Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
A 'battle' and not a 'campaign'?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Historians label drawn-out military conflicts as 'battles' in the same way as they do prolonged campaigns? What are the exact military definitions and differences in real terms, both ancient and modern?
How long it lasted? How concentrated it was geographically? Or is it just since the 20thC that the terminology changed? Or is it since the age of gunpowder?
Stalingrad during WWII went on bloodily for months, involving so many commanders, huge forces and locations around the one city, yet it is called a 'battle'? Not a 'campaign'?
A battle between Hannibal and the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings/Normans lasted (usually) one day only?
Again, the Falklands war, which lasted months in several locations, is called a 'conflict', yet a military honour- VC- was awarded?
Is the only difference when some fat-a**ed Politician in a plush office puts his or her expensive pen to paper, or is it a literary ploy for writers and historians? -
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Good question, Hereword,
have the same difficulties as you with it. Why they say in 1940 for Belgium the "18 days campaign" and for France "the battle of France"...
Is it because France is that much bigger than Belgium...
?
Kind regards and with esteem for the messages I read from you on this messageboard.
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Hereword
I would imagine that the idea of the campaign goes right back to the days when warfare was seasonal. I suspect that it is connected with the french word "champagne" meaning field.. and in fact the weather conditions that made working in the fields possible were probably the same ones that made it possible to "take the field" in ongoing wars like the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War.
I suppose some of the greatest "campaigns" were those of the Duke of Marlborough- and indeed a project that I did on the Blenheim Campaign at the age of 14 was probably one of the most formative things that I have ever done.
It was an object lesson in preparation, planning, identifying the possible probable moves of the enemy that season, and maneouvring to bring the conflict to a battlefield where you will be in a stronger position than your enemy.
I was interested a few years ago to read that Lady Sarah Churchill, Dowager Duchess of Marlborough indentified the Elder Pitt quite early on as a man of the future and settled money on him that guaranteed his political career. Pitt went on to be the mastermind behind Britain's campaigns in the "annus mirabilis" of 1759. Campaigns tend to call fot strategy. Battles for generalship.
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Cass,
"I said by myself" (Cass, can you give the English expression?) : Cass can't be always right...but in this case...
But thinking about the names, I suppose, Hereword has a point, where he asks, if it isn't due to how someone first coined the event...and once it was coined and it stuck in the "media"....?
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Thanks Paul/Cass
I guess that the difference is indeed the age in which the language originated and the context they are used in?
I remember our 80's Politicians going out of their way to strenuously deny that the Falklands ...wasn't a 'war' but a 'conflict!' Whatever the crucial difference was to them, I don't know?
Darned confusing- why can't the MP's and military just stick to very definite terminology? lol -
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Hereword
I think that the "conflict" applies to the Falklands because it was more than a battle- and yet could not be a "campaign" because "the shape of things to come" was really determined by the Argentinians... and just what kind of fight they were going to put up..
Had the occupation lasted longer then the Argentinians might have been able to settle down as a occupying force, but as it was Mrs Thatcher took the lesson of Britain's inaction over e.g. the German occupation of the Rhineland, and committed Britain to send a task force immediately to the South Atlantic..
Who knows the Generals might have backed off?
I still remember being in our usual Easter campsite on the French Mediterranean.. belonging to the GCU.. A passing French man saw me and my British car, and stopped to talk. We were all somewhat anxious about what would happen, and it was interesting to find the respect from an "Old Enemy".. "Those foolish Argentinians.. It would all be over once "Le Royal Navy" got there.. And in any case 'Les Maloins' were really French anyway- because people from St. Malo had been there first."
By the 1980's I think that the language may also have been influenced by the UN.. Countries have a right of self-defence, but not necessarily to wage war.
The Iraq War did have some kind of UN resolution that the USA and the UK could use legitimising there resort to war to enforce the will of the UN.
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Paul
I think the phrase you wanted was "I said TO myself"
And I have been exposed as "errant" many times on the MB.
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
"Campaign" or "Campagne' (and not champagne, although it is a lot more enjoyable!) in French, probably derives from the Italian "campagna", as military vocabulary was very much influenced by Italy during the Renaissance.
From what I understand of the art of war, I would say that Stalingrad is a battle, as it takes place in a confined and limited area.
A campaign would involve several battles and movement across a more or less vast geographical space.
Paul -
Message 9
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
I meant to say: "Paul? Would you agree on those definitions?"
-
Message 10
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Paul
Welcome to the MB..
I think that "champagne" is a French description of a kind of wide open field countryside of the sort that you begin to find just to the North of Troyes.. It became very suitable for the growing of the grapes that produced the type of wine that bears that name.. But it was also - and probably not unrelated- connected with the great early Medieval Fairs in those wide open "Champagne Districts" where people met from Northern Europe and from the Mediterranean in great tented encampments and carried out deals which were the crucible of modern finance..
Of course those tented encampments had much in common with armies in the field- as in many Shakespeare plays.
Cass -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Ralph
I meant.. Apologies Paul
I checked my 1959 Chambers dictionary= in English Champaigne= wide open flat countryside.. In fact as Burgundian Folk stories put the glories of the Cote d'Or back into Ancient Times it may well be that the latin root went right back to the Roman period of "French" history.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Cher Cass,
you're almost there. It's Raph, with no L!
Yes you are right, in a sense, "Champagne" or "Champaigne" was the equivalent of "Campagne" in the dialect of northern France, Norman-Picard.
And yes, the word "champagne/campagne" derives from latin, but only in its non-military sense.
The military sense appeared later, in the Middle-Age or the Renaissance, I need to check.
There is a French expression: "se mettre en campagne" which means literally deploy your army over the "champagne".
Raph -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Bonjour Raph
Actually it is interesting to speculate whether "the military sense" of words was prevalent before warfare became the "profession of arms" in the later Middle Ages.. As I understand it both the Roman legionary and the early Medieval Knight was something of a "jack of all trades".. I think that the development of the cash economy and the market created specialization of function and the emergence of "specialist terminology" and word applications..
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Cher Cass,
the developement of cash economy, but also the quest for efficiency on the battlefield and a limited impact of "conscription" on populations led Medieval Kings to switch from a "Nobles+Peasantry army" to a more "professional mercenaries army". The aim was also reducing the cost of gathering armies composed of nobles, which was often ruinous and rarely beneficial in military terms.
Kings also had more leverage and authority over mercenaries than over nobles. If you look at what kings had to do to negociate the participation of their vassals in their wars, it looks like a big mess
For more info on this, see "Philippe Contamine - la guerre au Moyen-Age".
This is overly simplified but gives a rough picture.
From the hundred years war period to the Renaissance, many of these mercenairies were Italian, thus military doctrine and terminology of the time were largely influenced by them.
So you are right about the "specialist terminology" I would say.
The change also happened through the switching from war envisaged from an individual fighting skills perspective, to a mass fighting sillls perspective, particularly in France, the English being slightly ahead of us in this respect.
Many of the defeats of the French during the 100 years war, such as Crecy or Azincourt came from the over confidence of the French nobility in individual strength and skills of knights, regardless of any "modern" tactical aspect.
After these terrible disasters, French kings realised they needed better organised, better led armies of professionals. This is partly why, from Charles VII, we can see a big turn in the 100 years war at the advantage of the French. -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Raph
But the change was also brought about by what I have called "the marriage of legitimacy and wealth" which was much more easily established in England than probably anywhere else in Europe..
I have just finished this morning writing a piece that I have entitled "Modern Lessons from Medieval History"..From before 1066 England was a clear legal entity with a defined centralised monarchy with rights and duties.. As money became increasingly important in terms of "every man has his price" (and those men of principle can be eliminated or sidelined as in so many of the plays of Jean Anouilh) the English Crown and other English adventurers were much better placed than France to find the backing that they needed in order to "buy in " the expertise that they were lacking and which were needed by "the hour".
The "financing of France" has been a longstanding problem in Europe-- not least since the expansion of the EU and the attempt to move away from what was in effect a German Reparations policy by another name.. Will Germany continue for much longer to feel that it has to carry Europe on its back?
Regards
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Cass,
which change are you referring to exactly?
I must confess I ma a bit lost in our digression.
I'll go with what I think I undestood.
Although you are right in saying that English Kings more easily gathered support around them for their "adventures" on a political level, do not forget that they had massive ongoing financial problems, with the Crown being almost constantly broke between the XIII and XV century, and they ruined several of their Italian debitors by just not paying back what they had borrowed.
It was also easier for them to convince people to back their adventures in the hope of expanding their land and wealth by conquering parts of France, whereas the French were trapped in a defensive attitude, leading easily to disunion, cf Burgundy for example.
The rules organising the gathering of the Royal Ost were so constraining is terms of time et money, that it made things particularly difficult for French Kings to impose their authority and afford keeping their armies in order of battle for a long period of time.
The size of the country and the uncertainties of the landing place of invaders made things even more diffucult.
Plus the fact that the English played a cunning game fuelling the aspirations of independence of French Duchies from the King of France were they to become their allies ungainst the latter.
In a nutshell, France was rich but politically and regionally difficult to unite, while England was politically more united but more or less broke.
I don't really understand your point about the EU and the Reparations.
Could you develop?
As for Germany carrying europe on its back, I would have thought it was due to their being the wealthiest and strongest industrial country in the EU.
If I'm not mistaken, until last year they were the number one exporting country in the world.
About this piece you've written, do you do it for "fun" or is it part of your occupation ?
amicalement
Raph -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Raph
(a) The really key element in the marriage as far as England was concerned was the way that Parliament developed... From the time that towns and cities started developing nb- in the twelfth century "Industrial revolution"- in the people sent up to petition the King for royal charters and the like were able to steer public policy towards economic growth, because they would pay the Crown for legal rights that would allow them to make a profit. As Parliament developed this inevitably meant that the MP's represeenting the boroughs- the centres of economic growth- would anticipate requests for more taxes etc from the King by asking for policies and laws that would actually make it easier for them to earn the money needed to pay more taxes.
Right up to the revolution of 1789 the wealth producing "Third Estate" in France did not feel that they had that kind of impact on the affairs of State. And yet a hundred years before England after its Revolution had been able to create the Bank of England and a working "National Debt.. A concept that has been widely abused since 1945. As I have just tried to explain to our German friend Thomas- the English people over the centuries used their control of the pursestrings to control their Kings and Queens. So England was not "broke" but constantly expanding economically because policies were tied to the work and projects envisaged by the people.
(b) As you say bankers learned to be warry of schemes of dubious legitimacy like when Edward III borrowed Β£450,000 from the financial houses of Florence in order to support his campaigns to be King of France.. Highly speculative trading of the kind that we have seen quite clearly.. But sensible bankers always go for minimal risk. The Medici initially made their money by collecting the Pope's revenues in a largely peaceful England, and using that money to buy up English wool to transport to the great Tuscan textile industry , where they could sell it at a good profit and pay the Pope what was due to him.. The great Cistercian Houses of Yorkshire by the end of the twelfth century were "future's trading" ten years in advance.
I think that financiers were more interested in such economic growth than- for example- all of the uncertainties involved in mixing up the English Crown- fairly well-defined by 1066 with a French one, which (I argue) only really worked in an acceptable way to the French people when the King was an actual Saint like "Saint Louis".. Rousseau's philosopher able in some mysterious way to understand "The General Will" is an Age of Reason version of the same concept.
(c) It is true that Germany is the strongest economy in Europe.. But why has France been stagnant? It was a question that was posed in the French press in 1940 when the thrusting go ahead Germany was contrasted with the quiet country-loving simple French life, where it seemed that what happened in mainland France was not really much different in essence than what happened in Haiti when the National Assembly issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man. After the fighting the ex-slaves just occupied a subsistence plots, built a little hut, and settled down to just enjoy "le douceur de vie".. With the way that lands and aristicratic estates were broken down in the French Revolution (contrasted with what happened in England) it became possible for France to become a heavily rural country with lots of people living as country smallholders just living modestly on the land.. The survey in 1940 that I mentioned looked at that great symbol of national virility childbirth, and listed many reasons why French couples had so few babies. Certainly one of those given- and I think a telling one- was because of the viability of family succession in terms of property. Too many children to inherit and the land goes out of the family.
Last year I read a biography of Simon Weil and was intrigued to find even in the early Thirties this French notion that when there is unemployment you just share it out equally so that everyone gets a taste of not having to work for a real living. Some years ago I noted- as a workaholic Englishman- that Philip Braudel (?) in his volume on European Economic History "The Wheels of Commerce" immediately applied terms like "painful" and "onerous" to any actual physical work that had to be done. Madame Aubry said as much a few weeks ago when interviewed on French TV regarding when she would retire. She said that she had had the good fortune to go to university so she did not have to endure working for a living at the age of 15-6 like people who do really onerous jobs.
Anyway the Common Market Agricultural Policies were for a long time an excuse to subsidise French country life at the expense of German industry.. I do not know whethe you are old enough to remember the food mountains and the wine lakes that resulted.
(d) As for "fun" I am not sure that this is the right word.. I have been driven from my childhood by an urge to understand and work out the history of our times.. And I write many things that no-one will ever agree to publish, partly I believe because my "journey" took me into France and I am always intrigued to see on French TV that writings of contemporary history and other intellectuals and philosophers appear almost daily- with new books of the type that probably just do not get published over here- or if they are they are just buried away.. In fact, as in this piece that I have just completed- it owes a great deal to time spent quietly reading and away from the internet in our house in Burgundy, and then time up in the Alps with mountain walks and talks with fellow members of the Groupement des Campeurs Universitaires.
But a crucial part of my "journey" also involved teaching History and other subjects here in South London over 37 years, during which it sometimes felt that almost the whole world came to me without me having to go to it.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Cher Cass,
a) I agree with everything you said, apart from the bit about England not being broke. Your argumentation is a way to look at the issue, but I would stand my point about the English Crown being constantly under enourmous financial strain.
b) I agree with you on this point.
c) Looking at the post WW1 situation of France and Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, it is not difficult to understand why Germany was a "thrusting go ahead" country as you said.
I agree completely with what you said in your first paragraph.
Concerning Simone Weil and Fernainf Braudel (I assume this is the person you are referring to?), I haven't read her biography, but i've read a lot of his works.
It is true there is a big difference in work ethics between France and the UK.
And i'm not sure I prefer the British one, to tell you the truth.
However, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about physical work being labelled as "painful" and "onerous". It looks like an obvious thing to say, in very general terms. What's wrong about it, according to you ?
This notion of sharing work when there is unemployment does not seem "typically" French to me, but some here have thought about it and even tried (les 35h, Martine Aubry again).
When you consider the power Unions used to have (and still have to some extent) in France, it is quite easy to se why politicians would try and push this kind of idea.
I was born in the mid-seventies, so only heard about it at the time, but got to look into it quite recently, although I am far from being an expert on the matter!
d) Well, what you pointed out about your works not being published in the UK
is quite interesting.
Please do not get offended by what i am about to write, it is only my feeling, and is not related to any basic anti-english ideas.
Something I have noticed in the past 5/10 years, studying and observing the British society and learning the language, and living in Britain, is that culture does not seem to be much of a concern for the British.
I've come to the conclusion that it was probably one of the reasons why papers such as the Daily Mail sell so well here. people get easily manipulated because they don't have enough curiosity and information to understand what's going on around them.
I think this is also linked to the idea the British have about the French being arrogant.
Because there are, as you said, so many programmes and magazines etc dedicated to cultural subjects, and because we like to talk about it and take pride in it.
I sometimes find it difficult to find someone here with whom to have a conversation like the one we are having now, and I must admit I miss it.
In conversations with my girlfriend's family or friends here, I often hear "Oh stop being so intellectual". This shocked and hurt me a little at first, because i am far from being one!
I get the feeling that I am labelled so only because, in the end, I am like you, i want to understand the word around me and where we come from.
Ultimately, i am only curious about everything, and I spend more time reading then watching rubbish on the telly!
I don't know what you think about this, but it is only the impression I get from what I learned what I oberve in my every day life.
amicalement
Raphael -
Message 19
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
I meant Fernand Braudel, but I'm afraid I'm a bit dyslexic when I type on a keyboard...
-
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Raphael
Starting with your last point-- I am in total agreement..
It was my good fortune and curse to be born in Oxford- a town/city that was really forged during an age of Medieval Christendom and then Renaissance Humanism- and it inspired me to believe in the pursuit of truth and understanding..
But I turned down the chance to study at Oxford because I realised that it was not integrated into the modern world.. I deliberately chose Bristol University very much associated with the Anglo-French genius of Isambard Kingdom Brunel in the Victorian Age. But I found myself drawn to European writers and the more intellectual style of thought- as many people did in the Sixties.
Perhaps when the h2g2 site has finished its move I will give you a link to something I wrote a few years ago- starting in our garden in Burgundy one summers day, and reflecting on Paris' historical role at the heart of Europe- that seemed to be very much a thing of the Past.. When I turned on the TV news it just happened to be the day that Paris took over the Presidency of Europe.
But- as you will see if you read my latest piece- I think that it was very obvious soon after 1851 and the Great Exhibition of the Works of All the Nations that England/Great Britain had more or less stumbled accidentally into its position in the world, and that- now that Britain had supplied the model as well as all the machinery for this level of economic development- it would be countries with much more advanced cultures and civilizations than Britain that would be most likely to take it from there.
Matthew Arnold, Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools wrote a famous piece "Culture and Anarchy"- and England did have an educational revolution of a kind- but only really an "end justifies the means kind".. This country still suffers very badly from the idea that education is somehow all about getting materiallly better off.
What you will find on the History MB is that I am almost constantly pilloried for trying to engage in the kind of dialogue that I can engage in in France or for example watch in programmes like France 3 "Ce Soir Ou Jamais".
A few years ago I met a French Professor of Aircraft Engine Noise in one of our camp sites, who had "stages" with both "English" and French students. The English ones had very little interest in theory. The French loved theory. In Practical and experimental work the situations were reversed.
Now for points
(a) The Crown was never allowed more money than it needed to function and do its duty by England.. Foreign adventures and ambitions had no support in the Middle Ages.. Much later during "our" colonial wars those people prepared to lend money to the Crown to fund those wars made sure that the war aims included things like getting Gibraltar and the "Right of Assiento"- in other words binding Crown policies to the interests of the English economy.. Unfortunately I gave to my old school when I left the book with a quote from Napoleon at Boulogne looking across the Channel and thinking over his invasion plans "I will bleed France so white that she will never live again."
(b) I do not ask a French person to prefer the English work ethic - if it makes you happy to have a French one.. I just know that my 96 year old allotment friend says what a privilege it is to still be able to manage his allotment (and be a multiple prize winner) at his age.. As an Englishman I live to achieve things and I believe that I only achieve things through work.. But then as an Englishman I have no cause to use that word that I hear so often in France "la corvee".
I have an interesting book published in 1974 written by Jean Bailhache as an introduction to Great Britain for French visitors.. There is much of interest- and M. Bailhache is a real Anglophile.. But among many examples of non-comprehension he wrote a passage comparing the food on the dinner table of the French peasant and the English peasant during the Eighteenth Century and commented that actually the French man probably had the better food. But the French man was living in an absolutist country in the kind of conditions that produced the explosion of 1789. The English man was freeborn, beholden to no man, aware of his rights and his duties, and proud to eat the food that he produced from his own lands. Be it ne'er so humble it is my home.
And physical work is a joy. Perhaps it is the Englishman's subsitute for sex.. Much more fullfiling. You can fill your days up doing it and still do it with pleasure at the age of 96!
Regards
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Cher Cass,
pilloried? That sounds quite "violent" , sorry to hear that !
a)
I was only talking about the Middle-Ages period and particularly the 100 years war. For which I stand my point. As for the rest, I do agree with you.
b)
I think you misunderstood my point concerning physical labour.
I was not talking about physical labour as a whole.
I personally do enjoy very much spending hours in my garden, working on many projects and enhancements, building things and so on, which include physical work.
And I know many people who do a physical job and enjoy it very much for plenty of reasons.
I was referring to physical labour in certain situations as a way to earn a living, which, even through the English work ethics you depicted, CAN be onerous and hard nonetheless. Particularly when you don't really choose it.
This is a simple acknowledgement of facts.
I do not think the Englishmen (and women) working in the factories or mines in the XIX century did really experience a delightful enjoyment from this kind of physical work, unless they were masochists...
I am also sure there are people everywhere around the world, even in Britain, for whom the physical work to have to do to earn a living feels like a "corvΓ©e".
I suppose the religious tradition of France also plays a part.
As a historically catholic country, the punishment aspect of work coming from the bible might have a role to play in the general approch to physical work.
About the example coming from Jean Bailhache's book, it sounds like the perfect idealised vision of Bristish society, which sounds a little too good to be true.
I personally don't buy the usual over-simplified and idealised origins of the French Revolution, created for the "Roman national"...
What caused the French Revolution isn't really the absolutist regime in itself - Absolutism which was crumbling away little by little anyway - but more prosaic factors: two consecutives years of bad harvests, meaning not enough bread and flour for everyone. Then the riots were recycled by the Parisian upper class. And because Louis XVI refused to have troops crush the riots, what followed was allowed to happen.
If the people had had enough to eat I am not sure 1789 would be of any importance a year in History.
I will read what you wrote with pleasure !
amicalement
Raphael -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Raphael
re 1789 I think that you are forgetting that the first revolution - as I suggested was that of the representative of the Third Estate- exactly the class of people who were experts on leigitimacy and wealth who were shaping English/British political affairs (including in fact the American Declaration of Independence which was just the Ex-pat ones across the Atlantic breaking ties with a Crown that they no longer needed)
Once the Third Estate had defied the authority of the monarchy, Church and aristocracy- the structural pillars of Medieval Life- then the whole Old Regime and its hold on the masses was thrown into question.
As a French man you should not go along with Bismarckian "realpolitik"- "the masses are only concerned about full bellies".
I noticed that your first post on the cowardly french thread echoed what I had written earlier about the phases of French historiography and the latest research that shows that the common people of France sabotaged the Final Solution in their country at least.. These were not people who only cared about full bellies. These were people who believed ultimately in standards of humanity.
My own theory about French work comes from the authoritarian family tradition.. My wife seems to have now forgotten why she hated living with her parents so much as a child and teenager. But in fact one of the reasons why we bought a house at a safe 45 minutes distance from her parents is because she still hated going and sleeping there.. But- now that she has a house in France- I see her weighed down by French expectations of just how she should run the house, and what will the neighbours think, and even more what would her mother think.. On one of my mother-in-laws first visits she said she had come to see how the peasants lived. My wife just makes her life a misery every day with "I've got to do this" etc.. As an English person I say you do not have to do anything. You are free to do whatever you want. But she cannot..
I have discussed with friends camping the way that France tends to have a compensations culture.. The argument seems to go that "I will put up with all these terrible things, and then I will reward myself with something- a cigarette, some chocolate etc.. My wife has also adopted her mother's habit of having to have little secret staches of chocolates etc that are just for her.
But we have a lovely near neighbour who is nearly 90 and who has burdenned herself with the obligation of cooking us one or two habitual items each of the four times a year we head back here from Burgundy. "When are you going. I must...."
Cass
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Cass,
I am not a disciple of Bismarckian realpolitiks, I only look into my country's Revolution with an open mind.
What i meant was not that the masses are only concerned about full bellies.
I meant that, alongside what happened at the Etats GΓ©nΓ©raux with the Third State representatives, the riots due to bad harvests sparked an unmissable opportunity.
I do not personallythink that without this opportunity, the "official" opposition from the Third State would have been enough to reach a state of revolution.
It is quite funny that you mention your wife being weighed down by the French "expectations" you referered to.
The other day, an English friend of mine was telling me how much the English are about how they look in comparison to their neighbour, the "Joneses" he said. Which, in the end, is a bit similar to what you were talking about.
.
And don't forget that France is also very much "regional", so, as man from Gascony, I am not necessarily aware of how my northern neighbours live their lives.
From the details you agve me, I would say this is typical of the French bourgeoisie, at least where I come from.
About work, if I were to caricature the French, i would say that, to us, work is not necessarily an end in itself, but a means to enjoy what is really "important" in life.
Of course if you have a fantastic job, it is different and you don't need to "escape" from your job to be happy.
But for the millions who have what we call "feeding jobs", and who don't take any pleasure in their work, then yes, it is only a way to get the money to enjoy life.
And i wouldn't blame them...
Your neighbour reminds me a lot of my grand-mothers ...
To finish, I agree with you concerning your wife's concerns: what you do in your own home is nobody else's matter.
amicalement
Raphael -
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
Raph
Having just watched the France v England game I think that it demonstrated some of the French values that we have discussed on this thread.. The French team played with a greater intelligence, quickness of thought and a fuller understanding of rugby union..
I was always intrigued by the traditional French concentration in school sports with "fundamentals" like gymnastics and games that required no playing fields but developed coordination and skills like volleyball. English school children, when sports were played at school, learned too early to limit their thinking to one simple role, and to the physical requirements of that role. And English sports masters and coaches are far too prone to trying to fit the physical attributes of players together in a team. In terms of the England squad this has involved over the professional era persuading people from Rugby League to be fast-tracked into Rugby Union.. Fast-tracking, however, is not a full education.
But I also believe that- potentially- French players have a greater capacity for team bonding, and this applies to the nationalism thread, because- in my experience- French people tend to grow up in a much more family orientated situation in which the young person develops a clear sense of personal identity as part of an extended family within the local community.. Of course families and communities often have terrible quarrels and divisions- but- as during the German occupation- when it is really "back to the wall" time they stick together.
This French team decided that it was "backs to the wall" time.. And I must say that I was somewhat concerned by all the talk from England beforehand about having to play with real tempo and blitz the French.
Speed of thought and reaction is not England's strength. It is a country of gradualness and evolution and the England team suffered from the fact that- unlike in particular the French pack which has been together for several seasons and has achieved Grand Slams for France- these England forwards do not have that kind of "welding" and "bonding" experience behind them.
From a general cultural point of view I also think that French people are brought up in a way to regard their body as some kind of temple needing good food and other input, healthy sleep, exercise etc. . though I note that there is some concern in France over obesity too, but from what I see with much less cause than in England.
Anyway I think that Rugby Union can only benefit from the fact that both France and Wales- too of the teams with the most exciting traditions of back play will contest the semi-final with one of them sure to represeent the NH in the Final.
Regards
Cass -
Message 25
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
Cher Cass,
I agree on everything you said.
I would like to add a few things concerning the "recent studies" about the behaviour of the French population and the problem of obesity.
The "French lifestyle" you mentioned (food, quality of life etc) does exist but it true that it is slowly eroding over time, particularly in cities.
In the countryside, culinary and "the good life" tradition is still very much present, at least in the southern half of the country (which is the half I know well, contrary to the northern half).
I think there is about 9/10% of obesity in France, compared to the 35% in the UK (these are the last figures I found).
Concerning the "recent studies" on the French population's behaviour during the war, I must admit I am a bit surprised.
Many of the things about passive resistance, helping the jews, evaded prisoners, shot down allied pilots, has been known and documented in France for quite some time now.
I think what makes it "new" for non-French people, is that non-French historians must have started talking about it more recently, making the information more available to non French-speaking readers.
I remember that, during the nineties, the reality of passive French resistance as very much criticised outside France (and sometimes inside, to be fair).
People were convinced it was a "marketing campaign" from the French, in an attempt to rehabilitate the behaviour o the population during the war.
I am far from saying that all was perfect, but the positive was often denied existence.Everything i've read about it has always convinced me that it was a too complicated situation to pass judgement based on a simplistic approach, and what my grand-parents told me about it in the past few years really reinforced this feeling. -
Message 26
Posted by Raph33inUK (U14994758) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
I apologise for the appalling syntax in my previous post, but I am a bit tired, my brain does not compute properly.
When i have to speak or write in English when I'm tired, "brain says no!" -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
Raph
Re "recent" studies- "Recent" for someone of my generation means since your childhood..
I was more or less quoting the historians and "savants" of my kind of generation that I saw on French TV the evening we arrived in Burgundy this July in the discussion that followed a documentary about the French Jews before and during the war- really focusing on the political and governmental circles and the degree of anti-semitism at that kind of level.
An historian then diivided French history writing since 1945 into three periods. (a) After the war an emphasis on the heroes of Free France and the Resistance
(b) In the Sixties research especially in Germany revealed the way that some of the French authorities appeared to embrace the whole Final Solution project.
and (c) The more detailed research into what actually happened to French Jewish families.. Some time ago I saw a documentary about Drancy.. But I have also read a biography of Collette whose Jewish husband survived the war- much or most of it in Paris.
But I am not surprised that you got "the truth" through your family.. I have also seen documentaries in France in the last four years in which young people wanted to know the full-truth about what happened in their grandparents' generation
Regards
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.