resist evaporated in the hopeless landscape of those pitiable camps.
As devastating as the three fires were, we must remember that most of the city
remained untouched. Abbot Martin of Pairis exaggerated when he reported to Gunther
that one-third of the city was destroyed by the fires. 109 Today it is common to hear
that one-half of Constantinople burned down in the crusader frres. The remark originated with Edwin Pears, who probably took it from the Devastatio. no It has since
resonated through successive scholarship; Russell even incorrectly attributed it to
Villehardouin. 1I1 It should be abandoned. As we have seen, the first fire destroyed
Charanis, A Note on the Populat.ion and Cities of the Byzantine Empire (as n. 95)
Bell, Great Fire of London (as n. 15) 181.
lOR Sheahan and Upton, The Great Conflagration (as n. 90) 51.
109 Gunther of Pairis (Riant) I 102.
no Devastatio 89; Pears, Fall of Constantinople (as n. 26) 359.
III Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Populations (as n. 94) 99; cf. Andreades. De la population
de Constantinoplc (as n. 93) 101; Charanis, A Notc in the Population and Cities of the Byzantine
Empire (as n. 95) 137-8; Brand, Byzantium Confronts the W"st (as n. 12) 257; Godfrey, 1204
(as n. 27), 124.
106

107

approximately 125 acres, the second 450 acres, and the third 25 acres. Altogether,
then, about 600 acres (243 ha) were laid waste. Constantinople's area within the walls
was approximately 3,500 acres (1,416 ha). Therefore, in area, the fires burnt down
about one-sixth of the city. The percentage of the city's dwellings lost was at most
one-third, and may have been as low as one-sixth.
Constantinople suffered mightily under the torches of thc westerners. The material
and human costs were vast. They form essential elements in any understanding of
the Fourth Crusade or late medieval Constantinople. The immensity of the subsequent
capture and sack of the city sometimes eclipses in medieval and modern eyes the
terrible blows New Rome sustained before she was laid low hy her western co-religionists. For Nicetas, who lost so much in both fire and sack, the two events were
merely different sides of the same barharous Latin coin. In his eloquent lament for
Constantinople, he addressed his city as a bride, thus comparing the westerners to
her new unworthy groom.
If these implacable and crazed suitors neither fashioned a bridal chamber
for you, nor lit a nuptial torch for you, did they not, however, ignite the
coals of destruction? ... 0 City, formerly enthroned on high, striding far
and wide, magnificent in comeliness and more hecoming in stature; now your
luxurious garments and elegant royal veils are rent and torn; your flashing
eye has grown dark, and you are like an aged furnace woman all covered with
soot ... 1l2
112

Nieetas 567-7; Magoulias (as n. 1) 317.

I. Abteilung

88

was too small. Paris alone far outsized it. If, on the other hand, he meant that all
three fires produced such devastation, then he may not have heen far from the mark.
The population of the three largest cities in France in 1204 was somewhere hetween
150,000 and 200,000. 106 These figures compare favorably to the number of homeless
generated by the great fires of London and Chicago. According to John Evelyn, who
surveyed the damage in London, "200,000 people of all ranks and degrees ... [were]
lying along by their heaps of what they could save from the fire, deploring their los8
... " 107 This was an estimate; Evelyn made no headcount. Some of those he saw were
undoubtedly not really homeless, but rather refugees of dangerous situations in which
their homes could have been destroyed, but in the end were not. A figure for London
of 125,000, then, is not unreasonable. In Chicago the homeless were counted; they
numbered around 90,000. 108 The second fire in Constantinople, then, probably claimed
the homes of approximately 100,000 people----Nicetas was one of them. The two smaller
fires in less densely populated areas probably added au additional 30,000 or so. Altogether, then, we can estimate that the three crusader fires left approximately
130,000 citizens homeless. If the total population was 400,000, then roughly one-third
of the city had lost their primary residence as a result of Latin pyrotechnics. But if
Constantinople was more populous, the homeless figures themselves would not rise
in direct proportion. Like London, Constantinople's densest regions were filled to
capacity. A larger population would mean wider dense regions, not more tightly
packed ones. Therefore a more populous city would mean more whose homes escaped
the blazes because the fires did not reach them. The number of homeless would, of
course, be greater in a larger city, but not by a one-to-one ratio. The exact relationship
would require precise density figures for the city. Nonetheless, rough estimates are
possible. If Constantinople's population was 600,000, then perhaps one-quarter were
made homeless, at 800,000 about one-fifth, and at 1,000,000 approximately one-sixth.
Some of these left the city after their loss, but most, as in London, would have set
up make-shift shelters in the ruins of their old neighborhoods. When the crusaders
entered the city on 12 April 1204, the residents of these tent villages would have
been the first to flee. Their sparse possessions and transient lifestyle gave them a mobility which their more fortunate neighbors lacked. They had little to lose and nothing
to fight for. Much of Constantinople's legendary will to resist evaporated in the hopeless landscape of those pitiable camps.
As devastating as the three fires were, we must remember that most of the city
remained untouched. Abbot Martin of Pairis exaggerated when he reported to Gunther
that one-third of the city was destroyed by the fires. 109 Today it is common to hear
that one-half of Constantinople burned down in the crusader fires. The remark originated with Edwin Pears, who probably took it from the Devastatio. lIO It has since
resonated through successive scholarship; Russell even incorrectly attributed it to
Villehardouin. III It should be abandoned. As we have seen, the first fire destroyed
Charanis, A Note on the Population and Cities of the Byzantine Empire (as n. 95) 137-8.
Bell, Great Fire of
(as n. 15) 18l.
108 Sheahan and Upton, The Great Conflagration (as n. 90) 5L
1M Gunther of Pairi. (Riant) I 102.
110 Devastatio 89; Pears, Fall of Constantinople (as n. 26) 359.
III Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Populations (as n. 94) 99; cf. Andreades. De la population
de Constantinople (as n. 93) 101; Charanis, A Note in the Populatinn and Cities of the Byzantine
Empire (as n. 95) 137-8; Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West (as n. 12) 257; Godfrey. 1204
(a8 n. 27), 124.
106

101

approximately 125 acres, the second 450 acres, and the third 25 acres. Altogether,
then, about 600 acres (243 ha) were laid waste. Constantinople's area within the walls
was approximately 3,500 acres (1,416 ha). Therefore, in area, the fires hurnt down
about one-sixth of the city. The percentage of the city's dwellings lost was at most
one-third, and may have been as low as one-sixth.
Constantinople suffered mightily under the torches of the westerners. The material
and human costs were vast. They form essential elements in any understanding of
the Fourth Crusade or late medieval Constantinople. The immensity ofthe subsequent
capture and sack of the city sometimes eclipses in medieval and modern eyes the
terrible blows New Rome sustained before she was laid low by her western co-religionists. For Nicetas, who lost so much in both fire and sack, the two events were
merely different sides of the same barbarous Latin coin. In his eloquent lament for
Constantinople, he addressed his city as a bride, thus comparing the westerners to
her new unworthy groom.
If these implacahle and crazed suitors neither fashioned a bridal chamber
for you, nor lit a nuptial torch for you, did they not, however, ignite the
coals of destruction? ... 0 City, formerly enthroned on high, striding far
and wide, magnificent in comeliness and more becoming in stature; now your
luxurious garments and elegant royal veils are rent and torn; your flashing
eye has grown dark, and you are like an aged furnace woman all covered with
soot ... 112
112

Nicetas 567-7; Magoulias (as n. 1) 317.

I. Ahteilung

90

Destroyed by First :Fire

DestroyedbySecond Fire

Map
Location

Odalar Camii

ID

Comments

aTI-;:;ffered fire damage in ca.

1203.
-

Reference
MullerW iener,Pl" 188fl9

Map
Location
PalaceofNicetas Choniatcs

ID
i

Comments

Reference

In Sphorakioll district..

Buildings nearHagiaSophia

See discussionintext.

Nicctas,p. 554; Ville

hardouin, sec. 204, I,
p. 208; Chronicle of
Novgorod,p.45.

Mese Street(Milion toPortio

cocsofDomninocs)

Sec discussion intext.

Nicetas,p. 555

Survived First Fire

Map
Location

ID

Monastery of Christ
Evergetes (Giil Camii)

Aykapl Church

Seyh Murad Mescidi

Comments

Reference

MentionedbyNicel.as in
eventsof1204.

Nicetas,Pl'. 568, 570;

MullerW iener, pp. 1402.

Probable 12the. foundation.

A.M. Schneider,Ryzanz,in
IstanbulerForschungcn8
(1936), pp. 5354,Taf. 8/1.

r
Probable 12thc. foundation.

Kariye Camii

Monastery of the Virgin

Pammacaristos (Fethiye
Camii)

Monastery of St. John

the Baptist (Prodromos)
in Pel.fa

Hlachernae Hill structures

Nicetas, p. 587.

'-1-

Muller.Wiener,pp. 2045.

Centralstruct.urefoundation:
11thor 12thc.

Nicetas, p.555;Janin,CR,
pp.34445.
.

ForumofConstantine

See discussion intext.

Nicetas, p. 555; Miiller

Wiener,pp. 255.

Hippodrome periphery

See discussion in I ext.

Nicetas, p. 555.

Tower ofBoukinon

At Port ofSophia.

Nieelas, p. 555; Janin,CB

pp.32627.
Cecil L. Striker,The
Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii)
in Istanbul(Prin(,,cton,
198]),pp. 2829.

f--

Foundation: ca. 1120.

Porticoes ofDomninoes

RobertOusterhout,The
ArchitectureofKariye
Caruii in Istanhul
(Washington, 1987),
Pl" 1532.

MyrelaionChurch

Damaged byfire ca. 1203.

ChurchofSt.Anastasia

'See discussion intext..

MullerW iener,pp. 13235.

Occupiedby Latinclergy
after 1204.

Janin, GE, pp. 42223.

Palace occupiedbyHenry
ofFlandersin 1204.
Churchesremained popular
pilgrimage sites in Palaeo
loganperiod.

Villehardouin,scc. 245,
II,p.48; Janin,Lessallc,
tuaires. pp. 15155;
Majeska, pp. 33337.

...

I. Ahteilung

90

Destroyed by First Fire

Destroyed by Second Fire

Map
Location
[ Od.alar Camii

ID

Comments

a.

Reference

Map
Location

ID

Comments

Reference

-.

SU.ffered fire damage in ca.

03 .

MullerWiener, pp. 188-89

.LE

Palace of Nicetas Choniates

In Sphorakion district.

.. t----

Nicetas, p. 587.
j-

Buildings near Hagia Sophia

See discussion in text.

Nicetas, p. 554; Ville

hardouin, sec. 204, I,
p. 208; Chronicle of
Novgorod, p. 45.

Mese Street (Milion to Portio

coes of Domninoes)

See discussion in text.

Nicelas, p. 555

Survived First Fire

Map
Location

ID

Comments

Reference

Monastery of Christ
Evergetes (Gul Camii)

Mentioned by Nicelas in
events of 1204.

Nicetas, pp. 568, 570;

Muller.Wiener, pp. 140-2.

Aykapl Chureh

Probable 12th c. foundation.

A. M. Schneider, Ryzanz, in
lstanbuler Forschungen 8
(1936), pp. 53-54, Tar. 8/1.

Probable 12th c. foundation.

1---Foundation: ca. 1120.

Porticoes of Domninoea

Nicetas, p. 555; Janin, CR

pp.344-45.
-

rSeyh Murad Mescidi

Kariye Camii

Monastery of the Virgin

Pammacaristos (Fethiye
Camii)

Monastery of St. John

the Baptist (Prodromos)
in Petra

Rlachernae Hill structures

Muller Wiener, pp. 204-5.

Robert Ousterhout, The
Architecture of Kariye
Cantii in Istanbul
(Washington, 1987),
pp.15-32.

Central structure foundation:

II th or 12th c.

Muller Wiener, pp. 132-35.

Occupied by Latin clergy

after 1204.

Janin, GE, pp. 422-23.

Palace occupied by Henry

of Flanders in 1204.
Churches remained popular
pilgrimage sites in Palaeo
logan period.

Villehardouin, sec. 245,

II, p. 48; Janin, Les sane
tuaires. pp. 151-55;
Majeska, pp. 333-37.

Forum of Constantine

See discussion in text.

Hippodrome pcriphery

See discussion in tcxt.

Nicetas, p.

Tower of Boukinon

At Port of Sophia.

Nicetas, p. 555; Janin, CB

pp.326-27.

Nicetas, p. 555; Muller

Wiener, pp. 255.
I

1-

Myrelaion Church

Damaged by fire ca. 1203.

Church of St. Anastasia

See discussion in tcxt.

Cecil L. Striker, The

Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii)
in Istanbul (Princcton,
1981), pp. 28-29.

I. Abteilung

92

F. Madden, The fires

93

Survived Second Fire

Location

Map
ID Comments

Constantinople
First Fire. 17.18July 1203

Reference

r----

Hagia Sophia and

Patriarchal Palace

---

Atrium may have been

damaged. See discussion in
text.

Nicetas, p. 554;
Villehardouin, sec. 204, I,
p. 208; Chronicle of
Novgorod, p. 4,5.

Mentioned in connection
with events of 12-13 April
1204. Survived until 15th c.

Nicetas, p. 554, 572;

Mango, Brazen House,
pp. 47-48; Miiller.Wiener,
pp. 216-18.

Column and equestrian

statue of Justinian survived
until 15th c.

Clari, sec. 86, p. 86;

Majcska, pp. 137, 184;
Gilles, p. 105; Miiller
Wiener, pp. 248-49.

Muller.Wicner, pp. 258-65.

Four tetrarchs survived;

transported to Venice.

Muller.Wiener, pp.

Plundered in 1204; surviv

ed until at least 1390.

Anonymous of Halber
stadt, I. p. 21; Majcska,
p.113.

Still extant.

Muller. Wiener, pp. 177-83

Kalenderhane Camii

12th c. foundation. StilI

extant.

Balaban Aga Mescidi

5th or 6th c. foundation.

Survived until 1911.

Phil"""pM,,,

(Kiicuk Ayasofya
,oil B,,,h,,
Camii)

--

Church of the Virgin

Chalkoprateia (Acem Aga
, Mescidi)

Plundered in 1204. Still

extant.

Monastery of the ReBur

rection (Anastasis)

Foundation before 1200.

See discussion in text.

'1

--

Church of St. Euphemia

at the Hippodrome

ThirdFlre.12-13AprlI1204
Om

Numerous structuTCs
survived. See discussion in
text.

Forum Tauri (Forum of

. Theodosius)

The Milion

SecondFire. 19.20Aug. 1203

Sea ofMarmara

153-58.

MullerWiener, pp. 98-99.

Map Key

a.
h.
c.
d.
J anin, GE, pp. 20--22; idem e.
Les sanctuaires.,
f.
MullerWiener, pp. 7678.

pp. 162-63.

Odalar Camii
Monastery of Christ Evergetes
Aykapl Church
Seyh Murad Mescidi
Kariye Camii
Monastery of the Virgin Pammacaristos
g. MonasteryofSt.JohntheBaptist
h. "Mitaton"Mosque
i. Palace ofNicetas Choniates

a:,-.. Zoitocluitt 84/85.1

j. Porticoes of Domninocs/St. Anastasia

k. Myrelaion Church
1. St. Euphemia at the Hippodrome
m. SS. Sergius and Bacchus
n. Kalenderhane Camii
o. BalahanAga Mescidi
p. Church ofthe Virgin Chalkoprateia
q. Monasteryofthe Resurrection
r. Monastery ofChrist Pantocrator

I.

92

F. Madden, The fires in

Survived Second Fire

Location

Map
ID Comments

Constantinople
First Fire. 1718July1203

Reference

,----

Hagia Sophia and

Patriarchal Palace

Atrium may have been

damaged. See discussion in
text.

Nicetas, p. 554;
Villehardouin, sec. 204, I,
p. 208; Chronicle of
Novgorod, p. 45.

Mentioned in connection
withevents of1213 April
1204. Survived until 15thc.

Nicetas, p. 554, 572;

Mango, BrazenHouse,
pp. 4748; MiillerWiener, '
pp. 21618.

SecondFire. 1920Aug.1203

IlIIllllll

ThirdFire,1213Aprll 1204
Om

The Milioll

---

Forum Tauri (Forum of

. Theodosius)

Philadelphion

Column and equestrian

statueofJustiniansurvived
until 15thc.

Clan,sec. 86, p. 86;

Majcska, pp. 137, 184;
Gilles, p. 105; Miiller
Wiener, pp. 24849.

Numerous structures
survived. See discussion in
text.

Muller-Wiener, pp. 258-65,

Four tetrarchs survived;

transported to Venice.

Miiller-Wiener, pp. 266-67

Plundcred in 1204; survived until atleast 1390.

Anonymous of Halberstadt, I, p. 21; Majeska,

p.143.

ChurchofSt. Euphcmia
atthe Hippodrome

SS. Sergius andBacchus

(KiicukAyasofya Camii)

Still extant.

MiillerWiener,pp. 17783

12thc. foundation. Still

extant.

MiillerWiener, pp. 15358

5thor6thc. foundation.
Surviveduntil 1911.

MiillerWiener, pp. 9899.

,KalenderhaneCamii

BalabanAga Mescidi

..

Church oftheVirgin
Chalkoprateia(Aeem Aga
,Mescidi)

--_.

Plunderedin 1204. Still

extant.

Foundationbefore 1200.
See discussionintext.

r---'
Monasteryofthe Resurreetion (Anastasis)

Sea ofMarmara

Map Key

a. OdalarCamii
h. MonasteryofChrist Evergetes
c. Aykapl Church
d. Seyh MuradMescidi
Janin,GE,pp.2022;idem e. KariyeCamii
Lee sanctuaires,
f_ MonasteryoftheVirgin Pammapp.16263.
caristos
g. MonasteryofSt.JohntheBaptist
h. "Mitaton'" Mosque
i. Palace ofNicetasChoniates
MiillerWiener, pp.7678.

B,.... Zeitod.:rift 84/85, 1

j. PorticoesofDomninoes/St. Anastasia
k. Myrelaion Church
I. St. Euphemia atthe Hippodrome
m.SS. Sergius andBacchus
n. Kalenderhane Camii
o. BalahanAga Mescidi
p. Church ofthe VirginChalkoprateia
q. Monasteryofthe Resurrection
r. MonasteryofChrist Pantocrator