The argument that identifies the Imperial Gate (Basilike Pyle) with Balat Kapoussi can be summarized in three main points. Supporters of this view believe that historical descriptions fit this location better than any other.
Evidence from Leonard of Scio and Ducas
First, attention is drawn to the statement of Leonard of Scio, who says that Gabriel of Treviso defended the walls “from the Tower of Phani to the Imperial Gate.” From this wording, it is argued that the Imperial Gate must have been located in the district of the Phanar.
A similar conclusion is drawn from the historian Ducas. He states that the Venetians helped the Greeks defend the walls from the Imperial Gate to the Ivynegon. This again appears to place the gate between two known districts, Phanar and Ivynegon City Tour Istanbul.
If these statements are taken at face value, the Imperial Gate must have stood somewhere between the Phanar on the east and the Ivynegon on the west. Balat Kapoussi lies exactly between these two districts. For this reason, supporters of this theory conclude that the Imperial Gate and Balat Kapoussi were the same entrance.
The Meaning of the Name “Imperial”
The second argument concerns the name Basilike Pyle, which means “Imperial Gate.” This title seems especially suitable for Balat Kapoussi. The gate stood at the foot of a hill crowned by the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, one of the most important imperial buildings in the city.
From this gate, it was also easy to reach the Palace of Blachernae, which served as an imperial residence during the later Byzantine period. The appropriateness of the imperial title is further supported by the Turkish name Balat Kapoussi, meaning “Gate of the Palace.” This name is very close in meaning to Basilike Pyle and appears to preserve the memory of the gate’s former importance.
The Church of Saint John the Baptist
A third argument comes from religious topography. According to Pusculus, a Church of Saint John the Baptist stood on the shore outside the Basilike Pyle. This detail seems to match the situation at Balat Kapoussi, where there is also a Church of Saint John the Baptist. This church later became a dependency of the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai Evidence from Leonard of Scio.
The presence of a church with the same dedication near Balat Kapoussi strengthens the case for identifying that gate with the Imperial Gate.
Criticism of These Arguments
Despite their apparent strength, these arguments are open to serious criticism. The key issue concerns the correct interpretation of the sources.
In the case of Leonard of Scio, it is important to note that he does not refer simply to the Tower of Phani without qualification. If he had done so, the reference might indeed point to the Phanar district in the middle of the Golden Horn.
However, Leonard’s full statement is more precise. He explains that the Tower of Phani, together with the Imperial Gate beside it, stood “ante sinum,” meaning at the entrance of the bay of the Golden Horn. This description clearly places the tower and the gate near the mouth of the harbour, not in the Phanar district farther inside.
Because Leonard explicitly locates both the tower and the Imperial Gate at the entrance of the Golden Horn, his testimony does not support the identification of the Imperial Gate with Balat Kapoussi. Instead, it suggests that the tower he mentions was a different beacon-tower, located closer to the Seraglio Point. This weakens the main foundation of the argument in favor of Balat Kapoussi and leaves the question open to further evidence.