The identification of the Gate of the Neorion with the Horaia Pyle creates an important historical problem. This problem appears because it causes a contradiction between the historian Ducas and several other Byzantine historians. The disagreement concerns the location where the southern end of the great defensive chain across the Golden Horn was fixed during the siege of Constantinople in 1453.
The chain played a key role in protecting the city. It blocked enemy ships from entering the Golden Horn, which was one of the most vulnerable parts of the city’s defenses. Because of its importance, the exact location of the chain’s attachment point matters greatly for understanding the siege Names of the Gate in the Sixteenth Century.
Ducas and His Account
According to Ducas, the southern end of the chain was fastened to what he calls the “Beautiful Gate.” His statement suggests that this gate was the Gate of the Neorion. If this is true, then the chain would have been placed farther inside the harbor than most historians believe.
However, this view creates serious strategic problems. If the chain had been attached at the Gate of the Neorion, a large part of the city’s northern shoreline would have been left unprotected. This would have allowed the Turkish fleet to control the Neorion harbor and threaten the ships stationed there.
Other Historians and Strategic Logic
Other historians strongly disagree with Ducas. Critobulus states that the chain was attached to the Gate of Eugenius, also known as Yali Kiosk Kapoussi. This gate stood closer to the head of the promontory. His view is supported by Phrantzes and Chalcocondylas Local Guide Istanbul.
Phrantzes explains that the chain stood at the mouth of the harbor. Chalcocondylas adds that it was fixed to the wall of the Acropolis. These descriptions match the Gate of Eugenius, not the Gate of the Neorion.
From a military point of view, their accounts make much more sense. Placing the chain at the entrance of the harbor followed all known rules of strategy. It protected the entire northern side of the city and prevented enemy ships from entering the Golden Horn.
The Key Question
Because of these differences, historians face an important question. Was Ducas mistaken about the gate to which the chain was attached? Or should the traditional view held in sixteenth-century Constantinople, which placed the Horaia Pyle at the Neorion, be rejected as incorrect?
To defend Ducas, one must consider how he uses the name Horaia Pyle in other parts of his work. In several passages, his descriptions suggest that he actually refers to the gate near the head of the promontory, which is the Gate of Eugenius.
Evidence from Ducas’ Own Writing
When Ducas describes the defensive arrangements of the city’s seaward walls, he divides them into two sections. First, he mentions the stretch from the Xyline Porta at the western end of the Harbor Walls to the Horaia Pyle. Then, he describes the defenses from the Horaia Pyle to the Golden Gate along the Sea of Marmara.
In another passage, Ducas describes the Ottoman naval blockade outside the chain. He says it began at the Horaia Pyle and continued past the Acropolis, the Church of Saint Demetrius, the Gate of the Hodegetria, the Great Palace, and the harbor of Kontoscalion, reaching as far as Vlanga.
These descriptions strongly suggest that Ducas used the name Horaia Pyle for the Gate of Eugenius. Therefore, his account does not necessarily conflict with other historians. Instead, the confusion may come from later interpretations of gate names rather than from Ducas himself.