Constantinople or Istanbul what do you call it?

[The Deleted Chris]

Istanbul is the correct name, and thus, I call it Istanbul. Constantinople was never a good name anyhow.

Technically Istanbul is a rendering of tan polis, the Hellenic colloquialism by which Constantinople was known, equivalent to Roman use of urbs to denote Rome.

And Constantinople was a fine name, in the finest Hellenistic tradition of eponymous city names.

[Koroscova]

It'll always be Constantinople to me. No offense to anyone, I have Turkish friends, but I was brought up around that name, hearing of the great Christian city which was the stronghold for the true Church and on and on...

I think people, who regarded Constantinople as such the symbol of Christendom, were totally mortified when the Turks captured it and turned that massive cathedral there into a mosque. But come on....seriously. The other European countries completely ignored Constantinople's plight and let it fall...so the blame really rests with them anyways. The city wasn't going to realistically hold out forever....

[Tambio]

The conquerors are the ones who get to write history, and if that includes changing a city name, then that's that. End of story. You can't do anything about it once that happens.

The Byzantine Empire would've fallen sooner or later. While I feel for the Europeans who think Christian Constantinople should be theirs, the Ottomans fought and died to get that city. If they really wanted it that bad, then they would've gotten it eventually.

[Serrland]

In the modern context, Istanbul. In historical context, Constantinople or Byzantium, depending on the era in question.

[Baltenstein]

While the idea that Istanbul will be reborn as an Orthodox Constantinople is - as I pointed out - ridiculous, the Turks are not in the position to point fingers when it comes to historical revisionism (Armenian genocide, anyone?).
Let's not forget that they are still - as in, presently - trying to erase the city's Christian history and heritage, and the institutions representing it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

While the idea that Istanbul will be reborn as an Orthodox Constantinople is - as I pointed out - ridiculous, the Turks are not in the position to point fingers when it comes to historical revisionism (Armenian genocide, anyone?).
Let's not forget that they are still - as in, presently - trying to erase the city's Christian history and heritage, and the institutions representing it.

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

[United Mercenary Firms]

While the idea that Istanbul will be reborn as an Orthodox Constantinople is - as I pointed out - ridiculous, the Turks are not in the position to point fingers when it comes to historical revisionism (Armenian genocide, anyone?).
Let's not forget that they are still - as in, presently - trying to erase the city's Christian history and heritage, and the institutions representing it.

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Those were the Catholic Franks, not the Orthodox Greeks. Remember the Fourth Crusade? The Crusaders sacked Constantinople and plundered its priceless Byzantine treasures when they were supposed to be attacking Egypt and Palestine.

Christian and Muslim alike suffered from these Northmen.

[CTALNH]

Well I may be a communist but I still got a lttle nationalism left in me so I call it constantinople

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Those were the Catholic Franks, not the Orthodox Greeks. Remember the Fourth Crusade? The Crusaders sacked Constantinople and plundered its priceless Byzantine treasures when they were supposed to be attacking Egypt and Palestine.

I was going to add that it was also about Catholic versus Orthodox, but I don't want to derail this thread. I may have done that, though... -_-'

[The Deleted Chris]

While the idea that Istanbul will be reborn as an Orthodox Constantinople is - as I pointed out - ridiculous, the Turks are not in the position to point fingers when it comes to historical revisionism (Armenian genocide, anyone?).
Let's not forget that they are still - as in, presently - trying to erase the city's Christian history and heritage, and the institutions representing it.

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Dubious. The first crusade, certainly, owed more to Byzantine anxiety about Seljuk conquests, and Urban II's political and military ambitions for the papacy. However, post-Byzantine Constantinople suffered far less than it might have. In part, this is because the fourth crusade denuded the city of much of the material wealth and ornanmentation that had survived earthquake and time, but in comparison to Spanish architectural politics in Cordoba, the Ottomans were relatively restrained in Constantinople.

[Geniasis]

LOL!

It is correct of the Turks to call it Istanbul. They own the city. Once again, no amount of historical or emotional wankering changes that.

I respect your point of view, and you make a great arguement, but I am afraid the city's Western name is Constantinople.

Nope. The West recognizes it as Istanbul. I can understand your frustration, Constantinople's been a long time gone after all. Why, I once had a date in Constantinople and missed it because I didn't realize she was waiting in Istanbul! On the plus side, it is a Turkish delight, especially on moonlit nights.

To answer the underlying concern, I don't know why they changed it. Perhaps it's like in the case of New Amsterdam, which has since become Old New York (as people preferred.) But why, specifically, did Constantinople get the works? I suppose that's nobody's business but the Turks.

[Baltenstein]

While the idea that Istanbul will be reborn as an Orthodox Constantinople is - as I pointed out - ridiculous, the Turks are not in the position to point fingers when it comes to historical revisionism (Armenian genocide, anyone?).
Let's not forget that they are still - as in, presently - trying to erase the city's Christian history and heritage, and the institutions representing it.

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Not a chance. We're talking about real-life discrimination and intimidation of living people here. Meanwhile, the Turks (both the Turkish goverment and local communities) are talking about "Islamophobia" every time somebody publicly badmotuhs the Turkish minorities in Germany, the Netherlands etc. They don't seem to particulary care about the European memory of the siege of Vienna (Far more recent than the Crusades, which where Catholic anyway), at all.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Constantinople is just a local name now, and a few Christians use it, especially among the Greeks and other Balkan peoples, who regard the very name 'Constantinople' and its colorful Byzantine history as a big part of their culture and such.

Istanbul is the official name and probably the most widely-recognized. The Muslims use it a lot, but actually, most of these traditionally Muslim nations called it Constantinople for as long as the Europeans did. Istanbul just sounds better as a Turkish name, since now it is part of Turkey, and no doubt always will be.

lol

[Christantle]

I call it Constantinople because my dad has decendants born into the Byzantine Empire

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Dubious. The first crusade, certainly, owed more to Byzantine anxiety about Seljuk conquests, and Urban II's political and military ambitions for the papacy. However, post-Byzantine Constantinople suffered far less than it might have. In part, this is because the fourth crusade denuded the city of much of the material wealth and ornanmentation that had survived earthquake and time, but in comparison to Spanish architectural politics in Cordoba, the Ottomans were relatively restrained in Constantinople.

The Turks didn't really want to destroy the city. My point is, can you really blame the Turks for wanting to erase any signs of Christianity in a city that belongs to them? It is not only an instance of Istanbul. The Turks were engaged in myriad battles with Christianity, for example, the Balkans. Their experience with Christians wasn't good. Just like the experience of Christians with Turks wasn't good either.

I am sure that if Istanbul were to be reclaimed by a Christian nation, all traces of an Islamic past will be systematically erased. What can't be erased, will probably be transformed.

[Chinese Regions]

Depends which point of history. Ironically Istanbul is Greek for "in the city"

[Serrland]

I know this thread is not for this but, can you blame the Turks, or the Arabs, for trying to eliminate any trace of Christianity in a city like Istanbul, among others?

You do remember that it was the Christians, who in 1096 with the First Crusade, initiated an all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews that lasted until 1270.

Dubious. The first crusade, certainly, owed more to Byzantine anxiety about Seljuk conquests, and Urban II's political and military ambitions for the papacy. However, post-Byzantine Constantinople suffered far less than it might have. In part, this is because the fourth crusade denuded the city of much of the material wealth and ornanmentation that had survived earthquake and time, but in comparison to Spanish architectural politics in Cordoba, the Ottomans were relatively restrained in Constantinople.

Not to mention describing the crusades as an "all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews" is equally dubious. There were extended periods of peace and coexistence throughout the years between Urban's address at Clermont and the death of Louis IX - it might be more accurate to say that it was a sporadic at best effort to take military action against a variety of foes - remember that the first crusade saw much of the action directed against Turkish warlords, too, not Arab leaders.

[Old Tyrannia]

I have always and will always call it Constantinople. Byzantium will rise again my brothers!

I highly doubt it, considering that it was just a Greek backwater trading town. The Byzantine Empire, however...
I call it Constantinople out of familiarity, as I read a lot about the Byzantines. It can confuse my family and friends a lot, as they just call it Istanbul. Officially, it was still Constantinople right up till the First World War.

[Baltenstein]

The Turks didn't really want to destroy the city. My point is, can you really blame the Turks for wanting to erase any signs of Christianity in a city that belongs to them? It is not only an instance of Istanbul. The Turks were engaged in myriad battles with Christianity, for example, the Balkans. Their experience with Christians wasn't good. Just like the experience of Christians with Turks wasn't good either.

So by that logic, European rightwingers who want to teach the respective Muslim communities in their countries a lesson or two, are actually right?

I am sure that if Istanbul were to be reclaimed by a Christian nation, all traces of an Islamic past will be systematically erased. What can't be erased, will probably be transformed.

That is, by the way, the reasoning of Turkish nationalists/Islamists and their justification for threatening and harassing the local Christians.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The Turks didn't really want to destroy the city. My point is, can you really blame the Turks for wanting to erase any signs of Christianity in a city that belongs to them? It is not only an instance of Istanbul. The Turks were engaged in myriad battles with Christianity, for example, the Balkans. Their experience with Christians wasn't good. Just like the experience of Christians with Turks wasn't good either.

So by that logic, European rightwingers who want to teach the respective Muslim communities in their countries a lesson or two, are actually right?

I am sure that if Istanbul were to be reclaimed by a Christian nation, all traces of an Islamic past will be systematically erased. What can't be erased, will probably be transformed.

That is, by the way, the reasoning of Turkish nationalists/Islamists and their justification for threatening and harassing the local Christians.

I'm not excusing this kind of behavior, if that's what you think. But it is understandable that they wish to do this. It doesn't make it right.

[The Deleted Chris]

Dubious. The first crusade, certainly, owed more to Byzantine anxiety about Seljuk conquests, and Urban II's political and military ambitions for the papacy. However, post-Byzantine Constantinople suffered far less than it might have. In part, this is because the fourth crusade denuded the city of much of the material wealth and ornanmentation that had survived earthquake and time, but in comparison to Spanish architectural politics in Cordoba, the Ottomans were relatively restrained in Constantinople.

Not to mention describing the crusades as an "all out assault on the lands of the Moors and the Jews" is equally dubious. There were extended periods of peace and coexistence throughout the years between Urban's address at Clermont and the death of Louis IX - it might be more accurate to say that it was a sporadic at best effort to take military action against a variety of foes - remember that the first crusade saw much of the action directed against Turkish warlords, too, not Arab leaders.

And was, in part, a reaction to growing Islamic repression of Christians in Al-Andalus.

[Zhenghou]

So by that logic, European rightwingers who want to teach the respective Muslim communities in their countries a lesson or two, are actually right?


That is, by the way, the reasoning of Turkish nationalists/Islamists and their justification for threatening and harassing the local Christians.

I'm not excusing this kind of behavior, if that's what you think. But it is understandable that they wish to do this. It doesn't make it right.

Well, the Turks were just some nomads who got lucky with a succession of good leaders

[Arkinesia]

It's Istanbul, everyone's moved on.

*looks at poll*

Except for like 2/3 of NSG…god.

[Serrland]

It's Istanbul, everyone's moved on.

*looks at poll*

Except for like 2/3 of NSG…god.

The poll is somewhat flawed in that it doesn't mention context. If I'm writing for an examination or paper, I'll use what is period appropriate. If I'm talking about the modern city, I'll use Istanbul. While the OP does say "in modern times" he doesn't specify what context, which makes all the difference.

[Oterro]

It's Istanbul, everyone's moved on.

*looks at poll*

Except for like 2/3 of NSG…god.

Well no wonder, Istanbul is an ugly, ugly name.

Plus Medieval 2.

Medieval 2! D: