[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Junayd of Aydın

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJunayd 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 2, 2017WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know
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

Untitled

[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately, this Turkish source can prove only its name in Modern Turkish language. Takabeg (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi Nedim! What Doukas wrote was as follows. First, he names Juneid "the son of Qara-subaši", & states his father had been governor of Smyrna "in the days of Bayazid" (18.5; translated by Marguoulias on p. 101); now in a note the translator states Juneid/Cüneyt's father's name was Ibrahim Bahadur. (I omitted all of this because I had to leave something out, & this seemed too complex to include in my update. :-) The next point in Doukas' narrative where his father appears is 18.7 where Umar besieges him in the citadel of Ephesus, where he is again called "Qara-subaši" (trans. by Margoulias p. 102); his father surrenders in the autumn of that year (from Doukas' chronology, this would be 1404). Before the winter comes, Juneid/Cüneyt sails in secret to Mamlos & rescues "the prisoners" (18.7 again); the implication is that these prisoners included his father. And this is all Doukas tells us of Qara-subaši his father.

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)[reply]

Name

[edit]

"Cüneyt" is the modern Turkish transcription of the name Junayd. In scholarship, the forms most commonly used are:

  • "Juneyd", 10 results but including some major reference works by prominent scholars, e.g. in Colin Imber's The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power, or Halil Inalcik's chapter in the A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe.
  • "Juneid", "juneid"+aydin 14 results, of which four are relevant, including Magoulias' translation of Doukas.
  • "Junayd", about thirty results, but less than 20 are relevant; again including some major reference works like Bosworth's New Islamic Dynasties (although Bosworth inevitably prefers the Arabo-Persian forms over Turkified ones due to the scope of his work), two studies by the eminent scholar of medieval Anatolian cities, Clive Foss, and one study by Luttrell on the Hospitaller state.
  • "Djunayd", about 70 results, of which again a handful are relevant, but include Zachariadou's magisterial work on the Turkish emirates (which includes the "best and most up-to-date account of the origins and the career of Cüneyd", according to Kastritsis), and the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry. For practical purposes, this form should be considered a variant form of "Junayd".
  • "Cüneyt", about 100 results, but most of them are irrelevant. From what I could see, less than half a dozen were relevant hits, and most of them were in Turkish.
  • "Cüneyd", about 190 results, of which most are irelevant, but it includes a very substantial number of relevant studies.Most of them are in Turkish or written by Turkish scholars, but they do include two major English-language works, Finkel's Osman's Dream, and Kastritsis' The Sons of Bayezid, a dedicated study on the Ottoman Interregnum.

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)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, I'd like to discuss the naming conventions. I see that Constantine had moved Cüneyt to Junayd . Possible, but why ? According to WP, "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject " There is no definite border between established and unestablished. But presume such names as Napoleon, Goethe or Chaikovski have established usage in English. But frankly, can Cüneyt also have an established usage ? Probably, less than one out of a million English speakers know anything about Cüneyt. Is this an established usage ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Established usage does not equate common knowledge. I dare say not many Turkish-speakers are likely know anything about this personage either. That is not the point. The point is to use a form that is used in relevant literature, such as it is. This is what I have done above; the sources listed are certainly "reliable sources" in their own right, and there are plenty English-language ones among them. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks Nedim. The reference is by Doukas, and I elaborated a bit on what he says: basically, Junayd and his men left on the "first hour of night" (in December/January this might mean as early as 18.00), rode without interruption "in one night as much as normally in two days' journey", and arrived at Smyrna on the evening of the next day. In itself, this is far more than the averages or maximums recorded for horses on campaign, but it is not impossible: the party travelled lightly, used good horses, may have had spare horses (Doukas only records that they mounted some 70 horses), and were driven by dire need. Certainly the horses would be nearly useless at the end of such a ride, and the riders nearing exhaustion, but it is possible. Doukas may of course have exaggerated, but it is unlikely as he is generally reliable and well-informed on Aydinid affairs; it is more likely that if untrue, this story reflects what people told of Junayd's ride, but either way, we cannot know. Constantine ✍ 21:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Junayd of Aydın/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. HaEr48 (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Overall looking good. My comments[reply]

  • The map in the background section: can you narrow down the timing? 14th century is a long period, do we know the decade or if it's early/mid/late? If early, can we use one that's closer to Junayd's lifetime?
  • Also, because the map is Turkish, probably it's useful to point which one is Ottoman, Aydın, and Smyrna - the key places in the biography.
    • I'm not too satisfied with the map either, as it attempts to condense several decades of territorial evolution in one snapshot. In other words, unless I am much mistaken, at no one time did Anatolia look like this. HHowever, this is the best map I could find, and the average reader will definitely need a map. My own sources are insufficient for me to create a map to replace it, which is what I would normally do. I have however added some explanations in the caption. Constantine ✍ 14:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you describe in the text the relative location of Smyrna, Ayasoluk, and the Beylik of Aydin? A map of these places as well as other key places would be useful too.
  • "Start of the Ottoman Interregnum": The two middle paragraphs have nothing to do with Junayd. Can we summarize it, per the 3b criteria of GA?
    • It is already very condensed, and I feel it necessary as background information, necessary in order to introduce the historical setting, the constraints in which Junayd and his contemporaries operated, and also the main characters in his career. How else could I introduce the three feuding Ottoman princes, and why they were feuding? How could I explain the importance of Bursa? Or the stance of the other Anatolian rulers, and later on of the Byzantines and of Mircea? Constantine ✍ 14:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instance of WP:EASTEREGG link, e.g. "Mehmed had defeated his brother and seized Bursa", "Mehmed defeated Musa". Please fix, given that they're discouraged by MOS:EGG.
  • “a brother-in-law of the vizier Bayezid Pasha that Junayd had executed” -> The passage about Bayezid’s death wasn’t so clear about who was responsible for the execution. It sounds like Mustafa executed him after being asked by Juneyd. Please clarify
  • Murad sent the beylerbey of Anatolia, Oruj, to combat him: Please reword to clarify: does this mean personal combat, or just regular fighting with armies?
  • How large is Junayd’s role in Mustafa revolt? Was he Mustafa's main commander, or just one of the smaller commanders?
  • "until the Genoese podesta of New Phocaea, Giovanni Adorno": can we add a short translation of podesta?
  • The battle at Akhisar: The article sounds like Junayd was present (but was forced to retreat after his son's defeat), but Mélikoff (1991) made it sound like Junayd wasn't in the battle and only his son was. Can you add an inline citation to the article (so that we know where it's referenced from), and is there any reason that source is preferred than the other source.
    • Not quite. What Mélikoff says is not incorrect: the main event of the battle involved Junayd's son, while it is unclear from Doukas (who provides the story) whether Junayd engaged at all. So there is no incompatibility between the sources. Constantine ✍ 11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't "Junayd thereupon retreated" imply that he was present? HaEr48 (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “ Oruj died, and was succeeded by Hamza Bey, the brother of Bayezid whose life Junayd had spared, and İpsili was placed under siege” the relation between Oruj’s deaht and Ipsili’s siege isn’t clear to me, but this passage presents them as related.
  • Please clarify if Hamza Bey ordered or personally conducted the siege of Ipsili.
  • Junayd's death: The article says it's Hamza's men who killed him, while Mélikoff (1991) says it's Yakhshi as revenge for his sister. Should we perhaps mention both versions? And do we know what Hamza's motives were?

HaEr48 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • On Hamza's motives, we can only guess; Junayd was a thorn in the side of the Ottomans for many years, but more importantly, he was responsible for having Hamza's brother executed. Doukas certainly implies that this played a role (so does the article, when it mentions the fact along with Hamza's succession to Oruj), but does not say so explicitly. Regarding Mélikoff's version, it has been added. Constantine ✍ 11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HaEr48, thanks for taking the time to review this article! I'll get to work addressing your comments over the weekend, but a first comment about Mélikoff (1991): Zachariadou has demolished much oof Mélikoff's chronology (which in turn relies mostly on Akın). Indeed, she writes that "Akın [...] and Mélikoff [...] contain many inaccuracies and will not hereafter be cited". I began the article based on the EI2 aentry, but after I got access to Zachariadou I've not relied on it and removed it as a reference except for places where it is either in accordance with Zachariadou, for information not found there, or where it ppresents an alternative hypothesis that cannot conclusively be rejected (e.g. Hasan Agha being the subashi in 1405). Constantine ✍ 07:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine: Understood, but if both are legitimate scholars and the works are published by reliable sources, why are we preferring Zachariadou over Mélikoff? Is her version more widely accepted (if so, how?)? From reading WP:NPOV looks like we should represent both opinions. HaEr48 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, yes. But this is not a matter of POV or equally plausible theories, it is about the reconstruction of events based on archival sources. Zachariadou is one of the greatest Turkologists of her generation, and her knowledge of Turkish, Greek and Western archives on the period is second to none. When she writes about inaccuracies, I don't think she means differences of interpretation, but inaccurate reading of the primary sources. What is certain is that her version is certainly the commonly accepted narrative for the events concerning Aydin among modern scholars for this period (cf. Kastritsis; also, in general, much of the current state of the art in the topic of Turkish-Latin-Greek history in the Aegean in the 14th-early 15th centuries can be directly traced to her). Where both sides present theories as such (e.g., as mentioned above, about the identity of the subashi) based on educated guesses rather than sources, I have left both stand. Constantine ✍ 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HaEr48! Sorry for the delay, I was really busy with work. I have addressed the concerns you have raised above. Looking forward to further feedback. The map of Smyrna and environs will take some while. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the map will take a while, is it perhaps possible to describe the locations in the prose? Just an idea. HaEr48 (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HaEr48! I've added a map, and fixed the one missing comment from above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent map, Constantine. I moved the map's location in the article, feel free to revert if you don't like it. As for the GA, I'm happy to pass it now. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by llywrch

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)[reply]

That's a good point, llywrch. I'll restore the references as soon as I have some more time. Constantine ✍ 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

[edit]

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]"

  1. ^ Byzantine: The Kaystros River
  2. ^ Byzantine: Agios Theologos; modern Selçuk
  3. ^ Modern (İzmir
  4. ^ Byzantine: Pyrgion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Cinderella157! Hmmm, I don't know. I usually prefer footnotes to actually have some stand-alone content that clarifies something, but does not necessarily belong in the main article. The localities are in fact directly relevant, both for the modern reader (modern names) and for the researcher (Byzantine names), since the main source of the article is Doukas, who uses the latter (and much of the secondary literature does the same). I would strongly prefer the toponyms to remain inline. Perhaps the "Byzantine" portion could be stricken, it should be evident that the same settlement is meant. BTW, please {{ping}} me next time for a quicker response. Constantine ✍ 08:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cplakidas, I woulds too - usually. This is why I paused here, thinking it might need some discussion or you would have a differing view. It is a case of making it more readable. The sentence could be "broken up" but the natural break is about 3/4 through and doesn't really alleviate the problem. The other problem is " (Byzantine Agios Theologos, modern Selçuk)", which adds to the level of complexity. You will see that the footnote for this changes the punctuation that makes the meaning (IMO) clearer but such punctuation might be even more problematic if the same were tried in the "main" prose. And, having treated one differently, I chose to treat them all this way in this "particular" sentence. I am certainly open to other suggestions and working iteratively to a solution - or this may be considered an "acceptable" exception. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: I know, I too am not too happy about the many parentheses; let's keep the footnotes for now and we can revisit this at the end. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cplakidas, glad we have a common ground. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Hmmm, I find this problematic; first, because this statement is a summary of Kastritsis' description of the various sources by me; second, because as a qualified expert drawing upon other expert works, this represents scholarly consensus. It is not an opinion to state that the sources "have diverse provenance" or that they differ "in scope, detail"; and even reliability can be objectively measured, when the statements of a source are fanciful or inaccurate when checked against better sources. Constantine ✍ 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@User:Cplakidas,

  • Is there a link to Bodemya (Potamia)?
  • In saying there is no "relationship with Bodemya", what is the basis for this? If he were the lord of Bodemya, he would have a relationship. One could say: "in consideration of X sources make no reference to Bodemya, she concluded it unlikely". This could be done as a footnote. At the moment, it is a leap of faith that begs the dots to be joined.
  • The basis for a supposed relationship with Bodemya is his suggested identification with Ibrahim Bahadur. Ibrahim, as the father of Junayd, is nowhere attested by contemporary sources to have any relationship with Bodemya. The "leap of faith" is accepting Akın's proposed identification, when there is no evidence to support it except for the common name. Constantine ✍ 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More directly attribute text at about the end of the para. I suggest something like the above.
  • "the Latin captain of Smyrna". "Latin", as used here, is very imprecise. To me, it could mean French, Portuguese, Spanish or Italian? Would "Crusader captain" be better? Was he from one of the Italian (city) states? The reference suggests him to be Genoese (or in their employ)?

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: "Ottomanist" now directs to both Ottomanism and Ottoman studies. I've added some details from Zachariadou's rationale, and changed "that Junayd's father was Ibrahim Bahadur" to "that Junayd's father was the same individual as Ibrahim Bahadur" to retain the original sense of a possible identification better. The unclear relationship to the Aydinids proper is not just Kastritsis' view, but also that of Zachariadou, and emerges once Akın's suggestion is rejected. I've therefore removed the attribution "According to Kastritsis". The "thus" clearly links it to the previous argument. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution 2

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


@User:Cplakidas, It was a change I made. Sorry that was unclear.

Who was Junayd before this?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Clarified the "authority" part. No worries, I appreciate an engaged reviewer, it helps improve the article considerably. Constantine ✍ 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: " I am guessing that the sources are silent on this". Precisely. The situation after the Battle of Ankara was chaotic, and he probably seized power in Smyrna. I've added a relevant entry at the end of the first paragraph, but it is partly OR; I don't have access to the primary Turkish sources, for instance. I've made various other tweaks and improvements to the section, please have a look. Re citations, this is a case of "Bundled citations can also be used where multiple works cover the information.". In an iterative process where I (and now you) have gone over the same paragraph again and again, rephrasing and rewriting it, I feel it best (and more honest) if it is kept that way, especially since Kastritsis and Melikoff cover the same ground. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cplakidas, I did a couple of tweaks too. The result of our efforts "explains" what was an information void - it explains what we don't know and that is a better solution. I removed reference to "chaos" but if the source/s support that it was "chaos", I am happy for it to go back. My understanding of bundled citations might be a little different from yours. It is not a case of putting all of the citations to the end of a paragraph "in a bundle" of multiple notes. Citations should maintain Text–source integrity. A bundled footnote is one "footnote" that captures two or more citations, where they all support what precedes. They do not support, individually, specific points but, collectively, support that which precedes. It might use {{sfnm}}. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: I've tried to rephrase it to make it clearer. I do not feel that it is our job (or authority) to spell out every eventuality for the reader; merely to point out that the modern scholarship is uncertain how to interpret references in the medieval sources. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the many "attribute" tags in the next section, since they all derive from Doukas, i.e. Magoulias, I don't see the point for individual references. Inalcik was added merely as a corroboration to a primary source (i.e., that this is also the accepted version for modern scholars). I've removed him. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cplakidas, Happy with the result. It addresses my concerns. While I think that quotes should be explicitly cited where they occur, removing the second source removes any potential "ambiguity" regarding the source of the quotes. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juneid

[edit]

@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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: "Juneid" is one of the possible transliterations. I've added a brief explanation of the various names in the lede. I am thinking, however, about the wisdom of moving the article to "Juneyd", as it is closer to the Turkish form of the name, while still being used by major sources (cf. name section above; Juneid and Cüneyd are essentially variant transliterations of Juneyd). I'll think it over over the weekend. Constantine ✍ 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @User:Cplakidas, the note is a good addition. I certainly understand the matter of translations and variations of spelling with time. On the matter of whatever you choose, I am sure it will be well considered. I would tend to use a consistent spelling throughout - even in quotes, where the original source quote might use a different variation. The note on naming could be added to say as much to indicate that "licence" has been taken in this respect. Just a suggestion. I observer that the article uses the US "ize" endings (rather than "ise" but otherwise uses UK spelling. I was going to standardise on the UK but you might do so? I am planning on reading it through top-to-bottom as a final check. I am away from my big screen this week-end but was hoping to do so in the next week. I have appreciated the collegiate manner of our collaboration. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: On the name, I've been thinking it over over the past week or so, and am still undecided. "Juneyd" is closer to the name's actual phonology, but usage, such as it is, favours Junayd. On the -ize, it is a common misconcenption: both -ize and -ise are acceptable in BritEng, but only -ize in AmEng. I too enjoyed our work together very much. Thanks a lot for your efforts and patience, the article is certainly much improved in prose quality, and you have tremendous work in highlighting any lingering inaccuracies or sources of confusion. Constantine ✍ 08:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to clarify

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Regarding the underlined part, you are right. Regarding Manuel's offers, you have understood correctly. Constantine ✍ 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: I've rephrased it. Have a look. Constantine ✍ 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Place name

[edit]

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)[reply]

Marriage

[edit]
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)[reply]
PS. Upgrade:
Two points of view.
First:

  • Juneid then negotiated a reconcilation with Umur and gave him the hand of his daughter in marriage. (Magoulias,p.101)

Second:

--Удивленный1 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Kastritsis 2007, pp. 22–40.
  2. ^ Kastritsis 2007, pp. 37–38, 49.
  3. ^ Magoulias 1975, p. 101.
  4. ^ a b Zachariadou 1983, pp. 83–84 (note 365).
  5. ^ Mélikoff 1965, pp. 599–600.
  6. ^ Kastritsis 2007, pp. 49–50.
  7. ^ Kastritsis 2007, p. 49 (note 25).
  8. ^ PLP, 27977. Τζινεήτ.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Junayd_of_Aydın&oldid=1214859691"