"Hate to break this to you, but that's totally false.
The French may be trying to MAKE it *merely* an idea, but it has always historically been an ethnicity"
Not really.
France is composed of ancient provinces that have different cultures and different languages.
The Bretons of Brittany speak a form of Gaelic and are Celts. Nextdoor, the Normans of Normandy are descended from the Vikings. Next to them, Picardy is peopled by the Flemish. Just to the south, Alsace and Lorraine, of World War I fame, are heavily Germanic provinces of France.
In the south, Savoy and Provence were once Roman and are heavily Italianate. Toulouse and Carcassone regions are Catalan in roots.
Auvergne is Gaulois.
The overseas departments are largely black African or polynesian in origin.
All of these people are French because their lands were provinces of the King of France, and were incorporated into the French Republic. That gave them one law.
Universal education has given them one language, and this unity in language and law and faith, wrought by the government, is what makes the Alsatians, Bretons and Guadeloupeens French. They are not the same ethnicity or race, and they do not have the same cultures in very many respects.
German, Irish or English are ethnicities.
French, British or American are nationalities.
The difference is pretty clear.
Not to me! By your reasoning, you must consider NO country, as is, also a "nationality". How many tons of tribes were there throughout Europe alone, before the Romans "united" them? Germans until very recently were notorious for forever fragmenting and never uniting. I suppose 1 could say there are Bavarians, Hessians, and Mecklenburgers instead of an ethnicity called "Germans"! And Lord knows how many others of much more ancient origin (Saxons included, who I guess screwed up the whole English thing)!
I vaguely understand your meaning (and appreciate your metered dialog here on this thread incidentally), but I see little difference between the "French" model and others in Europe. Perhaps you are talking about "types", as opposed to specific nationalities? There are thus, Germanic (Teutonic), Gaulic, Gaelic, Nordic "types". And I would agree - there was never a "French" type. However, how can 1 deny there is NOW a French ethnicity, derived of many types or part of 1?
This to me is about the same discussion as trying to get people straight that the "pit-bull terrier" is a TYPE, not a specific BREED as e.g. an American Pit Bull Terrier.