How does Turkey defend Istanbul?

Factual Questions
1

It’s Istanbul, not Constantinople…

I read an article in the Travel section of today’s NY Times on Istanbul, and it got me thinking about the history of that fascinating city.

Ever since Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, it’s been in Turkish hands. At that time, it had long been the capital of the Greek culture as embodied by the Byzantine Empire. And for a good long while after that, the Ottoman Empire ruled over what is now Greece.

When Greece gained its independence, surely they attempted to retake Constantinople, but evidently failed. In reading the Wiki article on the Greek War of Independence, it seems that much of the success of the Greek cause was due to various Western nations (France, England and Russia) supplying military aid. So why would they have stopped at “finishing the job”? Perhaps because they really wanted a Greek “buffer state” and not to truly eliminate the Ottoman Empire’s presence on the Continent?

To this day, Turkey has a “foothold” in Europe by dint of the part of Istanbul that is on the European side of the Bosphorus, plus some additional land around it. I don’t know if an independent Greece has ever made a bid to claim it, or if they have any kind of stated goal to do so in the future (as the Irish constitution did for a long time, in claiming the six counties of Northern Ireland).

Is there some kind of natural boundary, mountains, cliffs, a river, etc., that separates the Turkish area from Greece? How is it that Greece was not, and has not been able to “retake” at least the European side?

2

It’s a fairly complex issue, and I’m not an expert, but here’s my general understanding:

The Ottoman Empire had been known as The Sick Man of Europe for centuries. Once a dominant and feared state, by the 1700’s, it had been surpassed by the various European Great Powers. Prior to that, the OE controlled the Balkans and beyond. It almost conquered Vienna at least twice.

But as time passed, and the OE slowly weakened, the Hapsburg empire (Austria, later the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and Russia became rivals for dominance in the Balkans. To some extent, they kept each other in check, preventing either from outright seizure of the Balkans and the Straits. Other Great Powers (most notably Britain) stepped in when necessary to prevent Russian control of the Straits, as this would allow the Russian Navy to exert power in the Mediterranean. An example of this took place around 1850, when Britain and France joined with the OE in the Crimean War.

In addition to its own interests in expanding control in the area, Russia saw itself as the patron of the largely Slavic and Orthodox peoples under Ottoman control in the Balkans. Slowly, some small independant and quasi-independant states emerged in the region in the 1800’s. Austria had influence in some, and Russia in others. Popular pro-Greek sentiments in Britain resulted in British support for Greek independence, but the UK still had an interest in propping up the OE as a buffer to Russia.

Around 1900, several small Balkan wars and crises increased the size and independence of the Balkan states. Austria had been weakened by various events in the second half of the 1800’s and Russia was thought be be the stronger of the two. Still, German backing of Austria and Germany’s rivalries with Russia combined to induce Germany to lend its weight to prop up the OE, even as the UK became friendlier with Russia.

Of course, rivalries in the area triggered WWI in 1914. But even though the OE was on the losing side of that war (aligned with Germany and Austria), Russia also had been defeated. That, together with the Russian Revolution that immediately followed, meant that none of the victors had any desire to support Russian expansion in the area at Versailles (the treaty that ended WWI and generally reshuffled European borders.)

Not all that much changed in the years betwen the world wars. (I’m ignoring some significant internal changes in the OE, now known as Turkey, but these didn’t immediately lead to significant change in the area externally.)

In WWII, Turkey was neutral for nearly the entire war, joining the Allies at the end. Therefore, no diminishment of its territory occured as part of the war.

During the Cold War, the US took over the UK’s historical role as a prop of Turkish independence (against Russian desires to expand). Any Greek desires to expand to the detriment of Turkey in this century have been thwarted by this. (Both are now NATO members, although there have been flareups between them over the years.) In addition, Greece has never been strong enough on its own to militarily defeat the Turks. They’d need any ally to have a chance, and the obvious historical candidate (Russia) was (a) not attractive to most Greeks as an ally; and (ii) any moves by the Greeks in this direction would have been thwarted by the US.

3

I suppose a shorter answer to your question is that Greece has never been militarily strong enough by itself to do so, and the general historical forces discussed in my longer answer have prevented it from finding allies that would join with it against Turkey in taking Istanbul.

4

And at this point there is the little issue of the almost completely Turkish Istanbul metropolitan area having an equal or larger population than the entire nation of Greece. It would be a rather indigestible pill ;).

  • Tamerlane
5

Been a long time gone, Constantinople.

Not much to add but the OP may not be aware that Greece did attempt to bite off a substantial chunk of present-day Turkey after World War I, and got crushed.

Even then, the Greeks didn’t go after Istanbul. I’m not aware that they ever envisioned or attempted such a thing, although I can’t prove they didn’t. If they had, however, it wouldn’t have mattered–the other Western Allies would never had allowed it. Istanbul was placed under Allied occupation at the end of the war, and by the terms of the Treaty of Sevres it was to have remained that way.

In 1922 Mustafa Kemal rallied the Turks and drove the Allies out of Istanbul and the Greeks out of Smyrna and eastern Thrace. Many people died in the war and in the ensuing refugee crisis and forced population exchange. The Treaty of Sevres was torn up and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that was it as far as Greek threats to Turkey.

6

But do they even want to? The seat of the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church is there, for example, and they continue to spar over Cyprus.

As Tamerlane points out, metropolitan Istanbul has a population very nearly (if not equal to or greater than) that of Greece itself, so from a practical standpoint it ain’t happening, particularly after Turkey and Greece “repatriated” a great number of people in the first part of the 20th Century.

I think what I had in mind is summed up by this Wikipedia article on the Megali idea that was part of the original Greek nationalist movement and that has flared up a few times in the 20th Century. This movement explicitly wanted to recapture Constantinople and establish it as the Greek capitol. It was more or less quashed by Greece signing The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Thanks, Wikipedia. To quote Bart Simpson out of context: “They didn’t even try to teach us that in school!”

Next up in our series on Symbols of Other National Cultures Within Turkish Borders: Mount Ararat, which is the symbolic center of the Armenian culture but is not, in fact, in Armenia at the present time, due to its being a few miles into Turkey. That surely rankles Armenia, doesn’t it? Not that they’re in any position to do anything about it right now.

7

Nonetheless the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople maintains its headquarters in İstanbul at Aya Yorgi, long after most of the Greeks have left. Give 'em credit for tenacity. Turks, Schmurks, we are staying put.

8

Maybe so, however, you completely disregard the fact that Constantinople was entirely settled by the Greeks who lived there for over 1,000 years when Turkey finally expelled them in 1923.

In fact there were 2.5 million Greeks (Pontians as they are known) in Constantinople and Eastern Thrace, and the Western Front of Turkey, particularly Smyrna, were expelled from Anatolia (Western Front) and Thrace (the province within which Constantinople is located), following the Greco-Turkish war. These were their homelands of over 1,000 years. Now these people are scattered in Greece and across the globe in the same way the Jews were “homeless” for a thousand years.

What’s more, Constantinople is a significant city for Christendom, it is the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate and Agia Sofia the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. In short, Constantinople is to the Orthodox people (not just Greeks but all of Orthodoxy) what the Vatican is to the Roman Catholics and Agia Sofia is to the Orthodox what St Peter’s Basilica is to the Catholics. It’s as simple as that, and it has been desecrated and allowed to fall into disrepair.

Your point about the Turkish population is true on the surface but those Turks do not belong there; they are descents of those who moved in there after the city was taken in 1453 and its population enslaved by Mehmed II.

Just stop and think if I went and invaded the sacred ground of Mecca, let people visit for the next couple hundred years, but then expelled everyone there, closed it down and reopened it as a tourist resort. The Muslims would go ballistic!

Furthermore, as noted, this is the Ancient Greek capital (and the capital in the hearts of many Greeks, no least those forcibly expelled from their homes there), with untold cultural and religious significance, and not just for the Greeks. Christianity spread to Europe through Anatolia and Constantinople, which later nurtured the Enlightenment thinkers who would go on to give rise to the Renaissance.

The fact is, Constantinople (Istanbul), Adrianople (Edirne) and Smyrna (Izmir), and the Anatolian provinces along the western front of Turkey, are Greek possessions settled by Greeks who had lived their for millenia, no matter how much the Turks protest, deny, and obfuscate the history and the truth.

9

Indeed. There but for the grace of Turkey they stay, removed from the Agia Sofia.

10

Constantinople was the trading crossroads of the world, which is why Mehmet II wanted it so badly. All trade between East and West went through Constantinople. After it fell Europe started exploring the long way around Africa and also stumbled on North and South America and the aborigines in these lovely climes. So much more money was to be made in the West that Istanbul and the Ottomans became merely quaint. The Ottomans and Turks took to their weakened position with diplomatic skills that would make Metternich blush and swoon, and thus they survived their long decline.

11

Istanbul came close to being restored to Constantinople during World War 1, according to one book I read concerning Nicholas and Alexandria. Had the Russian throne been preserved and, with a WW1 victory, Turkey would have been given to Russia (I’m assuming some things here, like greater sympathy for the Greek Orthodox Church.)

12

Yes, yes - and Anatolia was largely Hellenized before Manzikert and southern Italy was once known as Magna Grecia and Marseille was once a Greek colony. So?

Just as with many other examples ( Israel, Kosovo ) these nationalistic “we were here first!” arguments that date back many centuries or millenia cut no ice with me. Do you really think anyone in this day and age is going to countenance expelling 10 million Turks from Eastern Thrace so the Greeks can have back some cultural landmarks? Nope. It’s a done deal.

You can bitch about about Mehmed II as much as you like but he is six and half centuries in his grave. The Greece-Turkey population exchanges ( and let’s not forget a few hundred thousand “Greek Muslims” that were kicked out of Greece at the same time ) that occurred in the early 20th century would be regarded as utter barbarism in the early 21rst and would invite international military action to prevent them and rightfully so. All the jingoistic chest-pounding in the world isn’t going to change that simple fact.

Also this stubborn Greek intransigence against Macedonia’s use of the name Macedonia? Idiotic :). Mainland Greece was mostly overrun by Slavs after Justinian’s reign anyway - you’re all kissing cousins down that way.

13

Istanbul was Constantinople during WWW I :). It was Ataturk who changed the official name to Istanbul in 1930. Before that ( and before the Turks, the most likely etymology is Greek ) it was just a common unofficial moniker. The official Turkish name was Konstantiye = Constantinople.

14

Good correction but I meant it would be restored to Greek Orthodox religion, the Hagia Sophia goes back to being a Christian Church, and all that (not likely the Byzantine royal line would be restored.)

15

You do know that Turkey isn’t an enemy, right? And it’s really close to joining the European Union, right?

I firmly believe in repatriation. Therefore, the Greeks should cede Turkey to the Trojans.

And let’s kick out the 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the US, and the 313 million European descendents, too. The land was settled by Asian colonists for thousands of years before the Europeans took over.
Edit: Yeah, I know… zombie thread… rawr.

16

Constantine29, you do realise that in the European part of the Ottoman Empire, “Turk” just meant Muslim? The persons living in Constantinople/ Istanbul are the descendants of those early Greeks, just those who became Muslim.

17

You forgot Syria, Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Gujerat in India were also once Greek ruled, for centuries in most cases. Lets give them back to Greece…say now there is an idea.

18

Well, since we’re talking repatriation…

19

Wow, one of the relatively few threads I’ve started on the SDMB over the past 8 years has come back as a zombie.

I would like to point out that my OP did not presuppose a valid Greek claim to Istabul, nor to advocate repatriation. I was asking from the POV that, when Greece managed to win its independence from Turkey in the 1830s, surely The City of Constantine was high on their list of targets to reclaim, but it didn’t happen.

1 - Why not? That’s as much a political question as military, as Greece only won its independence with a lot of military support from Russia, Britain and France, none of wanted to fully eliminate the Ottoman Empire (which would go along with seizing its capital). And, not really the point of my OP.

2 - How not? The simple answer is, nascent Greece couldn’t maintain its fight for independence without the aid of the Western powers, so if they didn’t want to help it take Constantinople it wasn’t going to happen. But Istanbul (not Constantinople) is a city that spans the Bosphorus - is the city set on a hill or something on the European (or the Asian) side that makes it defensible from attack from the west?

Anyway, since that OP many years ago, I’ve read up more on the (original) Fall of Constantinople, and the city was very defensible even back in 1453. The Ottomans would not have made it less so, I suppose.

20

I think the question has been answered adequately- not enough man power. The Ottomans killed a LOT of Greeks who had been revolting even before the revolution. But is it a fair outcome? Uhm, no not really. There is no comparison with the other examples mentioned (Trojans who left no legacy of language or culture? C’mon now.) Greeks ruled Constantinople for a thousand years, and they didn’t just rule it, they created it from scratch. Would it be okay with everyone if the Ottomans had conquered Rome and still had it today even after Italian unification? It’s okay to lament. I think it’s unfortunate that Constantinople wasn’t returned after the War. After the big ethnic/religious exchange of the early 20th century, of course nothing is happening now, but it’s okay to say, “That didn’t turn out right.” (Oh and Moriah should ask the Kurds if Turkey is “the enemy” or not.)