Page:Destruction of the Greek Empire.djvu/476

 430 DESTEUCTION OF THE GEEEK EMPIEE p. 27 he describes the repair of the walls going on at the Gate called San Eomano. On p. 40 he again says that the weakest place in the landward walls was at San Eomano, ' dove che iera roto le mure.' On p. 53 he adds that the Turks fought furiously ' da la banda da tera, da la banda de San Eomano dove che iera el pavion ' of the emperor. On the same page he describes them again as still fighting 1 da la banda de San Eomano.' On p. 55 he describes the entry of the Turks into the city as being ' da la banda de San Eomano, ' and on p. 57 he states that the emperor was killed at the entry which the Turks had made ' a la porta de San Eomano.' According, therefore, to Barbaro, the Eomanus Gate is the central place of attack and of capture. But Barbaro was a Venetian, and probably did not know the city well. Phrantzes and Ducas, however, were citizens. The first, on p. 254, says that Justiniani took charge of the defence iv rots /xepecri tyjs irvXrjs rov aytov 'Pw/xavoS, which the Bonn editor trans- lates correctly by saying that he defended the ' regionem ad portam Sancti Eomani.' Phrantzes further identifies the place by saying it was where the Turks had stationed their largest gun because the walls were convenient for attack and because the sultan's tent was pitched opposite. As to the position of the sultan's tent Phrantzes and others say that it was opposite the Eomanus Gate. Ducas, however, states that it was opposite the Chariseus or Adrianople Gate. Phrantzes, p. 287, says further that the emperor and many soldiers fell iv ra> T07ra> €K€tVo) 7t)<tlov t?}s irvXrjs tov ayCov e Poo/xavoS where the Turks had built their wooden tower and stationed their largest gun. Ducas says that the Turks placed this big gun near (ttA^ow) the Eomanus Gate. He further de- scribes the destruction of the tower (presumably the Bactatinean mentioned by Leonard) which was near the Eomanus Gate. Other authors could be cited who use similar expressions. In fact, all the evidence is in favour of my first proposition, that the principal place of attack was at or near the Eomanus Gate. (2) It is undisputed that Top Capou (that is, Cannon Gate) was known in early times as the Gate of St. Eomanus. It is men- tioned under that name, for example, in the 'Paschal Chronicle ' in the time of Heraclius, and again in the reign of Andronicus the First by Nicephorus Gregoras (ix. ch. 6), and as late as the middle of the fourteenth century by Cantacuzenus (p. 142, Ven. ed.). (3 & 4) The evidence to show that the final assault was not at or near Top Capou is abundant. Owing, however, to the constant mention of St. Eomanus and