Why does Germany have so many UNESCO sites?

[RyoHazuki]

It's absurd that a country/ethnicity with less than 1000 years of cultural legacy has more sites than Turkey or Syria who have 4,000 years of proper civilization on Germany. Esp. when many of them are within the sphere of being modern.

[Dr_Maul]

I mean, you kind of answered your own question there. While Turkey and Syria had buildings that had over 4000 years time to crumble and be destroyed by earthquakes and armies, Germany's are more recent...

[RyoHazuki]

I mean, you kind of answered your own question there. While Turkey and Syria had buildings that had over 4000 years time to crumble and be destroyed by earthquakes and armies, Germany's are more recent...

UNESCO heritage sites make no exception for ancient ruins. Thing is, Germany has next to none.

[Dr_Maul]

UNESCO heritage sites make no exception for ancient ruins. Thing is, Germany has next to none.

The point is that if you make a timeline of when UNESCO worthy structures and sites were built in the countries, Germany’s are all at maximum 1000 years old whereas those in the Middle East are a lot older (as you pointed out)
The difference is, it is relatively easy to upkeep a structure for 1000 years let alone 500 or 400, but not so much one that is 3000 or 4000 years old.
A church or mosque built in the Middle Ages is likely to be used and kept in shape until the recent age, whereas a Roman pantheon hasn’t been used for near millennia at this point in those parts of the world.

[RyoHazuki]

The point is that if you make a timeline of when UNESCO worthy structures and sites were built in the countries, Germany’s are all at maximum 1000 years old whereas those in the Middle East are a lot older (as you pointed out)
The difference is, it is relatively easy to upkeep a structure for 1000 years let alone 500 or 400, but not so much one that is 3000 or 4000 years old.
A church or mosque built in the Middle Ages is likely to be used and kept in shape until the recent age, whereas a Roman pantheon hasn’t been used for near millennia at this point in those parts of the world.

It takes more time, money, and assets to upkeep a modern structure compared to something like Persepolis.

[War Chef]

It's absurd that a country/ethnicity with less than 1000 years of cultural legacy has more sites than Turkey or Syria who have 4,000 years of proper civilization on Germany. Esp. when many of them are within the sphere of being modern.

Unseco headquarters are in France so it's western Euro biased.

[RyoHazuki]

Unseco headquarters are in France so it's western Euro biased.

Of course, amongst the top 10 are: Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the UK.

[War Chef]

Of course, amongst the top 10 are: Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the UK.

#DeyDon'tRlyCareAbtUs

[lei.talk]

[Bender1999]

Germans value cultural, historical and natural heritages. As an example and because it was appealed, Turkey is not so. 12/13 years ago when i saw Istanbul, especially the Bosporus area i was really fascinated and impressed but every year they built more and more ugly buildings there. Germans looked after their cultural sights, regardless of churches, castles or whatever, Turkey has(or had) a lot of beautiful mosques, churches, palaces, caravansereis etc from seljuk, beylik or ottoman era and many of them are decayed. And they are doing a bad job if they want to reconstruct them. Same about nature, Turkey has a great, species rich and impressive nature but many don’t care. If no tourists were interested in to this sights, no one would give a fuck about those things. Germany is different, they consider that as their cultural heritage and responsibility regarding nature to safe all that, and this since centuries. So i don’t wonder why you can find a lot of UNESCO sights here...