How to classify historical people according to modern geographic borders

[nurizeko]

Belgians were the bravest.

"Belgians" didn't exist in the days of Ceasar.

founded his capital (Aachen) a dozen kilometer(spell checked by my Firefox, sorry) from the present border of Belgium.

"Belgium" didn't exist in the days of Charlemagne.

Also the capital wasn't in what is now Belgium so its hardly an artifact of Belgian history.

And you tell me you passed all your European history exams without knowing anything about Belgium ? But what on earth did you learn ?

More then mere footnotes in European history or the specific historical quirks of one small nation.

What do you know exactly of say....Latvia, and no googling/wiki'ing, or otherwise researching before posting.

Most of my understanding concerns ancient history, the interesting continent wide stuff, famous Belgians don't really register in my mind, since I've never had any real reason to know the specifics of Belgo-centric local history.

All I learned about Belgium was something about it being a popular route for Germans going on massive group tours of France.

Likewise.

I know more about the Netherlands myself, Belgium on the otherhand is generally just that little country to the south of it, makes nice(or nasty) chocolates, depending on your tastes, and is host to some EU things.

Charlemagne

I taught myself about him, but I don't remember anything important about him apparently being Belgian.

the battle of Waterloo.

You have a point here, Belgium and the Netherlands are famous for one thing, being battle grounds of routes of advance for the armies of every other western European power.

basics (e.g. country's capital, flag, type of government and economy, main languages, ethnic composition, basic history...)

Thats not basics. thats going into detail.

Basics are name of country, language, flag, quirky interesting notes and thats it.

Geography is mainly about farming (types of soil, weather, the water system and such) with not even much covering the geography of Great Britain itself.

Concurred, Geography lessons in Britain are less about nations and cultures, and more to do with the meat and potatoes, the science, rocks and all that, in fact I don't remember a single class of Geography that dwelt on the political and cultural aspects of a country.
Geography in Britain is taught like a science.

Before it was called Holy Roman Empire

Correction, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, which is generally considered a Germanic political entity, hence, its usually more associated with Germany.

French people are known for never taking bathes

My own knowledge of Mexico includes the known stereotypes (with full knowledge their stereotypes).

The non stereotypical knowledge I have of Mexico is its a pretty run down undeveloped place that has a high crime rate.

I could be wrong and probably am, but, like most here, I've never had a good reason to become intimate with every insignificant detail of Mexico.

Its a country in central America, played host to some ancient civilizations, that got WTFPWNed by Spaniards, had some scuffles with America and White north Americans, and the US blames it for all its problems, apart from that I couldn't care less.

Dear pinson27, You are taking life too serious! please stop asking questions that you can know yourself if you think a little deeper!

(my personal opinion)

Quoted because my brain accepts this opinion as mine to.

The hard shell creation with meat, grated yellow cheese, shredded lettuce and sour cream- is (like the fortune cookie) a more recent California fast food innovation.

Cheers, now I'm bloody hungry.

(It echoes the Hawaiian shirt story.)

Whats the story?.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by nurizeko

"Belgians" didn't exist in the days of Ceasar.

Belgium (or Belgica) was the Latin name of the Northern part of Gaul, hence Belgians existed, although they were not exactly the same people as today (like ancient Britons were not the same as modern English people of Anglo-Saxon descent, or modern Italians are not exactly like the ancient Romans because of Germanic and Norman invasions).

"Belgium" didn't exist in the days of Charlemagne.

Italy didn't exist at the time of Marco Polo, Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, the Medici, Galileo, Vivaldi, etc. Does that mean that none of them can be considred Italians ? In that case Frederick Barbarossa, Martin Luther, Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Hegel, etc. were not German either, as the country known as Germany only appeared in 1870.

Also the capital wasn't in what is now Belgium so its hardly an artifact of Belgian history.

But all the Carolingian monarchs were born and raised in Belgium. Aachen is 20km away from the modern borders of Belgium, i.e. more Belgian than 95% of Germany. You could also say that Luxembourg is not Belgium, but historically it is an aberration to see them as separate entities. It's like saying that Kaliningrad (ex Koenigsberg) is more Russian than German historically because it is now in Russia. Nonsensical.

What do you know exactly of say....Latvia, and no googling/wiki'ing, or otherwise researching before posting.

Latvia has 5x less inhabitants than Belgium. About half of the population is traditionally Catholic Latvian-speaking, while the other half is ethnic Russian, still speaks Russian, and traditionally Orthodox. The Capital, Riga, is a typical Eastern city architecture-wise (been there), the country is very flat and woody. It was part of the USSR about from the beginning to the end. Latvian is a Baltic language and sounds very harsh (in comparison German sounds as soft as French). Nothing major to note historically, apart from the Hanseatic League. Far from the Roman Empire, far from the Renaissance, far from the colonising countries, influenced mostly by Russia for many centuries.

I know more about the Netherlands myself, Belgium on the otherhand is generally just that little country to the south of it, makes nice(or nasty) chocolates, depending on your tastes, and is host to some EU things.

You are very narrow-minded.

You have a point here, Belgium and the Netherlands are famous for one thing, being battle grounds of routes of advance for the armies of every other western European power.

Belgium yes, the Netherlands not so much...

Thats not basics. thats going into detail.

Going into detail would be writing a book or website about the country on all its aspects. I have done so for Japan, Belgium, and started England and other countries... Just a matter of time. The knowledge is already in my mind. My hands don't follow for the typing (as well as time and energy).

Concurred, Geography lessons in Britain are less about nations and cultures, and more to do with the meat and potatoes, the science, rocks and all that, in fact I don't remember a single class of Geography that dwelt on the political and cultural aspects of a country.

Very strange geography class... We had compulsory classes of geology (type of soils and rocks, water system, volcanoes, tectonic plates, etc.) in 3rd form, geography (capitals, flags, climates, mountains, rivers, etc.) in 4th form, then geopolitics (types of government and economic systems) in 5th and 6th form. Political and economic history was part of the history class.

Geography in Britain is taught like a science.

Then you mean geology. Geology class should't take more than a year of the compulsory education. It is not really linked to a particular country, but the whole earth.

Correction, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, which is generally considered a Germanic political entity, hence, its usually more associated with Germany.

Are you saying that Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden or Norway are not Germanic countries because the name is not "Germany" ? You should really learn to understand things beyond their names...

The Principality of Liege (about 1/4 the size of modern Belgium) was part of the Holy Roman Empire for longer than over half of the Holy Roman Empire at its biggest extent, because it remained in it from the very beginning (800) until the French Revolution when Napoleon abolished the HRE. All the North of Italy, East of France, Austria, Slovenia, Bohemia, and East Germany have a shorter relationship with the HRE.

Please check this thread, where I explain the Frankish roots of France and the HRE, and how the homeland of these Franks is present-day Belgium and Luxembourg + neighbouring regions.

What is more, 16 out of 28 Holy Roman Emperors since Charlemagne (800-814) until the rise of the Habsburgs in the mid-15th century, were of Frankish descent (Carolingian, Salian Frankish, and Luxembourg dynasties), and thus with roots in the modern Benelux. This makes the HRE more of a Belgian empire than a Bavarian or Thuringian or Wurtembergian or Saxon empire.

Even the Habsburg could be considered a bit Belgian, as their most famous member, Charles V, was born and raised in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium) and spoke French as his mother tongue - the perfect Belgian. Belgium became an independent country only 24 years after the dissolution of the HRE, but it has otherwise remained part of it throughout its history (except the Western half of Flanders that was French for a few centuries), and more spawned more Holy Roman Emperors than any other region of the Empire.

Do you still maintain that Belgium is less representative of the HRE than modern Germany ?

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Very strange geography class... We had compulsory classes of geology (type of soils and rocks, water system, volcanoes, tectonic plates, etc.) in 3rd form, geography (capitals, flags, climates, mountains, rivers, etc.) in 4th form, then geopolitics (types of government and economic systems) in 5th and 6th form. Political and economic history was part of the history class.
Then you mean geology. Geology class should't take more than a year of the compulsory education. It is not really linked to a particular country, but the whole earth.

All of the above fall into the one general class of geography in the UK. I took 'O' Level Geography and it covered geology, geopolitics and geography, all lumped under the one name.

What is more, 16 out of 28 Holy Roman Emperors since Charlemagne (800-814) until the rise of the Habsburgs in the mid-15th century, were of Frankish descent (Carolingian, Salian Frankish, and Luxembourg dynasties), and thus with roots in the modern Benelux. This makes the HRE more of a Belgian empire than a Bavarian or Thuringian or Wurtembergian or Saxon empire.
Even the Habsburg could be considered a bit Belgian, as their most famous member, Charles V, was born and raised in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium) and spoke French as his mother tongue - the perfect Belgian. Belgium became an independent country only 24 years after the dissolution of the HRE, but it has otherwise remained part of it throughout its history (except the Western half of Flanders that was French for a few centuries), and more spawned more Holy Roman Emperors than any other region of the Empire.
Do you still maintain that Belgium is less representative of the HRE than modern Germany ?

If they were of Frankish desect then they should be considered German rather than Belgian, as they came from Gemanic tribes, as you pointed out. Otherwise they are considered French, as Belgium was part of France rather than a seperate country. Nobody goes around saying William the First was Scandinavian, but French. But the Normans were of Scandinavian descent, not French. Either way where someone lived at the time is, rather than the boundries set down now, determine their nationality. Nobody call Julius Caesar Italian, but Roman, as was anyone born within the Empire.
http://www.euratlas.net/AHP/ruban1.htm show Europe up to 1000. Please point out which area is known as Belguim and the people would call themselves Belgians. Infact we have to go to the 19th century before the country exists, as seen in this link http://www.euratlas.net/AHP/ruban2.htm.
BTW I have seen many famous Italians refered to as Roman, Neopolitian, Venetian, etc, rather than Italian. Especailly as Venetian, as it was quite a powerful political entity once.

Originally Posted by sabro

Wow. I see that a few off topic posts have been deleted. Thank you. Even my post in defense of Maciamo, advising the person complaining that he was narrow minded and self centered to take the argument to a more appropriate thread... I am glad to see it gone and replaced by inter-Euro bickering.
AND Such an impassioned defense of the Belgian Motherland! It is very interesting but quite off topic.
Hawai'in shirts, like the Poncho- were imposed upon the nearly naked indigenous people out of some cultural expectation of modesty. The natives then took this imposition and made it uniquely their own by in the Hawai'in's case- hand painting the fabric. The Indios of the Andes wove the color into the fabric.

There is a theory that the Nazca lines are to do with the tradition of weaving in South America. I saw a programme about it once. I must go digging for info.
Good point about going off topic. Will try to avoid in future

[sabro]

It is an interesting discussion that perhaps needs it's own thread. I hope it doesn't die on my account.

Perhaps this whole "Belgian" discussion hinges on the whole topic of cultural identity and the more modern concept of Nation State? What one would describe as "Belgian" has to do with a conceptual perception of history using a more modern idea to define a connection.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

All of the above fall into the one general class of geography in the UK. I took 'O' Level Geography and it covered geology, geopolitics and geography, all lumped under the one name.

Officially in Belgium as well, but that doesn't prevent us to know which is geology and which is geopolitics. They only keep the same name in an effort of consistency in the class names year after year. It's a bit like if some schools had only "sciences classes", which of course include biology, physics and chemistry, while others separate the classes by name. It's not because the class is named "science" that student don't learn about biology, physics and chemistry.

If they were of Frankish desect then they should be considered German rather than Belgian, as they came from Gemanic tribes, as you pointed out.

Why ? Almost 100% of Belgians can claim Frankish ancestry, while only the Germans of Rhineland can.

Otherwise they are considered French, as Belgium was part of France rather than a seperate country.

When was Belgium a part of French except between 1789 and 1815, under Napoleon, like most of Europe ? French is only spoken in Belgium because it originated there and in the North of France. It was the language of the Latinised Franks, i.e. the Merovingians and Carolingians, whose homeland was centered around Eastern Wallonia. Throughout Medieval times and up to now to some extent, the people living within the borders on modern France spoke various Romance dialects like Provencal, Occitan, Picard, etc., or non Romance languages like Alsacian, Lorrain, Breton or Basque. Modern French language is derived from the langue d'oil, which originated in the top north of France and in Wallonia, almost exactly within the borders of the original Frankish kingdom of Clovis where French is spoken nowadays (south-western quarter of the darkest part of the map below).

Nobody goes around saying William the First was Scandinavian, but French.

For me he was Norman, which mean ethnically Scandinavian and politically French. But as he became king of England, I suppose he can be considered as English too.

But that's not my point. Modern Normans are of Scandinavian and Northern French (Celtic, Roman and Frankish) descent. Blond hair and blue eyes are still more common in Normandy than in the rest of France, except other Germanic occupied regions, like the Northern tip, Champagne, Lorraine, Alsace and Burgundy.

Nobody call Julius Caesar Italian, but Roman, as was anyone born within the Empire.

Yes and no. Greek people under the Roman Empire were still Greek. Egyptians were still Egyptian in addition to being Roman. The Gauls were Gallo-Roman, but still Gaulish. It's a bit like with the EU now. You can be European and British, European and French... Julius Ceasar was Roman and Italian, Hadrian was Roman and Spanish, Septimius Severus was Roman and Lybian...

So, historically, someone born and raised on the territory on modern Belgium can be considered Roman, Frankish (from the Frank Kingdom), "German-Romans" (from the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation), French (during the French Revolution), Dutch (under the UK of the Netherlands), or Flemish, Brusseler or Walloon nowadays (as Belgium is federated and on the verge on splititng ). As most of Belgium was indeed part of the HRE for about 1000 years, many Belgium-born people have been honoured at the Walhalla temple.

If Germany were to split in 16 independent states within the EU tomorrow, there would be no more "Germans" (politically), but Rhinish, Saxon, Branderburger, Pomeranian, Bavarian or Hessian people.

http://www.euratlas.net/AHP/ruban1.htm show Europe up to 1000. Please point out which area is known as Belguim and the people would call themselves Belgians.

I only use the term Belgian to refer to people born on the territory of modern Belgium. I could as well call them Flemish if they were born in Flanders, Walloon if they were born in Wallonia, or just Antwerper if they were born and lived in Antwerp, Liegeois if they were born and lived in Liege, etc. I supposed that you (all) understood that I didn't mean that Charlemagne had a Belgian passport with the coat of arms of the Belgian Royal family on it. Mozart was a Salzburger, then a Viennese, he was an Austrian by the modern definition of Austria, but was a citizen of the Habsburg Empire, as well as one of the Holy Roman Empire, because the German-speaking part of Habsburgian domain was also part of the HRE (an empire partly within another empire, a unique case in history, I believe).

My point in this offtopic discussion is simply this : people living on the modern territory of Belgium can almost all claim Frankish descent, because modern Belgium lies at the heart of the historical Frankish homeland. If we can say that Mozart was Austrian, that Galileo was Italian and that Goethe was German, it is as acceptable to say that people like Charlemagne, Godfrey of Bouillon, Van Dyck or Rubens were Belgian (some Flemish, others Walloon).

Charlemagne, despite founding a vast empire, cannot be considered German or French in the modern sense because he and his family for several generations came from Liege in Wallonia. So one can say he was Frankish, he was Liegeois, he was Walloon, he was Belgian, he was European, but he was not German, Italian, French, Catalan or whatever.

In the same way I can say that you are from Warwickshire (right ?), you are English, you are British, you are European, but you are not Scottish, nor a Kentish, nor French, nor Asian.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by sabro

Perhaps this whole "Belgian" discussion hinges on the whole topic of cultural identity and the more modern concept of Nation State? What one would describe as "Belgian" has to do with a conceptual perception of history using a more modern idea to define a connection.

No, I don't this it has anything to do with cultural identity or nation states. It is just that Nurizeko and Mycernius refuse to acknowledge that we can give a region's name (no matter if it is a country, state, province or city) to describe the regional belonging of a historical character. I think the problem is that they confuse territory (a concept common not just to all humans, but also to animals, except that they don't have names for them) with passport nationality (a recent concept, less than 100 years old). When I say Charlemagne was a Belgian, I am not talking about passport...

[sabro]

I disagree, I think it has everything to do with cultural identity and the modern concept of nation-state, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with you attempting to tie yourself to the history of your home land.
Belgium has a rich and storied history, much of which it shares with its immediate neighbors. How we tell the story is just as important as the content of the story.

That is where the answers to the question diverge:
Charlemagne was Belgian? Not in the modern sense. He was no more or less Belgian than he was Gallic, Frankish or Germanic. He certainly would not have identified himself as such. Or are Charlemagne's descendents Belgian? Undoubtedly some are, but others are French, German, and Dutch and even Spanish. How "Belgian" is the Merovingian kingdom? How much of the language, culture, tradition or even genomic material from the Belgae or Gallia Belgica exists in the modern nation state of Belgium?

The discussion becomes one of sematics and definitions. Certainly the roots of Belgium should be traced to that history and those ties are undeniable. But it tends to get rather complicated from there. I'm not certain that it is all that accurate to "give a region's name... to describe the regionaly belonging of a historical character," but neither is it incorrect.

Your analysis of William the Conqueror illustrates this perfectly and is exactly what I was thinking.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Wait a minute, this is all so confusing.....was Montezuma a Mexican or was he not? Was Hammurabi an Iraqi or was he not?

[undrentide]

Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan

Wait a minute, this is all so confusing.....was Montezuma a Mexican or was he not? Was Hammurabi an Iraqi or was he not?

To me it is the same when I think about Marco Polo - he is definitely Venetian, not Italian.

[sabro]

So Abraham was... Israeli or Palastinian?
Columbus is Italian, as is Michalangelo, Leonardo, Bertolucci, Galileo?
The Windsor Royal Family is German?

I thought I had it down, but now I'm all befuddled.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan

Wait a minute, this is all so confusing.....was Montezuma a Mexican or was he not? Was Hammurabi an Iraqi or was he not?

Of course, by ancient standards they had no nationality as nationality is a concept that only appeared in the 19th century and wasn't common worldwide until the mid-20th century. Montezuma was Aztec, but that's an ethnico-cultural group, not a nationality. Hammurabi was Babylonian, but that only means he was from the city of Babylon, it's also not a nationality. Let's also not confuse

So for modern Mexicans Montezuma was Mexican (region of origin = present-day Mexico), and Hammurabi was Iraqi (region of origin = present-day Iraq). It is perfectly ok to say so. Don't they teach about these people in Mexican history and Iraqi history classes in these respective countries ?

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by sabro

So Abraham was... Israeli or Palastinian?
Columbus is Italian, as is Michalangelo, Leonardo, Bertolucci, Galileo?
The Windsor Royal Family is German?
I thought I had it down, but now I'm all befuddled.

Abraham was a Jew (ethnicity), so he was more Israeli than Palestinian. That's obvious. I could have told you that he was both, but that's not true.

Columbus was of course Italian. Nobody contests that.

European monarchies are a bit complicated because of frequent international marriages. So you could really say that they are European. The family they come from often defined their "nationality".

The Windsor Royal Family was obviously German as they were members of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, the same as the Royal family of Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal.

It is not because you rule over another country that you become ethnic member of that country. Queen Victoria was Emperess of India, but she was not Indian, nor African; she was German of blood, British by birth, and ruling over the British Empire. So she can be considered as German, British, but also Saxon (from the part of Germany known as Saxony).

When George I of Hannover went to Britain to become king, he didn't speak a word of English and was arrested in the garden of the royal palace until they found out it was the new king !

The point is you can consider many people to be of several ethnicities or nationalities. It is as true in the past as it is today. But international marriages were much less common for ordinary people than for monarchs.

Going back to Charlemagne, he was of pure Frankish blood as the Franks had not intermarried with foreign monarchs to the best of my knowledge.

This lead us to :

I disagree, I think it has everything to do with cultural identity and the modern concept of nation-state, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with you attempting to tie yourself to the history of your home land.

That's not how I saw this discussion at all. If we wanted to trace borders according to ethnic groups, the Benelux, Northern France and the German Rhineland would be a single entity (Belgo-Frankish descent, "Belgo" in the sense of the Celtic tribes known by the Romans as the "Belgians").

Nation-states emerged in the late 19th century and didn't take much ethnic or linguistic origins into consideration. It was purely political. All the regions of Germany and Italy spoke different languages when they were unified as one "nation". The UK is an obvious mix of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnico-cultural groups. Even France, that may seem homogemous to the casual observer, is in fact one of the most diverse ethnico-linguistic country in Europe (from the Celtic Bretons to the German-affiliated Alsacian to the Corsican closer to the Italians, to the unique Basques, the Franco-Danish Normans, or the various Romance linguistic groups of Southern France).

Nowadays in Belgium, it is no more question of "nation-state" but of linguistic groups : mainly Flemish and French speaking, although the ethnic group is the same, and most share a common history. Medieval "countries" didn't know linguistic borders either. The County of Flanders and the the Duchy of Brabant were both Flemish and French speaking. The Principality of Liege was French, Dutch and German speaking. The County, then Duchy of Luxembourg was French and German (Luxemburgish) speaking. In fact the Count of Luxembourg also became King of Bohemia in the 13th century, ruling over a fairly distant territory speaking a completely different language (Czech).

Politics is politics. It knows no ethnic or linguistic borders. It is only recently that governments in Europe have tried to establish a common official language for administration and education, so as to simplify communication. From Medieival times to the early 20th century, the elite, nobility and ruling class were happy to speak French between themselves, almost all over Europe. Where does French language come ? It was the language of the Latinised Franks (as Frankish language disappeared around the 6th century), the same people that founded the HRE and France, and gave their name to the latter. They were the people of present-day Benelux, Northern France and Rhineland, the most densily populated region of Europe.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Of course, by ancient standards they had no nationality as nationality is a concept that only appeared in the 19th century and wasn't common worldwide until the mid-20th century. Montezuma was Aztec, but that's an ethnico-cultural group, not a nationality. Hammurabi was Babylonian, but that only means he was from the city of Babylon, it's also not a nationality. Let's also not confuse
So for modern Mexicans Montezuma was Mexican (region of origin = present-day Mexico), and Hammurabi was Iraqi (region of origin = present-day Iraq). It is perfectly ok to say so. Don't they teach about these people in Mexican history and Iraqi history classes in these respective countries ?

I'm sorry. That was my oblique way of disagreeing with you. I still disagree with you.

I understand your point, but I don't think it's a valid one. Unfortunately I do not have the patience to argue with you about it.

[Maciamo]

Here is a map of modern languages and dialects in France, Belgium and Rhineland combined with the borders of Europe in the 6th century, when Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire. The birthplace of French language correspond roughly to the area in shades of Greens, which extended into the yellow, then orange. Other colours are not descended from the langue d'oil of the Franks.

Flemish, Dutch, Franconian are all descended from the Old Frankish language. Dutch and Flemish descend from Old Salian (=Netherlandish) Frankish (the language of Clovis), while Luxemburgish and Franconian descend from Old Ripuarian (=Rhenish) Frankish.

The dark green area (Walloon) is roughly where the Frankish monarchy and nobility settled and ruled from, and therefore the original place of birth of Old French, the language of the Frankish nobility. The red dot on the left inicates Liege, cradle of the Carolongian dynasty, while the red dot to the right represents Aachen, the capital of Charlemagne's Empire. These two cities are the core of the Frankish territory, and also the geographic limit between the 3 linguistic parts : Salian Frankish (Dutch, to the North-West), Ripuarian Frankish (Franconian German, to the East), and Frankish Latin (French, to the South-West).

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan

I'm sorry. That was my oblique way of disagreeing with you. I still disagree with you.
I understand your point, but I don't think it's a valid one. Unfortunately I do not have the patience to argue with you about it.

Don't worry, it is reciprocal. I couldn't care less whether you think that Montezuma is a historical figure of Mexican history (and thus Mexican) or not.

If you go to the Belgian Senate, you will see that the hemicyle is filled with life-size paintings of the great rulers in Belgian history by chronological order, and it starts with the Carolingian kings : Charles Martel, Peipin of Herstal and Charlemagne. I don't care whether an American living in Japan who doesn't know anything about Belgium agrees that these people belong to Belgian history or not. The important thing is, for the Belgian people and government, they do.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

I don't care whether an American living in Japan who doesn't know anything about Belgium

Please know that this is nothing but conjecture on your part.

[nurizeko]

The problem with one nation laying claim to another nations history is its gets confusing, where does Belgian history begin and another's end?.

For example, its beyond argument that people like William Wallace was a figure of Scottish history or Caesar was of Roman history, Alexander was Macedonian-Greek, Oda Nobunaga was Japanese, so on so on, Charlemagne was Frankish, a Germanic tribe, and is more associated with the history of France and dark age Europe as a whole.

very few people associate him with Belgium.

Out of curiosity Maciamo, what part of Belgium are you from?.

Good thread, lets hope it remains on good academic terms rather then a personal thread.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by nurizeko

For example, its beyond argument that people like William Wallace was a figure of Scottish history or Caesar was of Roman history, Alexander was Macedonian-Greek, Oda Nobunaga was Japanese, so on so on, Charlemagne was Frankish, a Germanic tribe, and is more associated with the history of France and dark age Europe as a whole.
very few people associate him with Belgium.

You still don't get that ancent Frankish people HAVE BECOME modern Belgians, Dutch and Luxembourgers, in the same way that ancient Anglo-Saxons have become modern English people.

Clovis, Charlemagne, or the Franks in general, are often associated with the history of France or Germany, because they conquered them, from the Low Countries. Contrarily to the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths or other Germanic tribes, the Franks didn't leave their homeland to migrate to another part of Europe. They conquered other regions but ruled them from their homeland. This is what made them so strong.

Then in 843, a part of the Frankish empire split into a new country with Paris as its capital and became known as France. But it is not because its people were predominantly Frankish, just because it was an offshot of the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. The official language of the ruling class was Frankish Latin, later known as French.

However, the biggest part of ordinary Frankish people as well as the nobility of the early Holy Roman Empire still lived on the territory now known as Belgium, especially Eastern Wallonia, where Frankish Latin (Old French) became the dominant language too. This is why the south of Belgium has been French speaking for over 1000 years without ever having been part of France (except a short interlude between 1789 and 1815).

I do not see why you would see Charlemagne as French as his family wasn't from France, he wasn't born in France, and he didn't rule from France.
Wallonia still has more legends and historical places related to Charlemagne than anywhere else in Europe. Maybe have you heard of the legend of the Bayard Horse ? It gave its name to a famous rock along the River Meuse in Dinant (Wallonia), and which has a statue along the Meuse as well in Namur (Wallonia).

Here is an informative read on Charlemagne.

Another element that places Wallonia as the political centre of the Franks is that Childeric I (437-482), son of Merowig (founder of the Merovingian dynasty) and father of Clovis (conquerer of the Roman Gaul), had his capital based in Tournai, Wallonia. He is buried in the church of Saint-Brice in Tournai.

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Abraham was a Jew (ethnicity), so he was more Israeli than Palestinian. That's obvious. I could have told you that he was both, but that's not true.

I have to correct this. Abraham was born in the city of Ur, in Mesapotainia. Which, in modern placing of countries, would make him an Iraqi. He traveled to Egypt were he married. Israel, itself, didn't exist as anything until the founding of Israeli states from the twelve tribes of Israel by Aaron. Moses was dead by the time they got to the promised land. So you are talking about 1220 to 1190 BC. Abraham was born about 1450-1400 BC, so at no point would he be known as an Israeli. Israel is named after Jacob, Abrahams grandson.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

I have to correct this. Abraham was born in the city of Ur, in Mesapotainia. Which, in modern placing of countries, would make him an Iraqi. He traveled to Egypt were he married. Israel, itself, didn't exist as anything until the founding of Israeli states from the twelve tribes of Israel by Aaron. Moses was dead by the time they got to the promised land. So you are talking about 1220 to 1190 BC. Abraham was born about 1450-1400 BC, so at no point would he be known as an Israeli. Israel is named after Jacob, Abrahams grandson.

OK, not a bible fan myself...

[sabro]

He is also regarded as the father of the Arab nations, so that he is as much an Arab as he is a Jew (ethnicity).

Again I would say that this highlights the difficutly of assigning a country on the basis of the modern nation state concept to people who existed well before the founding of those nations. Technically, you can't be Belgian until the country of Belgium exists... unless your definition encompasses a much wider definition. Italians would like to claim Columbus, but the country of Italy didn't exist. Generally he is accepted as Genoan. He is also claimed by the Catalonians and many would like to consider him Spanish. His brother Bartholemew is claimed by the Portuguese. Columbus would not have identified himself as anything other then possibly Genoan.

[nurizeko]

Thats a good point, what will Charlemagne be when Belgium ceases to exist?.

William Wallace was born, raised, and became part of history of Scotland, which during the wars of independence had long existed as a name, nation and geographical area.

Durring the Franking conquests Charlemagne was Frankish, at best, Belgium can only make a geographical historical link to Charlemagne (it is conceded the Franks are in fact, heavily involved in the areas in and around Belgium).

It especially becomes an issue when these historical figures start traveling around a good bit, and getting involved in all sorts.

Belgians consider themselves strongly associated with him, so do the French.

Belgium isn't called Frankland, they don't speak Frankish, they speak French, a language that belongs to a neighboring country, named after the Franks.

Arguably, if anything, even just a concept of continuity, France are the successors to the Frankish nation.

Of course you could argue against that statement, but then we get to this stage where both sides can whip out historical "facts" and figures.

Ultimately, we know one thing thats beyond question, Charlemagne was born a Frank, considered himself a Frank, and is known by history as a Frankish king.

I never dwelt on it before but I can now see the logic why historians always refer to historical figures to their historical nationality.

No-one in Scotland accepts "Bonnie Prince Charlie" as Scottish, no matter how important he is in Scottish history.


Belgium is on a crossroads of Europe, unlike places like England that are clearly geographically defined, and as such, accepted as separate and different from other places throughout history, Belgium as it is at present is a relatively recent creation, and the "Region" if it can be accepted as having form and existence throughout history, has changed in size, name, and political status allot.

I don't envy the historical headache this conveys, but I can see why Belgians chose to latch on to whatever historical event or person they can that existed/occurred withing the general locality of what is now Belgium.

I guess thats what makes Brussels a perfect location for an international political movement, Belgium's history is so intertwined with everyone else's that it can be more intimate with the idea of a Europe as a whole rather then a continent.

You have peaked my interest in the ancient comings and goings of the region in and around Belgium, Maciamo, I'll have to look stuff up.

[sabro]

Charlemange is European, and undeniably so.

We could ponder whether he was French during the French Occupation, and German during the last two German Occupations... (but of course, no one was really German until 1839...) and because my knowledge of Belgian History is so poor, I can only speculate about who the Belgiums were during the Medeval period, the Burgundian period, the War of the Spanish Succession, and the inevitable periods when English, French, Prussian, and Austrian forces decided to camp within or pass through the current borders.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by nurizeko

Thats a good point, what will Charlemagne be when Belgium ceases to exist?.

But Walloon, of course, as he is from Liege in Wallonia. Don't think of Belgium as a country or political entity, think of it as a region. Charlemagne is European (not Asian or African), Belgian (not French or German), Walloon (not Flemish), Liegeois (not Namurois or Luxembourgeois)...

Let also not forget that Meroveg, the founder of the Merovingian Dynasty was born, raised, lived and is buried in Tournai, also in Wallonia, as was his son Childebert. His grandson Clovis I, who unified the Franks and conquered Roman Gaul, was also born and raised there, although he is buried in Paris as he moved his new capital there after the conquest. You could see the relationship between the Franks (from the Low countries) and France in the same way as the Norman relation to England. The only difference is that the second Frankish dynasty, the Carolingians, also came from Belgium, while the new dynasties in England were "home-grown". So however you look at it, the Merovingians and Carolingians were Belgian, not French.

[sabro]

That sounds quite reasonable!