The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[King of Rasslin]

"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."

No, it didn't. If it played a decisive role, it should have stopped the Japanese. Because it failed, it isn't considered to be important. The US ironclads were, however, very successful and they did change naval warfare as we know it.

"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? "

Your dates are all wrong! Sumerian culture emerged at around 3500 BC, not the ridiculously early dates you mention. Before this point, there was very primitive agriculture, but mostly hunting and gathering. Believe me, there were not any big cities before 3500 BC. Just a few very small settlements, but most people at that time WERE nomads.

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

Well, the great canal of China or whatever isn't used. However, the Panama canal was a world event, altering the face of 2 continents. If it was really that great, then why haven't I heard about that great canal? The Panama canal is so much more important.

"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."

However, nomadic raiders were easy enough to stop. The Great Wall wasn't needed for that; it was needed to stop the Mongols. And it FAILED. Ok?

" 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."

Ok. Then it will be even easier to show how pathetic Asian countries are. In fact, most of what is important about them (Korean War, a real economy) has happened in the modern era.

"In fact, Europe had been pushed several times by non-Europeans throughout history. The Huns, the Mongols and Saracen did that with varying degree."

If a few raids on villages counts as a push, then the Europeans making entire colonies in Asian countries could be considered a strong shove, if not a pile driver.

[eric789]

it should have stopped the Japanese. Because it failed

it did stop the Japanese by defeating the Japanese fleets in three decisive battles.

Your dates are all wrong

Then go and tell to this site and complain to change the date as you want. We will see whether they accept what you say.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0772314.html

However, nomadic raiders were easy enough to stop. The Great Wall wasn't needed for that; it was needed to stop the Mongols. And it FAILED. Ok?

Even with my kind explanation of what the Great Wall meant to be, you still don't understand. Is it YOU who decides whether the Great wall should be used in any way or the Ancient Chinese? Yeah! I know the world revolves around ya!

Ok. Then it will be even easier to show how pathetic Asian countries are. In fact, most of what is important about them (Korean War, a real economy) has happened in the modern era.

You are all wrong. If the Korean civilisation ever gonna be included that will be because of its past achievements not its modern performance. Track back and read the all the posts about past Korean accomplishments.

If a few raids on villages counts as a push

Few raids on villages can bring the eventual downfall of Roman empire?
That villages can cover whole southern Russia and Caucasus?
Few raids can defeat the Russians, Bulghars, Poles and Hungarians so soundly?
Few raids can annihilate the army of King Bela IV of Hungary(The army consisted more than 100,000 knights)
Northern Italy toward Venice and Treviso, and up the Danube toward Vienna were raided. Some raids huh?

[King of Rasslin]

Yep. Just raids. They damaged Europe, but never got decisive footholds. We *willingly* granted freedom to our colonies. That is pathetic.

I even checked up with my textbook on dates. Sumeria was the first civilization and it started in 3500 BC. That is all I have to say about that.

And winning 3 decisive battles didn't stop the Japanese from successfully invading Korea. If it did, then the turtle ships would be of actual importance.

[King of Rasslin]

By the way, your link is dead.

[eric789]

Yep. Just raids. They damaged Europe, but never got decisive footholds

You know why they suddenly stopped their conquest? They met heavy resistance from Europe? No. They stopped just because their ruler died back home and they did settle down on the southern part of Russia.

I even checked up with my textbook on dates. Sumeria was the first civilization and it started in 3500 BC. That is all I have to say about that.

I checked many sources and the dates are not fixed and somewhere around 4000BC. The point is no one not even a single account says those early civilisations were isolationists.

And winning 3 decisive battles didn't stop the Japanese from successfully invading Korea. If it did, then the turtle ships would be of actual importance.

Actually the naval battles took place after the landing of Japanese ground troops and their naval defeats forced them to retreat to Japan.

By the way, your link is dead.

Try to copy the URL and paste it to your browser's url section then press enter.

[King of Rasslin]

"You know why they suddenly stopped their conquest? They met heavy resistance from Europe. No. They stopped just because their ruler died back home and they did settle down on the southern part of Russia."

Yep, they totally depended on their "great ruler." However, Europe, the birthplace of democracy, wouldn't have this problem. Southern Russia is a tough place to live, suitable for those barbarians. We just allowed them to take it. They would pay if they tried to go for the heart of Europe.

"I checked many sources and the dates are not fixed and somewhere around 4000BC. The point is no one even not a single account says those early civilisations were isolationists."

Who exactly did Samaria trade with? I mean, they were the first and only civilization for a while! They traded with Eygpt when they emerged, but even then they stayed away from each other.

"Actually the naval battles took place after the landing of Japanese ground troops and their naval defeats forced them to retreat to Japan."

But Japan had damaged them very badly. A little Japanese culture (sumo wrestlers in the WWE and Dragonball Z) is present in America, but there is almost no Korean culture. Korea was set back very far after being defeated by Japan. They couldn't even make it in Civ 3, and the ZULU could make it in!

[eric789]

Yep, they totally depended on their "great ruler." However, Europe, the birthplace of democracy, wouldn't have this problem. Southern Russia is a tough place to live, suitable for those barbarians. We just allowed them to take it. They would pay if they tried to go for the heart of Europe.

This has nothing to do with our previous point of whether Europe has been directly invaded by non-European forces or not. I will take that as you agreed with me on the point we talked previously.

Who exactly did Samaria trade with? I mean, they were the first and only civilization for a while! They traded with Eygpt when they emerged, but even then they stayed away from each other.

That still doesn't support your opinion of early civilisations were isolationists. Prove something to me that they all had isolationist policy.

But Japan had damaged them very badly. A little Japanese culture (sumo wrestlers in the WWE and Dragonball Z) is present in America, but there is almost no Korean culture. Korea was set back very far after being defeated by Japan. They couldn't even make it in Civ 3, and the ZULU could make it in!

Again, once one major point becomes difficult to swallow for you, you just bring plain spamming. Very dull of you.. I will take that as you admitted the importance of the turtleship in Oriental history since you talk nothing about it anymore. huh huh.

[King of Rasslin]

"This has nothing to do with our previous point of whether Europe has been directly invaded by non-European forces or not. I will take that as you agreed with me on the point we talked previously."

I agree that the Asians successfully defeated the Europeans and conquered the south Russian desert. Mainly because only 4 or 5 people lived there in the first place.

"That still doesn't support your opinion of early civilisations were isolationists. Prove something to me that they all had isolationist policy."

Early civilizations were too far apart to contact each other. Samarians didn't have any culture or ideas from the Indus River Valley civilization. The closest they got to being non isolationist was their trade with Eygpt, but that was in 3000 BC when Eygptian civilization appeared.

"Again, once one major point becomes difficult to swallow for you, you just bring plain spamming. Very dull of you.. I will take that as you admitted the importance of the turtleship in Oriental history since you talk nothing about it anymore. huh huh."

I refuse to believe a turtle ship can change the world. Maybe to the Asians, but it didn't make a difference between Europe and Asia.

[eric789]

Early civilizations were too far apart to contact each other. Samarians didn't have any culture or ideas from the Indus River Valley civilization. The closest they got to being non isolationist was their trade with Eygpt, but that was in 3000 BC when Eygptian civilization appeared.

Being an isolationist or expansionist does matter whether they are surrounded by nomads or civilised societies? Isolate from whom? You need somebody around to be an isolationist. Just because they are cut off from other civilisations doesn't mean that they can't be expansionistic against their surroundings whatever they might be.

I refuse to believe a turtle ship can change the world. Maybe to the Asians, but it didn't make a difference between Europe and Asia.

Who claims the turtleship can change the world? The American ironclads played no role outside of the Civil War.

Triremes had any global impact?
Knights influenced Asia?
English Longbowmen did any role outside of Europe?
But they are in the game nevertheless.

[King of Rasslin]

"Being an isolationist or expansionist does matter whether they are surrounded by nomads or civilised societies? Isolate from whom? You need somebody around to be an isolationist. Just because they are cut off from other civilisations doesn't mean that they can't be expansionistic against their surroundings whatever they might be."

Well, if they were not isolationist, you would see aspects of other civilizations in Samaria. But you only see Samarian aspects in Samaria. In the US, very non-isolationist, you see cultural aspects from just about every other country.

"As well as most of the UUs in CivIII.
Triremes had any global impact?
Knights influenced Asia?
English Longbowmen did any role outside of Europe?
French musketeer"

Fine, your turtle ship might be marginally useful in the waters of the Chinese sea, or whatever. But some UUs did influence the world. The F-15, Panzer (Germany attacked Africa in WWII), and the Man-o-war were used to conquer around the world. All are European or American.

[eric789]

Well, if they were not isolationist, you would see aspects of other civilizations in Samaria. But you only see Samarian aspects in Samaria. In the US, very non-isolationist, you see cultural aspects from just about every other country.

Is Samaria the only so-called early civilisations? what about the rest? Prove to me about the rest since you claimed all early civs were isolationists.

Fine, your turtle ship might be marginally useful in the waters of the Chinese sea, or whatever. But some UUs did influence the world. The F-15, Panzer (Germany attacked Africa in WWII), and the Man-o-war were used to conquer around the world. All are European or American.

Hah. I knew you would bring something modern here and I explained already many times that kind of comparison is pointless.

[King of Rasslin]

"Is Samaria the only so-called early civilisations? what about the rest? Prove to me about the rest since you claimed all early civs were isolationists."

Well, it WAS the first. It wasn't isolationist with nearby civs like the Babylonians and Eygptians (when they appeared) but they didn't really pay attention to Asia or Europe. Early civs were isolationist, but they did have minor contact with their own regions.

"Hah. I knew you would bring something modern here and I explained already many times that kind of comparison is pointless."

The man-o-war isn't modern. And a lot of colonization and influence was brought about through modern UUs. The others were only used in their respective regions.

[eric789]

Early civs were isolationist, but they did have minor contact with their own regions.

Ok, let's clarify things here. Economically or militarily or both?

The man-o-war isn't modern. And a lot of colonization and influence was brought about through modern UUs. The others were only used in their respective regions.

So what? Does Man-o-war make the turtleship less important in history? Man-o-War is important but it does not diminish the historical value of the turtleship.

[King of Rasslin]

"Ok, let's clarify things here. Economically or militarily or both?"

War was definitely part of the ancient era. However, they were isolationist in their culture. However, the middle eastern civs had similar culture anyway, so war was the only major contact between them, besides a little bit of trade.

The turtleship had some historical role, but it didn't change the world. Just Asia.

[eric789]

they were isolationist in their culture

Ok, your claim has been specified. So I presume you are not claiming that the early civs were isolationists militarily and I have no strong objection about this.

The turtleship had some historical role, but it didn't change the world. Just Asia

Fianlly! I have no objection for that, too. The turtleship played its role in Oriental history so did the other ancient UUs in their region.