Continued existence of the Turkish state, between the years 1299-1923. Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia and North Africa, and expanded its territory until the 16th century, the most powerful empire the world has become.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
konstantinoupolis is the right word not instabul and it's a Greek word :) vosporos too...turks want many Greek thinks and names like slaves (F.Y.R.O.M) they want to renamed their self to Macedonians...
Well idiot turkalbanian:) you are correct about that,but listen me,you are so stupid country that you took something so beaytifull and make it like shit,like you,i come last year to see that and the only think i saw was poor people asking for money on road.dont talk about the dirt of this city!its a pity to be turkish now you gipsy
Well, that's not really correct. There was no official change of the name; Fatih Sultan Mehmet considered him the new emperor of Rome. The city was officially known as "Konstantiniyye." Insistence on "Istanbul' is a new and somewhat obnoxious bit of nationalism. If Turks are willing to stop saying Selânik, İskeçe, Günmülcüne and other names, then they can insist that Greeks call it "Istanbul" (which is just a corruption of Greek anyway). Or we can just get over it.
@sazji that's true, it has been 90 years since this name has been officially used, but before than that people in Turkey was saying Istanbul, this is like "kahve" in Turkish and coffee in English. English people pronounced according to their language.
Also, Constantinople was only 2-3 districts of the current Istanbul. Istanbul has 39 districts. Other lands were conquered almost 100 years before.
@norelojon Nationalistic movements in both Greece and Turkey have resulted in the changes of many place names to make them sound more Greek or Turkish. A lot of it happened during the Greek and Turkish juntas; in Greece some Greek names were even changed to make them sound more ancient. In Turkey especially hundreds of villages were renamed, this is being talked about a lot now. Some of it also happened naturally - ex. Kydoniai, translated to Ayvalık, then re-adopted by the Greeks as Aivali.
@sazji Yes that's true, though I don't know much about Greece, but Turkish government has changed many names, that's true. However, if the inhabitants of that place are Turkish, or Turkified (from language aspect), it is not a wrong movement, as long as the inhabitants are happy, because most Greek names are not compatible with Turkish, hence they pronounce differently. Even if we leave the name, they will pronounce the same. Most names are turkified version of Greek names, like Istanbul.
@norelojon Sometimes it happened this way, Magnisia > Manisa, Paliokastro > Balıkesir, Parthenia > Bartın v.s. But often it was government intervention. Look at a map of the Black Sea from the 50s and from the present. Çaykara was Katahor, Uzungöl was Şaraho, etc. These are places where people still speak Greek. and still use those names. And all the Turkish villages in NE Greece have Greek names now; to look at a map you'd never realize they were Turkish villages. Just as they want it.
@sazji Yes, as I said they are Turkified and most of them meaningful, like Caykara, literally TeaBlack (Cay - Kara)
And yes, some people are not happy and those names should be revered but many people also have no problems as I said, and most villages are Turkified in time for hundreds of years. Real Turks are minority in fact, most people are Turkified version of Anatolians, not only Greeks or Kurds, also Armenians, Assyrians etc. , since Turks were dominant race, they were holding the power.
@norelojon Recently they've been talking about the issue in relation to Kurdish villages. Yes, people who can be traced directly back to the Turks of Central Asia are in the minority; it just means that we need a different way of defining ethnicity. And really, who knows who they mixed with before they started coming west? These ideas of ethnic/racial purity are based mostly on myth. In the US you have people defining what it means to be a "true American," and to them it means "white." Huh?!
@sazji Yes, exactly, this what I stand for. The best way would be saying anatolians. I remember a genetic research, which is done by American Scientists, and they say that Turks (in Turkey), have the most diverse gene pool in their research. These are the one of the oldest lands in the World and entirely unique.
@sazji However there are two problems. First, it is impossible to explain the new notion to the outsiders, since it is very unique, they will not get it. I am sure. This won't be like America because inter-racial marriage is widespread and the language is Turkish. It is America, but 500 years later.
@sazji The second problem is the problems that will be created after this new understanding. I am on the side of Ataturk on creating a new nation. It was impossible to create a stable democracy without doing something like this. Even if we remove Turks from equation, we would have the same problems, since many claims the same land, like Kurds and Armenians, they claim the same land. So, these lands were extremely diverse and that was needed at some point.
@norelojon I'm not sure that denying the existence of Muslim non-Turks brought stability to the new nation of Turkey though. If anything, it's been a thorn in its side. Look at Wales - when the English denied them they had problems; now there is no Welsh separatist movement at all. Anatolia is unique of course, but taking the European nation-state model and trying to apply it in Anatolia, emphasizing one particular ethnic group, has brought a lot of problems.
@sazji If he wouldn't create a new nation,we would be same as the middle east, having many problems, maybe possible wars. It is sad but that was the best choice even though it created different problems. Most nations have done the same thing, aboriginals etc. but the difference is they acknowledged their mistakes. It was needed to some extent, but it is now time to acknowledge our mistakes and apologize to those who are affected and try to keep as much as tradition, culture,the Anatolian spirit
@norelojon It did create different problems - a war that arguably continues to this day. Think about it - the issue for the peoples who broke away from the Ottomans was not Turkishness, it was second-class citizenship as non-Muslims. The criterion for people in the population exchange was religion more than actual ethnicity. Emphaisizing Turkishness vs. non-Turkishness, the new state fueled other divisions that they could have minimized by equal treatment. But it was the fashion of the times.
@sazji Yes, that's true, but Ottomans collapsed mainly from the same problems, being a multi-national empire was a big disadvantage when nationalist movement started in Europe. So, if he would create a another model like Ottomans pursued, it wouldn't make a difference. So, assimilation was needed a bit, like how cultures are assimilated in the US, but now the conjuncture is much different, we can make a difference now by acknowledging every language, culture, ethnicity living in this land.
@norelojon Well...that's a bit revisionist. :) It had a lot more to do with corruption, opposition from the Ulema to progress in many areas, new trade routes in the world and the Empire's inability to compete in world markets. The British Empire was huge competition. Corruption in the military was especially a big problem, and the fact that they couldn't do devşirme any more after the abolition of the Janissaries was another drain.
@norelojon One could also argue that the modern republic's assimilation policies did little to solve their problems; rather, they exacerbated them. It certainly hasn't made the Kurds go away. Good education would have done a lot more to unify people. These assimilation politics were misguided attempts based heavily on German notions of stability by ethnic purity; it's cost Turkey dearly and the only thing that has helped is as you say, acknowledging all the peoples living here.
@sazji And yes it was the fashion of those times, everything was different. Australians have lost generation problem, they have done worse things. In US we have seen different kind of problems but they are rooted in the same reality. The importance is to acknowledging and reversing our mistakes now. We are the same people at the end of the day, even greeks in greece and turks in turkey are the same people, only cultural difference is religion.
@norelojon I agree, the US certainly doesn't have any moral high ground. I think Turkey should recognize the whole truth behind the Armenians for example. But if it does, then let the US acknowledge openly what it did to the Indians, as Australia's prime minister did. Let Norway acknowledge the forced sterilization of the Sami; let everyone acknowledge their abuses and ethnic cleansing and decide to put it firmly into the past.
@norelojon Ataturk created a new nation and it was necessary, but it didn't have to be one that replaced older discriminations with new ones. And since then both Greece and Turkey have been hypocritical about it, demanding equal treatment of each other's minorities while oppressing their own (and not only Greeks and Turks). Because the ostensible desire to secure the well-being of their compatriots across the border was secondary to achieve pure nation states. And everyone has suffered.
@norelojon The interests served by all this uprooting of people have always been those of a handful of people in governments, not of the people who usually got along just fine (until stirred up by those governments). We read "Turkey expels Greeks" or "Greece oppresses Muslims" but who actually does it, and who is gaining something from it? Who in Turkey has gained from the forced resettlements leading to the Dersim rebellion, who in Greece benefitted from the anti-Turkish nationalism in Cyprus?
@sazji And yes I agree with you wholeheartedly. We lost from many aspects, these multi-ethnic lands were replaced with boring, single religion, but I think we still have a chance. Even religion itself does not make that much difference. The importance is keeping the culture, than you evolve your religion as well. Just like Alevis. Even though many are Muslim now, but they practice it according to their culture in Anatolia. Their world-view isn't changed much, and that's give me the hope.
@sazji However, some people are not happy, for example Kurdish people. Their village names are changed forcibly, so it is a hot issue on Kurdish side and this is simply fascism, I agree on that. Kurds also have different characters that are not exist in Turkish such as x and w, so it was another problem since official language is Turkish. This is one of the thing that Kurds want. They say Kurdish should be official language like Turkish.
@norelojon The notion of "official language" (if it means "only language") is a problem in a place like Turkey. The US for example has no official language. It's understood of course that you need English to be able to survive and progress there, but speakers of Spanish or other languages are free to educate their kids in other languages as well. In Turkey that's the case for recognized minorities like Greeks or Armenians, so why not Kurds? I think it will get there.
Did you know that AT LEAST 2 MILLION Christians were killed through genocide in Turkey, during World War I. These were civilians, born in Turkey, because historically, Turkey was Armenian and Greek. 1.5 MILLION Armenians were slaughtered, in addition to 500,000 Greeks!!! This is an abomination to man, and it is forgotten. What makes the Turkish genocide worse than Hitler's, was that the Germans admitted to it, and Turks wont. TO LEARN MORE, VISIT MY CHANNEL!!
@metesunshine For me it's certainly a love-hate relationship! I love it until I have to go out and deal with traffic, or we get a really still day and the automobile exhaust builds up. Especially this year I've found myself been thinking seriously about other cities to live in.
This has been flagged as spam show
Devlet-i Âliyye-i Osmâniyye
Yüce Osmanlı Devleti
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu
دولتْ علیّه عثمانیّه
OTTOMAN EMPİRE
OSMANLI DEVLETİ
Continued existence of the Turkish state, between the years 1299-1923. Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia and North Africa, and expanded its territory until the 16th century, the most powerful empire the world has become.
harbiye100 3 months ago
awesome videos.
iorixs 6 months ago
My grandpa is boring in rum kavag....the name is giannis apostologlou...cerseris...milonas
AnimalFriendSpain 1 year ago
@AnimalFriendSpain you should visit there. a nice small town in bosphorus.
aporia82 1 year ago
city of love and rafet el roman
vander30 1 year ago
İstanbul is such amazing city
alonesmaug 2 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
konstantinoupolis is the right word not instabul and it's a Greek word :) vosporos too...turks want many Greek thinks and names like slaves (F.Y.R.O.M) they want to renamed their self to Macedonians...
tubelamar 2 years ago
Istanbul since 1453, now it's is Turkish:).
Come and get it idiot:). You can't because greece is too weak:).
159487348432 2 years ago 3
Well idiot turkalbanian:) you are correct about that,but listen me,you are so stupid country that you took something so beaytifull and make it like shit,like you,i come last year to see that and the only think i saw was poor people asking for money on road.dont talk about the dirt of this city!its a pity to be turkish now you gipsy
tubelamar 2 years ago
Well, that's not really correct. There was no official change of the name; Fatih Sultan Mehmet considered him the new emperor of Rome. The city was officially known as "Konstantiniyye." Insistence on "Istanbul' is a new and somewhat obnoxious bit of nationalism. If Turks are willing to stop saying Selânik, İskeçe, Günmülcüne and other names, then they can insist that Greeks call it "Istanbul" (which is just a corruption of Greek anyway). Or we can just get over it.
sazji 2 years ago
@sazji that's true, it has been 90 years since this name has been officially used, but before than that people in Turkey was saying Istanbul, this is like "kahve" in Turkish and coffee in English. English people pronounced according to their language.
Also, Constantinople was only 2-3 districts of the current Istanbul. Istanbul has 39 districts. Other lands were conquered almost 100 years before.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon Nationalistic movements in both Greece and Turkey have resulted in the changes of many place names to make them sound more Greek or Turkish. A lot of it happened during the Greek and Turkish juntas; in Greece some Greek names were even changed to make them sound more ancient. In Turkey especially hundreds of villages were renamed, this is being talked about a lot now. Some of it also happened naturally - ex. Kydoniai, translated to Ayvalık, then re-adopted by the Greeks as Aivali.
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji Yes that's true, though I don't know much about Greece, but Turkish government has changed many names, that's true. However, if the inhabitants of that place are Turkish, or Turkified (from language aspect), it is not a wrong movement, as long as the inhabitants are happy, because most Greek names are not compatible with Turkish, hence they pronounce differently. Even if we leave the name, they will pronounce the same. Most names are turkified version of Greek names, like Istanbul.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon Sometimes it happened this way, Magnisia > Manisa, Paliokastro > Balıkesir, Parthenia > Bartın v.s. But often it was government intervention. Look at a map of the Black Sea from the 50s and from the present. Çaykara was Katahor, Uzungöl was Şaraho, etc. These are places where people still speak Greek. and still use those names. And all the Turkish villages in NE Greece have Greek names now; to look at a map you'd never realize they were Turkish villages. Just as they want it.
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji Yes, as I said they are Turkified and most of them meaningful, like Caykara, literally TeaBlack (Cay - Kara)
And yes, some people are not happy and those names should be revered but many people also have no problems as I said, and most villages are Turkified in time for hundreds of years. Real Turks are minority in fact, most people are Turkified version of Anatolians, not only Greeks or Kurds, also Armenians, Assyrians etc. , since Turks were dominant race, they were holding the power.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon Recently they've been talking about the issue in relation to Kurdish villages. Yes, people who can be traced directly back to the Turks of Central Asia are in the minority; it just means that we need a different way of defining ethnicity. And really, who knows who they mixed with before they started coming west? These ideas of ethnic/racial purity are based mostly on myth. In the US you have people defining what it means to be a "true American," and to them it means "white." Huh?!
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji Yes, exactly, this what I stand for. The best way would be saying anatolians. I remember a genetic research, which is done by American Scientists, and they say that Turks (in Turkey), have the most diverse gene pool in their research. These are the one of the oldest lands in the World and entirely unique.
norelojon 1 year ago
@sazji However there are two problems. First, it is impossible to explain the new notion to the outsiders, since it is very unique, they will not get it. I am sure. This won't be like America because inter-racial marriage is widespread and the language is Turkish. It is America, but 500 years later.
norelojon 1 year ago
@sazji The second problem is the problems that will be created after this new understanding. I am on the side of Ataturk on creating a new nation. It was impossible to create a stable democracy without doing something like this. Even if we remove Turks from equation, we would have the same problems, since many claims the same land, like Kurds and Armenians, they claim the same land. So, these lands were extremely diverse and that was needed at some point.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon I'm not sure that denying the existence of Muslim non-Turks brought stability to the new nation of Turkey though. If anything, it's been a thorn in its side. Look at Wales - when the English denied them they had problems; now there is no Welsh separatist movement at all. Anatolia is unique of course, but taking the European nation-state model and trying to apply it in Anatolia, emphasizing one particular ethnic group, has brought a lot of problems.
sazji 1 year ago
Comment removed
salvano 1 year ago
@sazji If he wouldn't create a new nation,we would be same as the middle east, having many problems, maybe possible wars. It is sad but that was the best choice even though it created different problems. Most nations have done the same thing, aboriginals etc. but the difference is they acknowledged their mistakes. It was needed to some extent, but it is now time to acknowledge our mistakes and apologize to those who are affected and try to keep as much as tradition, culture,the Anatolian spirit
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon It did create different problems - a war that arguably continues to this day. Think about it - the issue for the peoples who broke away from the Ottomans was not Turkishness, it was second-class citizenship as non-Muslims. The criterion for people in the population exchange was religion more than actual ethnicity. Emphaisizing Turkishness vs. non-Turkishness, the new state fueled other divisions that they could have minimized by equal treatment. But it was the fashion of the times.
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji Yes, that's true, but Ottomans collapsed mainly from the same problems, being a multi-national empire was a big disadvantage when nationalist movement started in Europe. So, if he would create a another model like Ottomans pursued, it wouldn't make a difference. So, assimilation was needed a bit, like how cultures are assimilated in the US, but now the conjuncture is much different, we can make a difference now by acknowledging every language, culture, ethnicity living in this land.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon Well...that's a bit revisionist. :) It had a lot more to do with corruption, opposition from the Ulema to progress in many areas, new trade routes in the world and the Empire's inability to compete in world markets. The British Empire was huge competition. Corruption in the military was especially a big problem, and the fact that they couldn't do devşirme any more after the abolition of the Janissaries was another drain.
sazji 1 year ago
@norelojon One could also argue that the modern republic's assimilation policies did little to solve their problems; rather, they exacerbated them. It certainly hasn't made the Kurds go away. Good education would have done a lot more to unify people. These assimilation politics were misguided attempts based heavily on German notions of stability by ethnic purity; it's cost Turkey dearly and the only thing that has helped is as you say, acknowledging all the peoples living here.
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji And yes it was the fashion of those times, everything was different. Australians have lost generation problem, they have done worse things. In US we have seen different kind of problems but they are rooted in the same reality. The importance is to acknowledging and reversing our mistakes now. We are the same people at the end of the day, even greeks in greece and turks in turkey are the same people, only cultural difference is religion.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon I agree, the US certainly doesn't have any moral high ground. I think Turkey should recognize the whole truth behind the Armenians for example. But if it does, then let the US acknowledge openly what it did to the Indians, as Australia's prime minister did. Let Norway acknowledge the forced sterilization of the Sami; let everyone acknowledge their abuses and ethnic cleansing and decide to put it firmly into the past.
sazji 1 year ago
@norelojon Ataturk created a new nation and it was necessary, but it didn't have to be one that replaced older discriminations with new ones. And since then both Greece and Turkey have been hypocritical about it, demanding equal treatment of each other's minorities while oppressing their own (and not only Greeks and Turks). Because the ostensible desire to secure the well-being of their compatriots across the border was secondary to achieve pure nation states. And everyone has suffered.
sazji 1 year ago
@norelojon The interests served by all this uprooting of people have always been those of a handful of people in governments, not of the people who usually got along just fine (until stirred up by those governments). We read "Turkey expels Greeks" or "Greece oppresses Muslims" but who actually does it, and who is gaining something from it? Who in Turkey has gained from the forced resettlements leading to the Dersim rebellion, who in Greece benefitted from the anti-Turkish nationalism in Cyprus?
sazji 1 year ago
@sazji And yes I agree with you wholeheartedly. We lost from many aspects, these multi-ethnic lands were replaced with boring, single religion, but I think we still have a chance. Even religion itself does not make that much difference. The importance is keeping the culture, than you evolve your religion as well. Just like Alevis. Even though many are Muslim now, but they practice it according to their culture in Anatolia. Their world-view isn't changed much, and that's give me the hope.
norelojon 1 year ago
@sazji However, some people are not happy, for example Kurdish people. Their village names are changed forcibly, so it is a hot issue on Kurdish side and this is simply fascism, I agree on that. Kurds also have different characters that are not exist in Turkish such as x and w, so it was another problem since official language is Turkish. This is one of the thing that Kurds want. They say Kurdish should be official language like Turkish.
norelojon 1 year ago
@norelojon The notion of "official language" (if it means "only language") is a problem in a place like Turkey. The US for example has no official language. It's understood of course that you need English to be able to survive and progress there, but speakers of Spanish or other languages are free to educate their kids in other languages as well. In Turkey that's the case for recognized minorities like Greeks or Armenians, so why not Kurds? I think it will get there.
sazji 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you know that AT LEAST 2 MILLION Christians were killed through genocide in Turkey, during World War I. These were civilians, born in Turkey, because historically, Turkey was Armenian and Greek. 1.5 MILLION Armenians were slaughtered, in addition to 500,000 Greeks!!! This is an abomination to man, and it is forgotten. What makes the Turkish genocide worse than Hitler's, was that the Germans admitted to it, and Turks wont. TO LEARN MORE, VISIT MY CHANNEL!!
ITSKonstantinoupolis 3 years ago
Thank you for all your vids. I am taking my daughter to Istanbul for 10 days over Xmas and hope to see most of the sights you saw!
Tangutica 3 years ago
come in there!but not live in there!
greenday4ever88 4 years ago
i agree.I have been livign here for 32 years. I am sick of living in so crowded city
metesunshine 4 years ago
@metesunshine For me it's certainly a love-hate relationship! I love it until I have to go out and deal with traffic, or we get a really still day and the automobile exhaust builds up. Especially this year I've found myself been thinking seriously about other cities to live in.
sazji 1 year ago
thanks for the preparation...good job...wwooww
speedypuffy 4 years ago 8
fantastic
arpallot1234 4 years ago 2
great..
DeliCoban3452 5 years ago