I find your observations as interesting as they are candid.
I think your explanations go a long way in explaining why the west eventually became "Augustinian" in it's theological orientation, and all of the problems that come with this. Augustine's theologizing/philosophizing is characterized by a quality which I think your assessment of the Germanic mindset would find appealing.
For example, the rest of the Fathers do not try to define how the "begotteness" of the Son, differs from the "Procession" of the Holy Spirit. They simply say "it does", and leave it at that...even going so far as to attack any attempt to peer into this subject. Yet, this was not good enough for Augustine - as far as he was concerned, if there was not discernable difference, then the two processions must be the same...and if the same, that would mean (in his view), there was nothing that logically distinguished the Son and the Holy Spirit; indeed, they'd be the same Hypostasis.
This is where filioquism, the problematic, heretical variety that came to be officially adopted by Latin Christendom, came from. This is just one example of both the content, and approach of Augustine, which would come to characterize the west, AFTER the ascendency of the Franks. I think it's obvious where the appeal came from, and why in the west Augustine became, for all purposes, the "only Father that mattered." This is why by the time scholasticism was born, and you read things like the Summa, there are practically no Patristic references, save those from Augustine.