4 ms·

Constantinople was conquered by the Turks but not only the people but the name of the city (albeit transliterated into Arabic) remained for centuries. Istanbul

Constantinople was conquered by the Turks but not only the people but the name of the city (albeit transliterated into Arabic) remained for centuries. Istanbul wasn't the officially recognized name of the city until the 1930s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul

selimthegrim 3y ago
Yes but the name derives from a much older Greek colloquial expression, see al-Masudi for example.
sedatk 3y ago
Not only had the city's name remained Constantinople, Ottoman Empire had seen itself as the successor of Roman Empire too. One of the official titles of Mehmet the Conqueror was "Kaiser-i Rum" (Caesar of Roman). Ottoman Empire even adopted the Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model at the beginning: mostly dealt with taxes, and refrained from interfering with people's daily lives. The name "Istanbul" is believed to be a contraction of "Eis tin polin" ("To the inner city") in Greek which was a commonly used term in daily chatter, and possibly adopted literally by Turks.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  > Ottoman Empire even adopted the Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model at the beginning: mostly dealt with taxes, and refrained from interfering with people's daily lives. Yup: in fact many Jews, Christian schismatics etc fled from the terrors of the Inquisition in Europe to the Ottoman empire.
- glonq 3y ago
  In my experience, a good way to piss off a Turk is to suggest that their country borrowed or stole anything from Greek language, food, art, or culture!
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    It also goes the other way around. Who would be right here?
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Usually technically the Greeks since the Turks settled the region much later.. I don’t really know why would that ever matter at this point though.
- handwarmers 3y ago
  Ah yes, the hands-off, non-interfering with people's daily lives history of the Ottoman empire. Just like everyone on the Balkans and in Armenia remembers it.
  - sedatk 3y ago
    Which part of "at the beginning" did you miss?
    - handwarmers 3y ago
      "At the beginning" there was a war that the Ottomans won. Then, at that very beginning, all of their non-muslim subjects were given the status of rum millet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet) - second class citizens with very limited rights, who were also, from the beginning, subject to Devshirme, or blood tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme). I am sure there is a lot more of the beginning I am missing. The point is, those were cruel times in most of the world - today we are relatively better off. However, I think we need to acknowledge the cruelty of the past to avoid it in the future. Rewriting history to make ourselves feel better is likely not the solution.
      - sedatk 3y ago
        Yes, and that at the time still was centuries ahead from what had been happening in the rest of the world like forcing polytheists to become Christians, regarding religions like Judaism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism) or Christian sects like Bogomils (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bogomils https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bogomils), Cathars (https://www.thecollector.com/cathars-persecution-of-christians-13th-century/ https://www.thecollector.com/cathars-persecution-of-christia...) as "heretics", calling polytheists "pagans", "witches" and executing anyone who isn't "proper Christian" or forcing them to convert. In contrast, non-Muslim religions in Ottoman Empire had a right to have their own judicial system. They were exempt from laws of sharia. They were free to practice their religion. They were exempt from military conscription. That was way beyond the norms of the era. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Em...) I'm not trying to whitewash Ottoman Empire, I'm just stating the facts. The fact is that Ottoman Empire was relatively progressive at the beginning compared to oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time. Ottoman Empire itself had also succumbed to the same decline and increased oppression over the centuries of course. "Ottoman bad" is just a unconstructive simplistic perspective and fails too short to understand its centuries old reign. Yes, what'd been done to Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white. We're talking about a centuries of different rulers, philosophies, understanding of ethics and morals, and sociopolitical conditions. Do we need to bring up native Americans and slavery whenever we need to praise how progressive US constitution was? As a matter of fact, even during its decline, Ottoman Empire managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality. I think it's more helpful to recognize and understand the nuances of history.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model Is really not something that would describe the medieval Roman empire (or pre-medieval one as well to be fair) very well. It was the most centralized state in Europe well into the high middle ages. It had a large professional army, navy and bureaucracy (unlike every other state) and a relatively very high tax burden to match it. Which is one of the reasons many of their subjects really didn’t mind being conquered that much. The Germans, Arabs, Turks, Bulgarians were generally more “hands-off” and less into persecuting religious minorities (at least during the initial periods after the conquest).

selimthegrim 3y ago

Yes but the name derives from a much older Greek colloquial expression, see al-Masudi for example.

sedatk 3y ago

Not only had the city's name remained Constantinople, Ottoman Empire had seen itself as the successor of Roman Empire too. One of the official titles of Mehmet the Conqueror was "Kaiser-i Rum" (Caesar of Roman). Ottoman Empire even adopted the Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model at the beginning: mostly dealt with taxes, and refrained from interfering with people's daily lives. The name "Istanbul" is believed to be a contraction of "Eis tin polin" ("To the inner city") in Greek which was a commonly used term in daily chatter, and possibly adopted literally by Turks.

resolutebat 3y ago
> Ottoman Empire even adopted the Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model at the beginning: mostly dealt with taxes, and refrained from interfering with people's daily lives. Yup: in fact many Jews, Christian schismatics etc fled from the terrors of the Inquisition in Europe to the Ottoman empire.
glonq 3y ago
In my experience, a good way to piss off a Turk is to suggest that their country borrowed or stole anything from Greek language, food, art, or culture!
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  It also goes the other way around. Who would be right here?
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Usually technically the Greeks since the Turks settled the region much later.. I don’t really know why would that ever matter at this point though.
handwarmers 3y ago
Ah yes, the hands-off, non-interfering with people's daily lives history of the Ottoman empire. Just like everyone on the Balkans and in Armenia remembers it.
- sedatk 3y ago
  Which part of "at the beginning" did you miss?
  - handwarmers 3y ago
    "At the beginning" there was a war that the Ottomans won. Then, at that very beginning, all of their non-muslim subjects were given the status of rum millet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet) - second class citizens with very limited rights, who were also, from the beginning, subject to Devshirme, or blood tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme). I am sure there is a lot more of the beginning I am missing. The point is, those were cruel times in most of the world - today we are relatively better off. However, I think we need to acknowledge the cruelty of the past to avoid it in the future. Rewriting history to make ourselves feel better is likely not the solution.
    - sedatk 3y ago
      Yes, and that at the time still was centuries ahead from what had been happening in the rest of the world like forcing polytheists to become Christians, regarding religions like Judaism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism) or Christian sects like Bogomils (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bogomils https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bogomils), Cathars (https://www.thecollector.com/cathars-persecution-of-christians-13th-century/ https://www.thecollector.com/cathars-persecution-of-christia...) as "heretics", calling polytheists "pagans", "witches" and executing anyone who isn't "proper Christian" or forcing them to convert. In contrast, non-Muslim religions in Ottoman Empire had a right to have their own judicial system. They were exempt from laws of sharia. They were free to practice their religion. They were exempt from military conscription. That was way beyond the norms of the era. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Em...) I'm not trying to whitewash Ottoman Empire, I'm just stating the facts. The fact is that Ottoman Empire was relatively progressive at the beginning compared to oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time. Ottoman Empire itself had also succumbed to the same decline and increased oppression over the centuries of course. "Ottoman bad" is just a unconstructive simplistic perspective and fails too short to understand its centuries old reign. Yes, what'd been done to Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white. We're talking about a centuries of different rulers, philosophies, understanding of ethics and morals, and sociopolitical conditions. Do we need to bring up native Americans and slavery whenever we need to praise how progressive US constitution was? As a matter of fact, even during its decline, Ottoman Empire managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality. I think it's more helpful to recognize and understand the nuances of history.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> Roman Empire's "hands-off" governance model Is really not something that would describe the medieval Roman empire (or pre-medieval one as well to be fair) very well. It was the most centralized state in Europe well into the high middle ages. It had a large professional army, navy and bureaucracy (unlike every other state) and a relatively very high tax burden to match it. Which is one of the reasons many of their subjects really didn’t mind being conquered that much. The Germans, Arabs, Turks, Bulgarians were generally more “hands-off” and less into persecuting religious minorities (at least during the initial periods after the conquest).