Which European nations have contributed most to the European civilization?

[Inverno]

Notice that the Germanic or mostly Germanic countries have the most votes

[wvwvw]

Notice that the Germanic or mostly Germanic countries have the most votes

Reflects the ancestry of most Apricity members, most do have some sort of Germanic ancestry

[Inverno]

Reflects the ancestry of most Apricity members, most do have some sort of Germanic ancestry

Or maybe non-Germanic countries just aren't successful

[Cristiano viejo]

Italian wars weren't France versus Spain but France versus western Europe.

Italian Wars were not another thing that France vs Spain.
France vs Western Europe, you say? how is that?

Napoléon was never humiliated in Spain.

Well I was not referring to Napoleon with that of humilitiang but it has its point. Napoleon was defeated by a bunch of bandoleros.

Italian possessions had few nationals values, just royal adventures, the heart of France is near the Rhine. Aqusitions of Metz Toul Verdun were more importants than Lombardia.

Perhaps, but we are talking about military superiority, I dont care if Italy or whatever was more or less important for France or Spain than whatever.

And the most important was the german unification in which he failed, Jacques Bainville stated the rivalty between habsburg and France was an episode of the long Franco german ennemity.

Honestly I dont think that the biggest concern of Carlos I was the reunification of Germany
He was proclaimed emperor of the Sacred Empire at the expense of his maximus rival Francisco I of France, he defeated him in all of wars they fought and even Francisco I was taken prisoner and sent to Spain, and that is what I care.

He failed in 1557, in 1594 he has the support of catholic league.

No, in 1557 the same Felipe II declined to attack it and that is why he was called "the Prudent King". He preferred to sent his army to Flanders, and in 1590 I would say that it was the opposite: the Catholic League had the support of the Spanish army. They asked for help to Spain, it is evident that if they did so it was because they knew that they would be conquered by Henry IV.
More even, Henry IV had to convert to Catholicism to recover the city. Paris is worth a mass, remember?

Wrong parisians had already expelled the precedent king ( Henri III ) from the city ( journée des barricades )

Different time, different context, different people. Nothing to do.

They returned that because they had failed their strategic goals.

What strategic goals? Spain returned these cities for the treaty of Verbins because France renounced Flanders and Artois.
The ultra-strategic Spanish goal was preserving Catholicism in any part of the world.

Prostestantism was never in position to rule France.

I disagreed, if not it´s for Spain Protestantism had imposed in France, Germany or Belgium.

Henri IV led these 4 battles, not more.

Henry IV tryed to conquer Paris and failed. He only can to enter in Paris when he renounced the Protestantism and Felipe II ordened the Spanish army left the city.

Modern is the period between 1492 and 1789.

I know, and even although the Spanish Tercios were the first to mix pikes and firearms in the XV century and revolutioned the war I consider that time too old for being called modern times.

[Robocop]

I cannot believe that Greece is not in this poll. Ancient Greece I mean, at least it should have been mentioned, Greeks founded european civilization (even though Myceneans began all of it before), so if founding of european civilization is not contribution to european civilization, than I dont know what is LOL.

P.S: I could watch this video 10 times per day hahaha, "Football match" Germany VS Greece (greatest Germans minds VS Greeks greatest minds), referees Confucius, St.Augustine & St.Thomas Aquinas:



To me personally the best part is: 02:59 - 03:15 min hahahahah

[Rudel]

1. Again: France had not enough military men. Best example: The Hundred years war. After a single battle like Agincourt or Crecy, France had to "calm down" , due to the lack of avaiable military men.

The losses at Azincourt and Crécy were more important symbolically than factually. It signed the defeat of French heavy cavalry at a conceptual level, although it's true the loss of so much of what we'd call now superior officers was a short-term concern. But really the war lasted so long because it was a low intensity war, made of constant raids over large areas, almost never implicating direct confrontations between armies.

2. US was relevant in population and therefore economic too, despite of this, USA was negliglible as a military power. It had similar situation to the stance of Medieval France.

The comparison doesn't stand.

4.In 1850 only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!

Half of the dialects you've quoted are properly dialects of the French language. The evolution of the linguistic situation in France during the last millennium is complex, and you seem to be completely out of it. Reading half a page on Wikipedia doesn't make you knowledgeable.

In the 15th century, French language and identity exist only in Île-de-France. French "nation" creation or nation building was a state forced societal engineering. DEAL WITH IT.

Ridiculous assertion. You're now talking out of your ass completely.

I know...But you can't just strip Italians or Roman Empire legacy, capito?

There's little cultural continuum, and no political one between Rome and pre-modern Italy. Thus Italy doesn't have a claim to Roman achievements, or no more than any post-Roman nation. That's it.

Italian Wars were not another thing that France vs Spain.

Italian Wars implicated Spain diagonally because the Empire was a major player in the peninsula, but it wasn't in any way, shape or form a direct confrontation against Spain.

The ultra-strategic Spanish goal was preserving Catholicism in any part of the world.

You're either joking or deluded.

I disagreed, if not it´s for Spain Protestantism had imposed in France, Germany or Belgium.

No. Protestantism wasn't at any point in a position to overtake to entire country.

[Stears]

1.The losses at Azincourt and Crécy were more important symbolically than factually. It signed the defeat of French heavy cavalry at a conceptual level, although it's true the loss of so much of what we'd call now superior officers was a short-term concern. But really the war lasted so long because it was a low intensity war, made of constant raids over large areas, almost never implicating direct confrontations between armies.


2.The comparison doesn't stand.


3.Half of the dialects you've quoted are properly dialects of the French language. The evolution of the linguistic situation in France during the last millennium is complex, and you seem to be completely out of it. Reading half a page on Wikipedia doesn't make you knowledgeable.

1st: France was not a militarized society. So it was interested in very low intensity war.

2nd: The most perfect analogy for medieval France. USA was the most populous western country from the 1870s. with negligible military power.

3rd and 4th:the languages in france were not mutually intelligible, so they were not dialects. Read academic linguists instead of your nationalist fairly tales.

Central power was weak in medieval France, that's why French kings had lesser royal army (soldiers and knights) than the Hungarian royal army in the Crusades on the Holy Land.
That's why you were too weak to conquer Italy.

[Rudel]

1st: France was not a militarized society.

That's properly hilarious.

So it was interested in very low intensity war.

You're confusing us with England. They waged war with chevauchées because that was the extent of what they could do.

2nd: The most perfect analogy for medieval France. USA was the most populous western country from the 1870s. with negligible military power.

France was neither negligible militarily, nor inert. Depart from your fantasies.

3rd and 4th:the languages in france were not mutually intelligible, so they were not dialects. Read academic linguists instead of your nationalist fairly tales.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Central power was weak in medieval France, that's why French kings had lesser royal army (soldiers and knights) than the Hungarian royal army in the Crusades on the Holy Land.

Completely irrelevant at a time where military might was centered around the amount of levies you could raise, not personal retinue.

And anyway Charles VII created the first and largest standing army in Europe after warfare changed during the last phase of the Hundred Years War and the Gothic era.

[Stears]

That's properly hilarious.


You're confusing us with England. They waged war with chevauchées because that was the extent of what they could do.


France was neither negligible militarily, nor inert. Depart from your fantasies.


You really don't know what you're talking about.


Completely irrelevant at a time where military might was centered around the amount of levies you could raise, not personal retinue.

And anyway Charles VII created the first and largest standing army in Europe after warfare changed during the last phase of the Hundred Years War and the Gothic era.

PFFFFFFFFFFF

Is the Earth flat? Simply laughable.


Black army was stronger and more modern (and similar old if we count the John Hunyadi era) thank your little army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary

[Cristiano viejo]

Italian Wars implicated Spain diagonally because the Empire was a major player in the peninsula, but it wasn't in any way, shape or form a direct confrontation against Spain.

lol
The Italian Wars were the continuation of the Franco-Spanish wars in Sicily and Naples since 1282. So simple.
Nothing to do with any Empire. The First Italian War (1494-1498) confronted France vs the Catholic Kings, who had nothing to do with the Habsburg.

You're either joking or deluded.

At all. It is evident that you unknown what were the leit motivs of Spanish policy all over the world.

No. Protestantism wasn't at any point in a position to overtake to entire country.

Dutch, English, Belgian or German Catholics must have thought the same