A Longer Route, but Not an Impossible One
Although the Dolmabahçe route was longer than the road from Tophane, this disadvantage was not serious. The distance was still reasonable and well within what could be achieved with the resources available to Sultan Mehmed II. More importantly, the extra length of the route was compensated by several major advantages that made the Dolmabahçe route far more suitable for the Sultan’s plan.
The success of the operation did not depend only on speed or short distance. It depended on preparation, secrecy, safety, and control. When these factors are considered together, the Dolmabahçe route clearly offered better conditions than any shorter alternative The Problem of the “Seventy Stadia”.
Starting from the Ottoman Fleet’s Normal Anchorage
One of the greatest advantages of the Dolmabahçe route was its starting point. The route began from the usual anchorage of the Ottoman fleet in the Bosporus. This location already contained everything needed for the operation. Ships, sailors, tools, timber, animals, and manpower were readily available.
Because this was the normal station of the fleet, the presence of a large number of vessels would not attract suspicion. No unusual movements needed to be explained, and no special gathering of ships would alarm the defenders of Constantinople. This made it much easier to keep the Sultan’s plan secret.
Safety from Enemy Interference
Another important advantage was security. At this Bosporus location, the Ottomans did not fear attack from the Greeks or their allies. The area was far from the chain blocking the Golden Horn and beyond the reach of enemy ships. This allowed preparations to be carried out calmly and without interruption.
The Sultan could take as much time as needed to level the ground, prepare the wooden tracks, and organize the workforce. The secrecy of the operation could be preserved until the moment when the ships were finally moved at night Tour Packages Bulgaria.
The Overall Fitness of the Dolmabahçe Route
When judged by its overall suitability for the Sultan’s plan, the Dolmabahçe route had more to recommend it than any other. It balanced distance with safety, secrecy, and practicality. Even though the route was longer, it made the entire operation more reliable and less risky.
From this point of view, the Dolmabahçe route was not merely acceptable—it was the best possible choice when all factors are taken into account.
Confusion in Turkish Historical Accounts
Unfortunately, Turkish historians do not provide clear or helpful information on this subject. Some later accounts are confusing and even contradictory. The traveler Evliya Çelebi, for example, claims that the ships were not brought from the Bosporus at all. According to him, some vessels were built at Kağıthane, also known as the Sweet Waters, at the head of the Golden Horn. Others, he says, were constructed at Levend Çiftlik.
This Levend Çiftlik was probably the Küçük Levend Çiftlik, located high up the longer branch of the Dolmabahçe valley, and not the Levend Çiftlik near Balta Limanı. Evliya Çelebi further claims that these ships were transported to the Golden Horn through Okmeydanı, passing behind Hasköy and through the gardens of the Imperial Arsenal (Tersane Bahçesi).
Other Turkish Views
Another Turkish source offers a different version, stating simply that the ships were carried from Dolmabahçe to Kasımpaşa. This account, while brief, fits more closely with Western eyewitness testimony, but still lacks detail.
In conclusion, although the Dolmabahçe route was longer, it offered decisive advantages in secrecy, safety, and preparation. The confusing nature of later Turkish accounts only strengthens the value of contemporary Western eyewitnesses. When all evidence is considered together, the Dolmabahçe route remains the most reasonable and well-supported explanation for the transport of the Ottoman ships into the Golden Horn.
