Not Constantinople

[Traelin]

OK I have to admit I didn't originally give the Byzantines enough credit. After reading the article and some other web info, I have to admit I was incorrect in my previous conclusions. The Byzantines should indeed be a separate Civ. However, how do you include them when they shared the same capital city with the same name as the Ottomans? Both had the capital of Constantinople. That would be way too weird, and historically inaccurate if the Ottomans have "Istanbul" as their capital. BTW, I don't have PTW yet. What is the capital city name for the Ottomans?

[teturkhan]

Istanbul not Constantinople!

Istanbul was the name given to the city when the Turks conquered it in 1453. I know of no document showing the Turks called the city Constantinople, maybe Europeans kept calling it that but not the Turks.

Challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

[Traelin]

Re: Istanbul not Constantinople!

Originally posted by teturkhan
Istanbul was the name given to the city when the Turks conquered it in 1453. I know of no document showing the Turks called the city Constantinople, maybe Europeans kept calling it that but not the Turks.

Challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I guess what it really comes down to is a "He said, she said" type of debate. That is, who called the city what, and when? We certainly know that the British, French, and the Byzantines called it Constantinople, at least until its official name change in 1930. And we do know that its official name change occurred in 1930. But then two questions arise:

1. Did the Turks refer to the city as Istanbul BEFORE the name change?

2. If they did, then which name should be associate with the city, the Turkish or the European name?

Interesting.

[Traelin]

OK here's some really interesting info on Istanbul/Byzantium/Constantinople.

Check out:

http://www.istanbullife.org/history_of_istanbul.htm

Quote: "Recent research has shown that the name 'Istanbul' was used if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the 11th century and that the Turks knew the city by this name. Istanbul has had other names at various times but none of them was used widely or for any great length of time. During the Turkish period the names 'Dersaadet' and 'Deraliye' were used (and these were adjectival more than anything else), and if official correspondence and on coins the Turkish transcription of 'Konstantinoupolis', 'Konstantiniye' was used, Although the use of the name 'Konstantiniye' was prohibited at one time during the Ottoman period by Sultan Mustafa III, its use continued, to be abandoned during the republican period."

This site still doesn't clear it up to me. It almost sounds like the Turks, when talking in the streets about their city, would refer to it as Istanbul. Yet their currency had Constantinople on it. It seems like they didn't even know what to call the city.

[teturkhan]

Finally, weakened by almost constant battle, the Ottoman Turks successfully conquered Constantinople in 1453. Renamed Istanbul

The Germans refer to Istanbul as 'Konstantinopel', the French and the British as 'Constantinople' and the Italians as 'Constantinopoli'. Europe resists the adoption of the name 'Istanbul'.

There is some debate as to the name, however many of the sources I have read, majority of them state that the city was renamed Istanbul after Mehmed II took it over in 1453.

I think it is a case where Europe is still in denial & guilt that the Turks took the city. Rather than accept the name change they insist on calling it Constantinople (which I think sounds better )

Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

[monkspider]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

On the subject of giving both Byzantines and Ottomans the same capital city, I see no real problems, unless both civs are playing on a world map.

It might be kind of weird to see the Byzantine capital of Constantinople being number one in the top five cities, and then seeing the Ottoman capital of Istanbul number three, but it's no big deal, IMHO.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by monkspider





On the subject of giving both Byzantines and Ottomans the same capital city, I see no real problems, unless both civs are playing on a world map.

It might be kind of weird to see the Byzantine capital of Constantinople being number one in the top five cities, and then seeing the Ottoman capital of Istanbul number three, but it's no big deal, IMHO.

As I mentioned above, I'm digging deep into a "best" starting date for a mod; at first I thought 1070 CE; now -- thanks to this thread -- I think an admixture of ca. 1050-1100 is defintely best. Re: this thread specifically, the Seljuk Turks conquered Baghdad in 1055; at that time, Baghdad and Constantinople were the two most populous cities in Europe and the Near East.

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

[Traelin]

Originally posted by teturkhan




There is some debate as to the name, however many of the sources I have read, majority of them state that the city was renamed Istanbul after Mehmed II took it over in 1453.

I think it is a case where Europe is still in denial & guilt that the Turks took the city. Rather than accept the name change they insist on calling it Constantinople (which I think sounds better )

Just like they gave us the name Turkey - what a raw deal that was... ruined my childhood "how do you speak turkish?? Gobble gobble gobble???"

BAHAHA that's funny. Actually where did the name "Turk" come from, do you know? Just curious.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

Actually where did the name "Turk" come from, do you know? Just curious.

-- From http://www.geocities.com/etymonline --

"Turk - M.E., from Fr. Turc, from M.L. Turcus, from Byzantine Gk. Tourkos, Pers. turk, a national name, of unknown origin. Said to mean "strength" in Turkish. "

Re: the bird:

"turkey - 1541, "guinea fowl" (numida meleagris), imported from Madacascar via Turkey, by Near East traders known as turkey merchants ... "

-- and, moving on to Anglo-American usage:

"The larger North American bird (meleagris gallopavo) was domesticated by the Aztecs, introduced to Spain by conquistadors (1523) and thence to wider Europe, by way of Africa and Turkey (Indian corn was originally turkey corn or turkey wheat in Eng. for the same reason). The word turkey was first applied to it in Eng. 1555 because it was identified with or treated as a species of the guinea fowl. The New World bird itself reputedly reached England by 1524 (when Henry VIII dined on it at court). Turkeys raised by the Pilgrims were probably stock brought from England."

Just like "pommes frites" becoming "French fries" ...

As Always,

Oz

[twilight]

Originally posted by Ozymandias

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

I thought Byzanz had even more, I read about 300-400.000 but that could be their maxpopulation in their hight times. But that would be the 8. to the 11th (estimated).

To say one thing more: Byzanz was the wealthiest city in the western and eastern world (what about china?). They ownd whole masses of ALL christian reliquies like THE REALLY ONE crown of Jesus (dont know the term, the one with the spikes) and the very one cross and the were one letter of Jesus himself to a certain king I don't know and so on and so on. They were the very library of the old world, even the eastern people respected them for their traditions and strenght what does'nt means they did not try to destroy them. I think it's normal historic thinking that the third crusade in which Byzanz was plundered (shame on Dandolo's name!) was the greatest single desaster for the destruction of ancient knowledge, far more desastrous that the destruction of the Great Library in Alexandria and after the Byzantines never recover from that and after they fell to the Ottomans the way for them to the christian lands were free. Some problems of today are the result of the third crusade, so the Balkan Wars.

OZ? There was a westeuropean citiy in this time bigger than 15.000 ....

....my home city........ Cologne, Germany

Okay, never checked it out, but several professors on the cologne university said so. I think it was our High-middleage, so 11th to 13th Century. Not quite sure because not studying these aspects yet.

[metalhead]

Damn, I'm too late for my favorite debate! I'll just say, Oz, right on, it's a crime that America and Zululand were included, and this extremely important empire, one of only 2 empires (the other being the Arabs, who were also curiously left out of the original game) to exist for and dominate most of the Middle Ages, were left out. Of course, Byzantium is STILL left out, for some stupid reason. Fix this Firaxis :doitnow:

The argument that Europe on an Earth map is alreqdy too crowded is irrelevant. If this is your argument, you need to realize that most Civ players do not play on Earth maps, and could care less if the Byzantine Empire would crowd an Earth map.

[twilight]

I totally agree to that. But even if would be the case: YOu can play the real earthmap, that means you can't place half the european civs or on the other hand you play either a part of earth, Europe for example, or you play in a certain time and both are reason enough to put the Byzantines in.

Im also the opinion that Firaxis should let us choose what enemies we want to have without cutting the maximum ammount of civs. In other words: More Civs! Many more! Even little ones! Can't be so difficult. What would be so bad to let us choose up to 31 Civ from a total ammount of 40?

[Nakar Gabab]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
As I mentioned above, I'm digging deep into a "best" starting date for a mod; at first I thought 1070 CE; now -- thanks to this thread -- I think an admixture of ca. 1050-1100 is defintely best. Re: this thread specifically, the Seljuk Turks conquered Baghdad in 1055; at that time, Baghdad and Constantinople were the two most populous cities in Europe and the Near East.

Each had population (sorry, but it's the range of the scale of the quickest source I could lay my hands on) in the 50,000 - 125,000 range.

It's interesting to note that NO cities in Christian, Western Europe at that time had a population in excess of 15,000!

Thanks,

Oz

You sly bastard! You didn't say "any other cities!" Since, as we all (riiiiiiight) know, the Mesoamerican city-state of Teotihuacan may have had 75,000-150,000 people in the early 11th century...

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by twilight


I thought Byzanz had even more, I read about 300-400.000 but that could be their maxpopulation in their hight times. But that would be the 8. to the 11th (estimated).

OZ? There was a westeuropean citiy in this time bigger than 15.000 .... my home city........ Cologne, Germany

... I think it was our High-middleage, so 11th to 13th Century. Not quite sure because not studying these aspects yet.

Hi,

The "quick source" I used is Colin McEvedy's "The New Penguin Atlas Of Medieval" History (BTW there are 4 volumes -- Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and Recent -- and they are probably the best single source of Civ info for Civ gamers; each is ~100 wide pages long, and each contain political, economic/urban, and religious maps.)

Urban population in Western Christian Europe did begin to take off in the "High Middle Ages"; the map I was drawing from 1000 CE, the next in the "population" series dates from 1212 and shows some 15 or so cities in Western Christian Europe having crossed the 15,000 population threshhold.

Insofar as relative population goes, my "Atlas of World Population History" gives ALL of Europe, in 1000 CE, a population of 36 million (BTW, this represents a return to the level of 200 BCE, with 600 CE seeing a low of about 26 million). Meanwhile, "China Proper" (i.e., absent Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Turkestan, Tibet and Taiwan) had, in 1000 CE, a population of some 66 million, rising rapidly to 115 million ~1200, then falling to new low of ~81 million in 1400, at which time Europe was experiencing its Black Plague dip to 60 million (from a high of 80 million ~1300, not reached again until 1500).

All the Best,

Oz

[Traelin]

Originally posted by metalhead
Damn, I'm too late for my favorite debate! I'll just say, Oz, right on, it's a crime that America and Zululand were included, and this extremely important empire, one of only 2 empires (the other being the Arabs, who were also curiously left out of the original game) to exist for and dominate most of the Middle Ages, were left out. Of course, Byzantium is STILL left out, for some stupid reason. Fix this Firaxis :doitnow:

The argument that Europe on an Earth map is alreqdy too crowded is irrelevant. If this is your argument, you need to realize that most Civ players do not play on Earth maps, and could care less if the Byzantine Empire would crowd an Earth map.

I disagree with your assessment of the Americans. The point is to include dominating Civs, and America has assuredly been one of them. Including all ancient Civs would be boring IMHO.