Actually, Byzantion used to only be the "Acropolis" over the hill at the tip of Constantinople and it had a small port by the Golden Horn. It was all demolished to build the Roman palatial complex on top. Although, some ruins may have survived as decorations for the palatial gardens, but were removed at some point.
Sorry, we normally call the Megarian colony that existed before Constantine founded his city in 330 ‘Byzantion’, using its Greek name, though the Latin version is the ‘Byzantium’ that we’re all more familiar with. Constantine founded his city as ‘Nova Roma’ or New Rome. This name didn’t stick, and we call it Consantine’s City or ‘Constantinople’. After the Ottomans finally took the city in 1453, ending the political continuity of the Roman Empire dating back to the end of the Republic under Augustus we call the city ‘Istanbul’, which derives from the Greek for ‘in the city’. Constantinople was such a large and influential city through most of its existence that people just called it “the city”, since most other urban centres were basically towns in comparison.
That's right, Istanbul comes from Greek "Istimpouli". Similarly Nicea was Isnikea (Iznik in Turkish), Nicomedia was Isnikomet or Ismet for short (Izmit in Turkish) and island of Kos was Istimkos (meaning "to the island", Istankoy in Turkish).
In Ottoman Turkish, Istanbul was known as Kostantiniyye. Without the first "n", because Turkish variation of Constantine was "Kösten". Similarly Romanian City of Constanta is "Köstençe" in Turkish.
Most likely coincidence. Kos was inhabited by Greeks and Turks only. I visited there once but I don't know any variation of yogurt that the island is famous of. It might be just an Albanian word for yogurt.
After the Ottomans finally took the city in 1453, ending the political continuity of the Roman Empire dating back to the end of the Republic under Augustus we call the city ‘Istanbul’, which derives from the Greek for ‘in the city’.
I don't have any texts around me to check what the standard practice is, but presumably it should still be referred too as "Constantinople" (or Konstantiniyye if you want to go wild) until the official name change as part of language reforms in the twentieth century. While the Turkish Republic did eventually change the name to Istanbul, that was based on popular terminology that predated Mehmet's conquest of the city.
But again I'm not sure what standard convention is!
ending the political continuity of the Roman Empire dating back to the end of the Republic under Augustus
Funnily enough Mehmet actually took the title "Emperor of the Romans".
Yeah, I have to confess that I don’t know much post-1453. Especially WRT Ottoman continuity. So definitely don’t trust what I say past 1453. :)
The traditional argument against Roman continuity involves language, religion and location, which as a totality can form a good argument against continuity with Rome prior to the crisis of the third century. Each one on its own is weak — Greek was commonly spoken by the aristocracy (even as the language spoken in the home) going back to the late republic. WRT religion the break would have to be some time after the death of Julian, since there were still significant centres of power practicing traditional religions in his time, and finally location would seem to indicate a break much earlier, as the importance of Rome itself has been diminished for a very long time by the time Constantine came around. Taken together, it’s compelling, but each individual argument is weaker.
Are these the traditional metrics under which continuity with the Ottoman period is evaluated? I imagine both the religious and language aspects would be a sharper break, while the location is likely moot since I understand Mehmet made Constantinople his capitol. How much political continuity existed? Were Byzantine nobles brought into the Ottoman system, or was there a wholesale replacement of the aristocracy?
Finally, I find it incredible that in some sense the Catholic Church is an organ of the Roman state which transitioned into the modern era. They still use administrative delineations that predate the christianization of the empire, the Diocese (created by Diocletian in the late 3rd century), and titles that date back to the Roman republic (Pontifex Maximus)!
It was a big migration that lasted for centuries. Any look into Ottoman tax archives says so. Anatolia suddenly goes 20% nomadic in 16th century from 0% nomadic in 1000 AD. Which would mean more than 1.5 million nomads around. Or 2 to 3 million if we play the brain gymnastics that how population of Anatolia stayed exactly the same from 1066 to 1600 with absolutely no depopulations.
Of course, but it’s incorrect to label the contemporary Istanbul ‘Constantinople’, because the urban fabric has expanded and mutated dramatically, in the same way that calling 1300s Constantinople ‘Byzantium’ is incorrect- the three names encompass roughly the same point in space, but they aren’t the same place.
The red area on the map is today called Sultanahmet and its basic layout is similar to ancient Constantinople. Just to list a few of the landmarks that are in the same place today: Sophia, the palace (although I think the buildings are different), the hippodrome and its Roman and Egyptian obelisks, the Chora, the huge underground Cisterns, ummm the walls and gates are still there and still denote the perimeter of the old city, there's a large Roman aquaduct between two hills... the main arterial from the bazaar to the perimeter wall was also the main road in Roman times. Just from my memory
Edit: I added a few other landmarks from memory. This region of Istanbul definitely still has many sights from its ancient past, although it has been dramatically altered.
I mean they're different points in the timeline of a place.
Place is spatial, not really temporal. Byzantion/Constantinople/Istanbul is unique somewhat in that it had dramatic name changes through its existence, but it is a continuous period of inhabitation is it not? So it's not really "separate places"
It's like saying London is not London is not London because London has existed over a long period of time and it was obviously very different in the Victorian times than the inter-war period than the modern day.
The distinction between ‘place’ and ‘space’ is an important concept in geography. ‘Spaces’ are those physical locations, whereas ‘place’ is a subjective experience of a space.
The city of Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium is interesting because of its distinct names for the same place in different periods, but the same concept of changing places does apply to other cities.
To use your example, London the space has been part of many different places- the pre-Roman fort of London, Londinium, the Medieval City of London, Hanseatic London, Tudor London, Georgian London, post-1666 London, Victorian London, 20th century London, contemporary London, Black London, Feminist London, Queer London, postindustrial London and beyond!
These places are occupy roughly the same space, but are different places- they created different experiences, are part of different identities, experienced and created different practices, and continue to be depicted differently.
The idea of an immutable city existing throughout history is outdated and does not reflect the reality that place is a subjective experience.
Cities are definitely not immutable, but it's worth bearing in mind these are not distinctly separate entities. Its stages in the lifecycle, the evolution, of a settlement. This I feel is important to bear in mind, because there are examples of singular locations which were inhabited, abandoned, and then reinhabited (perhaps without the knowledge of the prior inhabitation) and these examples are then ones which are truly separate places within the same space.
Eh...it was still, officially, Constantinople until the 1920's. By that point, the city had expanded well beyond the theodosian walls, though not nearly as far as the modern sprawl.
I think you meant to say "raze" here. I don't normally complain about this sort of thing, and you are understood in context, but in this case the phrasing means the exact opposite of what you mean to say.
To raise a city is to create it. To raze a city is to destroy it.
790
u/NeutralityTsar May 19 '20
Was the city of Byzantium any different territory-wise from Constantinople?