Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Once the castle was constructed Firuz

    2018-11-12

    Once the castle was constructed, Firuz Bey was assigned as the commander of the few soldiers in the castle. He was given the authority to control the ships that passed the bosphorus in front of the castle. The ships were forced to pay a certain amount of tax, and those who refused to pay were sunk by canons, which were mostly placed in the front garden (hisar peçe) by the sea. In 1452, some ships managed to pass despite the canons. However, the bosphorus sea traffic was effectively cut in 1453 (Erişmiş, 2012; Freely, 2011; Tamer, 2001; Tracy, 2000). The main materials used in the building included rubble-stone, lime, brick, iron, and wood. The materials and master builders were gathered from various regions of the state. Most of the references determined that the construction of the building was completed within a short period of time under a dense working environment. In 1949 Çetintaş argued that It was impossible to construct such a building in such short period of time, even too much money is spent (Erişmiş, 2012; Ayverdi, 1974,1953; Freely, 2011; Nicolle and Hook, 2000; Sünbüllük, 1950; Erdenen, 2003).
    Importance of fortress Högg and Ayverdi explained the Turkish contributions of the building (Ayverdi, 1974; Ayverdi, 1953; Dağtekin, 1963). The fortress and its towers are among the largest surviving fortification structures in the world (Figs. 4–6,7 and 8a–c). The castle was used as a testing site to develop the canon technology during the period. Within 52 years, the canon technology of the Ottomans developed from a state-of-the-art status to the best of its time. One of these canons is exhibited in the London Canon Museum (Dağtekin, 1963; Tracy, 2000). The first Ottoman mosque built in Istanbul is situated in the castle garden (Figs. 4–6 and 9) (Ayverdi, 1974, 1953; Ilgaz, 1941). The width of the castle walls was thrice the size of Constantinople, which is 2.5m. The canon ball technology at this period proved to be insufficient to destroy walls with a thickness of 7m (Ayverdi, 1974, Kılıçlıoğlu, et al., 1992; Erdenen, 2003). The first two Ottoman inscriptions of İstanbul were placed on the Small and Big ZPTs (Figs. 4–6, and 10c,d) (Ayverdi, 1974, 1953). The fortress served a key function in the process of conquest by cutting the bosphorus, which led to a new age. The building was used as a beta lactamase point and enabled the commander of the fortress to realize offensive attacks. The castle also had a strategic role in the Ottoman Western conquests (Erişmiş, 2012). After the conquest, a district evolved in castle, which was used as a habitation unit (Figs. 4–6, 9). During World War I, the building was used as a signal-processing site, which diverged from the initial construction purpose (Genim, 2006; Sünbüllük, 1950).
    Ruined parts of the building The front garden wall (hisar peçe), bosphorus observation point, lead-covered conical rooftops of towers, internal furnishing of towers, mosque in the garden, district, and springs were destroyed. The front garden wall (hisar peçe), observation point (e), towers (a, b, c, d), springs (s1, s2, s3), and mosque are shown in Figs. 11, 4, and 6 (Erişmiş, 2012). The first Ottoman mosque of İstanbul, which is presently a ruin, has drawn considerable attention (Figs. 4–6). The drawings of Melling and Gabriel reveal that the roofs of four large towers are covered with lead. These roofs are no longer extant (Figs. 4 and 6a–d). Another element that did not survive is the inner furnishings of the towers (Figs. 7 and 8). The houses of the district that evolved inside castle were removed. The front garden of the castle, which is called “hisar peçe,” was destroyed and was replaced by houses and a telegram office. The coastal road building part of the front garden wall was also destroyed. The front garden wall, wherein the great canons were placed, also turned to ruin (Fig. 11) (Ilgaz, 1941; Erdenen, 2003). One of springs (Figs. 6, s1) was built out of concrete, and a museum management building was added during the restoration attempts in the 1950s. The walls of the first mosque of İstanbul were destroyed, and the minaret part was left as a ruin. The Mosque was replaced by a theater scene, which is irrelevant to the historical context of the building, and concrete steps were placed around this scene (Fig. 5). Not only were some castle parts destroyed, but historically irrelevant parts were also added to the building. The castle suffered from natural disasters, such as fires and earthquakes, and some incapable people, who were called architects or architectural organizers, turned the building into its current irrelevant appearance by ignoring the historical context of its construction (Erişmiş, 2012).