When did Greece move into Northern/Western Europe? :)

Greek history, like Roman history, is (part of) the history of the West. Is the OP talking specifically about the history of, say, the Germanic or Gaulish tribes before they were conquered by Cesar?

It's difficult to know. The OP mentions the "Eeastern Mediterranean basin" as part of the Orient:

>> the Orient (particularly the Eastern Mediterranean basin over to present-day India), not Europe, is the historic center of civilization.

I can't see how that doesn't include Greece, especially Ionia. On the other hand, I can't see how "Europe" excludes Greece, either. The same goes for the Roman Empire, that covered much of both Europe and the Eastern Mediterrannean for a long period.

I think the OP, or perhaps their source, is just confused about what is what, the Orient, Europe, the West etc.

I thought I was quite clear. Greece and Italy are, effectively, part of the Orient, due to their contiguous connection to the Mediterranean and easy shipping access. Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles!

The straight-line cultural connection from northern Europe to classical Greece is mostly a myth, established to sell a sense of importance to the Johnny-come-lately imperialists of Britain, Holland, and Germany. "Europe" is a more modern concept.

>> Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles!

Geographically, certainly. Culturally, not at all. The Persian wars (and even Alexander's campaign) were already portrayed as a clash of civilisation by their contemporaries. The difference between one big, monolithic empire vs many agile city-states (a few of them even democratic, to different degrees) was not easy to miss and it becamse a main theme of the interpretations of the Persians' failed campaigns that persists to this day (e.g. - how the Greeks overwhelmed the Persian navy with their smaller, faster, more manoeuverable ships in Salamis etc).

>> "Europe" is a more modern concept.

A lot of this "myth" of continuity comes from the fact that the people who were originally subjugated by Rome ended up seeing themselves as Roman, and proclaimed their proto-nation states to be the legitimate heirs of Rome. Most prominent among them, the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. the origins of modern Germany) and even more so Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire, in other words- the Greeks.

Is there a straight-line connection between Rome and modern Greece that goes through Byzantium? A word for "Greek" in the Greek language is, even today, "Romios", which means - Roman. The Turks even called us "Rum".

Is there a straight-line connection between ancient and modern Greece? We call ourselves "Greek" (I'm one obviously) but we speak a significantly changed language, identify with a single nation-state and recognise a montheistic religion as the official state religion.

And yet, who has more of a claim to being "greek" than modern-day Greeks? Turks, maybe, who live in what used to be Ionia? Southern Italians, who live in Magna Grecia and often speak Greek dialects?

How about a connection with Rome? Who can claim to be a descendant of the Romans any more than the speakers of Romance languages? What about the inhabitants of the "land of the Romans" (Romania)?

What I'm trying to say is- modern nation-states are invariably based on a particular reading of ancient history, which, since we're talking about the Old World, is the history of Rome (and to a lesser extent, Greece). The influence of Rome on the identity and culture of the people of Europe, through those "myths" is of such undeniable magnitude that it really ends up constituting a straight-line cultural connection, even when the culture has changed significantly since ancient times (as of course it would). See "What did the Romans do for us".

"Europe" is a modern concept, sure- but it would not have taken off the ground if it hadn't been for the unifying influence of the Roman Empire.

Note: Current Romania never claimed to be a descendant of the Roman state, unlike those other countries you mention. Byzantium was actually the valid successor of the Roman Empire, since the Romans themselves made it and it was a splinter of the former empire. The HRE, Russia, the Ottomans, etc., were all claiming the former Roman imperial glory.

Instead current Romania was named as such just based on the endonym (the name they gave to themselves) of the locals: Romanians. The name of the locals does imply a connection to the Romans, as their descendants, but that's it.

What I'm trying to say is a bit subtle, but basically Romania is a name which acknowledges a fact (the Romanians are descendants of the Romans/Latin speaking populations; not even our greatest enemy, Hungary denies this), not a claim to greatness. So the name is a logical extension of this fact, just like you'd call the land of the Greeks, Greece (or the land of the Albanians, Albania) :)

I didn't know there is antagonism between Romanians and Hungarians. I guess, historically and geographically speaking it was inevitable :/