BASSETTI
CROKE
The elaborately sculpted base features relief carvings of multiple rows of figures on each side. The upper register of each side features Theodosius and his attendants in the kathisma of the Hippodrome, although the narrative of the lower register of each side varies. The northwestern side depicts 4 central figures on the upper register: Theodosius, the Western Emperor Valentinian II, and Theodosius’s sons, Arcadius and Honorius. Below them, barbaric figures representing the Goths are seen paying taxes to the empire. The Gothic Wars had ended just a few years prior in 382 CE, establishing the Goths as Foederati of the empire. The other three sides mainly feature spectators under Theodosius watching the games at the hippodrome, with the southeastern side displaying a more lively scene of dancers and musicians at the very bottom of the relief as Theodosius holds a wreath of victory above them. The piece of marble below the base features depictions of the obelisk being erected. The northeast facade, for example, displays an official directing workers to raise the obelisk with ropes. The base features two inscriptions: one in Latin on the southeastern side, and one in Greek on the northwestern side. The orientation of these inscriptions as well as the reliefs plays a crucial role in the understanding of how these narratives were perceived. The southeastern Latin inscription would have faced the emperor and his court within the Hippodrome; the inscription itself is spoken from the point of view of the obelisk and praises Theodosius’s quick and powerful erection of the impressive structure. The Greek inscription would have faced the lower classes of the Hippodrome audience, and celebrates Theodosius as the only emperor to be able create such a spectacle. Similarly, the reliefs of the conquered Goths and the celebratory dancers also faced the lower classes, likely to further praise the emperor and cement the narrative of his legitimacy to the common people. In this way, the obelisk caters its narrative to the different segments of the population, translating the message of Theodosius’s political legitimacy into different social languages.
The Obelisk of Theodosius sits at the center of the Hippodrome in Constantinople. While it was placed in the Hippodrome in 390 CE, the obelisk itself dates back to fifteenth century Egypt under the Pharaoh Tuthmosis III. It was one of a pair from the Temple of Amon in Thebes, erected to commemorate the Pharaoh's victories in Syria. The obelisk was later brought to Alexandria under the reign of Constantine, with the other sent to the Circus Maximus in Rome. The obelisk was erected two years after Theodosius’s victory over Maximus in 388, serving as a grand commemoration of Theodosius’s military success. The obelisk measures about 20 meters tall and is made of Aswan granite, a stone quarried in Egypt. Hieroglyphic inscriptions cover all sides of the structure, all referencing Egyptian Gods like Re, Horus, and Atum. The pyramidion depicts Tuthmosis III making offerings to the god Amun-Re.
The Theodosian Obelisk exemplifies Bassetti’s main argument that Constantinople–and the Hippodrome specifically–was being used as a site to cement the past, present, and future legitimacy of Byzantine authority. One of the most crucial ways that this was accomplished with the Obelisk was through its imitation of Rome. The obelisk itself was one of a pair, with the partner obelisk being sent to Rome for the Circus Maximus. This direct mirroring of the Circus Maximus through this structure creates a strong link between the established cultural center of Rome and the new and burgeoning capital of Constantinople. This appropriation of a Roman artistic language allows Constantinople to harness the political legitimacy of Rome while still allowing the audience to imagine a prosperous future with the new capital. The obelisk itself was also spolia from Egypt; although the structure is adorned with Egyptian hieroglyphics that the average onlooker could not read, the transfer of this object from its Egyptian roots to Constantinople serves as an assimilation of pharaonic history into a new Byzantine canon. Like other monuments in the Hippodrome (the Serpent Column, the Ass and Keeper, the Lysippan Herakles), the obelisk carried its own history. Its relocation transformed that history into a statement about Constantinople: by possessing it, the city absorbed the cultural capital of Egypt and Rome and re-presented it as part of its own identity. By taking an ancient pharaonic monument and inscribing it with reliefs that depicted Theodosius enthroned before the people, the emperor reframed its meaning to emphasize Roman imperial authority and Christian triumph. This act of recontextualization complicates any linear canon of the Byzantine art, historical canon showing instead that it drew power from layering and transforming the artistic legacies of earlier civilizations.
Croke’s thesis on the use of ceremony and monumentality to cement Theodosius's legitimacy can be seen physically through the Theodosian Obelisk–particularly within the relief carvings of the obelisk’s base. The visual program of the base, and its augmentation depending on the social class that was viewing it, emphasized the unity of the unity of the empire under the consolidating rule of Theodosius. Moreover, the obelisk’s placement in the Hippodrome tied imperial authority to the city’s most important public ceremonial space, where political legitimacy was staged before the people. The narratives of the reliefs directly referenced Theodosius’s military victories and peace settlements, utilizing a propagandistic strategy to communicate the emperor’s authority and skill as a leader. And because the Hippodrome was an active and ritualistic part of the ceremonial fabric of the city, the events and spectacles that would take place there could communicate the message of Theodosius’s legitimacy even when he was away from the capital. With this understanding, we can widen our understanding of Byzantine narrative-building into something greater than just images and buildings; adding ceremony and spectacle to this canon underscores an important but often overlooked aspect of cultural life in the capital, illustrating the more ephemeral ways in which political legitimacy was cultivated by emperors.
Why were multiple smaller objects collected and placed within the Hippodrome rather than one grand monument in the center? What does the variety of sources of these objects accomplish together? How can we compare the importance of the obelisk’s Roman connections to its Egyptian roots? Is there a hierarchy of authority/importance when we consider these two cultural identities? How was the Gothic Peace used as propaganda throughout the empire to communicate a message of Theodosius’s authority/legitimacy? Were there other narratives portrayed that were similar/different to the one on the base of the obelisk?
Object Annotation 1
Elizabeth Burnell
Created on September 12, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
SWOT Challenge: Classify Key Factors
View
Vision Board
View
Explainer Video: Keys to Effective Communication
View
Explainer Video: AI for Companies
View
Corporate CV
View
Flow Presentation
View
Discover Your AI Assistant
Explore all templates
Transcript
BASSETTI
CROKE
The elaborately sculpted base features relief carvings of multiple rows of figures on each side. The upper register of each side features Theodosius and his attendants in the kathisma of the Hippodrome, although the narrative of the lower register of each side varies. The northwestern side depicts 4 central figures on the upper register: Theodosius, the Western Emperor Valentinian II, and Theodosius’s sons, Arcadius and Honorius. Below them, barbaric figures representing the Goths are seen paying taxes to the empire. The Gothic Wars had ended just a few years prior in 382 CE, establishing the Goths as Foederati of the empire. The other three sides mainly feature spectators under Theodosius watching the games at the hippodrome, with the southeastern side displaying a more lively scene of dancers and musicians at the very bottom of the relief as Theodosius holds a wreath of victory above them. The piece of marble below the base features depictions of the obelisk being erected. The northeast facade, for example, displays an official directing workers to raise the obelisk with ropes. The base features two inscriptions: one in Latin on the southeastern side, and one in Greek on the northwestern side. The orientation of these inscriptions as well as the reliefs plays a crucial role in the understanding of how these narratives were perceived. The southeastern Latin inscription would have faced the emperor and his court within the Hippodrome; the inscription itself is spoken from the point of view of the obelisk and praises Theodosius’s quick and powerful erection of the impressive structure. The Greek inscription would have faced the lower classes of the Hippodrome audience, and celebrates Theodosius as the only emperor to be able create such a spectacle. Similarly, the reliefs of the conquered Goths and the celebratory dancers also faced the lower classes, likely to further praise the emperor and cement the narrative of his legitimacy to the common people. In this way, the obelisk caters its narrative to the different segments of the population, translating the message of Theodosius’s political legitimacy into different social languages.
The Obelisk of Theodosius sits at the center of the Hippodrome in Constantinople. While it was placed in the Hippodrome in 390 CE, the obelisk itself dates back to fifteenth century Egypt under the Pharaoh Tuthmosis III. It was one of a pair from the Temple of Amon in Thebes, erected to commemorate the Pharaoh's victories in Syria. The obelisk was later brought to Alexandria under the reign of Constantine, with the other sent to the Circus Maximus in Rome. The obelisk was erected two years after Theodosius’s victory over Maximus in 388, serving as a grand commemoration of Theodosius’s military success. The obelisk measures about 20 meters tall and is made of Aswan granite, a stone quarried in Egypt. Hieroglyphic inscriptions cover all sides of the structure, all referencing Egyptian Gods like Re, Horus, and Atum. The pyramidion depicts Tuthmosis III making offerings to the god Amun-Re.
The Theodosian Obelisk exemplifies Bassetti’s main argument that Constantinople–and the Hippodrome specifically–was being used as a site to cement the past, present, and future legitimacy of Byzantine authority. One of the most crucial ways that this was accomplished with the Obelisk was through its imitation of Rome. The obelisk itself was one of a pair, with the partner obelisk being sent to Rome for the Circus Maximus. This direct mirroring of the Circus Maximus through this structure creates a strong link between the established cultural center of Rome and the new and burgeoning capital of Constantinople. This appropriation of a Roman artistic language allows Constantinople to harness the political legitimacy of Rome while still allowing the audience to imagine a prosperous future with the new capital. The obelisk itself was also spolia from Egypt; although the structure is adorned with Egyptian hieroglyphics that the average onlooker could not read, the transfer of this object from its Egyptian roots to Constantinople serves as an assimilation of pharaonic history into a new Byzantine canon. Like other monuments in the Hippodrome (the Serpent Column, the Ass and Keeper, the Lysippan Herakles), the obelisk carried its own history. Its relocation transformed that history into a statement about Constantinople: by possessing it, the city absorbed the cultural capital of Egypt and Rome and re-presented it as part of its own identity. By taking an ancient pharaonic monument and inscribing it with reliefs that depicted Theodosius enthroned before the people, the emperor reframed its meaning to emphasize Roman imperial authority and Christian triumph. This act of recontextualization complicates any linear canon of the Byzantine art, historical canon showing instead that it drew power from layering and transforming the artistic legacies of earlier civilizations.
Croke’s thesis on the use of ceremony and monumentality to cement Theodosius's legitimacy can be seen physically through the Theodosian Obelisk–particularly within the relief carvings of the obelisk’s base. The visual program of the base, and its augmentation depending on the social class that was viewing it, emphasized the unity of the unity of the empire under the consolidating rule of Theodosius. Moreover, the obelisk’s placement in the Hippodrome tied imperial authority to the city’s most important public ceremonial space, where political legitimacy was staged before the people. The narratives of the reliefs directly referenced Theodosius’s military victories and peace settlements, utilizing a propagandistic strategy to communicate the emperor’s authority and skill as a leader. And because the Hippodrome was an active and ritualistic part of the ceremonial fabric of the city, the events and spectacles that would take place there could communicate the message of Theodosius’s legitimacy even when he was away from the capital. With this understanding, we can widen our understanding of Byzantine narrative-building into something greater than just images and buildings; adding ceremony and spectacle to this canon underscores an important but often overlooked aspect of cultural life in the capital, illustrating the more ephemeral ways in which political legitimacy was cultivated by emperors.
Why were multiple smaller objects collected and placed within the Hippodrome rather than one grand monument in the center? What does the variety of sources of these objects accomplish together? How can we compare the importance of the obelisk’s Roman connections to its Egyptian roots? Is there a hierarchy of authority/importance when we consider these two cultural identities? How was the Gothic Peace used as propaganda throughout the empire to communicate a message of Theodosius’s authority/legitimacy? Were there other narratives portrayed that were similar/different to the one on the base of the obelisk?