[asimpletune]

I think it's a little difficult to say objectively what the truth is, but I'm here in Istanbul now and it doesn't really seem that the Turks think of themselves as hostile occupiers. I would say the vibe in the city and attitude among the Turks is more spiritual successors of Byzantium, rather than an occupying force.

I think the fact that they conquered Byzantium is perceived more as legitimizing their rule, since the Romans at that point were weak enough to fall. In any case, it's more symbolic than anything, because the Ottomans had already taken most of the important stuff before and really just needed the city for the straight.

[antman]

They are not hostile occupiers any more,Istanbul has been Ottoman for many centuries.

But the city was called Constantinople. Istanbul in Greek phonetics means "We are in the city” and was renamed after the capture. It is Ottoman, not part of the Byzantine tradition but Ottomans promoted a continuity narrative without any of the preexisting thousand year old Greek Christian traditions. Those populations had to be forcibly removed or changed faith up until the 1950’s.

[mda]

I am not sure what exactly you mean by your explanation, what traditions, who is forcibly converted until 1950's?

[antman]

I mean the Byzantine folk and religious traditions do not exist in the current owners. There were extensive pogroms and population exchanges. Although Istanbul in particular was exempt from those based on treaties, in reality the treaties were ignored. Regarding the last major events in the 50s I have found this, don’t know how detailed it is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom

[mda]

If you start looking into 1000 years history of the area you will find maybe worse incidents happening from the "Byzantine folk / religious traditions" side as well, I don't think this one sided implications are warranted.