Istanbul? - Konstantinopolis? - Byzantium?

Users who are viewing this thread

According to Greek researchers The Turks renamed Constantinople to Istanbul because of a misunderstanding.

After capturing Istanbul, the Greeks who were going to Istanbul were asked by guards the question:
-"Where are you going? (hoping to learn the name of the city they captured)"
The Greeks answered :
-"Eis ten polin," which meant "In the city (you dope-heads where do you think I'm going to)"

The Turks after hearing this answer thought the city they captured was named "Eist ten Polin" and mispronounced it as Istanbul thus changing the cities name.

Fortunately, there are other explanations.

According to Kazım Mirşan the old Turkic name of Istanbul was ASTAN-BOLIQ

-Mesudi who lived during 10. century wrote that this city was called ASTAN-BULEN by its inhabitants in his book “Efembih Vellişref”
-Batuta who lived during 14. century wrote the city was called İZTANBUL by its inhabitants
-Vartan who lived during 14. century wrote the city was called ESDAMPOL by its inhabitants.
-The city was walled İstanbul during the reign of Second Murat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_II

Istanbul might have been initially settled and created by Proto-Turks.


According to Kazım Mirşan the name is Turkic;

*İSTAN: In ProtoTurkic means "connected to the "Upper-World (which is the Tengri's floor;empyrean) - "being connected to the heaven":''Tanrı katına AS/ılı olan"
The root is "AS/qan"  it changed over time AS/tan, AS/pan , and today it's AS/üman.

*There was a SkyGod named İSTANU among Hittites. this is the heritage of ESTANU among Hattis, Hattians (E.Akurgal, Anadolu Kültür tarihi, Tübitak 1967)

*Also in Ottoman Empire another name for Istanbul was "Asitane"  (ASTANA:ASİTANE)

*In East Turkestan (today occupied just like Tibet by China) there is city named Astana near Turfan:Turpan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpan

*The Kurd rebel Şehy Sait's father is buried on the hill in Turkey which is named Astan Hill. (M.Toker, şeyh Sait İsyanı)

ASTAN was ASQAN in Proto-Turkic which meant "to be in heaven"

*City of Kastanbolu in Trace could also have a connection with kESTAN POL (ASTAN BOLIQ)

*Astana in Turkic means capital city. The capital city of Kazakhstan is indeed Astana. The word is Turkic and it reached everywhere in different forms where Turks settled in. The Kazakhs changed their capital name from BeşBalık (BÏŞ-BOLIQ) to Astana.

According to researches done in this area, Istanbul was first created by Vyzas in BC 657 and that this "VYZAS" word comes from "BYZANTIUM". This weird tale led serious researchers to find a more believable theory. Krethmer tryed so hard to find some truth in this and tried the words like Biezas, Buezas, Buesantis but couldn't reach any scientific result.
-According to myth, Vyzas the son of Poseidon (the God of seas, winds and earthquakes) created Istanbul.
Apparently Trojans were stupid enough to not colonize Istanbul according to this myth.


The first great Proto-Turkic confederation was named BİR-OY-BİL and their capital was named "AT-OĞI BOLIQ"

BOLIQ means site, ordered (as in packed like sardines or jam-packed) and abundance.
Today in Anatolian Turk language we use the word "BALIK" for fish and "BOLLUK" for abundance and "BALIK İSTİFİ" for "in an orderly fashion", "crowded" (I know it is strange but these are really the truth)
Nevertheless Balık is still used for some Turkic cities around the world and it was used much more in the far past.

*In Anatolia the name became Bolu (A city in Anatolia).

*There is city named "Can - BOL" near Aral Lake.

*Kastamonu probably is related with (K)ASTAN BOLU.

ASTANA in time changed into SİTAN, İSTAN (probably because of Persian influence)  That's why there are many country names ending with STAN. In turkish we say Yunanistan (Greece), Bulgaristan (Bulgaria) Macaristan (Hungary), Ermenistan (Armenia), Frengistan (country of Franks), Türkistan, etc..

EDIT: fixed typos, these are just information. What I think is irrelevant.
 
**** sake, no-one gives a flying **** about your Turkish ****ism, we know that the Turks were once an Empire, we know they were this, that and ****ing everything else, if we gave a ****, we'd have made the thread ourselves.
 
Awesome. It's nice that you explore different kinds of bull****. It's fun to see something new to debunk and laugh over.

1) Never heard of this Vyzas you speak of, Byzantion on the other hand was named after a king of the colonists - Byzas.
2) The Trojans were long past their prime in the 7th century BC (when Byzantion seems to have been founded as a colony), hardly any threat. Their superpower boss - the Hittite empire was also just about done by that time, separated into many neo-Hittite states of little significance. So yeah, they couldn't give a **** about the Byzantion.
Athens and Mitylene were fighting over Sigeion nearby and Troy is not even mentioned in the records. Nobody cared about it apparently, at the time.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that there apparently was a hittite god name Istanu. Not that it relates to anything. (it's just nice to see you're not lying for once)

This one's kinda weak, there's not even much to debunk beside the usual twists and lies and humorous presentation of the western conspiracy (= real history) and "etymology" as bad as ever.

So why are there proto-turks now? Weren't they always turks? Riding horses to Tengri and all that ****.
 
Merlkir said:
Awesome. It's nice that you explore different kinds of bull****. It's fun to see something new to debunk and laugh over.

1) Never heard of this Vyzas you speak of, Byzantion on the other hand was named after a king of the colonists - Byzas.
2) The Trojans were long past their prime in the 7th century BC (when Byzantion seems to have been founded as a colony), hardly any threat. Their superpower boss - the Hittite empire was also just about done by that time, separated into many neo-Hittite states of little significance. So yeah, they couldn't give a **** about the Byzantion.
Athens and Mitylene were fighting over Sigeion nearby and Troy is not even mentioned in the records. Nobody cared about it apparently, at the time.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that there apparently was a hittite god name Istanu. Not that it relates to anything.

This one's kinda weak, there's not even much to debunk beside the usual twists and lies and humorous presentation of the western conspiracy (= real history) and "etymology" as bad as ever.

So why are there proto-turks now? Weren't they always turks? Riding horses to Tengri and all that ****.

The bible belief that human kind is 3000 or 4000 years old is long past. Unfortunately for you, the things you tell me are based on this myth.

That tale of the colonist would have been a great quest for role playing game. We are in real life.
 
o_O whaa...

Ehm...soo. You're telling me god didn't create the earth in seven days?!

Seriously, what are you on about?! I'm not even christian.
So, you don't subscribe to all that boring stuff about the stone age and bronze age and iron age...no? Archaeology, all bull****?

Humans are tens of thousands of years old and were brought on Earth by proto turkish aliens? I kinda had a weird twisted sort of respect for your insanity, but if you're up there with Mu and Atlantis nutters, I'm afraid I'm calling you definitely lost.
 
Ancalimon said:
The bible belief that human kind is 3000 or 4000 years old is long past. Unfortunately for you, the things you tell me are based on this myth.

That tale of the colonist would have been a great quest for role playing game. We are in real life.

Excuse me, what? Since when was history based on the bible? I suppose all of the lectures I sat in on about Egyptians circa 3000-6000 B.C. were based on the myth they don't exist yet?
 
Merlkir said:
o_O whaa...

Ehm...soo. You're telling me god didn't create the earth in seven days?!

Seriously, what are you on about?! I'm not even christian.
So, you don't subscribe to all that boring stuff about the stone age and bronze age and iron age...no? Archaeology, all bull****?

Humans are tens of thousands of years old and were brought on Earth by proto turkish aliens? I kinda had a weird twisted sort of respect for your insanity, but if you're up there with Mu and Atlantis nutters, I'm afraid I'm calling you definitely lost.

I have a clear conscience. Yet you are telling me that there were stupid people who didn't colonize Istanbul before an Oracle told a "colonist" named Vyzas (or Byzas if you'd like it that way) who is son of Poseidon to do so. This is based on the Christian dogma. I'm not judging anyone's religion.

I'm not alienating Turks either. It's me that reject that Turks suddenly appeared and started conquering land after land. I never said there was a continent named Mu or Atlantis. I simply said Turks had advanced culture and technology that led the world to chaos.

I'm simply giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
 
Austupaio said:
Excuse me, what? Since when was history based on the bible? I suppose all of the lectures I sat in on about Egyptians circa 3000-6000 B.C. were based on the myth they don't exist yet?
 
Austupaio said:
Austupaio said:
Excuse me, what? Since when was history based on the bible? I suppose all of the lectures I sat in on about Egyptians circa 3000-6000 B.C. were based on the myth they don't exist yet?

many myths are based on late Christianity (after a certain Ecumenical Council that changed what Christianity was)
And yes... History is still based on the bible when it sustains Western Prosperity and Status-Quo. You don't have to be me to see this.

I guess Christians didn't also take it kind when it found that Egyptians lived during 6000BC's.
 
ancalimon said:
many myths are based on late Christianity (after a certain Ecumenical Council that changed what Christianity was)
And yes... History is still based on the bible when it sustains Western Prosperity and Status-Quo. You don't have to be me to see this.

I guess Christians didn't also take it kind when it found that Egyptians lived during 6000BC's.

So exactly what history is based on the bible? If not the pre 2,000 B.C. then 1,999 B.C. - 1500 A.D. ?
 
ancalimon said:
Austupaio said:
Austupaio said:
Excuse me, what? Since when was history based on the bible? I suppose all of the lectures I sat in on about Egyptians circa 3000-6000 B.C. were based on the myth they don't exist yet?

many myths are based on late Christianity (after a certain Ecumenical Council that changed what Christianity was)
And yes... History is still based on the bible when it sustains Western Prosperity and Status-Quo. You don't have to be me to see this.

Yes, you do, apparently. Actually, the bible is based on many more ancient myths. I have no idea how you see Byzas founding a city coming from the Bible. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. We've tried to explain this to you before.

Byzas wasn't a son of Poseidon, I think that much is clear. (rather a son of king Nisos)
About the prophecy....Greeks just liked their oracles. See, an oracle is a great tool for rulers of any civilization. You can pass many decisions as gods' will if you let an oracle say it. No doubt most prophecies were carefully planned.
Greeks liked to colonize places, the Black Sea coast was there. Voila.
 
Question for the Turks (little OT)? Why so proud on the Ottoman Empire? Every battle I see the Christians ALWAYS heavily outnumbered and still they won the most battles. Our your good friends, the Albanians... :smile:

Yeah, you defeated some Mamluks and others, tribes who didn't fight with guns and cannons because there was no honour with that (I agree). The reason that you had such a great empire was because many "people" fought for the Islam (and so give their lands to you), thinking it was time for their Holy Wars.

When it cames to fighting the Christians, 70-80 procent of all battles, the Ottomans got a lesson of "how to kill your enemies".
 
Templari said:
Question for the Turks (little OT)? Why so proud on the Ottoman Empire? Every battle I see the Christians ALWAYS heavily outnumbered and still they won the most battles. Our your good friends, the Albanians... :smile:

Yeah, you defeated some Mamluks and others, tribes who didn't fight with guns and cannons because there was no honour with that (I agree). The reason that you had such a great empire was because many "people" fought for the Islam (and so give their lands to you), thinking it was time for their Holy Wars.

When it cames to fighting the Christians, 70-80 procent of all battles, the Ottomans got a lesson of "how to kill your enemies".

Please, try to keep on topic.
 
Merlkir said:
Templari said:
Question for the Turks (little OT)? Why so proud on the Ottoman Empire? Every battle I see the Christians ALWAYS heavily outnumbered and still they won the most battles. Our your good friends, the Albanians... :smile:

Yeah, you defeated some Mamluks and others, tribes who didn't fight with guns and cannons because there was no honour with that (I agree). The reason that you had such a great empire was because many "people" fought for the Islam (and so give their lands to you), thinking it was time for their Holy Wars.

When it cames to fighting the Christians, 70-80 procent of all battles, the Ottomans got a lesson of "how to kill your enemies".

Please, try to keep on topic.
My bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom