Does France deserve its name?

<<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 !

" 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.

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.

" I am not necesarily using "Gallic" as a synonym for "French". "

Hmm, didn't said "to say that France is not of Gallic culture is a mistruth". To me it means that you consider France to be of Gallic culture, and so that since France culture is called "French", you meant that "Gallic" means "French".


" You seem to equate the transformation of the Celts of Gaul into Romans, and then think of these new people as the "French". "
The transormation (and mix) of Gauls with Roman culture (and people), didn't made them French, of course not ! It made them GALLO-ROMANS, the kind of romans of the various provinceS called under the names "Gallia".

" the people of Gaul did not become "French" until centuries after the Frankish conquest "
Yes, you're right ! The birth of the french nation and French people is a long processus that began when the political construction that coresponded to the romance territories of the Frankish kingdom were separated after the division of the Charlemagne's empire. But since then a long time was necessary to see the formation of the french identity as we know it - And the processus is continuing.




" "French" means "of Francia", or simply, "Frank". "

NO ! Waht a semantic (and historic) confusion! "French" means "of France". "Franks" mean from the germanic tribe called "Franks", they created a frankish kingdom in wich they were a ruling minority. Of course the words are related, but they doesn't have the same meanings. The same way "Catalan" doesn't mean "goth" but from the region called "catalunia", even if the words "Catalunia" and "goth" are related.


" The name of the people of France is a direct derivative of "Frank". "

Right, but with a complete different meaning.




" In Charlemagne's day, centuries after the fall of Western Roman Empire, the native inhabitants of Charlemagne's domain in Gaul were called "Gauls". "

Charlemagne couldn't have a domain in Gaul since Gaul was not existing anymore. the subjcts of Charlemagne were diverse peoples, some were germanic tribes at the east of the Rhine, and others were Romance speakers msotly descending of Gallo-Romans.



" 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. "

I don't how Anglophones historians use (or misuse) the word "Gaul" or "gallic" in English but in French, we could not be confuse : The Gauls are the pre-roman celtic peoples. After Romanization we speak about Gallo-Romans, not Gaul because these people are not of Celtic (Gallic) culture.


" 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. "

How Mexico people could have been transformed after Spanish colonisation since Mexico didn't exist yet at that time ? What existed was Aztec empire, not Mexico. MExican identity is born with the hispanization of natives and their mix with Spaniards; As long as Spanish was not the language we canno't speak about Mexico and Mexcians. We can speak about the Mexica people, who were native indians, but they were not MexicaN.
Calling French culture and people a "gallic" culture is a wrong as calling Mexican culture and people an "Aztec" culture.




" The people of Gaul were thouroughly mixed, particularly in the south. "

Gaul didn't existed anymore at that time, and I am not sure that the southerners were more mixed than northerners - depends with who.




" But that doesn't change the fact that they were still Gallic, and still Gauls. "

Does inhabitants of nowaday Mexico still be aztecs after Spanish colonization ?



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

I understod, but I just explain that using "Gaul" to Speak about peoples of "Gallo-Roman" culture is an historic/cultural misunderstanding, at least in French language. I understand that in English you seem to like very much using the term "gallic" to speak about French things, but it is very inacurated to our ears, since we ear it as if you meant that French are a Celtic people, which we are not.



" France derives its name from the fact that, when Charlemagne's vast empire was partitioned among his sons and their successors, the domain which covered the modern borders of France, was known as "West Francia". Because of this, the name of the country eventually became "France". "

I thank you for the information but I already knew the early history of the French kingdom.



" But calling the country "France" is about as silly as calling Italy (Ostrogothia), or Spain ( Visigothia). Although, there are regions within these countries named after the Germanic settlers like Andalusia (Vandalusia), or Lombardia (Lombards), etc. "

You may find it silly but that is the way it is since centuries !
Our name is a legacy of history and legacies inside the carolingian domains herencies. Our country is now called "France" that's all. Today it is just a name, and yes it has germanic origins; The same way a lot Spanish speaker have germanic-derived names. Is it "silly" ? Will you make a petition to change the name of Catalans (name coming from "goths" - gothalunia/Catalunia), of Lombards, of Andalucians, etc. These names are just a historical testimony of what happended in the past ruling classes and does not speak about the current people and culture of these territories. Even if the name "French" derived etymologically from "Franks", today it does not refer to the same people, and they are two different words, no confusion possible. "France" and "Frankish kingdom" are two different words that doesn't reffer to the same thing and the same people.

Well, in English, depending on the time period which you are referring to, "Gallic" can refer to "Celtic", pre-Roman peoples, culture, and civilization. But when used when referring to the Gallo-Romans, and the Latin people of Gaul after the fall of the Roman Empire, it carries no Celtic conotation at all. The land was still called "Gaul" during, and after the time it was part of the Roman Empire, and the inhabitants were still known as Gauls. That does not mean they weren't Roman. Because within the great umbrella of the Roman people, there were Greeks, Jews, Arabs, North Africans, Italians, Spaniards, etc. But, specifically, they were Gauls. "Gallo-Roman" is just a term invented by scholars and historians to describe the Romanized inhabitants of Gaul, and the regional Latin culture of the area. But, after the fall of the empire, in the subsequent centuries, all of these former parts of the Roman Empire were isolated, and underwent their own, unique, cultural and linguistic evolutions. So, by the 800s, in Charlemagne's day, the people of Gaul had lost all contact and connection with the Roman Empire, which no longer existed. So, they were simply "Gauls". This is not to be confused with "Gallic" in the sense that they were a Celtic people and culture. When you use this term when referring to the people of Gaul in this time period, you are talking about the region's unique branch of LATIN culture. By this time, the foundations for France's culture were already laid, in the form of Gallo-Roman, or simply "Gallic" (as in "Latin") culture. It was this cultural foundation which was formed by the Romanized GAULS and propogated by future generations of Latinized Gauls.

The majority of Charlemagne's subjects in the Romance speaking parts of his domain were called "Gauls". If you don't believe me, read the writings of Gregory of Tours, or others from later periods. The Franks wrote about co-existing among the "Gauls", about the cultural characteristics of the "Gallic women", the "spirit and temperment of the Gauls". When the soon to be Emperor Julian was commisioned in the province of Gaul in the 300s, he called the people "Gauls". He had a legion comprised totally of "Gallic auxillaries", known for their valor. By the time of Emperor Julian, these people were completely Romanized. But they were still called "Gauls", just as Hispano-Romans were still called "Spaniards". Trajan "the Spaniard" is just one example.

Brennus Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:50 pm GMT
««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. »»

But they were occupied by the Suevi and the Vandals.

Hispania was already dealing with the revolt of the "bagaudas" when the Germanic people arrived.

Gallaecia was one of the first lands occupied by the Germanic people (Vandals and Suevi). The first Iberian kingdom , the Suebi Kingdom ("Gallaeccia Suevorum regnum"), lasted until 584 with the death of "Audeca Suevorum rex" .
They were absorbed by the Visigoth but their administrative, social and religious institutions were left autonomous.

the chronicon of IDATII:

"[]Gallaeciam Wandali occupant et Suevi, sitam in extremitate Oceani maris occidua.”


««the Visigoths seem to have had only tenuous control over them.»»

You mean the Visigoth did not have much control over the Suevi, that were Germanos= irmãos, and their people . There had been several alliance marriages between Visigoth and Suevi. Gallaecia just stopped having a Suevi king the people remained in Galicia.