Historical question ...

[Cubster]

... regarding geography and how it changes over the years.

I was having a debate ages back with someone about French military achievements. Well, maybe debate is a bit controlled a name for it. It started with me basically being annoying and playing the Francophobic Brit, roundly mocking everything and trying to pretend France's military history has always been a string of embarrassing humiliations (which I know full well is crazy talk) ... and then the conversation mutated into something else.

My question is this, how would you define the nationality of an historical figure? Tricky this. I mean, would you say that William the Bastard was French, because he was from Normandy, which is now part of France? Or would you say he was Norman, because France didn't included Normandy when he was alive?

I'm kind of in the latter camp. Which isn't to say France couldn't celebrate William as a hero, since Normandy is now part of France, but I wouldn't say that you could accurately describe his as a Frenchman, because a Frenchman was something esle during his life.

But what say you?

[paulsmodellingworkshop]

I concur, William the bastard was Norman not french. France as a 'country' did not exist at the time.

Heck, using the same principle they were using, you could say all Dacians should be called Romanians, Romans become Italians etc etc

[Cubster]

It got confused because he claimed that Napoleon was French (I said he was Corsican), he said Charlemagne was French (I said the nation we know as France didn't exist so he can't have been ... plus it later transpired he was probably Belgian!) and then he said by my logic I'd say Bede wasn't English. I said no he wasn't, he was Northumbrian at which point he lost the will to talk to me and my empty brain.

[janner]

The Normans were considered Francs by 11thC chroniclers and the Duke of Normandy paid nominal fealty to the king of France though.

Similarly Corsica was under French rule at the time. So if you were to discount Napoleon then you would have to discount Wellington as he was born in what is no EIRE.

[Colonel White]

I would say the Normans were seperate peoples who were originally Viking settlers who were given this land by the populace of France as a peace treaty. I am quite sure it happened something like that. I wouldn't regard Normans as true french.Its almost like saying the Romans were Britsh becasue they happened to live there. Yes the populations eventually "morphed" into Romano British but that took time, as Saxons eventually became Anglo Saxons.

Just my opinions

[Comte Michel]

Well, Wales and Scotland are under English rule now (technically, even though our 'monarch' is German) but I much doubt they consider themselves English. Please don't pick me up on English v British either, Britain at present is purely a political construct and has very little to do with nationality. Based on true historical nationality very few of us could be considered to be British. That said I prefer to call myself British, but that's purely to distance myself from the average person who goes abroad brandishing the flag of St George.

I'm siding with Cubster on this. I would suggest that 'nationality' be defined as what the person in question considered themselves to be at the time. After all even if I lived in the US for example and held US citizenship I would still consider myself to be British.

Nationality is a VERY complicated thing

[Cubster]

The Normans were considered Francs by 11thC chroniclers and the Duke of Normandy paid nominal fealty to the king of France though.

Similarly Corsica was under French rule at the time. So if you were to discount Napoleon then you would have to discount Wellington as he was born in what is no EIRE.

William was at war with France for much of his reign before he invaded England though. That doesn't sound much like he thought he was French.

As for Wellington and Napoleon, nationality is decided by more than place of birth, surely? You have the nationality of your parents and as the Comte says, there's a lot to be said for personal consideration. The 'ownership' of Corsica swapped about a lot and Napoleon's family considered themselves Corsican through and through, no matter whose control the island came under. Hell, I was born in Germany but I'm not and have never been German (despite a great love of bratwurst and weissbier).

[Comte Michel]

And on the subject of Cubster's original argument about French military prowess....

Surrender_monkey2.jpg (79.13 KiB) Viewed 193 times

[janner]

Jesting aside, whilst serving I was much happier to have a French unit on my flank than some other Mediterranean allies I could mention

[mikeland]

Interesting question Cubster, I think it is worth remembering that the idea of Nationalism in the way we consider it is largely a construct of the last 300 years, for many common people their world was a lot smaller than hours and they didn't consider themselves 'Englishmen' or 'Frenchmen' in the way that we do. Which makes me lean with Cubster view that William was Norman not a French...

Napoleon on the other hand was French, not born a Frenchman but he adopted France, and became a Citizen of France.

As for Cubsters very reasonable line of thought on French military history:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html