Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.

Congratulations Europe

It's not right to denigrate France either, it is a substantial nuclear power and the fifth largest economy in the world.

Originally Posted by blackstarraven View Post
Less we forget about Charlemagne? (Yes I know thats Frankish, but that's basically french)
Italy nor Germany didn't exist as unified nations until pretty recently.

Go look at Europian History and two things hit you.
So Charlemagne was French, but the Romans weren't Italian and the Visigoths weren't Germanic? hahaha

The main thing that seems to strike most people about European history is how large conflicts were fought miles away from the home lands and played out through colonial economic and naval conflict as much as land wars on the continent itself.

Originally Posted by blackstarraven View Post
"Raven is a noted and obvious francophile" LOL

I don't know how I'm noted about it, this is the first time I have made a comment on the subject.
It was evident between your posts in this thread, and those concerning Quebec.

Very well think what you will.

I don't see that I have "Denigrated France ether" honestly you just seam like your trying to pic a fight. (If not then don't worry about the comment, it very hard to read what some one is trying to do in text)

I also did point out that the Romans did run Europe, and then kind of fell apart at the Italians. (The Romans in fact kicked the crap out of the Guals, Who where basically proto-french)

And the Visigoths? As for any number of goths. Are in the same boat as the Huns to some extent, VERY disruptive and capable, but really only note wrothy because they came though and mussed stuff up. (That's a gross simplification on my part)

And (Not being smart here) But... I made a comment about Quebec? Was this like.... Months ago or something? Because I don't recall. And I don't hold a particularly high opinion (Or low) Of Quebec.

My comment about denigrating France was a reply to Earthbound.

Most of the countries that we look at today are rather different from how they were in the past. Territorial borders, for example, didn't become so important until people settled in a particular area, improved it and stayed there. Prior to that, territorial borders were fluid, based on how much you could hold, to a large extent. Language families and lifestyles bound proto-national groups together, rather than territory. Conquering tribes tended to settle in an area, and once they'd improved and upgraded it, wanted to stay. When this sort of thing became the norm, you got the idea that formed the seed of the concept of nationhood. Very rarely did it work, but the idea was there, and in different places at different times.
The major empires all used this type of thinking, but when they decayed, and when invading tribes came through, that idea was lost. Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans - all had it. All but the Greeks and Egyptians lost it. Same with the Byzantines, though they started off while the Roman empire was on the way down. The barbarian tribes that moved into these territories did not have it, at least not at anywhere near the same level.
France under Charlemagne regained it... then partially lost it after his death. They were, however, largely insulated from the westward push from the tribes from the Germanies. That gave them a big advantage as nations started to coalesce later - a relatively unified language and territorial base. This was weakened when the Normans managed to successfully invade England then declared it to be their own, but had largely recovered by the time the fight for control over the Italian peninsula between France and the Spanish hotted up. France was usually a major power on the continental stage, except for those times when they were weakened by infighting or wars against other powers. They were still capable of major actions which took multiple countries to stop (under Napoleon, for example).
Probably the deathknell for France as the pre-eminent power in Europe came with WWI. Until then they were still one of the big bads on the block, but after the Germans punched through Belgium into France while the French cabinet dithered and refused to approve their military's requests, their reputation suffered a blow from which it never recovered. WWII similarly did them no favors, especially as they had better equipment than the invading Germans but lost the psychological battle. The Suez affair confirmed what everyone already knew - the French were no longer a 1st class military power.
The European Coal and Steel Community was an attempt to bind the armament production capacities of France and Germany together to prevent war, and was thus an admission that France could no longer compete with the Germans militarily. The ECSC became the EEC, then the EU. At heart it is still an attempt to bind together countries to prevent war.

Okay, a huge rambling preface for my main comment:
The Nobel Peace prize was awarded to the EU for simply doing its job. Which does rather detract from its original purpose.

Lovely summary and very much agreed, except two things.
That Frankish was the kernal of modern France but was very very different.
And you missed out the post-Napoleonic collapse (the Congress of Vienna and the repercussions of total war doctrine) of French power. It was declining well before WWI. It had no naval power and thus no colonial economy.

Originally Posted by Earthbound View Post
Eh, I'm French, so really I can denigrate France all I want.
Fine, carry on. Let me know if you need any help


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status