The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
But I saw it on the news! They can't get away with lying, and now I have 2 solid sources: the news and my schoolbook. It would be great if someone could bring up 3 sources that the Koreans were the first in ironclads. But the news is rather solid and reliable, and it is commonly accepted that the Monitor was first.

American News Channels are highly inaccurate! CNN is very biased, although their website is MUCH better.

You must have lived a very sheltered life to not realize how much the Media manipulates stories, and for fluff pieces like Dan Rather/ Monitor thing they just go off memory and what they can clean from guy mowing his lawn next to their news van. It's so not important they probably couldn't have cared less.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
However, while a very small minority of people think the Koreans made the first ironclads, it is true that the Monitor had the first rotating turret and was most likely the first ironclad. I say "most likely" because the Korean ships might have had a small amount of iron on the sides, but probably not enough to call it a true ironclad.

What does a rotating turret have to do with being "iron clad"?

Just because the monitor had more metal doesn't mean anything. If someone wears a T-shirt and then later someone else wears a long-sleeved t-shirt, does that mean the earlier person can no longer be considered to have worn a t-shirt?

PS: I'm going to have to let people know we have a new Higher Game.

[Ribannah]

Didn't Higher Game stop posting shortly before KoR appeared?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Didn't Higher Game stop posting shortly before KoR appeared?

Hmmmmm

[King of Rasslin]

We have the same signature. Yes, I am Higher Game. I ripped the name off of a guy from a steroid website, and his last message was about liver disease so I figured I would "borrow" his very cool sounding name. Hey, I doubt he is going to come get me now!

King of Wrestling is from the Ready to Rumble movie, after Jimmy King. Although he isn't a real wrestler, he was very good in the movie. I considered making my title from the Beyond the Mat movie, but it was too sad so I decided I wouldn't touch that.

Asian wrestling involves a lot of "hardcore" action, and injuries are common. But there are plenty of replacements out there. Asian military tactics involved overwhelming the enemy with numbers, without caring about losses. The group is more valued than the individual in Asian culture.

I would actually consider the turtle ship a very amazing accomplishment for Asians, since armor (like on European knights) was very rare, and the leaders didn't consider their soldiers to be worth much. They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved. Kinda like the Zerg, or the bug aliens from Starship Troopers.

I started watching CNN after 9/11. I was somewhat upset that they spent most of their time talking about the miners instead of that Ukraine air crash, but they don't talk about Asian countries a lot. I still learn very little about them.

The only real news manipulation I know about is how they favor Israel because of the large amount of Jews in the news. They almost never talk about things from the Palestinian point of view, but from what I have seen they are against terrorism even if the people are oppressed. I actually feel sorry for the Palestinians, because the news is rather hard on them. I would think the news would bend facts, but I don't think that they would bluntly lie about something. Maybe none of the people that watch the news have bothered to correct them?

By the way, HOW did you guys figure out it was me? Congrats.

[Ribannah]

Same style, it was easy enough.

Btw the Palestinians most likely watch Arabic news channels, which are just as biased but then for the other side of the coin, so there's no need to feel sorry for them because of CNN.

If you want relatively (I say: relatively) unbiased news, you need to watch European channels. Can you receive BBC?

[King of Rasslin]

"Btw the Palestinians most likely watch Arabic news channels, which are just as biased but then for the other side of the coin, so there's no need to feel sorry for them because of CNN."

Fair enough. I don't get BBC on TV, but I got it from my radio once. I forgot the frequency, but it was decent news. It talked a lot about other countries, like Lithuania and others that no one knows about. I didn't like it a lot because American newscasters put so much drama in their news, they seem to enjoy their jobs. There was a British woman on the BBC and she spoke very quickly, like she didn't really care what she was saying.

As for politics, I think Rush Linbaugh (sp?) has a good radio program. I wish he was still on TV, he even did a commercial for Pizza Hut!

[Q Classic]

I would actually consider the turtle ship a very amazing accomplishment for Asians, since armor (like on European knights) was very rare, and the leaders didn't consider their soldiers to be worth much. They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved. Kinda like the Zerg, or the bug aliens from Starship Troopers.

eh... not quite. although armor, european style, was not common, asians did have armor; they did not tend to be made of metal, however.

also, there was a good deal of strategy and tactics involved: games like go and changgi arose from the wars, both of which rely heavily on strategy. let's also not forget the classic text, "the art of war" by sun tzu.

korean history also happens to be littered with strategy: several times, outnumbered korean warships decimated japanese warships not by sheer force, but by clever tactics and strategies-- one of my favorites was to lure a bunch of japanese ships into a narrow passage before raising sharp chains to batter the undersides of the ships-- thereby sinking them.

[eric789]

King of Rasslin

since armor (like on European knights) was very rare

Armoured cavalry became obsolete in East Asia after the appearance of deadly crossbow and the last remnants of armoured cavarly disappeared even before 10th century AD.

The Knights are inferior to the Oriental horse archers, who took over the role of the armoured cavalry in East Asia long before the knights began appearing in Europe. The Mongols never lost a single battle against the Europeans and that explains a lot.

They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved

Can you think of anything other than the Chinese human waves during the Korean War and the Japanese Banzai assault during WWII?

Have you heard of Sun Tzu?
Didn't you see the footage I posted? (the Korean naval tatcic called hagik)
Never heard of Nobunaga's 3 line musketeers?

You'd better watch this footage to see how the Koreans and the Japanese trying to outsmart one other. The Japanese lure the Koreans and lead them to the ambush site and the Koreans willingly follow the Japanese and later retreat to lure the whole Japanese fleet out of the ambush site to encircle them in the open water.

http://chunghondang.com/movie/hagik.mpg

[History Guy]

Dan Rather is a stupid little moron.

Now...the Monitor wasn't even the first American ironclad, they were making those things in various forms since the Mexican War period. The Monitor was only the first type of ironclad known as a 'monitor'.

Now, the turtleboat was the first of the 'clads, though there were other vessels that popped up at about the same time in Britain and Holland.

[King of Rasslin]

Armor does an excellent job of stopping arrows. Also, it is easier to use, and it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to swing a sword. Training for longbows or even crossbows would be more difficult than sword training. And the Asians wanted easy training because, as I said earlier, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was rare.

Can you even fathom the number of people living in China? They don't bother with strategy and they don't have to, since they have so many people. I talked with my grandfather about the Japanese in WWII, and he said they would overwhelm you in numbers. And they could get away with it because there was always more people to recruit.

Tactics did exist in Asian history when it was a very close match. However, China was usually the big dog and it just crushed the little guys with size and strength. Naval tactics would be more important because thousands of them would be packed onto the ships, and losing them would mean losing a lot of people.

I have heard of Sun Tzu, he has his own wonder in Civ 3. I have never heard of Nobunaga, and musketeers were only in France.

The Mongols beat the Europeans because of numbers, not strategy. They are called the horde for a reason.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
The Mongols beat the Europeans because of numbers, not strategy. They are called the horde for a reason.

That's a very ignorant statement.

Mongol invasion forces to Europe were very small. The battle of Kalka in 1223 against Russians saw only 20,000 Mongols in action, and they utterly crushed a Russian force several times larger.

The Battle of Liegnitz in 1241 was more balanced, but Mongols had no trouble routing the Teutonic Knights. Then everyone in Europe was astounished when Mongols suddenly retreated. Only much later did they learn that Mongols were more interested in electing their choice of Khan than conquering Europe.

Mongols were truly military genius, they always beat enemies several times their size during glorious days.

[King of Rasslin]

20,000 soldiers is not a small force. Of course the Mongols looked small against a huge country like Russia or China. But generally, the Asians try to win with numbers. I think it's just logical, but somewhat inhuman. Ironically, Asian civs in Civ 3 (India, China, Japan) have powerful UUs that win with power, while the Aztecs or Zulu have weak UUs that win with mass.

I think the Zulu spearman should replace riflemen because they were able to beat the British. The Chinese should get the 1/1/2 warrior because they have always tried to win by swarming the enemy. The Mongols did use tactics when they fought a stronger enemy, but the Chinese rarely fought a country as strong as it is.

[eric789]

King of Rasslin

Nobunaga is the Japanese feudal lord who developed the concept of 3 line musketeers to overcome the problem of long loading time of the muskets. The Portugese and the Dutch merchants supplied muskets to Japan during 16th century.

the Asians wanted easy training

Training a decent longbow man may require 3 good years but 2 weeks would be good enough for a crossbow man to be useful. Do you think 5 or 6 years would be enough for traning a decent horse archer?

Every civilised part of the globe, when engaged in warfare, used strategies and tactics. It is so irresponsible and ignorant to say there were little strategies and tactics used in some part of the globe.
When this kind of statement comes from someone who have great deal of knowledge about the things they talk about, I would concede. However you and I both know your knowledge about the Oriental history is extremly limited. You'd better read at least one good history book about the East Asian civs to back up your hypothesis.

[King of Rasslin]

I don't hear a lot about Asian tactics. I guess their sheer mass is a lot more tangible, since tactics are too complicated for most people, including me. It's a lot easier to understand that they have a billion people than comprehending their strategies. And they wouldn't want to train a horse archer if they could send thousands of conscripts at the enemy.

The Mongols are notorious for razing very small villages, and they are seen as barbarians that sent wave after wave of soldiers. In fact, the Mongols would attack cities with walls and not care about losses. Their mindset in WWII was the same way, with soldiers being encouraged to ram their planes into our ships. After all, there are always more to recruit, so whats a few million losses to Japan or China?

[Q Classic]

Armor does an excellent job of stopping arrows. Also, it is easier to use, and it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to swing a sword. Training for longbows or even crossbows would be more difficult than sword training. And the Asians wanted easy training because, as I said earlier, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was rare.

what have you read that makes you such an expert? how can you say such a thing about asian history, or even military history in general? it doesn't take as much training to make a good rifleman as it does a good swordsman. that's one of the major reasons why armies are far larger these days. knights have to pay for everything out of pocket-- as well as upkeep. keeping sword and armor functional as well as learning how to use them not only costs more, but is more time intensive, than keeping a boomstick clean and teaching them to point in the right direction and fire at the same time.
thus, using crossbows and arrows does not require as much training as a sword.
also, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was not rare. if you look at history, you'll see plenty of clever land and sea tactics in china alone, specifically in regards to the wars of the three kingdoms.
obviously, you are again speaking with no knowledge of fact.

Can you even fathom the number of people living in China? They don't bother with strategy and they don't have to, since they have so many people. I talked with my grandfather about the Japanese in WWII, and he said they would overwhelm you in numbers. And they could get away with it because there was always more people to recruit.

china != japan != korea.
in other words, china, korea, and japan, all different.
funny, a non asian trying to explain the mass of population that is asia to an asian...
you do realize that when your grandfather fought the japanese on land, it was towards the end of the war, when the japanese were desparate, right? meaning that they did anything and everything, including trying to overwhelm with sheer numbers when supplies ran low.
but then again, that's precisely what americans did in okinawa, iwo jima...

Tactics did exist in Asian history when it was a very close match. However, China was usually the big dog and it just crushed the little guys with size and strength. Naval tactics would be more important because thousands of them would be packed onto the ships, and losing them would mean losing a lot of people.

china actually frequently lost some wars with smaller nations. the korean nation of koguryo repeatedly defeated the chinese, even when the chinese outnumbered them by a hefty margin. again, you speak out of ignorance.

musketeers were only in France.

oh ye of little knowledge.
musketeers as how you think of them were only in france. only they could come up with such goofy looking costumes.
but other nations did know the military uses of gunpowder, and fashioned muskets long before the french. asians did have guns. they were, technically, muskets. people who wielded them, then, would be...
yep, you got it, musketeers.

I don't hear a lot about Asian tactics. I guess their sheer mass is a lot more tangible, since tactics are too complicated for most people, including me. It's a lot easier to understand that they have a billion people than comprehending their strategies. And they wouldn't want to train a horse archer if they could send thousands of conscripts at the enemy.

of course, judging by your previous comments about korea and the rest of asia, you don't hear a lot about asia either. is it any wonder then you don't hear a lot about asian tactics?

The Mongols are notorious for razing very small villages, and they are seen as barbarians that sent wave after wave of soldiers. In fact, the Mongols would attack cities with walls and not care about losses. Their mindset in WWII was the same way, with soldiers being encouraged to ram their planes into our ships. After all, there are always more to recruit, so whats a few million losses to Japan or China?

you're comparing apples and oranges again. mongols may be asian, and may even look identical to a chinese person, but there are cultural differences, which can make a whole lot of difference in how they wage war.
the japanese did not use kamikazes until after midway, when they knew the tide was turned. they used kamikaze fighters out of desparation, because by that time, the americans not only had better fighters, but were relentlessly progressing closer and closer to japan.
same with the soldiers. most of them realized that okinawa and iwo jima would be lost, since they had received no materiel shipments or anything else of the sort. yet, refusing to surrender, they fought to the last man, not because they did not value their lives, but because they did not wish to give up.
again, desparation, not disregard for life.