Does France deserve its name?

"Huh? The land was now filled with Roman cities made out of stone. The pre-Roman Gauls didn't do that. Their dwellings consisted of primitive huts that were put together haphazardly with sticks and twigs."

Let me break this down for you. At one time, Gaul was a Celtic land, inhabited by a Celtic civilization. The people drank mead, worshipped Celtic gods, there were druids, a Celtic language was spoken, etc. Then, along come the Romans. They transform Gallic culture, and create a new Gallic culture. Gauls + Romans who introduce civilization and Latin culture = Gauls, "Gallo-Romans".

Yes, these people were Romanized, they were Romans, they were Gallo-Romans. But this doesn't change the fact that they were Gauls. Are you familiar with the saying, "A rose by any other name is still a rose"?

The native subjects of the Franks in Gaul, were how about this for a coincedence, "GAULS". The Roman armies were gone, the imperial administration was gone, and what was left, was an independent Gaul, a Romanized Gaul, but still Gaul. The Gauls were Romans. They were also Gauls. Who do you think carried on Gallo-Roman civilization in Gaul after the initial waves of colonists? It was the Romanized Gauls who kept the cities in order, who raised edifices from the ground, who kept the plumbing operating properly, who kept the everyday business of the Church running, who worked the land which sustained the cities, who payed the taxes which supported the government, who educated the new generations, who carried on the plays and the oratory in the amphitheater, who fought in arenas of small provincial towns etc. Gallic life, and Gallo-Roman civilization carried on long after the last of imperial administrators were in Gaul, and after the defeats of the final Roman garrisons. Who do you think was responsible for that? Did the Gauls suddenly return to primitive savagery, and abandon their cities in favor of straw huts? No, for they too had become just as Roman, and as civilized as the Romans of Italy. Because Gallic life, culture, language, and civilization had become Roman. Gallic culture no longer represented that of the Celts, but a Latin culture, a Latin civilization. In Charlemagne's day, it had been several centuries since the last of the Roman armies and civil officials had been swept from Gaul. The Romanized Gauls picked up where the imperial administration left off, for they were no longer a Celtic people, but a Latin people. Gaul had become Roman. But Gaul was still Gaul. Only the term "Gallic" did not maintain its previous application. The word had to change to adapt to an entirely new situation of circumstances. The Gauls were a Latin people now. A Catholic, Latin speaking, highly advanced civilization.

Why do you have so much of a problem seeing them in this way? Why do you only see them as they were when they were primitive Celts, at a time 800 years before? You wouldn't compare yourself and our civilization to our ancestors of the last ice age would you? You would see us for what we are, today, in this time period. Not as our ancestors were in a forgotten time, eons ago. You would see us as we are. So too, must you view the Gauls as they were. The Gauls were a highly civilized, Latin people. They hadn't been hut dwelling Celts for over 800 years by the time of Charlemagne. Gaul was still Gaul, but the culture and level of civilization was significantly different than it was 800 years before. You need to take the blindfolds off your eyes, and see the Gallic people for what they were, in the time period we're talking about.

<<French people are not of Gallic culture and language
3. French people are not "ethnically" majoritary descending of Gauls
4. Gauls lost their Gallic identity when embracing Rome. >>

Fab,
"French people are not of Gallic culture and language "

No, French people are not of Celtic culture and language. But Latin became the language of the Gauls, and Latin culture became the culture of the Gauls, so to say that France is not of Gallic culture is a mistruth, when, since Gaul's transformation, Gallic came to apply to the people of Gaul, who were no longer Celts, but Gallo-Romans. So since the time of Romanization, Gallic refers to the unique regional variety of Latin culture in Gaul/France, just as French is not called Latin, but a Gallo-Roman variety of Romance language.

"French people are not "ethnically" majoritary descending of Gauls"

Really? Even when Gauls and Gallic (which means "of Gaul") refers to Celts, the pre-indo European people who lived in Gaul, the Greek and Phonecian colonists of Mediterranean France, and the variety of Roman colonists and soldiers from the mediterranean world? This is what came to make up the native population of Gaul at the time of Charlemagne, or even at the fall of the Roman Empire. So, despite the fact that these Gauls, which includes a mixing of all the above, outnumbered the Franks 20 to 1, the traditional French still descend more from the Germanic peoples? I don't think so.

"Gauls lost their Gallic identity when embracing Rome."

No, they simply fashioned for themselves a new Gallic identity. Gaul became Roman, and Gallic culture became Latin instead of Celtic. But it was still Gallic culture nonetheless. For "Gallic" really only means, "of or having to do with Gaul". So, if the culture of Gaul was a Latin one, then that is fine. But since it was the culture OF Gaul, it was therefore "Gallic" culture. Do you understand what I'm saying?

" to say that France is not of Gallic culture is a mistruth, when, since Gaul's transformation, Gallic came to apply to the people of Gaul, who were no longer Celts, but Gallo-Romans. So since the time of Romanization, Gallic refers to the unique regional variety of Latin culture in Gaul/France, just as French is not called Latin, but a Gallo-Roman variety of Romance language. "


The variety of latin culture found in France is called "French", not Gallic. I know that "Gallic" is used in English as a synonym for French, but it spread the false idea that France and Gaul are the same country/same land as you said, which is not even if the two "countries" were sharing some territory.


" This is what came to make up the native population of Gaul at the time of Charlemagne "

At the time of Charlemagne Gaul didn't existed anymore. speaking about the people who came to constitute the population of a former province whose culture disepeard since centuries has no much meaning.
It has no more meaning than saying that some Japanese people have emigrated to south America, along with native indians, Spaniards and African people to constitute the population of the Inca Empire - We could only say that some Japanese have emigrated to Peru, to form Peruvian population, since when those Japanese emigrated the Inca empire was not anymore existing.


" "French people are not "ethnically" majoritary descending of Gauls"
Really? "

I am myself completly French, but not descendant of Gauls.
You forget that 40% of the french population have their parents or grandparents born outside France, coming from the recent imigration.
Concerning those who are not of recent imigration they are descended of a mix of Pre-celtic populations such as Basques, with the celtic Gauls, with 2000 years of melting with other peoples (of course during roman times with a lot of other Roman peoples, but also after with germanic peoples, with central asians, with gypsies, with jews, with great britain celts, with moors, arabs ans from the interactions with our neighbours of Spain or Italy. not only from since the end of the Gallic people/culture. You could hardly say that they are in majority of Gallic ancestry. Almost none French could claim surely that he is of majoritary Gallic ancestry.



" Even when Gauls and Gallic (which means "of Gaul") refers to Celts, the pre-indo European people who lived in Gaul, the Greek and Phonecian colonists of Mediterranean France, and the variety of Rman colonists and soldiers from the mediterranean world? "

In English Gaul means : "the word Gaul refers to a Celtic inhabitant of that region in ancient times, but the Gauls were widespread in Europe by Roman times, speaking the Gaulish language (a derivative of early Celtic). In addition to the Gauls, there were other peoples living in the territory of present-day northern Italy, such as the Lepontii who had settled on the southern slopes of the Italian Alps, in Raetia."

A lot of non-gauls were living in this territory, and Gauls were not the natives of the land. It is difficult to imagine that the Celtic invasion of "nowaday France's territory" would have replaced all the present natives. It would be even more difficult when we know that even today it still be a pre-indo European people in French territory with an active culture : the Basques. Those pre-indo European peoples who live in nowaday France territory were not Gauls, since their were not of Gallic culture and land was not called Gaul yet.
If you speak about the population of the Roman Gaul provinces, the inhabitants were Roman, and to be more precise Gallo-Romans, but not Gauls.



" So, despite the fact that these Gauls, which includes a mixing of all the above, outnumbered the Franks 20 to 1, the traditional French still descend more from the Germanic peoples? I don't think so. "

The Gallo-Romans were a mix of the above, not the Gauls. But it is true that the Gallo-Romans were much more munerous than the Franks, how many of them were "pure Gauls" ?



" No, they simply fashioned for themselves a new Gallic identity. "

A "new identity" in which so few things are "Gallic" deserve to be called that way. The identity of the Roman provinces of Gallia were not "New Gallic", but "Gallo-Roman" (which doesn't mean to be a mix of Gallic and Roman culture, but to be the particular roman culture of these provinces)



" But since it was the culture OF Gaul, it was therefore "Gallic" culture. Do you understand what I'm saying? "

I agree that the culture of Gaul is Gallic, and the culture of the Roman provinces of Gallia are Gallo-Roman. But I understand that we don't agree because English language has spread the confusion in the minds using the term "Gallic" (wich describes a celtic people and culture) as a synonym for modern french people/culture (which as almost nothing "Gallic" in it) as if the peoples were the same 2000 years after, which is wrong.
When I've heared people saying about Chirac that he was the "Gallic president" it made me laugh as much as when I've heard said that Vicente Fox is the 'Aztec president', or that Michelle Bachelet is the Mapuche president... A big laugh !

Re: The "Gaulishness" of France -

I think that the truth lies somewhere in between what LAA is saying and what Fab and Guest are saying. The Celts once occupied the greater part of Europe and in the 3rd century B.C. could be found almost everywhere, but today they exist there largely in pockets.

A similar situation exists in the U.S. and Canada with the Indian peoples, for that matter. By and large, most Americans and Canadians are not Indians, they are White and the descendants of English, British and European immigrants. However, sizeable numbers of Indians are still to be found in certain regions and communities. The five sates which have the largest Indian minorities are California, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota and Oklahoma. In Washington State, where I live, there are more Indians who live in Renton and Tacoma than in Seattle etc.

Likewise, in France and the rest of western Europe today, some communities will have higher concentrations of Celtic descendants than other communities. Usually, when an invader enters a new territory he will take the best land and push the earlier inhabitants on to poorer land. It's no surprise then that today the Celts in Europe exist in larger numbers in rocky lands like Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Wales, Galicia, Asturias, the Swiss and north Italian Alps etc. or in marshy lands like Brittany, Belgium and Holland than they do on the best farming land of England, France or Spain. These were lands that neither Roman nor Teutonic overlords were eager to have.

All told, the Celts are still very much around today as a people everywhere in the western world. It is simply their languages that have been disappearing.

" All told, the Celts are still very much around today as a people everywhere in the western world. It is simply their languages that have been disappearing. "

I agree for most of you pst except this.
Since the nowadays "celtic lands" are not distinct political constructions with a celtic language. And since "Celtic" has never been a physical description of people but only a linguistic category, since the language disappeared, what does significate being Celtic ? Not an ethny, not a language, not a culture, not a political construction ?... So what is it ? just a vague feeling of belonguing to a dreamed "atlantic seafisher culture" and playing bagpipes ?

We could maybe be allowed to think about the "celtic" thing as a "ethnic" thing if the celts were having homogenous origins and homogenous physical appearance, wich is not the case. not the same look, not the same languages, not the same country... I sorry by if they don't speak celtic tehy can't be celts in no point.

«« Usually, when an invader enters a new territory he will take the best land and push the earlier inhabitants on to poorer land. It's no surprise then that today the Celts in Europe exist in larger numbers in rocky lands like Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Wales, Galicia, Asturias, the Swiss and north Italian Alps etc. or in marshy lands like Brittany, Belgium and Holland than they do on the best farming land of England, France or Spain. These were lands that neither Roman nor Teutonic overlords were eager to have.
»»

I never heard that the Celts were pushed to Galicia or Asturias by the Romans. It was already their land before the Romans arrived. There were other Celtic tribes that lived in regions other than the north of Iberia and were not pushed; some were relocated but not too far from their original place. The tribes also raised cattle, some were not farmers. The Romans were interested in the lands that had mines(gold iron ,silver) and people to work the land and pay taxes. They not only conquered the land but also the people to work the land.

"The Gallo-Romans were a mix of the above, not the Gauls. But it is true that the Gallo-Romans were much more munerous than the Franks, how many of them were "pure Gauls" ? "

Fab,
I am not necesarily using "Gallic" as a synonym for "French". I use the term Gallic for the state of France and the ancient French people until the time it came to be called "France" and the people "French", which was well after Charlemagne's time.

You seem to equate the transformation of the Celts of Gaul into Romans, and then think of these new people as the "French". In your head, you see the act of becoming "Roman" as being equal with the Gauls becoming "French". But, the people of Gaul did not become "French" until centuries after the Frankish conquest, and only then, did they adopt the name of their conquerors. "French" means "of Francia", or simply, "Frank". The name of the people of France is a direct derivative of "Frank". In Charlemagne's day, centuries after the fall of Western Roman Empire, the native inhabitants of Charlemagne's domain in Gaul were called "Gauls". They didn't call themselves "Romans", or "French", because they had lost contact with Rome, and were no longer part of a larger Roman Empire. So, they were just plain "Gauls", just as the people of other former parts of the Roman Empire in places like Spain, were just "Spaniards".

How many of them were "pure Gauls"? Again, you seem to misinterpret what I am saying. By the 500s A.D. - 800s A.D., "Gaul" no longer meant the same thing as it did before. A "Gaul" was merely a person, a native, or citizen of Gaul, whether he be black, blue, purple, pink, grey, green, orange, or yellow. Just as today, the term "Mexican" does not necessarily mean an Aztec/Mexica indian, but any number of things, ranging from a Spanish criollo to a Mestizo, to a native. This is because Mexico and its people have been transformed. The name remains though to refer to the inhabitants of that land. The name has simply since taken on a new meaning to accurately portray the modern population of Mexico. So, a Gaul in Charlemagne's day could have been a mix of Italic-Celtic, or a "pure" Celt in the north, or a "pure" Greek from Marseilles, or anything in between. The people of Gaul were thouroughly mixed, particularly in the south. But that doesn't change the fact that they were still Gallic, and still Gauls. Only the meaning of the word changed to reflect the differences in the land's inhabitants. The people OF Gaul had gone from being a largely Celtic population and Celtic culture, to a Latin culture, and a mix of various peoples. But they were still "OF Gaul", and therefore "Gallic" or "Gauls".

Maybe repeat what I am saying in your own words Fab, so I know you understood what I'm trying to say.

Gringo,

I don't totally disagree with you but Galicia, even Asturias and the Basque country were not lands coveted by invaders coming into Spain. The Carthaginians never occupied them, there is not much Roman archeology there (about as much as is in England) and the Visigoths seem to have had only tenuous control over them. They would have been havens for pre-Roman Iberian and Celtic peoples in almost the same way Brittany, Wales and Scotland were further north. In fact, several authors I've read have said that the Galicians are a lot like the Scotch with their clannishness, frugality and suspicion of anything foreign.

Brennus,
Perhaps you would be delighted to explain to Fab what the essence of "Celticism" is.

Maybe this question or issue should be decided by the French people themselves. The question to be asked of the average Frenchman is............."Should France be called 'France' or should it be called 'Gaul'"? I guarantee you, I know what the answer would be. France hasn't been a Celtic land in over 2000 years. France was never wholly Celtic. The first humans to inhabit France were not Celts. There has been so much immigration into France for at least the last 100 years that it is stupid to call the French Celtic anymore. It is stupid to call the land of France "Gaul".

What don't you get APAM? "Gallic" does not necessarily refer to the pre-Roman inhabitants with a Celtic culture. "Gallic", since the time of Romanization, refers to the Latin culture of Gaul.

Hi LAA,

>So, they were just plain "Gauls", just as the people of other former parts of the Roman Empire in places like Spain, were just "Spaniards".

Are you sure about this one?

Yeah, by the 800s, the sense or identity of the people was no longer Roman, but based on their region, since the Roman Empire had been dead for centuries. Each former region of the empire developed its own unique culture, and this is the time when vulgar Latin began evolving into distinct regional languages that would later become French, Spanish, Italian, etc. And if you read writings from the time period by Gallic authors, you will see that they refer to themselves as "Gauls".

@ LAA,
What I meant was that by the 800's, the inhabitants of the region which today conforms the nation known as Spain, had no national sense at all yet. They considered themselves rather as a part of the local region they were from, this attitude being especially reinforced by the fact that the languages were still fragmented in dialects, sometimes quite far from each other to be considered as variations of a same language.

Thus, by the 800's these inhabitants wouldn't have called themselves "Spaniards"; that came a couple of centuries later.
My question was concerning this matter.

Well, okay, Sergio. I will give you that. But, this proves my point all the more. A sense of "Roman" identity was extinct by this time. The modern nations of Spain and France were politically fragmented, and so personal identities revolved mainly around local regions, but there was also a collective awareness of a greater identitiy, for former "Hispania" and "Gaul". If a native of Spain were to travel to a far away land, the people would just see him as a Spaniard, and not identify him as belonging to any small, particular region or city within greater Hispania.