The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[yin26]

Anyway, I just found an interesting quote:

An old Mongol general, inspecting the ramparts during the siege, commented that, "...I have never seen [a city] undergo an attack like this which did not, in the end, submit." In the end Kusong remained in Koryo's hands.

Korea's resilience astounded even the Mongols.

This is what I'm talking about. Not a nation that conquered the world but refused, even if occupied at times and precariously perched on the most strategically valuable real-estate in East Asia, to be conquered itself.

[Felch]

Korea, if it were included, could be a model for a One City Civ. Just an idea.

[mactbone]

I had a very long post typed out but my comp. crashed on me. So, to explain my *s*******, it was a s****** meaning that every civ has been warlike, your continued denial of that was why I s******ed. As to your latest post, why shouldn't the Irish be considered, they've kept their culture intact even while being conquered/next to some of the strongest empires ever. Or how about Switzerland? They've even stayed neutral (at least militarily) for quite a lot of their history, even while being surrounded by conquerers.
I also have issue with your earlier statements that Korea is one of the few civs that have lasted so long. You know there's a country called Mongolia don't you? The Vikings may not be "the Vikings" instead they're called Scandinavians. Although I do understand that the Scandinavians, although descendants of the Vikings can't be called Vikings because they haven't had the Viking tradition carried on.
I think we've really gotten away from the issue, so after all these post I'd like you to in your words try to resate why you think Korea should be included. Try to be concise, I've already read the earlier history part. What I'm looking for is a synopsis.

[yin26]

Sorry I missed your crashed post...I hate when that happens, too.

First, just to clarify: I can't impress upon you enough the fact that Korea's 'warlike' manner contained itself to fighting within and for its own kingdom. This is VASTLY different from raping and pillaging your neighbor. There is a big difference between nations when it comes to use of force. But to answer your question: Why Korea?

1) It is one of the longest unbroken civs in existence today that still has a major impact on the world. You mentioned the Mongols and Vikings. I would first ask: Have you been to Mongolia recently or talked with any Mongolians? Their nation is horribly, horribly poor now. Under Khan, they once ruled the largest landmass in human history; now they stuggle to survive. Of the Vikings, I ask: Show me the Viking nation on a map. Without question the Viking influence and blood is good and strong, but where is it as a nation? Same for Rome...you say 'Look at Italy,' but this is not the same as a civ with an unbroken identity and name occupying the same piece of Earth for some 3,000 years and STILL being a major factor in certain sectors of the modern world.

This is significant.

2) The manner in which Korea secured its survival those many centuries is also a point of note. Korea was beset by attacks from the 'barbarian' Khitan and then the Mongols but never gave in. As I have said, '1,000 attacks in 2,000 years' have been sustained by this single nation. They were some of the most tenacious defenders ever seen, inspiring awe and worry even in the Mongols because their spirit to fight never broke. Add to this the fact that China long considered the Korean peninsula vital to its own survival, and you can see a country that has had to survive despite the plans of much larger and more warlike neighbors. Sadly, Korea made several crucial mistakes leading to Japan annexing the peninsula, leading to the Korean War. But its recovery in the modern era is almost universally termed "Miraculous." I will not detail their modern achievements here since they are listed above.

Notice that Koreans never left their own borders this entire time. They never raped and pillaged people of other lands. One might say: 'Well, internal conflict and strong neighbors made that impossible.' For most of thier history, this is true, yet there were windows of opportunity to inflict massive damage on a neighboring land, but Korea never did.

I find this approach to survival rather interesting, admirable and perhaps unique to such a long-standing nation. I should also note that Korea was the gateway for ideas, people and expertise to Japan for centuries, laying the foundation for that country. While the Tree of Japan may outshadow Korea in many ways, its roots are clearly Korean, which in turn reflect many things Chinese.

China, Korea and Japan are, in many way, close brothers. Leaving one of them out leaves a horribly distorted picture.

3) Inventions and cultural assets listed above.

4) Geopolitical significance: The Korean peninsula has been considered the flash point of conflict in the Far East for millenia. The U.S. military maintains 40,000 troops here 50 years after the Korean War precisely to keep the Far East stable.

While we might look at other pieces of land on the map and see similarities, few if any have ever had such sustained and still on-going geopolitical importance.

CONCLUSION: It would be very simple to make the Korean peninsula nothing more than a pawn or, worse, a meaningless jut of land sticking into the East and Yellow Seas. While we might debate the overall contribution Koreans as a people have made through various inventions and their modern economy, what cannot be denied is this land's importance in Asia and the amazing spirit of a people who held this land despite some of the world's most powerful attempts to take it away.

By virtually all expectations, the Koreans as a people should have been wiped off the map centuries ago. We should be searching for clues to their ancient and lost culture instead of seeing that culture flourish uninterrupted in the modern era.

Korea should have been a footnote in history, yet Korea's influence in the Far East and in a growing way throughout the world is increasing. That, to me, is amazing.

Finally, I think Civ3 will have enough of the power-house civs. It would be quite fun [FUN!], challenging and informative to have a civ like Korea in the game to represent survival against all odds. You said other nations could fit that bill...I imagine you are right.

But few could hope to do it as well as Korea.

[mactbone]

In response to your first point, I ask you a question, was Korea called Korea back when the Chosons were a fairly dominating force? I was under the impression, that Korea was called Choson back then. Also, If that's part of your criteria, Japan fits quite nicely. There aren't many countries that have kept the same name for so long, I will conceed that point to you. Although some might say that it's just a name, that it's the culture that makes a difference, and if that's the case, then keeping the same name for so long is moot. Case in point, China, it hasn't always been called China, in fact right now it's the People's Republic of China.
On to the second point. Did it ever occur to you that Korea didn't invade anybody because it couldn't? I mean it's human nature to say the grass is greener on the other side, so let's go get that grass. Personally I think that during Korea's times of power they either didn't think they could take on China (good assumption) or they were beat back. Oh, and I have to ask, you have posted various quotes from other sources, correct? Obviously you assume those sources are correct, but you believe that Encarta is wrong. What's the difference?
As to the third point, doesn't that make Sumeria the mother of all nations? I mean if they invented writing then that has to be what, millions of times better than inventing the printing press?
On your last point, I think there are two reasons the U.S. Military keeps a presence in Korea. One is that back a couple of decades ago it took on a policy of defending countries that wanted to be democratic, especially if said country had a chance of being Communist. Second, there are only two countries I can think of that would allow the U.S. a presence in Asia, one is Japan (concessions and all that) but if I'm not mistaken that has to be a semi-temporary thing. The second country is South Korea, which allows the U.S. to do so for their own reasons (probably because the U.S. basically said that they're "defending" South Korea).
One thing I think got left out of all of this is France's influence on Indo-China. If I'm not mistaken Korea was a French colony for a period of time, therefore ending the 3.000 years. Now if that doesn't count then I suggest Ireland as another civ deserving to be a Civ. They have been under foreign rule twice? once partially by the Vikes, and for a time under the U.K./whatever it was called. They invented the Limerick. There is one unconfirmed/undenied story of an Irish monk making it to the Americas. They also have been able to fight off an ever higher rate of inflation through the business of High-Tech companies, even while having to adjust their interest rates higher per EU standards. Sounds pretty good to me. They're scientific achievements may not be the best but hey, everyone has a weakpoint.

[mactbone]

Ooops, forgot the part about Koreans only being warlike to defend/conquer itself. You don't think Korean soldiers raped and pillaged then? That was part of the whole army gig. See the world, defend your country, rape, pillage, meet interesting people. Apply at your nearest feudal lord.

[yin26]

I won't push the "Korea didn't attack people" angle too hard because, as you note, it wouldn't be a good idea to attack China. They could have wiped out Japan in its seminal stage. As a matter of fact, some Koreans consider it a mistake that they didn't.

was Korea called Korea back when the Chosons were a fairly dominating force

From even the Three Kingdoms period (a Civil War), Korea has always been viewed as it own country. In fact, from as far back as anybody can trace, Koreans were viewed as a distinct people on that specific part of the planet. So while the name people use for the country has changed (Chosun, Koryo, Korea...etc.), there has never been any doubt that it is the same homogeous people on that same tract of land.

If that's part of your criteria, Japan fits quite nicely.

Yes, but keep in mind that for a long, long time China and Korea knew Japan as nothing more than a provincial island. There is no debating Japan's power in the later centuries, though.

but you believe that Encarta is wrong

I didn't say it was wrong. I said the point of view seems to be a minority one among scholars. One of the reasons I use many sources is precisely to avoid hitting on the narrow view. And if I hit on the narrow view, I should know that's what I'm doing.

I mean if they invented writing then that has to be what, millions of times better than inventing the printing press?

Now this is where you have to re-think your Western view: Did the Chinese need somebody to teach them how to write? Bones with distinct carvings found on them in China date back to the earliest records of man...it was a pictographic method of writing developed into the Chinese system still used today. Korea also used that system until the invention of its unique alphabet in the 15th century.

The printing press, in contrast, affected all countries eventually. So while you are correct in emphasizing the importance of writing, Asia developed its own system, whereas the West borrowed the idea of the printing press from the East. Marco Polo, I believe, was an active agent in that process.

Finally, the printing press is like the Internet of Long Ago: It made possible the spread of ideas at relative light speed compared, say, to marking something down in stone and trying to carry that stone around or repeatedly having to re-write massive tombs.

This is the point.

If I'm not mistaken Korea was a French colony for a period of time.

Big mistake. I wonder, honestly, how that ever go into your thoughts? Are you thinking Vietnam or something?

Now if that doesn't count then I suggest Ireland as another civ deserving to be a Civ.

Excellent choice, actually! I'd absolutely LOVE to see Ireland in Civ3!

[Saint Marcus]

Excellent choice, actually! I'd absolutely LOVE to see Ireland in Civ3!

Ok...after reading this I decided not to comment anymore on the posts above. Yin now wants to include Korea and Ireland in Civ3. LOL. What's next? Iceland? They have a pretty remarkable history too...and the most comprehensive family trees (genology or something, don't know the english word) in the world. Almost every Icelander can trace his or her roots back to the early middle ages. NO country in the world can claim that. And in a sense it can be considered a viking/norman nation, it's population is considered to be the most homegenous in the world, almost completely from viking ancestry. And it's amazing they have survived being in such a strategic position in the north Atlantic. The Americans, British and Russians all displayed quite an interest in Iceland as a possible naval/airforce base to launch operations from. Amazing nobody annexed them in history.

The Icelandic CIV!! YEAH!!

[yin26]

Funny thing is, you are FINALLY understanding some of my points: This is not about "I love Korea, therefore..." but it is about putting in a Civ that represents something OTHER than one that conquered lots of people. Particularly if that civ has been around a good long time and has an interesting history of trying to survive against the odds.

I think Ireland's struggle against its neighbor is a great one, though we could go back and debate Angles, Saxons and Jutes along with Celts, etc. Not precisely the clean heritage of Korea, if that is your gripe, then I agree.

On the point of Ireland, I admit to a bias since my family name starts with "Mc" and Guiness is my favorite beer. I'm sure if people wanted to talk me out of Ireland in Civ 3, it could be done. But not Korea.

Anyway: I'd call the x-pack: "Civ 3: The Underdogs."

Another good side effect of giving civvers a great more challenge with these civs is it would help highlight some very cool history.

By the way:

Almost every Icelander can trace his or her roots back to the early middle ages. NO country in the world can claim that.

You are joking, right? Many Koreans have record of family trees going back to at least that far. Once again, your ignorance of Asia is stunning.

And it's amazing they have survived being in such a strategic position in the north Atlantic. The Americans, British and Russians all displayed quite an interest in Iceland as a possible naval/airforce base to launch operations from.

Sure, if you can show me "action" against them and not just "interest," then you'd have a point. But you don't. Just troll-lo-lo-lo-lolling I guess, eh? Well, it's too bad you decided not to post here anymore. Your mis-information on a wealth of topics kept me quite entertained.

[yin26]

Hey, Mark, if you REALLY want to stun people here at Poly, why not try this:

** Argue why Ireland would be a bad choice...but use something other than sarcasm and trolling tactics.

This could actually take some work, looking up a few sites, formulating coherent arguments, etc. You feel up to it? If you get me to agree with you, I'll send you a fact sheet on Korea for your convenient study.

Sound fair?

[yin26]

Here, I'll help you:

** The early immigrants from Scotland were overtaken by the Celts, who were overtaken by the Vikings, and on and on...
** Relatively few 'contributions to the world' of top-tier caliber.

I could go on. Feel free to add some. As I said, my own family has roots in Ireland so I would jump at the chance to play them in Civ3 just for personal reasons.

What about Scotland? Hadrian¡¯s Wall was built to keep OUT the Scotts. LOL! Rome's most heavily fortified border. That's kind of cool. And I bet re-runs of Braveheart could help sales.

[Saint Marcus]

You are joking, right? Many Koreans have record of family trees going back to at least that far.

LOL. You're so funny. Korea's records of family trees can in no way be compared to Iceland's. It isn't about "many", it is about "almost all". Every person from Iceland, with the sole exception being a handful of immigrants who came there over the centuries, can trace it's history back to the 7th century AD at least. An American Biotech company, in cooperation with the Icelandic governement, even made a datebase about it all. It is so amazing people can trace their roots back to Scandinavia of the days before Leif Erickson and Eric the Red. And it's not 10%, or 40% or even 70%...but over 90% of Iceland's population can make this claim. No country in the world comes close. Just look it up sometime. It is the MOST comprehensive and complete record of family trees of any country in the world. Scientists from all over the world agree it is, and this is used nowadays for other purposes than historical interest alone. It's used for in biotech research now because it's very easy to find out who is exactly related to who in what way. I saw several documentaries about it and it's truly amazing. I mean...I can trace my family roots back to the 16th century...but certainly not the 7th...and this certainly doesn't apply to most of Holland.

[yin26]

Every person from Iceland, with the sole exception being a handful of immigrants who came there over the centuries, can trace it's history back to the 7th century AD at least.

Well, you said Middle Ages at first. "Almost every Icelander can trace his or her roots back to the early middle ages."

Is this a bona-fide family tree going back to 7th century AD? Or is it one of those wierd 'recessive gene' trees used by doing gene typing? They can trace from name to name back that far?

Certainly there are those who can do that in Korea, but not 90% of the population. Can you do me a favor? I've looked up plenty of information for you, so can you find me a link? Otherwise I will consider this...how did you put it?...'pulling facts out of your ass.'

I await the link.

[Saint Marcus]

Well, you said Middle Ages at first. "Almost every Icelander can trace his or her roots back to the early middle ages."

The 7th century IS the early middle ages. Middle ages are from (roughly) 500 AD to 1500 AD.

Is this a bona-fide family tree going back to 7th century AD? Or is it one of those wierd 'recessive gene' trees used by doing gene typing? They can trace from name to name back that far?

The family trees were created in the early middle ages, as soon as the Vikings developed the skill to write. From there on future generations just added their lines to it...one generation at a time. Making this a lot more accurate than just about any other (European) family tree (besides royal families) in which they start from the present and go back a generation at a time (by names and the like) instead of starting at the begining (like in Iceland). The Vikings had great pride in their family trees and mad ethem with extreme precision. There are, relatively, very few blanks and guesses in the trees, because most of the generations where added in their own lifetime, and not decades afterwards.

[Saint Marcus]

I'll look it up later


Anway, what do you think about Malta as a possible civ?