It should not surprise us that the shore of the Golden Horn was lighted at more than one point during the night. A large and important harbour like this needed guidance lights for ships. This was especially true at the entrance of the harbour, where traffic was greatest and danger was highest. Therefore, the presence of more than one beacon or lighthouse along the shore is fully reasonable and expected Case for Identifying the Imperial Gate with Balat Kapoussi.
Because of this, the existence of a beacon tower near the entrance of the Golden Horn does not exclude the possibility of another tower farther inside the harbour. This fact weakens arguments that depend on the assumption that there was only one such tower.
The Statement of Ducas and Its Limits
The historian Ducas states that the Venetians and the Greeks joined forces to defend the fortifications from the Imperial Gate to the Kynegon. However, this statement does not clearly define the distance between these two points. They might have been very close to each other, or they might have been far apart.
There is no evidence that the Venetians defended only a small section of the walls near Balat Kapoussi. They could just as easily have been responsible for a long stretch of the Harbour Walls, possibly extending from one end to the other. Therefore, Ducas’ words do not prove that the Imperial Gate must have stood at Balat Kapoussi.
The Meaning of the Title “Imperial”
Some arguments in favor of Balat Kapoussi do carry a certain weight. The title “Imperial Gate” seems very suitable for an entrance located near important imperial buildings. Balat Kapoussi stood near routes leading to the Palace of Blachernae and below the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus. This makes the imperial title understandable and attractive City Tours Istanbul.
However, this reasoning alone cannot prove that Balat Kapoussi was the Basilike Pyle. The name Balat Kapoussi appears only after the Ottoman Conquest. It is not certain whether this name was inherited from the Byzantine period or created later because of nearby palaces. Therefore, the similarity in meaning between the two names may be accidental rather than historical.
The Church of Saint John the Baptist
The strongest argument for identifying the Imperial Gate with Balat Kapoussi comes from religious evidence. Historical sources mention a Church of Saint John the Baptist standing on the shore outside the Basilike Pyle. Near Balat Kapoussi, there is indeed a church dedicated to Saint John the Baptist, later connected to the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai.
This similarity is striking and cannot be ignored. It suggests a possible continuity between the Byzantine church and the later structure. Still, even this argument does not fully settle the question. Churches could be rebuilt, moved, or renamed over time.
The Case for a Second Imperial Gate
Most importantly, none of these arguments disprove the clear evidence that a Basilike Pyle existed near the Seraglio Point. The sources that place an Imperial Gate at the entrance of the Golden Horn remain strong and unchanged.
At best, the arguments discussed above suggest the possibility that another gate, also known as Basilike Pyle, existed at Balat Kapoussi. This would mean that the term “Imperial Gate” was applied to more than one important entrance along the Harbour Walls.
Questions That Remain
Two main questions therefore remain unanswered. First, which gate near the Seraglio Point was known as the Basilike Pyle? Second, was this the only Imperial Gate, or did Byzantine writers sometimes use the same title for more than one gate?
Until further evidence appears, both possibilities must be kept in mind when studying the gates of Constantinople.