![]() | Junayd of Aydın has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 7, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the civil war of the
Ottoman Interregnum, at one time or another
Junayd Bey, ruler of the
Beylik of Aydın, supported four different Ottoman princes vying for the throne? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Junayd of Aydın article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Takabeg (
talk)
10:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this Turkish source can prove only its name in Modern Turkish language. Takabeg ( talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
A recent change in the article claims that Cüneyt's father was imprisoned in 1403. The claim is sourced by Doukas. But all the same, according to my sources (Yaşar Yücel-Ali Sevim) it was Cüneyt's brother Kara Subaşı Hasan and not his father who was imprisoned. I think the source should be checked. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 06:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Now based on the facts in the translation I have before me, either Doukas mistakenly calls Qara-subaši his father, but Juneid rescued his father from Mamlos, or he mistakes Qara-subaši for his father (instead of his brother), & rescued his brother from Mamlos. Inasmuch as Doukas appears to be informed in the affairs of this part of Anatolia (he grew up there), I am surprised that he would confuse the two. I'd be interested to see what the Turkish primary sources have to say about him; maybe they can resolve this issue. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Cüneyt" is the modern Turkish transcription of the name Junayd. In scholarship, the forms most commonly used are:
The evidence in the major English-language sources is clear in not using the modern Turkish orthography, and even Turkish sources tend to use "Cüneyd" rather than "Cüneyt", which AFAIK corresponds with the actual phonology in pre-modern times. Otherwise, in typical fashion, the use of the Perso-Arabic vs the Turkish form reflects the origins of scholars: Turkish scholars and Turkologists tend to use the latter, more general medievalists, whether Islamic scholars or Byzantinists, as well as earlier scholars tend to use the former. To this must be added the readability factor: the average reader won't know that "C" in modern Turkish represents the "[d]j" sound (e.g. the translator of the article in the Greek WP thought the "C" represented a "K" sound [1]). I therefore am moving the article to "Junayd of Aydın", although "Juneyd" is an equally acceptable form. Constantine ✍ 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Constantine for the expansion of the article. By the way I am not sure if I understood the the following statement; They ... abandoned Mustafa's camp, riding posthaste for Smyrna. Junayd's party arrived before the town on the next evening, Well the the birds flight distance between the said river and Smyrna is no less than 250 km. What breed of horse were they using ? Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: HaEr48 ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing. HaEr48 ( talk) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Overall looking good. My comments
HaEr48 ( talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, actually just one.
When I incorporated a lot of content from Doukas a while back -- has it really been two years ago? -- I added the book/chapter references to keep them independent of a specific translation. While it's doubtful that there will be another translation of Doukas in the foreseeable future -- although Magoulias' translation is 40+ years old & out of print, I doubt anyone expects medieval Greek historians to be a bigger market than, say, Harry Potter soon -- keeping those references does make it easier for the content to be reused in other languages, especially translating this article to other language Wikipedias. (Those languages will either have their own translations to use, or the Wikipedian may be fluent enough in medieval Greek to read the original.) So some readers would benefit from them if they were restored. Just a thought. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Per: "The beylik was extended by Mehmed Bey ( r. 1308–1334– ) into the former Byzantine lands along the Küçükmenderes River [a] up to the Aegean coast. Its two main ports were Ayasoluk, [b] near the ruins of ancient Ephesus, and Smyrna, [c] while its capital was Birgi. [d]"
This is a complex sentence enen without the four parenthetic clauses for various names of the localities. This all made for a sentence that was particularly difficult to read. I am suggesting this edit, moving what was previously in brackets to footnotes. You will note, that many text readers will display the note content when the cursor hovers over the note. I changed the note template being used to make it easier for me to edit and not because there was anything intrinsically wrong with the template previously used. You will see that there is a link to Selçuk in both the main text and the note. A footnote is not counted as part of the readable prose. My understanding is that it is not overlinking to have the same link in the main text and a note or caption (unless somebody disagrees). I scratched my head on how to resolve the issue and this was my solution. I am not saying it is the best or the only solution. Hope it is OK. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought you might want to adjust my suggestion. It is a chunk of a change so I paused here. Let me know if this is ok or not. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas Re: "Sources about the period are many and have diverse provenance, differing greatly in scope, detail, and reliability". This is opinion and should be more explicitly attributed to Kastritsis. "The author, Kastritsis, observes that ...". At present, this is an indirect quote. Does he make a succinct statement to this effect that could be directly quoted. You may have a better description of Kastritsis than just an author. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Junayd's origin is not entirely clear. Sources about the period are many and have diverse provenance, differing greatly in scope, detail, and reliability. [1] The main contemporaneous source about Junayd's career is the chronicle of the Byzantine historian, Doukas. [2] Doukas calls him "Juneid, the son of Kara-subashi" ( subashi being a gubernatorial title rather than a proper name). He reports that the latter was a long-serving governor of Smyrna under Bayezid I. [3] In Turkish sources, the name of Junayd's father is given as Ibrahim or sometimes, Ibrahim Fatih ("Ibrahim the Conqueror"). [4] The Turkish historian, Himmet Akın, suggests Junayd's father to be Ibrahim Bahadur, lord of Bodemya (Potamia) and a son of Mehmed Bey. This view is also accepted by Irène Mélikoff, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article on Junayd. [5] The Greek scholar, Elisabeth Zachariadou, challenges this identification on the grounds that Junayd's father does not appear to have had any relationship with Bodemya. Furthermore, based on a reference in the satirical work of the Byzantine author, Mazaris, Zachariadou suggests that Ibrahim may have been a Byzantine renegade. [4] Kastritsis concludes that Junayd's relationship to the Aydınid family is thus unclear, although he may have been a lesser member of the dynasty. [6] He finds that Junayd's father was probably the subassi Smirarum mentioned in a number of Genoese documents of 1394. The first of these documents concerns discussions on the release of two of the sons of the subassi (Italian form of subashi), who had been taken prisoner by the Latin captain of Smyrna; Junayd may have been one of them. [7] It is known that Junayd had an uncle, Qurt Hasan, and three brothers: Hasan Agha, Bayezid, and Hamza. [8]
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, Per "Ottomanist". Following the links from wictionary, an Ottomanist is a proponent of Ottomanism. Is this what you mean? Or is it that she is a Greek scholar/historian of Ottoman History. If so, it is probably better to say: "the Greek historian ... " or even just "the historian".
I have edited "The Turkish historian Himmet Akın suggested that Junayd's father could be identified with Ibrahim Bahadur". To a more active voice but mainly because "identified with" implies he was an associate of Ibrahim Bahadur (in the same way you might say someone was identified with the XYX movement) and not that he was that person. Other copy edits are for sentence size/complexity. You might check that I have not changed the intended meaning. I am happy with the resolution of other matters in this section. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas Re: "Mehmed, probably one of his own followers," "probably" is a word to watch. As such, it should, if used, be directly attributed. I am suggesting a note to clarify who he was: "Person XYZ conjectures that the Mehmed initially appointed by Temur was one of Timur's followers. In respect to this appointment, neither [two authors cited] refer to any hereditary claim by the appointee." I don't know what was actually said and by which author. The proposed note could also go into the main prose. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: " as he controlled the original core of the Ottoman state in Bithynia, and possibly Bursa" The uncertainty should be directly attribute per words to watch. Have removed for now. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Junayd agreed, and succeeded in bringing the neighbouring rulers ...". Who says he was instrumental in extending the alliance to include these? Also, reword to second underlined - more neutral? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@
User:Cplakidas, It was a change I made. Sorry that was unclear.
@ Cplakidas:, Re: "To maintain his authority, Junayd was forced to submit to the victor and ask for pardon".
"İsa traveled to Smyrna, where he formed an alliance with Junayd" ... It begs the question of "who was Junayd" at this time - what position did he hold that he was in a position to form an alliance with Isa? It follows, what authority did he have "to maintain"? If his "authority" is unknown, it is better to be silent on what "authority he maintained". Also "forced to submit to the victor and ask for pardon" should probably be specifically cited, but there are two possible refs? Do they both refer to being pardoned and both refer to Isa's death? I hope my tags are not perturbing. I have used them where they are expeditious and an answer is not clear (to me). That such questions cannot be answered from the sources is. itself, an answer that might indicate a solution. The tags are not set in concrete. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: sorry for the delay, I was otherwise engaged and lacked access to some of the sources for the past couple of weeks. I've tried to address the concerns you raised above. Please have a look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, A couple of things with this para. How was it that Junayd came to assert him self as the independant ruler of Smyrna. I am guessing he succeeded his father as governor (an appointment and not an hereditary title?), who would have owed fielty to the ruler of the Beylik of Aydın. Either he (or perhaps his father) asserted independent rule in the turmoil that was occurring. To call him "ruler" implies that he ruled in his own right and not as appointed governor? There is a leap from him being the governor's son to being ruler of the city. I am guessing that the sources are silent on this. We should make the lack of knowledge explicit. Why Junayd formed an alliance with İsa is unclear if he was actually a vassal of Süleyman - one has to read between the lines for this to make sense. It should be more clearly stated. Finally, there is a case of the two cited sources at the close of the para. Unless they each support every element of the sentence, individual parts may need to be separately attributed. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references#When to cite). I would suggest something like this:
İsa traveled to Smyrna, where he formed an alliance with Junayd. Author XYZ identifies Junayd as the city's ruler but the sources are silent on how this transpired except that he had been the governor's son. Through Junayd, the alliance was extended to include the neighbouring rulers of Sarukhan, Menteshe, Teke and Germiyan.
Junayd later became a vassal of Süleyman. Kastritsis, indicates that Junayd may have been aligned with Süleyman as early as this time and that Junayd's alliance with İsa was actually in support of Süleyman against Mehmed.
The alliance under İsa held superior numbers, but Mehmed was able to overcome them in a battle near Smyrna. In part, this was due to Mehmed's own alliance with the Karamanids and the Beylik of Dulkadir. To maintain his authority, Junayd was forced to submit to Mehmed and ask for pardon. İsa tried to flee but was caught and strangled at Eskisehir.[8][16]
Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, please see underlined. Mehmed was not in Ayasoluk? Who said the "citadel of Smyrna" was possibly a mistaken reference for Ayasoluk? This is a bit confusing. Did Junayd lay sieze to Ayasoluk and, having captured it, was besieged their or did Mehmed break the siege and force Junayd to retire on Smyrna? As I read it, the sources are unclear as to these two alternatives? Suggest taking what is in bold into an explanatory note. See following.
Süleyman was initially successful against Musa, but on 17 February 1411, Musa launched a surprise attack on Edirne and killed his brother.[13] Taking advantage of the resulting confusion, Junayd left his post and returned to Smyrna, where he regained his former domains and decapitated the governor appointed by Süleyman.[8][34] The governor had probably submitted to Mehmed in the meantime. The anonymous Ottoman chronicle, Aḥvāl-i Sulṭān Meḥemmed ("Affairs of Sultan Mehmed"), records that Junayd laid siege to Ayasoluk. This forced Mehmed, who had just suffered a defeat by Musa at the Battle of İnceğiz (winter 1411/1412), to march against him. Junayd was besieged in the "citadel of Smyrna" (possibly a mistaken reference for Ayasoluk, since that of Smyrna had been razed by Timur). In the end though, Junayd had to surrender to Mehmed. Mahmed allowed him to keep his territories but required that coins and the Friday prayer, khutbah, (the traditional attributes of sovereignty in the Islamic world)[35] be henceforth carried out in his name.[36]
Suggest note to following extent (and referenced):
The details of what transpired are unclear from the sources. Author X reports that Junayd was besieged by Mehmed at the "citedal of Smyrna" but Author Y suggests this to be a mistaken reference to Ayasoluk. The implications are, that Junayd capture Ayasoluk and was besieged there or, Mehmed broke the siege at Ayasoluk and forced Junayd to retire on Smyrna, where he ultimately surrendered to Mehmed.
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, Quotes from Doukas refer to him as Juneid. Elsewhere, "İzmiroğlu". I added "sic" to one quote and made the other name a note, for raedability. Suggest lead needs to be modified to recognise "Juneid" as a variation? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per following para:
As a result of this breach of faith, Emperor Manuel turned to Murad and offered him his assistance in ferrying his army across to Europe, while Murad too sent one of his closest advisors to Manuel. Negotiations stalled because Murad was unwilling to undertake the same obligations as his father and brother, i.e. to hand over his two younger brothers as hostages and surrender Gallipoli, until the Genoese podesta (governor) of New Phocaea, Giovanni Adorno, offered to ferry Murad's army over instead.[49] Mustafa grew worried at this news, and at the prodding of Junayd, decided to take the initiative and cross over into Anatolia first. According to Doukas, Junayd's motives were purely personal: Mustafa had become dissolute, and he feared that he would fall against his brother; should that happen, if Junayd were in Europe, he ran the risk of falling into the hands of the Byzantines, who were eager to repay him for his treachery at Gallipoli. Junayd therefore sought to return to Anatolia and his own principality as soon as possible.[50]
The offer by Manual was part of a negotiation? It was contingent on terms but the negotiations broke down? The significance does not become clear until some way into the para. Just wanting to make sure before I did anything with this. The underlined text does not appear to add anything to the article either? Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Per: "He proved to be an unruly vassal and inveterate intriguer". "Unruly", while not technically incorrect usage, generally has a meaning different to what is intended and "inveterate" is probably editorialising. There is, perhaps, a better way of describing him. I have been thinking on this but the phrasing is just not coming to me ATM. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Constantine, As said, I have now been through it top to bottom one last time. A couple of very minor edit. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the expansion. But most of the article has been rewritten and only a few sentences of the original text survives. What I'm particularly interested is the phrase "Lord of Potamia" . There are at least a dozen Potamias around Aegean Sea. If I'm not mistaken this one must be Bademli in İzmir Province. Please add the modern name of the location. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 19:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The siege was lifted when a pact was made in which Junayd offered one of his daughters in marriage with Umur.
Really?
Doukas claims that before killing Umur, Cüneyd was able to marry his daughter, - Kastritsis, page 50. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Удивленный1 (
talk •
contribs) 12:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Удивленный1 (
talk •
contribs)
13:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
PS. Upgrade:
Two points of view.
First:
Second:
-- Удивленный1 ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Junayd of Aydın has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 7, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the civil war of the
Ottoman Interregnum, at one time or another
Junayd Bey, ruler of the
Beylik of Aydın, supported four different Ottoman princes vying for the throne? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Junayd of Aydın article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Takabeg (
talk)
10:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this Turkish source can prove only its name in Modern Turkish language. Takabeg ( talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
A recent change in the article claims that Cüneyt's father was imprisoned in 1403. The claim is sourced by Doukas. But all the same, according to my sources (Yaşar Yücel-Ali Sevim) it was Cüneyt's brother Kara Subaşı Hasan and not his father who was imprisoned. I think the source should be checked. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 06:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Now based on the facts in the translation I have before me, either Doukas mistakenly calls Qara-subaši his father, but Juneid rescued his father from Mamlos, or he mistakes Qara-subaši for his father (instead of his brother), & rescued his brother from Mamlos. Inasmuch as Doukas appears to be informed in the affairs of this part of Anatolia (he grew up there), I am surprised that he would confuse the two. I'd be interested to see what the Turkish primary sources have to say about him; maybe they can resolve this issue. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Cüneyt" is the modern Turkish transcription of the name Junayd. In scholarship, the forms most commonly used are:
The evidence in the major English-language sources is clear in not using the modern Turkish orthography, and even Turkish sources tend to use "Cüneyd" rather than "Cüneyt", which AFAIK corresponds with the actual phonology in pre-modern times. Otherwise, in typical fashion, the use of the Perso-Arabic vs the Turkish form reflects the origins of scholars: Turkish scholars and Turkologists tend to use the latter, more general medievalists, whether Islamic scholars or Byzantinists, as well as earlier scholars tend to use the former. To this must be added the readability factor: the average reader won't know that "C" in modern Turkish represents the "[d]j" sound (e.g. the translator of the article in the Greek WP thought the "C" represented a "K" sound [1]). I therefore am moving the article to "Junayd of Aydın", although "Juneyd" is an equally acceptable form. Constantine ✍ 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Constantine for the expansion of the article. By the way I am not sure if I understood the the following statement; They ... abandoned Mustafa's camp, riding posthaste for Smyrna. Junayd's party arrived before the town on the next evening, Well the the birds flight distance between the said river and Smyrna is no less than 250 km. What breed of horse were they using ? Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: HaEr48 ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing. HaEr48 ( talk) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Overall looking good. My comments
HaEr48 ( talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, actually just one.
When I incorporated a lot of content from Doukas a while back -- has it really been two years ago? -- I added the book/chapter references to keep them independent of a specific translation. While it's doubtful that there will be another translation of Doukas in the foreseeable future -- although Magoulias' translation is 40+ years old & out of print, I doubt anyone expects medieval Greek historians to be a bigger market than, say, Harry Potter soon -- keeping those references does make it easier for the content to be reused in other languages, especially translating this article to other language Wikipedias. (Those languages will either have their own translations to use, or the Wikipedian may be fluent enough in medieval Greek to read the original.) So some readers would benefit from them if they were restored. Just a thought. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Per: "The beylik was extended by Mehmed Bey ( r. 1308–1334– ) into the former Byzantine lands along the Küçükmenderes River [a] up to the Aegean coast. Its two main ports were Ayasoluk, [b] near the ruins of ancient Ephesus, and Smyrna, [c] while its capital was Birgi. [d]"
This is a complex sentence enen without the four parenthetic clauses for various names of the localities. This all made for a sentence that was particularly difficult to read. I am suggesting this edit, moving what was previously in brackets to footnotes. You will note, that many text readers will display the note content when the cursor hovers over the note. I changed the note template being used to make it easier for me to edit and not because there was anything intrinsically wrong with the template previously used. You will see that there is a link to Selçuk in both the main text and the note. A footnote is not counted as part of the readable prose. My understanding is that it is not overlinking to have the same link in the main text and a note or caption (unless somebody disagrees). I scratched my head on how to resolve the issue and this was my solution. I am not saying it is the best or the only solution. Hope it is OK. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought you might want to adjust my suggestion. It is a chunk of a change so I paused here. Let me know if this is ok or not. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas Re: "Sources about the period are many and have diverse provenance, differing greatly in scope, detail, and reliability". This is opinion and should be more explicitly attributed to Kastritsis. "The author, Kastritsis, observes that ...". At present, this is an indirect quote. Does he make a succinct statement to this effect that could be directly quoted. You may have a better description of Kastritsis than just an author. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Junayd's origin is not entirely clear. Sources about the period are many and have diverse provenance, differing greatly in scope, detail, and reliability. [1] The main contemporaneous source about Junayd's career is the chronicle of the Byzantine historian, Doukas. [2] Doukas calls him "Juneid, the son of Kara-subashi" ( subashi being a gubernatorial title rather than a proper name). He reports that the latter was a long-serving governor of Smyrna under Bayezid I. [3] In Turkish sources, the name of Junayd's father is given as Ibrahim or sometimes, Ibrahim Fatih ("Ibrahim the Conqueror"). [4] The Turkish historian, Himmet Akın, suggests Junayd's father to be Ibrahim Bahadur, lord of Bodemya (Potamia) and a son of Mehmed Bey. This view is also accepted by Irène Mélikoff, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article on Junayd. [5] The Greek scholar, Elisabeth Zachariadou, challenges this identification on the grounds that Junayd's father does not appear to have had any relationship with Bodemya. Furthermore, based on a reference in the satirical work of the Byzantine author, Mazaris, Zachariadou suggests that Ibrahim may have been a Byzantine renegade. [4] Kastritsis concludes that Junayd's relationship to the Aydınid family is thus unclear, although he may have been a lesser member of the dynasty. [6] He finds that Junayd's father was probably the subassi Smirarum mentioned in a number of Genoese documents of 1394. The first of these documents concerns discussions on the release of two of the sons of the subassi (Italian form of subashi), who had been taken prisoner by the Latin captain of Smyrna; Junayd may have been one of them. [7] It is known that Junayd had an uncle, Qurt Hasan, and three brothers: Hasan Agha, Bayezid, and Hamza. [8]
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, Per "Ottomanist". Following the links from wictionary, an Ottomanist is a proponent of Ottomanism. Is this what you mean? Or is it that she is a Greek scholar/historian of Ottoman History. If so, it is probably better to say: "the Greek historian ... " or even just "the historian".
I have edited "The Turkish historian Himmet Akın suggested that Junayd's father could be identified with Ibrahim Bahadur". To a more active voice but mainly because "identified with" implies he was an associate of Ibrahim Bahadur (in the same way you might say someone was identified with the XYX movement) and not that he was that person. Other copy edits are for sentence size/complexity. You might check that I have not changed the intended meaning. I am happy with the resolution of other matters in this section. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas Re: "Mehmed, probably one of his own followers," "probably" is a word to watch. As such, it should, if used, be directly attributed. I am suggesting a note to clarify who he was: "Person XYZ conjectures that the Mehmed initially appointed by Temur was one of Timur's followers. In respect to this appointment, neither [two authors cited] refer to any hereditary claim by the appointee." I don't know what was actually said and by which author. The proposed note could also go into the main prose. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: " as he controlled the original core of the Ottoman state in Bithynia, and possibly Bursa" The uncertainty should be directly attribute per words to watch. Have removed for now. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Junayd agreed, and succeeded in bringing the neighbouring rulers ...". Who says he was instrumental in extending the alliance to include these? Also, reword to second underlined - more neutral? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@
User:Cplakidas, It was a change I made. Sorry that was unclear.
@ Cplakidas:, Re: "To maintain his authority, Junayd was forced to submit to the victor and ask for pardon".
"İsa traveled to Smyrna, where he formed an alliance with Junayd" ... It begs the question of "who was Junayd" at this time - what position did he hold that he was in a position to form an alliance with Isa? It follows, what authority did he have "to maintain"? If his "authority" is unknown, it is better to be silent on what "authority he maintained". Also "forced to submit to the victor and ask for pardon" should probably be specifically cited, but there are two possible refs? Do they both refer to being pardoned and both refer to Isa's death? I hope my tags are not perturbing. I have used them where they are expeditious and an answer is not clear (to me). That such questions cannot be answered from the sources is. itself, an answer that might indicate a solution. The tags are not set in concrete. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: sorry for the delay, I was otherwise engaged and lacked access to some of the sources for the past couple of weeks. I've tried to address the concerns you raised above. Please have a look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, A couple of things with this para. How was it that Junayd came to assert him self as the independant ruler of Smyrna. I am guessing he succeeded his father as governor (an appointment and not an hereditary title?), who would have owed fielty to the ruler of the Beylik of Aydın. Either he (or perhaps his father) asserted independent rule in the turmoil that was occurring. To call him "ruler" implies that he ruled in his own right and not as appointed governor? There is a leap from him being the governor's son to being ruler of the city. I am guessing that the sources are silent on this. We should make the lack of knowledge explicit. Why Junayd formed an alliance with İsa is unclear if he was actually a vassal of Süleyman - one has to read between the lines for this to make sense. It should be more clearly stated. Finally, there is a case of the two cited sources at the close of the para. Unless they each support every element of the sentence, individual parts may need to be separately attributed. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references#When to cite). I would suggest something like this:
İsa traveled to Smyrna, where he formed an alliance with Junayd. Author XYZ identifies Junayd as the city's ruler but the sources are silent on how this transpired except that he had been the governor's son. Through Junayd, the alliance was extended to include the neighbouring rulers of Sarukhan, Menteshe, Teke and Germiyan.
Junayd later became a vassal of Süleyman. Kastritsis, indicates that Junayd may have been aligned with Süleyman as early as this time and that Junayd's alliance with İsa was actually in support of Süleyman against Mehmed.
The alliance under İsa held superior numbers, but Mehmed was able to overcome them in a battle near Smyrna. In part, this was due to Mehmed's own alliance with the Karamanids and the Beylik of Dulkadir. To maintain his authority, Junayd was forced to submit to Mehmed and ask for pardon. İsa tried to flee but was caught and strangled at Eskisehir.[8][16]
Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, please see underlined. Mehmed was not in Ayasoluk? Who said the "citadel of Smyrna" was possibly a mistaken reference for Ayasoluk? This is a bit confusing. Did Junayd lay sieze to Ayasoluk and, having captured it, was besieged their or did Mehmed break the siege and force Junayd to retire on Smyrna? As I read it, the sources are unclear as to these two alternatives? Suggest taking what is in bold into an explanatory note. See following.
Süleyman was initially successful against Musa, but on 17 February 1411, Musa launched a surprise attack on Edirne and killed his brother.[13] Taking advantage of the resulting confusion, Junayd left his post and returned to Smyrna, where he regained his former domains and decapitated the governor appointed by Süleyman.[8][34] The governor had probably submitted to Mehmed in the meantime. The anonymous Ottoman chronicle, Aḥvāl-i Sulṭān Meḥemmed ("Affairs of Sultan Mehmed"), records that Junayd laid siege to Ayasoluk. This forced Mehmed, who had just suffered a defeat by Musa at the Battle of İnceğiz (winter 1411/1412), to march against him. Junayd was besieged in the "citadel of Smyrna" (possibly a mistaken reference for Ayasoluk, since that of Smyrna had been razed by Timur). In the end though, Junayd had to surrender to Mehmed. Mahmed allowed him to keep his territories but required that coins and the Friday prayer, khutbah, (the traditional attributes of sovereignty in the Islamic world)[35] be henceforth carried out in his name.[36]
Suggest note to following extent (and referenced):
The details of what transpired are unclear from the sources. Author X reports that Junayd was besieged by Mehmed at the "citedal of Smyrna" but Author Y suggests this to be a mistaken reference to Ayasoluk. The implications are, that Junayd capture Ayasoluk and was besieged there or, Mehmed broke the siege at Ayasoluk and forced Junayd to retire on Smyrna, where he ultimately surrendered to Mehmed.
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Cplakidas, Quotes from Doukas refer to him as Juneid. Elsewhere, "İzmiroğlu". I added "sic" to one quote and made the other name a note, for raedability. Suggest lead needs to be modified to recognise "Juneid" as a variation? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Per following para:
As a result of this breach of faith, Emperor Manuel turned to Murad and offered him his assistance in ferrying his army across to Europe, while Murad too sent one of his closest advisors to Manuel. Negotiations stalled because Murad was unwilling to undertake the same obligations as his father and brother, i.e. to hand over his two younger brothers as hostages and surrender Gallipoli, until the Genoese podesta (governor) of New Phocaea, Giovanni Adorno, offered to ferry Murad's army over instead.[49] Mustafa grew worried at this news, and at the prodding of Junayd, decided to take the initiative and cross over into Anatolia first. According to Doukas, Junayd's motives were purely personal: Mustafa had become dissolute, and he feared that he would fall against his brother; should that happen, if Junayd were in Europe, he ran the risk of falling into the hands of the Byzantines, who were eager to repay him for his treachery at Gallipoli. Junayd therefore sought to return to Anatolia and his own principality as soon as possible.[50]
The offer by Manual was part of a negotiation? It was contingent on terms but the negotiations broke down? The significance does not become clear until some way into the para. Just wanting to make sure before I did anything with this. The underlined text does not appear to add anything to the article either? Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Per: "He proved to be an unruly vassal and inveterate intriguer". "Unruly", while not technically incorrect usage, generally has a meaning different to what is intended and "inveterate" is probably editorialising. There is, perhaps, a better way of describing him. I have been thinking on this but the phrasing is just not coming to me ATM. Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Constantine, As said, I have now been through it top to bottom one last time. A couple of very minor edit. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the expansion. But most of the article has been rewritten and only a few sentences of the original text survives. What I'm particularly interested is the phrase "Lord of Potamia" . There are at least a dozen Potamias around Aegean Sea. If I'm not mistaken this one must be Bademli in İzmir Province. Please add the modern name of the location. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 19:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The siege was lifted when a pact was made in which Junayd offered one of his daughters in marriage with Umur.
Really?
Doukas claims that before killing Umur, Cüneyd was able to marry his daughter, - Kastritsis, page 50. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Удивленный1 (
talk •
contribs) 12:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Удивленный1 (
talk •
contribs)
13:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
PS. Upgrade:
Two points of view.
First:
Second:
-- Удивленный1 ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)