Does France deserve its name?

" The Gallo-Romans, WERE STILL GAULS!!!! THEIR COUNTRY WAS STLL GAUL! THe people were still Gauls. "


No LAA, after Roman conquest the country of the descendants of the Gauls was not Gaul anymore but the Roman empire.
Gaul describe people who hace a gallic culture, that is to say a celtic culture. As long as they lost this celtic culture they'll stop to be Gauls.
You have read too much asterix, you are wrong to believe that french people think themselves as Gauls and consider their contry to be Gaul. Their country is France, because it politically comes from a social construction established by Franks, with a roman-based culture.
If we sould make a hierarchy of the peoples who made France, we would have : 1- Romans (language and most of cultural herency), 2- Franks (origins of the kingdom, which became later a republic), 3- Gauls (who were a diverse groups of people united by their celtic languages who lived in most parts of France (not all) 200 years ago (and in most of Central/Western Europe).
Following your logic, we could ask, why not calling northern Italy Gaul ? Whay not calling Belgium Gaul too ? Etc.

" The Gallo-Romans WERE STILL GAULS "

Do you think that after the Spanish colonisation the Peruvians were still Incas, the Mexicans were still Aztecs or Mayas...
Do you think that after Spanish colonisation the country of Incas still be the inca empire ?

The Gauls could have never accomplished anything if it weren't for the Romans. If the Romans didn't conquer them. The Germans were definitely going to do it. The Franks did not adpot Gallic culture, they adopted Gallo-ROMAN culture. The Romans created Gallo-Roman culture. The Gauls did not create anything. They excelled in metalwork and they invented soap. Big friggin' deal. The Franks preserved the nation that was inhabited by Gallo-ROMANS. The native pre-Roman Gauls couldn't even preserve themselves. FRANKS WIN. GAULS LOSE. CASE FRIGGIN' CLOSED. OKAY!!!!!

<<No LAA, after Roman conquest the country of the descendants of the Gauls was not Gaul anymore but the Roman empire.
Gaul describe people who hace a gallic culture, that is to say a celtic culture. As long as they lost this celtic culture they'll stop to be Gauls.>>

Wrong. Gaul was a province of the Roman Empire. All inhabitants of the Roman Empire were eventually made Roman citizens, so they were all Romans. Even the Jews of Judea and Palestine were Romans. But within each province, there existed a strong, regional, almost national identity, just as there exists strong regional identities in Scotland, Wales, and England within the United Kingdom. The land/country was still known as Gaul. And the people of that land, although Roman by citizenship, were still Gauls, still Gallic. The meaning of these terms underwent a change, as these people were no longer of a Celtic culture and language, but of a Latin one, a Roman one, or more specifically, a GALLO-Roman one. But the country was still called Gaul, and the peoples were still Gauls. Nothing truly remains of pre-Roman, or "Celtic" Gaul, and I'm fully aware of the fact that the French people do not identify with the tribal Celts. But Gallic took on a new meaning, and from the time of Romanization onward, when used in the context of describing things of or related to France and the French, signfies a Gallo-Romance culture. Gallic culture and civilization from that point on was a Latin one, but still Gallic. Gallic no longer meant Celtic, but Gallo-Romance, or the Gallo branch of Latin civilization.

Gregory of Tours, although himself, a Gallo-Roman bishop of the 6th century, considered himself and his people to be GAULS. Of his father's family he tells us that "in the Gauls none could be found better born or nobler".

Northern Italy was once occupied by Celtic Gauls. Should we call Northern Italy Cisalpine Gaul? Go to Italy and ask that question. They'll laugh in your face. A native Italian from Milan once told me that the Celts of Northern Italy disappeared a long time ago. Italy is not occupied by one group of people who are all related. Neither is France. Nations should be named by the people who created its culture, its language, and its borders. And it should be named by the people who preserved it as well. The Romans gave the Gauls their language, their culture, their religion, and their civilization. The Franks preserved it. The Franks saved France. The pre-Roman Gauls benefited from Romanization. I'll tell you what, if the French people change their language from a Latin based idiom back to Celtic one, then we'll revert to calling France "Gaul". Fair enough?

" although Roman by citizenship, were still Gauls, still Gallic. "


They were Roman by citizenship, they were living the Roman way of life, speaking Roman language, folowing the roman religion, and most of them have been mixed with other roman people from other regions of the empire, as people in USA are today.
What Gallic still in them ? could you tell us ?
They were not living in a province called Gallia, because there were more than one region called that way - Gallia Cisalpina, Gallia Belgica, Gallia Norbonensis, etc. The same way there is North Dakota and south Dakota... The country o peopel from Dakota is not Dakota but USA, no ? The culture of those people is the one of Dakota or USA ? It was the same for "Gallia". During Roman times it was just a name whose origin lied in the old celtic speaking regions of the roman empire. The word "Gallia" is also found in other places than France, such as Galicia or Wales.

That is simply because the Roman way of life had become one with the Gallic. The Gallic way of life was now the Roman way of life, or vice versa. The Gauls were Romanized, and their culture a Roman one, but they were still Gauls. A Mexican or a Cuban or a Venezuelan are of Hispanic culture. Many peoples of Hispano-America have Spanish ancestry, partly or fully. Their people have been Hispanicized, but does that make them Spaniards? No. And the same was true of the Gauls.

After the Roman conquest of Gaul, Gaul was heavily colonized with Roman settlers and slaves that were imported from other parts of the empire. Of the Gallic population at around the time of the Roman conquest, it is said that about one third were killed, one third, were captured, enslaved, and deported, and the remaining one third were to be Romanized. What do you think happened when such a large percentage of the Gallic population was either killed or taken away and enslaved in another country? This opened up lots of room for repopulation by the conquering enemy. No, the Gauls and the Gallo-ROMANS were not the same. No way. Such a large country like Ancient Gaul could not have simply adapted to Roman language, laws, culture and the Roman way of life without a significant influx of Roman settlers and slaves to invigorate the native population. The newly conquered territory needed numerous administrators, teachers, merchants, and it also needed a significant military presence to keep the peace. In no way was pre-Roman Gaul the same as Roman Gaul. No way.

The land was the same. The country was the same. The name of that land was Gaul. So, the inhabitants of the land would still be Gauls, regardless of their ethnic origin. The south of Gaul became largely, genetically, a 'Celtic and Latin' mix. But the peoples were still Gauls.

"The land was the same. The country was the same". 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. "The land was the same. The country was the same". Huh? Who built those big huge aqueducts that are still standing today? What about those amphiteaters that survive to this day? The Romans changed Gallic drinking habits from wheat fermented mead to the drinking of wine. Everywhere you go in France, you'll see vineyards. This is not attributed to the
native Gauls, it is attributed to the conquering Romans. The Romans introduced superior agricultural techniqes. Prior to the Roman conquest, the Gauls were largely a hunter-gatherer society. The Gauls ate large amounts of boar and venison. In fact, during the Gallic War, many Roman soldiers complained about having to eat hunted down animal meat. They weren't accustomed to it. The Roman soldiers were more accustomed to eating a more vegetarian-type diet consisting largely of grains, fruit, and vegetables. After the Roman conquest, as a result of superior farming techniques, the conquered Gauls relied more on an agricultural diet rather than a mainly carniverous diet. To lump the Gauls and the Gallo-Romans into one class is a flagrant mistake.

" The land was the same. "

Gaul has never been a geographical concept. It is a groups of lands wich have not much in common than having, at one precice time of history some celtic-speaking population called "Gauls". The diverse lands with a Gaul dominant population and culture were called "Gallia" by the Romans. This land was not united by geography, not by ethny, but by its culture and language. Gaul could be divided in seperate lands such in the case of cisalpine Gaul wich was geographically separate from the other lands of Gallic culture.

Calling France Gaul, is a complete misunderstanding :

1. Gallia's land is not modern France. A lot of French regions have never been part of Gallia, and a lot of Gallic territories are not French.
2. 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.

Guest, I totally agree with you. When you tell me this, you'r preaching to the choir. You need to tell this to LAA. He's the one who needs to be converted.

sorry it was me above

"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.