AMAZING! Reconstructions of CONSTANTINOPLE

[Tureuki]

Hippodrome's grounds for a while utilized similarly


If the complex itself was intact and in good conditions I'm sure it would be continued to be used and repaired.

[Hobbes]

Did they use the hippodrome for circumcisions of royal family members or something? I think that Mehmed II said something about spiders living in one of the imperial palaces because it was completely abandoned.

[Stavroforos]

If you're referring to what he said when entering Hagia Sophia (I believe), he was quoting a Persian poem or something.

[Tureuki]

Yes there was various events taken place at there.

Its claimed he said a Persian verse(quoted ?) when he looked at the sight of city.

Spider makes curtains at Khosrau's palace
Owl plays the night watch pipe at Afrasiab's castle

[Stavroforos]

The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars;
The owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab

[Tureuki]

Yeah thats what happens when I try to translate it myself

Source I have read was saying Khosrau though.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

I wish the Ottomans didn't destroy such beautiful buildings.

[Stavroforos]

Yeah thats what happens when I try to translate it myself

Source I have read was saying Khosrau though.

Hmmm, I think I've read that version as well.

I wish the Ottomans didn't destroy such beautiful buildings.

They didn't, for the most part.

[neoptolemos]

I don't think anyone doubts that, neo, but the city was in much better condition when the Crusaders sacked it in 1204 than when the Ottomans conquered it in 1453. There was naturally much plundering, but city itself was just a shell in 1453, and almost all of the buildings pictured were either gone or in a horrid state of disrepair. At that point it was better to tear down rather than restore. I mean, even the Church of Holy Apostles was in a poor state, and it was one of the most important churches in the city.

It doesn't make a big difference Stav.
The Ottomans were using heavy artillery and they have officially plundered the city for 3 days (unofficially we don't really know actually because you can't really control all these thousands of irregulars of your army) making their impact significant nonetheless.

See examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_...orphyrogenitus

The palace suffered extensive damage due to its proximity to the outer walls during the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Afterwards it was used for a wide variety of purposes. During the 16th and 17th century, it housed part of the Sultan's menagerie. The animals were moved elsewhere by the end of the 17th century, and the building was used as a brothel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P...Constantinople

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nea_Ekklesia

The Ottomans however used it for gunpowder storage. Thus in 1490, when the building was struck by a lightning, it was destroyed and subsequently torn down.^[4] As a result, the only information we have about the church comes from literary evidence, especially the mid-10th century Vita Basilii, as well a few crude depictions in maps.^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodr...Constantinople

Constantinople never really recovered from its sack during the Fourth Crusade and even though the Byzantine Empire survived until 1453, by that time, the Hippodrome had fallen into ruin. The Ottoman Turks, who captured the city in 1453 and made it the capital of the Ottoman Empire, were not interested in racing and the Hippodrome was gradually forgotten, although the site was never actually built over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boukoleon_Palace

When Mehmet II, the Ottoman emperor, entered the city in 1453, it was noted that the then-famous palace still stood, albeit in ruins. The ruins of the palace were partially destroyed in 1873 to make way for the railway line to Sirkeci.

I am sure you can find numerous examples and my argument that Ottoman simply had different aesthetics and priorities than the Byzantines stands.
They chose not to restore the Byzantine buildings as well for they were viewing the city as a city of infidels that needed a muslim "makeover" (well short of...)

[Stavroforos]

Neo, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that most of the buildings in the OP were in poor state in 1453, as most of them were no longer being used or maintained. I'm not saying the Ottomans didn't bring destruction to Constantinople, but time had done greater damage.

[neoptolemos]

Neo, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that most of the buildings in the OP were in poor state in 1453, as most of them were no longer being used or maintained. I'm not saying the Ottomans didn't bring destruction to Constantinople, but time had done greater damage.

Well sure but as I ve pointed out restoration of the existing ones was not in their plans as well.You have to take in consideration that the gazi Ottomans would have despised the lavish iconography and sculpture around the Byzantine architecture as well, making the "infidel" relics even more unlikely to survive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaste...hn_the_Studite

In 1204, the monastery was destroyed by the Crusaders and was not fully restored until 1290, by Constantine Palaiologos. The Russian pilgrims Anthony (c. 1200) and Stephen (c. 1350) were amazed by the size of the monastic grounds. It is thought that the cloister sheltered as much as 700 monks at the time. The greater part of the monastery was again destroyed when the Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453.

The interesting alternative scenario is what the Byzantines would have done if they had survived

[Caesar Germanico]

I think these pictures demonstrate with the most emphatic manner , the Roman splendour and grandiose of Constantinople.

From these pictures we can safely conclude that the remarks made for the city that outclassed Rome itself and for being the greatest city of all were not exaggerations.....

I think it's a matter of opinion if Constantinople outclassed Rome or not, it surely didn't for population and huge landmarks.

[neoptolemos]

I think it's a matter of opinion if Constantinople outclassed Rome or not, it surely didn't for population and huge landmarks.

well the Romans built Rome and the Romans built Constantinople as a city that it was meant to surpass Rome itself.So little they knew eh.....

As for landmarks the Hippodrome speaks for itself not to mention the walls which are a marvel themselves so......

[Dromikaites]

We should take into account that in the past people weren't interested in restoring ancient buildings for the purpose of preserving them. Preserving the ancient buildings is a rather recent approach, started in the 19th century.

We can understand this by looking at how 16th century fortified castles were turned into 18th century Baroque and Rococo palaces all over Europe, by cutting large windows in the walls and by adorning the crenelations with statues. Many of the perimeter walls were dismantled and the moats were filled in order to build the parks, etc. The same happened even to churches and cathedrals (on occasions the pre18th century were demolished and new ones were built on the location).

The Ottomans were like everybody else: if the buildings were in good standing in 1453, they were preserved and sometimes "modernized" (the Aqueduct of Valens is still in use, and was enlarged by various Sultans). However if they were in very bad shape, they were abandoned and some of the materials there were "recycled" to build something else on another location.

Even tearing down the old buildings was costly (one needed to hire people to do that and to transport all that material away), so unless somebody was paying for it, it wasn't done. Not in Istanbul, not anywhere else.

We owe the preservation of many Ancient Roman and Ancient Greek buildings simply to the fact nobody wanted to pay for demolishing them (e.g. the Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome). Parts of the Constantinople's Great Palace (long since abandoned before the 1453 conquest because of being severely damaged by an earthquake) were demolished in the 19th century because only then, 500 years after the conquest, money became available for the operation. And the purpose for demolishing those still standing ruins was to build Istanbul's Central Railway Station.

So we can safely say the Ottomans weren't destroying the ancient buildings of Constantinople out of some desire to wipe out the past. They reused what could still be preserved with reasonable costs and they let decay what would have required heavy investment to preserve, just like everybody else did with the old buildings all over Europe.

[neoptolemos]

I beg to difeer drom.here is the example of Thessaloniki and the organized change of the city the Ottomans did. Among the changes were demolitions as well.
It is safe to assume that Constantinople suffered a similar fate.
http://www.academia.edu/3504510/The_...poietos_church

Not that the Ottomans were the only ones but certainly being different in cultural background and faith played a significant role to the dramatic change of the byzantine cities.
Similar changes underwent other places such as Britain after the presecution of Catholic faith for example.
Aknowledging a mere fact is essential before resorting to apologetism

[Stavroforos]

Neo, it only makes sense that churches would be converted, demolished, or somehow damaged by an Islamic empire, just as the reverse happened by Christian powers. Most of the buildings in the OP aren't churches though, but public buildings. If these buildings were in good condition, the Ottomans would have just used them for whatever purpose they were originally intended for, but most of them were either already destroyed or in a bad state of repair.

[Caesar Germanico]

well the Romans built Rome and the Romans built Constantinople as a city that it was meant to surpass Rome itself.So little they knew eh.....

As for landmarks the Hippodrome speaks for itself not to mention the walls which are a marvel themselves so......

The Romans meant to build another great capital, Constantine did great works in Rome too, I doubt he set his mind to absolutely surpass Rome and even if he did it doesn't mean he and others actually did.

The circus was bigger in Rome and Constantinople lacked something like the colosseum, furthermore I believe the forums were not bigger and the baths probably smaller.Costantinople sure had landmarks (never claimed otherwise) but it didn't "surely outclass" Rome in that aspect.

[PointOfViewGun]

Great reconstruction.

If Ottomans had the desire to demolish any Roman structure in the city then they'd destroy Haghia Sophia as well. Otherwise, why would they even not destroy some of the still standing monuments of the Eastern Roman Empire? It's a knee jerk reaction to try to put Ottomans in a negative light in this particular matter and it has nothing to do with combating apologetism.

[Stavroforos]

You know your example is unnecessarily hyperbolic, right? There's no way any conqueror would have destroyed the Hagia Sophia, except like, the Mongols.

[PointOfViewGun]

You know your example is unnecessarily hyperbolic, right? There's no way any conqueror would have destroyed the Hagia Sophia, except like, the Mongols.

Why wouldn't they? It's a different religion. If it was one of the crazy sultans Ottomans had those buildings could easily be destroyed instead of being converted.