Does France deserve its name?

<<La France est réellement une construction politique — son nom et son histoire en témoignent. >>

No way! Really? Get out of town sarcastic Greg! You mean, France, like nearly every other country in the world,is a political construction?


"Why should France be named after a bunch of primitive tree worshiping bellicose half-savages who bleached their hair with lime and shaped it into spikes? They were politically and organizationally ignorant. They were not advanced. The Gauls were to France what the Native Americans were to the USA."

What don't you get Apam? They weren't primitive savages in 500 AD, and they hadn't been for centuries!!! Hey, the Germanic Franks were barely past the stage of barbarism themselves, and yet they deserve all the glory and honor? Why is it that the Gauls must be seen in their state in the B.C. era, but you only see the Franks they way they were in post-500 AD? We're talking over a half of a millenium here! You're comparing apples to oranges. How would you like it if you compared the British of the victorian era, to the bush people of Africa, but instead of comparing them based on their current state as contemporary nations, you portrayed the British as still being in the Stone Age, when that description did not accurately fit them for thousands of years? It wouldn't make sense to portray the 19th century British as stone age savages dwelling in caves would it?

"Why should France be named after a bunch of primitive tree worshiping bellicose half-savages who bleached their hair with lime and shaped it into spikes? They were politically and organizationally ignorant. They were not advanced. The Gauls were to France what the Native Americans were to the USA."



LAA; Agam and others...

Why you always put the latin/germanic/celtic debate on a inferior/superior relation, or a barbarian/civilized things.
times have change; At one time one group was more developped than another, and at another time it was the inverse. In the absolute there one group of people is not civilized or incivilized. All civilisations have known its great and bad periods. Anyaway, when speaking of today western Europe all countreis have a very simialr level of life, and each country have its qualities and defaults.

LAA - Juaquin en la caja! : « <<La France est réellement une construction politique — son nom et son histoire en témoignent. >> No way! Really? Get out of town sarcastic Greg! You mean, France, like nearly every other country in the world,is a political construction? »

Ça y est ! Il a compris ! Hourra !!!
Oui, c'est ça que je voulais dire. Mais aussi que le ***PEUPLE FRANÇAIS*** est un artefact politique et non une entité vaguement biologisante.





a.p.a.m. : « Anybody who studies Gallic history knows that the Gauls weren't sophisticated enough to create a unified nation out of the vast country (France) that they occupied. »

Et n'importe quel gallophile ou gallicisant pourrait te rétorquer que le « vaste pays » dont tu parles 1/ n'était pas la France (anachronisme n° 1) — 2/ ni même un pays (anachronisme n° 2).





a.p.a.m. : « The Gauls accepted Romanization after they were brutally conquered. »

Ben dis donc, qu'est-ce que t'en dis comme c****ries à la minute !... Certaines tribus ont travaillé pour Rome et sa politique expansionniste. Même chez les tribus vaincues, l'élite gauloise était souvent proromaine.





a.p.a.m. : « Much of southern Gaul was inhabited by Basques, Iberians, and Ligurians. The Gauls interbred with these people. »

Absolument. T'aurais pu aussi citer le cas de Marseille, la cité phocéenne. Tout ça montre que "la" Gaule n'était pas un "pays".





a.p.a.m. : « The Gauls were newcomers in *French* history. »

Ha ha ha !!! Pas vraiment, non... (du moins si on s'en tient au sens strict de <français>)
Disons que la France médiévale a succédé à la Gaule barbare elle-même issue de la Gaule romaine elle-même issue de (etc).

Don't worry, they can't see it.. But I can, because I have overcome my nastalgia.

LAA-Naming France in honor of the Gauls (Gaul, or Gallia) is like naming the United States after the Native Americans. Should we name the USA after the indiginous people of North America? Should have we? No. The original European white settlers divided and conquered them. Case closed.

No, the case is far from closed my good man. I want you to do me a personal favor. Please.

Take a deep, relaxing breath, and close your eyes.

Now, think intently on this, and pay close attention to my words.

Your whole theory rests on one fact and one fact alone. The idea that the Franks unified a savage, disorganized, divided land, and laid the foundation for a united nation, and the precursor of the modern French state. Well, this is a complete misconception, and the origin of all your conufusion.

Stop thinking of Gaul in terms of the state of Gaul in the time before the Roman conquest. Gaul was no less "Gaul" in the time of the Roman Empire, than it was in the time before Julius Caesar. The people of Gaul were still "Gauls". Just because their culture and language changed, does not mean that they were any less "Gallic". It simply means that the meaning of "Gallic" changed, according to the evolution of the culture and language of the people of Gaul. By 500 AD, "Gallic" was no longer synonymous with Celtic culture and language, but with "Gallo-Roman" culture and language. But Gaul was no less "Gaul" than it had been before, and the Gauls were no less "Gallic" than before. The MEANING of the term is what adapted or changed. The people never changed, for they were still Gauls, and citizens of Gaul. Gaul was a unified, well organized state, within a larger state, with its fixed boundaries even larger than modern day France. It was organized according to provinces within the province of Gaul, with the nation organized by the Catholic Church, where certain areas were under the diocesal control of appointees and officials of the Catholic Church and the provincial government. It was a nation of large cities, amphitheaters, baths, arenas, aqueducts, villas, scientists, astronomers, mathematicians, priests, bishops, teachers, students, merchants, craftsmen, and things which constitute an incredibly advanced, sophisticated, well managed civilization.

There was a strong provincial, and later a national identity. The people were Gauls, of Gallic culture, language, and religion.

If anybody divided and fractured Gaul, it was the Germanic invaders/immigrants. They took a well organized, relatively economically prosperous, sophisticated and advanced state, and fractured it into several small, regional states, under the fuedal control of uncivilized warrior chieftans and knights.

Only several centuries later, did one of these many Germanic "TRIBES" (indicative of a primitive state of society and government) unify most of what was previously the strongly united, and well managed state of Gaul, only then to be divided once again into many small duchies and fuedal kingdoms, because of the primitive Germanic practice of chieftans dividing their estates, literally whole nations, among each of their sons. I'm sure you're more than familiar with the all too quick disinegration of the illiterate Frankish chieftan Charlemagne's kingdom.

It wasn't until nearly a millenium afterwards, when France was united under the ruler in Paris. And it wasn't until the Renaissance, nearly a millenium later, which France recovered the level of civilization which it had once enjoyed in the time before the arrival of the Germanic peoples like the Franks.

I hope you seriously take all of this into consideration.

LAA : « And it wasn't until the Renaissance, nearly a millenium later, which France recovered the level of civilization which it had once enjoyed in the time before the arrival of the Germanic peoples like the Franks. »

Jugement de valeur péremptoire étayé par aucun fait précis.

" Gaul was no less "Gaul" in the time of the Roman Empire, than it was in the time before Julius Caesar. The people of Gaul were still "Gauls". Just because their culture and language changed, does not mean that they were any less "Gallic". "



LAA,

Since what was Gallic in the diverse ethnic group named "gauls" was their culture, fater the Roman colonisation the descendants of Gauls were not Gauls anymore but became Romans, in their ethny and culture.
Gallo-Roman culture and people was not a Gallic culture/ethny, it was just the Roman culture of the people who lived in the provincia which was named "Gallia" in memory of the ancient culture that was existing there before the Roman conquest.

there is no reason to call France Gaul, for different reasons : 1. Gaul was not only nowaday France, but also Belgium, Northern Italy, etc.
2. Today there is nothing "Gallic" left in French culture and people.

i thought France was related to free,or freedom as name FRANK related to free

LAA, your assertion that the pre-Roman Gauls and the Romanized Gauls are the same people is totally wrong. The Romanized Gauls, or Gallo-Romans were mainly descended from the Ancient, pre-Roman, pre-Caesarian Celtic Gauls who were primitive, disorganized, prone to quarreling, and lacked the political, organizational skills that the conquering Romans posessed. The pre-Roman Gauls were half savages who cut off the heads of their victims and placed their severed heads on top of their horses for show. They regularly bleached their hair with lime, giving their hair a more blond appearance to cover their natural darker hair. Then they shaped their bleached blond hair into spikes to give themselves a more fierce appearance. These were not very sophisticated people. The post-Caesarian Gallo-Romans were less Celtic partly because of heavy Roman colonization, but also because the conquering Romans introduced civilization to the Gauls. The Romans built cities, (not one city was ever built by a Gaul, they lived in primitive hut-like dwellings gathered together in what were called "oppidum"), in addition to cities, the Romans built aqueducts, amphitheaters, temples, baths, schools, and the Romans also introduced superior farming and cultivation techniques. We're talking about the Gallo-ROMANS here, not the pre-Roman Gauls who did not deserve to have their country named after them. The Gallo-Romans gave Gaul UNITY AND A FIXED BORDER THERBY CREATING THE FIRST TRUE FRENCH NATION. The primitive pre-Roman Celtic Gauls did not do this. What happened a few centuries later? This Gallo-Roman civilization declined and the Gall0-Romans (not Gauls) were conquered and defeated by a more powerful enemy, the Franks. The Franks preserved Latin culture, language, civilization and the Christian religion and protected it from a violent invasion by Muslim fanatics in 732 A.D. in Tours, France. If the Franks had lost that battle, The Muslims would have destroyed everything that the Romans had ever accomplished centuries earlier and a much different Europe would have taken shape. The Franks took the Roman mantle that was handed to them and they carried it on until A TRUER, MORE MODERN FRENCH NATION TOOK PLACE, IT WAS NO LONGER GALLO-ROMAN. THIS TRUER, MORE MODERN FRENCH STATE WAS USHERED IN BY THE FRANKS, AND GAVE WAY TO THE CAPETIAN DYNASTY OF HUGH CAPET AND HIS FAMILY AROUND 987 A.D. This was roughly the time that the French Language started to take shape, and was also the time that true French identity started to form. For anybody to say that a nation should be named after some of its original inhabitants just because they were there first is ludicrous.

<<LAA, your assertion that the pre-Roman Gauls and the Romanized Gauls are the same people is totally wrong. The Romanized Gauls, or Gallo-Romans were mainly descended from the Ancient, pre-Roman, pre-Caesarian Celtic Gauls who were primitive, disorganized, prone to quarreling, and lacked the political, organizational skills that the conquering Romans posessed. The pre-Roman Gauls were half savages who cut off the heads of their victims and placed their severed heads on top of their horses for show. They regularly bleached their hair with lime, giving their hair a more blond appearance to cover their natural darker hair. Then they shaped their bleached blond hair into spikes to give themselves a more fierce appearance. These were not very sophisticated people. The post-Caesarian Gallo-Romans were less Celtic partly because of heavy Roman colonization, but also because the conquering Romans introduced civilization to the Gauls. The Romans built cities, (not one city was ever built by a Gaul, they lived in primitive hut-like dwellings gathered together in what were called "oppidum"), in addition to cities, the Romans built aqueducts, amphitheaters, temples, baths, schools, and the Romans also introduced superior farming and cultivation techniques. We're talking about the Gallo-ROMANS here, not the pre-Roman Gauls who did not deserve to have their country named after them. The Gallo-Romans gave Gaul UNITY AND A FIXED BORDER THERBY CREATING THE FIRST TRUE FRENCH NATION. The primitive pre-Roman Celtic Gauls did not do this. What happened a few centuries later? This Gallo-Roman civilization declined and the Gall0-Romans (not Gauls) were conquered and defeated by a more powerful enemy, the Franks. >>

I don't know how you are missing this APAM. Please tell me what you do not understand. The Gallo-Romans, WERE STILL GAULS!!!! THEIR COUNTRY WAS STLL GAUL! THe people were still Gauls. Only the meaning of the name had changed. The term "Gallic" had to conform to the realities of the new culture of Gaul. The people were Roman citizens yes, but they were still Gauls. A Roman does not mean an Italian. It simply meant a Romanized, citizen of the Roman Empire. By this definition, the Syrians were also Romans, as were the Greeks, the North Africans, the Spaniards, the Italians, etc. But this does not change the fact that they were still Gauls. If a Gallo-Roman was walking around the streets of Corinth, or Byzantium, or Milan, or Rome, and people asked where he was from, because he had a Gallic appearance, and a Gallic accent, he would say that he was from Gaul. "Ah", they would say, "You are a Gaul."

THE GAULS OF THE 5th CENTURY WERE STILL GAULS!

To this day, when we use the word "Gallic", to describe a "Gallic nose", or a non-chalant "Gallic shrug of the shoulders", or "Gallic mentality", or "Gallic love", we are referring to the French, to the Romance culture and heritage of France, and not to the pre-Caesarian Celtic culture of the B.C. period.

You cannot think of the Gauls only in terms of how they lived in the times before the Roman conquest. That would be ludicrous and a disservice to the people. Would it make sense to think of the Mexicans only in the sense of their state in pre-Columbian times, as Aztecs? You would just never mind the fact that since the Spanish conquest, Mexican culture, language, and religion has drastically changed and been completely re-shaped according to an entirely different civilization. But the people were still Mexicans. Would you only think of modern Mexicans in the terms of the ancient, pre-Columbian Aztec culture? No, absolutely not, hopefully. Times have changed, and the meaning of "Mexican" has taken on a new meaning, and has conformed to accurately apply to the new situation. Mexico has a Hispanic culture. Mexicans speak Spanish, and are of the Roman Catholic faith. But this does not make them any less Mexican than their predecessors. If I applied your same reasoning to Mexico, then I would only think of the Mexicans (from "Mexica) as they were in the time of the ancient Mexica/Aztec. "Mexican" would only apply to tall pyramids, with temples and altars on top reserved for sacrificial victims, human sacrifice, swift imperial messangers, Nahuatl, the Mexica pantheon including the Sun god, the rain god, fertility godess, the flower wars, the jaguar warriors, Moctezuma, the eagle warriors, the market place of Tenochtitlan, the cultural practice of respect which envolved bowing down to a superior and kissing the earth, etc. But this would be silly to even entertain such an idea. Today, because of historical changes, the term "Mexican" does not usually mean any of those things when applied to the modern people. Instead, "Mexican" brings to mind things like Catholicism, friars/"padres", the Spanish language, caballeros in Spanish colonial style dress with their hats, mariachis, with the guitars of Andalucia, horses, Spanish surnames, the manana mentality, and all things of "Hispanic culture". In this same way, "Gallic" came to mean or symbolize Romance/Latin culture, as Gaul and the Gallic people had been transformed. The land never changed. The name of the land never changed from Gaul, just as Mexico is still Mexico. The native inhabitants didn't go anywhere. Gaul had become Romanized, just as Mexico became Hispanicized. But no amount of Romanization would ever have made Gaul Rome, or any less "Gaul". Just as no amount of hispanicization would ever have made Mexico Spain, or any less Mexican. Only the meaning of "Mexican" and "Gallic" changed, so as to represent the realities of the people and the land which it symbolized.

You cannot compare the Gauls of the 5th century to the Native Americans of the 16-19th centuries. The Native Americans were primitive, often nomadic, tribal, stone age, and uncivilized (did not live in cities) people. The Native Americans were either completely obliterated (wiped out and cleared away) or were put on reservations. Their population dwindled to 1/100 the size of the White population. Their culture, their language, and their religion was not preserved, but entirely replaced by those of the new-comers. In France, you have a totally different story. The Gauls were a highly advanced, well organized political state, and had achieved the highest level of civilization known in the world at that time. Their conquerors, far from being of a superior civilization, were to the contrary, much less civilized than the native Gauls. The Germanic peoples did not live in cities, and were still organized according to a primative tribal, and clan structure. Unlike the Native Americans who saw their civilization and culture, religion, and language completely disappear, the Gauls witnessed the Gallicization of their invaders. The Franks adopted the Gauls' language, religion, and culture. And unlike the Native Americans, who saw the number of their invaders eventually surpass that of themselves, and dwarf the size of their own populations, the native Gauls, at the highest point of Germanic settlement, still outnumbered the Franks 20 to 1. So, there is no way you can justly compare the Native American tribes to the Gauls of the 5th century. To quote Jesus, "What place does darkness have with light?"

LAA, The pre-Roman Gauls and the Gallo-Romans were totally different. The Romans, and only the Romans were responsible for Gallo-Roman civilization from the Roman victory at Alesia in 52 B.C. up until the Gallo-Roman governor of Gaul, Syagrius was deposed by the Franks in 486 A.D. If the pre-Roman Celtic Gauls were never conquered and defeated by Julius Caesar and the Romans, the Gauls themselves would not have achieved the high level of civilization that they benefited from under the hegemony of the Romans. The pre-Roman Gauls should not have their country named after them partly for this reason. The Gauls were so tribal and divided that many European historians believe that the more primitive Germans across the Rhine River would have invaded Gaul and Germanized the Celts living there, creating a German speaking country instead of a nation that is today speaking a Romance language. You said in an earlier post that the nation of Turkey should be named so because it is now inhabited by Turks. That wasn't always the case LAA. Prior to being invaded by the Turks, that particular country was called Asia Minor. It was inhabited by many different people. If you believe we should call France Gaul, then maybe we should call Turkey Asia Minor. After all, the Turks weren't there first, we should call the inhabitants of Turkey Asia Minorians. By your way of reasoning, we should call Romania Dacia, after all, the Dacians were the original inhabitants of Romania. Even though the Romans gave the Dacians their language and culture, since the Dacians were there first, let's call them Dacians. Was Australia named after its original inhabitants? No, it wasn't. Australia is Latin for "Land of the South". The Gauls only became Gallo-Romans because the Romans Romanized them. Then, and only then, did Gaul become a unified nation with a high civilization and an advanced culture. The pre-Roman Gauls could not have done it on their own. The Franks came along later on and preserved what the Romans accomplished and passed it on to the Capetian Dynasty of Hugh Capet in 987 A.D. Around this time did the French language and French identity begin to assert itself.

No, because the Turks almost entirely misplaced the Greek speaking inhabitants of the former Asia Minor. Today, Turkey has a completely eastern, muslim culture, and the language and the people are Turkish. This was not the case with France.

And you are still missing this seemingly insignificant, but all-important detail. The Gauls were still Gauls, whether they were Gallo-Romans, or pre-Caesarian Celts. They were still Gauls. No "what ifs", and "if this hadn't happened" etc. It does not matter what their level of civilization or organizational unity was in the time before Julius Caesar, in the BC ERA. What matters is the state of the Gauls and Gaul in the time of the Frankish conquest. That's all we have to go by. So, never mind the pre-Roman Celtic tribes of Gaul. Get that out of your head. It no longer existed in Gaul, and the Gauls were no longer that way. In the context of our discussion, you must think of Gaul and the Gauls as they were in the period of which we are discussing, which is the 5th century to the time of Charlemagne. Clovis, and Charles the Hammer, and Charlemagne's subjects in modern France were Gauls. Their homeland was called Gaul. The people were Gallic. End of story.

End of story. No way. The Gallo-Romans were 180 degrees the opposite from the Gauls. The Gauls did not have the organizational skills that the Romans had. They didn't have the organizational skills that the Franks had. The Gauls would have never created a cohesive, unified nation. It was only done under the rulership of the Romans. And it was maintained and fortified under the rulership of the Franks. The primary aspect of why any nation should carry its name is that its people have the capability of creating a nation and/or conquering a nation and, thus, creating a culture, or preserving the culture that it had inherited. The Franks preserved the Roman language and culture of "Gaul", and they preserved it even further by saving Europe and Christendom from a vicious Muslim enemy that would have destroyed Western Civilization. THE FRANKS PRESERVED FRANCE. THEY SAVED IT. Who cares about the ethnic stock of the majority of the people who lived there. If the Franks didn't save France, Europe, and Western Civilization, the French people would not be speaking French today. The French people would not have Gallic noses, as you said, they would have Arabic noses.

The Gallo-Romans WERE STILL GAULS. The Franks adopted Gallic culture, which by this time, was synonymous with "Gallo-Roman". They adopted Gallic culture, language, and religion, and were assimilated by the much larger, native Gallic population. Gaul. Gallic. Gaul.