I think OP was asking you to look past the languages and numbers. Which of the two societies looks more "Germanic" at face value whatever that even means.
It would be the Belgians, since north French are Franks/ germanic tribe genetic soup. Culturally, idk. Both seem alike to their Germanic neighbors, but I really don't know their culture enough to say.
>what does it mean to be "culturally germanic"? provide one example of something exclusive to germanics.
it's kind of a meme concept tbh
i have my own idea about what could be defined as "germanic" and it has little to do with race, but maybe that's me.
I believe that Belgians are initially more "germanic", but the problem is that the Franks, from which Belgians stem from, tended to be very romanophile/catholicophile historically therefore strayed away from their germanic roots more so than the ancestors of the Swiss, so at the end of the day, Switzerland as a state is more germanic
Good argument.
Ethnically however Belgium, especially Flanders is more Germanic than southern Germany, let alone Switzerland.
Culturally it would be closer, both having heavy French and German influence. But Switzerland was heavily i fluenced by Austria, Italy too while Belgium was involved in northern Europe more, the Dutch, English and other north sea nations.
Swissbro here.
Ethnically we're not very Germanic, even in the German-speaking parts. We have a lot of Roman and Celtic blood as you can see here.
Culturally we are more distinct to our neighbouring countries than one would think. Our culture is more part of the Alpine cultural sphere than anything else. This of course lessens the further you go from the Alps. Basel, a city on the Rhine close to the German border would be culturally very similar to a German city a bit of distance downstream of the Rhine.
Belgians and Swiss are weirdly similar in many ways, despite the fact those countries aren't limitrophe. Ethnically similar and culturally there are many common points.
but Switzerland as a state is more efficient than Belgium.
I don't really know but:
Switzerland, I think, is more Germanic since German-Swiss make up the majority of the population and if I'm not wrong their territories are the original core of the confederation, while the French and Italian parts were acquired through expansion.
Belgium, despite having a majority of Flemish speakers, seems less Germanic and more cultural French, considering also that their capital Bruxelles is a French city despise being in Flemish territory.
Brussels was Flemish speaking, built by Flemmings till the 19th century. Walloons and actual French just kinda invaded.
In the 19th century walloons started oppressing the Flemish and used that influence to basically ban Flemish for a while in all administrative stuff, even schools.
That's the story commonly peddled by the Flemish, yes. While it's not completely untrue, it doesn't explain why the French language is still expanding ever further nowadays, even into Flanders itself, despite extremely harsh language laws making it basically impossible for a French-speaking person to access any public services in Flanders.
The truth is, Flemish is kind of a shit, useless language, so everyone who can feasibly switch to French almost always does so.
Walloons and French never "invaded" brussels that's bullshit.
Also the walloons never "oppressed" the Flemish, it was a self-imposed "oppression", it's the Flemish who pushed French to themselves.
You know what made the spread of French language in Brussels? The massive immigration of West flemings in Brussels (the ONLY massive immigration ever happening within Belgium was West Flemings all over Belgium).
They could only make themselves understood in French by other Belgians, so they switched to French by their own will.
Also, the Dutch language is more spoken NOW than before, so it's the Dutch language that took over.
homie are you stupid. Kids were legit severely punished on playgrounds for speaking their ‘barbaric’ tongue. In world war I, Flemish were used as cannon fodder in trenches and weren’t even given explanations in Dutch. Educate yourself.
Kys historyrewriting Wallloon scum
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Kys historyrewriting Wallloon scum
how ironic, it's the flemish who rewrite history to indulge in their victim complex and feed their special snowflakes nationalism; Wewuz victim n shiet, we slave to da walloon man
flemish nationalism is another form of identity politics.
The "kids punished to speak their dialect" happened ALL over europe in the 19th century, Wallonians were forbidden to speak their dialect too, and all nation-states wanted to standardize their language and discourage dialects, also you flemish got what you wanted since WWI and still wewuz victimhood
2 years ago
Anonymous
You were able to reply to this at 2 pm because you don’t have job
Go work, Walloon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
walloon is a dialect of french, it's really not that different
forcing french on a dutch speaking population is something else entirely >wewuz victimhood >those 100 years of oppression? who cares, it's all in the past now give us our yearly billions we're somehow entitled to you fascist pig
Why can't the Netherlands just annex Belgium and Luxembourg, maybe throw in Alsace-Lorraine from France and Switzerland and you would recreate Burgundy.
Then it's Belgium that should annex the Netherlands, because Burgundy is a continental nation not a maritime one like the Dutch.
When Degrelle pushed the idea of Burgundy, the Dutch didn't want it because they didn't want to be associated with it.
If you consider Dutch to be true Germanics, then Belgium in both fronts
But Belgium also has Wallonia, who look towards France a lot, culturally speaking.
Belgium has two small German-speaking communities and Switzerland is mostly German-speaking. What do you think?
I think OP was asking you to look past the languages and numbers. Which of the two societies looks more "Germanic" at face value whatever that even means.
Germanic =/= german idiot
Flanders is dutch which is a germanic language you absolute godless moronic homossexual baboon.
>Belgium
No such thing
Assuming language = ethnicity.
Switzerland is 62% German, 22% French, 8% Italian.
Belgium is 60% Dutch and 40% French.
It would be the Belgians, since north French are Franks/ germanic tribe genetic soup. Culturally, idk. Both seem alike to their Germanic neighbors, but I really don't know their culture enough to say.
French aren't Franks, they're Gallo-Romans
The northern part got mixed with the franks, fricktard.
Framce is not homogeneous idiot
North and south are very different. The north is definitely heavily Frankish
South is celtic+aquitani+roman and north is almost pure celtic
Cope.
Settlement of the Franks is very well documented
North french have only about 10-15% germanic dna. But maybe Coon was right and Franks were just germanized celts
There’s a clear difference between the original Salian Frankish settlers and the Frankish confederation, which was definitely heavily Celtic as well
>North french have only about 10-15% germanic DNA
Anon the Franks themselves and Germans, in general, aren't "pure" germanics. Many Germans, especially in the south are Celtic mutt speaking germans.
Hence why pic related exist.
This map is literally useless and doesn't mean anything
your point is true though. The map is just trash.
Belgium, by quite a lot, both ethnically and culturally.
what does it mean to be "culturally germanic"? provide one example of something exclusive to germanics.
Lederhosen
Eating edible food
You mean inedible
>what does it mean to be "culturally germanic"? provide one example of something exclusive to germanics.
it's kind of a meme concept tbh
i have my own idea about what could be defined as "germanic" and it has little to do with race, but maybe that's me.
I believe that Belgians are initially more "germanic", but the problem is that the Franks, from which Belgians stem from, tended to be very romanophile/catholicophile historically therefore strayed away from their germanic roots more so than the ancestors of the Swiss, so at the end of the day, Switzerland as a state is more germanic
Wrong.
Good argument.
Ethnically however Belgium, especially Flanders is more Germanic than southern Germany, let alone Switzerland.
Culturally it would be closer, both having heavy French and German influence. But Switzerland was heavily i fluenced by Austria, Italy too while Belgium was involved in northern Europe more, the Dutch, English and other north sea nations.
Belgium is ethnically more germanic than Switzerland, but Switzerland is culturally more Germanic than Belgium.
Swissbro here.
Ethnically we're not very Germanic, even in the German-speaking parts. We have a lot of Roman and Celtic blood as you can see here.
Culturally we are more distinct to our neighbouring countries than one would think. Our culture is more part of the Alpine cultural sphere than anything else. This of course lessens the further you go from the Alps. Basel, a city on the Rhine close to the German border would be culturally very similar to a German city a bit of distance downstream of the Rhine.
>ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
>Roman+Balkanic
I thought they got genetic input from central Europe, not the Balkans
Apparently you're right
Belgians and Swiss are weirdly similar in many ways, despite the fact those countries aren't limitrophe. Ethnically similar and culturally there are many common points.
but Switzerland as a state is more efficient than Belgium.
I don't really know but:
Switzerland, I think, is more Germanic since German-Swiss make up the majority of the population and if I'm not wrong their territories are the original core of the confederation, while the French and Italian parts were acquired through expansion.
Belgium, despite having a majority of Flemish speakers, seems less Germanic and more cultural French, considering also that their capital Bruxelles is a French city despise being in Flemish territory.
Brussels was Flemish speaking, built by Flemmings till the 19th century. Walloons and actual French just kinda invaded.
In the 19th century walloons started oppressing the Flemish and used that influence to basically ban Flemish for a while in all administrative stuff, even schools.
That's the story commonly peddled by the Flemish, yes. While it's not completely untrue, it doesn't explain why the French language is still expanding ever further nowadays, even into Flanders itself, despite extremely harsh language laws making it basically impossible for a French-speaking person to access any public services in Flanders.
The truth is, Flemish is kind of a shit, useless language, so everyone who can feasibly switch to French almost always does so.
is this historical fiction what they teach in walloon schools?
Walloons and French never "invaded" brussels that's bullshit.
Also the walloons never "oppressed" the Flemish, it was a self-imposed "oppression", it's the Flemish who pushed French to themselves.
You know what made the spread of French language in Brussels? The massive immigration of West flemings in Brussels (the ONLY massive immigration ever happening within Belgium was West Flemings all over Belgium).
They could only make themselves understood in French by other Belgians, so they switched to French by their own will.
Also, the Dutch language is more spoken NOW than before, so it's the Dutch language that took over.
homie are you stupid. Kids were legit severely punished on playgrounds for speaking their ‘barbaric’ tongue. In world war I, Flemish were used as cannon fodder in trenches and weren’t even given explanations in Dutch. Educate yourself.
Kys historyrewriting Wallloon scum
>Kys historyrewriting Wallloon scum
how ironic, it's the flemish who rewrite history to indulge in their victim complex and feed their special snowflakes nationalism; Wewuz victim n shiet, we slave to da walloon man
flemish nationalism is another form of identity politics.
The "kids punished to speak their dialect" happened ALL over europe in the 19th century, Wallonians were forbidden to speak their dialect too, and all nation-states wanted to standardize their language and discourage dialects, also you flemish got what you wanted since WWI and still wewuz victimhood
You were able to reply to this at 2 pm because you don’t have job
Go work, Walloon.
walloon is a dialect of french, it's really not that different
forcing french on a dutch speaking population is something else entirely
>wewuz victimhood
>those 100 years of oppression? who cares, it's all in the past now give us our yearly billions we're somehow entitled to you fascist pig
Why can't the Netherlands just annex Belgium and Luxembourg, maybe throw in Alsace-Lorraine from France and Switzerland and you would recreate Burgundy.
Not even the Flemish want to be under Dutch rule, despite being basically Dutch themselves, so that's going to be difficult.
Then it's Belgium that should annex the Netherlands, because Burgundy is a continental nation not a maritime one like the Dutch.
When Degrelle pushed the idea of Burgundy, the Dutch didn't want it because they didn't want to be associated with it.