Constantinople or Istanbul what do you call it?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I'd rather retake it for the Seljuqs.

Umm..the Seljuks are the Turks so they still have it, don't they?

They're Turks, they were 'the Turks', but they're not the Ottoman Turks.

[Rethymnon]

Well the Ottoman Empire was the heir of the Seljuks if im not mistaken.

[Farnhamia]

Umm..the Seljuks are the Turks so they still have it, don't they?

They're Turks, they were 'the Turks', but they're not the Ottoman Turks.

And the Seljuks never took the City in the first place, so it would be hard to "retake" it for them.

@Rethymnon: The Ottomans were the heir of the Seljuk Sultanate only by default. By that I mean, the Sultanate of Rum was broken up by the Crusades, and the Osmanli emirate ended up as the winner in the struggle to reconsolidate Turkish power in Anatolia. You can't really say that the one blended seamlessly into the other.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Well the Ottoman Empire was the heir of the Seljuks if im not mistaken.

Ertugrul, an Oghuz khan fled Persia to avoid the Mongols and entered the Sultanate of Rum, a state set up by the Seljuqs in Anatolia. He became a retainer of the sultan was was given permission to conquer other areas of Anatolia. His son Osman is the founder of the Ottoman line. The Sultanate of Rum was one of many successor states to the Great Suljuq Empire, and the Ottomans were their retainers, so the Ottomans are not direct descendents of the Seljuqs.

Edit: Ninja'd.

[Tekke]

I call it Istanbul. It's almost 600 years ago since Fatih Sultan Mehmet and his army conquered this city in 1453.
Also I'm referring to 'Selanik' instead of Thessaloniki because it sounds better.
Still a shocking number seeing that almost 50% still call it Constantinople.
Hmm, actually no surprise, the Ottoman Empire was the biggest fear of all Europe.
And calling it Constantinople is some kind of revenge.
That's my point of view.

[Anemos Major]

Constantinople.

[Farnhamia]

I call it Istanbul. It's almost 600 years ago since Fatih Sultan Mehmet and his army conquered this city in 1453.
Also I'm referring to 'Selanik' instead of Thessaloniki.

Interestingly, "Istanbul" did not become the official name of the City until 1930. And if you insist on the Turkish name for a city that is part of Turkey, isn't a little hypocritical to not use the Greek name for a city in Greece?

[Tekke]

I call it Istanbul. It's almost 600 years ago since Fatih Sultan Mehmet and his army conquered this city in 1453.
Also I'm referring to 'Selanik' instead of Thessaloniki.

Interestingly, "Istanbul" did not become the official name of the City until 1930. And if you insist on the Turkish name for a city that is part of Turkey, isn't a little hypocritical to not use the Greek name for a city in Greece?

Nope, in our history books it says 'Istanbul since 1453'.
I'm from Germany by the way.

[Rethymnon]

Interestingly, "Istanbul" did not become the official name of the City until 1930. And if you insist on the Turkish name for a city that is part of Turkey, isn't a little hypocritical to not use the Greek name for a city in Greece?

Nope, in our history books it says 'Istanbul since 1453'.
I'm from Germany by the way.

your book is wrong. Kemal Atatürk renamed Konstantiniye ( turkish name for Konstantinoupolis ) to Instabul in 1930 just like all other cities. ( Smyrna to Izmir, Attleia to Antalya, Hallicarnassus to Bodrum, Trapezounta to Trebizond, Theodosiopolis to Erzerum and so on... )

[Farnhamia]

Interestingly, "Istanbul" did not become the official name of the City until 1930. And if you insist on the Turkish name for a city that is part of Turkey, isn't a little hypocritical to not use the Greek name for a city in Greece?

Nope, in our history books it says 'Istanbul since 1453'.
I'm from Germany by the way.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your history books seem to be misinformed. The official name after 1453 was "Kostantiniyye." The name "Istanbul" itself is Greek in origin, and derives from a Greek phrase meaning "in the City"or "to the City." It's quite old but did not become the Turkish name, officially, until 1930.

[Jakaragua]

Nope, in our history books it says 'Istanbul since 1453'.
I'm from Germany by the way.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your history books seem to be misinformed. The official name after 1453 was "Kostantiniyye." The name "Istanbul" itself is Greek in origin, and derives from a Greek phrase meaning "in the City"or "to the City." It's quite old but did not become the Turkish name, officially, until 1930.

Indeed, because the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are.

Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire.

[Wanderjar]

I call Zimbabwe Rhodesia.

I call Istanbul Constantinople.

Rise oh voices of Rhodesia,
God may we thy bounty share!
Give us strength to face all danger,
and where challenge is to dare!
Guide us Lord to wise decision
Ever of thy grace aware!
Oh, let our hearts beat bravely always
for this land within thy care!

Rise Oh voices of Rhodesia,
Bringing her your proud acclaim!
Grandly echoing through the mountains
Rolling over far flung plain!
Roaring in the mighty rivers,
Joining in one grand refrain!
Ascending to the sunlit heavens,
Telling of her honoured name!

[Jakaragua]

Do I have to remind people that Rhodesia and Ian Smith don't exist anymore?

lan Smith promised the whites who elected him Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1982 that he would keep Rhodesia white, at any cost. To stop the black guerrilla fighters trying to overthrow his regime, Smith rationed food for Africans whom he believed were feeding the guerrillas. This cruel measure only served to starve the already undernourished black population. Studies found that over 90% of Rhodesia's black children were malnourished and nutritional deficiencies were the major cause of infant death. Smith rounded up blacks into concentration camps he called "protective" villages. Believing that ignorant people were less likely to revolt, he cut funding for black education, spending $5 on each black child compared to $80 on each white child. His all white Parliament passed a law protecting officials who took actions for the suppression of "terrorism", enabling the police and military to commit atrocities. An international trade boycott against Rhodesia arose, but while the US publicly condemned the government, it continued to do business there. In 1971, President Nixon lifted the chrome embargo against Rhodesia at a time when there was a surplus of chrome in the US. Blacks were eventually given the right to vote for some officials, but the opposition to Smith's government grew so strong that he was ultimately forced to give up some power to blacks. In 1979, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, a country primarily ruled by blacks.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Th ... ators.html

[Farnhamia]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your history books seem to be misinformed. The official name after 1453 was "Kostantiniyye." The name "Istanbul" itself is Greek in origin, and derives from a Greek phrase meaning "in the City"or "to the City." It's quite old but did not become the Turkish name, officially, until 1930.

Indeed, because the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are.

Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire.

Funny how everyone seems to want to be the Heir of Rome, isn't it?

[Serrland]

Indeed, because the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are.

Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire.

Funny how everyone seems to want to be the Heir of Rome, isn't it?

Sultanate of Rûm tried it a few centuries before, too. And who wouldn't want to be Rome, what with all their fancy robes and circuses and stuff.

[Rethymnon]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your history books seem to be misinformed. The official name after 1453 was "Kostantiniyye." The name "Istanbul" itself is Greek in origin, and derives from a Greek phrase meaning "in the City"or "to the City." It's quite old but did not become the Turkish name, officially, until 1930.

Indeed, because the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are.

Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire.

Regardless of what the Ottoman Emperors considered themselves, fact remains they were NOT the heirs of Rome. The heirs of Rome were the Orthodox Russians, who had brotherly relations with the Byzantines for centuries. And indeed as prophesized, the Third Rome, Moscow, never fell.

Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome". Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).
At the beginning, the notion of "Third Rome" was not necessarily imperial in nature, but rather apocalyptic. Its purpose was to point out the role of Russia as the last small remainder "in the wilderness", of the once-great Christian civilization, most of which had succumbed to heresy - Roman Catholicism was and is considered heretical by many Orthodox believers. Thus Russia was seen as comparable to the seven thousand Israelites who had refused to worship Baal during the lifetime of the prophet Elijah, an immensely popular biblical figure in Orthodoxy.
The story of "Third Rome" ("the second Constantine") started in Tver, during the reign of Boris of Tver, when the monk Foma (Thomas) of Tver had written The Eulogy of the Pious Grand Prince Boris Alexandrovich in 1453.
The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) of Pskov in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III, which proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!" Contrary to the common misconception, Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Muscovy (the country) rather than with Moscow (the city).
In addition, Moscow is placed on seven hills, as was Rome.

[Shmeitel]

I like to call it Kushtandina, though I suppose Istanbul will do.

[Ceannairceach]

Regardless of what the Ottoman Emperors considered themselves, fact remains they were NOT the heirs of Rome. The heirs of Rome were the Orthodox Russians, who had brotherly relations with the Byzantines for centuries. And indeed as prophesized, the Third Rome, Moscow, never fell.

I'd consider the fall to the Bolsheviks the fall of the Third Rome...

But anyway, they both share some semblance of the heir to Rome. The Russians kept alive the history yes, but the Ottomans did the same, and even went as far as holding much of the original territories.

But it doesn't really matter. Rome is dead, the same as Constantinople.

[Farnhamia]

Indeed, because the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are.

Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire.

Regardless of what the Ottoman Emperors considered themselves, fact remains they were NOT the heirs of Rome. The heirs of Rome were the Orthodox Russians, who had brotherly relations with the Byzantines for centuries. And indeed as prophesized, the Third Rome, Moscow, never fell.

Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome". Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).
At the beginning, the notion of "Third Rome" was not necessarily imperial in nature, but rather apocalyptic. Its purpose was to point out the role of Russia as the last small remainder "in the wilderness", of the once-great Christian civilization, most of which had succumbed to heresy - Roman Catholicism was and is considered heretical by many Orthodox believers. Thus Russia was seen as comparable to the seven thousand Israelites who had refused to worship Baal during the lifetime of the prophet Elijah, an immensely popular biblical figure in Orthodoxy.
The story of "Third Rome" ("the second Constantine") started in Tver, during the reign of Boris of Tver, when the monk Foma (Thomas) of Tver had written The Eulogy of the Pious Grand Prince Boris Alexandrovich in 1453.
The idea crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philoteus (Filofey) of Pskov in 1510 to their son Grand Duke Vasili III, which proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!" Contrary to the common misconception, Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Muscovy (the country) rather than with Moscow (the city).
In addition, Moscow is placed on seven hills, as was Rome.

Never fell?

[Ceannairceach]

Never fell?

(Image)

Yes, I consider the death of the Tsar and the removal of the Tsarist regime to be the fall of the third Rome as well.

[Rethymnon]

Regime change?? Are you serious? When a city "falls" it means to a foreign power. What you guys are talking about is fall of governments. Imperial, Communist and Federal governments were all Russian and not of another land. So no, its not Moscow that fell but its Russian leaders by other Russians. If what you say bore any sense then Rome would have fallen when the government changed from a Republic to an Imperium.

[Western Darenjo]

Istanbul. Rome died a long time ago. The city legitimately belongs to Turkey, so I'll sue the Turkish name.

[Farnhamia]

Regime change?? Are you serious? When a city "falls" it means to a foreign power. What you guys are talking about is fall of governments. Imperial, Communist and Federal governments were all Russian and not of another land. So no, its not Moscow that fell but its Russian leaders by other Russians. If what you say bore any sense then Rome would have fallen when the government changed from a Republic to an Imperium.

Never fell? July, 1610; September, 1812.

[Ceannairceach]

Regime change?? Are you serious? When a city "falls" it means to a foreign power. What you guys are talking about is fall of governments. Imperial, Communist and Federal governments were all Russian and not of another land. So no, its not Moscow that fell but its Russian leaders by other Russians. If what you say bore any sense then Rome would have fallen when the government changed from a Republic to an Imperium.

I consider it the fall of the Republic and what the Republic stood for, and the rise of the Empire and what it stood for. Though, the Tsardom of Russia and the USSR were polar opposites, so I do consider it the fall of the Third Rome.

[Farnhamia]

Regime change?? Are you serious? When a city "falls" it means to a foreign power. What you guys are talking about is fall of governments. Imperial, Communist and Federal governments were all Russian and not of another land. So no, its not Moscow that fell but its Russian leaders by other Russians. If what you say bore any sense then Rome would have fallen when the government changed from a Republic to an Imperium.

I consider it the fall of the Republic and what the Republic stood for, and the rise of the Empire and what it stood for. Though, the Tsardom of Russia and the USSR were polar opposites, so I do consider it the fall of the Third Rome.

Besides, by his own definition, Moscow fell at least twice since 1453.