TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

danger only by leaving behind all his properties. Junayd must have left Syria in 1453,
shortly before Cakmak’s death. 583
4.2.4.4. Canik and Trebizond: Becoming “gāzi”
Aşıkpaşazāde says he went to Mehmet Beg in Canik. But it is not clear who this Mehmet
Beg was. Hinz refers to him as the governor of Canik 584 while Yinanc argues that he was
Tāceddin-oğlu Mehmet Beg. 585 The truth was that Junayd stayed in Canik for a
considerably long period between 1453 and 1456, 586 and continued his propaganda and
militaristic activities there as well. He gathered some thousands of armed men in a short
while. 587 The Greek source Chalkokondyles says the Shaykh’s troops were collected
from everywhere in the east and south and from Samion as well as from some other
cities. 588 Here the question arises of whether Junayd stayed in Canik, which was an
Ottoman province at that time, for three years? 589 Aşıkpaşazāde very briefly says he
went to the court of Mehmet Beg in Canik (Canikde Mehmed Beg katına vardı); 590 he
does not specify whether Mehmed Beg offered him some sort of protection, thus he
stayed in his (Mehmed Beg’s) dominion or Junayd left the latter’s court after a short
while. Remembering Murad II’s refusal of the Shaykh’s request to stay in Kurtbeli,
583
Hinz, p. 19. Khunji says, in Syria he several times revolted against the governors. See TA, p. 63.
584
Hinz, p. 20.
585
Yinanç, p. 244.
586
Following paragraphs in this study.
587
APZ, p. 250. Most of these adherents of Junayd must have been from the Çepni tribe living in the
region southwest of the Empire of Trebizond at least by the second half of the thirteenth century. See Fuat
Köprülü, The Origins of the Ottoman Empire, trs. Gary Leiser, Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1992, pp. 49-50. Compare Sohrweide, p. 121.
588
The identification of this “Samion” is a controversial issue among historians. According to Hinz, it
denotes the Pontic harbor Samsun. See Hinz, pp. 19-20. However, Shukurov challenges this argument
asserting the Samion was nothing but the modification of oriental Sham (Damascus). To him Junayd’s
stay in the Ottoman territory for such a long term since the hostile attitude of the Ottoman administration
towards the Shaykh is apparent from Ashikpashazāde’s account. See Shukurov, p. 135.
589
According to Hinz, the answer is “yes”. See Hinz, p. 20.
590 APZ, p. 250.
206