- This topic has 8 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
According to many historians, the birth of France starts with the Merovigian dynasty (428-737 AD) whereas the history of France goes back to the arrival of the earliest human being in what is now France.For some people, the land or "jus soli" prevails while other are considering the culture (language included) and the people as prime criteria ("jus gentium" and/or "jus sanguinis").Personally, I disagree about the side proclaiming that History of France would start with the Merovigians : these were Franks, speaking a germanic language and with a total different culture. I tend to consider the beginning of what is France with the Treaty of Verdun (843 AD) and more specifically with the Capetians (987-1792 AD) because of the language, the culture and their roots.Which criterias would you consider as objective in the case of France, or for any other Nations, if you had to state about its birth ?
I tend to agree with you about the Capetians being the root of modern France. It was Hugh Capet who started the centralizing process in what would become France.In England I would date it to 1066, William did more than conquer the Island, he gave it a lasting, strong government.Germany is a tough one, we could go as far back as the Holy Roman Emperors or say 1871.Italy, is easy, 1861 when Piedmont unified the counrty by force though in Italy you could could probably still argue that they are not truly unified given the wide disparities between North and South Italy.America is also easy, 1774 and the signing of the Articles of Association.
Aetheling, I would say the Treaty of Verdun and the creation of East Francia/West Francia. That seems to have been a cause of a divide which probably led to distinct cultural growth in the two areas, with the western half being fragmented into many counties and the eastern half breaking up into fewer pieces. Before that time, places in Europe like France, Germany, and the northern countries would have been more homogeneous under Carolingian rule.
I have been researching in detail the empire of Louis the Pious for my next historical novel. I agree that the 843 Treaty of Verdun is the most likely beginning for France. Karl der Grosse resided at Aachen. Also, the national language for France was still gestating during the early to mid-800s.
I agree with both of you but which criteria to use if you want to state about the birth of a nation ? The territory (land) ? The people ? The culture (language included) ? All of them ?In my example, the land seems to be used but I think that if you want to define the birth of nation, you unconsciously refer to the present-day situation thus I believe that all the above criteria must be considered. Forget about about "our ancestors the Gauls", "Clovis, the father of France", "Charlemagne French/German/Belgian emperor" and so on ...I think that most of our view about the past is conditioned by what previous "culture" wanted people to believe (aka XIX c and Nationalism) ???
I agree with both of you but which criteria to use if you want to state about the birth of a nation ? The territory (land) ? The people ? The culture (language included) ? All of them ?
That's a very good question. I want to say an autonomous political system. But then again, you would need a nation first before a political system can develop. You need a people who want that. Right? Maybe?
I don't think there is any single criteria you can use to make such a claim. You have to start with a criteria and then work your way back to a beginning based on that criteria, rather than the other way around. Take Italy, for example. If you use language, you'd go back to the High Middle Ages, but if you use unified political rule you'd go back to the late-19th or early-20th century. If you use “common culture”, the answer might be that Italy is still not unified.
Even then … back in the mid 1960s, my wife worked at Lockheed Air International in L.A. because she was gifted in 5 languages. As a result, she was requested to entertain important Italian visitors. I also had studied italian at Cal and was still reasonably fluent. We showed them the city and had them over for dinner. One was the son of Mussolini's military governor of Abyssinia aka Ethoipia.During the course of conversation, he said Italy could be as powerful economically as Germany and Japan (circa 1960s) if only they could rid themselves of everything south of Naples.And Spain -- the Catalans have never felt 100% Spanish nor have the Basques with their unique language. Valencian is a separate language as well closer to Catalan.I have come to believe that tribalism trumps all other -isms.
Even then ... back in the mid 1960s, my wife worked at Lockheed Air International in L.A. because she was gifted in 5 languages. As a result, she was requested to entertain important Italian visitors. I also had studied italian at Cal and was still reasonably fluent. We showed them the city and had them over for dinner. One was the son of Mussolini's military governor of Abyssinia aka Ethoipia.During the course of conversation, he said Italy could be as powerful economically as Germany and Japan (circa 1960s) if only they could rid themselves of everything south of Naples.And Spain -- the Catalans have never felt 100% Spanish nor have the Basques with their unique language. Valencian is a separate language as well closer to Catalan.I have come to believe that tribalism trumps all other -isms.
On the subject of Spain one can go even further and look at the southern regions where the descendants of the Moors still make a living. They have their own culture which is very unique and their african-inspired music, which I find very beautiful, inspired the Flamenco style from what I learned.
Personally, I disagree about the side proclaiming that History of France would start with the Merovigians : these were Franks, speaking a germanic language and with a total different culture. I tend to consider the beginning of what is France with the Treaty of Verdun (843 AD) and more specifically with the Capetians (987-1792 AD) because of the language, the culture and their roots.
I agree.
I have come to believe that tribalism trumps all other -isms.
Is that the truth, or a truism? ;DKidding aside, I agree. If you talk to soldiers who have been in battle, most of them will tell you that when the bullets are flying it isn't about God and country; it's about the guy on your left and the guy on your right because they are doing the same for you.
I have come to believe that tribalism trumps all other -isms.
Is that the truth, or a truism? ;DKidding aside, I agree. If you talk to soldiers who have been in battle, most of them will tell you that when the bullets are flying it isn't about God and country; it's about the guy on your left and the guy on your right because they are doing the same for you.
I will tell you that for me, when the bullets were flying it was about me being angry that someone dared to try and kill Mrs. Shrier's little boy (Me).
I just realized I did not give my answer in the earlier post.I am going with geography - a nation is defined by its borders even if they are only loosely established and not totally agreed upon by neighboring countries (though if they don't even agree the nation exists and put down an uprising, that's another story). Consensus is a vague word, but I think there is a pretty reasonable point at which there is a consensus that the nation exists. If it is over run and the invaders keep the name and borders, it is the same nation IMO.
For a second I thought by reading the title of the thread it had to do with the 1920's movie of the same name :S
