1108 - 1261AD: Simultaneity and Beginning of the Shift

Alexios I Komnenos, Byzantine ruler of Constantinople

Historical map of Constantinople indicating the geographical location of the Great Palace (red circle) and the Palace of Blachernae (yellow circle)

Despite the seeming precedent of permanent importance of the Great Palace set during the reign of Constantine the Great and subsequent rulers who utilized the palace to its greatest potential in the Early Byzantine Empire, a shift toward disuse began in the Late Byzantine and Latin periods of Istanbul’s history. This shift began with the simultaneous usage of both the Great Palace, located in the southeastern end of the Constantinople peninsula (or Old Istanbul), and the Palace of Blachernae, an imperial Byzantine palace located in the northwest corner of the city, much further away from the apparent center of politics and culture. The initiation of this progression began with Alexios I Komnenos, a Byzantine rule who reigned from 1081 to 1118. Komnemos ordered the construction of the “great Alexian throne-room” (1) and was the first to shift to this simultaneous use of the two palaces, which signified the beginning of the progression from celebration of the Great Palace to its eventual ruin and abandonment. What is most interesting about this shift, as seen in the map to the left, is the drastic difference in location between the two palaces. The Great Palace, as signified by the red circle, is located in what was considered a cultural center of the city, neighboring important cultural structures as discussed before. The Palace of Blachernae, as indicated by the yellow dot, was quite isolated in the far northwest corner of the city and was a drastically different location for a political and residential palace. One possible explanation for this change in location was that in the 11^th century, a “miraculous icon of the Virgin” was discovered nearby at the Blachernae church (1). It is also important to note that while Komnenos utilized this other palace in Blachernae often, he did not yet abandon the Great Palace like later rulers did. Magdalino in his book writes, “Alexios did not abandon the Great Palace as the seat of imperial government, nor did he reside exclusively at the Blachernae.” (1) 

Current-day ruins of the Palace of Blachernae

This trend of simultaneous use continued on past the Last Byzantine era and into the period of Latin rule in Constantinople from around 1204 to 1261. Latin emperors like Baldwin I and Baldwin II occupied both palaces in a way that the Great Palace was a site of occupation and residence, while the Palace of Blachernae was a center of meetings and dinner parties or vice versa depending on the ruler’s preferences (2). A further quality of the Great Palace that has defined the building throughout its history and especially during this time period was its constant cycle of demolition and reconstruction until its complete abandonment in the Ottoman Empire. For example, records show that great damage was inflicted on the Great Palace and surrounding area during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which transferred power over to the Latin Empire (3). Although not as lavish as prior iterations of the palace, renovations needed to be made to keep the palace functional as one of the two palaces used by rulers. Thus, this constant interplay between destruction and reconstruction signifies changes in attitude toward the palace over time, as seen through the current-day lieux de mémoire of “absence”. This is especially salient when the balance began to move more toward destruction, and the focus shifted away from the Great Palaces onto other lavish structures in the city.