When visitors today wander through the ancient arteries of modern Istanbul, it is easy to forget that the stones beneath their feet once supported a civilization with a self-image radically different from our modern assumptions. The question of how inhabitants of Constantinople most likely have described themselves opens a fascinating window into a world where language, politics, and geography rarely aligned in ways that contemporary readers might expect. In their daily Greek speech, they called themselves Ῥωμαῖοι (Rhomaioi), citizens of the Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, the Roman Empire. Rather than viewing themselves as members of a “Byzantine” civilization, the residents of Constantinople—whether senators, merchants, monks, or sailors—overwhelmingly identified as Romans. This Roman consciousness persisted for more than a millennium, surviving long after the last Latin-speaking emperor had faded from memory and even after the empire itself had contracted to the walls of its great capital.
“We Are Romans” — The Core Political Identity
To understand Constantinople’s inhabitants, one must first dispel the label Byzantine. The term itself is a modern invention, coined by the German historian Hieronymus Wolf in the sixteenth century, long after the empire had fallen to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The people who lived within its borders during its existence never used this word. Instead, they carried a deeply legal and political identity rooted in Roman citizenship and imperial continuity.
Being a Roman in Constantinople was not merely an ethnic label; it was a statement of loyalty to a universal order. The empire’s laws were Roman, its administration was Roman, and its emperors ruled as the legitimate successors of Augustus and Constantine. Worth adding: a dockworker on the Golden Horn, a scribe in the Great Palace, and a nun in the Hagia Sophia all shared this overarching identity. They were Rhomaioi because they belonged to the Roman body politic, regardless of whether their ancestors had come from Illyria, Syria, Armenia, or Greece.
Constantinopolitans — Civic Pride and the “New Rome”
Beyond their imperial Roman identity, the city’s residents possessed an intense local pride that distinguished them from provincials in Thessalonica, Antioch, or Trebizond. They lived in what they often called simply “the City” (e Polis), a usage that survives even today in the Greek name for Istanbul. Officially, their home was also New Rome (Nova Roma), a title彰显ing its status as the rightful seat of empire after Constantine I moved the capital eastward in 330 AD.
This urban identity carried real social weight. Its inhabitants enjoyed imperial subsidies of grain, access to spectacular chariot races and religious processions, and the protection of the greatest fortifications in the medieval world. To be a Constantinopolitan was to occupy the center of the known universe. This leads to constantinople was the Basileousa, the Queen of Cities, a metropolis of unmatched wealth, learning, and sanctity. When peasants from Anatolia or Thrace arrived at the land walls, they encountered a population that viewed itself as the most refined, the most orthodox, and the most truly Roman of all peoples.
Greek Tongue, Roman Soul
Perhaps the most complex layer of identity involved language. From the seventh century onward, Greek dominated both the street and the bureaucracy of Constantinople. Also, koine Greek gave way to Medieval Greek, the ancestor of modern Greek. To outsiders, especially Latin-speaking Western Europeans, the inhabitants of Constantinople appeared to be Greeks (Graeci).
Yet within the empire, the word “Greek” carried complicated baggage. During much of the early and middle Byzantine periods, to call someone a Hellene (Ἕλλην) often implied that they were a pagan, a follower of the old Olympian gods rather than Christ. Now, political identity remained Roman. That said, the inhabitants were intensely proud of their Hellenic culture—their education in Homer and the classical fathers, their philosophical traditions, and their rhetorical skills. They simply did not equate this cultural Hellenism with their primary political nationality. That said, they were Greek-speaking Romans, much as a modern Swiss citizen might speak German yet hold Swiss nationality rather than German. The fusion of classical Greek paideia (education) with Roman institutions created a unique civilization that rejected a purely ethnic definition of Romanness.
The Christian Dimension of Roman Identity
By the fifth century, Orthodox Christianity had become inseparable from what it meant to be a Roman in Constantinople. Here's the thing — the empire was not merely a state; it was a sacred entity, a New Israel divinely chosen to preserve and spread true Christianity. Its emperor was God’s appointed vicegerent on Earth, and its capital was safeguarded by the Virgin Mary and a collection of potent relics But it adds up..
This religious lens sharpened the inhabitants’ self-description over time. To be a Roman was to be an Orthodox Christian loyal to the Patriarch of Constantinople and, ideally, to the correct theological positions defined in councils. When Crusaders from the West arrived in 1204 and sacked the city, the trauma reinforced a sense of Roman identity defined against the Latins or Franks. The inhabitants of Constantinople increasingly described themselves not just as Romans in general, but as the only legitimate Romans—the true heirs of empire and orthodoxy surrounded by barbarians and schismatics.
How Outsiders Viewed Them — And Why It Mattered
The gulf between internal and external naming was stark. Arabic-speaking neighbors referred to them as Rum, a term derived from Rome, and recognized their Roman lineage even while fighting them. Western Europeans stubbornly called them Greeks, denying their Roman legitimacy because the West had developed its own Holy Roman Empire under Frankish and Germanic kings. The Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks also used Rûm to describe the people and lands of the former Eastern Roman Empire.
Critically, the Constantinopolitans were aware of these external labels and resented being reduced to “Greeks.” Historical records and rhetorical writings reveal a population deeply offended when Westerners denied their Roman credentials. This was not mere pedantry; it touched the very heart of their claim to superior civilization and divine favor.
Evolving Identity Across the Centuries
Self-description in Constantinople was not entirely static. It shifted in emphasis depending on the empire’s fortunes.
- The Early Centuries (4th–7th centuries): In this period, Constantinople’s inhabitants most strongly asserted a universal Roman identity. The empire still stretched across the Mediterranean, Latin remained an administrative language, and the city’s population genuinely believed they were governing the orbis terrarum, the circle of the world.
- The Middle Period (8th–12th centuries): As the Islamic caliphates rose and Western Europe reorganized, the empire became more Greek in culture and more compact in territory. Roman identity became defensive rather than universal—focused on preserving tradition against external threats. Encounters with the crusading West bred both suspicion and a renewed insistence on Roman superiority.
- The Final Era (13th–15th centuries): After the disastrous Fourth Crusade and the restoration under the Palaiologos dynasty, the empire was little more than a city-state with some hinterlands. Yet even here, its people clung to the Roman name. Intellectuals such as Gemistos Plethon began reviving the term Hellene as a cultural ideal, planting seeds for later Greek nationalism, but when the last emperor died defending the walls in 1453, he died as a Roman emperor, and his people died as Romans.
What They Were Not
To fully grasp how the inhabitants of Constantinople described themselves, it is equally important to note what they did not call themselves:
- They were not “Byzantines” — this label simply did not exist for them.
- They were not “Greeks” in a primary political sense, even if they spoke Greek and cherished classical literature.
- They were not simply an “Eastern” people detached from Rome; they viewed themselves as the ** centerpiece** of legitimate Roman civilization, while the West had drifted into barbarism and heresy.
Conclusion
The inhabitants of Constantinople inhabited a mental world where empire, faith, and city intertwined to create a durable Roman identity. If asked directly who they were, a fishmonger in the Forum of Theodosius or a philosopher in the imperial university would have answered without hesitation: “I am a Roman (Rhomaios), a citizen of New Rome, a Christian of the Orthodox Church.And ” Their language was Greek, their city was Constantinople, and their culture was deeply soaked in classical learning, yet these elements served to enrich rather than replace their foundational claim to Romanitas. Understanding this self-description allows modern readers to see the medieval world not as a fragmented echo of antiquity, but as a living civilization that believed itself to be the rightful continuation of Rome until the very last day of its existence.
