Does France deserve its name?

I think many people, (myself included) tend to view this country, and its language, as being influenced by, or more related to Germanic culture and language than we apply to other Romance speaking countries like Spain, Portugal, and Italy. It has been an essentially Gallic land, with a Gallo-Roman culture and language since Roman times, and has remained so. Sure, French has underwent Germanic influence, but so have other languages. The French people see themselves as French, (Gallo-Romance, Latin) and clearly distinct from the Germanic peoples.

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". 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.

And as I'm sure Fab will be reading this, I would like to say to you that the word I was searching for in our previous debate, was "anti-clerical".

La seule chose qui soit « silly », c'est ton impréparation quant il s'agit d'aborder des sujets archiconnus que tu es pratiquement le seul à découvrir pour la première fois...


Il faut d'abord que tu saches que le mot <France> avait deux acceptions un temps bien distinctes mais par la suite confondues par l'histoire.


Il y avait le royaume de Francie occidentale (qui devint le royaume des Francs —> voir Al <Frankreich>) et le duché de France (Francie mineure, Île de France) qui finit par être dénommé royaume de France.

<<La seule chose qui soit « silly », c'est ton impréparation quant il s'agit d'aborder des sujets archiconnus que tu es pratiquement le seul à découvrir pour la première fois...


Il faut d'abord que tu saches que le mot <France> avait deux acceptions un temps bien distinctes mais par la suite confondues par l'histoire.


Il y avait le royaume de Francie occidentale (qui devint le royaume des Francs —> voir Al <Frankreich>) et le duché de France (Francie mineure, Île de France) qui finit par être dénommé royaume de France. >>

Are you saying that I'm learning this "for the first time"? That could hardly be true.

And, yes, I am well aware of the "duchy of France", which during Feudal times, was a small duthcy centered around Paris, which was the only piece of land directly owned by the French monarch. When the King's direct domain was extended to the other feudal states of modern France, the rest of the country took on the name of this dutchy. I didn't feel it was necessary to go into detail on that subject to begin with on this thread. I felt the first reason was sufficient for an explanation. But, as usual, you want to be rude and arrogant about it, so, you had to put forth some criticism. Purposely finding faults in others, while ignoring their good attributes or contributions, is a very bad habit. It is also usually indicative of someone who is miserably insecure of themselves, and therefore looks to others to criticize so as to make himself feel like a human being.

LAA : si tu n'aimes pas la critique, évite de donner le bâton pour te faire battre. Tu pérores avec ignorance et arrogance sur des sujets qui mériteraient mieux que les épanchements d'un cuistre qui se complait dans un rôle de vierge effarouchée à chaque fois (et elles sont nombreuses...) qu'il est remis en place.

France should be named after the Franks rather than the Gauls. The Gauls were very primitive, lacked societal, and national adhesion, they were very tribal, and, all in all, less civilized than the Franks were. The Franks contributed more to the development and advancement of the French nation than the Gauls ever did through Frankish Carolingian Law. The Franks were far superior administrators than the tribal, bellicose Gauls. Basically, Frankish society and civilization was far more advanced than Gallic society or civilization. France deserves its name. And most importantly of all, the Franks defended and preserved Christian faith and civilization in the historical battle at Tours, France, where the Franks, under the leadership of Charles Martel defeated a large Moslem/Arabic military force that had arrived from Spain. Had the Moslems prevailed in this battle, European history, and Western Civilization would have been radically different. The Christian religion would have been wiped out, and instead of seeing cathedrals and churches in Europe and the Western World, you would be seeing mosques and minarets instead. European and western nations wouldn't have been speaking Latin, Germanic, or Slavic languages, they would mostly likely, by now, be speaking Arabic. So, the western world and Europe owe a great deal of gratitude to the Carolingian Franks for preserving Latin/Roman speech and laws, as well as the Christian religion which has prevailed in Europe for all of these centuries. By the way, the year of that historical battle at Tours, France was 732 A.D.

Greg,
I am not learning this for the first time. "rôle de vierge" - I assume this refers to being shocked at every first time, like a virgin. Just because I make a post on the matter does not mean I am announcing to the world some new discovery. It's just a discussion point. You don't contribute to this board. When was the last time you created a thread?

APAM,
You can't compare pre-Roman Gallic society to post-Roman Frankish society. That's like comparing apples to oranges. Pre-Roman Gallic society ended in the B.C. era, whereas post-Roman society began 500 years later. During those 500 years, Roman Gaul had been united, civilized, and Romanized. Roman civilization was beyond compare in Europe at this time. The Gallo-Romans were incredibly sophisticated and cultured people, with a highly developed society, organized religious system, and civil administration, which the Franks utilized to their own benefit, as they were not socially advanced enough to rule such a large territory. The Franks relied on the Gallo-Roman Church for civil administration, and on other remanants of Roman government and society. The Franks on the other hand, were a bunch of disorganized, warrior bands of primitive persons, who hadn't even reached civilization by the very definition of the word, where "civil" means, to "live in cities". Because of their stupid religious superstitions, they didn't even bathe! This practice carried on throughout the Middle Ages, where filth was commonplace. Public sanitation was all but inexistent. Human feces was piled up high along the sides of roads within towns. Population decreased, as disease was constantly rampant among the muck and filthy conditions of the Dark and Middle Ages.The Germanic peoples caused the fall of the Western Roman empire, and the new civilization of the Germanic Kingdoms was anything but an adequate replacement. The only unifying force, which also preserved some remnants of the former Roman civilization was the Roman Catholic Church. And even the Church had assumed far too much power in the post-Roman world, as it took the place of the imperial government in resuming civil administration during the Dark ages.

It just wouldn't seem right calling France by any other name, but, I am of the opinion that France should never have been given that name in the first place, just as I think Wales should have a different name.

LAA, True, the Gallo-Romans were, like you said, incredibly sophisticated and cultured people. But what about the pre-Roman, Celtic-Gaulish population of France? The pre-Roman Gauls were very unsophisticated compared to the Romans and Greeks, or the Etruscans. The pre-Roman Gauls were beginning to show some aspects of higher civilization, especially when you compare them to the totally primitive Germanic people across the Rhine. But still, the Gauls only became more civilized as a result of Romanization. That is why I feel that the name "France" is more apropos than "Gaul". Don't forget, the Franks figured very prominently in history by defeating a Moslem invasion of France in the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. I sincerely doubt that the Celtic Gauls, with their well known attributes of disunity and petty tribalism, would have achieved such an important victory that preserved Latin/Roman speech, laws, customs and the Christian religion as well. If the Gauls were in control of France in 732 A.D. at the time of the Moslem invasion, European and Western Civilization would be radically different today. I'm positive of that.

APAM,
You cannot compare the pre-Roman Celtic peoples of Gaul to the state of the Frankish kingdom in an entirely different era. The fact is, Gaul WAS utterlly Romanized. It was united, and its society was as highly advanced as any in the world at that time. You cannot say that the tribal, disunited Celtic peoples of Gaul would not have been able to withstand the Muslim onslaught, because, by this time, the Gauls were not at all like that! They had become completely Romanized. The Gaul of old, was no longer in existence. It was Roman, but still Gaul, and the peoples, Romanized, but still Gauls. Comparing the peoples as you do, would be the equivalent of saying that the ancient Anglo-Saxons would not be capable of conquering one-fourh of the globe (Victorian British Empire).

If anybody was disorganized, and divided according to small tribal lines, it was the Germans, who were the most primitive of all people in Western Europe. True, the Gauls were less civilized, and divided among rival tribes at what time. But they hadn't been for at least 400 years! The Germans on the other hand, were divided into several tribal political units. In fact, the Franks were actually a confederation of several different tribes, and even between the Franks, there were two large, and divided groups. You know of the numerous Germanic tribes, and there were literally hundreds, so I don't have to tell you that.

I believe that a country's name should represent the people who live in it. The Franks conquered Gaul, but were assimilated by the much larger, native people, and their culture, and religion. France is a Gallic land, and Germany is an entirely different place, a Germanic culture. The modern countries are still divided by the same lines (culturally and linguistically speaking) as they were during the days of the Roman Empire and its frontier. If any land should be called France, it should be the Netherlands and other parts of the Low Countries, as these people are the direct descendants of the Franks. They speak the descendant language of the Franks, and they possess a Germanic culture.

The dominant cultural imprint on the formation of France can always be traced back to Roman Gaul. Modern France owes its existance, as defined by the political borders of Roman Gaul, and its culture and heritage to Roman Gaul. You can say that this heritage shouldn't be attributed to the Celtic Gauls, but to the Romans. But although the Gauls adopted Roman civilization, it was the native people of the land, the Gauls themselves, which were the pillars of civilization in their country. These Gauls were Romans.

a.p.a.m. : « The Franks contributed more to the development and advancement of the French nation than the Gauls ever did through Frankish Carolingian Law. »

Désolé de te contredire, mais c'est pratiquement le contraire.

"Désolé de te contredire, mais c'est pratiquement le contraire"

I think you said that is it is "practically the opposite" no? And that is the truth.

Basically the only thing that the Franks contributed to the development of France as a nation, was the political and military unity which they provided with their warrior bands. This is no different than what the Visigoths did in Spain, or the Ostrogoths did in Italy. France, for the most part, owes its linguistic, and cultural heritage to Roman Gaul. England owes it to the Anglo-Saxons, so it's appropriately named after them. Spain, owes theirs to the Hispano-Romans. And, Italy owes it to Roman Italy. Sure, over the centuries, regional division, local customs, and foreign influences had an impact on developing seperate dialects/languages, and national identities along the way, but the foundation was layed by Roman Gaul. The Germanic peoples transformed Western Europe. The new social heirachy and system was based on the Germanic model. Architecture was different, and civilization declined a great deal. This was the case with all of the former Roman Empire, not just France. But the little things of Latin culture remained in these countries. The mentality of the people, their Latin language, their Roman Catholic faith, their eating habits, etc.

LAA, you make many valid points. But one must consider the extreme importance of the Frankish victory over invading hordes of Muslim fanatics (Tours, France 732 A.D.) who, if they had won that battle, they would have wiped out Frankish civilization and the Gallo-Roman heritage that France/Gaul had up until that time. Many historians overlook the importance of that victory by the Franks, who represented Christendom at that time. You've got to remember that, by that time, 732A.D., Spain was already under the yoke of Muslim rule. If the Franks had succumbed in that battle, France/Gaul would have suffered the same fate as Spain. And it is believed that the rest of Europe would have followed suit. Of all the Germanic tribes that infiltrated the Roman Empire, the Franks were the most powerful. Therefore, it was their duty and responsibility to preserve Christianity, and the Latin/Roman linguistic and legal heritage that the Gallo-Romans had laid as a foundation many centuries beforehand. I consider it a miracle of history that Spain returned to its Christian roots and drove out its Moslem invaders. Imagine what Spain would be like today if that had not happened. Could you imagine a major European nation today consisting of tens of millions of Muslim fanatics hellbent on destroying European and Christian civilization? That would be frightening.

Yes, and that is not overlooked by me. Without Charles Martel and the Franks, there is a good chance that most of Western Europe would be Muslim today, and speaking Arabic, or some dialect of it. But that has nothing to with the naming of a country. If we apply that sort of reasoning to say Tunisia, then we could call it Byzantium, since the Emperor Justinian reconquered these lands for Constantinople. Maybe that's not a good example. But take this for instance. The Franks were a mighty German tribe, whose major accomplishment was spreading Catholicism to heretofore pagan lands in northern Europe, saving Western Europe from Islamic invasion, and consolidating a large empire at one time, which rapidly disinegrated because of the barbarian custom of dividing all of a monarch's property amongst all his sons, which lead to the carving up of Charlemagne's great empire. These were some major historical achievements however. But, does this neccessarily apply to France? That is the question we must ask. The Franks were outnumbered 20 to 1 in Gaul, by the much larger, native Gallic population. And even then, the vast majority of Franks who settled in Gaul, dwelt in the northern part of the country, around, or north of Paris. So, the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity of the people of Gaul, remained Gallic. The largest settlment of Franks was in the low countries, like the Netherlands, Flanders, and parts of Luxembourg. To this day, these people are the direct descendants of the Germanic Franks. They look Germanic in physical appearance, they speak Germanic Dutch (descendant of Low Franconian), and they possess a Germanic culture and heritage. So, back to my original point. The name of a country should reflect the people who occupy it. If France is a Gallic, or Gallo-Roman land, then it should not be called Frankreich. That name more accurately depicts the real land of the Franks, whose people are of Frankish origin, the Dutch, the Flemish, etc. Sure, the modern French have Frankish and other Germanic heritage, but so do the Italians and Spanish, and Portuguese. In fact, in real terms, the French have less Germanic heritage than the Spanish!

The point is, that the Franks were the small ruling elite of Gaul. The government of Gaul was that of the Frankish king and his court, and later, feudal lords. But just because the conquerors of that land were famous for a great historical achievement, doesn't mean their name should be imposed on a people, which do not accurately portray that name. The Romans made many achievements. They possibly saved all of Gaul, and Hispania from Germanic incursions and subjugation for centuries, and allowed these peoples to have a taste of classical civilization. Does that mean we should call all Spaniards, Portuguese, and Frenchmen, "Romans"?

Hi LAA,

>>Yes, and that is not overlooked by me. Without Charles Martel and the Franks, there is a good chance that most of Western Europe would be Muslim today, and speaking Arabic, or some dialect of it.

I take for granted that you realise, that this hypothesis would englobe England as well, and thus.... USA, and the rest of America (Continent)

>>whose major accomplishment was spreading Catholicism to heretofore pagan lands in northern Europe, saving Western Europe from Islamic invasion,

I would say that what saved Western Europe from Islamic invasion was the Frankish victory, not the spreading of Catholicism. One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other, because even if the Franks wouldn't have spread Catholicism among other Germanic peoples, but just contained the Islam penetration at the Pyreneans(?) we still would have a pagan but not Islamic Europe.

>>The name of a country should reflect the people who occupy it

Well, then the name "United States of America" doesn't make much sense either, does it? as a citizen of USA, one should start criticizing such false namings of its own country, I think.
And France was, at the time of its naming, actually the "Reign of the Francs", regardless of the foreign origin of its rulers.

I think the name is just confusing. You could say that France means, "kingdom of the Franks" or "land of the Franks". This creates confusion amongst people, and because of the name, they often think of the people of France as being Germanic Franks, and France being a Germanic country.

Perhaps there are better example of countries or nationalities that do not 'deserve' their name, other than France. Like someone before me said, the USA is a better example, since it's inhabitants are referred to as 'Americans' monopolously, even though the U.S. is only a part of that continent.

Although, in Spanish, Americans are referred to as Estadounidenses, which translates roughly as 'United Statians', or more broadly as Norteamericanos [North Americans].

Which brings up the interesting situation of Deutschland vs. Germany vs. Alemannia too.

Naming countries can be a very tricky business.