Several important facts support the idea that the Basilike Pyle, or Imperial Gate, mentioned by Critobulus was the Gate of Eugenius. First, the Imperial Gate is described as standing inside the line of the chain that blocked the entrance to the Golden Horn. Second, before the Turkish fleet could attack this gate, the Greek ships inside the harbour had to be captured or destroyed. Third, the gate continued to resist for a considerable time after the Ottoman army had already entered the city at other points.
All these details fit well with what is known about the Gate of Eugenius. Its position near the mouth of the Golden Horn made it a natural point of defence. It also explains why the gate could remain in Greek hands even after the fall of other sections of the city, since the attackers approaching from the sea and those advancing from within the city did not reach it at the same time Istanbul Walking Tour.
A Serious Difficulty in Critobulus’ Language
Despite this strong agreement between the facts and the location of the Gate of Eugenius, there remains a serious difficulty. This difficulty lies in the language used by Critobulus. If the Gate of Eugenius was both the gate to which the chain was attached and the gate that the Turkish admiral attacked after the chain was broken, it is strange that Critobulus would describe the same entrance using different names in passages that deal with events so closely connected in time and place.
From a psychological point of view, this is hard to explain. When a historian narrates a continuous sequence of dramatic events, especially events of such importance, we expect him to use the same name for the same object. To shift from one name to another, without explanation, almost seems to go against the natural flow of thought and memory.
This issue therefore forms a strong objection to identifying the Imperial Gate of Critobulus directly with the Gate of Eugenius.
Can the Objection Be Explained Away?
One possible way to remove this objection is to suppose that Critobulus felt free to refer to the same gate by different titles, depending on the aspect he wished to emphasize. He might have used a practical or local name in one passage and a ceremonial or honorific name, such as Basilike Pyle, in another. Such variation in naming was not uncommon in Byzantine historical writing.
However, this explanation is not entirely satisfying. The closeness of the events he describes makes the change of name especially noticeable. The reader is naturally led to think that Critobulus intended to distinguish between two different gates, not merely two names for the same one Claim of the Gate of Eugenius as the Basilike Pyle.
The Possibility of More Than One Imperial Gate
If this objection cannot be convincingly removed, an important conclusion follows. The epithet “Basilike”, or Imperial, may not have belonged exclusively to the Gate of Eugenius. Just as it may not have applied only to the Gate of St. Barbara, it may also have been used for another gate further up the Golden Horn.
In that case, Byzantine writers may have used the title “Imperial Gate” in a broader sense, applying it to more than one strategically or ceremonially important entrance along the Harbour Walls.
The evidence, therefore, points in two directions. On the one hand, many facts strongly support the identification of the Basilike Pyle with the Gate of Eugenius. On the other hand, the language of Critobulus raises doubts that cannot be lightly dismissed. Until these difficulties are fully resolved, the question of the Imperial Gate must remain open, with the possibility that more than one gate bore that distinguished title.