The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The basic problem here is that Europe, Middle East, and East Asia are crowded with great civs, while there is almost nothing in Sub-Suharan Africa, Americas, and Australasias. Zulu and Aztec achievements don't come to close to that of Koreans, but they were the dominant civs in their respective geographic regions, and Koreans were overshadowed by Chinese and Japanese.

It is not so easy to build a great civilization in dense tropical jungles. Nonetheless, you are quite mistaken.
Zulus and Aztecs were far from the dominant civs in the Americas and Africa except very locally for a very short period of time.

Some great civs you overlooked: Americans, Anasazi, Ethiopia, Iroquois, Mali, Maya, Olmec, Polynesia, Tiahuanaco, Zimbabwe.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I think the civs chosen for Civ3 were based on their historical dominance- that is the ability to conquer other civs. This could be militaristic conquest as with Germany, Japan, Russia, France, etc OR cultural dominance and assimilation as with China and America.

I think you're right.
But we don't need to agree with that particular criterion.
Personally, I'd like some more emphasis on scientific, economic and social achievements.

Btw, both America and China did quite a bit of conquering, too.
Look at some old maps and see how small the US was in the beginning!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the grand canal, iirc, was a large canal that linked the yellow and the yangtze rivers; this allowed for fast transport and also much irrigation. in the modern times, as it was no longer needed, it disappeared.

The Grand Canal is not a single canal, but a huge system of artificial waterways that connects all the important rivers. It was a gigantic undertaking, and it took many centuries to complete.
AFAIK it is still more or less intact and in use.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ribannah


It is not so easy to build a great civilization in dense tropical jungles. Nonetheless, you are quite mistaken.
Zulus and Aztecs were far from the dominant civs in the Americas and Africa except very locally for a very short period of time.

Some great civs you overlooked: Americans, Anasazi, Ethiopia, Iroquois, Mali, Maya, Olmec, Polynesia, Tiahuanaco, Zimbabwe.

You are right about that Zulus and Aztecs weren't even the most dominant civs in their own geographic regions. But they are well known nowadays.

BTW, Zimbabwe and Tiahuanaco don't lie in the tropics.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ribannah

Look at some old maps and see how small the US was in the beginning!

America prefers buying lands rather than conquering them.

[King of Rasslin]

"wimps? funny, i heard the vietnamese and the chinese call americans the same thing when they didn't win vietnam...
and i remember something about some people saying the americans were wimps for not taking the korean war into china..."

We could have won Vietnam, but the government didn't want that. Staying on the defence for too long is against everything you should do in war, especially for the US, because we are almost always better off attacking. The problem was that the Vietcong cheated and didn't dress up as soldiers. And if the US guys tried that tactic, they would be shot because they are white and that would give it away. If the people want to be poor, ignorant communists, we will let them do that. They didn't want freedom, so they won't have it. Fair enough.

Hey, Korea should be grateful to us. Half of Korea is one of the poorest countries of the war. We are the reason why the other half has a decent economy, although they are notorious for taking computer games way, way too far. Is it true they have Starcraft matches on TV in Korea? That is what I have heard.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

Are the italians a Civ? Sure. Are they rigthfully heirs of the Romans? I think so. Is their any relation between Roman culture, beliefs, way of life, and the italian ones? Little. Then why cant Mexico be seen as a rightfull heir of the Aztecs?

This is where our disagreement comes from. Maybe I should have said things differently. We may call the Italians are the heirs of the Romans but their civilisations are two completely different things. The same goes to the Mexicans and the Aztecs.

Cortez won easily to the Aztecs because Moctezuma thought he was a manifestation of Quetzalcoatl. The Aztecs didnt know the horse, they thought it was a monster. The arrival of a 'Cotez-looking' god was predicted, so Moctezuma acted ingeniously. That was the real beginning of the fall and its main cause.

Hey, don't say things that I never have claimed. I was simply repudiating your theory of Korea would disappear from Cortez's expedition since the advantages that the Spaniards heavily relied on wouldn't work against Korea. Bear it mind that it's not I who called the Aztecs, wimps or anything. I'm aware of the hard situation that the Aztecs had to face.

1.2 millon mexicans still speak Nahuatl (the Aztecs language) and many more speak other tribes languages.

and the rest speak? Overwhelming number of Mexicans speak Spanish. You know how small the percentage of the native tongue is compared to the total population.

Mexican religion? 90% of Roman Catholic and 6% of Protestant. I don't find one native religion from the fact sheet of the state of Mexico.

And the rest of your account all makes the Aztec legacy some form of sub culture not the dominant one. Not the sub culture with dynamic force which will bring Mexico someday close to the Aztec legacy but the sub culture which is going to be disintergrated sooner or later.

Also if you can insist today's Mexican civilisation derived from the Aztec one just because of the remnants of the native people and their sub-culture or even some fusion of culture in some degree, then you should claim that the USA derived from the native American Indian civilisation too. Did the USA derive from the Iroquis or Sioux? Did Mexico derive from the Aztec?

[eric789]

King of Rasslin

We could have won Vietnam, but the government didn't want that. Staying on the defence for too long is against everything you should do in war, especially for the US, because we are almost always better off attacking. The problem was that the Vietcong cheated and didn't dress up as soldiers. And if the US guys tried that tactic, they would be shot because they are white and that would give it away. If the people want to be poor, ignorant communists, we will let them do that. They didn't want freedom, so they won't have it. Fair enough.

The Vietcong cheated but they were almost wiped out after Tet Offensive and its the North Vietnamese regualrs who ended up occupying Saigon. I think the Vietnam war was not an American war that's why they had to pull out.

Hey, Korea should be grateful to us. Half of Korea is one of the poorest countries of the war. We are the reason why the other half has a decent economy, although they are notorious for taking computer games way, way too far. Is it true they have Starcraft matches on TV in Korea? That is what I have heard.

Then Germany and Japan are not free from your accusation for their economic success. All the Western European countries are not free from it. Korea didn't even get the Marshall Aid. They worked hard for their economic success. Almost all of Europe was in ruin after WWII and aided by the USA. Are you asking all the Western Europeans should be grateful to the USA for that? Do French people ask Americans to be thankful for the Independence of America for the aid? Why are you so confused about who played the main part and who just aided from side?

Wasn't that game released few years ago? and still popular? I rather play Heros of Might and Magic IV.

[Q Classic]

Well. Those numbers show what I said: Certainly Korea would be more difficult to conquer for the Spanish than the Aztecs, but in the end it would dissapear too (at least supposing a similar distance between Spain and Korea of that existing between Spain and Mexico).

See Q-Cubed: first you use the geographical situation argument to discredit the enormous growth of Mexican economy, and then you dont accept a geographical situation argument to understand that Spain would have destroyed Korea if the distance from one to the other were smaller. It doesnt sound very logic to me.

ok. let's say korea was part of europe; and for good measure, let's stick japan there too. since until the 19th century, japan was weaker than korea, militarily, culturally, and technologically, there's a good chance japan would have been wiped out, if korea was to fall. fine, if you want me to say that, i did. except, you still fail to account for the fact that korea is extremely mountainous terrian; even if spain or any european country had tried to invade, chances are such invasions would be unsuccessful. of course, if korea were in europe, it could be entirely possible that korea could have conquered a lot of the europeans. we wouldn't know that, would we?

see, now, why did i discount geography in one instance and count it in another? yell, your logic is the one that makes no sense. geography is immutable; it affects things like territorial expansion, and economics. it doesn't matter if korea was farther away; in territorial concerns, it matters a great deal where someone is located in respect to someone else. this is why i have no problems with a spanish civ. you cannot use hypotheticals and say what if we put these two countries next to each other and see whcih one exterminates the other?
however, economics is also primarily influenced by location. this is why most of the middle east still relies on oil for their economic growth. this is why once one part of europe became industrialized, the rest of europe pretty much followed.

See Q-Cubed: as I said to Eric, if you can justify the Indians for being conquered by the English because they were not united, then justify the Aztec for being conquered by the Spaniards because they werent united too.

yell, you make no sense here. yes, i can justify that the north american native americans were conquered by disunity. i can't make the same claim for the aztecs, why? because the aztecs WERE a cohesive political group, while the native americans were NOT.

as for eurocentrism-- yes, it's a game. but why don't you think it matters, this philosophy? philosophical considerations, in case you haven't notice, drive a lot of real-world decision making processes.
you can't have a politician without believing in a philosophy; nor can you construct a machine or a computer unless you followed a certain philosophical ethic.

======

We could have won Vietnam, but the government didn't want that. Staying on the defence for too long is against everything you should do in war, especially for the US, because we are almost always better off attacking. The problem was that the Vietcong cheated and didn't dress up as soldiers. And if the US guys tried that tactic, they would be shot because they are white and that would give it away. If the people want to be poor, ignorant communists, we will let them do that. They didn't want freedom, so they won't have it. Fair enough.

war is what war is. guerilla tactics aren't cheating... not unless you count things like the french resistance (no uniforms), or, even more damning to your argument, the patriots of the united states (again, no uniforms).

Hey, Korea should be grateful to us. Half of Korea is one of the poorest countries of the war. We are the reason why the other half has a decent economy, although they are notorious for taking computer games way, way too far. Is it true they have Starcraft matches on TV in Korea? That is what I have heard.

why do you get the picture that korea isn't grateful?
and korea is not "notorious" for taking games way to far. what do you mean by that?
and yes, they do hold starcraft matches on tv, but only occasionally.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
We could have won Vietnam, but the government didn't want that. Staying on the defence for too long is against everything you should do in war, especially for the US, because we are almost always better off attacking.

Yes, the US had an opportunity to win the war, but they regrouped instead of pushing the advantage.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
The problem was that the Vietcong cheated and didn't dress up as soldiers. And if the US guys tried that tactic, they would be shot because they are white and that would give it away. If the people want to be poor, ignorant communists, we will let them do that. They didn't want freedom, so they won't have it. Fair enough.

They didn't cheat. Guerrila warfare (not wearing uniforms) is a legitimate military tactic when your opponent has better weaponry and training. This is different that the terrorists of the middle east who destroy civiians and avoid damaging military targets.

Not all "US guys" are white, there are US soldiers of every ethnic nationality in existence. The US is probably the only military in the world that has trained soldiers capable of infiltrating every know nationality and culture and remaining undetectable.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Hey, Korea should be grateful to us. Half of Korea is one of the poorest countries of the war. We are the reason why the other half has a decent economy, although they are notorious for taking computer games way, way too far. Is it true they have Starcraft matches on TV in Korea? That is what I have heard.

When I was stationed in Korea in 1998, Korean civilians would pull me off the street and buy me dinner simply because I was an American soldier. I have never been treated with such gratitude and respect anywhere, especially in the continental US. I have never heard or seen any action by South Koreans that could be construed as ungrateful to the US.

I also found more Koreans to be interested in the World Wrestling Federation that Starcraft

Don't even get me started on their love of Maxwell House........

[King of Rasslin]

"The Vietcong cheated but they were almost wiped out after Tet Offensive and its the North Vietnamese regualrs who ended up occupying Saigon. I think the Vietnam war was not an American war that's why they had to pull out."

What are you talking about? The Tet Offensive was the death blow to the US involvement in the war. We pulled out because we didn't know who to shoot. It was unfair because the north and south Vietnamese ALL LOOK THE SAME! It's not racist, it's the truth! That is why we lost Vietnam.

"Wasn't that game released few years ago? and still popular? I rather play Heros of Might and Magic IV."

HoMM 3 was too similar to the second one. It was actually more like an expansion set. And the expansion set for the third one was almost nothing. I haven't bothered with the fourth one because HoMM disappionted me.

[King of Rasslin]

"war is what war is. guerilla tactics aren't cheating... not unless you count things like the french resistance (no uniforms), or, even more damning to your argument, the patriots of the united states (again, no uniforms)."

The patriots couldn't afford uniforms... The communists would have given the Vietcong uniforms, but they didn't because they wanted to win by cheating. They chose not to have uniforms, but the patriots had no choice. Besides, the British knew that they were the enemy. We didn't know who was the enemy because our allies looked the same as our enemy. That is why you cannot compare the Vietcong to the patriots.

[King of Rasslin]

"why do you get the picture that korea isn't grateful?
and korea is not "notorious" for taking games way to far. what do you mean by that?
and yes, they do hold starcraft matches on tv, but only occasionally."

I read an article about a Korean kid getting beat up because he won a Starcraft match using the map hack. That sounds very serious to me.

[eric789]

What are you talking about? The Tet Offensive was the death blow to the US involvement in the war. We pulled out because we didn't know who to shoot. It was unfair because the north and south Vietnamese ALL LOOK THE SAME! It's not racist, it's the truth! That is why we lost Vietnam.

After the offensive, the cost in Vietcong casualties was staggering but the whole thing triggered a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The Vietcongs suffered enormous losses but won a valuable political victory by turning many Americans against the war. All these were possible because the war wasn't American one and that's what I was talking about.

HoMM 3 was too similar to the second one. It was actually more like an expansion set. And the expansion set for the third one was almost nothing. I haven't bothered with the fourth one because HoMM disappionted me.

Though the last sequel doesn't impress me as much as the second one, I still think the series is one of the greatest.

Btw you know about Korea more than I do in some cases(games and such..)

[King of Rasslin]

"Btw you know about Korea more than I do in some cases(games and such..)"

I hang around some Starcraft sites because I used to think I could turn pro by scoring high on the Battle.net ladder.

Korea has a ton of people playing in cyber cafes. I heard that one MMORPG in Korea had 2 million players. I think the concept of cyber cafes is great, but they really haven't caught on here very well.