" Migration period led to the immigration of whole peoples into the Roman Empire. The resulting connvolution of cultures was not reduced to "tiny areas around Rhine valley an northern French borders".....
Migration never make the local culture becoming a latin-germanic mix. The same way the arabic migration to Spain didn't made Spain a arabo-latin country. There have been influences that is sure, and some elements of germanic origin are present in French but also Spanish And Italian cultures (not only in northern France or lombardia, but also in whole Spain, included southern Spain, the same for Italy (e. Sicilia and its Scandinavian influences).
The reality is that both cultures really mixed in about equal elements only in tiny border areas along the french language/german+Dutch languages borders. The same way the Arabic influence on Spain (country ruled by people of Arabic/muslim culture over 7 centuries) was not enough to make Spain a culturally mixed country that would represent a same cultural groups with North African countries. For a simple reason: in both cases these "mixings" were imited to the ruling class population (of arabic culture in the Spanish case, of Frankish Germanic origins in the case of France).
This was even stronger in France where the ruling germanic class, contrary to what happenend in moorish Spain (where the ruling class was still living in an Arabic culture and islam religion), the ruling class of Frankish origins lost its culture and finally adopted the romance-speaking culture of the peoples they ruled.
In this case it is difficult to imagine that even northern France could be a Germanic-latin mix. At beast it is a romance culture with some influences of Germanic origin. In no way it can be the latin-Germanic "western" you speak about, and of course even less the germanic cultures areas of north of Rhine.
" Mixing was not homogeneous, it has had a maximum along what is today the language boundary between Germanic and Romance languages. Due to the high mobility of the Germanic peoples, some further centres like Lombardia, Cathalonia, Burgundia and complete Northern France can be also identified as historical melting pots. "
Mixing occurred only were the romance and germanic peoples have been mixed together. Lombardia, Northern France, Catalonia, Burgondy were, like the rest of the former roman empire, once ruled by people of germanic origins, that's doesn't make them "latin-germanic" melting pots. This is very different from the situation of the Germanic/latin border regions which have really been contact zones, and what we could call german/latin melting pots. Northern France (northern half) has never been a land where about half of the population was romance and half of the population was germanic as you seem to think. It was probably the case in the areas between Rhine and along the actual french borders but not farther.
" Typical and well documented example: Karl the Great was deeply impressed by Lombardic Germano-Latin-Greek civilization."
Yes, germanic people always were fascinated by the greco-latin civilisations. Being impressed has never meant having its culture derived
from it.
" (...Islam and Greco-latin cultures interfered much more in the mediterranean areas; including Spain from North Africa,
Balkans and near east...) That is precisely what makes Western culture "Western". It contrasts with other "Eastern", e.g. "Byzantine",
cultural mixtures "
My friend you have a very germanic-centred definition of "west". If I understand you well, what makes "western" for you is not greco-latin roots (since you recognise that they are not at all specifically restricted to the "west", but also "eastern" culture has also greco-latin roots).
So, for you, what defines "western" culture is the necessity of a "germanic mix" (I think following this logic you might exclude... maybe Greece itself from the western world since the germanic influence is non-existant there.
What I want you clarifies some: you stated that "western" culture is basically a germanic-latin mix, so I think you mean that the countries in which the so-called "mixings" are supposed to have been negligible are not really western? Am I wrong?
For exemple do you consider Sweden and Portugal both western or neither? if you consider them so, do you think that Portugal is culturally more similar to Sweden (western) than to Greece (eastern), or that Sweden is culturally more similar to Portugal than to Russia?
" But Latin America and the Philippines were not exposed to the Greek and Roman influence, hence they are not westerner"
Well, directly not, because Romans never colonized American or Asians regions. But why do you think latin-America is named "latin" if it didn't had nothing to? Latin-America has been heavily inderectly romanized by romance-European countries (Spain, Portugal and France). hence the Greco-orman influence is far far more direct in latin-America than in
Anglo-America. Don't you consider north Anglo-Americans not westerners then?
" Not only Neoclassical buildings are inspired in Greece and Rome, the whole Renaissance movement (painting, architecture, etc)also was based on the Graeco-Roman legacy and spread over the whole Europe. "
neoclassical architecture was a fashion as yourself said "inspired" in Greece. It is not a legacy of either Greek or Antic Rome, but a mythical re-interpretation of what was thought thay were like, dozens of centuries after the fall of these antic civilisations. If neoclassical architectures had exist in northern Europe it is not because northern European culture would
derive from greek or Roman ones but because they were fascinated by them, and tried to emulate them.
(and important aspect of that is that neoclassical architectures were made by the emulation of ruins... thousands of years after. We know now (after more reserche than when neoclassicism started) that the actual Greco-Roman temples never looked like to what is now considered as the "canons" or classical architecture: they were full and recovere of colors, and not made of visible stone architecture. Also they had completly different strutures, organisations and functions.
http://jfbradu.free.fr/GRECEANTIQUE/athenes/couleurs.jpg
http://www.everyoneweb.fr/WA/DataFilesliliblue/temple-zeus-p_big.jpg
" The Roman Law also was very important in shaping the Western world. Germany for example had the Roman law with
few modifications until the XIX century."
I might be true in the case of Germany, which adopted indirectly Roman law system. This was not necessarily the case of other legal systems, especially in English-speaking nations. today most countries in the world had also adopted roman-derived law systems. Eastern Europe had influence of byzantine law (which itself come also from roman law.)
This is not a "western" speciality.
" What about the Greek philosophy and the influence on German philosophers like Nietzsche? European philosophy is based on what the Greeks thoguht more than 2000 years ago. "
well, Arabo-muslim philosophy was also based on Greek and Roman philosophies.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophie_arabe
Greek philosphy and Greek culture had direct and indirect impact on Arabo-muslim culture:
- Direct: because the majority of today's arabo-muslim most populated areas were part of the mediterranean area;
they were under Greek, then roman culture for millenias (not just at the border like germany was). Then after fall of
Rome, near east was under byzantine domination (= the eatern roman empire, dominated by Greek language culture)
for centuries. When Islamic civilization developped itself it progressivelly gained land over Byzantine-greek culture, until
the islamization of Byzance (now Istanbul). Later, the whole Ottoman empire was on the same territories than
byzantine (roman eastern empire), and recycled much of its Greek culture.
-Undirect; Because of presence of long lasting hellenic (greek empire influence in Persia.
After the islamization of Persia, much of the greek culture present in Persia has been spread to the rest of the muslim world
" that the Muslims have nearly 1/10 the Roman and Greek influence that the North European countries have."
Completly wrong. assomption bases on the "western" greco-latin myth that a lot of northern Europeans believe. Do you really believe that myth that a region that has never been part of the Greek world, and that only was standing at Roman border would have 10 times more Greco-Roman influence than a civilisation that is in great part situated on the exact
same Areas (mediterranean were Roman and Greek culture standed for milleniums... ?!
" European cities are designed according to the Roman orthogonal fashion, whereas the Muslim cities are completely different"
This is complety false! you have a wrong idea on all points.
You're wrong on many points, I'll explain:
- Firslty, the Roman cities that were built on a "ortogonal fashion" (cardo and decumanus axis) were only the colonial cities the
Roman have founded. (based on miltary camps)
For the simple reason its rational, easy to build and more logical when you construct a new city in a empty place (the Spanish new cities in the Americas were founded on a similar fashion). Most civilisations did the same when they built their colonial cities. all the European cities that have originally been based on this model were inside the Roman empire (south-west of Rhine), most of the time the original draw moslty diseapeared by the times.
BUT, actually Roman cities that weren't colonial new ones were not designed with "orthogonal fashion"; let's see antic Rome city itself:
http://pages.infinit.net/auguste/Rome.jpg
- Secondly, European cities as a whole are not designed on the Roman orthogonal fashion. Most are not. most European cities are designed on various stratification of dieffrent times that had very different ways. Each city is a quite specific case. Some cities have been founded on a Roman camp base, and evoluated differently, other not. A lot of cities are ortogonal without being at all of a roman origin, while others have Roman origins and not orthogonal at all. Actually you'll find probably more orthogonal cities in northern Europe (=outside of the roman empire areas)
than in southern, maoritarily because a lot of northern European cities are newer, and for that reason keep more visibly a clear geometry, while in a lot of southern European cases it disseapeared because of a longer-lasting urban stratification.
- And thirdly, muslim cities are not completly different from Greek and Roman ones. At contrary, let's explain
For the simple reason that a lot of cities in arabo-islamic area WERE Greek or Roman for centuries before becoming Arabic. Actually the original civilisation of Arabian peninsula was not a urban civilisation; It became urban when it conquered the long lasting already existant Greco-Roman cities of the eastern Roman empire (+other urban civilisations of
mesopotamia). Islamic urbanism come from those mediterranean cities, not from the previous "Arabian" culture which was mainly a nomadic culture. They just continued the previous existing cities.
the principal features of Arabo-muslim urbanism are high density, high rate of space occupation, and more than all the interverted architecture (houses centred around a closed outside area) which is specifically the most representative aspect of Greco-Roman architecture and urbanisme, and it was imported to northern Europe.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Furniture/images/AthensHouse.jpg
many mediterranean cities of nowadays continue to show those aspects of the old greco-Roman cities, whatever they are part of on
the christian or muslim side of the mediterranean; dense cities with introverted architecture. That is obviously not the case of cities of northern Europe, even of those that were once in the Roman empire.
" You say that modern democracy is due to the Europan Humanism, but Humanism began during the Renaissance, when
intellectuals rediscovered the Roman and Greek legacy. "
Northern Europe have hugely idealized Rome and Greece. Only a part of Greece have been "democratic" (Athens), at one time. It was a very limited
kind of democracy, far to our modern standards. At same period similar systems had existed in some parts of India, and probably elsewhere.
" The Greek democracy set up a big precedent for our modern democracies. "
This affirmation is part of the propaganda. Athenian democracy didn't had few to see with actual modern democracies, and its presence as nothing to see with an "legacy" (the Athenian didn't left it to the modern democracies by colonisation or influence, otherwise modern democracy would have developped itself where Anciant Greek was the strongest, in Greece itself.
Modern democracies happened to developped forms of democraties at a precise time and have been using the idea of a Greek herency of it because it is always considered more valuable to use old historic connexions with old civilisations. It is just a myth. Greece itself never left democracy to the "west" (Rome neither).
" Muslim countries are not democracies because they didn't explored the Greek and Roman civilizations enough "
Andalucia in Islamic time was much more "western" in the meaning of "humanism" than what was most of the rest of Europe at the same times. A lot of knowledges of greek origins (re)entered Europe passing by the Arabic-Andalucian cultural bridge,; because most oe Europe forgot it, or never was in contact to it. This is especially true for medecine, chemesty, astronomy or mathematics... the so-called "west" would had never being intergrating those scientific knowledges of the Greek world if the Arabo-muslims didn't had integrated themselves in their own civilisation before.
Actually, what relly founded the ide of a "west", is not the greco-latin herency itself, but the myth that west as
a whole is heir of Greece and Rome.