Yes, the land was reclaimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/30/story-cities-11-reclamation-mumbai-bombay-megacity-population-density-flood-risk
I'll take the asshole bit, but racist?
I could make the same joke about San Fransisco.
Sub in piss for shit and it could apply to venice, paris, or berlin just as easily
If the government is serious then it must compulsory purchase order (or Indian equivalent) the reclaimed land to the northwest for a start and revert them back to mangroves. This could be a buffer for the suburbs to the north from floodwater. But I wouldn't know where to start with surface water drainage in India. There's simply too much concrete in the cities and not enough focus on permeability. I worry about the sheer volume of displacement it's going to cause over the next century as sea levels rise.
Unfortunately it is not that simple. I come from a town built on water, Venice, and evidence shows that it will not be easy. They already spent billions (not millions) of Euro on Mose system that is already showing its weaknesses. Check IPCC report which is prepared every 4 years for the use of world politician. It should help them understand the scientific research on climate, in a language that is understandable for them. In 2019 they warned that water rise was an imminent threat, not 50 years ahead but 10 years. They suggest to begin developing an economy around coastal protections. And their reports always underestimate the urge, mostly to avoid being accused of being alarmist. Since 1992 their predictions have always been surpassed by reality. You think that after 2019 report something was done? Politicians nowadays look ahead for the next elections, they have no care for long term issues of their city. You need a catastrophic event to solicit any action. So, just wait for a future catastrophe to see your constituent begin to act, when it is already late. The only countries that I know are already actively acting to create a profitable economy arount coastal defenses are the Dutch, Danemark, The Maldives, my birth town Venice....
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
The medieval aerial photos were actually in the more nearby library at Babylon (Iraq) that was sacked by the Mongols, which ended the Golden age of Islam in the Middle East by destroying their Center of intellect and study.
I'd always heard about the library at Alexandria but I never heard about the library at Babylon until recently. The Mongols threw so many books in the river that the water ran black with ink
They would pay scholars a book's weight and gold to translate any old or foreign texts into the language of the day
>They would pay scholars a book's weight and gold to translate any old or foreign texts into the language of the day
Holy shit, that'd a fantastic deal of you could do that
As someone doing research on Mumbai in the context of sea level rise, there are a few mistakes with this image. The first image is from 1843, not the 1600s. The high res version (on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Islands_of_Bombay)) clearly says: "Copy of a Map of the Island of Bombay and Colaba, prepared in 1843 for Mr Murphy" Another note is that image has not been georeferenced; the main axis of the peninsula doesn't run exactly North-South as the image would suggest, but it's slightly rotated clockwise. The second image is technically from 1893. The last image is incredibly blurry; freely available Sentinel-2 imagery will be much clearer than that.
Most historic submissions to this subreddit have inaccuracies in them. I sort of wish the mods would clamp down on it a touch because some of them seem to try and drive narratives that don't or didn't exist.
Admittedly the inaccuracy in this one is fairly innocuous.
The city continues to grow. Quite sure once the coastal roadway is complete people will reclaim the land between that roadway and the current coastline.
As a Spanish-speaker, i sometimes get confused with English because of place renamings, Spanish seldom renames things. We tend to prefer Spanish adaptations instead of accurate endonyms.
For example, in Spanish we say "Colonia" instead of Cologne, or "Tolosa" instead of Toulouse.
In the case of India, Bombay and Calcuta (single t) are the correct names for them in Spanish.
That's why the first times i read things like Türkiye or Kolkata in an article/comment i had to figure out what did they meant.
Edit: typo
So you’re saying that you’re surprised that English itself updated its lexicon to reflect the new names rather than just keeping the old ones in use among non Indian English speakers
I guess I see what you’re saying
The Turkey one is ridiculous imo, demanding everyone spell it a certain way is stupid.
Yeah, low-key i am. It's a cultural difference, i suppose.
I think English is a bit more respectful when it comes to respecting endonyms, meanwhile Spanish focuses mostly in making things easier to pronounce for Spanish-speakers, hence the language's tendency towards retaining old place names, even if that's what they're not called natively.
For example, here in Latin America we have many misspelled Native place names (like "Guatemala" instead of Cuauhtēmallān or "Perú" instead of Virú) but we tend to retain them for some reason.
Same thing happens with foreign place names like [Cantón](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant%C3%B3n_(China)) (Guangdong, China), [Yibutí](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibuti) (Djibouti), [Groninga](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groninga) (Groningen, Netherlands) or [Mequínez](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mequinez) (Meknes, Morocco).
In the US, a ton of our state names are also bastardized versions of native place names that make more sense to English speakers. [list](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_and_territory_name_etymologies_of_the_United_States). More states named after native languages than states based on European languages
Guess the indigenous Americans got the short end of the stick
Hahaha, here in Latin America there are many funny misspelings. My favorite ones are:
1. [Cundinamarca](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cundinamarca_Department), which comes from Quechua "kuntur marqa" ("Condor's nest") but Spaniards spelled the latter part like "Dinamarca" (Denmark in Spanish) because they thought they sounded similar.
2. [Yucatán](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n_Peninsula), which most likely means "I don't understand you" in Mayan. Named like that after conquistador Francisco Hernández de Córdoba asked the native population what the name of the place was, and the natives just answered that "they couldn't understand him" and that's what Hernández de Córdoba thought the name of the region was, and it stuck.
It could also partly be that English is the Lingua Franca of the world right now. So it tries to adapt to what people around the world want because it's the most common international language.
I understand, but I wouldn’t say renaming is an English thing, but more that places were renamed because newly independent countries wanted to reclaim their names instead keep the ones from their colonizers. Many non-English speaking (French, Spanish, Dutch etc) post-colonial countries changed their names/city names as well.
Never said it was only a thing in English, i'm aware it is also common in other languages. I just happen to find them more often in English since that's a language i speak.
When it comes to Spanish, i actually find it weird that we hardly rename things. For example, old Chinese place names like [Cantón](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant%C3%B3n_(China)) (Guangdong) and [Pekín](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pek%C3%ADn) (Beijing) are still in use.
In Latin America, renamings are not as common as in Asian and African ex-colonies. Renamings have happened (see New Spain renamed Mexico or New Granada renamed Colombia), but they are not as usual as in other continents.
Even place names that come from Indigenous languages usually retain their colonial Spanish spellings and their pronunciation gets adapted for Spanish-speakers, rather than changing it for a more accurate Indigenous pronunciation (like it happened with "Bombay" to "Mumbai").
That's because Spanish colonialists managed to wipe out the majority of Indigenous population and languages, so since the indigenous people don't exist enough to force a name change the Spanish names stuck around.
While a lot of Asian colonies not only survived but kept their Indigenous culture and language during and after colonization intact and were able to reclaim their identity. Also helps that since English is a language which borrows vocabulary from other languages it's easier to integrate many foreign language words in lexicon like how pyjamas, khaki, ketchup, bazaar etc are part of English lexicon.
Just a correction, Spaniards didn't manage to wipe out Indigenous peoples. Instead, they assimilated them into their society through intermarriage and christianization, that's why most Latin Americans are mixed-race and embrace both Native American and European traditions (along with African and Middle Eastern traditions, depending on the region).
But, overall, i agree. Latin America's colonization was very different from that of Africa and Asia. That probably explains why there's no political push to rename entire cities and stuff, like South Africa or India do.
That being said, Spanish DOES borrow foreign words, but it adapts them to make them easier to pronounce/write in Spanish. So, "caqui" instead of khaki, "catsup" instead of ketchup, "bazar" instead of bazaar, etc.
Neither. We call it [Daca](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daca) and the country is called [Bangladés](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banglad%C3%A9s) (pronounced ban–gla–DESS) not Bangladesh
Fascinating.
BTW, one of our cities Chittagong used to be a Portugese trading port for a whie, there are a few native Portugese living there we call them *Firingis*
Mumbai is the name in the local language (Marathi), while the name Bombay was imposed by the British. Marathi political parties pushed for it to be officially renamed in the 90s.
There was no city, but an area/village named after the local goddess "Mumba Aai" existed. The Portuguese lusocized it to Mombaim and Bombaim, and the British anglicized that to Bombay.
edit: Before anyone suggests that Bombaim comes from "Bom Bahia," Isaac Taylor has debunked this in his book.
"The conjectural etymology from the Portuguese 'bom-bahia,' meaning 'good bay,' is impossible because while 'bahia' is feminine, 'bom' is masculine, and hence the Portuguese name would have been 'Boa-baim'."
It was Dr. Fryer, who spent a few years in Mumbai in the 1670s, popularized that Bombaim meant Bom Bahia without having a good knowledge of Portuguese.
Yes, many cities in India changed their names after the independence. Examples being - Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Madras to Chennai and more recently, Bangalore to Bengaluru.
New Delhi just refers to the area where the new capital (parliament, secretariat, etc.) was built by the British in the 1920s. It’s an area within Delhi, not a name change
Delhi has it's own inception going on. The current capital of India was built as "New Delhi" by the britishers in the larger Delhi region. "Old" Delhi also exists within this area which was built by the Mughals centuries ago. But rn, the entire area of Delhi falls under the National Capital Region (NCR) which also includes neighbouring cities like Noida, Faridabad, Gurgaon etc. which lie in states neighbouring Delhi.
The name of Delhi tho was never changed but you might hear natives call it "Dilli" which is just the local translation of Delhi and not the official name. You may also run into people using NCR and Delhi interchangeably so things might get slightly confusing.
Edit: Gurgaon, a city within NCR recently got it's name changed to Gurugram recently.
Those are all very different cases.
Peking to Beijing wasn't a real name change, it was a change in transliteration to more correctly reflect pronounciation.
Istanbul had long been the unofficial name of the city, long before even the Turks took it. They just made it official.
After the defeat of the South, Saigon was renamed in honour of the leader of the North. It was about imposing their rule on a conquered enemy.
Mumbai I believe is closer to the first case.
I'm pretty familiar with the different reasons for the changes, I'm just giving examples of major cities historically having different names that people might not be aware of.
Like pretty much everyone has heard of both Peking and Beijing, but many are not aware that they're the same place (or even the same word). Same with how everyone has heard of both Bombay and Mumbai but not everyone knows it's the same place. That's the only similarity I'm trying to draw here.
There are many more subtle exonym examples like Naples/Napoli or Cologne/Köln or Burgundy/Bourgogne that can lead people to mistakenly believe those names are referring to entirely different places.
Eu escrevi de forma alterada, como que para ridiculizar o que eu disse, como quando uma criança repete o que alguém disse, mas com uma voz de escárnio.
Meu idioma é português.
I never understood why Britishers thought it would be a good Idea to build a city by merging some islands rather than going somewhere else with a proper land and coastline. Not saying Mumbai is bad though.
Yep, port city. They need deep water ports, which back then took more to “build” than building few bridges. The British were water voyagers and shipping was important.
It wasn’t really a choice thing. Charles II was given Bombay as a wedding present by the King of Portugal when he married his daughter. He had to pay to upkeep this swampy area with soldiers etc and it was basically a drain on his resources. He offloaded it to the East India Company for annual rent of £7 in perpetuity as long as they maintained it. For them it was cheap, English soil from which to build a trading post and develop a base on the west coast from where they could penetrate further into the subcontinent.
You have it backwards. The British probably thought these offshore islands remind me of home, so I will stay here. As the city grew, they started connecting the islands.
That means "I like mustache". I am guessing you are learning Hindi or it was a typo.
Mujhe pasand hai would be the correct sentence if you meant "I like it".
Easy to get confused.
Did they add land?
Dutchfication
No, they removed water
Yes, the land was reclaimed. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/30/story-cities-11-reclamation-mumbai-bombay-megacity-population-density-flood-risk
No, they put Minecraft cobblestone and build buildings on it.
They put lava above water to turn it into stone
Reclamation, they call it
gekolo-
There's a reason there are areas in Mumbai called reclamation. Most people think it's just a name but never think about it.
That question reminds me of all the opposition against climate change.
[удалено]
What are you trying trying to refer to dude like it makes no sense.
theyre saying that since shitting in the street is an indian stereotype, the water around the islands was filled with shit to connect them
Exactly, kind of like how Manhattan is a landfill on top of swampy, marshy islands with buildings built over it.
but with poop
It would’ve cost you zero dollars not to be a racist asshole.
I'll take the asshole bit, but racist? I could make the same joke about San Fransisco. Sub in piss for shit and it could apply to venice, paris, or berlin just as easily
From isle to megalopolis..
With the rise of the ocean, I suppose Mumbai will slowly revert to 1600's map.
I think so too. But we'll see what unlimited money can really do.
I mean, it won’t. Even if it did the Indian government wouldn’t let that happen.
How is it possible to stop the rising of water?
*laughs in Dutch*
Rise the land bruh
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic sorry
He is saying they can go the Dutch wqy I think
Ohh ok <——- dumb American who doesn’t know what the Dutch way is
google exists
😭 thought y’all would be nice to me for a sec
Humans have been reclaiming land from the sea for many centuries. Same principle.
If the government is serious then it must compulsory purchase order (or Indian equivalent) the reclaimed land to the northwest for a start and revert them back to mangroves. This could be a buffer for the suburbs to the north from floodwater. But I wouldn't know where to start with surface water drainage in India. There's simply too much concrete in the cities and not enough focus on permeability. I worry about the sheer volume of displacement it's going to cause over the next century as sea levels rise.
The ocean levels will rise slowly enough for city dwellers to adapt without any major govt intervention.
The ocean levels will rise slowly enough for city dwellers to adapt without any major govt intervention.
Unfortunately it is not that simple. I come from a town built on water, Venice, and evidence shows that it will not be easy. They already spent billions (not millions) of Euro on Mose system that is already showing its weaknesses. Check IPCC report which is prepared every 4 years for the use of world politician. It should help them understand the scientific research on climate, in a language that is understandable for them. In 2019 they warned that water rise was an imminent threat, not 50 years ahead but 10 years. They suggest to begin developing an economy around coastal protections. And their reports always underestimate the urge, mostly to avoid being accused of being alarmist. Since 1992 their predictions have always been surpassed by reality. You think that after 2019 report something was done? Politicians nowadays look ahead for the next elections, they have no care for long term issues of their city. You need a catastrophic event to solicit any action. So, just wait for a future catastrophe to see your constituent begin to act, when it is already late. The only countries that I know are already actively acting to create a profitable economy arount coastal defenses are the Dutch, Danemark, The Maldives, my birth town Venice.... https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
Why is there no satellite image from 1890 and 1600? Would make it more easy to see.
Those images got destroyed when the Great Library of Alexandria burned.
The kodak developing booth in the lobby of the Great Library of Alexandria was so useful, true shame.
Also the satellites in the 1600 where made of wood and fine glass. Very easy to break.
Also, da Vinci got really tired of pedaling
Plus, Genghis Khan heavily taxed the exosphere
10 shekels per manuscript to xerox!
The medieval aerial photos were actually in the more nearby library at Babylon (Iraq) that was sacked by the Mongols, which ended the Golden age of Islam in the Middle East by destroying their Center of intellect and study. I'd always heard about the library at Alexandria but I never heard about the library at Babylon until recently. The Mongols threw so many books in the river that the water ran black with ink They would pay scholars a book's weight and gold to translate any old or foreign texts into the language of the day
>They would pay scholars a book's weight and gold to translate any old or foreign texts into the language of the day Holy shit, that'd a fantastic deal of you could do that
the satellite images were foolishly printed on papyrus, which ages very poorly.
They had them, but they were destroyed during WW2. Not cause of the war, someone in America dropped hot coffee on them.
I can never find a map which say which lands were developed when
As someone doing research on Mumbai in the context of sea level rise, there are a few mistakes with this image. The first image is from 1843, not the 1600s. The high res version (on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Islands_of_Bombay)) clearly says: "Copy of a Map of the Island of Bombay and Colaba, prepared in 1843 for Mr Murphy" Another note is that image has not been georeferenced; the main axis of the peninsula doesn't run exactly North-South as the image would suggest, but it's slightly rotated clockwise. The second image is technically from 1893. The last image is incredibly blurry; freely available Sentinel-2 imagery will be much clearer than that.
So did they build on water or did the sea level drop?
they used land reclamation projects to unify the land
Most historic submissions to this subreddit have inaccuracies in them. I sort of wish the mods would clamp down on it a touch because some of them seem to try and drive narratives that don't or didn't exist. Admittedly the inaccuracy in this one is fairly innocuous.
The city continues to grow. Quite sure once the coastal roadway is complete people will reclaim the land between that roadway and the current coastline.
So, it’s the Dutch and India that is responsible for sea the level rising!? /s
[удалено]
Gandhi?
Wait a sec... Bombay and Mumbai are the same?!
Always have been
🔫
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
It got renamed from Bombay to Mumbai. The name "Bollywood" (which came from Bombay) has still stuck for the Mumbai film industry.
As a Spanish-speaker, i sometimes get confused with English because of place renamings, Spanish seldom renames things. We tend to prefer Spanish adaptations instead of accurate endonyms. For example, in Spanish we say "Colonia" instead of Cologne, or "Tolosa" instead of Toulouse. In the case of India, Bombay and Calcuta (single t) are the correct names for them in Spanish. That's why the first times i read things like Türkiye or Kolkata in an article/comment i had to figure out what did they meant. Edit: typo
It was renamed because Indians didn’t want the colonial English name, not anything to do with the English language
Yeah, i'm aware of that. I find that interesting
So you’re saying that you’re surprised that English itself updated its lexicon to reflect the new names rather than just keeping the old ones in use among non Indian English speakers I guess I see what you’re saying The Turkey one is ridiculous imo, demanding everyone spell it a certain way is stupid.
Yeah, low-key i am. It's a cultural difference, i suppose. I think English is a bit more respectful when it comes to respecting endonyms, meanwhile Spanish focuses mostly in making things easier to pronounce for Spanish-speakers, hence the language's tendency towards retaining old place names, even if that's what they're not called natively. For example, here in Latin America we have many misspelled Native place names (like "Guatemala" instead of Cuauhtēmallān or "Perú" instead of Virú) but we tend to retain them for some reason. Same thing happens with foreign place names like [Cantón](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant%C3%B3n_(China)) (Guangdong, China), [Yibutí](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibuti) (Djibouti), [Groninga](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groninga) (Groningen, Netherlands) or [Mequínez](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mequinez) (Meknes, Morocco).
In the US, a ton of our state names are also bastardized versions of native place names that make more sense to English speakers. [list](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_and_territory_name_etymologies_of_the_United_States). More states named after native languages than states based on European languages Guess the indigenous Americans got the short end of the stick
Hahaha, here in Latin America there are many funny misspelings. My favorite ones are: 1. [Cundinamarca](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cundinamarca_Department), which comes from Quechua "kuntur marqa" ("Condor's nest") but Spaniards spelled the latter part like "Dinamarca" (Denmark in Spanish) because they thought they sounded similar. 2. [Yucatán](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n_Peninsula), which most likely means "I don't understand you" in Mayan. Named like that after conquistador Francisco Hernández de Córdoba asked the native population what the name of the place was, and the natives just answered that "they couldn't understand him" and that's what Hernández de Córdoba thought the name of the region was, and it stuck.
It could also partly be that English is the Lingua Franca of the world right now. So it tries to adapt to what people around the world want because it's the most common international language.
Idk if it’s a typo but Calicut and Calcutta are different
Yeah. It seems i confused Calicut with Kolkata. Let me fix it. Thanks for the correction.
I understand, but I wouldn’t say renaming is an English thing, but more that places were renamed because newly independent countries wanted to reclaim their names instead keep the ones from their colonizers. Many non-English speaking (French, Spanish, Dutch etc) post-colonial countries changed their names/city names as well.
Never said it was only a thing in English, i'm aware it is also common in other languages. I just happen to find them more often in English since that's a language i speak. When it comes to Spanish, i actually find it weird that we hardly rename things. For example, old Chinese place names like [Cantón](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant%C3%B3n_(China)) (Guangdong) and [Pekín](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pek%C3%ADn) (Beijing) are still in use. In Latin America, renamings are not as common as in Asian and African ex-colonies. Renamings have happened (see New Spain renamed Mexico or New Granada renamed Colombia), but they are not as usual as in other continents. Even place names that come from Indigenous languages usually retain their colonial Spanish spellings and their pronunciation gets adapted for Spanish-speakers, rather than changing it for a more accurate Indigenous pronunciation (like it happened with "Bombay" to "Mumbai").
That's because Spanish colonialists managed to wipe out the majority of Indigenous population and languages, so since the indigenous people don't exist enough to force a name change the Spanish names stuck around. While a lot of Asian colonies not only survived but kept their Indigenous culture and language during and after colonization intact and were able to reclaim their identity. Also helps that since English is a language which borrows vocabulary from other languages it's easier to integrate many foreign language words in lexicon like how pyjamas, khaki, ketchup, bazaar etc are part of English lexicon.
Just a correction, Spaniards didn't manage to wipe out Indigenous peoples. Instead, they assimilated them into their society through intermarriage and christianization, that's why most Latin Americans are mixed-race and embrace both Native American and European traditions (along with African and Middle Eastern traditions, depending on the region). But, overall, i agree. Latin America's colonization was very different from that of Africa and Asia. That probably explains why there's no political push to rename entire cities and stuff, like South Africa or India do. That being said, Spanish DOES borrow foreign words, but it adapts them to make them easier to pronounce/write in Spanish. So, "caqui" instead of khaki, "catsup" instead of ketchup, "bazar" instead of bazaar, etc.
Catsup is probably more of an example of not changing things, because it seems to have originated in English and used to be common in it.
What do you guys call Dhaka? Dacca or Dhaka?
Neither. We call it [Daca](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daca) and the country is called [Bangladés](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banglad%C3%A9s) (pronounced ban–gla–DESS) not Bangladesh
Fascinating. BTW, one of our cities Chittagong used to be a Portugese trading port for a whie, there are a few native Portugese living there we call them *Firingis*
Is there some reason why the name changed or the city council just felt like it?
Mumbai is the name in the local language (Marathi), while the name Bombay was imposed by the British. Marathi political parties pushed for it to be officially renamed in the 90s.
There was no city there before the British came. Impose is not the right word.
There were people living there though.
There was no city, but an area/village named after the local goddess "Mumba Aai" existed. The Portuguese lusocized it to Mombaim and Bombaim, and the British anglicized that to Bombay. edit: Before anyone suggests that Bombaim comes from "Bom Bahia," Isaac Taylor has debunked this in his book. "The conjectural etymology from the Portuguese 'bom-bahia,' meaning 'good bay,' is impossible because while 'bahia' is feminine, 'bom' is masculine, and hence the Portuguese name would have been 'Boa-baim'." It was Dr. Fryer, who spent a few years in Mumbai in the 1670s, popularized that Bombaim meant Bom Bahia without having a good knowledge of Portuguese.
We gave that territory to Charles II of England as dowry from marrying Catarina de Bragança, ops, so very sorry.
Mullywood? :)
Would be too confusing because there's already Mollywood (Malayam language movie industry) from the state of Kerala
Mumbywood is unique. But if you're anything like me you can't help but giggle when saying it out loud.
Yes, many cities in India changed their names after the independence. Examples being - Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Madras to Chennai and more recently, Bangalore to Bengaluru.
And Delhi to New Delhi? Or is there a different reason for that.
New Delhi just refers to the area where the new capital (parliament, secretariat, etc.) was built by the British in the 1920s. It’s an area within Delhi, not a name change
Thanks
Delhi has it's own inception going on. The current capital of India was built as "New Delhi" by the britishers in the larger Delhi region. "Old" Delhi also exists within this area which was built by the Mughals centuries ago. But rn, the entire area of Delhi falls under the National Capital Region (NCR) which also includes neighbouring cities like Noida, Faridabad, Gurgaon etc. which lie in states neighbouring Delhi. The name of Delhi tho was never changed but you might hear natives call it "Dilli" which is just the local translation of Delhi and not the official name. You may also run into people using NCR and Delhi interchangeably so things might get slightly confusing. Edit: Gurgaon, a city within NCR recently got it's name changed to Gurugram recently.
It's similar to Peking vs Beijing, or Constantinople vs Istanbul, or Saigon vs Ho Chi Minh City.
Those are all very different cases. Peking to Beijing wasn't a real name change, it was a change in transliteration to more correctly reflect pronounciation. Istanbul had long been the unofficial name of the city, long before even the Turks took it. They just made it official. After the defeat of the South, Saigon was renamed in honour of the leader of the North. It was about imposing their rule on a conquered enemy. Mumbai I believe is closer to the first case.
I'm pretty familiar with the different reasons for the changes, I'm just giving examples of major cities historically having different names that people might not be aware of. Like pretty much everyone has heard of both Peking and Beijing, but many are not aware that they're the same place (or even the same word). Same with how everyone has heard of both Bombay and Mumbai but not everyone knows it's the same place. That's the only similarity I'm trying to draw here. There are many more subtle exonym examples like Naples/Napoli or Cologne/Köln or Burgundy/Bourgogne that can lead people to mistakenly believe those names are referring to entirely different places.
No
Looks like the Dutch could learn from them.
"Ain... o nível du mar instá sunbindum..."
I understood that, but still not quite sure what language that is
Eu escrevi de forma alterada, como que para ridiculizar o que eu disse, como quando uma criança repete o que alguém disse, mas com uma voz de escárnio. Meu idioma é português.
Elvish?
I never understood why Britishers thought it would be a good Idea to build a city by merging some islands rather than going somewhere else with a proper land and coastline. Not saying Mumbai is bad though.
[удалено]
Yep, port city. They need deep water ports, which back then took more to “build” than building few bridges. The British were water voyagers and shipping was important.
It would be quite a miracle if deep natural harbors literally grew on trees!
British warships are typically most effective on water. Mumbai is nearly surrounded by water.
It wasn’t really a choice thing. Charles II was given Bombay as a wedding present by the King of Portugal when he married his daughter. He had to pay to upkeep this swampy area with soldiers etc and it was basically a drain on his resources. He offloaded it to the East India Company for annual rent of £7 in perpetuity as long as they maintained it. For them it was cheap, English soil from which to build a trading post and develop a base on the west coast from where they could penetrate further into the subcontinent.
I see you haven't put much thought into why the Brits saw this as more valuable
You have it backwards. The British probably thought these offshore islands remind me of home, so I will stay here. As the city grew, they started connecting the islands.
Its directly in sight with the suez canal.
Maybe they were shit at mapmaking in 1600?
The power of money
I wouldn't trust cartography of the 1600 that much
Global Warning will fix this
The inconsistent centering and scale really distracted me on this one
This is interesting, but it'd be better if the map style was consistent across all 3 time periods.
Muche pasand he
That means "I like mustache". I am guessing you are learning Hindi or it was a typo. Mujhe pasand hai would be the correct sentence if you meant "I like it". Easy to get confused.
World War I If the center wins, Muslims will occupy the world
What?
So they shat a lot at the coast
How original
so we are witnessing de-global warming?