Wow... this thread is fascinating. If ever there has been more clear evidence than this on how a nations were originally build on myths and how those myths still exist today then I want to know them.
If I have interpreted this thread right there's one guy who is passionate how Gaulish culture is somehow _the_ French culture we see today and is trying to prove that it never dissappeared. I mean ethnicity doesn't matter that much really and I give you that that you're probably right that the Frankish genepool didn't replace the Gaulish one, I give you that. Let's take an example which should probably prove that you all were talking about the same thing, but with a little different approaches.
Finland. Prior to 11th century Finns were not Christians, but had a religion of their own. Then in three crusades the Swedes christianised Finns by force, something that had already happened peacefully in eastern part of Finnish cultural area by the orthodox. So now Finnish culture swifted to christian culture, right? Priests persecuted anyone who still worshipped the old gods and who relied on the old ways and slowly Finns started to abandon their old ways. At the wake of nationalism in the 19th century where most modern nations and nationalities was given birth, the same happened in Finland. National identity was consciously built and a doctor called Elias Lönnrot made several trips to far away places in Finland and Russia where there were people who sang songs about pre-christian times. Out of those songs Lönnrot assembled our national epoch Kalevala (which by the way was an example for Tolkien - he wanted to create something similar to the English). Now thanks to Kalevala Finland became self-aware what we have been and what we are. The old heroes, old gods and old customs and myths found a place in Finnish culture - it's not that anyone would start believing in them again, but the old replaced culture in a way was reborn in the way that now Finns know what was before.
My view on things is the same with France and Gaulish culture. It was overrun by Franks and eradicated as was "Finnish culture" under Swedish reign. But nowadays it's revived because it's what they teach in France - that you're descendens of Gaulish culture. Never mind the inconsistency. Kalevalic culture did go exstinct for a while and the songs were collected from far away places (many regions aren't even parts of modern Finland) and when it was brought back it really didn't come back as it was. We're still christians, Swedes have put a heavy influence on Finnish customs, language and everything, but still those old things have a very important meaning for modern Finns. As one of our founding fathers said "We're not Swedes, we never want to be Russians, se let us be Finns."
Now the second issue here is even more strange. I'm sorry if I'm offensive, but do you Napoleon ler honestly believe that cultures aren't influenced all the time and that Alsass-Lothringen really is most strongly linked to French culture? Because if you do believe so then wow! I mean the region has been source of constant battles and you don't even admit that others have claim over it as well? Sure it's been signiciant mostly because it has (had?) plenty of both coal and iron, but still the least you could do is admit that it has links to German culture as well.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, I don't want to be nasty, but the simple truth here is that I am more intelligent ad better read than you. I'm not insulting you, simply stating the facts.
I don't know if you two have discussed things even earlier, but where on Earth do you base this? Things don't became facts by just you saying so. So what's your background then? Have you studied history in university (like I have), are you a professor in a college or what makes you so damn sure you're more intelligent and better read that the other guy?
This however is to my liking the lowest point you had:
Let me take you through some steps here:
1/You have to make a claim and stick to it.
No. That's how children debate. A wise man doesn't stick to his claims if he sees he's wrong. I think that the purpose of any intelligent conversation should be that after it hopefully everyone knows a little bit more. If the conversation has been really juicy and great, then someone could change his opinion all-together, but with a offensive conversation like this one, people are bound to just dig into a foxholes and stay there. Any insult you throw - even as a respond to one thrown at you - will make your opponent stick to his opinions more and continue ignoring whatever arguments you might have.
pubs! 
Wow, you are so abyssmally obtuse that it is funny in it's own right. I have to say Naps, your sheer arrogance, coupled with a staggering case of dimwittedness, makes of an excellent butt of a joke 
That is simply gravy.
