The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[yellfromhell]

Badman,
The Aztecs were a tremendously agressive Civ. What happened is this: Monctezuma thought Cortez was a god, and received him with arms wide open (the description fits perfectly with Cortez appearence). The agressive movement came too late when Cuatemoc made his people revolt.
By the way, here is a quote linked to what you say: its from Bertrand Russell: "War helps more to science than one hundred universities".

[yellfromhell]

eric789,

"Why bring up Mexico when we talk about the Aztecs?"
The answer to this question is simple and Im surprised with the lack of knowledge you have about Mexico. You shouldnt talk like if you knew, then.

1/3 of Mexico`s population comes from the Aztecs, the Mayas, the Toltecas, etc. They keep many, many traditions. Have you heard about the "Zapatist movement". ¿Why do you think those tribes revolt? To keep their traditions. Mexico is the country with more tribes in it. I can also say that the average mexican (no matter if he is white, black or whatever) continues many rituals the Aztecs began. ¿Where do you think Tequila comes from? And Mezcal? Tacos? all of them are adaptations of what the Aztecs did. Talk to a mexican and then tell me if they are not proud of their native origin. Yes, they are extremelly linked culturally with Spain, but that doesnt make them spanish.

[Q Classic]

yellfromhell--

two things:
1. the tripitaka koreana has had multiple texts written on it; few of them have yet to be translated into english. in fact, few english texts have been written about korea outside of the korean war. again, because of a eurocentric historical view; korea wasn't "interesting" enough to be written about, so to speak. kinda like what your attitude seems to be. then again, most books about japan cover only the samurai period, and the world war 2 period, and precious little else; most about china focus on mao and the conflict of china against the western imperialists, with a dearth of texts on the older dynasties. all three civilizations have lasted over 5000 years; the aztecs, not even 1000; naturally, it's easier to write a comprehensive text on aztecs. besides, they're more "interesting" to westerners: a nation of people who sacrificed humans, etc., that were conquered by the good christian europeans.
2. you seem intent on hypothetical situations where korea may have disappeared, without realizing the true strength of the korean military.

problem is, for a good deal of its fivethousand year history (about 3000 years of it), china was the defacto world power in asia; its military might, comparatively, was far greater than britain's strength by the time it conquered china and india. many times it attempted to conquer korea; each time, it failed. furthermore, when japan finally conquered korea, it didn't do so militarily; it did so through diplomatic pressure and manipulation.

furthermore: the reason the aztecs lost so badly to cortez was not military might, as you say; rather, the fact that the spaniards carried with them smallpox, which the aztecs had no natural immunity to, eliminated a good deal of the populace. korea would not have suffered the same fate; smallpox was already there, and the people had a natural immunity. furthermore, the aztecs were not as technologically advanced; the difference, say, would be between a 8/6/3 cavalryman and a 1/1/1 militia in civ2 terms between the aztecs and the spanish; the 8/6/3 cavalrymen would have to face 3/3/1 musketmen in korea, if not stronger troops.

also: the aztecs, as you say, have almost no knowledge of their cultural history outside of what is preserved in their museums; koreans, however, maintained their cultural traditions, maintaing their language and other such cultural heirlooms under the jackbooted japanese thugs which tried to erase every last trace of korean culture.

also: i am not underestimating the mexican economy; i'm just saying, much of its growth has occured after NAFTA; thus, NAFTA must have had some beneficial effect on growth. thus: geographic location helped mexico's economic growth.

continuing: do not use a patronizing tone to me. yes, i'm well aware that england and korea are almost 180 longitudinal degrees apart; that is irrelevant. the british did not so much as conquer china as carve out a piece of it, in an attempt to swallow part of it. as for india's fall, it was mainly due to the fact that india was not unified when it was absorbed; the many different principalities were unable to form a unified front, and so some allied themselves with britain, and some were conquered by british-indian troops. such a situation would not have worked in korea; indeed, even if britain were closer to korea, it is highly unlikely that it would have been able to conquer it. and again, korea would not have disappeared.

now, this is referring to your form of argument:
don't split it up over so many different posts. it's dangerously close spamming, it's annoying, and it breaks up what could have been a cohesive (but incorrect and eurocentric) argument.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

Actually I heard of both Popol Vuh and Tripitaka Koreana. Popol Vuh is the creational story of the maya and Tripitaka Koreana is the Buddhist scripts carved into wood blocks for mass-printing.

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.

You are putting a dangerous assumption here. The Aztecs conquered the Mayas so the Mayan accomplishment can be the Aztec one too? The Nazi Germany's occupation of Paris during WWII makes the Germany the rightful owner of the French cultural accomplishment? Furthermore the Popol Vuh is the creational story of Maya. Not just some kind of cultural thing that can be transferred to other civilisations. Also fair treatment after successful conquest gives the conqueror the right to own cultural accomplishment of the conquererd subjects? What a bizzare logic you are applying here.

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.

I certainly don't think so. Cortez conquers the Aztecs in 1521 and The Japanese invasion of Korea took place in 1592. Korea had to fight off approximately 200,000 musketeers and Samurai warriors total during the invasion and how many men were led by Cortez? At 16th century Korea had the cannon armed fleets, regualr army armed with artillery and miscellaneous small fire arms and well-trained and battle hardened cavalry which had been fighting the mighty Manchus for centuries. Even the most scaring support fire of smallpox that the Spaniards heavily relied on would have no effect on Korea since her enduarance of resisting such an epidemic had been quite well developed already.

But they are now mexicans, and certainly Mexico is the heir of the Aztec empire.

Genetically maybe but the Aztec civilisation was not inherited nor fused into Mexico. Do not be illusive with people and political entity simply because they share the same territory with an old civilisation. Mexican culture is predominantly Hispanic(spanish). They speak Spanish. Their food are under heavy Spanish influence. Their religion is not even a compromise between the old customary belief and Roman Catholric but complete form of the latter one. Mexico itself has some uniqueness from other latin American nations but that's just within the Hispanic civilisation's boundary and it certainly doesn't make the Mexicans are the Aztecs. Do you seriously believe the Iraqis are the true heirs of Babylonian civilisation? The People and the place didn't change.


yellfromhell

I believe the Aztec is a good decent civilisation already without borrowing someone else's accompplishments such as Mayan Popol Vuh or your linking up of Modern day Mexico. I certainly want to see Aztecs in the game but your statement of the Aztecs deserve better than some other civilisations went too far. And you even admitted the fact that you know little of Korea. To be very strict in academic term and based on my knowledge, I believe Korean civilisation is defintely older than the Aztec one and still continues, invented more things than the Aztecs and culturally and mentally more resilent than the Aztecs. But even with this kind of fact I would not dare to say Korean civilisation is more important nor more deserving than the Aztecs because they are all important and valuable pieces that comprise the World history jigsaw puzzle.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

"Zapatist movement" is quite self explanatory about that Mexico is not the legitimate heir of the Aztec civilisation. Why would some tribemen even revolt for the sake of their old tradition? Because Mexico does not have the form of culture that is well fused by old tradition of the Aztec tribes.

Where do you think Tequila comes from? And Mezcal? Tacos? all of them are adaptations of what the Aztecs did. Talk to a mexican and then tell me if they are not proud of their native origin. Yes, they are extremelly linked culturally with Spain, but that doesnt make them spanish.

Is there any more? Do you seriously think only an item of alchol beverage and two items of food can bestow the title of the rightful heir of an old civilisation? If you can bring handful of evidence that Mexico is influenced by the Aztecs then I can bring tonnes of evidence that Mexico is influenced by the Spanish culture. The ratio will be 1:9, I say. Not even 3:7!

[King of Rasslin]

I learned that the Aztecs were only 5 feet tall! Lol, no wonder those wimps got wiped out! Same with Koreans. As for pure military might, Spain could beat both of them at once. Don't even try to show how Korea might last 2 months against Spain, or how their navy was ironclad. They didn't use it, did they?

Fact is, no one cared about that Korean generals ironclad ships. He didn't use them. Koreans were too peaceful. However, us Americans get the credit of creating ironclads because we actually used them! And they were not ignored because their power was demonstrated. Also, don't forget we made the first rotating turret. The Koreans used old fashioned cannons placed on the side of their ships, like pirates. Their ironclads were a modification of their previous ships, but ours was a whole new chassis!

Culture isn't culture unless it is noticed. You can make as many temples and libraries as you want, but isolationist civs (Japan, China, Korea, blah) will never be recognized. In fact, war is the best way to spread culture. European culture is in the East because we were the ones that bothered to explore there. They just sat there and smoked opium or crack or whatever.

You see, we get the benefit of writing history because we were the ones that influenced it. Not Korea. Not Japan. China didn't do much but trade us spices and get involved in the Opium War. We went out of our way to explore and civilize the world and spread Christianity. That's why we get credit for our accomplishments. You should be thankful that so many questionable civs are in Civ 3 because many others like Spain were ignored, and are sort of an afterthought in PtW.

Babylon... Why the **** did they put in Babylon? I think there are enough Mediterranean civs in Civ 3, or does Babylon count as an Asian civ? Anyway, they don't seem like much of a Civ to me.

[eric789]

I learned that the Aztecs were only 5 feet tall! Lol, no wonder those wimps got wiped out!

making fun of racial difference, aren't you?

Don't even try to show how Korea might last 2 months against Spain, or how their navy was ironclad. They didn't use it, did they?

What is your purpose of not accepting the fact?

Fact is, no one cared about that Korean generals ironclad ships. He didn't use them. Koreans were too peaceful. However, us Americans get the credit of creating ironclads because we actually used them! And they were not ignored because their power was demonstrated. Also, don't forget we made the first rotating turret. The Koreans used old fashioned cannons placed on the side of their ships, like pirates. Their ironclads were a modification of their previous ships, but ours was a whole new chassis!

The Japanese admirals and crews cared. Historians do care and people like me care and are interested to know more of it. How can you even compare things that have almost 300 years of gap?

Culture isn't culture unless it is noticed.

Please bring your own definition of culture to the Encyclopedia Britannica and we will see whether it is accepted or not.

You can make as many temples and libraries as you want, but isolationist civs (Japan, China, Korea, blah) will never be recognized. In fact, war is the best way to spread culture. European culture is in the East because we were the ones that bothered to explore there. They just sat there and smoked opium or crack or whatever.

Then why not saying the Mongols and Huns were the best warmongers and conquerors and deserve a spot in the game more than China and India?

You see, we get the benefit of writing history because we were the ones that influenced it. Not Korea. Not Japan. China didn't do much but trade us spices and get involved in the Opium War. We went out of our way to explore and civilize the world and spread Christianity.

Your claim of Europeans are the only major players in the world history only proves your total ignorance of human history. Sure, 19/20th centuries were mostly stirred by Europeans but there was time before that once Europeans were all throwing stone axes while others were building monumental wonders.

Babylon... Why the **** did they put in Babylon? I think there are enough Mediterranean civs in Civ 3, or does Babylon count as an Asian civ? Anyway, they don't seem like much of a Civ to me.

That just proves you never read a single decent history book. What a pity.

[King of Rasslin]

Excuse me? Why is it that so many people have the unique ability to disagree with everything I post? Of all of my points, can you agree with one? Just one? I think you could be right on a few but on others... NO.

The Korean ironclad was ignored. If it was as successful as you think, the idea would have caught on. But it didn't, so there.

As for culture, at least in the Civ 3 since, culture is how you influence other civs with your way of life. A lot of civs have made great monuments, temples, and cultural stuff, but they have gotten ignored. This means they do not have the "influential" culture that is implemented into Civ 3. It is more of a local culture.

Mongols are barbarians. The reason war is important is to spread the culture of the civ. Mongols didn't want to spread culture, like the Greeks did under Alexander the Great. They wanted gold, women, and luxuries. The motives for war are totally different in these 2 cases.

Asian civs are isolationist, just accept it! They didn't spread their colonies (and culture!) across the world like European civs did. The fact that they just sat there doing nothing hurts them. England is just a small island, but they controlled so much of the world through their colonies. The concept of colonies never really caught on to the Asian cultures...

Ok, Aztecs being 5 feet tall did give them a serious disadvantage in combat. That isn't racism, that is a cold fact. Sorry.

Babylon isn't as much of a civ that Spain, or maybe even your Korea! Babylon didn't deserve to be put in because so many other civs should be in. I guess it was the cultural start thing that put them in. Persia needed some neighbors to bash.

And I don't read books. I watch PBS if I want to learn something. And I would consider them to be a decent source for knowledge of the world.

[eric789]

Excuse me? Why is it that so many people have the unique ability to disagree with everything I post? Of all of my points, can you agree with one? Just one? I think you could be right on a few but on others... NO.

Ok, I'll try hard to agree with you from now on.

The Korean ironclad was ignored. If it was as successful as you think, the idea would have caught on. But it didn't, so there.

Just because we don't use things developed long ago doesn't necessarily mean the development or the invention are worthless to human history. The turtle ship was invented and successfully used in naval warfare.

You just keep saying that world wide appliance and continuous usage are the factors to decide historically acceptable invention. But the factors you are talking about applies only after 18th century or later due to advanced communication, transportation and active trade of thoughts and ideas.

Anyone still building tombs based on the technology which constructed the Pyramids? Have Triremes ever been built outside the Mediterranean? How come there were no Europeans building Viking longships except the Vikings even if they all knew the ship design was superb? Does the longship make good thing to study because it was wide spread around the world or even in Europe?

A lot of civs have made great monuments, temples, and cultural stuff, but they have gotten ignored. This means they do not have the "influential" culture that is implemented into Civ 3. It is more of a local culture.

Ok, Europe has influenced the rest of the world more than the latter did to the former. But that only applies only later fraction of human history. If the game spotlights 19th/20th centuries only, your point is quite valid. But what is the time span the game use? You wouldn't say Europe has influenced the World all along from BC4000, would you?

Mongols are barbarians. The reason war is important is to spread the culture of the civ. Mongols didn't want to spread culture, like the Greeks did under Alexander the Great. They wanted gold, women, and luxuries. The motives for war are totally different in these 2 cases.

Are you saying Alexander did plan for the long campaign for culture spreading? Aren't you confused the real motive of the conquest(expansion of the Greek empire)and the skills(culture swapping)to hold the conquered terriotory. Even in this case the Greeks did not impose their culture to the others one-sidedly but they too were influenced by the conquered cultures.

Asian civs are isolationist, just accept it! They didn't spread their colonies (and culture!) across the world like European civs did. The fact that they just sat there doing nothing hurts them. England is just a small island, but they controlled so much of the world through their colonies. The concept of colonies never really caught on to the Asian cultures...

Imperialism is more of like a socio-economic phenomenon that swept one fraction of the history and disappeared. Also if you think only Europeans had empires, you are mistaken. There were many Non-European empires existed throughout history and their size and influence were dependant upon the available transportation and military technologies at that specific time period along with geographical characteristics.

Babylon isn't as much of a civ that Spain, or maybe even your Korea! Babylon didn't deserve to be put in because so many other civs should be in. I guess it was the cultural start thing that put them in. Persia needed some neighbors to bash.

Please tell me that many other civs you think should be in then we can discuss whether they can kick the Babylon out of the game or not.

And I don't read books. I watch PBS if I want to learn something. And I would consider them to be a decent source for knowledge of the world.

I also love to watch PBS documentaries as well as BBC ones but that alone can not enrich our learning. I suggest you to read some history books then you will face whole new perspective of history learning

[King of Rasslin]

Triremes were very influential in war in the Mediterranean. The Korean ironclad was insignificant because Korea never did go on a massive invasion of an island. It might have been used in war, but it wasn't of huge importants. The vikings, however, were very influential on European history.

Alexander never planned to spread Greek culture, but that is what he did. The Mongols never did spread their culture because people saw them as barbarians. The Greeks had more influence over what they conquered because of their culture.

At 4000 BC, all of the civs were isolationist. When you look at the whole picture, did Asian countries ever colonize Europe, or the Americas? No. European countries did that.

Although there have been many empires, European empires stretched across the globe. "The sun never sets on the British Empire" is what I mean. You can't say the same for Korea, however.

[eric789]

The Korean ironclad was insignificant because Korea never did go on a massive invasion of an island. It might have been used in war, but it wasn't of huge importants.

From our point of view, no. But do you think the Koreans and the Japanese even care about Triremes and the longships? Triremes and the longships played significant roles in European history as well as the turtle ships did so in their Oriental history. Don't be so Euro-centric, man.

At 4000 BC, all of the civs were isolationist.

another sign of your ignorance.

When you look at the whole picture, did Asian countries ever colonize Europe, or the Americas? No. European countries did that.

You are comparing things regardless of time span. If we discuss things based on your manner how can you answer the questions like this "What were the Europeans doing while the Chinese were building the Great Wall and the grand canal?

Although there have been many empires, European empires stretched across the globe. "The sun never sets on the British Empire" is what I mean. You can't say the same for Korea, however.

This also comes from the same faulty logic of yours. 1000 years later one nation creates an inter-galatic empire and do you think it will diminish the historical value of the British Empire at 20th century? The comparison itself is totally ridiculous and we all know why. Because the available technologies are different between 20th century and 30th century.

[Q Classic]

triremes? who needed triremes in the east sea and the yellow sea? they would have been crushed by the tides, that's what.

triremes would have been worthless in east asia in terms of military use.

that's why they never developed it.

[Lord Merciless]

The sun never sets on the British Empire? I thought even Scots want their independence.

It's true Europeans had a good time during the last 300 years. But 300 years makes up only 5% in the total human history. Like your Civ 3's histograph, the average score matters more than your relative power at moment.

[King of Rasslin]

"From our point of view, no. But do you think the Koreans and the Japanese even care about Triremes and the longships? Triremes and the longships played significant roles in European history as well as the turtle ships did so in their Oriental history. Don't be so Euro-centric, man."

An invasion of triremes and longships could cripple or crush a whole country. The turtle ships simple didn't matter as much because sea invasions were not as popular in the East. Besides the Japanese, there really wasn't a need for the turtle ships because all of the Asian countries are connected well. However, triremes and longships were more important because naval warfare was more important that Europe.

"another sign of your ignorance."

Nomads were around at 4000 BC, but not civilizations. The first civilization in Mesopotania didn't emerge until 3500 BC. Before then, every civilization was nomadic. And they were certainly isolationist because nomads would avoid each other. A few cave men fighting didn't count as not being isolationist. Tribes stayed in their territory.

"You are comparing things regardless of time span. If we discuss things based on your manner how can you answer the questions like this "What were the Europeans doing while the Chinese were building the Great Wall and the grand canal?"

The grand canal is the Panama Canal, made by Europeans. Nothing else comes close, sorry. The Great Wall was a failure. It certainly didn't stop the Mongols from invading. If it actually worked, it would have been important. Believe me, there are plenty of European buildings and monuments out there to compete with a big 'ol wall out there.

As for time span, you do have to say that the Asians have never been big on colonizing the world and spreading their culture. However, they might do so in the future. But that hasn't happened yet, so we have to go on what we know now.

"This also comes from the same faulty logic of yours. 1000 years later one nation creates an inter-galatic empire and do you think it will diminish the historical value of the British Empire at 20th century? The comparison itself is totally ridiculous and we all know why. Because the available technologies are different between 20th century and 30th century."

Blah, blah, blah. I don't care if some other country in the future makes some inner space empire. The fact is, according to current history, imperialism (and power) has been with the Europeans for most of history. We pushed them, but they have never pushed back. Until then, we are on top. When you compare the influence of countries on others, Europe wins.

[eric789]

The turtle ships simple didn't matter as much because sea invasions were not as popular in the East. Besides the Japanese, there really wasn't a need for the turtle ships because all of the Asian countries are connected well. However, triremes and longships were more important because naval warfare was more important that Europe.

Naval warfare not important? Of course you wouldn't know the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 involved thousands of warships from each side and the fate of the war was sealed by decisive naval battles.

Furthermore the massive Japanese invasion was nothing like their previous pirate raids but something that could change whole Oriental history. This event had great impact on many including China, Manchus, Korea and Japan(the 4 major power brokers in that region) In this crucial historic event, the turtleship and the Korean fleet played decisive role.

Nomads were around at 4000 BC, but not civilizations. The first civilization in Mesopotania didn't emerge until 3500 BC. Before then, every civilization was nomadic.

Interesting new theory. Care to bring that theory to historians and archeologists? From 10,000 to 4000BC, There were development of settlements into cities and development of skills such as the wheel, pottery, and improved methods of cultivation in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. Very nomadic huh?

Predynastic Egyptian cultures develop (5500?100 B.C.); begin using agriculture (c. 5000 B.C.) Very nomadic indeed.

Earliest known civilization arises in Sumer (4500-4000 B.C.) Maybe they were all nomads then according to your account?

The grand canal is the Panama Canal, made by Europeans. Nothing else comes close, sorry.

Again you are comparing things that are thousand of years apart with total disregard to available technologies.

The Great Wall was a failure. It certainly didn't stop the Mongols from invading. If it actually worked, it would have been important. Believe me, there are plenty of European buildings and monuments out there to compete with a big 'ol wall out there.

The Great Wall wasn't built for stopping massive invasion but for keeping nomad raiders out of the Chinese border villages. The Great wall had succesfully achieved its goal to keep out of nomadic raiders for very long. The Ancient Chinese had relied on different mechanism for its defense when they faced a massive invasion. The complex network of the 'Kwan',valley gate, system or interception and field engagement after total levy/conscription. A frontal fortress such as the Great wall serves for only earning enough time for successful levy/conscription from the rear.

As for time span, you do have to say that the Asians have never been big on colonizing the world and spreading their culture. However, they might do so in the future. But that hasn't happened yet, so we have to go on what we know now.

Why talk about only future and present? The past is not a history at all? Why don't you measure or judge their success by ancient standard rather than modern one.

Blah, blah, blah. I don't care if some other country in the future makes some inner space empire. The fact is, according to current history, imperialism (and power) has been with the Europeans for most of history. We pushed them, but they have never pushed back. Until then, we are on top. When you compare the influence of countries on others, Europe wins.

Don't you know why I said that inter-galatic empire thing? It is meaningless to compare things that have thousand years of time gap. By ancient standard, there were many great non-European empires. In addition, Europe had been pushed several times by non-Europeans throughout history. The Huns, the Mongols and Saracen did that with varying degree.