Cool! This map is great, I like! I havent seen any Ottoman Empire map like this ^^
You did well the Africa and Arabia borders. They didnt conquer far because they reached empty lands, deserts. No need to go further, thats why the borders are approximate there.

I wonder, why the date is 1820?

--
})i({ イグニス })i({

I had initially made this for the purposes of a nation simulator that began in 1820, in which I was playing the Ottoman Empire.

It was already losing territories, of course (most notably Bessarabia to Russia, in 1812 if I am not mistaken) but after 1820, the Greek War of Independence took place (1821-1830, ending with the creation of Greece as an independent kingdom) and the Ottoman Empire steadily began losing its influence over its territories and vassals, especially after 1878. Its victory over Greece in 1897 came too late to salvage it.

--
'I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free' ~Nikos Kazantzakis

Oh, got it.

--
})i({ イグニス })i({

Türk milleti türk milletii Aşk ile sev milliyeti.
Ahret saçan düşmanını......

Biz böyle bir nesilin evladıyız...
Biz böyle asiliz..

It's really interesting that a Greek is making a map like this. But I still don't understand why do Greeks still insist on calling "İstanbul" as "Constantinapolis" or any other variations of it.

I want to elaborate the map's Arabia district. We're also dominating whole Arabia but as you know, in that region there are sacred places for Muslims like Kaaba and in Ottoman thought, these places are can only be dominated by God. Claming a domination on this regions will be a disrispectful attitude to God.

Anyway thank you..

Thanks for the comment, for starters

The Ottoman Empire is an integral part not just of Turkish but also Greek history, and for various reasons, changing from culture to culture, I feel we ought to know about it. As a country that shaped the history of the Near East for centuries, beginning roughly with the decline of Byzantium/Eastern Rome and ending as late as the 20th Century, it is an important and integral part of all countries that were once part of it, or bordered and faced it.

I am aware that places in Arabia (Hijaz to be more exact, if I am not mistaken) and I did not mean to offend anybody through my terminology. On the other hand, it should be remembered that from a political, economical and military point of view the Ottoman Empire did have its dominions - not meant disrespectfully, but simply realistically speaking.

I look forward to more comments and more people favouriting this work of mine; I feel honoured by the attention, actually. Hopefully I will be able to provide more such work in the future.

--
'I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free' ~Nikos Kazantzakis

Last, but not least [I forgot to add this in my previous post ;_;], to explain the attitude of Greeks over the name of 'the City.'

For almost 16 centuries, the official name of the city was Constantinople in various forms - it began as Emperor Constantine's Nova Roma, became the Byzantine Konstandinoupolis, Latin Constantinople and later Ottoman Konstantiniyye. Popularly, post-Ottoman conquest, it became Istanbol or Istanbul - a name possibly derived from the Greek phrase 'is tin Poli' which means 'to the City' (Constantinople is still known simply as 'olis' or 'City' in everyday Greek.)

Regardless of that all, the official name, since 1930, is 'Istanbul.' But why call it Constantinople and not Istanbul? There are many factors and I will discard the more obvious -such as nationalism- to point out something often overlooked.

In Greek, city names are often Hellenized. Paris becomes 'arisi', London becomes 'Londino', New Jersey becomes 'Nea Yersei' and Moskva (Moscow) becomes 'Moscha.' The name 'Istanbul', regardless of political correctness issues, sounds alien in Greek - and considering the millenium-old history of the city as a capital of what is seen as a Greek empire, the choice of the name 'Constantinople' (Konstandinoupoli) is seen as perfectly logical.

Another example: Turkish names for Greek places still prevail over Greek ones in the Turkish language - is not Crete 'Girit' and Thessaloniki 'Selanik'? Likewise, 'Konstantinoupoli' and 'Smyrni' are the same thing - just from the Greek side of the curtain.

--
'I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free' ~Nikos Kazantzakis

First of all I want to thank you for your detailed answers and your objectivity.

Initially, the subject about city names... The origin of İstanbul's name's in Turkish comes from İslambol. Then it's altered like you said İstanbol and finally İstanbul but if I tell the truth I don't know that if -bol appendix comes from Greek word Poli or not. In addition as you and we know especially Greek nationatlist are calling İstanbul as Constantinapolis on purpose. In my opinion their attitude is not related with the Hellenization of the city name. Because these names are symbols of Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire. In this context, calling Thessaloniki as Selanik can't be evaluated in this subject. Because Selanik (Thessaloniki) or Girit (Crete) are not the victims of symbols or whatever you call of this war and quarreling. On ther other hand you can be sure that even it's really impossible say "Thessaloniki" in Turkish language

Furthermore, yes you are right. Ottoman Empire is also part of Greek history but I've never seen a Greek interested in Ottoman Empire. Due to the this reason I was really suprised at first but I see that you know a lot of things about Ottoman Empire. Have you ever been in Turkiye? In Greek education, are they teaching you Ottoman Empire in History lesson or this knogledge is just your interest?

There are many theories about the origin of Istanbul's name - truth be told, we will never be certain about which one is the truest or most correct. All theories are politicised for various reasons in various eras, to say the least.

It is unfortunate Constantinople/Istanbul is a political symbol for it is a great city with great history (unfortunately written with the blood of its citizens.) It is true that Crete and Thessaloniki are not political symbols today but they have been - particularly in the 1890's to 1920's.

And today, Thessaloniki becomes a political symbol due to the Macedonia dispute. FYRoM nationalists do proclaim that 'there is one Makedonija and its capital is Solun' after all (I am deliberately using the Slavic terminology here to reflect the propagandistic nature.) Such irredentism is dangerous in any case and by all sides no matter what.

Unfortunately I have not had direct ties with Turkey so far, save for some net pals. I would, however, love to pay Turkey a visit, and especially Constantinople/Istanbul; not just for its history, not just for its meaning for someone as addicted to studying history as I am, but also due to its amazing natural and historical beauty. It really is the City of Cities, the Queen of Cities and the Gem of the Bosporus after all.

(If you would like to exchange WLM/MSN addresses, I would be more than happy to do so.)

As for Greek education; yes, the Ottoman Empire is an integral part of Greek history education, which covers eras beginning with early civilisations and then focuses on Classical Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and then jumps to late Ottoman Empire. Needless to say, as somebody interested in history so much, I feel dissatisfied.

Unfortunately, like everywhere, history is a political tool... the Ottoman Empire is not properly displayed, especially if compared to how Ancient Egypt or Rome are. Although it does not emphasise it as something positive or negative it is largely left up to the teacher to make up for the lacking data - and as expected, national prejudices stemming as early as from the 14th (!) century AD do play their role here very well.

I am dissatisfied with Greek history textbooks in general, however. They lack the detail I want, and often repeat the same thing needlessly many times while carefully omitting the details that do not benefit the writers... but as we all know this applies everywhere, and not just in Greece. History, as Napoleon said, is written by the victors for the victors.

Overall I have studied many countries of the past, and I feel the Ottoman Empire is needlessly victimized and misportrayed very often; of course it was far from saintly, just like all Empires. I believe it proved itself to be a worthy successor to Rome's legacy - its intrigues, conquests, political system, and even rough history outline draw amazingly many parallels to Rome's and Byzantium's, proving how much those three countries have had in common.

Ultimately this legacy lives on to today. Greece and Turkey are not just neighbouring states; they are, to a significant degree, sister states, for we have shared the foundations of the same culture for millenia, which our most recent ancestors have shaped and differentiated. No matter who populated our lands, that someone was in contact with the other someone ever since antiquity. Persia, Alexander, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Latins and the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks have all radically shaped our histories and the people who have been living in our lands for all this time; as such, our cultures.

Overall, as a side-note, I feel that Greek-Turkish rivalries are all nationalist bogus. We can do great things together if we want to; we have in the distant and recent past alike, such as with the 1999 Istanbul and Athens earthquakes that cost the lives of thousands. 'Grey zones', Cyprus disputes and all that else is simply political tools of nationalist-inspired (or, worse yet, motivated) politicians.

I am happy to see a simple piece of work such as this map is appreciated from the other side of the Aegean, a sea often functioning as an unfortunate iron curtain between our countries. With shared past and common future ahead of us, I think that our peoples should strive towards better - and better is nowhere else but with peace and prosperity for us all.

--
'I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free' ~Nikos Kazantzakis