I guess the interesting is to find out when Europe was geo-politically defined as a continent and by whom? I mean, at some point in time, people weren´t aware of the different continents (pre discovery of America).

Madridman, perhaps you are right when you say that the Mediterranean countries referred to themselves as "mediterranean" but remember, back then, Italy didn´t exist. Just Rome and a bunch of city-states which were eventually unified to become what we know as Italy today. I believe the same is true with Greece.

Unfortunately, my ancient world history is not as good as I would want it to be. I, too, am learning a lot from this discussion. Eddie, I love your posts because they are just chock full of history!

Keep them coming folks!

How ancient is your ancient? asks Dimitri.

Well, for me pretty much anything before -50s is ancient.

History is interesting, but today and onward from now will be even more so!

I like to keep things simple, and think that 'the other europeans' are just slightly less spanish!!

Hola Matador,

Unfortunately, just because a book is published, it does not mean that its content is correct, as the nonsense this author has stated in your post, if I may re-quote:

The fallacy that this author is committing is in basing his cultural assumptions in that the main pathway into Spain was limited to the Pyrenees!

He needs to be reminded that during the Roman empire there were several emperors and philosophers from Hispania( Spain)who came and went at will from seaports such as Gedes (Cadiz).

Any enlightened person would tell this poor soul, that the Mediterranean region is well known for its shipping, and that most of Spain's as well as England's contact from the rest of the world comes from the sea via its seaports! The same can be said of Portugal, Southern France, Italy, and Greece.

Most traffic into and out of Spain, prior to the advent of aviation was via these ancient sealanes. The ports in Northern, Southern, and Eastern Spain provided avenues of transportation for the diffusion of ideas as well as trade for centuries.

The author is also incorrect in his assertions regarding the nature of the Spanish people as being more violent because they are more insular, in regards to the Spanish Civil War.

Apparently this man does not know the bloody history of the many countries and principalities of northern Europe well. Any European historical timeline can provide convincing evidence that this statement is ludicrous.

Lastly Matador, you said that Miguel de Unamuno makes this statement (p. 732, Vol 3, Obras Completas, Nuevos Ensayos: España y los Españoles):

If your teacher was quoting Unamuno, this is a positive statement.

So...Antonio Banderas is not a good representative of a Spaniard...well then...what do you think of Julio Iglesias? He's darker than Antonio and EVERYONE knows he's from Spain! So, what kind of representation is he making to the rest of the world? My goodness people, y'all are too obessed with this notion of how white you are or should be. Not all Europeans can be the color of mayonaise (do you really want to be?), have blond or red hair, or have blue eyes. The majority of Europeans are not blond/blue eyed.

Everyone knows that Spain and Portugal are part of Europe. The food, music and dance are definitely European. Colonial and 19th Century America recognized Spain as a European power. Even the KKK recognizes Spain and Spaniards as being white (what an awful example). Those professors that make statements that degrade Spain's European heritage are fools and more than likely not fans of Spain. England, France, Germany and Italy will always be considered as being the definitive examples of what is Europe. Even though Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and spread it's culture to the rest of the continent, people don't normally view it as part of Europe, maybe due to it's proximity to the Levant and it's Byzantine past.

I was just wondering...if Spain is less European, then it must be more of something else...WHAT...more Spanish??? It's definitely not African! Arab perhaps? Maybe in some words and foods, but then the majority of Western European languages trace their ancestry to Indo-European roots. Is it more Mediterranean? Well of course...but then so is Italy, Greece and the South of France. So, what's wrong with that? It can't be more Scandinavian like Iceland, which geographically speaking is part of North America. What about the Irish? Are they not refered to as the "Negros of Europe?"

It all boils down to snobbery, bigotry, and classism!

Matador:

I readily believe you are not meaning to b offensive, however, the one who wrote that sentence probably was. One just cannot say something that simply is as untrue as that and not mean offense.

It is not an unknnown fact that Africa is not a continent that, during History (maybe previously it did) has been know, for hosting developed civilizations or cultures. When the author says Spain is not Europe, he is obviously trying to vinculate us with (you are right, Osomajor) northern african muslim people (darker).

There is a general "culture" that is spread through some occidental countries that the spaniards are more like "brown" than "white".

First, I would like to say that, if I had a drop of black or arab blood or even a stream of it, I would just feel as proud of myself.

Then, I must say I don't think I have any or, if I do, it must be very scarce, since blue eyes, along with very light skin, and sometimes blonde or redhaired people is the appearance of both sides of my family. I myself am pretty pale (except for summer sun-tan), have clear brown greenish eyes, and my hair is dark brown/black (the remains, ha ha).

That said, I'll tell you that , no matter that I don't care about race, I was always very surprised when I was told in Britain, for example, (I think in the USA too) that I didn't look like a spaniard. At London, they thoght I was british , and when it became obvious I wasn't (by my speaking), they were pretty surprised that I was a spaniard.

This seemed very surprising to me because most people I had met in my homeland and in the North of Spain, where I had lived for decades were as white as they were, and as pale as they were, only that blue eyes and blondes were substantially lowere percentages. However, when women dyed their hair, you couldn't tell because it fitted perfectly well their shin. In fact, in hairdressers, they use to counsel women on which dye they should use, recommending those with celtic appearance and/or freckles skin, red colour, and those who are very pale and used to be blonde when children (a lot of us, many times it darkens a lot afterwards) becuase blonde colour suits them and is more believable.

However, when I reached Madrid, and to the southern provinces I was pretty surprised that there were people whose family had been spanish as far as they could remember, and they couldn't be told from a Morocchian or Argelian person, if they were left in those countries.

Along with this, I saw shires with people as light-skinned as the northern areas.

The reason for this racial distribution is the moorish influence. Eddie, the invasion of Northen African arab hordes pushing noth most of the roman-germanic population, and absorbing the roman-iberian population that stayed (because they prefer to have new masters to losing their lands) was mainly in the southern part of the country.

It is true that it was an arab army the one who defeated Charles the Great in Roncesvalles, sung in the Chanson de Roland. What is not usually recorded in the History books is that the leader of the moorish army was the Emir (general in chief) of Zaragoza, supported with allied southern troops, and that they were allied, through their menacing power, with the basque. The basque were forced between the two big kingdoms, the Frank (french), who had invaded Catalonia taking advance of the germanic kings of Spain and nobility weakness (war going on with arabs), and as a buffer against the moors, who threatened to invade France.

While they were retreating, they burnt to ashes Pamplona, the Capital of the basque tribes by then. That's why the basque climbing tribes prepared an ambush at Roncesvalles pass, blocking it, and thus dividing the french army in two, making the french an easy prey for the following moorish army. This was the end of hero and General Roldán, who gloriously died in that battle.

I am referring to you this episode to remark that:

First: The arabs were not settle down in the North. They neither had an arab population nor big armies in the North. The only northern region they hold for more than some years was the Aragón area. And the leader of this region was just an Emir, a general of the southern kingdoms, who frequently needed the support of those to survive. No arab population. Besides they soon lost the land which was disputed by Catalonian counts and basque-navarre kings until an Aragonese kingdom was formed.

Second: There are areas, like Catalonia, the Basque Country, and all the area North of the Cantabrican mountain chain, where no arab was seen , unlees it was an embassador or a merchant, no matter that some paid tribute not to be invaded, in periods of weakness.

Because of this, and because of a similar situation in Italy, along with the turkish invasion of Greece and a brief control of Romania and most or all of Hungary, there are some areas in the european regions that have a darker skin, fruit of the mixture of white race with brown northern african arab race.

Since inmigrants to the USA from Italy came form the southern underdeveloped formerly arab areas, and had darker skin, it's not strange that in the USA they classified Italians as a mixed race. However, most of Italy, and Spain too, do not have that mixture of races. In fact, if you go to Milano oranywhere in the north, you couldn't tell them from french or other central european people. In fact, there is a region in the north of Italy when they still preserve their germanic dialect.

I find the racial issue unimportant. What I find important is the fact that some 'gentlemen' use it to try to diminish us because of political reasons or just out of personal chauvinism (a reflect of their low self-valoration). No matter that I don't care a damm that I am white or black, I dislike somebody trying to show I am less than him because supposedly I am darker (or wither, or bluer) than he supposedly is.

It's like with saxons despicing anglos because they were slightly different ethnically, or celts, or normands despicing anglo-saxons afterwards, no matter they are all part of the white caucasian race. Pure chauvinism.

Mr. Watters is showing a worrying lack of knowlwege for a professional historian, and he is obviously referring to that French chauvinistic phrase Dumas said and Unamuno commented:

"Para afrentarnos y rebajarnos se inventó aquella frase de que el Africa empieza en los Pirineos, y aqui nos hemos pasado los años procurando borrarla y citándola como un bochorno. "

I'll translate it " To affront (insult) us and humiliate us was invented that phrase that Africa begins in the Pyrenees, and here we have passed years trying to delete it and quoting it in embarrasment". Pretty clear, by one of our most known thinkers.

To summarize, it's a discriminatory chauvinistic phrase whose only intention is humiliate the spaniards, because neither ethnically (for most of the spanish) nor culturally nor historically it's true. Spain was not only a crossroad for all the European cultures mainly through the sucessive setlements of european races, but also through the heavy traffic the Camino de Santiago generated, and the reinforcements in form of settlers that kept on coming and coming from the poorer farmers in Europe who were given exemption from taxes and disputed border lands they had to pay many times with their lifes. As I said before, because of this, Spain was probably the richer meltpot of the european culture, much more than France, Germany or any other, where traffic from one state to other was only made by merchants or armies. And obviously, Unamuno was hoping that we could prove we weren't inferior in any way (which we weren't), but he was only making a wish that Spain would be more advanced than the rest of Europe. Because of this, and the meaning of blood-thirst the british took good care to spread (although they, and the rest were exactly the same), along with the spanish Flandes "Tercios" armies, who were unmercyful, but were the best quality armies in Europe, and happened to be composed of two thirds of recruits from other european countries,mainly German and Italian from the Empire (or kingdom)lands, so spaniards were blood-thirsty?

Antonio Banderas is darker than most spanish, and Julio Iglesias isn't. To have the "Latino" look they need to suit in their careers, they have a lot of Ultra violet sessions. In fact, Julio Iglesias is a real fan of UVA sessions.

A photo when he was a kid

I wouldn\'t say he looks very dark

Not that it matters much, because Banderas, as a tipycal southener has, truly, a mixed race. Just pointing this fact out.

It all boils down to snobbery, bigotry, and classism!

Very true!

Chica:

Europe was geo-politically defined early by the Greeks. They expanded throught the Mediterranean and explored atlantic areas (hence the name). The Gibraltar rock, and it's opposing Morocchian rock were referred in Odissey as Scyla and Caribdis, two islands of disaster for sailor, ... The very name of Europa comes from Greek mithology.

As for Italy, it depends when you refer in time. previously to the foundation of Rome, there were a lot of european peoples in Italy, samnites, etrurians, and others, each having a small kingdom, following the rule that one king could only rule in a land as big as to let you (king) reach any part of it with your sword and a horse in a day's ride, that was few times superated except for some empires.

The romans, if we believe their myths and/or History, come from Eneas and his people, a group of exiles from Troy, which was a former Greek colony in Turkey. They merged with the local population in a disputed area, forming a force that stood and later invaded the invader themselves, thus occupying all of Italy.

At the early stages of Rome (as en Empire, not a city only), there were different status of citizenship, being one 'Roman citizen' (regardless of where you were born if you were noble), and 'latin citizen' (second in rights), who happened to be what today is Italy, which developed a sense of nation that was lost later in the medieval split. The Italy citizens were greatly more loyal and supportive towards the Imperial Government. So, Italy existed.

Greece was a bunch of city-states but they were linked by a pan-hellenic comunion. They were ruled by the germanic races dorians, and jonians, who were confederated in one or several leagues all the time, in spite of the rugged land they had under their feet, and the fact that part of it was islands. Hence the Olympic games, hence the coalition for the Trojan wars, hence the coalition against the Turkish, and so on.

MM:

Yes, the Greek themselves invented the word, but anyway you want toput it, I don't think they felt Mediterranean, as this would mean be the same culture than the nomad tribes of morocco, Argelia, and others, except for Egypt which had had a flourishing civilization worth admiring. Wether you call this area Europa or "North Mediterrean and the Northern savages' land", it's all the same. It's the same land, and it's not the mediterranean.

MM and Fmiketheman:

Spain has always been a member of Europe, just as Poland.

Many people mistake words, what make us speak incorrectly (I myself do sometimes, and later I need to correct) that can lead to wrong conclusions because we use wrong concepts:

Greece is the oldest member of the EU or former EEC, which is a political joint, but it's as old as Britain or Demnark as a cultural or geographical land.

Español20: I clap on most of your exposition on History of Spain, although I believe there is no need to emphasize so much wether we are wither than some white americans or not.

Eddie: Obviously, as you see, I don't agree with your premises about isolation, but I agree on the conclusions.

Ignacio:
Thank you for your comprehensive history lesson. I have visited Liebana and El Monasterio de Santo Toribio where the largest known fragment of the Cross on which Christ was crucified was sequestered and is still guarded. It would be taken higher into the mountains when the Moorish Armys approached. And they did come close!

You write: This leaves me a bit confused: Who did Don Pelayo's army (with the assistance of a landslide) defeat at Covadonga (Asturias)? If it wasn't the Moors, who could it have been?
P.S.
My friends in Cantabria all insist that D. Pelayo was a Cantabrian, although Asturias claims him as one of its native sons.

Yes, it was Don Pelayos's army the one that defeated the moors at the Asturias mountains. This is the mountain chain I am referring to as Cordillera Cantábrica. It runs from the basque country along the sea, leavings a 60 miles or 100 kilometres wide area between it and the sea, and it acted as a fort where the remains of the germanic-roman nobility organized resistence and succesfully stopped the moors.

As you well know, Cantabria and Asturias are boundary territories, and Covadonga is more or less in the joint of both, close to the Picos de Europa. So, although in the History books they say he was Asturian, it could perfectly well he was Cantabrian, although, of course, he could have been from any part of Spain. As son of Duke Favila that took control of the remaining christian troops when, due to intestine traition, the moor army and half of the christian army fell upon the christian king Don Rodrigo, because of disputes on throne rights.

A brief on this

La lucha de los pueblos Astures y Vascones contra los musulmanes, será la misma que ya habían sostenido anteriormente contra los Romanos y los Godos

As you can see here, we indomitable northern rebels :p kept fighting the arabs the same we had done with roman and germanic invaders.As in the Goscinny and Uderzo's comic Asterix with the small irreductible gaul village, we have always been very proud of our independence, although we didn't have magic potion, hahaha.

It was all that 100 km fortress that allowed us to survive, detouring moorish attack to more productive lands in France, which made Charles the Great send his army.

Since the move North was, in terms of History, a rush, and a sensible percentage of all the spanish population had refuged in the North, it was easy, by sheer demographic pressure, once the arabs impulse was stopped, to recover Galicia, León, Palencia and Burgos. Some of these lands were recovered by Pelayo (Galicia?) himself and kept for most of the time remaining to our days but for short periods. Most of the rest of the mentioned were recovered by his son, Alfonso I, who raided Central Spain since he hadn't an army strong enough to defend it, becoming a no man's land for decades or even centuries.

This is a GREAT thread! I'm remembering historical facts I'd long forgotten plus gaining new insight and knowledge. Mucho gracias one and all!
No time to comment further as I need to look like I'm working but can't wait to check in later and read more.

Ignacio, I'ld recomend you and everybody to read about Américo Castro and his version of history and Spain, is much more interesting.
When the arabs came to Spain they conquered the country really quickly, the people in the cities opened them the gates of the cities and supported them, there wasn't a big arab inmigration so the people in the south should be already dark (probably the iberians came from Africa too).
There are a lot of myths about the Reconquista and about the arabs in Spain and the fights between arabs and cristians because there is where the idea of a Great, Free and Unique Spain as an heritage of the visigotic kingdom beguins.