The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[Veracitas]

Originally posted by YefeiPi


Well, you can't say Sui dynasty is even close to China's peak, it is just a period of time where China was reunified, no major achievements really during that time of period. Conquering Korea could not have been difficult during the Tang and Sung, after all, sure the Koreans would have fought bravely, but the military might of China at that time can probably crush any country easily. Also the fact the Yuan dynasty, in which the mongols ruled, even as barbaric as they were, they still respected the Chinese immensely, and had all the top officials be Chinese because mongols knew only they had the ability to govern well. Ghenghis Khan, believe it or not, spoke fluent Chinese, and was very much assimilated into the Chinese culture.

At the time of the Tang dynasty, Koguryo--roughly the size of modern day France, including a significant portion of Manchuria--was almost toe to toe with the Chinese. In fact, the Tang dynasty had to ally itself with the Korean kingdom of Silla to conquer it, while Silla conquered the other rival Korean kingdom of Paekche. Even after eliminating the military behemoth of Koguryo (who the Chinese hated so much that they destroyed almost everything of historical value, so we know very little about Koguryan culture), the Tang dynasty could not even overcome Silla--which, after conquering Paekche was about the size of South Korea today--even though they ended up going to war.

Considering this, I highly doubt that the Tang dynasty could "crush any country easily." I don't know about the Sung dynasty period, however, so I won't comment on that.

[SirSebastian]

I admit I haven't read the whole thread here... but I will do so when I get some time. I just thought I'd chime in and say... All Americans are not misinformed about Korea. Where is it again? j/k. Seriously... I enjoyed playing the Chosen (sp?) in Age of Empires... and that is a very popular game with the Koreans represented.. so there! =P

Personally, I would like to see the Byzantines... my personal favorites What two attributes do you think they'd have? =P

[Roman]

If civilizations were to be judged by their cuisine, Korea would definitely make it on my list! I love Korean food!

[siredgar]

Yin, you've made some excellent points for Korea. I'm now convinced that Korea should be in the additional eight, not 16 civilizations for Civ III.

Mark L, you've also made some good points against Korea. However, you've also made some grossly misinformed statements, too. Your viewpoint seems very, how would you say it, "rich-country-oriented", indeed. By the way, Japan is much less democratic than South Korea today. Furthermore, to use North Korea as an example for Korean democratic values is like using East Germany as an example for German democratic values.

Anyhow, I think it would be nice to have another Asian civilization in Civ III. Also, the Koreans would be fun to play, especially with their Turtle Boats (an upgrade of the Ironclads). They are in the expansion pack for Age of Empires II after all, right?

If I were to include eight more civilizations in the expansion pack, I would have the following in order of importance:

1. Spanish
2. Vikings
3. Mongols
4. Turks
5. Koreans
6. Portuguese
7. Dutch
8. Indo-Malays

P.S. Imran, to say that Korea is not culturally different enough from China or Japan is like saying that France is not culturally different enough from Italy or Germany. It makes you sound quite ignorant.

[Alantus]

Now I'm not going to bother looking through all 10 pages here but I bet nobody has mentioned Kim Tek Soo once. Of course by that same logic they still fall second to Sweden and Waldner but otherwise they get the nod.

For once (and only once) yin might be right.

I should go back to lurking now,
Alantus

[feanor]

1. I believe that in order to include Korea, Korean should accomplish something admirable in the future. Korea had lots of opportunities for greatness, but sadly our Korean ancestors failed to capitalize on them. Korea should earn more acknowledgements and respects from other country before it can be considered as a great civilization.

2. Only way for Korean civilizations to prosper is for the game to emphasize more heavily on benefits of economical and scientific trade. Otherwise, if korean player from Earth map has any vision of gradeur, it is inevitable that Korea conquer good portion of Manchuria or assimilate Japan. I tried many peaceful variations with all kinds of modification on Civ 2, but in end, because Korea's border is enclosed by Japan and China, the disparity in resources and commerce becomes too huge to overcome. Many times I saw my cities bribed ( I tried playing in map of northeast Asia where it is possible to have several cities in Korean peninsula ) or over runned by much superior unit, for I couldn't keep up with my neighbors in scientific race. Now if it is possible for the game to allow coalitions to such level as pooling in their scientific resources for a single advance, then it is plausible for Korean civilization to survive.

3. The Civilization Game is not a suitable game for modeling nations with small land size. The game's balance will be severely dirupted if it allows tiles which produce something like 10 food resources, for having a special tile is only way you can hope to maintain small but very populous city, especially if you have only one city. ( In standard 120 X 75 map of civ 2, one city at Seoul would include good portion of manchuria)

4. As for the names of the leaders here are some.
a. Gwanggeto the Great (±¤°³Åä ´ë¿Õ)
A King of Gogureu who is credited with doing the conquering largest amount of land in Korean history.
b. Dahn goon (´Ü±º)
Name of first priest King in Korean history
c. Sejong the Great (¼¼Á¾´ë¿Õ)
King in charge during greatest cultural advancements in Korean history
d. Hyo jong (È¿Á¾)
17th century Chosun King who had ambition to invade Qing(? The Manchu dynasty that eventually conquered Ming)
e. Dae jo young (´ëÁ¶¿µ)
Founder of Balhae Kingdom which ruled Manchuria and Sikhote Alin Range ( mountains around Vladivostok )

5. The Turtle Boat's real value was that it was a fast attack vehicle in its time. It was smaller than many other standard warship, and its ability to ram and deliver concentrated cannon fire on a designated ship made it very effective. The iron clad's purpose was to ward off rifle fires and prevent boarding attempts by Japanese swordsman, who were feared throughout history inflicting much damage to coastal area of China and Korea. In fact, for a long time Japanese acted like The Viking to their neighbors.

[agoodfella]

Yin26,

I applaud your exhaustive work in defense of a Korean Civ.

Of course I am biased given that I am a Korean-American, but an avid gamer and loyal Civ fan (since the original Civ).

I am currently playing Civ III (with the Chinese as my Civ, however I have changed the name to Koreans), however, this is hopefully a very short-term solution.

I mean the Iroqouis? The Zulus? What the heck did the Zulus ever give the world? Can anyone name any famous Zulus?

The fact of the matter is the Korean civilization, on a relative basis to all of the other Civs bidding for inclusion (i.e. not in CivIII) must be considered one of the top Civs for inclusion.

We can go on and on about the reasons why (military, cultural, scientific, etc, etc), however, I think the case is justified that it should be one of the Civs on a short list.

I'm not saying there are other great Civs out there that don't merit a vote - there definitely are!

But Koreans should certainly be one of those Civs.

[Q Classic]

thank you, yin, for pointing all this out.

21.4 million sounds like a lot... but you must remember, korea is a mountainous country... people are crammed into the flat areas along with farms and such...

besides, seoul is pretty much the center of modern korean culture.

which means a strategically placed nuclear device would destroy korea as we know it.

let's all hope nkorea isn't that stupid.

======

somebody mentioned that the korean culture is not that distinct between the chinese and japanese... this is, i suppose, a common belief.

well, then:

it's also a common belief that all native american tribes were more or less similar. it's also a commonly held belief that all arabs and all muslims pretty much are quite similar. sometimes interchangeable, even.

i would hope that those enlightened enough to do a little research would realize none of those are truly the case.

======

mark l:

who would i put the koreans before in your long list?
iroquois - either you put in more native americans, or you group them as native americans. these guys were decent, but they hadn't developed as much.
dutch - seafarers. amsterdam. colonizers. that's about it.
vikings - barbarians until they became royalty. this was about the time they stopped being barbarians. culture was interesting... but not as developed.
olmec - mesoamericans... but common perception is that they're too similar to the aztecs/mayans... why? they're long gone, and they didn't develop much.
toltec - mesoamericans... but common perception is that they're too similar to the aztecs/mayans... why? they're long gone, and they didn't develop much.
assyrians - dead and gone... good, a candidate for expansion, but... besides, aren't they already in as barbarians?
sumerians - dead and gone... good, a candidate for expansion, but...
italians - why would they be interesting to play? the politics of it all? the anti-religious benefit, government doesn't resolve itself ever.
khmer - less than the thais, really, since they're no longer the same unified nation they once were. also, not as much in culture/science.
cretans - not as much known about history.
burgundians - who?
thais - not around as long, not as scientifically/culutrally advanced. definitely a candidate for addition, however.
goths - culture would pose a problem.
zulus - a needed addition, kinda for continuity, kinda for african representation, kinda for it's actual merits.
byzantines - romans long past their prime.
portuguese - almost but not quite the spaniards.

who would i consider possibly putting after koreans?
incas
mayas
arabs

why? see above.

======

the problem as i see it with korea is that we don't have a good pr department.

japan gets all the glory, as does china.

korea's forgotten because we need new spin doctors, we need new pr management.

ick.

======

korea paid off its imf debts early.

======

yin26 answered the city statement... when you draw metropolitan areas, things get fuzzy.
the 21 million figure may arise from the greater seoul area, which includes several smaller cities, one of the largest being inchon, which also has a population greater than 1million.

now, now, be nice to the cia. they may be asses, but they're such intelligent asses, and quite cool to look at.

======

if korea is not recognized as an independent country, neither was west germany. non-independent countries do not get political alliances. non-independent countries do not get observer status at the un, nor do they receive full status. non-independent countries do not get to have their own military. non-independent countries do not get to have their own real political system.

korea, i hate to say, has all of those. i suppose being an independent country also means that you have to have military bases all over the place? guess germany, spain, china, japan, india, pakistan, all the african nations, poland, italy, all the arab nations, australia, new zealand, all the south american nations sans french guyana, canada, all the central american and caribbean nations, ireland, the scandinavians... i guess none of those are independent nations, now, are they?

======

korean language is completely unrelated to chinese. chinese is in the sino-tibetan group.

korean is grouped with japanese because linguists can't figure out where else to put those two oddball languages, which aren't even really related to each other.

a few linguists tie it in with the ural-altiac group, same with finnish (suomi) and turks... but even that link is tenuous.

you know how korean is unrelated to chinese?

chinese is tonal.

korean is not.

======

me being korean, and not a scholar of many of the ancient western civs... i must confess... i have no idea what the difference between the toltecs and olmecs are. i have no idea what makes the norwegians different from the swedes different from the danes. i have no idea what makes the belgians different from the hollanders from the frisians. spain and portugal? nope. england, wales, scotland, ireland? not really. germany, austria, liechtenstein? not really. the balkans? not really.

being western, i'm not surprised you think all asians are pretty much the same.

after all, we all look the same. we all look like brothers and sisters.

(cue: many many many many asians wanting to yell: i'm not f*cking chinese!!! (not so much because the chinese are hated, but because there is quite a bit of ethnic pride) )

(cue: many many many many asians wanting to yell: no, we're not related.)

(aside: yes, i've actually run into those comments before.)

(aside: sometimes, they're less kind: chink, jap, gook. somehow, these are not the no-words we can't say, unlike n-gg-r, sp-c, etc.)

saying:

it is really hard to distinguish "Korean" culture and history from Chinese and Japanese.

impllies that the chinese and japanese have simliar cultures as well.

right.

of course.

now, i'll overlook the insult you put in with the quotation marks. i'll try, but it's hard.

what culture do the "Dutch" have? or the "Canadians"? or the "Americans"?

each ethnic group has a culture.

don't diminish it with quotations.

koreans are an ethnic group with culture.

rearrange the last three sentences. it's a puzzle. the correct answer should give you a nice little statement. the incorrect answer should give you hints on where to go.

======

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33965

this is my argument summed up, without responses.

[Drake Tungsten]

korean is grouped with japanese because linguists can't figure out where else to put those two oddball languages, which aren't even really related to each other.

I'm glad someone else knows this. Nice post, Q Cubed. I don't agree with all of your points, but it is clear you are knowledgable on the subject and have put some thought into your comments.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Yin26,

Thank you for this great thread! Especially your starting post was awesome. I also liked the heated debate following; I didn't read everything but quite a bit.
Could you recommend any study about Korean history? I still prefer to add to my knowledge by reading.

Perhaps I missed it, but your posts contain surprisingly little about those factors that in the end define a civilisation: culture, especially language and literature, and RELIGION, the cornerstone of every 'true' civilisation. To my knowledge Korea embraced for centuries some form of Buddhism, proving the supremacy of the Indian and Chinese civilisation!

So for the moment I agree with this post of Sun Zi 36, to which you unfortunately didn't react at all. I also consider the Mongols and Vikings to be barbarians -like most historians will do- afterwards assimilited by the dominant cultures they had previously trampled. This is the true hallmark of a civilisation: it conquers the tyrants by its superior culture!

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
I wouldn't put the Mongols or Vikings b4 the Koreans. I would rather regard the Mongols and Vikings as really strong barbarians (if the barbarians are strong enough in civ3). If you are playing an East Asian game then yes, I would include Korea as a civilization. But in a world game, the Korean civilization just isn't distinct enough from the Chinese and Japanese to be regarded as a civilization. So the Incans are a VERY distinct civilization.

Yes, you would argue that the difference between the French and Germans would probably be similar to the difference between Korean and China or Japan. But then the French and the Germans qualify as a great civilization more than the Koreans. And I don't just mean in terms of colonization and conquest and stuff. In terms of scientific, idealistc achievements etc. (eg the French revolution).

I wouldn't promote a Dutch civilisation -including all 'ancient' provinces of the Netherlands- though my guess is their importance is greater indeed. I wouldn't use most arguments of MarkL. I would emphasize their dominant position in the world politics, economics and culture of the seventeenth century. This greatness was prepared during the Later Middle Ages, when the cities of Flanders almost equalled the flourishing cities of northern Italy during the Renaissance (Burgundian court). Before the rise of London, Amsterdam, accommodating the first Stock Exchange and the oldest multi-national (VOC) was the economic centre of the world economy! Until 1700 the United Provinces/Dutch Republic were the most feared competitor of the English. New York is a Dutch colony, originally called New Amsterdam.

Because of its tolerance it also was the intellectual centre of Europe where most important books were published. Descartes and Spinoza lived here, while the Dutch contribution to music and painting is formidable. I only will mention Rembrandt, Vermeer, Rubens and Josquin Desprez, in my view -and definitely not only in my view- the greatest (European) composer that ever lived.
Being a succesful European power without a monarch its form of government influenced both the 'Puritan revolution' (Cromwell) and indirectly the American revolution.

Since I do not like to be accused of Eurocentrism I will add my list of the 'Major Civilisations' of History, though you have probably seen it before:
1. Sumerian/Babylonian
2. Egyptian
3. Indus/Dravidian
4. Chinese
5. Greek
6. Roman
7. Mayan/Meso-American
8. Inca/Andes
9. Byzantine/Orthodox
10. Latin/Catholic
11. Islamic/Near Eastern
12. Germanic/Protestant
13. Russian/Slav
14. Indian/Hindu
15. Japanese
16. Tibetan
17. South East Asian
18. sub-Saharan civilization??

Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic.


Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[Raleigh]

your idea works for me.

[Optimizer]

Go Yin!

Korea deserves well to be at least among 16 hypothetical expansion pack civs. On an Earth map, it will sure give China a challenge.

About Vikings...
I dislike the idea of Vikings being a civilization. It was not a people that suddenly united in the late 8th century to vanish instantly a few centuries later. The Scandinavian peoples have been independent and prosperous all since then. Scandinavia's period of greatness is the 19th and 20th centuries.

Well, that is another story... good luck with the Korean civ!

[thinkingamer]

Mark L! i dont want to fight with u, but Korea was VERY important civ in our history: Perhaps chinese could have been the most important language in our present world not english if Korea did not exist.

"At the time of the Tang dynasty, Koguryo--roughly the size of modern day France, including a significant portion of Manchuria--was almost toe to toe with the Chinese. In fact, the Tang dynasty had to ally itself with the Korean kingdom of Silla to conquer it, while Silla conquered the other rival Korean kingdom of Paekche. Even after eliminating the military behemoth of Koguryo (who the Chinese hated so much that they destroyed almost everything of historical value, so we know very little about Koguryan culture), the Tang dynasty could not even overcome Silla--which, after conquering Paekche was about the size of South Korea today--even though they ended up going to war." -veracitas-

Before Sui dynasty(when chinese was divided in factions), Koguryo (one of the three kingdoms in korea) was the BIGGEST

[ranskaldan]

Mark L! i dont want to fight with u, but Korea was VERY important civ in our history: Perhaps chinese could have been the most important language in our present world not english if Korea did not exist.

???
please explain.

[thinkingamer]

sorry continued: country in east Asia. Then China unified as Sui dynasty, then attacked Koguryo with more than 1,100,000 men in 612 AD. Now that's ALOT of men; the Romans, for the most of the time they had about 300,000 men (only the about 400 AD. the Romans had about 500,000 men [including barbarian mercenaries] which was draining most of their tresury).
And even the Romans did not use all of their forces to invade a country.
Before i continue i must tell something: i believe that the Han dynasty was more powerful than the Roman empire. I believe this because while the Romans terrorized all europe, the Han attacked old Choson, southeastern Asia, and Tibet. Also chinese had one of the most advanced weapons of the time in Han dynasty (circa 200 BC - 200AD). Just look at the statues of the tomb of the Quin dynasty emperor, the composite bow ( the mongolian bow could shoot farther and more acurately than English composite archer [but then i've heard that Japanese archer was better than mongolian archer, while korean archer was better than Japanese archers (korean bow was known to shoot twice farther than chinese archer 2000 years ago) ] ). The Chinese also used chemical weapons about 300 BC (european used their fisrt chemical weapon in WWI) and authors like Sun Tzu tells us that Easten Asia had amazing battles that European could not even imagine. (And it took another 1800 years to produce someone like Marchiaveli)
Anyway Koguryo had more than half of present north korea and MOST of Manchuria in 612 AD. In fact since the Emperor Kwang Gee To (i dont know how to spell it) 391-413 AD Koguryo had that much land which is at least as big as Charlemagne's kingdom.
Then the Sui attacked Koguryo with more than 300,000 men (from the 1,130,000 men) witch Koguryo completly destroyed them (less than 30,000 men survived the battle).
What i am trying to say is if china did not attack Koguryo then they COULD have attacked Tibet with that amount of men, then if they won then India, and so on.
This proves that Korea is very important civ in our history; i strongly believe that our history could be VERY different if Korea had not existed.
Also note that from 200BC - 800AD one of China's major goal was to conquer Korea (which partly they succeded [because at the end Korea lost Manchuria by Kittans (but mostly by china) at 926 AD and the Koreans lived in lower half manchuria since maybe even at 2000 BC] ) This shows that Korea was big, strong and even a threat to the Chinese civilization.
While most korean people cannot trace their ancestor some can trace them up to 2000 years before.
And tell me Mark L : tell me any country that has the same people, lived in the same land for more than 3000 years except for China (but then they have bunch of north barbarian blood too) and Japan (also most of their blood is koreans migraded about 300 BC - 300 AD).
Overall Korea is one of most important civ in this world that also managed to survive today, which is a shame if not included in civ3 ex.

[Trifna]

Yin, can you say that Koreans are THAT MUCH culturally different from Chinese? As different French are from Germans or Americans from English? Or is it more that Koreans are like Singaporeans or many around there and are against China for some reasons but do have a culture that is quite similar? For exemple, all these French lords were battling against themselves, but they didn't had that much cultural difference. At least, they could be put in the French culture.

[Trifna]

Sorry, forgot to say the reason of my precedent message to clarify.


I think, but am not erudite on all this, that it is a possibility that Koreans are in fact CULTURALLY too close to Chinese to really put them as an entire civ in Civ III. They then would be kindda englobed in other oriental civs. They may have done alot, but if they aren't distinctive enough to me, I'd consider them more as a part of Chinese culture, without beeing part of China of course...

[Q Classic]

culturally, yes.

------

1. the cuisine:

look at the foods; chinese tends to be fried, or in sauce;
korean does not, it tends to be spicy.

chinese does not tend to have the same type of side dishes; indeed, few of the side dishes are the same.

chiense does not have the same desserts, as in the rice cakes they have are made differently and used completely differently.

------

2. the language:

korean is completely unrelated in terms of the spoken language, regarding both the manner in which it spoken, and the grammatical structure. indeed, they are so unrelated that linguists cannot place them in the same group.

there is some overlap between the vocabulary; but saying that this is a strong relation is like assuming that france and italy and spain are related and should be considered one because of their vocabulary and language.

the written language is also quite different. korea has moved away from much of the chinese ideograms that characterized the written language in early days.

------

3. the dress:

korean people wear different clothes (traditional clothes, anyway, before western clothes became the norm); there are no 'mandarin' collars, really, in traditional korean dress (you know, the very high collars); korean formal dress also tends to be multi-layered, brightly colored, and cut differently.

they also do not really have obis or kimonos, which are a japanese thing.

------

4. the customs:

yes, some religions may be similar: confucianism has a strong hold, as does buddhism. but to group korean and chinese together as the same culture would also imply that indonesia, pakistan, bangladesh, and saudi arabia are all the same because they share the common religion of islam.

koreans tend to be far more outward looking and mercurial than do chinese; this has been evidenced in previous interactions with the outside world. china, even though it has had far more missionaries throughout the ages, is still not very christian; neither does japan. korea, on the other hand, has a sizeable christian population. however, it was far more difficult for the western world to open up trade with korea, because, unlike japan, a show of force was not enough to completely open trade with america.

burials also tend to be different. korean burials are always followed by a train of people wearing white, and led up to mountain graves, sanso; chinese burians are not done in this fashion. often times, there are no pillars to mark graves, as in the japanese style, but there are markers.

------

5. the art:

korean dragons, for one thing, traditionally have a different number of toes than do chinese ones. korean art also looks quite different from japanese and chinese art, if you line them up side by side.

------

i'll think of more soon.

[Trifna]

yes, some religions may be similar: confucianism has a strong hold, as does buddhism. but to group korean and chinese together as the same culture would also imply that indonesia, pakistan, bangladesh, and saudi arabia are all the same because they share the common religion of islam.

Well since I'm trying to put general civilization that may include all, culturally, I DO put all these civilizations as beein included in civs in Civ III. In fact, Civ III's civs are general cultures (implying civilizations of course). For me, indonesia, pakistan, bangladesh, and saudi arabia are included in these civs: China, India, Arab and Khmer. They all are a mix of these ones.

That's why I'm wondering for Korean. With all what you said, they seem to me as a difficult case. I know they may have different meals and customs. We Canadians too, you know? And we don't dress like all others, and we don't etc. But we aren't distinctive enough, as German, France, Khmers, China, Japanese all seem as englobing their own category.

If Koreans are a mix with China, Occidental world, Japan and Khmers, they're stil a mix even if they are different from anybody. they didn't took a totally different line.

[ranskaldan]

Trifna, the distance between the Korean, Chinese and Japanese cultures is at least as significant as between, say, English, French, and Spanish cultures.

If you support separate civilizations for the English, French, Spanish, Germans, and Vikings, then I see no reason why you would consider the Korean civilization to be the same civilization as the Chinese.

If Koreans are a mix with China, Occidental world, Japan and Khmers, they're stil a mix even if they are different from anybody. they didn't took a totally different line.

As for the 'mixing' part, there is no reason why being a mixture would disquality a civilization. The English civ is a mixture, of the Germanic, Norse, Celts and Romans. The French are a mixture of the Romans, Gauls, Franks. They didn't take totally different lines from their predecessors. So? We keep them separate because they are distinct. And same goes for the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

The French, Spanish, and Italians can at least be traced by to a common Roman heritage. The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese can't. They started separately and they still are separate. They were pretty close to each other geographically, so they exchanged ideas. That's all.

Thus if the Poles, Spanish, and Vikings are in the xpack, so should the Koreans.

[Q Classic]

trifna... just to make this clear, i don't know if it was, i might just be confused by your wording...

but the koreans aren't a mix of japanese, chinese, the occident, and the khmers...

the khmers are kinda out of the way, the occident didn't have much influence in the beginning, japan was influenced by korea, and the genetics and language are different between koreans and the chinese.

[ranskaldan]

exactly, q cubed (hey, that's a cool name, it rhymes!). the koreans most definitely aren't a mix between the chinese and japanese. you might as well say next that the americans are a mix between the canadians and mexicans.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by thinkingamer
The Chinese also used chemical weapons about 300 BC (european used their fisrt chemical weapon in WWI) and authors like Sun Tzu tells us that Easten Asia had amazing battles that European could not even imagine. (And it took another 1800 years to produce someone like Marchiaveli)

Eever heard of Greek fire? Used by the Byzantine/Eastern Roman navy:

www.ruf.rice.edu/~athan for an illustration from a Byzantine manuscript. Also:

'Greek Fire was the secret weapon of the Eastern Roman Emperors. It is said to have been invented by a Syrian engineer, one Callinicus, a refugee from Maalbek, in the seventh century (673 AD). The "liquid fire" was hurled on to the ships of their enemies from siphons and burst into flames on contact. As it was reputed to be inextinguishable and burned even on water, it caused panic and dread. Its introduction into the warfare of its time was comparable in its demoralizing influence to the introduction of nuclear weapons in our time. Both Arab and Greek sources agree that it surpassed all incendiary weapons in destruction. The secret behind the Greek fire was handed down from one emperor to the next for centuries. Rumors about its composition include such chemicals as liquid petroleum, naphtha, burning pitch, sulphur, resin, quicklime and bitumen, along with some other "secret ingredient". The exact composition, however, remains unknown. For a thorough investigation of the weapon one can refer to Professor J.R. Partington's book, "A history of the Greek Fire and Gunpowder", Heffer, 1960. This volume quotes the ancient authorities extensively, with an excellent commentary. It also examines ancient and modern theories on the composition of the chemicals used in the Greek Fire. This is considered the most up to date source on the subject. '

Many examples of the advances of European/Mediterranean technology were lost or forgotten as civilizations changed, empires fell and wave after wave of invader wrought destruction.
The Antikythera Device:

http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert...a/kythera3.htm and also:

http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert...a/kythera5.htm

and Archimedes' death ray(!):

www.ex.ac.uk/~jbcalver/eureka.htm

www.uh.edu/admin/engines/epi252.htm

and others: www2.una.edu/dburton/AncInvVid.htm

[Trifna]

If you support separate civilizations for the English, French, Spanish, Germans, and Vikings, then I see no reason why you would consider the Korean civilization to be the same civilization as the Chinese.

If they are as different as European civs are between themselves, I see no reason why we would include all European civs and not do same for Asia. All I want is that we apply the same rule to all civs (which isn't very easy).

[yin26]

Wow! At one point, I had all but given up on this thread! First, I'm *very* happy that this thread has lately managed to raise some good discussions and, I hope, the profile of Korea!

My thanks to all of you here for adding to the thread and even giving me some credit for the work. Thanks again.

I'd like to especially thank those of you who have some knowledge of Korea for sharing it. And for those of you with a fair mind for arguing for fairness.

S. Kroeze

Thank you for this great thread! Especially your starting post was awesome. I also liked the heated debate following; I didn't read everything but quite a bit. Could you recommend any study about Korean history? I still prefer to add to my knowledge by reading.

Thank you sir! Kind words indeed. I can, if you like, point you to a few web sites full of information. And I could spend half a day telling you about good books. Of course Amazon.com will pull up a ton if you do a Korea search. Anyway, here are two great places to start:

http://www.korealore.com/ (a great run-down of a number of top Korea-related site)

http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/KETIndex.htm (a great run-down of Korean history)

Perhaps I missed it, but your posts contain surprisingly little about those factors that in the end define a civilisation: culture, especially language and literature, and RELIGION, the cornerstone of every 'true' civilisation. To my knowledge Korea embraced for centuries some form of Buddhism, proving the supremacy of the Indian and Chinese civilisation!

I think Q-cubed gave some good answers, but I'll just add this for now and we can go into more detail if you like: If you judge a country as being a 'true' civilization according to the origin of the religion used, all of Europe is really just an offshoot of the Arabs and Jews.

Trifna:

Yin, can you say that Koreans are THAT MUCH culturally different from Chinese? As different French are from Germans or Americans from English?

As Q-cubed and others have nicely argued: Absolutely. In fact, moreso than the groups you mentioned.

If they are as different as European civs are between themselves, I see no reason why we would include all European civs and not do same for Asia. All I want is that we apply the same rule to all civs (which isn't very easy).

Right on! Precisely! This makes me very happy to read! Thank you, Trifna, for being open to information and then being willing to change your view a bit in return. Excellent.

[thinkingamer]

Sorry about my unspecific statement; i've should have typed "Chemical warfare using poison gas"

"Chemical warfare using poison gas goes back to at least the early 4th century BC in China...... including the smoke of burning mustard being used by the Germans against the Allies during WWI 2300 years later"

- from "The Genius of China" by Robert Temple -

English is my 3rd language so feel free to ask any question about my statements

[DaShi]

Yin,

Why do Korean girls say that they just want to be friends, then, as your friendship develops, they start dropping hits that they might want to be more than friends, but you, who are on the other side of the world for a year, don't want to make such a committment at that time, especially when it could jeopardize the friendship that you hold so dear, so you try to be sympathetic but not to go beyond the friendship hoping that they can wait until you return, and they respond be pouring out their feelings and telling you that it hurts too much to talk to you, so they want to end all communication with you, in which you, flabergasted, say that they should take as much time as they need only to have them get angry and then actually never talk to you again leaving you with no method of reaching them to apologize or to just find out if they are ok? Why do they do that?

[yin26]

DaShi:

Korean women (and I mean ALL) are psychotic. Listen to me, because I know. My wife is Korean. She's psychotic. My Korean friends who are girls? Psychotic. All of them.

But it's wonderful! They are psychotic about love issues because they have grown up in a culture that A) tries to get them to repress or fill guilty for having 'desires' and B) rewards a kind of melodramatic suffering on the way to some final bliss.

A + B = An entire generation of women who know they have a right to be much much happier in relationships but still feel that anything worth having is worth going through hell for.

So, trust me. If this girl is going through hell right now, she's loving it on some deep, psychotic level. But you are making a few mistakes, IMO. Don't tell her 'Take all the time you need.' That's too logical. That's the antithesis of psychotic. You should tell her (assuming you still want to have a relationship with her in the future, friends or more):

"I can't say for sure exactly how I feel right now, but I do know that each day I spend without you only makes me hurt somehow. Please just know that I am counting each day until I can see you face to face and tell you how much I miss our time together."

Man, that one will send her spinning happily for days! In the end, of course, this girl doesn't want to just be your friend. You know that ... but if you want to test the waters more, give her something to work with!

[yin26]

That advice just cost you 1,000 won. Cash only.

[DaShi]

I did tell her that I wasn't sure how I felt, but at this point she has cut off all communication with me. I have no means to contact her, and it has been a year since I last heard from her. Silly, that I thought she would send me an email saying 'hi." Anyway, I think that you may have described her perfectly. Many of her later emails were filled with a lot of angst, that only confused me. Thanks anyway. Your check is in the mail.