Istanbul Was Constantinople

1) Document 1 is somewhat credible, but I think it is exaggerated. The document is from a rabbi (Benjamim of Tudela), so he is most likely exaggerating the lavishness of the places of worship in Constantinople. He is most likely proud of the places of worship (being a rabbi), so it is extremely possible tha he exaggerated here. I think is document was written for the general public's knowledge of Constantinople.

2) Document 2 was definately written for the general public. The use of the informal pronoun "you" when talking to the reader supports this. I think Robert of Clari had loved in Constantinople, which is why he wrote this document. This document doesn't seem very credible; he isn't able to give a straight answer. He says "at least two hundred chambers, or three hundred". He doesn't seem sure of himself when it comes to his facts, which drastically lowers the credibility of this document.

3) For the most part, this document seems credible. It is not until the document starts discussing the statue of Hercules that it starts to get a bit unbelievable. The size of the statue seems to be greatly exaggerated. Because this was from a source about art, the author was probably someone who greatly appreciated art. So, it was probably geared toward art appreciators as well.

4) This seems to be a somewhat credible document, as well. It is from the British Library, so it must be somewhat accurate. But, the size of the city seems to be under exaggerated. For what is supposed to be a huge city, this map makes it look small. Again, being from the British Lbrary, it is probably directed towards the general public.

5) This document is probably the most credible out of the seven. It is a real photograph, not an illustration or a document. In that sense, we know that the information it presents is legitimate. It is not exaggerating or under exaggerating because it is a photograph. It is from an art recourse, so it is probably for art appreciators.

6) This document seems to be written by a historian for the general public. It seems pretty credible because it presents historic information about religious services in Constantinople. It does not discuss the city's wealth, which I think adds credibility to the document. It does not come across as over or under exaggerated as the documents that talk about the city's wealth do; rather, it presents factual information.

7) Document 7 seems to written by a historian as well, again for the general public. This document also does not discuss the city's wealth, but I don't think it is as credible as document 6. It's information doesn't seems as factual as the previous, and it seems a bit exaggerated. It discusses the topic from the view of an upper class merchant or government official, so it may not be as accurate as would be a document from an average citizen.