Emergance of nations in Western Europe

Well for one thing languages were not standardized at all. The common people would often not be able to understand someone who lived a couple dozen miles away. The nobility and chucrch used latin as their langauge. The standaridzation of the languages didnt fully occur until the modern elementary school education system

So you're saying that that European countries formed around language?

It was the cagots, I'm still not entirely sure what they did to garner the hate of the French people, maybe its some ancient holdover that poured over into recent history

Was there ever a real burgundy identity.

No, not entirely but the language is one of the most common signs of a nation state. But identities can be created for other reasons, like the Austrian identity which was created so that Austrians would not have to feel guilty about being as Nazi as any other German people.

We're working on it. First Burgundy, then les pays de par-deçà

I see, so you can't really pin it down to a single thing really.

There's nothing factually wrong with the statement but its so broad and obvious that it shouldn't be a thought in an adult's mind. It's like saying "It's called an anthill because ants live there" or "water is wet because it's water." These are revelations that a child would have and they're not addressing the question at hand.

We are trying to find out when did Bretons, Burgundians, and other regions decide to come together and be "French", rather than:
>France is France because of the French

I stand corrected then, Germany and England is on the same boat as France the more I think about it.

Its something that exists as much as the people believe it does. There is no systamtic way to define a nation. But there are signs such as language, cultural norms, and comminatilty of interactions which people generally use as signs themselves to define their nation.

Do you think that Ethnicity has anything to do with too? I guess what I'm asking is when did the French become French genetically(if they ever were)? It just seems that there were so many different ethnicities in France, Germany and Spain alone for ethnicity to have anything to do with a Nation forming.

forgive me, I'm also really interested in the different ethnic groups of Europe

Well yes the germans were proabably more divided than the french.

Well i dont think you can define a Frenchmen gentically. Maybe a range, but the french are not much different than any of the groups arround them. Also, ethnicity is interesting because they can overlap.
>A french jew who is descended from Italians.
What is ethnicity french jewish or italian (also those are all very broad terms but its just an example.)

The most common way for a group of people living in an area to be considered a nation is if other existing nations recognize it as a nation. You can imagine how confusing and frustrating that was throughout history and even today. Places like Tibet and Kurdistan are trying to be independent and some countries even regard Tibet as a nation but others don't.

yeah there is a lot of complexity and nuance, but you can argue that the "German" identity that we know of today, arose in the 1800s.

Nations is much more internal country is external

That is so simplistic it is nearly retarded.

What, the gitans/gypsies?

Can't really say there's a specific moment in history. I mean, what tends to be pointed at for this case would be HYW but in general? Think people mostly felt they were "French" because their king was. 's probably - and certainly is the reason the Vendées why had a rage fit during the Revolution. King was a defining factor. After that, common culture/history plus the fact of living in France are probably the reason I'd say.

Really is sad though that local patois are disappearing. Especially when, in the 50's, Britanny had around 50% or more of its population that still spoke Breton as first language or second. Now it's pretty low, and even if elementary schools over there do offer the choice of learning it, I doubt it's going to survive much when 60% or more of the speakers nowadays die because they're old as shit.

I always feel mixed because local cultures are interesting, but it is easier to work and exist in a gloabalized world without them. And it is a natural reult of increased interconnection. Also, i dont believe that cultural groups have rights, but rather people have rights.

Yeah, but it seems like he was willing to listen and learn

I agree with that mate, just feels a tad sad to see a language dying in your time, ya know?

But thats history for the last 200 years

faggot

Those lands were annexed by the French king and the people couldn't do anything against it. The people of French Flanders really didn't want to become French, especially not the people of Lille/Rijsel. That's why in the 19th-century the city got a lot of French monuments to make the people feel more French.

>it is easier to work and exist in a gloabalized world without them
fuck globalization

>New Guinea

1648

holy shit what a retarded map

Nah overall its better for the world as a whole

Well Germany has always been fractured in tribes/small states or similiar. In the MA it would've been hard to understand anybody's dialect a few villages down (very little vertical mobility) and the main combining factor would be the church and to a certain extent the emperor. This somewhat changed with Luther's translation of the bible in to vernacular German, this along with increased trade. Still for the most part a Saxon would consider himself a Saxon, a Hanoveranian a british and a Bavarian Bavarian. This changed with the Napoleonic wars, where the tiny states were streamlined in to larger units (i.e kingdom of Württemberg). The resistance against the French gave all Germans a common cause, regardless of state, since the states were under French control/allied with (most of them only switched sides when it was clear who would win). This was mythisized in the 19th century (see Lützow'sches Freikorps) by students and the middle class, leading for the first time of something like a German identity, things like Arminius or the Nibelungenlied were pulled out of the storage and presented as national unified heritage for everybody "German"
cont.

>fuck globalization

I bet you don't even know why you think globalization is bad.

desu, it doesn't bother me that much because nowadays we can record information like never before and there will always be some people interested in niche subjects

cont.
The students in the first half of the 19th pretended the resistance against France or Rome, had been some kind of grassroots movement of the German race/spirit, the 1848 revolution tried to unify everbody speaking German, this failed and Prussia stepped in and the rest is history.

In that sense Germany unified as an ethnic state and never was good incorporating minorities (Jews, Sorbs, Frisians), but Germans always prefer to identify as something smaller, more regional (nowadays regional patriotism is far more accepted than German patriotism), maybe a relic of Germanic tribal nature, or the same thing that's true of most countries, even if a bit more extreme.

The "French" as we know it today is largely a construction of the 1800s.

Before then, only 20% of the country we today know as France spoke what we now know as French. Along with them you have the Bretons, Basques, Occitans, Italians in the south East and German speaking people's in the east, nevermind the Jews and Roma.

German identity was created in 1810 by the Purssians

Egnlish and French identity exist since antiquity

>Before then, only 20% of the country we today know as France spoke what we now know as French

You're talking about the Parisian dialect, All (Northern) French spoke Old French since Middle Age

>Bretons
No ones in France claim tha they are French

>Basques
No ones in France claim tha they are French

>Occitans
LMAO

Is is a commie meme created around 1960

The actual identiy in the South are : Auvergnats, Gascons(related to Basques), Languedociens, and Provençaux

>Italians
You mean Corsicans, and they aren't Italians, in fact they killed so much "Italians" that Geneose sold their land to us

>German speaking people's in the east
You mean Alemanian speaking for the Alsatians, Fracnconian speaking for the Mosellan, aand Dutch-Speaking for the Flemish

It is funny how you divide French into several pseudo-languages, but then you lump all germanic languages into an artificial German category

Nice try EU shill

>English identity exist since antiquity

Utter bullshit. It wasn't until the very end of antiquity that Angles even fucking arrived. And then it was hundreds of years for the Germanic cultures, Romano-Briton cultures and the Norman elite mixed to create an English identity.

The english is wrong on so many levels as there society was completely chsnged by the Germanic invaders.
Maybe a core region in Northern France had an identity but it was much less nation and more regional

Also english identity as we know it was formed from a combination of norman (french) and Anglo Saxon influences.

The Cagots?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot

"The Cagots (pronounced [ka.ɡo]) were a persecuted and despised minority found in the west of France and northern Spain: the Navarrese Pyrenees, Basque provinces, Béarn, Aragón, Gascony and Brittany. Their name has differed by province and the local language: Cagots, Gézitains, Gahets, and Gafets in Gascony; Agotes, Agotak, and Gafos in Basque country; Capots in Anjou and Languedoc; and Cacons, Cahets, Caqueux, and Caquins in Brittany. Evidence of the group exists back as far as AD 1000.[1]

Cagots were shunned and hated. While restrictions varied by time and place, they were typically required to live in separate quarters in towns, called cagoteries, which were often on the far outskirts of the villages. Cagots were excluded from all political and social rights. They were not allowed to marry non-Cagots, enter taverns, hold cabarets, use public fountains, sell food or wine, touch food in the market, work with livestock, or enter the mill.[2]"