Talk:Cretan State

"Republic" or "State" ?

It seems that Republic is not the correct term in english to describe the greek Politeia (Πολιτεία) for the semi-autonomous political entity, which was a non-hereditary monarchy and nominally a vassal state to the Ottoman Empire. The term Republic of Crete appears only in Wikipedia and its mirrors, while Cretan State is generaly used. I propose moving the article to Cretan State. Sv1xv (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that its much closer to the meaning of Politeia than "Republic". Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's wait for further views on the subject. A name change affects a fair number of other WP articles. Sv1xv (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Cretan State

As there have been no objections, I renamed the article Cretan State. Sv1xv (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Name in Ottoman Turkish

As one of the official languages of the Cretan State was Ottoman Tukish, shouldn't the infobox include this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Psi (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed

Proper description of political system

The Cretan State up to 1908 (unilateral union with Greece) was not a Parliamentary Republic. The closest standard political systems would be either a Constitutional Monarchy (but without a hereditary head of state) or a Presidential Republic (again without election of the High Commissioner by the people). Also the constitution recognized two communities (christian/greek, muslim/ottoman) with specific provisions for the representation of each one in the parliament.

Given the regular use of the term Hegemon (greek Ηγεμών) for the High Commissioner, I would vote for a variation of the former term (monarchy), although the H.C. was appointed for a term and not for life. Any other views? Sv1xv (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I changed this was that the High Commissioner was not, as such, a monarch. The term "Hegemon" applied only to the person of Prince George, not to the office per se and certainly not to Zaimis. The state itself had a parliament, and was in effect a republic. "Presidential Republic" does fit it better than any form of monarchy, but again, there was no elected President, and the "Armostis", in theory, was merely a "substitute" head of state until the permanent solution, i.e. union with Greece under King George, was achieved. Since any too precise definition would be unsatisfactory, I'd say keep it as it is, or, perhaps better, remove it if it engenders confusion. Unless of course someone comes up with a good alternative. Constantine ✍ 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was a non-standard political system, but we have to agree that Parliamentary Republic is inaccurate. A slightly better term than Presidential Republic (it is unsuitable as there was no President) is Constitutional republic, but it also implies an elected head of state. In addition to the issue of the H.C. we have to deal with the issue of the two ethnic and religious communities with special provisions for each one. Instead of removing the entry altogether, we could use something like Constitutional binational state with appointed H.C. and keep the issue open for better suggestions. Sv1xv (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's go with the latter, it's reasonably accurate. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Cretan state coin

I recently found a coin of the Cretan State. Shal I take a photo of it and post it here? --aldameldo (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pleas do! Even better, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so it can be used here and in other Wikipedia projects. Sv1xv (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was the pretence of Ottomon suzereinty kept up and why was it so common?

Whilst I recognise, of course, that the Cretan State was to all intents and purposes independent, nonetheless it still recognised Ottoman suzerainy and paid tribute. I've noticed his was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Principality of Samos and the Khediviate of Egypt.

What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"de facto"

How can de facto annexation by Greece have happened in 1908, given that Greece refused to accept said annexation and "forcibly prevented" Cretan deputies from taking seats in parliament? That doesn't sound particularly de facto to me. john k (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)