The culture of France is predominantly Northern European. Paris is much closer to London, Brussels, and Frankfort than it is to Marseille, or Toulouse. French language and culture are Paris based. Throughout most of post-Roman French history, Paris has dominated France politically. The only reason why Northern French culture and language predominated over Southern French is because the political power of southern French cities and regions were no match compared to the political power of Paris. As a result, Parisian influence (language, culture) have swept all over France.
Does France deserve its name?
« The culture of France is predominantly Northern European. »
Oh dear... we had a thread about this a few moths ago; it went on for about 50 pages.
Oh dear... we had a thread about this a few moths ago; it went on for about 50 pages.
The culture of France is predominantly Northern European because the Franks of the Early Middle Ages were based in Northeastern France. From there, they created a post-Roman, early Medieval civilization in Nothern France. In ensuing centuries, that Frankish influence spread to other parts of France beginning with the Capetian Dynasty of Hugh Capet in 987 A.D.
<<The culture of France is predominantly Northern European. Paris is much closer to London, Brussels, and Frankfort than it is to Marseille, or Toulouse. French language and culture are Paris based. Throughout most of post-Roman French history, Paris has dominated France politically. The only reason why Northern French culture and language predominated over Southern French is because the political power of southern French cities and regions were no match compared to the political power of Paris. As a result, Parisian influence (language, culture) have swept all over France.>>
Apam,
Although I would not go so far as to say that French culture is a northern European one (when with France you have wine, fine food, catholicism historically, Latin language, culture of Romance, etc.), I do agree with you when you say that because of Paris' enormous political clout, that the rest of France has adopted a northern French or Parisian standard for things such as language (langue d'oil), which features a drastically different phonology from more conservative Romance languages. Paris, was the seat of Frankish (Germanic) rule in France, and as such, this area experienced the greatest culturual and political impact or contribution from the Franks. And as the Parisian (Frankish influenced) eventually became the national standard for nearly all things French, France is seen sometimes as being less southern European, and the Latinity of the French is called into question. There was a large protestant minority in France. France was traditionally a land of strong anti-clerical leanings against the church, etc. Northern France could not have helped but to be influenced by her neighbors due to her geographical location in northern Europe. And as the Parisian standard became the standard on the national level, it is easy to see how France could be percieved as less of southern European country. Northern Gaul was subject to very little Roman colonization, and as such, was not Romanized to nearly the same extent that southern Gaul was. So, by the time of the Frankish conquest and settlement, you have a northern region which although Romanized, was not as Romanized as the south. And in addition, this is the area which is to be host to the largest Germanic settlments.
That being said, French is still a Latin language. France although less so that Italy or Spain, has a Roman Catholic background. And the French still have a Latin culture, and France is a Latin country. I imagine, (and many others have commented on this as well) that northern France feels more like a northern European country, while in the south, it is clearly a mediterranean, southern European country, with the look of the people, the mentality and disposition of the people, the scenery, the food, etc., all exerting a strong mediterranean influence. But, you will get the same thing in other Latin countries like Spain. You go to the north of Spain and you will see Celtic folk playing bagpipes. The local languages are influenced by Celtic phonological substratums, and to a great degree, the people descend from Celtic populations, along with some Germanic heritage via the Goths. But no one denies that Spain is a Latin country.
Fab,
<<There is a huge difference between think themselves to be part of "france" and seen themselves as "franks". The local populace, as you named it, didn't see itself as Franks, but as French.>>
This may be something about English that you do not understand. Sometimes, as you well know, over long periods of time, words evolve and they change, although retaining essentially the same meaning. Take for instance, the word "Anglo-Saxon", or simply "Angles", which was a Germanic tribe which conquered large parts of Britain. Eventually, they gave their name to the land which they occupied, inhabited, and established a kingdom over. The name was "Angleand", which means, "Land of the Angles". Now, over the course of several hundreds of years, as the language evolved, and as names such as this one evolved, the name of the country eventually came to be called "England". The essential meaning of the name remained unchanged, only the name changed slightly, as do many thousands of words as languages evolve. As citizens or inhabitants of "England", the people came to be called "English", which means, "of England". The same principle applies to France. The Franks eventually gave their name to the land which they occupied, and established a kingdom over. In their language, the name would be Frankrijk (notice the word "FRANK" is present in the word), which means, "Land of/Kingdom of the Franks". Now, in Latin, the word for this country changes, because of orthographical differences, to "Francia", but the meaning of the name stays the same. In the Gallo-Romance language, it is "France". Now, as several centuries pass on, and words and languages evolve (while retaining the same meaning), the inhabitants of "France" are called "French". But it means something no different than "Franks". It's only a matter of different languages. Are the English and the Anglais two different peoples? Or are they the same peoples, but with slightly different names according to different languages? What about the Italians and the Italiens? (Did you notice the spelling difference?) Or what about the Espagnols and the Espanoles? Or what about the Japonais and the Japones? Are they two different people too? It's just a matter of different languages.
In Dutch and German, the words for France are respectively "Frankreich", and "Frankrijk". If that was literaly translated into English, it would be "Frankland". Just because Latin dropped the "k" and substituted a "c" does not mean the two words are different. They are the same words, in seperate languages. That's the only difference. So, if the Gallo-Romans came to see themselves as being French, as you yourself said, then you are acknowledging that they came to see themselves as Franks. To be French simply means to be "of France". And France means "Land of the Franks". This is why I have called into question the naming of France, and the people as they are presently called, because I know you do not identify with the Germanic Franks, but with Romance culture. But you seem to hold a double standard on the issue.
Apam,
Although I would not go so far as to say that French culture is a northern European one (when with France you have wine, fine food, catholicism historically, Latin language, culture of Romance, etc.), I do agree with you when you say that because of Paris' enormous political clout, that the rest of France has adopted a northern French or Parisian standard for things such as language (langue d'oil), which features a drastically different phonology from more conservative Romance languages. Paris, was the seat of Frankish (Germanic) rule in France, and as such, this area experienced the greatest culturual and political impact or contribution from the Franks. And as the Parisian (Frankish influenced) eventually became the national standard for nearly all things French, France is seen sometimes as being less southern European, and the Latinity of the French is called into question. There was a large protestant minority in France. France was traditionally a land of strong anti-clerical leanings against the church, etc. Northern France could not have helped but to be influenced by her neighbors due to her geographical location in northern Europe. And as the Parisian standard became the standard on the national level, it is easy to see how France could be percieved as less of southern European country. Northern Gaul was subject to very little Roman colonization, and as such, was not Romanized to nearly the same extent that southern Gaul was. So, by the time of the Frankish conquest and settlement, you have a northern region which although Romanized, was not as Romanized as the south. And in addition, this is the area which is to be host to the largest Germanic settlments.
That being said, French is still a Latin language. France although less so that Italy or Spain, has a Roman Catholic background. And the French still have a Latin culture, and France is a Latin country. I imagine, (and many others have commented on this as well) that northern France feels more like a northern European country, while in the south, it is clearly a mediterranean, southern European country, with the look of the people, the mentality and disposition of the people, the scenery, the food, etc., all exerting a strong mediterranean influence. But, you will get the same thing in other Latin countries like Spain. You go to the north of Spain and you will see Celtic folk playing bagpipes. The local languages are influenced by Celtic phonological substratums, and to a great degree, the people descend from Celtic populations, along with some Germanic heritage via the Goths. But no one denies that Spain is a Latin country.
Fab,
<<There is a huge difference between think themselves to be part of "france" and seen themselves as "franks". The local populace, as you named it, didn't see itself as Franks, but as French.>>
This may be something about English that you do not understand. Sometimes, as you well know, over long periods of time, words evolve and they change, although retaining essentially the same meaning. Take for instance, the word "Anglo-Saxon", or simply "Angles", which was a Germanic tribe which conquered large parts of Britain. Eventually, they gave their name to the land which they occupied, inhabited, and established a kingdom over. The name was "Angleand", which means, "Land of the Angles". Now, over the course of several hundreds of years, as the language evolved, and as names such as this one evolved, the name of the country eventually came to be called "England". The essential meaning of the name remained unchanged, only the name changed slightly, as do many thousands of words as languages evolve. As citizens or inhabitants of "England", the people came to be called "English", which means, "of England". The same principle applies to France. The Franks eventually gave their name to the land which they occupied, and established a kingdom over. In their language, the name would be Frankrijk (notice the word "FRANK" is present in the word), which means, "Land of/Kingdom of the Franks". Now, in Latin, the word for this country changes, because of orthographical differences, to "Francia", but the meaning of the name stays the same. In the Gallo-Romance language, it is "France". Now, as several centuries pass on, and words and languages evolve (while retaining the same meaning), the inhabitants of "France" are called "French". But it means something no different than "Franks". It's only a matter of different languages. Are the English and the Anglais two different peoples? Or are they the same peoples, but with slightly different names according to different languages? What about the Italians and the Italiens? (Did you notice the spelling difference?) Or what about the Espagnols and the Espanoles? Or what about the Japonais and the Japones? Are they two different people too? It's just a matter of different languages.
In Dutch and German, the words for France are respectively "Frankreich", and "Frankrijk". If that was literaly translated into English, it would be "Frankland". Just because Latin dropped the "k" and substituted a "c" does not mean the two words are different. They are the same words, in seperate languages. That's the only difference. So, if the Gallo-Romans came to see themselves as being French, as you yourself said, then you are acknowledging that they came to see themselves as Franks. To be French simply means to be "of France". And France means "Land of the Franks". This is why I have called into question the naming of France, and the people as they are presently called, because I know you do not identify with the Germanic Franks, but with Romance culture. But you seem to hold a double standard on the issue.
You know what, just ignore the first half of my above post addressed to Apam. I don't want to go there. But I will debate the latter half of my above post.
" The culture of France is predominantly Northern European. Paris is much closer to London, Brussels, and Frankfort than it is to Marseille, or Toulouse. French language and culture are Paris based. "
A.P.A.M. Your theory taht say that a country's culture is defined only by the geographical position of the capital is funny but doesn't resist much analisys ...
If we follow your logic we should conclude that Italian culture is a Balkanic one, since that the closest European capitals from Rome are Zagreb, Lubjiana, Sarajevo and Tirana and not Madrid.
And, by the way, Vienna, Berlin, Bucharest, Sofia, Brussels, Amsterdam, Wasawa, etc. are all closest capitals from Rome than Madrid or Lisbon...
The same way for Austria, it is a country of slavic Balkanic culture,since most of the closest capitals from Vienna are Slavic and Balkanic...
We should conclude that Cyprus is not a country of Greek or Turquish culture but of Arab culture, since the closest capitals from Nicosie are Beyrut and Damas.
We should also conclude that Denmark is not a Scandinavian country since Copenhaguen is much Closer to Berlin than any other Scandinavian capital (and it is not even in the peninsula)
Applying your logic, we should conclude that Australia is a country of Asian culture, Sydney being much closer to Asian capitals than to any other capital in the world.
We should conclude that Mexico is of Anglo-American culture because it is situated in North America and because Mexico city is closer to Washington than to the huge majority of the latin-American capitals.
Etc.
A.P.A.M. Your theory taht say that a country's culture is defined only by the geographical position of the capital is funny but doesn't resist much analisys ...
If we follow your logic we should conclude that Italian culture is a Balkanic one, since that the closest European capitals from Rome are Zagreb, Lubjiana, Sarajevo and Tirana and not Madrid.
And, by the way, Vienna, Berlin, Bucharest, Sofia, Brussels, Amsterdam, Wasawa, etc. are all closest capitals from Rome than Madrid or Lisbon...
The same way for Austria, it is a country of slavic Balkanic culture,since most of the closest capitals from Vienna are Slavic and Balkanic...
We should conclude that Cyprus is not a country of Greek or Turquish culture but of Arab culture, since the closest capitals from Nicosie are Beyrut and Damas.
We should also conclude that Denmark is not a Scandinavian country since Copenhaguen is much Closer to Berlin than any other Scandinavian capital (and it is not even in the peninsula)
Applying your logic, we should conclude that Australia is a country of Asian culture, Sydney being much closer to Asian capitals than to any other capital in the world.
We should conclude that Mexico is of Anglo-American culture because it is situated in North America and because Mexico city is closer to Washington than to the huge majority of the latin-American capitals.
Etc.
LAA,
I don't know for the usage in English, maybe that "Frank" and "French" means the same thing, but it is not the same in French.
In french the two words are of course etymologically linked but have different meanings.
"Franc", means the adjective relative to the Germanic tribe of the same name. Its culture, its language, its people, etc.
And "Français" means the adjective relative to the romance speaking country born after the division of the frankish kingdom in Three parts after Charlemagne.
"Français" relates to the romance country of France, its culture and its land. While "Franc" relates to one of the germanic tribes who invaded Roman Gaul, to its frankish germanic culture and people (who were a very little minority)
No one french would make the confusion and would claim to be a "Franc", since we all know that "Franc" relates to a germanic people and not the the inhabitants of France.
In other language it may be more confusing, but not in French.
I don't know for the usage in English, maybe that "Frank" and "French" means the same thing, but it is not the same in French.
In french the two words are of course etymologically linked but have different meanings.
"Franc", means the adjective relative to the Germanic tribe of the same name. Its culture, its language, its people, etc.
And "Français" means the adjective relative to the romance speaking country born after the division of the frankish kingdom in Three parts after Charlemagne.
"Français" relates to the romance country of France, its culture and its land. While "Franc" relates to one of the germanic tribes who invaded Roman Gaul, to its frankish germanic culture and people (who were a very little minority)
No one french would make the confusion and would claim to be a "Franc", since we all know that "Franc" relates to a germanic people and not the the inhabitants of France.
In other language it may be more confusing, but not in French.
But do you realise how they are essentially the same word? It's is no different than "Angleand" and "England". "France" is just a Latin derived way of saying "Frankreich". And so the people of "France" are French, or "Franks". It would be no different than the old English way of saying "English", which would be "Angleish". The word is just slightly different because of linguistic changes over the centuries. In English for example, a lot of towns or cities that were named after a person, will usually have the name of that person, and "-town" at the end. An example would be "Charlestown". But, most people would run the words together, and not enunciate the "w", so eventually, the word came to be pronounced and spelled as "Charleston". But the essential meaning of the word remains unchanged. The names are now slightly different, but does this mean that they are different cities now?
A lot of people are misled by the name of France. A lot of people mistakenly believe that France is not a Latin country because of its name. They see how other countries which were part of the Roman Empire that have retained their names, like Spain and Italy, as still being Latin, and its people as descendants of the Romans. But when somebody hears "France", they assume that the country's culture and even people have become Germanic Franks, because the name of the land changed from Gaul to France. This is where the popular misunderstanding comes into play amongst most people. Most people assume that the French are at least half Germanic in origin, and that their culture is a Germanic one, because their country came to be named after the Franks, while Spain and Italy did not. That's why I advocate calling the country Gaul, so people will associate the name with Latin civilization. Otherwise, most people go on thinking that the French are no longer Latin, and that their people are Germanic. If you don't believe me, visit some discussion boards on-line, and you will find that most people mistakenly believe that the French are Germanic, and that France is a Germanic country.
A lot of people are misled by the name of France. A lot of people mistakenly believe that France is not a Latin country because of its name. They see how other countries which were part of the Roman Empire that have retained their names, like Spain and Italy, as still being Latin, and its people as descendants of the Romans. But when somebody hears "France", they assume that the country's culture and even people have become Germanic Franks, because the name of the land changed from Gaul to France. This is where the popular misunderstanding comes into play amongst most people. Most people assume that the French are at least half Germanic in origin, and that their culture is a Germanic one, because their country came to be named after the Franks, while Spain and Italy did not. That's why I advocate calling the country Gaul, so people will associate the name with Latin civilization. Otherwise, most people go on thinking that the French are no longer Latin, and that their people are Germanic. If you don't believe me, visit some discussion boards on-line, and you will find that most people mistakenly believe that the French are Germanic, and that France is a Germanic country.
I thought that the franks are people from the south of Germany. That France is called France, I think it deserve this name - maybe Frankreich, Frankrijk etc.. they are the wrong names, because of the Rijk (kingdom).
LAA,
You still use both words "French" and "Frank" in English, no ?
Why do you use those two words if they mean the same thing ?
Of course "French" is derived from "Frank", but it has it is not the same meaning.
Don't confuse etymogical links with synonyms. two concepts can be synomym and have a complete different etymology, and reciproquely two words can have the same origin but compeltly different meanings.
You still use both words "French" and "Frank" in English, no ?
Why do you use those two words if they mean the same thing ?
Of course "French" is derived from "Frank", but it has it is not the same meaning.
Don't confuse etymogical links with synonyms. two concepts can be synomym and have a complete different etymology, and reciproquely two words can have the same origin but compeltly different meanings.
fab, what I was trying to say was that since Paris is the governmental, cultural, linguistic, economic capital of France, its northern position in France gives the nation of France a more northern leaning.
The franks live in south Germany, and in France the french. This argument want to make all the people in a country to be exactly the same, and also to be their ''name''. I don't understand the necessity for it. Other countries' names aren't representing the race of the people I think, (or are representing those who lived before).
Pauline, the name "France" has stuck. The name has been around for hundreds of years. Why tamper with something that's working?
<<fab, what I was trying to say was that since Paris is the governmental, cultural, linguistic, economic capital of France, its northern position in France gives the nation of France a more northern leaning. >>
Yep.
Fab,
You still don't get it.
Yep.
Fab,
You still don't get it.
Pauline,
The point is, "French" is the same word as "Frank", only it is a derivative of the Latin word for "Frank" or "Frankreich". "Frankrijk" was changed to "Francia" in Latin, and because the Gallo-Romans spoke a Latin language, their derivative of "Francia" was "France". So, if somebody is a citizen of "Francia" or "France", that would be the equivalent of being a citizen of "Frankrijk", or simply, a "Frank". Fab admits that they are etymolgically linked, but he won't acknowledge that they retain the same meaning. It's no different than "English" and "Anglais", or "Angland" (old name of England, after the Angles) and "England". The pronounciation of the word and the modern spelling has just changed. Do you understand what I am trying to say now?
The point is, "French" is the same word as "Frank", only it is a derivative of the Latin word for "Frank" or "Frankreich". "Frankrijk" was changed to "Francia" in Latin, and because the Gallo-Romans spoke a Latin language, their derivative of "Francia" was "France". So, if somebody is a citizen of "Francia" or "France", that would be the equivalent of being a citizen of "Frankrijk", or simply, a "Frank". Fab admits that they are etymolgically linked, but he won't acknowledge that they retain the same meaning. It's no different than "English" and "Anglais", or "Angland" (old name of England, after the Angles) and "England". The pronounciation of the word and the modern spelling has just changed. Do you understand what I am trying to say now?