Byzantion, originally established in the 7th century BCE as a Greek colony, became Constantinople in 330 CE when Emperor Constantine chose the city as the capital. Historians later referred to the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantium, a designation largely tied to this small but strategically significant city.
Etymologists suggest that the name “Istanbul” began to be widely used centuries after the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1453. Its origin is thought to derive from the Greek phrase eis tēn polin (“to the city”), which evolved into the Turkish form. Constantinople was often simply called Polis (city), and the everyday expression “I am going to the city” gradually shortened to Istanbul. For a long time, both “Kostantiniyye” and “Istanbul” were used interchangeably for the Ottoman capital; the former predominated in official documents, while the latter became widespread among the population. The origin of the name “Istanbul” highlights the city’s historical position at the crossroads of cultures and languages, continually shaped by interaction and transformation. Over the centuries, people arrived in the city for both voluntary and forced reasons, and various communities left their mark on its urban fabric.
The 19th century, the focus of this series, was a period when political, social, and spatial transformations in the Ottoman Empire accelerated. The Tanzimat and Islahat edicts, along with broader modernization efforts, brought significant changes to the city’s fabric and social structure, with Istanbul serving as the “showcase” of these transformations.
The political climate of the 19th century was marked by intense imperial competition. In Europe, which was expanding militarily and economically eastward at the time, there was particular fascination with the cultures of the East, especially among intellectual circles. In this context, the memoirs of travelers visiting the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century provide valuable insights into Istanbul’s multilayered social structure. Moreover, ideas and migrants from Europe influenced the city’s intellectual life. Industrialization and the trade networks fostered by imperialism led to the concentration of foreign merchants, bankers, and embassies in Galata and Pera, increasing the population of Europeans, known as “Franks.” These areas acquired a European appearance, while Ottoman thinkers followed debates on liberalism, socialism, and nationalism in the West through newspapers, printing presses, and parliamentary discussions in Istanbul.
This era, in which traces of modernization intertwined with traditional structures, adds multilayered depth to travelers’ accounts. The contrast between the splendor of the old city and the European-style streets of Galata and Pera, the bustling markets and coffeehouses alongside quiet neighborhoods, became cultural symbols in these narratives. Travelers’ observations reveal how Istanbul was perceived as a symbolic and mental geography, reflecting their subjective cultural perspectives. Both the Orientalist-tinged accounts of European visitors and the insider perspectives of observers such as Ibn Battuta and Seyyid Ali Pasha convey the city’s diverse faces and complex social structure.
During his three-year stay in Istanbul, the officer Charles White recorded remarkable observations about the city’s dense and diverse ethnic fabric in an objective manner, publishing his memoirs in 1845. Meanwhile, the French poet Gérard de Nerval approached Istanbul with a literary curiosity, portraying the city as mystical and melancholic in his 1843 work Voyage en Orient with a style reminiscent of magical realism. The French officer Julien Viaud, better known in literary circles as Pierre Loti, offered a more embracing and romantic perspective on the city, blending personal feelings with his experiences of Istanbul in his semi-biographical novel Aziyadé, which situates the Golden Horn and Eyüp as a backdrop.
Julie Pardoe, who visited Istanbul in the 1830s, provided a portrait of the city as more “high society,” offering detailed insights into palace and harem life. She expressed surprise at the coexistence of Christian and Muslim communities, interpreting Ottoman religious tolerance not as equality but as a state of living together within a hierarchy. Pardoe also highlighted the contrast between women’s public visibility and private freedom, noting that Muslim women were rarely seen in public spaces. Alongside Pardoe, many travelers were astonished by the presence of Black slaves in Istanbul, who often served in harems or wealthy households.
Edmondo de Amicis, known in Turkish literature for Cuore (Child’s Heart), in his 1874 book Constantinopoli (published in Turkish in 1887), described how different social, religious, and ethnic communities maintained clear boundaries, inhabiting their own neighborhoods, places of worship, and daily routines. He emphasized that these distinctions were embodied through language, clothing, and customs: Armenians in Kumkapı, Jews in Hasköy, and Greeks in Fener lived in relatively compact communities. Public spaces such as markets, ports, and holiday celebrations facilitated frequent encounters and interactions among these groups. Central to his observations were social hierarchy, religious differences, and everyday practices. He also highlighted Istanbul’s cemeteries as a form of art that allows one to admire death without fear.
Completed with travelers’ observations and drawing on five different sources, this series on 19th-century Istanbul focuses on the waves of migration that the city experienced roughly two centuries ago. It examines the internal migration from Anatolian villages to the crowded neighborhoods of Istanbul, the new colors brought by immigrants from the Caucasus, Crimea, and the Balkans, the daily life of European communities in the streets of Galata and Pera, and the city as perceived and recorded by travelers. This exploration reveals the city’s complex demographic, social, and cultural fabric while demonstrating how migrations brought new faces, habits, and ideas, reshaping Istanbul’s intellectual and social environment.
In this study, which brings together political and urban history in Istanbul’s cosmopolitan character, the memory and representation of 19th-century Istanbul, continued to influence the city’s social and intellectual life into the following century. However, this plurality does not imply that identity-based conflicts or violence never occurred in the city’s history; on the contrary, interactions among different communities sometimes generated tensions and disputes. As migrants settled in the city during the 19th century, competition over work and housing emerged.
Istanbul’s social structure was shaped not only by religious identity but also by class and economic conditions. The Muslim population, largely engaged in agricultural production and burdened with heavy taxes, generally lived modest lives in rural areas, while non-Muslims, who were obliged to pay the jizya, were exempt from military service. During the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II, strict central control and increased taxation accentuated class and ethnic differences within the city.
As the Ottoman Empire was survived by the First World War, these dynamics laid the groundwork for horizontal, identity-based conflicts, both between the administration and its constituent communities and among the communities themselves. Such sociopolitical conditions prepared the ground for identity-based divisions and conflicts in the 20th century. Following World War I, rising tensions among the Empire’s communities, combined with their political aspirations for independence, created a pervasive climate of insecurity across the region.
These examples demonstrate that, although Istanbul historically accommodated coexisting communities, this pluralism could at times evolve into conflicts and even violence. Thus, throughout its history, the city has functioned both as a meeting point and as the center of major social divisions and transformations. Migration enriched the Ottoman capital as a cultural experience, while simultaneously, as an administrative matter, this diversity was securitized.
References
Amicis, E. Constantinople, Vols. 1–2. London: Merrill and Baker, 1896.
Aydoğdu, Nergiz. “From Ottoman Identity to the Turkish Nation: National Identity Policies in Modernizing Turkey.” Belgi Dergisi, no. 21 (January 2021): 59–72.
Kaymaz, Mert. “Evaluating the Construction of Turkish Identity in the Late Ottoman Empire in the Context of Social Constructivist Theory.” Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 21, no. 83 (2022): 1170–1183.
Pardoe, Julie. The City of the Sultans: Istanbul and the Domestic Customs of the Turks, Vols. 1–2. Istanbul: Dorlion Publishing, 2024.
White, Charles. Three Years in Istanbul, or the Customs and Manners of the Turks (1841–1844). Istanbul: Kitap Publishing, 2023.
