1
   

French

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:43 pm
cavfancier wrote:
As far as I know, Alsatians aren't fond of being called German, and their dogs don't like it much either.


They don't like to be called French neither!

The so-called "Alsatian" btw is called in Alsace "Chien de Berger Allemand" = 'German shepherd dog', like elsewhere. :wink:

Alsace [here: Strasbourg] was the first German region outsite Bavaria to brew beer according to the "Reinheitsgebot" ('German purity law').

Alsace has had the most "free empire towns" ('freie Reichsstädte') in the whole Holy Roman Empire of German Nation.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:52 pm
Well, I have to admit, with the possible exception of Biere de Garde, brewed in Flanders, Alsace makes the best French beer.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:10 pm
Ning wrote:


There is also Heinecken.


That's Dutch, mon ami! (Fischer is e.g. a Heineken compay like a couple of others as well) :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ning
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:13 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
As far as I know, Alsatians aren't fond of being called German, and their dogs don't like it much either.


They don't like to be called French neither!


True Razz

That's why I put "EU" after France in my location. I can't choose between France and Germany so I tell I'm from the European Union Very Happy

Anyway the name of the towns, people are still Alsatian/German (my familly name is almost impossible to pronunce for a guy from Paris for example, it's too german (and I will never change it to sound more french)). Other french people don't even try to pronunce the town's names Smile. When I tell I come from SOUFFELWEYERSHEIM (Strasbourg suburbs) , french look at me like that ==> Shocked
Razz . The local language, which is a german dialect, is still spoken (and taught in schools at the same time as german language)

Quote:
That's Dutch, mon ami! (Fischer is e.g. a Heineken compay like a couple of others as well)


I didn't know. I cited "Heineken" because there is a large Heineken brewery in my town.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:27 pm
[Not so shure about Fischer anymore, but Adellshofen IS a Heineken beer (there has been an own Groupe Fischer, which was sold to Heineken, as far as I remember).]
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:36 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Walter is correct:


Walter is usually correct on these, and other, things. It's just that his mother doesn't think so!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:59 pm
Australian Tattletale's rubbish!

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 05:20 pm
When i made my remark about 1870-1918, i was pulling Walter's leg, and knew that he would come back in fine fettle, as he always does. I know his knowledge of German history to be far superior to mine, and so enjoy reading his posts on the subject. However, Joe, your brief comments are more than a little misleading, perhaps because of the brevity thereof.

Windy City Joe wrote:
Walter is correct: Alsace-Lorraine was part of the Holy Roman Empire until gradually incorporated into France during the reign of Louis XIV, first through the Treaty of Westphalia and later through his policy of reunions. France completed this process of incorporation in 1766, after the death of King Stanislas of Poland, who had been given the duchy of Lorraine as part of the settlement of the War of the Polish Succession.


Louis XIV was five years of age in 1643 at the time his accession. As the settlement in Westphalia was in 1648, and Louis did not take personal control of his kingdom until the death Mazarin in 1661, when Louis was 23, any French input into that peace would have been at the behest of Anne of Austria and Mazarin. This map of Europe, 1648, Peace of Westphalia[/b] from the collections of the University of Texas, shows (if perhaps not with complete clarity), that Strasbourg and most of what constitutes modern Alsace were already in the possession of France. This is due to the brilliant campaigning of Turenne in that region during the latter, French phase of the Thirty Years War. That France had already begun to absorb much of what once had been the very extensive Duchy of Lorraine is also evident. Whereas it is certainly true that the remainder of the Duchy was inherited by Louis XV, this has little bearing upon the history of the control of Alsace. The following is from the site Découvrir la Lorraine:

Ce sont deux mariages qui, tout naturellement, amèneront la Lorraine à la France. Tout d'abord, en 1736, celui de François III, dernier Duc de Lorraine, avec Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche.

Les droits sur le duché sont accordés par François III, désormais empereur de Germanie, à Stanislas Leszcynski, roi déchu de Pologne, en échange de la Toscane.

Ensuite, en 1766, celui de Marie Leszcynska, fille de Stanislas, avec Louis XV, roi de France, qui héritera du Duché à la mort de son beau père en 1766.


As well, it is rather risible to describe Stanislas Leszcynski as the King of Poland, although that might be considered technically correct. After all, the Bavarian Elector Max Emmanuel, the "Blue Prince," was perhaps technically Bavarian Elector after the Franco-Bavarian army under his and Marsin's command was routed at Blenheim, but his was a principiate in name only, and at the Pleasure of Marlborough and Prince Eugene only, who were not please to recognize his title. Leszcynski was installed by Charles XII of Sweden as King of Poland, after he (Charles) had wasted a good deal of precious time during the Great Northern War chasing Augustus of Saxony, Augustus "the Strong," around Courland and Poland. He should, instead, have tended to what a more strategically intelligent commander would have recognized as the horrendous threat of Russia. Leszcynski was only "King" from his installation in 1704 until Charles finally managed to lose his army at Poltava in 1709, at which point Augustus resumed his dignity, to which he had been elected freely by the Polish Diet in 1697. Max Emmanuel had at least succeeded to his Bavarian throne by what was then considered the legitimate course of ordinary succession. Stanislas I was never more than a Swedish puppet. It was however, rather generous, and completely in line with a tradition of upholding "legitimacy" on the part of the warring parties in the Polish War of Succession to have made some provision for Stanislas, considering that the French and Spanish had suckered him into trying to "reclaim his throne."

Therefore, although your remarks about how Lorraine was eventaully absorbed by France are more or less correct (certainly flawed with regard to the influence of Louis XIV), this has no bearing on the history of Alsace. Nice try, though . . .
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 05:27 pm
Bah, forget about the history of Alsace. Just sit back and enjoy a good choucroute and a well-chilled pinot gris.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 05:29 pm
Can't do wine, Boss, it just trashes my stomach, and, in any event, i no longer take strong drink. As for croute, you can give my share to the peasantry . . .

Qu'ils mangent de la croûte . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 09:45 pm
Setanta: Let me see if I can distill your comments down to three salient points. You suggested that my post might have been misleading because: (1) most of Alsace was already part of France in 1648; (2) I placed undue emphasis on Louis XIV's role in the incorporation of Alsace; and (3) I shouldn't have called Stanislas Leszczynski "king." I will respond in order:

(1) Sadly, you've chosen the wrong map to rely upon. It shows only the gross outlines of the major states in Europe, which hardly does justice to the complex territorial situation in the aftermath of the Treaties of Westphalia. Furthermore, it has some obvious errors: Trent is shown as part of the Habsburg Empire; Magdeburg is shown as part of Brandenburg-Prussia; Ravensberg is shown as a Hohenzollern territory but not neighboring Minden; the Habsburg territories on the upper Rhine (Vorderösterreich) are shown straddling the Rhine; etc. I'm sure that you would have readily recognized these mistakes had you been focusing on them; they would, no doubt, have caused you to repose less faith in the overall accuracy of the map.

In fact, as the following maps demonstrate, France definitely did not possess most of Alsace in 1648 (purple and blue areas are French, red are non-French):
http://www.geocities.com/bfel/EL_1648.gif
By 1681, however, Alsace was almost entirely under French control:
http://www.geocities.com/bfel/EL_1681.gif
(These maps, and maps for 1659 and 1680, can be found linked to this page).

(2) I never mentioned anything about Louis's personal involvement in the acquisition of Alsace, except to mention his policy of Réunions (which, indeed, was his policy, having been carried out between 1679 and 1684, well after Louis's assumption of personal rule in 1661). Instead, I merely noted that the acquisition of Alsace occurred "during the reign of Louis XIV." Now, if you want to assert that the period from 1648 to 1697 (when the Treaty of Ryswick confirmed France's possession of Alsace) was not during Louis XIV's reign, I suppose I'll have to insist on some evidence.

(3) Stanislas called himself "king," Louis XV called him "king," and lots of Poles called him "king." Even Voltaire, in Candide, called him "king." I think I may be excused, therefore, if I too call him "king."

Oh, and by the way, your source is wrong: Louis XV married Marie Leszczynska in 1725, not 1766.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 10:13 pm
I don't see that your map in any way refutes a contention that the majority of Alsace was in French hands after the Thirty Years War. Suggesting that i oversimplified the settlement (and i certainly did rely upon the simplest map i could find, but from a desire for legibility rather than "disingenuosity") is not a refutation of my criticism, which, employing your habit of bold-facing words, is that to speak of "Alsace-Lorraine" as you did, but to then speak of how Lorraine passed into the hands of the French monarchy is not to have truly addressed the issue of when Alsace became French--it refers to Lorraine. Your own evidence here refutes a claim (which could only be made inferentially in your original brief text) that Alsace passed into French hands with the death of Stanislas in 1766. Inasmuch as you made no distinction, i would not have been able to know if you were confusing the two of them or not--as written, given that we are discussing Alsace, it seemed you meant Alsace became a part of France in 1766. I have not denied that the réunions were a process of consolidation and "rationalization" of French territories and borders--but your text seemed to ignore that France got its foothold, and it's collective hands on Strasbourg, during the Thirty Years War, which was, effectively over by the time of Louis accession. I would suggest, then, that as you consider that Alsace is only "added" during the mid-portion of Louis reign, and i contend that the process was effectively acheived as a result of the Westphalian settlement, we simply disagree on meaning the extent of the earlier acquisition, and i am more than happy to acknowledge that you spoke of Louis' reign as opposed to his personal involvement.

Finally, you know and i know that Stanislas had the title of King of Poland with as much justification as a whole host of putative monarchs and high-ranking aristocrats throughout history. I had no doubt of that when i replied. However, someone without that understandind, or lacking a clear knowledge of Leszcynski and his career would likely not understand, for example, that he was King of Nothing from 1709 to 1733, and only King of Poland to the extent that either Swedish or French bayonets could prop up his throne. As for the number of Poles who supported him, i would point out how convincing the presence of a powerful Swedish army, then believed to be nearly invincible, and the King who was then considered, and still considered by many (not including myself) to be one history's great captains would be as a reason to lend one's voice to sycophantic chorus. The history of Poland after the Jagellons (and in fact, well before the end of that dynasty) is the history of the struggle for power between the Czartoriskis, the Radziwills, the Potockis, the Lubomirskis and some lesser clans, all of whom acted as virtual autocrats on their personal holdings. The Liberum Veto assured constant political chaos--small wonder that one Russian minister at the outset of the Confederation rebellion which eventually lead to the first partition of Poland described them politically as "a very quarrelsome people." Frankly, i think one could suggest that Lesczynski was one of the luckiest men of his age, to have gotten so much for nothing more than having originally been the puppet of Charles XII.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 10:16 pm
Oh, and as for what Voltaire would have called anything or anyone, i recall his reference to the loss of Canada--"so many acres of snow"--whenever i consider the value of his political judgments. In that, i am in good company: his long-time admirer and correspondent, Frederick II, quickly grew tired of him when he brought him to Berlin, and wrote the most unflattering comments in the margins of letters he had from him when Voltaire was trying to play political games and convince the French monarchy of his influence in Germany.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:32 pm
It was in 1971. A friend and I stayed in Nancy, on the way back from a tour through France. We were visiting the Duke's Palace (after having crossed the Place Stanislaus, that's why I remembered this episode) and entered the Museum of Lorraine, which is in that said palace, talking together in German.

The elderly warden at the cashier took as aside, addressed us in German and asked us, either to wait a few minutes before entering or to speak French only, because a group of verans was visiting the museum and they could start an endless discussion with us ...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 07:52 am
Setanta wrote:
I don't see that your map in any way refutes a contention that the majority of Alsace was in French hands after the Thirty Years War.

Had you asserted that the majority of Alsace was in French hands after the Thirty Years War, we wouldn't be having this discussion. After all, that's what I said too. Instead, you claimed: "This map of Europe, 1648, Peace of Westphalia from the collections of the University of Texas, shows (if perhaps not with complete clarity), that Strasbourg and most of what constitutes modern Alsace were already in the possession of France." In other words, most of Alsace was in French hands in 1648. That, I am confident, is false.

Setanta wrote:
Suggesting that i oversimplified the settlement (and i certainly did rely upon the simplest map i could find, but from a desire for legibility rather than "disingenuosity") is not a refutation of my criticism, which, employing your habit of bold-facing words, is that to speak of "Alsace-Lorraine" as you did, but to then speak of how Lorraine passed into the hands of the French monarchy is not to have truly addressed the issue of when Alsace became French--it refers to Lorraine.

I would never suggest that you were "disingenuous," Setanta: rather, I merely asserted that your reliance on that particular map was misplaced. As for my "habit of bold-facing words," I don't know what you're talking about. I bold-face names of posters, but that is all the bold-facing I typically do. On the other hand, I use lots of italics.

And I'll admit that my inclusion of Lorraine in the discussion was potentially confusing. In my defense, I can only state that your reference to the period 1870-1918 probably had me thinking of Alsace and Lorraine together (of course, we both know that Germany did not annex Alsace-Lorraine until the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871: I'm sure it was a typo when you said "1870").

Setanta wrote:
Your own evidence here refutes a claim (which could only be made inferentially in your original brief text) that Alsace passed into French hands with the death of Stanislas in 1766. Inasmuch as you made no distinction, i would not have been able to know if you were confusing the two of them or not--as written, given that we are discussing Alsace, it seemed you meant Alsace became a part of France in 1766.

Well, I had said France completed the process of incorporation in 1766 with its acquisition of the Duchy of Lorraine. I suppose a casual reader could infer that Alsace and Lorraine were the same thing. I'm happy to set the record straight.

Setanta wrote:
I have not denied that the réunions were a process of consolidation and "rationalization" of French territories and borders--but your text seemed to ignore that France got its foothold, and it's collective hands on Strasbourg, during the Thirty Years War, which was, effectively over by the time of Louis accession.

But Strassburg, no matter how many times it was occupied by French troops during times of war, did not formally come under French control until 1681, and France's possession of Strassburg was not internationally recognized until 1697.

Setanta wrote:
I would suggest, then, that as you consider that Alsace is only "added" during the mid-portion of Louis reign, and i contend that the process was effectively acheived as a result of the Westphalian settlement, we simply disagree on meaning the extent of the earlier acquisition, and i am more than happy to acknowledge that you spoke of Louis' reign as opposed to his personal involvement.

Then our disagreement is one over the effects of temporary versus permanent possession. The French "owned" Alsace in 1648 about as much as the Americans "owned" Bavaria in 1945. Although French troops held much of Alsace (and Lorraine) at the end of the Thirty Years War, the Westphalian settlement only awarded the Sundgau region to France (colored blue in my first map). The remainder of Alsace was not incorporated into France until later in the century.

Setanta wrote:
Finally, you know and i know that Stanislas had the title of King of Poland with as much justification as a whole host of putative monarchs and high-ranking aristocrats throughout history.

Then I see no reason for further discussion on this point.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 08:08 am
I still can't see your map, Joe, so here is another one:


http://www.bartleby.com/86/5204.gif
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 08:12 am
So...if your mother is from Hamburg and your father is from Frankfurt, are you a cross between a Hamburger and a Frankfurter?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 08:14 am
Yes, you are a 'Braunschweiger' Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 07:30 pm
I like braunschweiger, on wheat toast, with some onion salt . . . mmmm . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2004 10:00 am
Frankfurter, Braunschweiger -- es ist mir Wurst.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deutsch anyone?? - Discussion by tell me why
Languages and Thought - Discussion by rosborne979
How many languages do you know ? - Discussion by mikinsmith
english to latin phrase translation - Discussion by chelsea84
What other languages would you use a2k in? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Translation of names into Hebrew - Discussion by Sandra Karl
 
  1. Forums
  2. » French
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/05/2019 at 09:06:53