Do you think the Germanic nobles (England, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Russia) or the Celts, Latins, Slavs, Jews, and Muslims are more to blame for the French Revolution and Bonaparte? Would the French Revolution have happened if there was no Muslim conquest of Europe in the 8th Century?
2007-11-12 04:02:44 · 6 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Who was worse for France the Germanic monarchs, the Latin Bonaparte, or the Celtic/Latin/Germanic peasants? Do you think all three were equally human or incompetent? Was the Church the straw that broke the camel's back? Can you blame Martin Luther and England for being different?
2007-11-12 04:11:56 · update #1
"Worst" is subjective, they were all fundamental in making the World what it is today.
2007-11-12 07:40:20 · answer #1 · answered by Ophelia193 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The celts as quickly as held Europe from Bulgaria to eire. They have been the elite mercenary combatants of their time. Julius Ceasar led super armies against them for his very own very own political ability. He fairly employed tribes to help his legionaires to combat different tribes. Vikings have been Norwegian thugs and coastal pirates. Franks and Goths, visigoths, galatians, bretons etc have been celtic tribes or clans.
2016-11-11 06:24:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The French nobles who failed the look after their citizens are to be blamed. They led very opulent lifestyles while the common people starved.
2007-11-12 04:36:31 · answer #3 · answered by tigriskd 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say, your not specifing what it is that's screwed up. And your not really saying where either. You say the west, but then you keep talking about France. So i'm not really sure what your question is.
2007-11-12 04:19:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Church.
2007-11-12 04:09:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i would say the christian church.
2007-11-12 04:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by oldguy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋