Why is France such a cultural heritagelet? I would have assume that from their history they would at least be top 2...

Ancient might not be the best word, but I'm just saying these lists favours the older monuments. That might be an answer to OP's question.

Most UNESCO in Spain is quite old:

whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/es

Yeah, the UK is way ahead of the IS regarding the destruction of cultural heritage

Was browsing the UNESCO website.

Apparently this is considered world heritage in France.

>Even cheating they are outside of the top 3

Is this chart an objective way to measure greatness?

To be fair it is part of a collection of buildings by le Corbusier, most of which are not as much an eye sore.

Touristic destinations:

eupedia.com/italy/highlights_italy.shtml
eupedia.com/france/highlights_france.shtml
eupedia.com/spain/highlights_spain.shtml
eupedia.com/germany/highlights_germany.shtml

>Italy still beats everyone
>Vatican not even included

How can the rest of Yurop even compete?

More like objective way to measure bribing.

Please don't fall for the /pol/ meme of discounting all art and architecture from after the 19th century.

>Saudi Arabia isn't on the top

t.Mad Frogaboo

That looks godawful

That's not surprising. France is extremely urbanized and modern and they keep destroying their old churches to make room for more mosques: shoebat.com/2016/08/17/french-government-has-destroyed-33-churches-in-the-last-two-decades-while-at-the-same-time-built-1000-mosques-european-people-stop-cutting-your-own-wrists-and-start-fighting/

They're only more relevant in tourism because of the world's biggest meme; Paris, which is a shithole full of niggers and mudslimes with a stupid steel tower as it's main attraction.

I don't but I do dislike that building in particular and I'm not fond of le Corbusier either.

Giddings, more like 900 to present. France was the shit in the Middle Ages.

I can tell from this post that you are in no way consumed by excruciating anal pain.

UNESCO heritage sites are not all of the same value, you can't rightly rank nations just by number of sites.
If Italy submits "venetian villas" as a site proposal, that covers about a hundred manors of very high artistic value, but it's only one site.
If Italy submits each roman church separately as a site proposal, every church will be its own site.
By your chart the two types of sites are the same, but if you're aiming to quantify the cultural heritage of a nation, they obviously aren't.

you know the rest of Europe had an industrial revolution right?

Several sites in Italy are basically "the entirety of the city center" because otherwise it would have too many sites.

And because they're apparently much easier to manage that way (don't ask me how, it's just the spiel I hear when they agglomerate sites). Compare to most third world countries, where a site is usually a single ruin or building.
That chart is literally fucking worthless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Italy

Most of them are bretty gud, but I think there are some important Roman ruins missing even.

this.
I can't wait till all the Algerians get deported

>deporting the native french population
what's funny is that the maghrebs are the once actually speaking out against the mass-migration by sub-saharans

No country experienced the population growth of Britain.

yes and no.

france and spain for example never industrialised to the same extent, remaining largely agrarian