Why so many people have problem with Italian ruling France?

[innonimatu]

Agreed that the way in which this expression changed across the centuries.

But if the current way is called nationalism, I have no aversion to using that word in a non-academic talk to refer to past movements for which we have no convenient term. In fact if nationalism were used to talk about the athenian attitude towards their city and empire as well as the french attitude towards their government and empire in Napoleon's time, we wouldn't have any teleology at all: it was always there, albeit with (some big) differences.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Nationalism" carries a lot of baggage, though. People have a lot of unspoken assumptions about what a "nation" is, about how it's defined, about who's included and who isn't. Using terminology intended to describe modern phenomena risks imposing that baggage onto the past and giving a muddle image of what was actually happening.

I mean, llamas filled the same role for the Andeans that mules filled for Europeans, but you wouldn't call a llama a mule.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't like applying "nationalism" or "nation" to premodern stuff because I think it smells too much like "teleology culminating in the modern nation-state." Really, polities built out of homogeneous material are historical exceptions, not the historical rule.

 

[innonimatu]

Granted, it's a dangerous practice to use terms that are not accurate. I admit I'm lazy enough to just use nationalism sometimes. Do we have any convenient word in english for "pre-modern nationalism"?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Patriotism" is the obvious one, but that's obviously coloured by the positive associations of the word. "Particularism" is probably the best description for most of the movements you're describing. It's an awkward fit for some, but avoids conflating a tribe or kingdom with a nation-state.

 

[Tahuti]

"Patriotism" is the obvious one, but that's obviously coloured by the positive associations of the word. "Particularism" is probably the best description for most of the movements you're describing. It's an awkward fit for some, but avoids conflating a tribe or kingdom with a nation-state.

Particularism is a general spectre of "particularist" ideologies, including nationalism, tribalism and royalism.

Nationalism was once a universalist ideology as in "every people should have their own state" aligned with republicanism. Once nationalism got its way there, it quickly became a vehicle for imperialism as its universalist principles were shed as "the people", now had their own state and could contradistinguish it from others.

The position of the nation-state can be placed in a particularist-globalist continuum in which its position depends on the era and situation.

 

[innonimatu]

Particularism, last time I saw that word was in Europa Universalis. Bloody particularists, always rising up!

 

[Tahuti]

Particularism, last time I saw that word was in Europa Universalis. Bloody particularists, always rising up!

The Paradox games can be credited for helping introducing ideological terms to broaden political debates!

 

[trader/warrior]

People associate "de Medici" with Italian Florentine bankers. Combine that with the current trend of hysteria over the slightest thing that could suggest shoehorning of characters for "progressive" reasons into games, and this is what you get. Actual history be damned.

Wasn't Jeanne d'Arc the ruler of France in Civ 3 or 4 or something? That one made a lot less sense seeing as she never even ruled France.

 

[Ajidica]

Wasn't Jeanne d'Arc the ruler of France in Civ 3 or 4 or something? That one made a lot less sense seeing as she never even ruled France.

Civ 3.

Civ4 got Napoleon, Louis XIV, and de Gaulle. I would have preferred de Gaulle over de Medici as de Gaulle seems to perfectly encapsulate French arrogance and unfortunate habit of generally being right.

 

[trader/warrior]

I think it's time they do the man himself, Charlemagne.. (Franks, French, what's the difference anyway?)

Oh, wait, he was HRE ruler in CivIV. Actually that just means the French need to have their turn as to not be unfair with the old "was Charlemagne more French or German" rivalry.

 

[Tahuti]

I think it's time they do the man himself, Charlemagne.. (Franks, French, what's the difference anyway?)

Oh, wait, he was HRE ruler in CivIV. Actually that just means the French need to have their turn as to not be unfair with the old "was Charlemagne more French or German" rivalry.

Well, to be fair, probably more Germanic than anything else: The Franks were a Germanic tribe who subjugated the Gauls and Roman stragglers in France (and surprise: it was named after them!). The modern French people descent from all the aforementioned groups, although the modern French people weren't around back then.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I would have preferred de Gaulle over de Medici as de Gaulle seems to perfectly encapsulate French arrogance and unfortunate habit of generally being right.

Ahh, good times...

 

[Dachs]

Well, to be fair, probably more Germanic than anything else: The Franks were a Germanic tribe who subjugated the Gauls and Roman stragglers in France (and surprise: it was named after them!). The modern French people descent from all the aforementioned groups, although the modern French people weren't around back then.

What does "Germanic" mean in this context and why does it have anything to do with modern Germany?

 

[schlaufuchs]

What does "Germanic" mean in this context and why does it have anything to do with modern Germany?

Leaving him mistaking a linguistic term for a political one aside, where does he imply an association with modern Germany in his post?

 

[Acken]

Phillip 2 is the first king to name himself officially King of France rather than king (or emperor) of franks.

 

[Dachs]

Leaving him mistaking a linguistic term for a political one aside, where does he imply an association with modern Germany in his post?

He implied it by mentioning "modern France" when responding to a post that talked about "German" and "French" as related categories.

 

[schlaufuchs]

He implied it by mentioning "modern France" when responding to a post that talked about "German" and "French" as related categories.

But he also responded not with the word "German", but with "Germanic" which, at least in linguistic terms, means something totally different. Which isn't to say describing Charlemagne and the Franks as "Germanic" is at all useful or correct in this context. I guess it comes down to whether or not you give Tov the benefit of the doubt using "Germanic" specifically to differentiate from the modern German. He's wrong in either case, but one is less badly wrong.

 

[Tahuti]

Which isn't to say describing Charlemagne and the Franks as "Germanic" is at all useful or correct in this context.

Why is that?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Why is that?

Because "Germanic" is neither an ethnic nor a political term. There is no, nor has there ever been a "Germanic people". The Romans described groups of people at times either as Galli or Germani, but it is unclear and rather unlikely that they ever thought of themselves in such terms. Moreover "Germanic" in linguistic terms refers to the entire family, including North Germanic (ONorse and its descendents), and East Germanic (Gothic), not just the Western family (which includes, inter alia, Frankish, German, Saxon, Alemannic, Bavarian, and English). So not only is it incorrect to use a linguistic term to characterize or define an ethnicity or political group, but the term you decided to use is also imprecise, viz. overly broad.

Although language is often a defining feature of ethnicity, it is both irresponsible and dangerous to assume that the existence of a language or language family constitutes an ethnicity.