The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[King of Rasslin]

"Naval warfare not important? Of course you wouldn't know the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 involved thousands of warships from each side and the fate of the war was sealed by decisive naval battles.

Furthermore the massive Japanese invasion was nothing like their previous pirate raids but something that could change whole Oriental history. This event had great impact on many including China, Manchus, Korea and Japan(the 4 major power brokers in that region) In this crucial historic event, the turtleship and the Korean fleet played decisive role."

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

"Interesting new theory. Care to bring that theory to historians and archeologists? From 10,000 to 4000BC, There were development of settlements into cities and development of skills such as the wheel, pottery, and improved methods of cultivation in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. Very nomadic huh?

Predynastic Egyptian cultures develop (5500?100 B.C.); begin using agriculture (c. 5000 B.C.) Very nomadic indeed.

Earliest known civilization arises in Sumer (4500-4000 B.C.) Maybe they were all nomads then according to your account? "

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

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

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

"The Great Wall wasn't built for stopping massive invasion but for keeping nomad raiders out of the Chinese border villages. The Great wall had succesfully achieved its goal to keep out of nomadic raiders for very long. The Ancient Chinese had relied on different mechanism for its defense when they faced a massive invasion. The complex network of the 'Kwan',valley gate, system or interception and field engagement after total levy/conscription. A frontal fortress such as the Great wall serves for only earning enough time for successful levy/conscription from the rear."

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

" Why talk about only future and present? The past is not a history at all? Why don't you measure or judge their success by ancient standard rather than modern one."

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

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

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

[eric789]

it should have stopped the Japanese. Because it failed

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

Your dates are all wrong

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

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

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

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

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

If a few raids on villages counts as a push

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

By the way, your link is dead.

[eric789]

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, your link is dead.

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eric789]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eric789]

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

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

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

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

[eric789]

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

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

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

[eric789]

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

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

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

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

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

[eric789]

they were isolationist in their culture

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

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

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

[King of Rasslin]

Still, the turtle ship didn't totally prevent the Japanese invasion. You do have to admit that hurts Korea as a civ. The UUs tend to be the winners in wars, not the losers. Although Korea fought off Japan, they were the ones invaded, not the invaders. So they don't get as much credit as they might deserve. Also, the fact that the turtle ship didn't change war, but was ignored, hurts Korea as well.

[eric789]

Still, the turtle ship didn't totally prevent the Japanese invasion. You do have to admit that hurts Korea as a civ.

What's this? Is the turtle ship some kind of early warning system to prevent surprise landing? why don't you blame the US battleships for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl harbour?

The UUs tend to be the winners in wars, not the losers. Although Korea fought off Japan, they were the ones invaded, not the invaders. So they don't get as much credit as they might deserve

Who won the war? The Koreans or the Japanese?
If an invader becomes always a winner, the Germans and the Japanese are the winners of WWII. Interesting view...

Also, the fact that the turtle ship didn't change war, but was ignored, hurts Korea as well.

Not only it just changed the war but it sealed the fate of the war.

[King of Rasslin]

"What's this? Is the turtle ship some kind of early warning system to prevent surprise landing? why don't you blame the US battleships for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl harbour?"

The turtle ships should have been able to defeat the Japanese navy. But they took too long. Korea was invaded before the turtle ships succeeded.

"Who won the war? The Koreans or the Japanese?
If an invader becomes always a winner, the Germans and the Japanese are the winners of WWII. Interesting view..."

You have to admit, the Japanese invasion hurt Korea. Japan was left unharmed because they were not invaded. They were fought off, but they didn't suffer like Korea did. Germany was invaded and defeated, but Korea just fought off Japan and forgot about it.

"Not only it just changed the war but it sealed the fate of the war."

But it didn't set an example to other countries. That would have helped it a lot.

[eric789]

The turtle ships should have been able to defeat the Japanese navy. But they took too long.

How long did it take the USA to repel the Japanese during WWII? one lightning strike made the Japanese surrender?

You have to admit, the Japanese invasion hurt Korea. Japan was left unharmed because they were not invaded. They were fought off, but they didn't suffer like Korea did. Germany was invaded and defeated, but Korea just fought off Japan and forgot about it.

OK, Korea suffered from the war just like USSR, France, UK, China,etc during WWII. Does it make USA the sole winner of WWII? You really think like that? Bombed and flattened UK is a loser of WWII?

But it didn't set an example to other countries. That would have helped it a lot

The US naval academy and many others teach their cadets Admiral Yi Sun-sin and his ironclad as well as the formation used by the Korean navy at that time.

[King of Rasslin]

"How long did it take the USA to repel the Japanese during WWII? one lightning strike made the Japanese surrender?"

They didn't even touch the US mainland. It wasn't really an invasion like Korea was.

"The US naval academy and many others teach their cadets Admiral Yi Sun-sin and his ironclad as well as the formation used by the Korean navy at that time."

But the turtle ships didn't inspire all of the other Asian countries to do the same. The US ironclad did. That is our significance and the lack of theirs. I keep saying this! His strategies might live on at a naval academy but his idea of making the turtle ship didn't spread.

[eric789]

They didn't even touch the US mainland. It wasn't really an invasion like Korea was.

and why? because there is big difference in distance. Korea is damn close to Japan but the USA isn't. If a nation is suddenly attacked within that distance even the USA will suffer from the war. Don't you agree?

But the turtle ships didn't inspire all of the other Asian countries to do the same. The US ironclad did. That is our significance and the lack of theirs. I keep saying this! His strategies might live on at a naval academy but his idea of making the turtle ship didn't spread.

Yes, the Japanese were inspired by the idea. You see, the initial wave of Japanese fleets were not armed with cannons and such. After the encounter with the Korean fleets and devastating defeat, they quickly adopted the concept of arming the ship with cannons and more structural defense. But making a complete ironclad was not an easy thing. Iron would get rusty easily when the ship is out to rough sea and only Korea had advanced forging technology to make rust-free iron armour to cover a ship.

[King of Rasslin]

"and why? because there is big difference in distance. Korea is damn close to Japan but the USA isn't. If a nation is suddenly attacked within that distance even the USA will suffer from the war. Don't you agree?"

I would imagine we would suffer from an invasion. But we would strike back with an invasion of our own. The fact that the Koreans didn't stage their own invasion proves that they are wimps that can't handle a fight on foreign soil. Or, its nicer to call them "pacifists"

"Yes, the Japanese were inspired by the idea. You see, the initial wave of Japanese fleets were not armed with cannons and such. After the encounter with the Korean fleets and devastating defeat, they quickly adopted the concept of arming the ship with cannons and more structural defense. But making a complete ironclad was not an easy thing. Iron would get rusty easily when the ship is out to rough sea and only Korea had advanced forging technology to make rust-free iron armour to cover a ship."

Didn't you say the Japanese captured pottery guys from Korea? A few good blacksmiths could be forced to teach the Japanese how to make their ships ironclad. Arming their ships more heavily can be an effect of the usefulness of the turtle ships, but they didn't encourage the whole region to improve their navies. Japan wanted the short term benefit, but they never extensively tried to modernize their navy.

[eric789]

I would imagine we would suffer from an invasion. But we would strike back with an invasion of our own. The fact that the Koreans didn't stage their own invasion proves that they are wimps that can't handle a fight on foreign soil. Or, its nicer to call them "pacifists"

Because Korea had to watch her back, especially for the opportunist Manchus. I don't think it is wise to mount a full expedition while there are strong enemies still around just waiting for an opportunity.

Didn't you say the Japanese captured pottery guys from Korea? A few good blacksmiths could be forced to teach the Japanese how to make their ships ironclad. Arming their ships more heavily can be an effect of the usefulness of the turtle ships, but they didn't encourage the whole region to improve their navies. Japan wanted the short term benefit, but they never extensively tried to modernize their navy.

The potters were engaged in commercial industry whereas the forgers were working for defence industry at that time. Master forgers were well protected by the Admiral Yi. Furthermore it's the Admiral Yi's naval base arsenal which invented all the ironclad, armours, other gismos and gadgets and the base was protected from the Japanese.

[Q Classic]

KoR:

your posts progressively prove just how closed-minded and eurocentric you are. it's a pity, really. your threads and posts on other forums don't exactly help you.

nonetheless:

An invasion of triremes and longships could cripple or crush a whole country. The turtle ships simple didn't matter as much because sea invasions were not as popular in the East. Besides the Japanese, there really wasn't a need for the turtle ships because all of the Asian countries are connected well. However, triremes and longships were more important because naval warfare was more important that Europe.

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

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

naval warfare was actually quite important on east asia. why? because they aren't well connected. korea and japan are very mountainous countries, and china is a rather vast region; naval power was crucial in being able to move troops.
your point that triremes and longships were more important because they were more important in europe doesn't hold water; during the pre-modern times euope was no more important than asia; and indeed, most great civilizations of the time were largly in asia, not europe.

regarding the turtleship: perhaps it is important to note that the turtleship did play a decisive role; the japanese invasion had its supply trains cut and its navy smashed by a flotilla of less than 50 iron clad ships facing off against a fleet of over 300. the aftermath of such a crushing defeat not only demoralized the japanese troops, it led to their extremely quick defeat as they had no means of fleeing, nor any means of healing their troops. hideyoshi, the leader of japan who led the invasion, lost power soon after in japan. that's why it's considered important.

also: the invasion of korea occured FIRST, BEFORE the turtleships were constructed. that's why they didn't stop the Japanese from invading korea. of course, this occured in the 17th century; and this invasion failed miserably.

======

The grand canal is the Panama Canal, made by Europeans. Nothing else comes close, sorry. The Great Wall was a failure. It certainly didn't stop the Mongols from invading. If it actually worked, it would have been important. Believe me, there are plenty of European buildings and monuments out there to compete with a big 'ol wall out there.

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

you haven't heard of it probably because it's not part of the euro-centric history texts. no doubt you've never heard of the ashanti, nor any other great african civilization; i doubt you've heard much of angor wat, of the khmer, of the mughals, the moguls, or any other thing in asia that is or has been "great".
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 panama canal may have been a world event, but it's not used as much as it once was; air transport has superseeded it in a lot of cases, and the fact that most supertransports, supertankers, and supercarriers are too large for it diminishes its utility. in a century, it will be a footnote in history. odds are the only reason you know of it is because it's in the americas, and it's in the west; otherwise, you'd know that it was a predominantly american project, not a european one.

also: the great wall was constructed some centuries before the mongols arose; meaning, at the time of its construction by the Qin dynasty, the great wall's only purpose was to mark a border for china and to deter nomadic raiders.
if you actually look at the shape and the structure of the wall, you'd also learn that the wall's design isn't robust nor tall enough to actually withstand any form of concentrated assault; add to that the fact that the wall is not one continuous ribbon of stone, as is believed, but has many entryways which were once guarded, and you see why it didn't--couldn't, and wasn't supposed to-- keep the mongols out.

======

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

the colossus of rhodes wasn't needed period. the great library of alexandria was supposed to store the world's texts, but it sunk underwater. many great castles were supposed to keep the villagers protected, but they fell under a seige. the oracle was supposed to guide leaders and what not, in order to keep the empire strong.

all of them FAILED. ok?

how many times must it be explained to you that the original intent was NOT to keep out the mongols? it was built several centuries before the mongols ever became any sort of cohesive unit; Qin merely wanted something to solidify his power.

======

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

you know, it's easy to show how pathetic the european countries were in the ancient times, the dark ages, and the renaissance.
i mean, things like the black death, the inquisition, the catholic church's near total control of every part of life...
asia never had to go through that.
as for the korean war: actually, that's not the most important thing that's happened to korea in the modern era. the most important was the japanese occupation of 1910-1935; but even that pales in importance to many things that happened in korea beforehand. their importance does not derive from what has happened in the modern era.
as for "a real economy", i suppose you don't realize one of the driving factors in the industrial revolution was the production of luxury goods that were once imported from china at a relatively low cost...
no, of course not. the history text that you take as sacred pretty much states that europe is everything.

======

We *willingly* granted freedom to our colonies. That is pathetic.

france willingly gave up control of east indochina? news to me. last i heard, they were utterly crushed by vietnamese, laotian, and cambodian uprisings, even though france got loads of support from the united states.
britain willingly gave up control of india, pakistan, and bangladesh? again, news to me. i had this funny notion that the indians just made it so hard to govern that the brits had no other choice: when you can't control a colony, you can't really run it, and if you can't really run it or control it, then you don't really own it, do you?
on an interesting note, most of those south american colonies? they kinda fought off spain. so did those english colonies... where was the willingness there?
the african colonies? most of them fought off their european oppressors... hm... i wonder where the willingness was.

======

perhaps, rasslin, you should learn history, and read a more comprehensive history textbook, before you start making claims that make you look rather... ignorant.

then again, i'm not surprised... "a man with very little knowledge believes that he knows everything", isn't that the quote?

[Q Classic]

by the way:

I would imagine we would suffer from an invasion. But we would strike back with an invasion of our own. The fact that the Koreans didn't stage their own invasion proves that they are wimps that can't handle a fight on foreign soil. Or, its nicer to call them "pacifists"

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...

[GhengisFarb™]

My two cents:

I feel the Korean civ is similiar in status to the Hebrew civ. Both have lasted for an extremely long time and survived through many wars and have made many contributions.

But, 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 could be wrong, but I don't remember Korea dominating either through military conquest or culturally assimilating neighboring civs, like Japan or China.

Oh, and on a personal note, if you ever decide to go to the big tower on the mountain in the middle of Seoul. TAKE THE CAB. (Oh, it's just a little walk, maybe a quarter of a mile...YEAH, STRAIGHT UP!)

[Lord Merciless]

[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.

[yellfromhell]

quote:

"You are putting a dangerous assumption here. The Aztecs conquered the Mayas so the Mayan accomplishment can be the Aztec one too? The Nazi Germany's occupation of Paris during WWII makes the Germany the rightful owner of the French cultural accomplishment? Furthermore the Popol Vuh is the creational story of Maya. Not just some kind of cultural thing that can be transferred to other civilisations".

Im not saying the Aztecs deserve to be congratulated because Mayas accomplishment. Point 1: I recognize the Aztec and the Mayas as 2 different civs. Point 2: I will recognize my error in attributing virtue to the Aztec because the Maya Popol Vuh.
Eventhough the Aztec religion took lots of things from the Mayan, this isnt enough to let me equal them in anyway, so I recognize my fault.
From now on I`ll refer to another book, not so know as the Popol Vuh (I recognize I didnt even know it till yesterday) but with similar importance for the Civ: the Aztec Borbonicus Codex. This book is a colourful pictographic religious document, and one of the few remaining after the Spaniards erased as much as they could. I dont know if it deserves the adjective of "famous", but to continue the discussion about an Aztec book I`ll refer to it from now on.

But one thing: every discovery the Maya descendants made under Aztec rulership its rightfully owned too by the Aztecs. See it this way:
¿Which country deserves recognition for pole-vaultsman Sergei Bubka`s world records? ¿USSR or the Ukraine? I believe both.
But the 'rights of the conqueror' is another topic: ¿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?

quote:

"I certainly don't think so. (...) Cortez conquers the Aztecs in 1521 and The Japanese invasion of Korea took place in 1592. Korea had to fight off approximately 200,000 musketeers and Samurai warriors total during the invasion and how many men were led by Cortez?"

As I said: 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.
If India can be justified of being conquered by the English because they where not unified and some factions allied with the English, then the Aztecs can be justified of being conquered by the Spanish becuase some factions allied with Cortez and a book predicted the return of a God (in the end both, the God and Cortez were the same: cruel butchers :=))

quote:
"Genetically maybe but the Aztec civilisation was not inherited nor fused into Mexico. Do not be illusive with people and political entity simply because they share the same territory with an old civilisation. Mexican culture is predominantly Hispanic(spanish). They speak Spanish. Their food are under heavy Spanish influence. Their religion is not even a compromise between the old customary belief and Roman Catholric but complete form of the latter one".

You are extremelly wrong Eric. 1.2 millon mexicans still speak Nahuatl (the Aztecs language) and many more speak other tribes languages. The force of the Spanish and the Aztec influence in food is similar. Millons of mexicans believe in some kind of compromise between the Aztec and the Roman Catholic religions. When I read your words I remembered an interview National Geographic did to a contemporary Aztec sorcecress, and I`ll quote a part of it here: Bart McDowell, the journalist, writes: "(...) though a Christian (Doña Rufi, the Aztec sorceress), she prayed to the ancient gods - especially to the agricultural deity Tlaloc, who required the blood sacrifice of children. Doña Rufi had survived the 'war of the witches', a rural feud of the 1930s fought near her village of San Miguel Tzinacapan with incantations, curses, and perhaps a dozen violent deaths" [end of quotes]. As you see, there as been a religious compromise. I can continue showing you the influence of Aztec culture in the mexicans if you want to (By the way: Tequila, Mezcal and Tacos arent 2 foods and 1 drink but 2 drinks and 1 food: Mezcal is a licour with a worm inside, that really tastes very well :=))

quote:
"Zapatist movement" is quite self explanatory about that Mexico is not the legitimate heir of the Aztec civilisation. Why would some tribemen even revolt for the sake of their old tradition? Because Mexico does not have the form of culture that is well fused by old tradition of the Aztec tribes".

You cant call "Mexico" to the mexican government: the people is Mexico. Those tribemen feel mexicans and tribemen. So they are Mexico too ¿dont you think?

quote:
"Is there any more? Do you seriously think only an item of alchol beverage and two items of food can bestow the title of the rightful heir of an old civilisation? If you can bring handful of evidence that Mexico is influenced by the Aztecs then I can bring tonnes of evidence that Mexico is influenced by the Spanish culture. The ratio will be 1:9, I say. Not even 3:7!"

I think I`d showed you that there is more. The ratio means nothing. What its being discussed is if the Mexicans deserve to be considered the heirs of the Aztec culture, not if they deserve to be heirs of the Spanish. As you wont find any other country linked in such a way to the Aztecs, the only posible heir is Mexico, and certainly shows proudly that he is.

Hugs

Yellfromhell

[yellfromhell]

to Q-Cubed:

quote:
"the difference, say, would be between a 8/6/3 cavalryman and a 1/1/1 militia in civ2 terms between the aztecs and the spanish; the 8/6/3 cavalrymen would have to face 3/3/1 musketmen in korea, if not stronger troops".

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).

quote:
"also: i am not underestimating the mexican economy; i'm just saying, much of its growth has occured after NAFTA; thus, NAFTA must have had some beneficial effect on growth. thus: geographic location helped mexico's economic growth".

and another quote:
"continuing: do not use a patronizing tone to me. yes, i'm well aware that england and korea are almost 180 longitudinal degrees apart; that is irrelevant. the british did not so much as conquer china as carve out a piece of it, in an attempt to swallow part of it. as for india's fall, it was mainly due to the fact that india was not unified when it was absorbed; the many different principalities were unable to form a unified front, and so some allied themselves with britain, and some were conquered by british-indian troops. such a situation would not have worked in korea; indeed, even if britain were closer to korea, it is highly unlikely that it would have been able to conquer it. and again, korea would not have disappeared".

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.

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.

[quote]:
"don't split it up over so many different posts. it's dangerously close spamming, it's annoying, and it breaks up what could have been a cohesive (but incorrect and eurocentric) argument".

¿What do you expect me to do? ¿Do you prefare one extremelly long post than lots of directly refering post? I thought that replying to every message would be better than replying to all in one post. Please, give me some ideas. And, about the eurocentric point of view, eventhough Im considered a part of the Occidental Civ, I dont accept this critic. I have an open thought. You saw me recognizing my errors, and I can tell you I understand many things from far east culture and dont usually judge them better or worse than other. But in this case I think we are playing. In fact, we are discussing about the inclussion of a representant of a culture in a game. Its, therefore, a game we are playing, not a philosophic matter.

Hugs.

Yellfromhell