The tongue(s) of Charlemagne
Fredrik from Norway : « Nobody denies that also Orthodox countries had a Greco-Roman heritage. But the point is that they combined it with Christianity and Slavic culture, while western Europe combined it with ***Christian*** and ***Germanic*** culture. »
Étrange que tu associes l'héritage gréco-romain de l'Europe occidentale avec la chrétienté et la germanophonie, à l'exclusion de la civilisation romane. Il est vrai que la latinophonie tardive est un prolongement de l'antiquité gréco-romaine, mais les innovations sont nombreuses.
" Nobody denies that also Orthodox countries had a Greco-Roman heritage. But the point is that they combined it with Christianity and Slavic culture, while western Europe combined it with Christian and Germanic culture. "
...for you "Western Europe" means combination of Christianity with germanic culture ?!! very strange conception !!
I'm not a western European so ?
So, for you Western europe is only germanic countries ?...
Why not, but in this case why not call it "northern Europe", it would fit much better.
" I presume you are French, fab? Then it is just logical that you would feel culturally closer to Poland than to Sweden. Apart from a few years as a member of the East Bloc, Poland has always been a part of Western European Civilisation. "
I agree, but do you really think that Bielorussia is culturally so different from Poland to consider it to be part of another "civilisation" ? Do you really think that Poland is culturally closer to Norway than to Bielorussia ?
Yourself you said that Eastern Europeans also have a greco-roman heritage, that they combined it with Christianity and Slavic culture" - Isn't it the case of Poland ?
Is the division just because one civilisation is catholic and this other orthodox ? Not all western Europe countries are catholic ! Why don't you consider that there is a catholic civilisation , an orthodox civilisation and a protestant one ? And that the addition of the three is the European civilisation ?
" But I think that by spreading Christianity and giving an example of the fusion of Greco-Roman, Christian and Germanic culture his predecessors, he and his successors laid the foundation for that unity that came to be known as Christendom = the influence sphere of the Pope in Rome = the heir of the Western Roman Empire. "
the roman herency is not just a question of christianity - christianity was not even of roman origin... Outside of christianity in what does consisted the Greco-Roman herency in the "holly roman Empire" ? The frankish empire, or the holly roman empire have never developped a unified culture, they were just a failed temptation to realise the unification you were speaking about.
Later, with de developements of protestant churches, the northen European lands, wich have been lately integrated in the roman church cut themselves from it.
" But when you say you don't feel closer to Norway than to Russia I suspect you of never having been to Norway. "
No unfortunally I've never been yet. But outside of been in Europe a wealthy and democratic country, France don't share more with Norway than with Russia, both countries speak a completely unintelligible language, are not part of of catholic tradition, and climatically/geographically don't share the mediterranean influence.
Politically I would feel closer to Norway if it was part of the European union, wich is not the case.
It's useless to argue on.
I just want to mention the idea of concept of pheripherie. That it of course is totally wrong to mark one area as 100 % part of one civilisation, as the pheripheries of two areas often have more in common than what they share with their respective centres. Thus Poland of course has very much in common with Bielorussia, so that Poland can be said to be on the pheripherie of that Western European, Catholic civilisation that regard Charlemagne as one of its founding figures.
Western Europe is not just Germanic countries for me. But by the Germanic migration kingdoms and especially the Franconian empire certain parts of Germanic culture were spread to all of Western Europe, just as Greco-Roman culture penetrated into the Germanic nations in this period. This mix was the foundation for feudalism and for the Middle Ages in general.
Correction:
I just want to mention the idea of CENTRE AND pheripherie.
Fredrik from Norway : « This mix was the foundation for feudalism and for the Middle Ages in general. »
Absolument ! Sans oublier la puissance symbolique de l'Empire romain d'Orient que tous — de la Gaule de Soissons à l'Italie de Ravenne — ont cherché (en vain) à imiter ou amadouer.
Very interesting posts of highest quality. I aggree to almost 100% to Fredericks analysis regarding his definition of western Europe as a mix of Roman-Greek heritage, christianity and Germanic culture. This must be the clue to understand the western world, inclusing the USA and South America.
<<This is a list comprising the (rough) dates when the first written accounts of a language were found. This does not mean, in any way, that the language in question is of the same age.
It is important to remember that this list only names the dates from when a language is recognised as the same language. For example: French was derived from Latin, yet written accounts of what we now call "Old French" do not appear until 1300 AD. The same rules apply to, for example, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian in their relation to Old Norse.
Egyptian - ca. 3200 BC
Greek - ca. 1500 BC
Aramaic - ca. 1000 BC
Chinese - ca. 900 BC
Lydian - ca. 700 BC
Persian - ca. 525 BC
Latin - ca. 500 BC
Ge'ez - ca. 500 BC
Sanskrit - ca. 250 BC
Tamil - ca. 200 BC
Dutch - ca. 500
Tibetan - ca. 600
English - ca. 660
German - ca. 700
Malayalam - ca. 800
Italian - ca. 960-963
Danish - ca. 1100
Swedish - ca. 1100
French - ca. 1300
Kashmiri - ca. 1350
Romanian - 1521
Esperanto - 1887
Papuan languages - ca. 1900
Austronesian languages - ca. 1900
Lingala - 1903
(This list is incomplete.You can help by expanding it!) >>
Basque - 40000BC? (proto-basque also pre-indoeuropean language)-1500AC (the basque start to be written)
"French was derived from Latin, yet written accounts of what we now call "Old French" do not appear until 1300 AD."
Huh? The first example of Old French is the Oaths of Strasbourg from 842. A sample:
“Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit."
If it’s not Old French then I’m not sure what you’d call it. It ain’t Classical Latin. Late Gallic Vulgar Latin, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg
<<It is important to remember that this list only names the dates from when a language is recognised as the same language. For example: French was derived from Latin, yet written accounts of what we now call "Old French" do not appear until 1300 AD. The same rules apply to, for example, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian in their relation to Old Norse.
Egyptian - ca. 3200 BC
Greek - ca. 1500 BC
Aramaic - ca. 1000 BC
Chinese - ca. 900 BC
Lydian - ca. 700 BC
Persian - ca. 525 BC
Latin - ca. 500 BC
Ge'ez - ca. 500 BC
Sanskrit - ca. 250 BC
Tamil - ca. 200 BC
Dutch - ca. 500
Tibetan - ca. 600
English - ca. 660
German - ca. 700
Malayalam - ca. 800
Italian - ca. 960-963
Danish - ca. 1100
Swedish - ca. 1100
French - ca. 1300
Kashmiri - ca. 1350
Romanian - 1521
Esperanto - 1887
Papuan languages - ca. 1900
Austronesian languages - ca. 1900
Lingala - 1903
(This list is incomplete.You can help by expanding it!)>>
I don't understand this list. Is this saying that the Papuan and Austronesian languages were only recognized (and by whom?) at ca. 1900???
Was charlemagne a German?
Charlemagne was born in what is now Germany and spoke a German dialect as his native tongue. "Charles" actually comes from "Karl" meaning "lord". The Great Lord (magnus).
If he would have been born in a place in France the French wouldn't be saying he was a Frank (a Germanic tribe). They would say he was French like they say Clovis was French although "France" didn't exist back then. Unless "Germany" existed, of course.
France always does that about neigubouring countries but feels France existed in the Stone Age!
We know the French! What is true is that France is the "land of Franks" and the Germans or a Germanic Tribe gave them their current name.
..................................................
<<Charlemagne was born in what is now Germany and spoke a German dialect as his native tongue.>>
Charlemagne is believed to have been born in Herstal, which is in present-day Belgium. He spoke a *Germanic* (as opposed to "German") language that modern-day linguists call "Old Frankish."
In those days there existed two cultures, the roman and the germanic culture. Carolus Magnus was of germanic ("barbarian") culture.