garbitsch wrote:Murtaza, c'mon. In our education system (just like the other education systems throughout the world), they made us think that Ottomans had the right to conquere every territory. This city belonged to Greeks and we conquered it. In order to justify this action, we made to believe that Istanbul is actually a Turkish word. Actually they didn't teach us the origin of the word "istanbul", but there were some rumors that it meant "Islamibol", which is wrong. By the way, I didn't say that Greeks used to call the city "Eis tin poli" i.e. " to the city". They used to call it "poli", which for them there was only one city and it was Istanbul. But the Ottomans must have heard of Greeks saying "eis tin poli! eis tin poli!". They might think "eis tin poli" is the actual name for Istanbul. Anyway this was just made up by me
It's like when the colonists first landed Australia they saw kangaroos and asked Aborigines what these animals are called. Aborigines said "kangaroo" and colonists thought this was the name for these animals. In fact, kangaroo means "I don't know"
No I mean I dont care if Orijin of Istanbul is greek or not.(For Exp Izmir is a greek name, but still Turks own and love that city)
I just dont understand why Ottomans have to justify or we have to justify conquerer of Istanbul?
We all know İstanbul was a greek city.Even Name of İstanbul becomes home of Turks"Turkevi", we all know it was a greek city.
So Putting a Turkish name wont change its orijin.
And wont justify any conquerer.
But I dont see any reason to justify conquerance(If there is such word) too.