Page:Destruction of the Greek Empire.djvu/477

 APPENDIX I 431 the undoubted association of that name with Top Capou, it has been naturally assumed that the chief place of attack was at or near the latter Gate. Even Paspates was driven to disregard the evidence of his own eyes and to fix the assault on the steep part of the slope Dear Top Capou (ILoXiopKia, p. 186). But all observers who have studied the question on the spot, with the exception of Paspates, are now agreed that the chief place of assault was in the Lycus valley. In such case it necessarily follows that the name Eomanus was given during the siege to some other gate than Top Capou. The late Dr. Dethier was the first to suggest that the Gate spoken of by the contemporaries of the siege as St. Eomanus was the Pempton. Let us examine the evidence. It is worthy of note that Phrantzes places Justiniani in the ' region ' or district of the Eomanus Gate. The Italian writers, knowing less of the city, say 1 at ' such Gate. Now what was the Pempton ? Each of the two Civil Gates on the landward side which we need here regard — namely, Top Capou and the Adrianople Gate — crowned a hill on one side of the Lycus valley and was exceptionally strong. They formed, in fact, with their towers and barbicans two of the strongest positions in the landward walls. The bridges across the foss opposite these and the other Civil Gates were intended to be broken down during a siege, and in fact were broken down when Mahomet's siege commenced. 1 The Military Gates which led from the city to the Peribolos were then opened, though they were generally walled up in times of peace. The Pempton or Fifth Military Gate or Gate of the Fifth (for both forms of names are found) was the one which gave access to the Enclosure in the Lycus valley. It was known also in early times as the Gate of St. Kyriake, from a neighbouring church, and as the Gate of Puseus from a Latin inscription still existing upon it, dating probably from the time of Leo the First, recording that Puseus had strengthened it.' 2 It is a remarkable fact that no writer who was either a witness of the siege or subsequently wrote upon it mentions the Pempton either under that name or by those of Kyriake or Puseus. It is impossible to believe that it was not used. It was built for the express purpose of giving access to the troops into the Peribolos within which, beyond all doubt, the most important fighting took place. To admit that Justiniani and the soldiers under him were stationed between the Outer and the Inner Walls in this part and 1 ' Pontes qui ad moenia dueunt dirumpunt.' Pusculus iv. 137. 2 Professor van Millingen's Byzantine Constantinople, p. 96.