The cause of the fire isn't clear. There are sources that says Greek soldiers started fire while retreating like in other cities in inner Aegean region like Usak, Manisa, Salihli etc.
I've lived in Izmir all of my life and love the city. I wish that the Greek, Jewish, Armenian etc. population of the city didn't have to leave the city and we could live together but It isn't fair to say that Turks burnt the city down.
The Greek army employed a scorched-earth policy at some points during their retreat, an admittedly harsh move that was sometimes used in warfare to slow enemy advances or deprive them of supplies (see the burning of Moscow by Russians themselves in 1812). The Smyrna Catastrophe was completely different: The Greek army had almost completely left Anatolia already, the Turks had been in full control of Smyrna for a few days, the fire was set in a way and at a time aimed specifically at destroying the Greek and Armenian Quarters and leaving the Turkish Quarter unscathed, and the Turkish army not only did nothing to avert the disaster, but also massacred Greek civilians by the thousands. It is quite clear who and why set the fire. I too wish we could live in harmony and really appreciate you saying that, but for that we all need to accept the past and learn from it.
While many cities in Asia Minor were pretty multicultural at that time, Smyrna was 95% Greek, and nicknamed by the Turks "Smyrna the Infidel". The fire was no accident.
Fun facts. Constantinople was never an official name of the city it was just a nickname. Official name was New Rome. Also Byzantine Empire was never a name of the country, its citizens never heard of it because it was made up afther the colapse of the Empire. Official name was Roman Empire.
Also Konstantiniyye *was* the official name of the city for ages (under Ottoman rule), while Istanbul was just a nickname, until the Turks finally decided to change the official name too.
Also the Sultanate of "Rum" is a transliteration of Rome, the country they conquered their lands from, because at the time the Turks also did not call it the Byzantine Empire. The name is really just to delineate the period after the collapse of the Western empire, not anything anyone was calling it at the time.
there is also Mauritsstad being renamed to Recife, in north east brazil after the portuguese retook brazilian land from dutch settlers.
If you ever want to do a part two for cities or add more, id recommend that one, and also Frederikstadt renamed to João Pessoa, same context as the Recife one.
Why won't this site use the proper name for old New York? It is Nieuw Amsterdam, not New Amsterdam. And, please do not use that tired old excuse that this is an English language quiz, for all the other place names are used in their original (or transliterated) form.
We don't say Papua Niu Guinea even though that's the pidgin for it, I think since 'new' isn't really a part of the name, but a reference that it's being named after a previous city means a little less semantics are necessary.
So new york is actually simply york? And newcastle is castle? And nova scotia is scotia? ANd ah new mexico is mexico? Yes the "new" in whatever form is the reference to the original city, but definitely part of the name!
And perhaps not in some, but in most cases with that intention from the start. Places are called after/in honor of existing places, not (usualy) the exact same name. Especially in cases of newly conquered/explored land.
"I hereby declare these lands, New Jetpunk!"
towns later established and/or playing a less important role in the settling often do have simple copies of names.
Uhh... I don't think that's what anyone was saying, Sifhraven. It was more to do with writing "New" in English or in another language, not about leaving it out altogether.
Many of these places didn't really "change name", it's just that the English native speakers decided to spell it according to another transliteration or language: the Turks always called "Smyrna" "Izmir", just the English stopped calling it in Greek. The Polish always called "Danzig" "Gdansk", just the English stopped calling it in German.
Yes it's true. That's the same name in other languages. Poles since always has been calling the city Gdansk and Germans are still calling Danzig, Breslau, Stettin etc. Polish people also has their own names of german city like Chociebuz for Cottbus, Norymberga for Nuremberg or Moguncja for Mainz.
That's a bit of a blanket statement. Personally I think Beijing and Mumbai sound much better than Peking and Bombay. Many have not really changed their names, it's just that we in English have taken to using the local name rather than an old colonial name or some anglicisation. Canton was never the name for that city. Of course some changed because of the connotations of the name - Stalingrad's, for example, aren't great. On the other hand Vietnam's new communist government wanted to honour their founder and so renamed the largest city.
I was reading that the way I think (we) Brits and Yanks say Mumbai is completely off. And that Mumbai is one of the local languages and not really preferred by the new city dwellers who are from a broader reason. It's all a sticky web, as it should be.
You know, after everything else he did, there's something so unbearably, insufferably smug about Leopold II naming the capital of the country he destroyed after himself. Just one more slap in the face.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tenochtitlan different than Mexico City? They built Mexico City in the same spot on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, but that's different than just renaming the city, which is what most of these are
Those are just the modern English and Russian names. Although, in a way, Moscow is sort of the older name. Moscow historically comes from the Old East Slavic word Московь (along with words like Muscovy and Muscovite). A few centuries later in the evolution of Russian, the second o dropped out and the word took on the modern Russian spelling Москва/Moskva.
I looked at Londinium, thought "That can't be London, that would be too obvious". Spent a minute or two guessing cities that used to be part of the British Empire. I give up, see the answer. *Sigh*.
I've lived in Izmir all of my life and love the city. I wish that the Greek, Jewish, Armenian etc. population of the city didn't have to leave the city and we could live together but It isn't fair to say that Turks burnt the city down.
Been a long time gone that Constantinople, like a Turkish Delight on a moonlit night.
Every gal in Constantinople, lives in Istanbul not Constantinople
So if you've got a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul...
Also the Sultanate of "Rum" is a transliteration of Rome, the country they conquered their lands from, because at the time the Turks also did not call it the Byzantine Empire. The name is really just to delineate the period after the collapse of the Western empire, not anything anyone was calling it at the time.
Interesting how much gets lost in translation.
If you ever want to do a part two for cities or add more, id recommend that one, and also Frederikstadt renamed to João Pessoa, same context as the Recife one.
And perhaps not in some, but in most cases with that intention from the start. Places are called after/in honor of existing places, not (usualy) the exact same name. Especially in cases of newly conquered/explored land.
"I hereby declare these lands, New Jetpunk!"
towns later established and/or playing a less important role in the settling often do have simple copies of names.
FIFY.
Why they changed it I can't say, people just liked it better that way)
So, take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone that Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks!