According to the historian Leunclavius, the Imperial Gate of Constantinople should be identified with the Horaia Pyle, also known as the Gate of the Neorion, which he believed stood at Bagtche Kapoussi. At first glance, this suggestion seems possible, since Bagtche Kapoussi was an important entrance along the shore of the Golden Horn. However, closer examination raises serious problems with this view.
If the Horaia Pyle was indeed located at Bagtche Kapoussi, then the Basilike Pyle, or Imperial Gate, could not have been at the same place. The two gates are clearly distinguished in the historical sources, especially in the writings of Phrantzes Was There More Than One Basilike Pyle?.
Evidence from Phrantzes
Phrantzes mentions both the Horaia Pyle and the Imperial Gate in the same passage and places them one after the other. He states that during the defense of the harbour walls, the Horaia Pyle, also called the Beautiful Gate, was defended by the crew of a ship from Crete. Immediately after that, he explains that the Imperial Gate was defended by Gabriel of Treviso.
This clear distinction shows that the two gates were separate entrances and could not have shared the same location. Therefore, Leunclavius’ identification can only be accepted by those who also believe that the Horaia Pyle stood at Bagtche Kapoussi. If that assumption is rejected, Leunclavius’ theory loses its foundation.
Problems with the Location at Bagtche Kapoussi
A more general objection to Leunclavius’ view is that Bagtche Kapoussi does not match the geographical description given by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio. According to these writers, the Imperial Gate stood opposite a tower that guarded the entrance of the harbour. It was also described as being located “ante sinum,” meaning “before the bay” or “at the entrance of the harbour.”
Bagtche Kapoussi is located too far inside the Golden Horn to fit this description. It is neither directly opposite such a tower nor close enough to the mouth of the harbour to be described as standing at its entrance. For this reason, it cannot be the Imperial Gate mentioned by these historians Daily Tours Istanbul.
The Two Most Likely Candidates
If we strictly follow the descriptions given by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio, only two gates remain as possible candidates for the Imperial Gate. One is the Gate of Eugenius, also known as Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, which was supported by Gerlach. The other is the Gate of Saint Barbara, or Top Kapoussi, which stands just south of the Seraglio Point.
Because the Gate of Saint Barbara lies very close to the Seraglio Point, it could easily be included in accounts of the defence of the Harbour Walls. Both gates are near the mouth of the Golden Horn and stand opposite a tower described as being “in the middle of the current.”
Strategic and Imperial Importance
Both of these gates occupied positions of great strategic importance, which fits well with what we know about the Basilike Pyle. The Imperial Gate was trusted to important commanders, such as Gabriel of Treviso and the Duke Notaras, which shows how vital its defence was.
Finally, both entrances were historically connected with the Imperial Court. This association may explain why either of them could have been honored with the title “Imperial Gate.”