Stanford claims that three cardinal sins should

Stanford claims that three cardinal sins should be avoided at all costs: subordinating history to any non-historical theory or ideology, such as religious, economic, philosophical, sociological, and political; neglecting breadth (i.e., failing to take all considerations into account and to do justice to all concerned); and ignoring the suppressing evidence (Stanford, 1994). The first step toward reaching a historical conclusion is to evaluate and criticize all views found in the references (Dobson and Ziemann, 2009).
Result of source criticism Analyzing references or information sources from a critical perspective is necessary. References do not contain absolute truths and could actually contain mistakes that can be detected by discerning minds. In the process of studying the Rumeli Fortress, 52 reference sources were analyzed, and numerous minor and some major mistakes were detected (Erişmiş, 2012). The pieces of information that do not match were identified on subjects such as the physical properties of the castle, number and geometric forms of bastions, positioning of the structure on the land, dimensions of the castle, and distance across the bosphorus. Varying dates were also given for the same events in these sources (Erişmiş, 2012). Another point to be critiqued is that the events in the reference sources were narrated in first person with insufficient evidence. Some of the references that were analyzed contain internally invalid texts that are irrelevant to the historical and scientific method. For example, Eren and Babinger mentions about the hadith which played a motivational role in conquest of Istanbul, however chain of rumour to test the validity of these words is not shared. (Erişmiş, 2012; Eren, 1994; Babinger, 1978). Some references of history were written in a romantic bosentan without attempting to attain objectivity. In some sources, generalizations were made without evidence. Some non-existing properties of the Rumeli Fortress were also shown to be extant. In fact, the very name of the castle “Rumeli Hisarı or Boğazkesen” is rumored to be false in some accounts (Erişmiş, 2012). In summary, references may contain several mistakes, and criticism or “intikad,” which is vital part of history science, should be applied to these sources; otherwise, reaching an unrealistic and unscientific historical conclusion may be regarded as the natural result of a study (Erişmiş, 2012).
Castle and Fatih period Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed II) is the son of Murad II. His grandfather, Bayezıt I, ordered for Anadolu Hisarı to be a strategic base in 1394 (Figs. 2 and 3). Rumeli Hisarı is built on the narrowest area of the bosphorus and was named Boğazkesen in the period of Fatih. The purposes of the structure were to manage the passing ships in the bosphorus, to create a military-financial control point, and to provide a strong fulcrum-resistance base. The acceptance of Fatih on the policy of conquests or “fütühat\", which aimed to conquer İstanbul, resulted in the construction of Rumeli Hisarı. The fortress fulfilled its function of cutting the strait in 1453 (Ayverdi, 1974; Kılıçlıoğlu, et al., 1992; Freely, 2011; Eren, 1994; Uyar and Erickson, 2009). Conquering large castles involves the construction of small fortresses near the city civilizations to weaken the city in question. A few soldiers inhabited these small castles to paralyze the logistic flow of the large castles, which resulted in the weakening and subsequent conquering of the fortress. Bursa, which was the first city taken by the Ottomans, was conquered through this strategy (Ayverdi, 1974; Sünbüllük, 1950). Rumeli Hisarı was built as a dominant base of the region that served as a military center to prevent the ships that carry food from the black sea side from reaching the Constantinople Castle. The fortress was built to inhibit the resources of the castle and to weaken the soldiers that inhabit the castle (Ayverdi, 1974; Ayverdi, 1953; Kılıçlıoğlu, et al., 1992; Tamer, 2001).