Something I’ve always wondered - why is Ankara the capital of Turkey, and not Istanbul? did Kemal Ataturk move it there as part of the foundation of modern Turkey?
Yes, he did.
I’m guessing it was for at least three reasons:
-
Distancing (symbolically through physically) his gov’t from the previous Sultanate.
-
Having a central location must have been thought to help with control of the territory for communication, transportation and symbolic reasons. Turkey is in a very interesting geopolitical spot.
-
If I were him, I’m not sure I’d want my capital within easy striking distance of Greece or so open to naval/amphibious attack from the South (less likely) or the North.
Because the Turks didn’t posses Constantinople when Ataturk started what would become the modern state of Turkey. Can’t very well put your capital in a city you don’t possess.
It’s not like you can go back to Constantinople.
4 years is a rather long time, it’s true. When was Istanbul occupied and sufficiently pacified that it could have been used as a capital?
Heh, I’ve been reading a lot of Roman history lately. My mind doesn’t switch gears very fast apparently.
Who did? the Ottomans?
460-some years is a bit of a long time : )
In any case, this matter of naming is, I feel, very much the Turks’ business.
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
Yea. But I think the Ottomans were under the control of the French at that point. Or something, I was never really clear on what the state of the Ottomans was supposed to be post-war.
Actually, I was right the first time. Constantinople didn’t get the works until 1930, until then it was the official name of the city in question.
If you’ve got a date in Constantinople,
She’ll be waitin’ in Istanbul!
The impression I got was that after WWI, the UK, France, Greece and Italy saw Turkey as new colonial ground and there was a race much like in Africa in the 1800s. I think the Sultan was a figurehead by that point. I believe he was even before then during the Triumvirate. It’s quite surprising the Turks were able to kick them all out.
What often happens in these threads is that someone ridiculously knowledgeable about a topic will drop in and give us a 1000-2000 words lecture. I hope this happens because it was a very interesting time and place.
You are talking about Tamerlane.
There was an article a few years ago about the (former, rightful) Sultan of Turkey, who lives in a rent-controlled townhouse in Manhattan. Apparently he moved there with his family when his father abdicated when he was 3 years old, and has been there ever since. Thanks to rent control, he only pays $300/month for the top floors of one of those nice brownstones; unfortunately, for that price the landlord did minimal maintenance, and at one point the roof caved in…
I also remember some article that included a political cartoon of “Britannia” dragging out the war maps and the caption “Not again!”. Something in the area of Turkey was threatening to send the superpowers of Europe back to war in about 1921.
Yes, certainly–the 1920-22 Greco-Turkish War, by which Turkey expelled Greece and Greeks from Asia Minor. Many pro-Greek Britons and French (“philhellenes”) wanted to intervene on the side of Greece.
After defeating the Greeks, the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal took aim at the Western powers that had been occupying Istanbul since the end of World War I. The Western powers agreed to evacuate via the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
From that point, Kemal could have moved his government to Istanbul. But it was the last thing he wanted to do. He wanted to build the new Republic of Turkey from the ground up–new alphabet, new clothes, new customs, new government–and leave the Ottoman past behind. Istanbul was the city of sultans, clerics, and foreigners–Ankara was the all-Turkish future.
At the risk of sidetracking an interesting conversation, there are other countries with odd ball, out of the way capitals: Brasilia in Brazil; Canberra in Australia and Yamoussoukro in the Ivory Coast spring to mine.
Brazil always intended its capital to be near the center of the country (rather than in Rio). In fact the first Constitution of the 1890s said it was to move to the center. It just took them 60-70 years to accomplish this.
And at the time, Washington DC.
Also, when you consider the fact that Istanbul remains the “capital” of the Greek Orthodox Church, and Ataturk was a staunch secularist influenced by French laicite, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated at least in part to distance the state from religion.
So was Islamabad in 1960.
Come to think of it, Athens in the 1830’s was in a similar position, it was a small village.
True, but Athens was a Symbol. It wasn’t something essentially invented from scratch.