The gate that would naturally serve as the central point, or pivot, of naval and defensive operations was the Gate of Eugenius. At this location, the two shores of Constantinople divide. It was also the furthest point inside the Golden Horn that the Turkish fleet could reach while remaining outside the great defensive chain. Because of this, the Gate of Eugenius held great strategic importance during the siege of 1453 Istanbul Old City Tours.
It would be very strange if Ducas, who understood military matters well, assigned this importance to a different gate. The logic of the city’s defenses clearly points to the Gate of Eugenius as the key position. Any other location would have been less effective and even dangerous for the safety of the city.
The Question of Ducas’ Accuracy
At the same time, it must be admitted that Ducas was not always accurate in his historical accounts. There are several clear examples of his mistakes. One important error concerns the gate before which the Sultan pitched his tent during the siege. Ducas associates this event with the Gate of Charisius. However, other reliable sources show that the correct location was the Gate of Saint Romanus.
Another serious mistake appears in his description of the death of Emperor Constantine XI. Ducas again places this event near the Gate of Charisius, while other historians agree that it occurred near the Gate of Saint Romanus. These errors weaken his reliability in matters of topography Problem of Identifying the Horaia Gate.
Further Errors in Ducas’ Narrative
Ducas also makes mistakes in other key parts of his narrative. He gives an inaccurate account of how the Turks entered the city through the Kerkoporta. His description does not agree with other historical evidence and has long been questioned by scholars.
In addition, Ducas claims that the ships carried by the Sultan overland from the Bosporus were launched into the Golden Horn at a point opposite the Cosmidion, known today as Eyüp. Modern research and other historical sources show that this launch took place at Cassim Pasha, not at Cosmidion. This is another clear geographical error.
The Chain and the Horaia Pyle
Because of these repeated inaccuracies, it is impossible to defend Ducas’ statement about the chain being attached to the Horaia Pyle at all costs and despite all difficulties. His credibility on this point depends entirely on whether strong evidence exists that the Horaia Pyle was another name for the Gate of the Neorion during the final years of Byzantine Constantinople.
The belief that both names referred to the same gate is based mainly on tradition. It also rests on the naming practices used by the Greek population of the city in the sixteenth century. If this tradition is reliable and reflects earlier usage, then it would be strong evidence.
Tradition and Historical Interpretation
The everyday use of a name for a well-known public gate in a busy part of the city can be a powerful historical argument. If such usage can be shown to go far back into the Byzantine period, then it would be difficult to deny its validity. In that case, Ducas would clearly be mistaken about the gate to which the chain was attached.
If Ducas made this initial mistake, then all the importance he assigns to the Horaia Pyle in his description of naval attacks and defenses along the city’s shores would simply follow from that error. Any gate believed, even wrongly, to hold the chain would naturally appear in the narrative as the center of military action, even if its real location did not justify such a role.