The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by yin26
Name Country Est.
population
(in millions)
1. Tokyo Japan 34.5
2. New York USA 21.4
3. Seoul South Korea 20.3
4. Mexico City Mexico 19.3
5. Bombay (Mumbai) India 19.0

What is your source? Where is Mumbai? São Paulo? Sjanghai? Lagos?
Latest figure for New York is 19.0 (2000).

"As of the end of 1999, Seoul has a population of 10,321,449, with the
number of households totaling 3,458,511, representing about a quarter
of the entire population of the nation.
With regard to the gender ratio, males slightly outnumber females. Since
1394, when Seoul became the capital city of Korea, the population has
increased 110-fold, making it one of the most densely populated cities
in the world."

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by yin26
(IMF ... ) Korea already paid that off.

Korea did indeed make a repayment of 4 billion SDR this year, but it has the habit of asking for new loans shortly after repayments are made. At the moment Korea still has a sizable stand-by credit.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by yin26
Per capita is a simple measure gained by dividing by the number of people in a nation. Thus, if you have very few, the number is higher. But how does that AT ALL correlate to that nations importance to the outside world? It doesn't. Period.

A nation's "importance to the outside world" is generally not measured in terms of GDP at all. Rather, it is international trade and investments that count. On such lists, The Netherlands are invariably among the top 10 countries of the world, while (South) Korea is not.

Further, that number does not mean that each person sees that amount of money on average. A nation like Kuwait sees a vast majority of the money in very, very few hands.

Bad example, because Kuwait is rather a two-way split: rich "native" citizens and poor immigrant workers. In general it's valid good point though, but one that argues in favour of The Netherlands rather than Korea .

[yin26]

Ribannah:

I have also seen those numbers, but they are wrong. It is common knowledge in Korea (as listed by government sources) that approx/ half of the total population of 43 million lives in the city of Seoul. I have no idea why other sources list half of the correct number. One good source is here.

1. Tokyo Japan 34.5
2. New York USA 21.4
3. Seoul South Korea 20.3
4. Mexico City Mexico 19.3
5. Bombay (Mumbai) India 19.0


Again, the 10 mil figure is way, way off, and some lists don't have certain cities at all for some reason. To my knowledge, this one is accurate.

I would say on the matter of "importance to the outside world" as you define it, the Asian region is the 'up and coming' one to be sure. We can debate this all year, but there is no doubting that the Asian region is going to define this century in ways people who ignore Asia will find perhaps unsettling.

My point about per capita is that it means even less than GDP.

And for Korea 'continuing to ask for IMF money,' I have never heard this. Not once. If you have something that says so regarding the 2001 year, I'd be glad to see it. However, it is widely known that Korea made the fastest recovery ever.

Finally, as for the Netherland's liberal policies, I can only say what I am reading so far. If the information posted is out of date, I'd gladly like to see the more up-to-date information. Thanks.

MarkL:

By your own admission, you have no real interest in Asia, nor are you willing to research many of the things you claim to be right or wrong. Rather, you are an arm-chair commentator knowing that he lacks the facts yet speaks with conviction.

This makes you "narrow-minded" and uninformed, at least on many of the topics raised in this thread. However, it also makes you entertaining at times.

The best points you have made here came from looking at research I posted for you. Yes, Holland has 3 companies in the Top 100 while Korea has none. Good point. Too bad I made it for you. Of course, by the time we go deeper to the Top 500, the difference is negligible.

Lest anybody think I have anything against the Netherlands, I am quite struck at how a relatively small nation has indeed made so many contributions to its region and has 3 companies in the top 100. I find that spectacular, and it speaks well for the people of the Netherlands.

So, Mark, while you have been entertaining, I have learned nothing from you. You have, however, pushed me to support myself a bit better, and I did learn many interesting things about Holland along the way. Although you never intended me to learn, per se, your insistence to make unsubstantiated claims gave me good motivation. Thanks.

I think we have both had fun attacking each other's intelligence and resorting to various Troll methods. I will only repeat myself: You are closed-minded, arrogant and too lazy to research the stuff he claims to know, at least regarding Asia.

Mind you, this is the Internet after all and perhaps you just come here to have some fun and blow off steam. Fair enough. I also like to actually learn a few things and back up what I say with some solid facts, but hey: To each his own.

For the record, it has been fun, but I can't possibly imagine anything more coming from our discussions in this thread. If you want to have an honest discussion about any facts I have tried to present, I'd gladly work on that. I hope, in turn, you would do the same. For example, has the Netherlands' social programs really dropped off of late? That would be something I'd like to read somewhere.

At any rate, I know I learned a few things by being open-minded and doing some research. I can't be sure what your motive was, but hopefully you achieved your goals here as well.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by yin26
I have also seen those numbers, but they are wrong. It is common knowledge in Korea (as listed by government sources) that approx/ half of the total population of 43 million lives in the city of Seoul. I have no idea why other sources list half of the correct number. One good source is here.

Ah, now I see. The numbers you give include suburbs, whereas I thought we were talking about the town itself only. By this standard, a big part of The Netherlands should be considered one single agglomeration (known as "De Randstad").

The Asian region is the 'up and coming' one to be sure.

It certainly looks like it - provided that a significantly higher standard of living for the huge Asian populations won't destroy the environment.

My point about per capita is that it means even less than GDP

It means a lot for the people concerned, but as far as importance for the world goes, I basically agree. However, a high per capita gdp does have its effects, for instance it can lead to scientific discoveries and it can set an example (as Hongkong does for China).

And for Korea 'continuing to ask for IMF money,' I have never heard this.

Korea asked for (and got) huge loans in 1997 and 1998, after finishing repayments 9 years earlier (OK, maybe I shouldn't call that "shortly after" , but I wouldn't rule out new loans during the next economic low. They do repay impressively fast though).

Finally, as for the Netherland's liberal policies, I can only say what I am reading so far. If the information posted is out of date, I'd gladly like to see the more up-to-date information.

It is more coloured info than out of date. It may help to know that The Netherlands have their own version of liberalism: the largest liberal party, the VVD, is right-wing rather than left-wing.

I have enjoyed reading the historical data about Korea in this thread, it shows once more that there are many gaps in history teaching.

[yin26]

Ah, yes. Suburbs. I see now why the listings vary so much. Regarding Asia's future impact on the environment and world economy, one can only speculate. Europe has had its time...and now Asia is rising once again. In the best view, both sides reap massive rewards and the living standards around the world sky-rocket...making us all much more willing to get to know each other and avoid conflict. This is what I hope will happen.

I agree that per capita has local and some neighboring effects, but for the 'world influence' debate it's not the strongest card in the deck. However, if one had to pick a place to do skilled work, Holland doesn't sound too shabby. S.Korea is still a relatively 'rough' place to live and work.

the largest liberal party, the VVD, is right-wing rather than left-wing.

So, in Holland, the right is left and the left is right? LOL! O.K. Now I have to visit for sure. I wonder if MarkL will meet me for some debates at a local pub?

I have enjoyed reading the historical data about Korea in this thread, it shows once more that there are many gaps in history teaching.

I know this thread has gone all over (and off) the map, but if some of the solid Korea stuff got through, I'm VERY happy. I know I can't reasonably claim Korea has shaped the world as other nations have, but I can certainly hope some of the gaps in teaching can be closed.

Thanks for suffering though it all and finding something good. If you and I had been the ones debating from the beginning, this whole thing would have just been soooo boring productive, eh?

[Felch]

It certainly looks like it - provided that a significantly higher standard of living for the huge Asian populations won't destroy the environment.

Ribannah, I live in America, so I don't have any real personal interest in the quality of life of Koreans, but I am willing to say that if it means people will be well fed and happy, I'm not going to try to force them to conform to any environmental policies.

Keep in mind that an economic miracle has occured in east Asia, especially in South Korea and Japan. Countries that were once war-torn are now economic super-powers, and populations that were once starving are now well fed and enjoying modern amenities.

It is unfair of the west to expect our former colonies and battlegrounds to piece themselves together while being hampered by regulations that we force onto them. The wealth that the west enjoys was and still is based on highly polluting industrial practices. Just because we know better now doesn't mean that we should expect those we left behind to play by different rules from us.

Korea is a very significant civilization in world history. It had the same unfortunate luck that Poland and Isreal had in being wedged between hostile and powerful neighbors, but this should not be counted against its numerous and varied contributions.

That having been said, I simply don't think that a Korean civ is plausible. Nor do I believe that we really need a half dozen civs in Europe however. It simply creates too much crowding on the world map. With China and Japan already in east Asia, Korea would only be workable if China were moved inland or if the world map were far larger. We would be better off using some of the unused space to include lesser known societies, such as the west African kingdoms of Mali or Ghana, the Incas, the Polynesians, or the Turks in Central Asia.

Since this isn't going to happen however, we'll just have to deal.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Felch X
Ribannah, I live in America, so I don't have any real personal interest in the quality of life of Koreans, but I am willing to say that if it means people will be well fed and happy, I'm not going to try to force them to conform to any environmental policies.

I wasn't talking about me forcing anybody. But if Asia is going to up per capita consumption further and will use the same production methods as we do in the west the entire planet will be in trouble. So hopefully they will learn from our mistakes. As we should ourselves.

That having been said, I simply don't think that a Korean civ is plausible. Nor do I believe that we really need a half dozen civs in Europe however. It simply creates too much crowding on the world map. With China and Japan already in east Asia, Korea would only be workable if China were moved inland or if the world map were far larger. We would be better off using some of the unused space to include lesser known societies, such as the west African kingdoms of Mali or Ghana, the Incas, the Polynesians, or the Turks in Central Asia.

I agree, my personal favourites being the Ethiopians . But I expect quite a few expansion packs with scenarios and tribes on a different scale than the entire planet, so I hope to see many new tribes in addition to the original 16. And if Firaxis won't, we can always do it ourselves!

Yin26, The Netherlands also have left-wing parties: socialists and left-greens, so all is not lost

[yin26]

Felch X:

It is unfair of the west to expect our former colonies and battlegrounds to piece themselves together while being hampered by regulations that we force onto them. The wealth that the west enjoys was and still is based on highly polluting industrial practices. Just because we know better now doesn't mean that we should expect those we left behind to play by different rules from us.

Very nicely said. This is indeed a dilemma that all nations will need to cooperate on. Is the answer something like with Brazil where the United Nations pays them not to cut down the forest? It's a sticky, sticky spot.

Ribannah:

I am glad to hear all is not lost in the Netherlands. I might go there and teach Korean history some day.

[yin26]

By the way, I just came across this interesting article about the out-going chairman of GE's bigges concern about the future:

Jack Welch steps down tonight after 20 years as chairman of General Electric Co. with only one real concern about the future: China. "I think we are going to see in the next 20 years a Chinese threat that's going to dwarf what the Japanese threat looked like when I took over the company," Welch said in an interview this week at GE's Rockefeller Center office complex.

The implications to me here are obvious: The West had better start paying a great deal more attention to Asia than it ever has. The 'not interested' attitudes that we have seen in this thread will only help Asia 'sneak up' on the West.

A negative slant would be: "Keep your friends close...keep your enemies closer."

A more positive slant would be: "Healthy competition through honest innovation."

[yin26]

MarkL: One last thing to clear up, just FYI:

That makes no sense at all. If you live in the USA and have the American nationality, you can still be a Korean patriot because of your heritage. You're really not making sense.

First, my heritage is not Korean at all. I am white white white. Well, I have some Cherokee Indian, but mainly Italian-Irish. My family has been in the U.S. for about 5 generations (not very long, actually, but long enough I suppose).


pa¡¤tri¡¤ot: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.

Since Korea is in no way, even by heritage, "my country," I am NOT, therefore, a Korean patriot. I'd like to call myself a Truth Patriot. Anyway, as I said, I don't care to carry on any of this, just wanted to make another of your errors and lazy assumptions clear to you.

[mactbone]

Had to jump in with this. Sorry, I'm a little late. OK, Korea should be included because they were honorable and not warlike *snigger*, invented the printing press/ironclad, and have a large GDP and one city with a large population. First of all, who cares how big ONE city is, this isn't actually Civ, you don't get really cool stuff for big cities. Second, we're not talking about just NOW when we talk about Civs, so Koreas economy now doesn't matter, what would matter is if that economy had been strong for a long period of time. Third, I'm not going to take issue with Korea's "big" inventions, personally it doesn't matter how old the thing is, if it doesn't greatly influence the world/region then it wasn't very good, but that's personally and you can take it out of the paragraph and I feel I still present a good argument. This whole "honorable" thing is pointless. Every nation has done things that aren't great, that are atrocious even, but by whose standards? Is there some great big Moral Measuring Stick I don't know about? Let's look at the Civs that made the top 16 and I'll write down things that come to mind if I associate them with "atrocities" (remember it's all in the eye of the beholder, some S. American tribes sacrificed people regularly, today that's an atrocity).
The Chinese - conquered, repressed citizens
The Babylonians - Hammurabi's Code is now considered extremely harsh. Also, IIRC they did conquer a lot.
The Egyptians - The standard stuff, enslavement of different ethnic groups, conquering, etc.
The Greeks - Conquering through Alexander, not to mention all the City-State stuff with Troy, Sparta, Athens, etc.
The Americans - Nuked two cities, whatever was done during revolution, Spanish - Mexican war, Native Americans, slaves
The Aztecs - Sacrifice, conquered native tribes
The English - Australia, South Africa, the Americas, India, conquered, slave trade, crusades
The French - English, peasants, conquered, crusades
The Germans - WW2, Crusades, conquered
The Indians - conquered, sorry don't know many off the top of my head (they're out there though)
The Iroquois - conquered, unusual things done with dead enemies (IIRC, eating the heart)
The Japanese - Just look up a page or two, WW2, conquered
The Persians - conquered, probably more I'm just not familiar with them
The Romans - genocide, conquered, slaves
The Russians - conquered, repressed citizens, genocide?
The Zulus - conquered, probably did other stuff too
OK a quick run down shows that every civ has performed at least one atrocity, if you say that conquering/war is not an atrocity I suggest you quit writing on this subject. I think the biggest problem I have with this whole "honorable" thing is, where do you draw the line? When Mustard gas was used in WWI was that an atrocity? Both sides used it so are neither honorable? What about tanks? The Allies had them first and in greater numbers, thereby killing lots of Axis soldiers, is that an atrocity? So therefore I ask you, has Korea ever been in a war? Then they probably committed at least one atrocity. Finally, why do you disagree with "warlike" civs so much? I don't play a very aggressive style in Civ, but I do understand that before 1950, might WAS right. You know why? The winners write the history books. Now, we have so much freedom that we're trying to get all the facts accurate. Which will never happen, but it is an attempt. So after I have now disseminated your entire argument, I hope you can at least see that Korea probably shouldn't be in the top 20, for a variety of reasons.

[yin26]

So after I have now disseminated your entire argument, I hope you can at least see that Korea probably shouldn't be in the top 20, for a variety of reasons.

Actually, you missed my entire argument. Look back at how I start with the Firaxis market, etc. Also, I am not 'against' warlike civs. Again, look back at my comments where I understand people's inclinations to play them.

What got lost in all this are two points:

1) The Korean civilization is NOT a China knock-off nor is it something that should be casually glossed over. There is ample evidence provided in this thread that Korea's history is buried...and I am merely bringing some of it to light.

2) I have argued that if Korea were in Civ3, it should be a difficult civ to play, one that has a very hard time expanding and does not have many militaristic advantages but would be given other interesting bonuses. To me, that would be a nice challenge. If the entire x-pack were civs presenting similar interesting twists on the model, I'd happily play them no matter who they are.

Having said that, I think the odds are quite low of Korea being in the x-pack because China and Japan are already in and Firaxis would most likely want to spread things out a bit more. Do I personally think that is regretable? Sure, but that's what modding is for. Do I think Korea could be added to great benefit of the game if done in an interesting way? Absolutely, but so could any civ.

[yin26]

FYI:

dis¡¤sem¡¤i¡¤nate: to spread abroad as though sowing seed

dis¡¤man¡¤tle: to take to pieces; also : to destroy the integrity or functioning of

[yin26]

Now to dismantle your arguments:

OK, Korea should be included because they were honorable and not warlike *snigger*

Your snigger only helps prove my point: If Sid wants a game that rewards more than war, he might consider Civs that have lasted millenia avoiding war and surviving it each time it was thrust on them. Korea is one such civ, and there are others, I'm sure.

invented the printing press/ironclad Third, I'm not going to take issue with Korea's "big" inventions, personally it doesn't matter how old the thing is, if it doesn't greatly influence the world/region then it wasn't very good

Again, the printing press is one of the most important inventions ever. Period. To argue that Korea didn't somehow 'directly' influence this is to debunk any invention of long ago since no nation at that time went around saying, "Hey, buy this printing press" or whatever. We must admit that these things found their influence over decades and centuries, taking new forms and developing across time and different people. But the roots are in Korea and China. Deny that if you will, but it would be wrong to.

As for the ironclad, this idea seems not to have been adapted by other nations, but it still shows great ingenuity of the Korean civ.

and have a large GDP and one city with a large population. First of all, who cares how big ONE city is, this isn't actually Civ, you don't get really cool stuff for big cities.

That was a debate about the unimportance of per capita ratings. It has nothing to do with why I think Korea should be noticed for Civ 3. Though the engineering involved in providing advanced services to so many people in such a small space is staggering.

Second, we're not talking about just NOW when we talk about Civs, so Koreas economy now doesn't matter, what would matter is if that economy had been strong for a long period of time.

Again, Korea has outlasted a number of the "great" civs. Korea has been a great nations for a long, long time. You are arguing my point, actually.

This whole "honorable" thing is pointless.

To answer your question, Korea has done dishonorable things, particularly to foreign missionaries in the 18th and 19th centuries. But nothing on the scale of what these nations you *don't* snigger at have done.

Again, Korea is unique among nations for surviving so long next to a huge nation such as China, surviving 1,000 attacks in 2,000 years...including being annexed to Japan for 40 years, contributing great things to world with a few wonderful inventions, and again finding its way toward the top or top portions of the leader board in some areas of the 21st century landscape.

You might not find that kind of history 'sexy' or 'worthy' of a place in Civ3, but its place is one that takes note not only of brute force but of subtlety and a never-say-die attitude that has lasted well over 2,000 years.

[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 *snigger*, it was a snigger meaning that every civ has been warlike, your continued denial of that was why I sniggered. 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?