Alright there is just so much wrong I can't resist listing corrections. - France is not at all like Poland. The boundaries of all countries moved a lot throughout history, but France's after 843 alternated between remarkable stability and a movement of expansion towards its "natural borders", ie the borders of Gaul, which it reached during the French Revolution (but partially lost again with the defeat of Napoleon). Aside from Catalonia and a bit of Flanders which were French in the early Middle Ages, France never durably lost a piece of land in Europe that it had held for more than a generation. - The Roman conquest of Gaul was in 52 BC, not AD. - That's a big generalisation about the Merovingians, some were brutal and cruel (he might be thinking of the Queens Brunhilda and Fredegund whose rivalry inspired part of the Nibelungen saga), but others like Clovis, Childebert, or Dagobert were great kings who played an essential role in founding France and Western Christendom. - The Vikings were Danes, not Norwegians. - The Siege of Paris was in 885-886, not 911. And the Parisians under Count Odo just held the city (vastly outnumbered by an enormous Viking force), they didn't send the Vikings to Normandy. Odo was elected king because his bravery and leadership in that siege stood in contrast to the Carolingian emperor who only showed up after a year and just paid the Vikings to leave. The Normandy part is what happened in 911, when the Viking leader Rollo was defeated again and captured, and was offered by the Carolingian king Charles the Simple (the Carolingians were back on the throne) to become duke of Normandy in exchange for converting to Christianity, swearing fealty to the king, and defending France from further Viking attacks. Because of this deal, king Charles was seen as an appeaser and became very unpopular, and this is how the dynasty of Odo (and his father Robert the Strong), known as Viking-slayers in contrast to the weak Carolingians, eventually rose to the throne for good (and stayed there until the French Revolution). So this part is the complete opposite of what is said in the lecture. - The "Normans" of 1066 weren't Norwegians or "the same Normans". Normandy already had a population before the Vikings settled there, the settlers were a minority and intermarried with the locals. Additionally, the adventurers who joined William the Conqueror in his conquest and who became the nobility of England came from all over France, not only Normandy. - Henry II didn't destroy or conquer anything, except England sort of. He was a Frenchman, the count of Anjou, and he got half of France either through inheritance or through his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. The throne of England was the last thing he inherited and the only thing he had to conquer, but even after that he (and the first few of his descendants) continued to spend most of his time in France and rule England from there. That ended because by the early 13th century the kings of France (mostly Philip Augustus) had conquered almost all the Angevin's land in France. Henry II was French, he inherited, while the king of France took through conquest. Again everything in the lecture is completely backwards. - The point of the French Academy isn't to protect French from English words as it's always caricatured, it's to define the rules of the French language for the sake of equality and national unity, for which it is considered essential that everyone in the country speak the same language. Foreign loanwords are only frowned upon when there's a perfectly equivalent French word already available. - The Paris Peace Conference was held in English not because the English and Americans insisted on it, but because French prime minister Clemenceau (in a mind-numbingly stupid move) saw this as an opportunity to show off his English skills that he had acquired through his American wife. - There are no EU headquarters in Geneva, Geneva isn't even in the EU. - "Certainly not significant in military power", wow. France was the militarily hegemonic power of Europe for probably most of Western history (and is still the first European military today although obviously now far behind the US). What the lecturer fails to understand is that French cultural influence was built primarily on French power, be it in the Middle Ages when it was the power of French nobles who ruled from England to the Holy Land, or between the 17th century and Napoleon when it was the military might of the French kingdom and Empire. This level of cultural influence can only be based on hard power, just as the importance of English today is a product not of the greatness of American writers but of the power of the United States. - The difference between Anglo-Saxon swine/pig and French pork is not about being good or mucky, but simply that the language of peasantry (those who raised the animals) was Anglo-Saxon, while the language of nobility (those who would eat the meat at the table) was French. - Napoleon never lost any of the coalition wars until the last (or the last two if you count his spectacular but short-lived comeback from exile). Hence the "overstretching", he kept taking more land after each victory hoping that it would force an end to the coalition attacks against France. - Again with "Anglo-Saxon invaders" in the 12th century, this is just complete nonsense, there was no invasion and probably not one Anglo-Saxon in France except for students at the University of Paris. - France is not still a Great Power because Harry Truman liked Voltaire, but, tautologically, because of its hard power. France is still one of the top three or four militaries in the world, the main power of Western Europe, and one of the four or five countries with nuclear weapons and the capacity to deploy them worldwide, and in 1945 it also had the second largest empire in the world. And most importantly, as De Gaulle said in that quote, France could never be reduced to the state of a "small country" and remain France in the mind of the French. Excluding France from the UN Security Council as Americans often fantasize about would have been perceived by the French as an unfair marginalization, would have forced a Great Power into an antagonistic position, and would have been extremely destabilizing to world order for no good reason. More broadly speaking, the entire premise of this lecture that "France would be irrelevant if it wasn't for the French language" shows severe ignorance and intellectual bias. I assume the lecturer's specialty is literature, which is why he sees this enormous importance of France in his field but not in any others. What he doesn't realize is that to someone not familiar with literary or linguistic history, the French language is just as unimportant as the French military or economy are in the lecturer's mind. Conversely, had the lecturer studied military history rather than literature, he would have discovered the enormous importance and influence France had in this field, and might have concluded that France's strength was its military greatness which made it shine despite its mediocrity in everything else. Had he studied engineering, or cinema, or political philosophy, or gastronomy, or architecture, or mathematics, or any number of other fields, perhaps he would have said that the only reason any of us know about France is because of that one field, since France excels in it while being clearly of no importance otherwise. The simple reason everyone has such a paltry opinion of France on every subject they haven't studied in depth is that when not knowing any better, one defaults to the popular perception of one's culture. And for various reasons that would take a while to get into, American culture has a very negative and dismissive perception of France, resulting in France being thoroughly and massively underrated in the eyes of anyone whose perception is primarily shaped by America, which by now is most people in the world.
@LePontisal
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your comment. I'm french, and i suscribe to what you say, you know french History very correctly
@ep6927
3 жыл бұрын
Probably the most clever and informative text I have read. I agree that english speaking world do a pretty bad jobs with all of the fake prejudice.
@cheri238
Жыл бұрын
Where did you go to college, sir? The University of Paris? Isn't philosophy fun? What is going to happen now in 2023? It's not looking so well!!!! Is it?
@FingersKungfu
8 жыл бұрын
I think this is a great lecture aimed at American students. To manage to put a lot of praise on the French language without referring to French words, other than names of famous thinkers, is quite a great feat.
@Anekantavad
11 жыл бұрын
I speak French (the Quebecois dialect) and French culture is the only one that I don't feel slavish for admiring almost unreservedly.
@bma1955alimarber
2 жыл бұрын
Every country has shaped the identity of its citizens via the strentghtening of the native language used in its society. And this is true in particular for France. But France denied indirectly this simple right for the people of its ancient North African colonies.
@zarlg
6 жыл бұрын
I'm 9 minutes in and almost everything about French history is infuriatingly false.
@tmikeporter
11 жыл бұрын
Fun. Wonderful to listen to. Encourages me to continue learning French. Merci
@dirkgonthier101
8 жыл бұрын
The reason why Brussels and Strasbourgh are important for the EU, is because they're located right on the border of the Germanic cultures and the Latin cultures of Europe and not because they speak French in those cities. Since the EU was (and is), first of all, an institution to create peace, it placed its instituations on that border because the friction between Germanic cultures and Latin cultures formed the base of 90% of the European wars. By the way, Brussels is a bilingual city where people talk Dutch (the Flemings) and French (the Walloons).
@jpierce8148
3 жыл бұрын
So, based on the comments, I just wasted 19 mins of listening to incorrect information being thrown out or him making vague statements everyone one knows. Do professors not know anything anymore?? lol Because I've had literature and language teachers make erroneous comments too about the culture of the language or literature we study. My graduate professor (graduate!) said Amerigo Vespucci was Genovese (like Columbus) in her lecture... quick google search and he's Florentine...haha students are wasting money getting incorrect knowledge from professors who don't take the time to research their own field
@cheri238
Жыл бұрын
I love your lectures, Dr Cecil !!! At least we all have the availability to read and learn more. I love the French philosophers and writers. What poltical thinkers!! As you mentioned the great books of literature, I love them all also.(Proust) Ah!!!! Russian writers, LeoTolstoy, Anton Chekov, Fydor Dostovesky, so many!!! The philosophers,Voltaire, Montaingne's essays, Racine, Pascal , Sarte, Derrida, Albert Camus, Simone de Beavoir, and especially Foucault. There are so many, I just one at time for years. Alex de Tocqueville "Democracy in America." French languages? How it was born!!! How the German language? Help!!!! LOL La musique est la chose la plus magique qui stimulus les senses. ❤ By the way , again, someone erased my words. How?
@grasssmile
11 жыл бұрын
Listening to your lectures is like bathing in the spring breeze ( literally in Chinese - 如沐春風).
@mcol3
2 жыл бұрын
who is the person mentioned after Rousseau at 26:40?
@mcol3
2 жыл бұрын
De Toqueville? It took me 10 readings!
@Kowjja
Жыл бұрын
France has an incredible cultural heritage but it feels like we're losing it lately the material isn't going anywhere of course but the importance of literature, arts & other cultural aspects become less & less apparent to both French people & the rest of the world.
@eterista3868
6 ай бұрын
It's funny how there are two lectures about two main contitental european countries and their philological histories by Wes Cecil on this channel - France & Germany - and they are structured quite similarly, with some historical errors (years, something happened in BC not AD, some person only wrote in said language but wasn't French/German, they both focus on language and cultural impact and not general history, social history or political history) I'm neither of those nationalities, I'm not American, I do speak bad French and bad German - but it's funny how comments on French lecture are totally combative, trying to switch Cecil's structure of historical analysis from philology towards political one, implicitly arguing that is more important one and under German lecture are just corrective comments on those small trivia errors made. Interesting part of stereotype, character-wise. Found it mildly amusing.
@antfaz499
8 жыл бұрын
This was really interesting!
@jamescochrane1310
10 жыл бұрын
Very interesting!
@alysegowgiel6074
7 жыл бұрын
How did you just completely skip over colonialism???? Like...the reason so many people learn French has at least *something* to do with the fact that many many countries speak French because the French took those countries over for profit. And you just say "the greatness of the French language"??
@tomkatttt
7 жыл бұрын
(Perhaps because the English did more of that colonialism)
@brianlewis5692
7 жыл бұрын
wow so much of this is completely WRONG. Can't keep listening to this.
@DanFontaine
3 жыл бұрын
It blows my mind how many topics you can speak on
@mahatmamartinus
4 жыл бұрын
SU also a allie...
@rolandhawken6628
10 жыл бұрын
Why these students are so surprised by the power of France is because Americans have been brainwashed into believing they defeated the greatest superpower of the époque in their revolutionary war namely Great Britain , when of course the super power in that époque was France ,Britain was at that time a crummy of shore island ,fighting against a super power called France .Ahhh the power of bullshit.
@boss180888
10 жыл бұрын
^^
@irvin295
10 жыл бұрын
Actually France was the rebel's ally in the American revolution we repaid you by saving your butt in World War 1 and 2 due to the fact that England had the most powerful Army in the world at the time
@jaredgarbo3679
9 жыл бұрын
In the the Peninsular War the Brits defeated an army 10 times the size of their own. Then the troops walk to Bordeaux and are shipped off to the US to fight in the War of 1812. French defeat also leads to Napoleon selling Louisiana to the US. So Britain's victory over an army 10 times the size of their own, helped the US a lot.
@boss180888
9 жыл бұрын
good trolling jonathan duffield
@calenancarrow7547
9 жыл бұрын
The French were the weak ones by the revolutionary war. They were an economical mess. On the other hand the British were a rising power. The French bankrupted themselves over the revolutionary war. Plus the British after losing the thirteen colonies gain India, Australia, New Zealand and have an industrial revolution. Which makes them the richest and one of the most productive places on Earth. They would also become the largest empire in human history. Theirs was the empire on which the sun never set, it made yours look like a scared child.
@DragAmiot
11 жыл бұрын
subscribed
@drdbinds
9 жыл бұрын
gosh, geneva is swiss, so what is that to do with the european union? and with significant coastal boundaries, france has been nothing like poland (which was swallowed up after 3 partitions) since the days of the black prince. the usa's borders have changed more in the last 200 years for sure: war with mexico, britain, and the alaska purchase. still, for beginners who know little better, an entertaining talk. and yes, england is part of britain...
@jennieforthesox
11 жыл бұрын
To understand France you must understand the French language. Umm hello, that is true of every single culture in the world.
@MehdiGhassemi
6 жыл бұрын
Paul de Man was not French. He was Dutch speaking Belgian and spent much of his life in the US.
@tomkatttt
6 жыл бұрын
Paul de Man was born in Antwerp, Belgium, to a prominent and cultivated upper-class Flemish family. His maternal great-grandfather was the noted Flemish Poet, Jan Van Beers, and the family spoke French at home.
@filbertthedilbert1
5 жыл бұрын
Rousseau was born in Geneva. Admittedly he did influence French society hugely.
@moisepicard3417
5 жыл бұрын
@@filbertthedilbert1 Did Rousseau incluence Geneva, too?
@filbertthedilbert1
5 жыл бұрын
Moise Picard I doubt it, they were fiercely Calvinist and didn’t even approve of the shape of Toblerones.
Пікірлер: 55