The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[King of Rasslin]

Korea is better than a "civilization" conquered by a few Spanish guys. Heck, they just wanted gold. They didn't even plan on destroying the Aztecs, but the Aztecs were so weak and stupid they decided to put them out of their misery.

Korea, on the other hand, would require maybe a few more Spanish guys. Not a lot more, but more than was needed to kill off the Aztecs.

Exactly what did the Aztecs do besides sacrifice each other? Name a single great Aztec literature work. Huh? Can't do it? Then either you really do not know as much about the Aztecs as you think, or they really are the most pathetic faction in Civ 3. Their UU is just a stronger warrior, they never really went past that point. Even the Zulu were tougher to kill.

[yellfromhell]

I never said the Aztecs were a great civ, but I think they deserve their position better than Korea. First of all, I believe the Aztecs are somehow representing the Latin-American Civs. Firaxis chose the aztecs probably because their pyramids, but surely not for their combat power. They had an extremelly precise calendar. They mapped the sky. I cant tell you now any book writen by the Aztecs, but I can certainly tell you one the Mayas did (and they were conquered by the Aztecs): the Popol Vuh. Thats a world wide known piece of literature. I think their cultural influence cant be denied. You can say anything you want about their combat weakness, even about their ingenuity, but they had an interesting culture. I believe it would have been better if instead of the Aztecs, they put Mexico as a Civ. Someone talked about Koreas economy. Well, Mexico is worlds 8th economy. Mexico fought 3 times with the US. Pancho Villa, a mexican, was the only man ever to invade the continental territory of the USA. They won their independence war with Spain and owned also Texas and California - you cant judge them for losing those states against the US because every Civ would have losen that war - . Maybe it was a stupid idea but they fought instead of selling their territory. The big nations all selled their territory to the US under the menace of a war: Spain sold Florida, Rusia sold Alaska, the French ended selling Louisiana, the dutch sold Manhattan, etc. By putting Mexico as a Civ you could unite the advances of the civs that territory hold: the Aztecs, the Mayas, the Olmecas, etc. Mexico City - founded by the Aztecs as Mexico Tenochtitlan - is the worlds most populated city. If you wanted relevance in an american civ, after the USA this is the most. In Asia you have a lot of relevant Civs and thats why theres no place for Korea yet. And remember something: Asias most relevant Civs were not conquered by the european civs because they had a relevant obstacle in the middle: the Otomans. To reach China, Japan or Korea you had to pass across many warriors territories. And, after all, Japan was forced by the USA to open to free commerce in the 19th century. It took just a couple of ships to threaten the Japanese because 200 years before the Samurai prohibited fire weapons, so they had no chance to fight. Every Civ would have died fighting Spain at some moment or against the USA from 1850 to this time. Its not an excuse for the Aztec weakness, but as I said: combat strength is not all. See, if you leave out the Aztecs because of their combat strength, there should be no Zulus, no Iroquais, no Indians, not even China (because the Mongols would deserve better that place).
There has to be a geographical criterya to choose Civs. If not it would be very simple: Europe + USA + Japan + Persia + Egipt and stop it here.
Hugs
Yell

[King of Rasslin]

If geography is why civs make it in, why isn't there a single civ from South America? Maybe because geography has NOTHING to do with it? Civs are put in Civ 3 because they stood the test of time, or to be pc. Japan wiped the floor with Korea. That's why Korea didn't make it in.

Yes, Mexico deserves to be in. Certainly more than the Iroquios. At least Mexico didn't get wiped out like the Iroquios did.

[yellfromhell]

Well then tell me something: the orginal Aztecs were wiped out about 350 years ago ¿Do you remember them? ¿For what? Korea is still here. ¿Do you think someone will remember Korea 350 years after an hypotetical extintion?
First of all: lets not look at the map with political frontiers - if so neither Rome, the Aztecs or Babylon should be in Civ3, because they do not exist anymore -. Watch the world map divided by cultural influences. Thats why I feel no big need for South-America to have a Civ in Civ4: because Im sure the Aztecs or Spain will somehow represent my culture - Im southamerican with no special relation with the aztecs but extremelly related culturally to the mexicans -. But let me tell you that if the Aztecs are taken out in Civ4, surely the Incas would make it in. ¿Why? Because to most of Civ players, those spanish-conquered tribes give the same. Its not to be expected a cosmopolitan game, just a wide spread number of civs to make it interesting. If its not with the Aztecs, it would be with the Incas, the Mayas, the Guaranis, even with Cuba and Fidel Castro :=). And the same thing goes for the Zulus. ¿What did they do compared to Spain, Holland, Belgium, the Vikings? Nothing, but black Africa has to be represented somehow.
Hugs
Yell

[Dimension]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
If geography is why civs make it in, why isn't there a single civ from South America? Maybe because geography has NOTHING to do with it?

Come on, smart guy, try to use a little common sense. I said Aztecs were included mostly so America could have some neighbors for culturally linked starting positions. The Aztecs and the Iroquois weren't exactly major civilizations that "stood the test of time." They lasted as long as they did because the contenant was friggin empty.

[Q Classic]

yellfromhell:

yellfromhell, from your post, i can gather you didn't bother reading anything from at least before page before this one.

They had an extremelly precise calendar. They mapped the sky

the aztecs and the koreans both had this. flip back, oh, maybe two to four pages, and you'll find references to queen sondok's stellar observatory; you'll also find references to the world's oldest and longest continually running weather log, originally based from that observatory. true, that might appeal only to climatologists and meteorologists, but really, do supremely accurate calendars excite anyone but the most devoted horologist?

the Popol Vuh. Thats a world wide known piece of literature.

by the mayans, not the aztecs. irrelevant. plus, i've never heard of this text.
in response, there is one "world-famous" korean text: the tripitaka koreana, a massive text kept in a buddhist temple. of course, outside of buddhist circles, it's not as well known, but then again, in which circles is the Popol Vuh known?

I think their cultural influence cant be denied. You can say anything you want about their combat weakness, even about their ingenuity, but they had an interesting culture.

the aztecs? ok, so they can't. what makes their culture so unique?
and why is the korean culture NOT unique?
speaking of military weakness, ingenuity, and culture, aztecs and koreans have many similarities. at certain points, both civs were relatively powerful militarily against their neighbors, but at different points, both suffered a huge defeat at the hands of a more technologically advanced nation. aztec ingenuity and korean ingenuity have been questioned; suffice it to say, i can be very confident in saying that the koreans are very ingenious: regardless of how the metal type printing press was used, the fact remains, the koreans came up with it; same for the ironclads. as for culture? aztecs were no doubt unique in central america. koreans are also quite unique in east asia-- there are many things all east asian cultures share, but in the case of japan, china, and korea, the differences are so glaring and so vast, that one cannot say that they are the same.
this doesn't really help your argument here any; why are the aztecs more deserving?

Mexico is worlds 8th economy.

primarily by virtue of being right next to the US/California.
korea's trade with the us has to cross the pacific, not just the rio grande.
and it's important to note, that calling to light korea's economy is not a matter of size so much as startling growth; immediately after the korean war, skorea had suffered at least a half century of continuous and systematic economic disruption; its GDP and income per capita were below even the poorest of many agrarian nations-- including many african ones. and yet, in the span of only forty-odd years (economic growth did not begin in earnest until the late 1960s) skorea shot up from being the lowest percentiles in terms of GDP and income per capita to one of the highest; something which mexico has not duplicated (they did not have to go up as far).
this is not to demean the growth of the mexican economy; its growth has been impressive. it just hasn't been in the same ballpark as the korean economic growth.

[quote]Mexico fought 3 times with the US. Pancho Villa, a mexican, was the only man ever to invade the continental territory of the USA.[quote]
korea's never fought the us, but of course, that's because they're not exactly neighbors. on the other hand, korea has invaded china a few times (two or three); and has beaten back at least two japanese invasions on korean soil.

Mexico City - founded by the Aztecs as Mexico Tenochtitlan - is the worlds most populated city

and? seoul, founded in by koreans hundreds of years ago, is one of the world's ten largest cities, according to some counts. also, according to some counts, tokyo-yokohama is larger than the mexico city metro.

In Asia you have a lot of relevant Civs and thats why theres no place for Korea yet

let's see...
china (in); japan (in); india (in); babylonia (in); mongols (in)...
the main ones left? korea, thai, khmer... all of which are worthy, but not very familiar to the west.

And remember something: Asias most relevant Civs were not conquered by the european civs because they had a relevant obstacle in the middle: the Otomans.

china and india were under britain's thumb from the 1700s...

See, if you leave out the Aztecs because of their combat strength, there should be no Zulus, no Iroquais, no Indians, not even China (because the Mongols would deserve better that place).

actually, indians would be around; they managed to successfully beat of multiple mongol invasions with their mughal troops. zulus would be in because they managed to crush pretty much all of their enemies, until the brits came in with their guns. china would be in because at multiple times throughout their history, their armies have been at war and defeated many enemies from within and without.
of course, in a history book, you won't find that... because most history books in the west devote few chapters at all to asian and african history. otherwise, you'd be quite aware of military strengths in asia throughout time.

and as for your second post... enormously eurocentric. i can't believe it-- it smacks of a western superiority complex, one which isn't deserved. writing off all of africa's cultures because they "didn't do anything" that registered on a meager euro-centric history textbook...

[eric789]

Why bring up Mexico when we talk about the Aztecs? Simply because Mexico is there where the Aztecs have previously lived? What are the relationship between those two? Does Mexico carries a single tradition of the Aztec? or even Mexican mentality has any similarity with the old Aztec one? their religion? their way of life? Art?
Anything?

You can not justify that Mexico is a legitimate heir of the Aztec culture and I don't find any serious attempt from the Mexican government to preserve Aztec culture among normal Mexican people but mere keeping of the pyramid sites for tourism. Why so? Because there is nothing left to preserve.

Because the Aztec culture is dead and disconntected from Mexican culture for very long time thus even making such effort doesn't make any sense.

The Aztec civilisation is dead long ago and Mexico certainly did not derive from it but rather shaped by enormous Spanish influence with some addition of the American culture.

The transition of the cultures was so rapid and radical and most importantly no significant amount of Aztec culture was fused into today's Mexican culture to call Mexico the rightful heir of the Aztec civilisation.

It is also arguable that modern day Italy and the ancient Roman civilisation, Egypt and the ancient Egyptian civilisation and Iraq and Babylon/Sumer with varying degree of how legitimate they are to be called the true heirs.

[eric789]

Dimension

It didn't lead to them producing a full set of movable type and printing books, did it?

They did have a full set of movable type and printed many books.

Korea made a new phonetic writing system in 1443 to be different than China and Japan. So? Japan invented their phonetic writing system in the 900's. Written English goes back to the 700's. Egyptians and Mayans were using hieroglyphics a long time before that. In this context, how is Hangul the slightest bit significant?

It's not the date of the invention that makes many linguists and phoneticians fascinated by the Korean Alphabet but it's originality and scientific nature.

Yes, a Korean general armored his fleet in 1592, and thus technically the first ironclads belonged to the Koreans. You've actually found something that is legitimately accepted as a Korean invention ...I must point out, however, that this is another example of a good idea a Korean had that Korea as a whole never adopted. Yi Sun-Sin had the brilliant idea of protecting his ships, but the idea was not used again until it caught on in the 1800's.

Maybe they developed better ship design than the turtle ship or they didn't need the turtle ship anymore. Who knows? USA did not continue to build the same ironclad class 100 years later since it was developed.

It's also a cool fact that in the 1590's Korea had pottery nice enough to impress China and Japan, but again, keep in mind that plenty cultures had quality pottery thousands of years earlier.

You are grossly misunderstanding the term pottery and it's sub category called ceramic porcelain making. The old way of clay pot making is virtually a part of every culture whereas when it comes to sophisticated ceramic porcelain there are not so many civilisation to be noted for that. From Koryo dynasty to Choson dynasty Korea rivaled China, the only competitor, in terms of ceramic heating stove designs, quality clay extraction techniques, drying shelf designs and most of all the craftsmanship. Korea had cutting edge technology for a whole industry and it wasn't easy for the Japanese to just copy it thus leaving them no choice but kidnapping the master craftsmen from Korea to create their own industry.

[badman]

i would only put civs in civilization that really changed the world.
korea resisted great powers like china and japan but did it ever really get aggressive and influenced their neighbours?
for example, the idea of the printing press got lost and was reinvented lateron in europe so that invention did not really change anything.
korea never played an active role in history so i don't think they deserve to be among the first civs even though they are important. but i don't think their role in history was important enough to compete with the role of the spanish, for example (i don't think that spain is more valuable or anything than korea or did better things but they just affected history more than korea).
as a matter of fact, usually only aggressive civilizations changed the world but there are some words for this: "war is the father of everything" (tried to translate it as good as possible ).
only in the modern times war has become a threat to the whole mankind.
i agree that the aztecs also didn't change the world but it would be boring if there were just one american civ.

[Q Classic]

the idea of the printing press got lost

actually, no. it wasn't lost.

besides, you're looking at it from a profoundly eurocentric historical viewpoint.

by that reasoning, the aztecs, iroquoi, zulus all aren't worth putting in; india is dubious; japan also wouldn't make it as much, since it only became a world player in the 20th; whereas almost all european nations would make it in: england, spain, portugal, germany, france, greece, italy, rome, poland, netherlands...

[siredgar]

It's difficult for me to understand why people get so emotional and angry towards people who say that Korean civilization made significant achievements and deserves more attention. If I could speculate, I would say that is because so much of the information revealed here is challenging orthodox viewpoints and the traditional education that some of you may have recieved. Often times, when someone is confronted by information that contradicts prior perceptions or beliefs, this leads to confusion and in some cases, anger. I don't want to give you any more psycho-babble, but that is my analysis.

Anyhow, one thing you must understand is that the divergence between the orthodox viewpoint of Korea and the actual facts is that Korea's history is largely "hidden". Partly because its height was prior to the 17th century when many Westerners began arriving in Northeast Asia and partly because much of Korea's history was erased by Japanese invasion and occupation.

Which brings me to a point that keeps on coming up. Why do so many of you think that Korea is an inferior civilization because it was invaded and occupied? Korea was UNSUCCESSFULLY invaded by the Japanese once and then occupied by DECEPTIVE strategic maneuvering by the Japanese for only 35 years. France was both invaded and occupied by the English many times and was defeated and occupied by the Germans twice. Does this all make France an inferior civilization?

While some of you are not impressed by Korean inventions you have to understand that they are remarkable because they were "firsts". That means that there was nothing like it invented before. It also means that what other people had were even more primitive at the time. Anyhow, that is not good wording because it would be hard to describe Korean society as "primitive" by any means in the 16th century. Just by looking at the cultural and artistic accomplishments during and prior to this time makes Korea one of the greatest civilizations in history.

There have been a few people talking about facts of modern Korea as arguments for its consideration as a major civilization, but I find Korea's latest achievements as nothing compared to those prior to the 17th century. They are significant, however, because they signify that Korea is one of the few civilizations to make a "comeback".

Regardless, I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that Korea was ever a world power or even wanted to be for that matter. But after you have all of the major powers such as England, France, China, Egypt, etc., who are you going to include? It is apparent that Korea had a far more advanced civilization than some of the civs already included in the game as well as many others proposed to be included in the game. It is also one of the few civs to have many "firsts" in invention, which I think is very important.

[yellfromhell]

Hi,
I recognize I wasnt polite in my first reply in this thread. I beg your pardon for that. Now, about the discussion, I would prefare it to be a dialog (in the Gadamer sense), a 'chat' where positions could dinamically change theirselves. This doesnt necesary means one position to completely change its mind, but just recognize that the other MAY have some part of the truth. Im now recognizing the Korea supporters may be right. Why? Because I accept I know little about Korea. What took me to think Korea does not deserve to make it in Civ4? Well, the same error that I always criticize to the 1st world citizens. I though that my lack of knowledge of Korea was because there wasnt too much to learn about it. You see: instead of recognizing that I didnt know about Korean history because I wasnt interested in studying it, I thought I didnt know because the that information simply didnt exist or was not relevant. My line of thoughts was: "if the information does not come to me in someway, that must be because it is not relevant". Sorry for that.

Now, the other part of this reply: I still believe the Aztecs deserve their place and that they do better than Korea (at least of what I know about Korea).

See next replies

[yellfromhell]

Hi,

Q-Cubed:

I believe we are in front of a cultural barrier. You never heard of the 'Popol Vuh' and I never heard of the 'Tripitaka Koreana'. You believe this book is 'world-famous' and I believe the 'Popol Vuh' is world-wide known. ¿How can that be?

Let me tell you my part of the story: this book (the Popol...) is included in the formal programs of study in Literature in my country`s schools (and Uruguay is very, very far from Mexico). I have books writen in English that talk about it and I well know it has been printed in at least 17 languages.

You dont count the 'Popol Vuh' as an argument in favor of the Aztecs because it was writen by the Mayas. Well, let me tell you something: the Aztecs, as the Incas, had enormous empires. If you see the maps of these empires you could think all over those regions there were Aztecs or Incas, but thats not true. The empires were gigantic communities of tribes. The Civ is called "The Aztecs" because that was the tribe that ruled, but the empire included hundreds of different tribes. The Mayas, as well as the Toltecas, were conquered by the Aztecs, not eliminated. Therefore, you can see all this like a civil war more than a war between civs. The Mayas ruled hundreds of years before Cortez reached Mexico, so it is legitime to look at the Aztecs as their heir. They did not killed the Mayas, but instead they learned about their way of melting metal, their pottery, their calendars, etc. They adopted many traditions from the other tribes. You can they were despotic with the tribes they ruled, yes, but that does not mean they considered them stupids.

[yellfromhell]

Hi,

Q-Cubed once again:

First of all every Civ is UNIQUE. But here we are trying to see who deserves better to be represented in Civ4 (for example). I understand that if Cortez would have arribe in Korea at that time, thing would have been much difficult for him. But I suppose, in the end, Korea would have dissapeared. Why? Because at that moment Spain was THE POWER and Cortez was a very, very intelligent stratega. We dont know much of the Aztec history because the Spanish burned books and living leyends, as I understand the Japanese did once in Korea. Actually, the remaining aztecs dont remember nothing else about their past than what you can find in a Museum or a in-depth study book. But they are now mexicans, and certainly Mèxico is the heir of the Aztec empire. As I believe that, I also believe that Mexico deserves to be in Civ as a representant of Latin-America in two ways: representing all the countries that were once ruled by the spanish in America and representing the civs that were spoiled by the spanish. Why the Aztecs and not the Mexican in Civ3? Because they have fame of being a "mysterious civ". There are lots of thing in their culture that are extremelly difficult to understand and so people look at them with some kind of fascination. I also understand Abe had to have a neighbour in Civ3, and thats why I said that if the Aztecs didnt make it, the Incas, the Mayas, the Cheyenne, etc would do it. You could ask yourself: But the Incas lived in South-America? Yes, but I believe anything would be fine for Firaxis from Rio Grande to the south. As today, for many 1st world citizens, a puerto-rican and a peruvian are the same, all under the etiquette of "latins" (and remember the french and some rumanians are also).

[yellfromhell]

Q-Cubed,
You give value to Koreas discovery of the idea of making an Ironclad because they were "the FIRST". Well, I dont matter if Mexico is near the USA or not, I just say mexican economy is the 8th in the world, and I give value to this data because it clearly shows mexicans are in the group of "The most...".
You value Seoul for being one of the World`s ten largest cities, and I value Mexico because its the Worlds most populated city and, consecuently also in the Top Ten of the most largest cities (and it is one of them).

About europeans conquering the asians:
As you say, China and India were under Britain`s thumb. Thats way I said in a past reply that if it was for combat strength, then The Mongols deserve a place better that those nations. By the way, you know England is in Koreas opposite side of the world. Its impressive that the english could conquer India and part of China doing those extremelly long boat trips. That takes me to think that, if only Korea would had been a little closer to England, it would have dissapeared (its the same argument you use to under-estimate mexican economy: geographical situation).

You say this:
"(the Zulu deserve to be a Civ because...) they managed to crush pretty much all of their enemies, until the brits came in with their guns"
Then, my friend, ¿what do you think the Aztecs did? ¿they sang to their enemies? No, they crushed every enemy they found until the were crushed by the Spaniards. At the moment Spain was the worlds most powerfull nation, and when the english crushed the Zulus, they were the worlds most powerful nation. So, if one deserves it, the other too, dont you think?