Talk:Bosnia vilayet

Why was the pretence of Bosnia being an Ottoman province kept up 1878-1908 and why was it so common?
Whilst I recognise, of course, that Bosnia was to all intents and purposes an Austro-Hungarian possession after 1878 and before 1908, nonetheless it still recognised Ottoman sovereignty. I've noticed his was quite a widespread phenomenon 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) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Other than the obvious - dislike of the previous 500 years of intermittent war - see Congress of Berlin for a description of the various intrigues. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't explain why It was done on a de facto basis initially rather than a de facto one. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adrianople Vilayet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)