Talk:Constantinople

Why the history ends at 1453 ?

The title History in the article refers to "History of the name Constantinople", or "History of the city" ? I think history after 1453 should be added to this article independent or merge discussions.

We can rather change the title as: Constantinople before 1453

I think this has been done because the city's name changed. I don;t know enough about the subject to help you more than that; but please be careful, though, it sucks to get blocked because of the 3 revert rule. Ahudson 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

~~ Where is it documented that the name changed after 1453? Wasn't it officially changed much later, around 1930s? by ApplesnPeaches ~~

Officially, but the name Constantinople had long been out of use by the '30s. JonnyLightning 21:22, 3 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.102.71 (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leecharleswalker (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople. --Pete 06:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The name Constantinople was pretty universally used by westerners until 1930, in addition to being the official name. john k 07:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You might think that it is nonsense but it was refered as istanbul by his rulers and legaly its called istanbul an dits pretty good to end it whit the conquest of İSTANBUL.

I have several atlases that pre-date 1930, and they all say Constantinople, with the occasional book having (Istanbul) in brackets. Dinkytown (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion

Date for name change from Constantinople to Istanbul is marked as 1930 according to the wiki Istanbul page. Please stop changing the date from 1930 to 1453 to coincide with the fall of Constantinople.K...

--- The toolbox "What links here" has many links that could be worked into text for this still very brief entry. Wetman 07:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- Shouldn't this be a redirect to Istanbul? Chris5369 22:10 EST, Jan 18th, 2005

should'nt the word "bosporus" on the map be re-labeled "bosphorus" since it is its correct spelling?

The correct transliteration is indeed "Bosporus" (from «ΒΟΣΠΟΡΟΣ») - there is a «Π» in there, not a «Φ». Note the contrast with «ΦΩΣΦΟΡΟΣ» (from which the english word "phosphor" is derived) and which seems to be the reason some people get confused. I am proceeding to correct this spelling. (Note from a native speaker)

144.32.81.175 2 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

It came to my attention that the date the Fall of Constantinople happened, was May 29 according to Julian and not Gregorian calendar. It was a Tuesday. Should the date change to June 7 or note the different calendar? --geraki 20:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the calendar it should stay Julian: anyone who cares should know that all dates were affected by the calendar change and will know that for certain purposes they need to make adjustments. Mark O'Sullivan 13:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On the spelling point, "Bosporus" (from πορος, a ford) is I'm sure correct. But "Bosphorus" (presumably with reference to φερω, to bear, or its frequentative φορεω) is an ancient spelling ("Bosforus" is sometimes found in Latin manuscripts). So it's not just a recent or ignorant mistake. Mark O'Sullivan 16:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Istanbul

Actually, "Istanbul" did not become the official name until Ataturk. It was referred to colloquially as Istanbul, or Stambol, wich probably derive from the Greek expression εις την πόλιν, eis tim boli "in the city." The Greeks themselves often referred to it as η Πόλις, "The City." The sultans liked to think of themelves as the successors to Byzantium, so they kept the name officially intact, in its Arabic form Qusţanţaniyyeh (قسطنطنيه) Check the Istanbul article for more info. --Jpbrenna 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is true, but Turkish tribes have used "Istanbul", if only in common tongue, since the 11th century or so. There is also a document where both "Constantinople" and "Istanbul" are used- see http://www.sephardicstudies.org/istanbul.html -RomeW

But the song sure was catchy. --Isequals 06:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"The sultans liked to think of themelves as the successors to Byzantium"

What are you? Psychologist to Sultans?--Kagan the Barbarian 10:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One note, εις την πόλιν is transliterated "eis ten polis." Thanatosimii 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kagan the Barbarian: I ve heart too that the Sultans regarded themselves as successors of the Byzantine empirors or at least the Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople/Istanbul regarded them as such. Now, maybe this information is not correct, but various scholars support it. It's also correct that the city used to be called Constantinople in official documents until the Turkish government changed the name (i suppose the date above-1930- is correct). Of course the people might have used different names, but in official documents this is how the city was called. Thanatosimii: Now about how Greek should be transliterated (eis tin polin or eis ten polin), well "ten" is the more standard one . However, the pronunciation of the Greek as was spoken at the time (15th-16th cent) was probably closer to "tin" than to "ten". --Greece666 21:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit, which said in brief that the name Istanbul means "The City". I think this is not relevant to an article on Constantinople, and belongs in the article on Istanbul (I have also read that "Istanbul" is a corruption of the Greek "eis ten polin" (see above), which implies that any elaboration about "Istanbul" could get us immersed in Graeco-Turkish conflicts again): best imho to keep it simple and leave it out. Deipnosophista (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Norse name for the city

I am working on redirecting wikilinks to bypass the disambiguation page Norse. In Note 1 "Miklagard" is noted as the "Norse" name; could someone clarify which language this refers to? ... the Norse page has references to most that would fall under that category. Thanks for considering this. Courtland 01:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Why are the Norse and Icelandic names being listed here anyway? --Revolución (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume because of the Varangian Guard. Olessi 05:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Or because someone has read Stephen Lawhead's Byzantium? MnJWalker 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK,the article about Constantinople is very well written but I am wondering why do you think that it is important to put in here the Norse name of the city and not even mention the name that the Slavs have given it:Carigrad ( Car-Emperor, Tzar; Grad-city )=Imperial City, City of the Emperor Not only did the Empire control a large area where Slavs lived it also had signed agreements with e.g. Croatian kings and dukes,Serbian dukes and others. Besides Dalmatian cities were very important to the Empire before they were passed on to the Croatian king. And those cities had a mixed Roman-Croatian population that reffered to their capital city as Konstantinopolis, Carigrad etc. Kontrolleur Cro 15:52, February 10 2008 (UTC)

I don't: in my view the only relevant name is the English one: Constantinople. Let the "Norse" name go in the Norse wikipedia and the "Slav" name in the Slav wikipedia (if either exist), and let's save space in the English wikipedia for material which belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a language dictionary. Deipnosophista (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know for sure that the Swedish name Mikligarðr is sometimes mentioned in popular introductions on Byzantium. The relevancy would probably be that it shows some light on how Byzantium was viewed upon during an early period of cultural or economical exchange between the eastern Mediterranean and northern Europe (the means of the exchange being the Varangians). Iblardi (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I get it but I just wanted to state out that while this is an English Wiki there is the Norse name and no Slav name. Nothing else nothing more. And while this is interesting ( reffering to the talk about connections between North and South of Europe ) it would only be fair to put it in since the two names are equally important :)

Kontrolleur Cro (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008

More needed

I have done a fair amount on this article over the last few days but must now leave it for a bit. It needs IMHO a fair bit more on religion (Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, maybe more on the effects of iconoclasm, something on monasticism), and city politics (eg John the Cappadocian), industry (including silk) and administration (including street lighting), and a bit more on 1204 and 1453. I think it would be nice to have a section on daily life as well: there are some decent sources on this. A more detailed map would be good too: the one on p 66 of Bury is out of copyright and suitable.

Mark O'Sullivan 13:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A link to Isauria in the paragraph on the Isaurians would be helpful. Kember 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Another weakpoint of this article that I noticed was that it does not describe the economy of Constantinople, not mentioning the trade routes that passed through it to Scandinavia or the trade with the Islamic Empire and Asia. Leobaumgart 07:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not much pleased by the complete ommitance of the city's situation under the Macedonian emperors. In fact, after discussing the city during Justinian, everything peters out to what I'd consider section stubs. Ryan 04:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter point now seems to have been cured, but at the cost of treating the article a bit as though it was about the Byzantine Empire rather than Constantinople. Deipnosophista 08:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

I'm surprised that there hasn't been any discussion at all on this page about whether or not the article ought to be merged with Istanbul, or vice versa. I wouldn't care which direction the merge went, but these really look like duplicate articles to me. --arkuat (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that there has been some discussion on Talk:Istanbul (proposing a three-way merger including Byzantium), but nothing conclusive. --arkuat (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that logically a Constantinople article should run at least from 330 to 1923/1930, when there was a big change with it stopping being the capital, the Greeks being expelled &c. The problem is really length: to keep the article within bounds it needs to be broken up somehow, if the matter is to be dealt with in reasonable detail. It's true that by 1453 the city was almost a scatter of villages, and that it was extensively repopulated by Mehmet II, so that's not a bad caesura. Mark O'Sullivan 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better not to merge them. If for no other reason than so many history articles reference Constantinople. Stbalbach 17:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I merged Tsargrad into this, because Tsargrad was just a stub about a historical Slavic name for this city. --Revolución (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am against merging the articles for the following reasons:

1. The city has a three thousand year history. However what is even more important, is that it was the capital of two of the history's biggest empires (in age and areas covered). Both empires have a common history in the areas they controlled, but they are also radically different. Both phases of the history of the city had different identities.
2. As there is such a long history, to put it all on one page would be way too long
3. Imperial Constantinople - Byzantine and Ottoman - is very different from "major city" Istanbul. The name change indicates the change in the role of the city - in fact, the reason why it was finally changed by the Turks, was to distance the city from the New Republics imperial past. The Istanbul page should reflect the modern day city.

Elias Bizannes 18:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• But Tsargrad was never part of the Russian Empire, and was just a name for the city, so it like the stub Konstantiniyye, needs to be merged and redirected. --Revolución (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am opposed to any merges at this point and would instead suggest a series. Starting with Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul, then it could describe then a link could be made to the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottomon Empire, finally the history of other names such as the Slavic one. Byzantine is one of the most important cities in history rivaling Athens, Rome, Moscow, Jerusalem, Mecca, Lhassa etc. In fact I would have to put it in my top 5 but that is irrelevant. This article's history is complicated enough to merit its own series. Falphin 19:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Drafting

I have reverted a number of recent edits. Reasons include:

• I disagree with the proposal that the reason for choosing Constantinople as a capital was that it was on a hill and could only be attacked from one side. It is not on a hill but at sea level, although it encloses several hills. That it was accessible only from one side by land may have weighed with the founders of Byzantium, but hardly with Constantine, who is scarcely likely to have imagined enemies ever getting so far from the frontiers. But, above all, these reasons are naive and simplistic, and poor history.

• The spelling of 'Sophia' in English is thus, not 'Sofia' (however much the latter may be used by modern Greeks when they write in the Latin alphabet). Look at Bury if you don't know this.

• The amendments about St Sophia when founded by Constantine are wrong, as they confuse his church with the one erected by Justinian.

• I prefer a more dignified style for an article like this.

• "it will have seemed unthinkable to suggest that that capital be moved" is correct. Changing "will" to "would" would imply doubt about whether it was unthinkable or not, while removing the auxiliary verb would imply wrongly that we know for a fact that someone did think that. We know securely now that it was then unthinkable to people...until Constantine came along and thought it.

• Constantine did not raze the temples of Byzantium: he removed the roofs (this is why the Temple of Aphrodite could later be used as a coachhouse for the Praetorian Prefect).

Mark O'Sullivan 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

unclear: Roman vs. Latin

**Roman name: Constantinopolis;

**Latin name: Cospoli

It is not clear what distinction between Roman and Latin is meant in the quoted piece of a footnote.--Imz 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My recollection was that Romans had full citizenship, Latins lived outside the city. There were rules about ownership, taxes, etc. It's in the Roman Code but my memory is fuzzy on this at the moment. --JRinPDX 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

People here are confused. The reference must be not to Latin in the ancient but in the medieval sense (as Cospoli is not a classical Latin name). Hence the Romans used the Greek name which Constantine who spoke both languages gave it; what must be meant is that after the "Latins" of the Fourth Crusade conquered the city in 1204 some of them used the name "Cospoli". Deipnosophista 08:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Empire Names

This article separates the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire as two different things, when they are the same. It should be changed to Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire.

• I've done this. It's contentious because there was never a "Byzantine" Empire or state. The "Byzantine" Empire was the continuation of the ancient Roman state and called itself Roman for the same reasons the English still call themselves that when Angles, as a race, have pretty much been bred out of existance. The West called the Empire "The Greek Empire" or "Romania" (latin for Land of the Romans) following the development of a separate Western identity. "Byzantine" is a modern invention, it's useful to distinguish the christian, Greek medieval state that succeeded the larger pagan, latin-greek classical one but it has the unfortunate side-effect of making us think that there was a conciously-separate entity that sprung-up fully-formed around the forth century when that simply isn't the case. The shift from the rump classic Roman state that still claimed theoretically soverignty over the city of Rome and the West to the medaeival Greek empire of the balkans and asian minor that was a de facto East-mediterranean kingdom and a continuation of the Roman state in name and history only took centuries. In the sixth century, Constantinople still had a senate, the office of Consul and even held a triumph for a conquering General. By the twelth century all these things were gone and yet the state had continued to exist for all this time. The history is well-worth reading for a greater understanding of the Eastern Empire and its place in European history --Zagrebo 11:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Heraclius and Hellenization

I have added a line about Heraclius's conversion of the city and empire's official language to greek. Obviously significant, but it doesn't appear to fit in amongst the military chronology of "After Justinian" where I have sandwiched it; perhaps someone might like to add an extra heading  ?

Largest city?

The article states that after the fall of the western roman empire, Constantinople became the largest city in the empire and the world? In the world? This is definately something that needs to be verified. Harley peters 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It is impossible to say for sure that Constantinople was the largest city in the world at that time. But considering the estimates that we have, it was the largest city in the world in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries with a total population that has estimates with range from 400,000 to 500,000. After that Bagdah and the capital of Tang China were the largest cities in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, with the decline of the Byzantine empire. In the 10th and 11th centuries, with the reemergence of the empire, it became the largest city again with a population of 300,000 to 400,000.--RafaelG 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that during the 13th century it was the second largest city in the word after Babylon. In the 5th century when Rome was decreased to a village, Constantinople was definitely the largest in Europe, but I don't know about the rest of the world. Miskin 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Babylon did not exist anymore by the 13th century, the city was abandoned since the 2th century BC.--RafaelG 03:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome was not "decreased to a village" in the 5th century. --Stbalbach 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, sheep were grazed in the ruins of the forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to Procopius in his History of the Wars Rome had a population of over 200,000 right up to the 530's AD and it was the several sieges of the city during Justinian's wars that depopulated the city. - Galloglass 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

During the 10th and 11th centuries, arab historians claim that Cordoba had 1,000,000, and modern historians argue that they were aroud 600,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give me some figures for the population of Constantinople in the 12th century? It would be great to know whether the population had recovered to Roman levels by this time. On the History of Rome article, they have an infobox which lists the population figures for the city throughout its existence; I think it would be a good idea to add something similar here. Bigdaddy1204 09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

True, Cordovan Caliphate was really advanced. Btw sheep grazed on the Forum Romanum from 12th to 14th century not before not after. Rome was a respectable sized community back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontrolleur Cro (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --TheClockKing 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Byzantium

An anon editor suggested the Byzantium article be merged with Constantinople. This section is for discussing the merge tag.

• Object. Even though the Byzantium article only has about 1 paragraph that is directly related to the city before it became Constantinople, and everything else is just a duplicate of this article - I think it could be expanded into a more detailed history of the city pre-Constantine. It had a very different history and importance in the pagan Ancient World. --TheClockKing 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)--
• Object, as well. and i will remove the merge-tags from both articles, unless someone thinks that i shouldn't. Hectorian 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. If these two articles were to be merged, what would the title be? Byzantinople? :p —Khoikhoi 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No merge

Some argue that this article has a right in it's own. Critics believe this article should not be edited in any way, shape, or form --68.217.13.174 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

it is a beautiful city to come and visit

Constantinople was in no great developmental period when it fell

Khoi That language was simply historically wrong. It had been in decline for centuries, and that wording was wrong and needed correcting, which I did. I am sure you did not mean that the Empire was still in it's apogee when it fell, but that was the impression that wording gave, and it needed correcting. If you wish to discuss it, it needs discussing here. This is a question for the Military History Committee, since the Fall certainly is in that arena. old windy bear 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was just trying to revert some vandalism by an anon. I guess your contribution got caught-in. —Khoikhoi 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoi That was why I wanted to write you, you are too good an editor to have this happen unless it was by accident. I know there has been tremendous vandalism this article - the anon's here are terrible with the needless vandalism. I wanted to let you know I was not part of that, and was just correcting some language which was giving a wrong impression. Like I said, I know you are a really first rate editor who is just protecting the article. Thanks! old windy bear 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. :-) I know you're not part of it. BTW, if you ever see any vandalism you can simply revert it to the previous version. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoi Thanks! I will try to take a look at this regularly and start revert it to the previous version. Isn't it a shame that people like you work hard to make this the best it can be, and anon's come along and for no reason at all, just destroy the article with needless vandalism. This article, the one on the Byzantine Empire , just seems to bring out the nuts! Take care! old windy bear 09:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's really not that big of a deal. I see vandalism as one of the byproducts of a free encyclopedia. You can't have only good contributors, or it wouldn't reflect reality. But then again, vandals are hardly contributors... Khoikhoi 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see some editors who aren't flaming each other constantly. I spend a lot of time at Byzantine Empire and its talk page, mainly because of interest in the Byzantines, and partly because I helped write the article. But the amount of arguing and bitterness at times can be depressing. There has been some extremely good discussion, but a recent bitter episode has really soured my view of things.

So I commend you who work on this article, and who have apparently avoided the pitfalls of other wikipedia talk pages... Bigdaddy1204 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know this has nothing to do with the topic, but what do you think of the photograph of the walls of Constantinople in this article? I took it myself :) Bigdaddy1204 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Renewed merge proposal

I don't think the renewed merge proposal [1] will work. It's just too big, and it's correctly marked and linked as a legitimate subarticle of the main article Istanbul. Independently of whether one agrees with the decision of using 1453 as a cutoff point for the Istanbul/Constantinople naming issue (see the recent Phanariotes debate), the decision to branch out the article content in this way seems almost unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal won't work... The article is too long... Deals with another historical period and also merge proposal failed in the past. I would be really interesting to read reasons for this merge proposal instead of just a tab above the article. If not, i will remove it. Hectorian 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you check the Istanbul article, there are sections about Constantinople and Byzantium. The Constantinople and Byzantium articles would fit there quite well. Furthermore, these articles contains material common to Byzantine Empire (even Roman Empire). By merging the articles we would have a chance to avoid to represent the same staff in different places. E104421 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about a history expanding to almost 1 millenium for Byzantium, and more than a millenium for Constantinople. There is much unique content, especially in this one. and there are also large possibilities that these two articles will expand even more, having in mind the sources that exist, and have not been used till now. furthermore, if there will be a merge, Constantinople would probably cover much of the article, putting in danger its current name. Re-think about it... Hectorian 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The merged article would either be horrendously long or have to skim on important content. Merging is really not a good idea. Constatinople and Byzantium work best as WP:SS summary articles of Istanbul.Borisblue 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then, i'm removing the tag. E104421 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Colossus 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)== Name change to Istanbul is not true ==

Official name canged to Istanbul in 1930 is incorrectly informing reader, changed from WHAT to istanbul ? Official name was Dersaadet, public name was Istanbul. In 1930 the republic(founded 1923) redefined provincial borders, it have never been a name-change, also the citations are using the same sentences which looks like BBC used the "orient encyclopedia"(proper name for peak for orientalism). An article on BBC is not a proper citation either.

All major treaties and public documents cite the city as Constantinople up until 1930. Even outside of Turkey, the name "Istanbul" failed to catch up with Europe and America until years later. And 1930 is not a random date. It coincides with Ataturks major reconstructuring of Turkish society, enhancing Turkish nationality, and in our case cleansing it of its Greek influence. All major treaties and documents afterwords city it as Istanbul. Erasing the Greek name of greatest city in Turkey from Turkish memory was vital. Colossus 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

edits

Someone reverted my edits of yesterday. They did two things: (i) they removed a lot of detail from the introduction, about what happened before the foundation and after the fall of Constantinople, which belongs in other articles rather than this one, and (ii) they restored text originated last year so as to smooth and improve the style. I would still argue that both changes are needed. Moreover, there is now quite a lot of stuff here which is history of the Byzantine ~Empire rather than of the city, and ought to be removed (while there is still urban history which needs to go in). Deipnosophista 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma

This user has chosen to twice now remove the map I place into the article, a REAL map from the 15th Century showing Constantinople in its proper place (upper left of the map). The user is choosing to remove my work from the article based on ther user's own desires, and not that of the consensus. Let me know if anyone else agrees or disagrees with me. Thank you. Rarelibra 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital of Rome

Is it not just horridly idiotic to have the capital of the Roman Empire be anything but Rome? VolatileChemical 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No trolling, please. We're not here to change what happened in history, just report on it. --Macrakis 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

CalicoJackRackam

You are both User:CalicoJackRackam and User:Shuppiluliuma. Why are you editing under BOTH names, especially when this was specifically addressed on BOTH of your talk pages? Rarelibra 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy using the "alter ego" CalicoJackRackham because I'm a descendant of Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral) from my mother's family which comes from Mytilene.

The name stimulates me for the hard work that's necessary for translating Italian archives into English (because Italian archives are far more detailed than Turkish archives in terms of the Turkish marine activity in the Mediterranean) when writing the lives of famous Turkish seamen like Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral), Oruç Reis, Turgut Reis, Kemal Reis, Piri Reis, Murat Reis the Older, Battle of Preveza, Battle of Djerba, etc...

It took me "weeks" to make such translations.

Right now I'm a professor at the University of Milan in Italy, and I have direct access to Italian archives, which helps me to find the historic resources for writing detailed stories regarding Turkish naval history.

And I'm a part-time sailor (yachting) of course. :)

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't justify using two accounts. Stick to one, as you were instructed by an admin to do... no need to go back and forth (well, you can't anyway). And bring stuff up on the talk page, that way it is into consensus and then we will protect any edits against your work! Once it is into consensus, or provide a reference for the Latin Empire statement... :) Rarelibra 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Try clicking on the Latin Empire for reference (and I didn't add it to Wikipedia)

Or click on the Fourth Crusade for some more insight.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

First official form of the name "Constantinopolis" and the 4 empires it served as a capital city

1) The name "Constantinopolis" was first "officially" coined between 330 and 337 in Latin, since Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire at that time. Of course many of the people in the streets of Constantinople spoke Greek, but the official state language was Latin, and it remained that way until the reign of Heraclius in the 7th century, when Greek became the new official language. Thus, the most archaic (and official) form is "Constantinopolis" (Latin), not "Konstantinoupolis" (Greek) which is the Hellenized form. Constantine called himself "Constantinus", not "Konstantinos", and the city was officially called "Constantinopolis" at Constantine's period, not Konstantinoupolis which is a later name.

2) Constantinople has been the capital city of the Roman Empire (330-395), the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire (395-1204 and 1261-1453), the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922).

These are "facts", not mere "opinions".

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Konstantinoupolis" is in any event not a conventional or correct transliteration of the Greek (for example, kappa goes to C, as in Cythera or Creon). Deipnosophista 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin Empire (1204-1261)

Try clicking on the Latin Empire for reference (and I didn't add it to Wikipedia)

Or click on the Fourth Crusade for some more insight.

The Byzantine capital was moved to Nicaea (İznik) between 1204 and 1261.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind adding the Latin Empire on the intro paragraph, I think this edit was removed due to your extensive edit-warring and uncivil behaviour, and not due to a content-dispute per se. Furthermore I also tried to add two names: Latin - Constantinopolis next to Greek - Konstantinoupolis but it was agreed by other editors to move all names on a separate section. I retained that the Greek version was important enough to stay in the head because of the Greek etymology of the word and the long Greek presence in the city. I wouldn't mind having the Latin name next to it (after all I was the one who added it) but I would mind favouring the Latinised name over the Greek, or claiming that the Latinised name has a Latin etymology. After all, Latin was only an imported (foreign), co-official (albeit not co-vernacular) language in the city, and only for a short period of time, whereas Greek has been official for most of the Empire's history, and present as a vernacular until some decades ago. Miskin 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, through Justinian's time, Latin was the only official language in the city; and, as Justinian himself shows, vernacular for some of the population. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does Jusinian himself show that? If Latin was the only official language then how come Justinian wrote Novellae in Greek? How come the Church used _exclusively_ Greek and the education was bilingual? Latin was vernacular only in the Western and northern balkan territories re-conquered by Justinian. So yes, in the 20th century, this would be an argument to support the existence of a minority language, but not in late antiquity. Therefore this is not an argument about in favour of Latin. As the Cambridge medieval history affirms, upon the re-conquest of Italy by Jusinian, the Emperor ordered Greek-speakers to colonise the peninsula. This shows that by his time, Greek had already become the defacto "Roman language". Miskin 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unbelievable that what Latins did to the city (the Fourth Crusade ending up in Constantinople rather than the Holy Land) is concealed in such an artful manner and left out from the article regarding the history of Constantinople! I just want to recommend those who edit the article to read pages 124-147 from "Byzantium and Venice" from Donald M. Nicol or 138 and so on of Fourth Crusade by Queller if they have not encountered with any kind of info about the story so far. Some seem to be obsessed with 1453 rather than 1204 in which all the wealth of Constantinople was sacked by some Christian brothers who forgot about the Holy Land and preferred to take over the capital of the Byzantine Empire in the most humiliating way! --Z yTalk 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

• Category:History of Greece and Category:History of Turkey are both implied by Category:Ancient Greek sites in Turkey; therefore this article doesn't need them.
• Please, people, see what Category:Hellenistic colonies covers. Byzantium was not founded by Alexander or his successors.
• In what sense was Constantinople holy and Antioch not? Category:Holy cities is unsupported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Concur completely, Cities of the Ottoman Empire and the other cats already cat to History of Turkey, addition of history of Turkey is not needed at all for simple organizational purposes. Ditto for History of Greece. Baristarim 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Concur as well (see - we can agree too ;). Too many categories makes it too confusing. I re-added the History of Greece only until Baristam pointed out that the Hellenistic Colonies category is more fitting (and although not founded by Alexander, it does state "The city was originally founded in the early days of Greek colonial expansion"). However, Constantinople was a Holy City in that it was the capital of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire - and more importantly, the Patriarch of Constantinople In fact, the First Council of Constantinople occurred there, and due to the Apostolic Succession, several Ecumenical Councils were held there between 325 (the First Council of Nicaea) and 787 (the Second Council of Nicaea). Does this not qualify? Rarelibra 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, Chalcedon is not a holy city; nor is İznik. As for Hellenistic, that's three and a half centuries off; like calling Newfoundland a colony of the United States. A Category:Greek colonies might be warranted; but is implied by the existing Megarian cat. It is nice to agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing, Byzantium wasn't founded during the Hellenistic Age. Baristarim, you seem to think that the history of Greece template applies only on everything related to the Greek state. This is just a personal interpretation which, for one more time, isn't shared by the rest of the people, neither in wikipedia nor in litterature. Unless of course you believe that works such as "History of Greece, from its Conquest by the Crusaders to its Conquest by the Turks" refer to the modern Greek state, or even the borders of the modern Greek state, what you claim doesn't make sense. It's just happens that the name of the English name of the Greek state (Greece) was already in existence since antiquity. There's no indication that wikipedia's template refers strictly to histories of nation-states and not to that of peoples. As common practice shows this cat applies on every 'Greek history' article. After all the official name of the Greek state doesn't even translate to 'Greece', this was a name chosen by non-Greeks, precisely because the Greek state was a part of the wider Greek history. Miskin 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And in fact I think the opposite from you, this cat belongs here not in Istanbul. Istanbul is a Turkish city, the fact that it's more closely connected to the history of the Greek state doesn't change much. But Constantinople (as defined badly by wikipedia until 1453), a pure Greek city, does deserve this category. After all the last Emperor died as self-proclaimed "King of Hellas". Miskin 23:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"If you continue to persist, you may very well receive administrative action", what the hell?? How long have you been editing wikipedia Rarelibra? Edit-disputes are not resolved by making threats of that type, I'm an adult in case you hadn't noticed. So what on earth is your problem about adding cat: History of Greece? The cats about 'ancient Greek colonies' are insufficient, since this topic doesn't cover ancient history. Like I said before, this category must be added for the following reasons:

• 'Greece' - Latin Graecia was a standard Latin name for Byzantium and its capital Constantinople
• 'Hellas' - Greek for Greece, was a popular name within Byzantium during its late period
• a Modern work on the 'history of Greece' without references to Constantinople, Smyrna and other cities of the region does not exist

So, what is your excuse? Apart from pointing me to the category of ancient Greek colonies, which is pretty much irrelevant. Miskin 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin - as you see above, there was regular discussion regarding this. You are stubbornly persistent upon going against this consensus and tagging the article with the category (and trying to point only at me for it). As you see above, the category is not needed, therefore, I was trying to ask you not to keep putting it back on. Continue discussion here, please - that is the whole point. Adult or not - look at the discussion above before considering your edit. Edit disputes are solved here in talk - you are continually attempting to just assign the category when it was already discussed. Thank you. Rarelibra 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the time where you became the owner of the article, which would not allow other editors to "persist" on making edits. As you see for yourself I did participate in discussion but received no reply. I see no consensus here, just 2 or 3 editors making their proposals about the article without considering an alternative opinion. I presented a few arguments concerning why the history of Greece should be included and why "ancient Greek colonies" does not cover it, but I was ignored. Constantinople even well in modern times played a significant role in the history of Greek state (if that what you perceive as Greece). Read up on Phanariotes to find out how the Greek revolution and state foundation were instigated by Greeks of Constantinople. Or maybe you should read on the Istanbul pogrom to see how the politics of the Greek state, Cyprus and the Greek minority in Turkey (Constantinople) are even today connected. Or maybe the treaty of Sevres where the Greek state is granted the entire of Eastern Thrace which includes typically Constantinople. Of course now we're talking about Istanbul, but until 1930 the official name of the city had been "Constantinople", what the article says about using that name until 1453 is a POV. Furthermore even if we accept the article's hypothesis as factual, the term 'Greece' (Latin: Graecia, Greek:Hellas) was in wide unofficial use since at least the Battle of Manzikert. I'll show some good will by avoiding the rv-war you have started, but unless you come up with a good counter-argument against my points I'll restore the cat. Miskin 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The Treaty of Lausanne included Constantinople? If you can show me on THIS MAP where the treaty border includes Constantinople, then you will prove the entire article incorrect. Either way, I enjoy how you state that it was "just 2 or 3 editors making their proposals". Who died and left you to override the statemtents that form consensus? I am not in an "edit war" with you - but I will report you to be blocked for 3RR if you persist. The consensus on the talk page is that the categories are excessive, therefore the ones that remained are what were consensus. You are ONE editor pushing your POV against the "2 or 3" you state. That automatically means that your edit is within question. The 'counter-arguments' you want are listed above in the original conversation. Rarelibra 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant to say the Treaty of Sevres. Constantinople was under allied control but there were negotiations between Greece and Great Britain about it as it was part of Eastern Thrace. In any case, Constantinople as a city and its Greek population have been very closely linked with Greek history, history of 'Greece' both as a state and as a region, and you still haven't made a point as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have anything more constructive to add, maybe concerning all other points I made? For the time being you're close on breaking 3RR so worry about yourself. A consensus is not reached like that, especially with such weak or non-existent argumentation. Prove me wrong please. Prove that my assessment is POV, I see nothing relevant to what I said in the previous conversation. Miskin 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the argument you brought up:
I re-added the History of Greece only until Baristam pointed out that the Hellenistic Colonies category is more fitting (and although not founded by Alexander, it does state "The city was originally founded in the early days of Greek colonial expansion").
First of all "ancient Greek colonisation" and "Hellenistic colonisation" are two very different historical events. Greek colonisation which started in the 12th century BC, involved the foundation of a Greek cities by an older Greek "mother-city" (metropolis). In the case of Byzantium, the mother-city was Megara. Hellenistic colonisation was instigated by Alexander the Great and took place in Hellenistic times, and it involved the foundation of Greek cities by Greek population of no specific city of origin - hence how and why a Koine Greek dialect was coined at the time. Now neither Byzantium nor Constantinople fall under "Hellenistic colonisation". Byzantium does fall under 'ancient Greek colonisation' and 'Greek colonies in Turkey' but Constantinople does not. So this category is pretty much irrelevant. Miskin 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the POV about the use of the name was corrected, I think the cat:History of Turkey needs to be restored as well, if for no good reason, because 'Turky' was also an unofficial name for the Ottoman Empire, like 'Graecia' was for the Byzantine. Frankly I don't understand what your problem is, this article is clearly connected to both Greek and Turkish history via the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires respectively. Miskin 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

~~ Where is it documented or recorded that "Turky" was an unofficial term for the Ottoman Empire? I have never read or heard this before. I know Turky was used to describe the invading tribes of the Turks into Asia Minor, but not in reference to the land. ApplesnPeaches ~~

Iconoclasm

Someone removed the material on iconoclasm and I have just reverted most of it. The reason is that although it is true that iconoclasm affected the whole empire, not just the city, (a) the city was more affected than many parts of the empire which were (either) generally iconoclastic or iconodule, (b) the destruction of images affected the city disproportionately because it was the repository of so much classical art, (c) we already one nice piece of local detail about the arrival of iconoclasm in the city and it would be better to add to it rather than delete the lot. Deipnosophista 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Expansion of the Megarian

The history of the city starts with Megarians who are claimed to have come to the city in (roughly) 660 B.C. Is it possible that there had not been any other civilisations settled in the region before Greek Colonialists came. What happened to Thracians? Claiming that Greeks were the authoctone people of the city (as a number of books, articles etc. implicitly suggest) can only be explained by the official-religious ideology of the Byzantine Empire or the mythology which naturally is irrelevant (despite being nice and interesting) to the scientific explanation of the history of the city . Why to ignore the existence of well-advanced civilisations prior to Greek Colonialisation. What about the archeological findings dating back to 6000-7000 B.C.? --Z yTalk 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there were Thracians around before the Megarians arrived. I think there's little point in mentioning it (i) because as far as I am aware there is no evidence of a Thracian settlement (and this article is about the city), and (ii) because the subject of the article is Constantinople - strictly speaking the material about Byzantium is irrelevant, but one may accept that a small amount of historical background is useful. Deipnosophista 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Population figures

The recent addition of population figures throughout this article is a problem: population figures for Constantinople are highly contested, and the additions show no sign of this. Unless evidence and qualifications are added they would be better removed. Deipnosophista 08:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Names

Someone's just added some "Greek names". "Constantinople" itself, of course, is a Greek name: it is the Greek for "City of Constantine" transliterated into the Roman alphabet and given a Latin form, then adapted into French or German and finally adopted into English over a period of hundreds of years, with the final version being settled many years ago. I see from my OED that "Constantinopolitan" goes back to the year 1568, so presumably "Constantinople" itself is earlier.

Perhaps this is the time to call a halt to inserting "translations" of names in this article. Just as the history of the Byzantine Empire has suffered by the fact that a knowledge of a bewildering variety of languages as used in the historical sources is necessary to be a really competent scholar of it, so there seems to be a temptation for everyone to add their own translations or transliterations of names in this article (I'm especially bewildered by the people who think it's helpful to add Greek names transliterated into Roman letters using modern Greek conventions, rather than the Latin conventions by which Byzantine place names actually entered Western culture: what does "Byzantium (Greek: Byzantion)" add to the reader's knowledge?). This is, let's remember, the English Wikipedia: it's not really of core interest in relation to the history of Constantinople to know that, for example, the Vikings called it Mikelgard, though it might be interesting in an article about Norse perceptions of southern Europe in the Middle Ages. Maybe this is misplaced patriotism: if so, couldn't those involved show a bit more self-control?

I propose that we should take out all the names here other than those which can be shown to be accepted English versions of the names as they were in the original language. Deipnosophista 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Em, since I'm the one who added a few Greek names (and refrained from adding more), I'll respond. I added names of some of the city's landmarks, as they were actually used during most of the city's history, especially where no relevant article exists for no further elaboration (for instance, how would you know what "Mese" actually means? Its Latin form is meaningless...). I think that is common practice in articles on cities where the Latin alphabet is not used to add the local names As for the inclusion of Greek or transliterated Greek, since no one has set up any concrete standards or guidelines, I suppose everyone is free to do as he or she chooses. A lot of people who can't actually (or simply don't care to learn to) read the Greek alphabet, so to them, I suppose, it makes sense. Regards, Cplakidas 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the one with 'Mese' should stay; I am not sure about the Greek name of the city at the beginning (it should not be bolded though), but the rest should go (Nova Roma as well). Deniz^T_C 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greek form of the city's name is of outmost relevance, considering the history of the city. And of course I am refering to the prevelance of the Greek language in those parts of the Roman Empire. There are literally myriad references to that, in primary sources, treatments in secondary sources, articles and any other authorship imaginable. Upon request I could put some here. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Greek form of the city's name is of no relevance. "Constantinopolis" is plainly the same word as "Constantinople": this does not need to be explained to the reader. Putting it into Greek letters communicates no more, and does not help the many readers who do not read Greek. If the point is that we ought to be Greek patriots, and speak and write Greek, then the patriotic thing to do is to edit the Greek Wikipedia, not clutter up the English one.Deipnosophista (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), General Guideline 2, point Two:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place.

I would suggest to read the whole page (and then some), carefully before jump here with any objections. Greek was the prevailing language of its inhabitants for centuries, if not millennia . I do not even have to cite its Greek form but if you retract that "Greek-patriot-go-home-to-Greek-Wiki-Moussaka" brouhaha, I might reconsider. Mind you, only if you ask really politely. Pretty please with sugar on top kinda thing. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am fully aware about your "contributions" to this article.

Warning - Section on Constantinople's Survival, 565–717 Suspect

The third and fourth paragraphs of this section are suspect and should not be taken as fact without serious research from other sources. The suspect text reads:

"The key to the survival of Constantinople was its walls. The walls were built after the army of the Byzantine empire had been vanquished by Gangis Kahn in 1259, leaving the capital completely open. At this time elsewhere in the world the middle ages had their impact, the people were starving and living in overcrowded areas sprawled with filth. This was not the case with Constantinople, Constantinople was the wealthiest city in the world by far. The people were living at the hight of luxury so, naturally it was attacked often.

The walls were its main form of defence, they were 30 feet high, large for that time; however, the walls of Constantinople had been largely destroyed by an earlier attack and was in a terrible state of repair. Gengis Khan had employed an army of italian mercenaries skilled in the early use of gunpowder and who destroyed the remaining pieces of the wall. The wall was destroyed and Gengis Khan was only a few months off. Work began immediately, the people of Constantinople were united to build the walls. The plan was to build not one, but three walls in increasing increments of 20 feet, with enough space between every wall to fight with infantry. It was strengthened with 96 towers, 18-20 metres tall, every 55 metres. It was completed within the time before Gangis Khan arrived with the infamous horde. However, Gangis Khan knew that he wouldn't be able to take the city, for he was unprepared for a long siege."

1st Gangis Khan (sic) died in 1227, his son Batu was the only Mongolian leader to even come within a five hundred miles of Constantinople and that was his attacks on Poland and Hungary in the 1260's and 1270's (see Gangis Khan article on Wikipedia). Whoever inserted these two paragraphs is distorting history and citing a non-event in the wrong section of the article.

````wmbl94134 (09/29/2007)

Yes, this is quite inaccurate: the walls were built under Theodosius II, Constantinople itself was never attacked by Genghis Khan, and there was no attack using gunpowder until the successful assault of Mehmet the Conqueror in 1453.

Deipnosophista 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Batu was Genghis's grandson. His attacks on Poland and Hungary were in the 1240s. Furthermore, the Mongol general Baiju was campaigning in Anatolia against the Seljuks of Rum around the same time, and I'm fairly certain that he would've gotten closer to Constantinople than Batu. That being s aid, the material being criticized here is pretty clearly made up. john k 07:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its all nonesense. As already said, Gengis Khan was dead way before the Khanate even reached Anatolia. And an alliance between the Mongols and the Nicaeans was sealed with a marriage. See Michael VIII - John IV's sisters were married off to foreigners, and I swore I remember hearing that one of them ended up as a Mongol bride. Tourskin (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantinople (not Nova Roma)

I was wondering about the well-known statement that Constantinople was dubbed "New Rome" (Nova Roma / Nea Rhome) by Constantine. This is something that reappears in many popular books on this subject, but what is the ultimate source for this assertion? In a comment above one Socrates is mentioned, but he was apparently born near the end of the 4th century. Now, maybe I am being too suspicious, but it seems not unthinkable that a 5th-century writer on ecclesiastical and/or political affairs who resided in Constantinople could have motives to assert the status of the Eastern capital vis-à-vis Rome by having its status enhanced in retrospect (i.e. as if Constantine would have officially transferred the status of 'old' Rome to 'new' Rome).

On the other hand, coins mentioning the city's name as Constantinopolis apparently already appeared during Constantine's lifetime. (See the one in the article, which is dated in the early 330s ([2]); also Michael Grant, The climax of Rome, p. 133: "In c. 330 there were special coinages honouring <sub>CONSTANTINOPOLIS</sub>; but they were paralleled by issues celebrating the City of Rome" - that last remark is also interesting in this context.) Maybe I'm just missing some obvious line of evidence. Any thoughts? Iblardi (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 164 (Stuttgart 2005), has, under Konstantinopel, column 442 (translated from German, Greek transliterated):

"The designation of Constantinople as [a] second Rome is already found soon after the city's foundation in a poem of Optatianus Porfyrius (...), i.e. in purely rhetoric context. Possibly Constantine himself, too, in a law, of which the text is admittedly only transmitted by the church historian Socrates (...), designated the city as [a] second Rome (deutera Rhome), although never as [a] new Rome (nea Rhome (...))."

The text makes reference to publications by Dölger and Bühl, but unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity yet to consult these. But from this entry it seems clear, to me at least, that the notion of Constantinople having been officially named 'New Rome' by Constantine must be discarded, while 'second Rome' remains possible, but is only attested indirectly. Iblardi (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be many sources here http://books.google.com/books?q=%22New+Rome%22+OR+%22Roma+Nova%22+OR+%22Nova+Roma%22+OR+%22Nea+Roma%22+OR+%22second+Rome%22+OR+%22Roma+secunda%22+%22official+name%22+Constantinople&btnG=Search+Books which consider New Rome as the official name, so I believe that the following "although this was an ecclesiastical rather than an official name" should be deleted. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Constantinople (not Istanbul)

Constantinople was the capital of the Ottoman Sultanate ("Ottoman Empire") and it has been treated as that by contemporary authors (i.e. 18th and 19th century historians, writers, journalists etc) and modern (i.e. 20th and 21st centuries) historians.

• Edward Gibbon, Henry Hart Milman , 1850, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pg. 77
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition
• The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Constantinople, Ottoman Empire , Jacob E. Safra, 2005
• Philip Mansel, 2006, Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924

Plus numerous other publications as seen in google books and g. scholar. If memory serves right also American "heavyweights" as Stanford J. Shaw (in his 'Between old and new (1971) and History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey (1976) books) plus the controversial Justin McCarthy ( in his The Ottoman peoples and the end of empire (2001)) also used this naming convention. Off-hand, I don't have access to these books right now as in recent past but I will try to locate them if need be. --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC) --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand. The history of the city had been divided into three separate articles based on time periods. The first one Byzantium covering the period from its foundation in 667 BC until 330 AD when it became capital of the Roman Empire. The second article be able to Constantinople covers the period 330 AD until 1453 when it became capital of the Ottoman empire, then the third Istanbul is the history from 1453 onward. I hope this is now clear to you. - Galloglass 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of references as we are all aware of when the city formally became Istanbul in the 20C but one of historical time periods: The ancient city prior to 330 AD, the medieval city from 330 until 1453 and the modern period from 1453 until the present. - Galloglass 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but this is irrelevant. I wasn't supporting my argument on the base of referencing alone. I was editing concurrently, without seeing your previous answer. We have to treat this article as most historians do. We can not eliminate the referencing plethora of "Constantinople" as capital of the Ottoman empire, from this article, just because we have another article for "Istanbul". In other words "Constantinople" was the name used in contemporary and modern academia, popular culture, press (media) and any other kind of authorship; we can not "hide" that just because, erroneously IMHO, one user (or some users) made the questionable editorial judgement to treat the history of Constantinople after the Fall in another article. --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, please do not revert. It was you who removed long standing (cited by reliable sources) text so you have the burden of proof, to build consensus and provide adequate references from reliable and verifiable sources (see WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability etc.). --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a long standing division into three articles so the burden reasons of changing this lies with you. Please bear in mind though this is a 'historical' article and the divisions have been made for the reasons outlined above. Also please bear in mind that most of us who contribute to these pages have a good knowledge of its history so simply quoting references for what we already know will not suffice - Galloglass 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that it is not suffice to say that most modern historians are using this naming convention? This is against every editorial principle, not only in Wikipedia, but well, everywhere, anywhere. --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not really helping your case you know. If you wish to see a change in the time periods covered by the articles then you should do it on the talk page. Simply ignoring this will just result in you being reverted again and again by more informed editors. - Galloglass 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify myself. I do not dispute of course that there are multiple articles for this city nor that much of its modern history is treated in the "Istanbul" article. What I do object though is to your suggestion that that we must eliminate all references of "Constantinople" as the capital of the Ottoman Sultanate from this article, especially when there is a plethora of academic (and other) sources to the contrary. In short what your are suggesting is completely irrelevant. We can and we should mention that this city, treated by this particular name, was the capital of the Ottoman sultanate. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry you don't seem to understand the first line of the article where it says "For after 1453, see Istanbul." This seems clear English to me. Well I'm off to work now so I will leave it others to try and explain the meaning of this to you. - Galloglass 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry too, but the only thing I have seen from you is the absurd notion that just because we are treating some aspects of the city's history in another article we must ignore, widely known and credibly verifiable facts, perfectly treated in this one. If nothing else what you are suggesting is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and in some aspects WP:NOR as well. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just making yourself look silly. I would really suggest reading (and trying to understand) WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR before quoting them out of context like this. - Galloglass 06:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we have an entire article, Names of Istanbul, on the naming issues. The main articles themselves should, and for the most part do, focus on the actual history of the city in its various periods, instead of being hung up on the name changes, which are interesting but comparatively less important. As others have mentioned, the periodization is based primarily on things other than linguistics; the change in 1453 from Byzantine to Ottoman rule is of course a much more important departure than the official renaming in 1930 is, and so a more reasonable break in article coverage as well. --Delirium (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think that there is some confusion of intentions here. No-one is putting excess emphasis on the renaming of the city from Constantinople to Istanbul. The whole incident is treated in literally two lines of text and that's that. A millennium-and-a-half-old name, officially in use up until the 1930's and in common use several decades after that, deserves two lines of text, I would think in its one of the most pertinent places in WP or any encyclopedia. That we have an article treating this and various other names is completely irrelevant. Think of it this way; the article (any article) should be accurate, precise, concisely presenting the relevant facts and reasonably stand on its own by not depending on the treatise of other articles. I think there is a universal agreement that "Constantinople-Constantinopolis" is one of the most (if not the most) important name throughout its vast history so we need to put some emphasis here. If you are referring to other names (e.g. Nova Roma) I would agree that it is preferable to treat those in the Names of Istanbul with more detail. I would also agree that the change from Byzantine to Ottoman rule is a pivotal point of its history that deserves great focus, of course; but in terms of linguistics, we should also communicate -in its actual article i.e. here- that "Constantinople" (as a name) survived for centuries after the actual fall the City . --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Constantine founding Constantinople in what date?

"Constantinople was founded by the Roman emperor Constantine I on the site of an already existing city, Byzantium, settled in the early days of Greek colonial expansion, probably around 671-662 BC."

Was Byzantium settled in 671? Or did Constantine settle Constantinople in 671? Because he was very dead by 671. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.70.124 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

where to go with (pre 1453) Turkish lore on the City?

On May, 20th, 2009, I placed the subheader: "Origins: The Turkish Tale" – text given below. It was immediately deleted by User Dinkytown, together with several other items of mine. Stating I was inserting false information, and vandalizing Wikipedia, Dinkytown threathened to ban me: “You claim that some guy named Yanko bin Madyan started Constantinople. That is simply flat out wrong, read the article. The rest of what you wrote has no basis in reality. They were also off topic.”

I leave it to the reader to judge this person’s reading-comprehension abilities, given that the text starts with the words “Tale” and “Legend” respectively. The question however remains, as all three articles on the City (following the much discussed division in three eras) are containing historical facts only : Do all feel this philology bit is off topic on this page? If so, where to insert it then? If not, I ask senior Users/moderators, what about a simple revert of Dinkytown’s undo (bearing in mind all his ban talk?)

To illustrate the importance : --This legend is a clever reworking of already existing elements in Byzantine tales, which is important for Turkish-Byzantine relations; -- the author (living and writing in relatively nearby Gallipoli) is a cultural accolade encompassing most of the 15th century (but “failing” the 1453 time division, as he has both significant pre-, and post– activities concerning the City); -- Bican's book deeply influenced Ottoman sentiment (quite a few felt the City to be intrinsically alien) and literature on this topic, and reflects muslim thinking on Constantinople in the pre-1453 period as well [cf. eg. Stephane Yerasimos, Légende d’ Empire. Paris 1990].

So I feel at least one Wiki article on the City should include material of the man who singlehandedly, and in close cultural interaction with (pre-1453) Greek Constantinople shaped its status in the Ottomans’ cultural legacy. They, after all, went on to live there ever after.

(Please note that material I included on Nicomedia (referred to with a link in the text below) was also deleted by Dinkytown that same day, same warnings etc.)

Origins: The Turkish Tale

According to the muslim Turkish legend, coined by Ahmed Bican, of the founding of ‘Kostantiniyye’, Yanko bin Madyan (yankobinmadyan < ‘Nicomedia’) decided to build the city on a ‘wedge shaped’ plot of land, triangled between two sea arms. To make sure building activities would commence under an auspicious constellation, his astronomers deviced a system of poles with bells and cords attached to them, to set the army of diggers, masons etc. to work at the same right time: “Alas, man proposes, God disposes.” A snake snatched by a local stork curled itself around the bird’s neck, thus causing it to fall out of the sky, against one of the bells, thereby setting on the entire enterprise in the most ominous of hours, that of the planet Mars. Inevitably, the future of the city was to be rife with earthquakes, war and plagues.

(Radbod (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm, interesting fact. I knew that some Byzantine authors conjured up fictional histories on Constantinople's origins, but not that the Ottomans did the same (doesn;t surprise me, though). The info is certainly welcome, but I too would have doubts about its suitability for this article, since it deals with the actual history of the city. Perhaps starting an article on the Mythological origins of Constantinople would be a good idea? Regards, Constantine ✍ 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Constantine regarding the above as historical mythology as a conflict to the actual history of the city. A new article on the Mythological origins of Constantinople would be in order. I would compare the above with the evolution vs creationism conflict, as there is no historical basis for the mythology. In addition, Ahmed Bican and other Ottoman sources post-date the founding of Constantinople by eleven centuries and therefore, would not be a reliable source for the creation of the city as they are far removed in time. Nothing is mention about Byzantium as the first city in the above source. In addition, stating that Yanko bin Madyan founded the city is in direct conflict with every historical source in any language. Mentioning snakes, storks, planets an earthquakes, without any type of context must be deleted as per Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and also as it has an undo weight to the whole historical record.

Yes, I did remove your additions to the other two articles, but only after I tried to find any verification of your additions to the Constantinople article on other websites. I found nothing in English that confirmed the above claims. You also had no history of contributions to this article, so I reasonably assumed that it was false information / vandalism. However, I only removed your other two additions for the same reasons as they were similar in content, and only those three because all were created on the same date. The previous dated article additions I let go as I had little knowledge of those subjects and choose to let others deal with them.

I noticed that you have reverted my edits on the bat [3] article. It states that the addition was under "The bat in Islam" and listed under 'Cultural Descriptions'. I over looked this before and I will not dispute this and let it stand. I again reverted your additions to the Nicomedia article as per Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and undo weight as described above to the whole historical record, which I will state in that talk page shortly.

I gave you a warning as to what I thought was vandalism, as described by Wikipedia policy on warnings and went by their policy. After a certain number of warnings, a person could be blocked from editing for a certain amount of time, depending on the severity of the offense. I did not report you to any administrator so your reputation is still clean. Judging from your contribution record, I am going to assume that you are new to Wikipedia - Welcome... I would suggest that you ask other people who have contributed extensively on wikipedia for advice if you have any questions about anything.

One final note - please do not send me personal emails to my email address, but rather state them publicly on the talk pages for everyone to see and comment. Thank you and take care. Dinkytown 06:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Following Dinkytown's suggestion elsewhere, I have now included this Ottoman-Turkish legend material under an appropriate subheader in the main article Ahmed Bican and will make a 'see also' link from the Constantinople article. Radbod (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this from the list of Churches and monasteries to Other related topics under the heading; The Turkish Tale. If people are nor happy with this please feel free to change. Cheers - Galloglass 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that, it will cover the subject just as well. The reason why I initially opted for "Churches and monasteries", was because Bican, while dealing with the legendary past of the City, elaborates extensively on the Hagia Sophia (> Turkish Aya Sofia), even up to the degree of working out an (anti-) Ottoman State ideology straight out of that building if you will; hence the title of the main monograph to date on that aspect: Stephane Yerasimos, Legende d'Empire. La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions turques. Paris 1990. Radbod (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cordoba

At the beginning, the article says that Constantinople was the biggest wealthiest city in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. I have changed it to say most of the Middle Ages, since there were times when Cordoba was bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.96.58 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Earth For Peace

Thi what Ottoman Empire looking for ,to establishing a huge state to be united not to be divided —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthForPeace (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

why?!?!?!?!?

Wonder why those stupid Turks looted the city, renamed it too, i still call it Constantinople.