PDA

View Full Version : Misunderstandings and Prejudices in Mongol Expansion Units



Julian Kim
02-03-2001, 12:41
Hi, I'm a Korean who played STW a lot, but not these days because recently I'm very busy with my job.

I've read a lot of articles here too, but haven't posted a message mainly because I can say I'm not good at English. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I would like to comment a few things on the history regarding expansion pack, Mongol Invasion.

Well, I'm personally very interested in history in general, and Japanese history is no exception. Although I did not major in history at college, I have read a lot of books on Japanese history both written in Korean and Japanese, and even I have read a series of books on samurai in English(!) by Stephen Turnbull, a well-known British authority of Japanese history whom many of you will know because I wanted to know how her history is understood in view of western people.

As you know, the 3 countries in far east asia- Korea, China, Japan- they all use the Chinese Character in their languages, though pronounces a slightly different each other.

For example, the character meaning 'a person' is read 'ren' in Chinese, 'in' in korean, 'jin' in Japanese. Another a simple word, 'the light', could be 'ming', 'myung', 'mei' which some of you would be familiar with as the chinese dynasty name itself, the Ming dynasty.

Again, the Japanese word 'Kensai', which 'Keomsa' in Korean - which would be the name of an another additional unit to the expansion pack, can be very roughly translated as 'the Sword Master' but I don't personally think it's an appropriate usage. 'kensai' can't be a master, it should be at least 'Kensei' or 'Keomseong'.

What I'm trying to say by these boring examples is, that there are both very wide similarities and differences in 3 countries that are so subtle that I think most of you can't understand truly.

This is of course true to me when I studied european history I felt it can't be easy for me to understand Germans or French well more than British people could. They all have common Greek and Roman traditions deeply in their history, the languages are similar, and the Christianity.

But what I felt here in STW forum is, that
many people understands history only in a view of Japanese. Yeah I could understand that, because Japanese history has been well introduced to the west. There's a lot of study in history of Japan in english compared to that of Korean.

The problem is, there hasn't been almost any western historian who could study far east asian history in a balanced view- mainly because the language incapacity.

That explains the simple error what historians of 19C researching Steppes of Middle Asia made.
Historians who can speak only chinese could not read more than articles written by chinese, thus he could only get historical view point that of chinese. As Chinese were constantly in hostile condition with these Steppe countries(Mongols, Tartars, Chi-tans, etc.) their description of Steppe people is ridiculous. 'Babarians, having blue eyes and red face, having blond hair, no culture kill each other all the times blar blar'.
Nonsense. they have black hair, yellow face.
The reason that makes their way of living is nowadays explained as the poor soil itself, but not they are native babarians.

Well, that can be slightly adopted to the way of view you have in Korean history. Do you know a something about Korean history? What you read from the book or studied in schools are all just translations of what Japanese wrote.
Let me tell you one thing. Back to the Stephen Turnbull. As I told above, I read a few of his books interestingly, but astonished to found that it wasn't more than translation of Japanese history books. I mean he didn't copied it, but he had historical view point of just what Japanese historians urge to. If you read toward the
end of Sengoku-Jidai, you could find Korean-Japanese war or, what Japanese say Hideyoshi's Korean Campaigns.

There he describes korea as an almost barbarian, rogue state. he says there were only social ranks- aristrocracy and slaves. the soil were poor, and the officials were
totally lack of ability, thinking only of their pleasure. the soldiers were lack of courage. no fight will for them.....and so on....

Guys, do you think this can be fair? Of course I think Japanese historians may well wrote so because they were in war with Korea. But, don't you feel is it childish or awkward statement? do you believe that?
I'll tell you only one thing. If you only know only a little of confucian culture, you can't ignorant of 'sa, nong, kong, sang' or 'shi,no, ko, sho' for Japanese- the scholarly, agricultural, industrial, and mercantile classes; the traditional four classes of society.
The Japanese people who lived along the west coastal line especially island of kyushu near Korea were notorious of pirates because they couldn't get enough rice yields, so Koreans exported rice, imported silvers.
I just could laugh. The rest of descriptions were somewhat Saddam Hussein could say to Americans.

I recently visited his Homepage and found that after he has finished a series of Japanese history, he is also now preparing books on Korean military history and made some introduction to it. here's some quote:


Here's a few notes to set the scene for my new book, 'Hunting the Tiger'.

To the popular mind, Korea has no military tradition of its own, being merely a pawn in the game between the great power blocs of China and Japan as if it were the Poland of the east. An eternally weak and backward Korea is also seen as being subject to repeated invasions from Chinese, Mongol, Japanese and tribal armies, each of which lays Korea waste in a short time with little resistance.

The reality is very different, and important Korean contributions to military history may be identified as early as 612, when a battle was fought by the Koguryo state, one of the ‘Three Kingdoms' of Koguryo, Paekche and Silla, which not only guaranteed Korean independence but also led to the fall of the Chinese Sui Dynasty and the establishment of the Tang dynasty. In 935 the Korean Koryo dynasty was founded, and in 1018 an invasion by Khitans from Liaodong was repulsed by General Kang Kam-chan.

In the early thirteenth century the Mongol horde swept across China, and made their first attack on Korea in 1218. A long war followed, with many bitter sieges where the Mongols used incendiary devices made from human fat. Korean warrior monks played a vital role in these operations, and shot dead a Mongol general in 1232. Korea was never completely conquered, its King taking refuge on Kanghwa island, which the Mongols failed to capture.

With the establishment of the Yi (Choson) dynasty in 1392 Korea faced new challenges from Japanese wako (pirate) raids, against which it pitted the contemporary world's finest cannon, and the fight was once actually taken to the Japanese during a raid on the pirates' lair of Tsushima in 1389. The Koryo and Yi dynasties also developed a fine navy based on stout ships, and it is interesting to note that it was the Chinese ships in the Mongol fleet, not the Korean ones, that were sunk by the kami-kaze storm during the invasion of Japan in 1281.


Yeah, when I first read it, I coudln't believe my eyes. Is he the same person that wrote the former book 'The Samurai: A Military History (Osprey Macmillan 1977)'?
Reasonably, it is clear. When he wrote his first book in 1977 what he could get and study is only Japanese written book. And now in 2001, he got some other information. Maybe he could have visited Korea, or read an english books translated from Korean historian books.

I don't won't say much, but please have a balanced view in understanding history. Imagine you as a French, and a Japanese friend comes to you and says, 'Hi I read a book on a hundred-years war between England and France, and I read an artical about Joan of Arc very interestingly. Was she that famous along the battle field as a bitch ass hooker?'

You could rationally think that, there were so many peoples and nations around the far east continent, and all the peoples are all assimilated under the name chinese now. Only Korea and Vietnam has not. They have unique language, character, culture. Can rogue state or that poor country whose army is totally lack of courage can survive? even the land isn't island like Japan or desert like Mongols or Rocky Mountains like Switzerland but plain lands?

You could find that koreans were good at cannons at that time and made innovations on chinese 'Zhen Tian Lei'- 'Jin Chun Roi' for Korean. 'Chun Ja Chong Tong' would be the bigger versions. but they are not widely used in land battles. they equipped it on naval battleships, which later plays a big role on Korea-Japanese War from 1592.

Korea had numberless wars with China during the history, but only one with Japan in 2000 years. So please don't say that Japan was a superpower like China. they were a stable country, but it's mainly thanks to their island. and You would know, straits between Korea and Japan is much swift and dangerous than the English Channel. So war between Japan and any other country has been only twice- As you know the Mongol Invasion along with Koreans, and the later Japanese invaded Korea.
Rest of that, Korea and Japan closed the door against the rest of the world only except each other, having good relationships after 16C's war until Japan got modernized
by Meiji Ishin which US admiral Perry opened Japan to rest of the world.

about the Korean units in the game- hehe,
I would say to CA/DT/EA that they would better put korean archery unit instead of
that 'silly spearmen', that would be the history perfect. Koreans hardly used
that spearmen with heavy shields. I thought
these spearmen is somewhat like roman infantry having throwing spears with shields making strong formations. but no such strategy in korean military history.
Koreans were rather famous for the archers.
Even the chinese ancient name calling koreans were 'tong-yi' - 'the east barbarians good at bows' hehe. Also in history, Korea was at a disadvantage not having portuguese related guns until the Japanese brought them during the war.

anyway, thunder bombers would be somewhat ridiculous but, TB would be a nice abbreviation, and if CA would like to put korean name, it would "Jin Chunroi' would be fine. Will be JC then? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


That's it. thanks for reading awful english.
Any comments would be welcome.

Tachikaze
02-03-2001, 13:11
Julian,

Annyong haseyo! Welcome to the Sword Dojo.

Your English is great (I'm an English teacher). A fine post.

I heard a lot of Korean history in the forum for the Age of Kings game. I am very interested in Korean history, but it is difficult to find good books in the US.

I have a lot of reference books about Chinese and Japanese military history, but little about Korea. I hope Turnbull's book will be informative. Thank you for your information. The people at the Age of Kings forum mostly talked about Admiral Yi (a bit too much). I want to learn about the rest of Korean history.

You are not the first person to write a thread about bias in history. A Japanese forum member wrote a thread saying that the history of World War Two was written by the Americans, and that it does not include the Japanese viewpoint.

Keep writing. Everything you said was very clear.

------------------
A murky puddle becomes clear when it is still.

solypsist
02-03-2001, 17:16
thanks for the post, Julian Kim. Maybe this will get moved over the to the history forum where more serious people (those of you out there know exactly who I'm referring to http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif) can see the post and reply more in depth.


[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 02-03-2001).]

Anssi Hakkinen
02-03-2001, 23:22
(Transferred from the Mongol Invasion - Expansion Pack (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Mongol+Invasion+-+Expansion+Pack&number=7) forum)

Agreed, Kim-san, excellent first post. As shallow of my understanding of that matter is ( http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif), your English is excellent - please don't let the language barrier deter you from posting more, you can and have overcome it quite easily.

After much deliberation, I have decided to heed to solypsist-sama's suggestion and transfer this topic here - even though this isn't actually about Japanese history, any exclusively historical-oriented discussion is better placed in "the history forum" than a general game forum. Am I right, Zen_Blade-sama?

Should anyone have comments based on Kim-san's post related to the Korean units in the expansion pack (as opposed to the actual historical aspects of the Korean military), feel free to email me at ahakkin1@pp.htv.fi . I will gladly reopen the thread at the Mongol Invasion (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Mongol+Invasion+-+Expansion+Pack&number=7) forum as soon as I am able, provided that the discussion there remains suitable to that forum. The reason the moved threads are closed by default is that it's mightily confusing to keep open two very similar threads, and it might lead to messages posted in the wrong place.

Otherwise, let us continue.

I was also miffed by Dr. Turnbull's analysis of the Koreans' capabilities. The statement in "The Samurai - A Military History" - "no country can have been less fitted to face the might of Japan than Korea was in 1592" - is a pretty obvious exaggeration. He does seem to have a high appreciation of the Korean navy's technology and capabilities, as well as Admiral Yi Sun Sin. This is in accordance with the the popular Western image of the Korean Invasion.

However, Turnbull's rather critical treatment of the Japanese leadership of the expedition (in one occasion seen through the eyes of a captive Korean, which means Turnbull has also studied Korean/Chinese sources, unlike you suggest) lends credibility to his disparaging attitude of the Korean ground forces. Is there another source conflicting his claims of the army's poor performance against the Japanese?

------------------
"Go to the battlefield firmly confident of victory, and you will come home with no wounds whatsoever. Engage in combat fully determined to die and you will be alive; wish to survive in the battle and you will surely meet death."
- Uesugi Kenshin

[This message has been edited by Anssi Hakkinen (edited 02-03-2001).]

Zen Blade
02-05-2001, 03:39
Hello Julian,

that was a very long and well thought out post.
If there are any particular points that you wish to discuss, I would recommend reposting them in a more succint method.
Although I don't know to much about Korean kistory, anything you would like to write, most of us here would be willing to read, and even discuss if we have something to contribute.

but, I would recommend shortening future posts a bit. [easier for discussion purposes].

-anyways, hope you post more often.

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

FwSeal
02-05-2001, 04:42
It's good to see Korea represented on the forum. While over-shadowed in the west by both Japan and China, Korea is a country whose own culture and history is by no means inferior to its neighbors. I served in Korea about five years ago, and was very much taken by the country and the people. I also had the opportunity to take a pass to Seoul and visit a nice statue of Yi Sun Shin - one of the great commanders in Asian history - and also a great man (in my opinion).
I share Julian's dismay over Turnbull's many ill-informed statements on Korea's history. Julian brings up a good point when she mentions that Korea has in fact only been seriously attacked twice prior to the modern era. The fact that the Korean Court never submitted to the Mongols, little-known in the west, is a nice example of Korean tenacity. In addition, in the Imjim War of 1592-93, we see that, once the initial Japanese domination of the battlefield had subsided (by the winter of 92-93), that Japanese successes on all fronts ground to a halt. Turnbull likened the Japanese attack on Korea to a 'dog fighting a rabbit, that rabbit being lame, blind, and stupid'. That highly scholarly analogy aside, Mary Berry, Hideyoshi's biographer,better described the situation that Korea found itself in during 1592:

'The inital reactions of the Koreans might have been foreseen. With no recent experience of warfare, unequipped with firearms, and lacking a reliable conscription system, the Koreans were powerless before their war-seasoned neighbors. There is some suggestion, too, that the various interlocutors of the So house had neglected to portray accurately the intentions of Hideyoshi. The Tsushima envoys may have cut the teeth from the imperious messages they were charged to deliver and thus encouraged the complacency of the Korean court' (Hideyoshi pg.209)

Slyspy
02-05-2001, 08:33
I too would be interested to read more on Korean history. In fact Oriental history is not one of my strongpoints. I must point out though in reference to Korea's resistance to the Mongols that just because you don't accept defeat doesn't mean that you haven't been defeated. Isn't there still an Indian tribe somewhere in the States which never signed a treaty with the US government and is (or was until recently) technically still at war. They never submitted, but they still lost the fight.


------------------
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

Choco
02-05-2001, 09:01
Well you know ... History is written by the conquerors http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

But I agree that traditionally there has been a bias to a "Pro Japan" point of view when it comes to historical studies related to the invasion of Korea.

It is just that (from a cynic's point of view) all those dang cool Kurosawa's movies about samurais and bushido and etc ... well Japaneses samurais are hot stuff. So it is "logical" for some historians to assume that they were top of the cream and Koreans were just plainly inferior.

I remember a history Book written by somebody named Salsom or Sammson about Japan. His vision about the invasion of Korea was appalling. In resume it was something like that:

-Korea was literally a puppet state controlled by China. The Korean goverment was extremely poor, corrupt and disorganized.
-Japan invaded and smashed the Korean regular army in no time.
-China then realized that Korea was invaded and sent armies to repel the invader. But the Japanese destroyed them easily.
-Japan conquered most of Korea easily, destroyed the regular Korean army and the Chinese expeditions and dominate.

Then what? Well then happened 2 things:
-Korean peasants and scattered survivors from the army organizeed an active guerrilla war and the samurais were not used to this and soon they were locked in an endless low-intensity war they couldn't win (ala Vietnam).
-The Korean army sucked big time. But the Korean navy, thanks to Admiral Yi and others kicked butt big time. So the Japanese expedition had a hard time keeping their communications with Japan.

So in general Salmsoom's vision is that the Japanese expedition defeated easily the Korean and Chinese regular forces and in effect "conquered" Korea. But because the Korean navy and the Korean irregular forces (peasant, small nobles, army desertors) kept fighting, Japan was ultimately unable to consolidate his power in Korea.

So at the end there was a stalemate where the Japanese dominated the country but were unable to wipe out the Korean guerrilla once for all, on their side the Korean were able to keep fighting but were unable to expel the invader.

Then Hideyoshi bought the farm and hte Japanese expedition left Korea and went back to Japan. End of the history.

Is that 100% true? Is that 100% false? I won't dare to decide on that. I am just saying what I read from that book and surely I have serious doubts about the accuracy.

I would appreciate more comments about this topic.

Minagawa Daimon
02-05-2001, 10:26
everythings simple...history is written by the victors, and korea is a defeated nation, if you think im a racist, well im not, just ask any self-respecting person you know and ask them.no disrespect but thats just how things are.

FwSeal
02-05-2001, 13:06
Actually, at least in the case of the Japanese invasion of Korea, Japan ended up being the defeated nation - although perhaps in the same way that the US drew a draw in Korea and a loss in Viet Nam - no decisive battle that turned the tide - just a series of circumstances that led to a certain outcome. At the same time, the US version of the Viet Nam War is far better known then the Vietnamese. The reason? Even a defeated nation can write history when it has a better opportunity to put out its side of things then the victor.

[This message has been edited by FwSeal (edited 02-05-2001).]

Zen Blade
02-05-2001, 13:27
Choco,

if you are talking about Sansom and his "survey" of japanese history in the 16th century, then I agree. The brief bits of it I read were extremely out of the mainstream of most historical accounts (if I am remembering the book correctly)

-Zen Blade




------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

Julian Kim
02-06-2001, 01:11
Hi, thanks everyone for reading such a long, endless post with a Tokugawa Ieyasu-like patience http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I too, don't read messages even half long as mine, so watch out. hehe

I tried to write as briefly as possible, but
couldn't miss the point that there hardly has been any discussion on this subject here-
and that only arguing 'Japs suck! Koreans rule!' 'don't know Admiral Yi? die you bitch' things like every elsewhere at Starcraft, AOE/AOK forums without any suitable basis would be no use. So it was only the initial post to rouse public attention. Anyway thanks Zen Blade. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I thought from the first time where I should post my message. Here, Japanese history and cinema forum would be the right place, but I took it into account that Mongol Expasion forum also has a something to do with the subject and, is where Korean related topics are appeared directly.

So I totally agree with Anssi Hakkinen and solypist in that this topic had better transferred to here, thanks again.

I'm very happy to find that many of you already have a balanced and objective view of history. I think it's because people playing STW is generally more interested in and know a lot more of Japanese history than others and that this could mean they could be in fact interested in history itself.

Still, studies on Korean history in English and other languages is hard to find and if any, in rather twisted view as they could get most of their materials from Japanese historians in imperial militaristic period introduced Korea.

Korean historians are quite resposible for it, but I'm sure things will be better day after day.

Anyway, I'm satisfied to raise your attention on this topic, and to think over it with more calmness. Any opinions are welcomed, but I can't answer all the questions as I'm not a historian. lol

One thing I can answer to Hakkinen's questions is that, articles introducing a view of a Korean captive doesn't always mean
that Dr.Turnbull studied Korean/Chinese resource.

As one chronicle of the war, 'Imjin-rok', which could be translated asas 'the chronicles of Imjin period' has tons of articles on interview with Japanese captives. ( Ah, I can confidently say that FwSeal below has been to Korea, as he knows the Korean calling name of war, "War of Imjin', nice to meet you Fwseal http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

and I don't agree with Slyspy's view of Korean's war against Mongols as American Indians vs US. take a look on the atlas and you can surely find that Korean peninsula is no way big enough like North America to play hide and seek, or perform a guerilla resistance somewhere.

I'm not sure whether I could post messages frequently these days, as I'm preparing for my job until end of June.(I'm 24)

Anyway If you see Terazawa Julien on the battlefield from sometime July, you can easily say, 'hey that's the bigmouth Julian! let's crush him'. Otherwise I'll chase you guys on the battlefield of Kawanakajima.

May Hachiman-Daibosatsu bless on you!

postscript; I'm a die-hard MGS fan, I can't wait for this fall. hope no delays. anyone?



[This message has been edited by Julian Kim (edited 02-05-2001).]

FwSeal
02-06-2001, 10:34
Hi, Julian. Yes, I was based north of Seoul, outside of Tong Du Chon. The landscape of the country up there is remarkable! Anyway, we had many Koreans serving alongside us as (I think this is correct) KATUSA's. One of them, who became a friend of mine, explained that the Imjim War was a reference to the year that the war began (1592) - the year of the Tiger.

nokhor
02-07-2001, 05:29
hey julian, do you have any other info on the
Koguryo-Sui war?

All i know is that after the initial invasion attempt was defeated, the Sui [according to the Chinese writers] mustered a million man army which managed to penetrate to the capital before Koguryo submitted. The strain of the war was a direct cause for the collapse of the Sui, but i have no information regarding the campaign itself and was wondering if you did, or knew of any english language sources.

ShaiHulud
02-07-2001, 07:58
Seal..Yes, Katusa (Korean Auxiliary to the US Army).

Kim...Great post! It took me two cigarettes to finish (and I roll my own..hehe). I think the MAIN reason there is little understanding of Korea is the dearth of Korean translations of their own history. Korean politics, also, were truly Byzantine. Trying to keep up with which dynasty or which nation was dizzying for a simple American.lol

Sufficeth to say that Korea was no one's patsy. Yah, they paid tribute, as have many nations somewhere in their history. But Korea, as a nation, was too difficult to be absorbed. Like Viet Nam, Korea simply wouldn't be pacified. The Mongol Empire is long gone but Korea still remains.

A thing that left a lasting impression on me was something I saw in KwangJu (I think that's right). All the way to the horizon are these small hills, dozens, hundreds, I don't know how many there are. Under those little hills are the royalty of Korea, stretching back for 5 thousand years. Korea may be said to have been defeated on occasion, yes, but conquered? I don't think so.
And how come no one has mentioned the Turtle boats? Or that Yi was Nelson, only 3 hundred years prior? Stupid Anglos! (lol)


------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Tachikaze
02-07-2001, 14:34
The Koreans (and some others) in the AoK Heaven forum kind of ran the turtle boat thing into the ground. But for those not aware of them, you might want to check it out. It's an interesting event in military history.

------------------
A murky puddle becomes clear when it is still.

FwSeal
02-07-2001, 23:26
I know of at least one book in english that describes the turtle boats and Yi Sun Shin in depth - and was written by a Korean author. Unfortunatly, that was a few years ago, and I can't quite remember the name - I think it may have been called 'The Turtle Boats', but I'm not sure. It was, at any rate, a very good book. One passage that stuck with me regarded Admiral Yi. It was said that he became so distraught at the misery he saw his people enduring that he wept heavily - to the point that he suffered eye infections. Anyway, that book also covered the Japanese side of things to an extent, and had a very nice order of battle for the Toyotomi army. Worth a look.

agios_katastrof
02-08-2001, 04:13
Ok, I'm one of those Korean AOK players that talked up the turtle ship and Admiral Yi. After years of playing the Age series, I just started playing STW (as in, a couple of days ago). Having been a big fan of Kurosawa, I gotta say that this game rocks very hard.

Say, btw, Julian, just for my curiosity, can you share any documentation that you may have on the Korean war wagons (shinkigeon, hwa-cha, whatever)? Information regarding is not as readily available as the turtle ship.

Thanks,
-agios_katastrof

Tachikaze
02-08-2001, 08:56
I'm one of those AoK posters who everyone thought was Korean because I had a Korean name.

My first experience with Admiral Yi was from Korean children's books.

------------------
A murky puddle becomes clear when it is still.

ShaiHulud
02-08-2001, 10:56
Speaking of war-wagons, I recall a European who fought successfully with such. Only recall that he was blind and his first name was Jan. Anyone know the rest?

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

agios_katastrof
02-08-2001, 23:44
Well, everytime I log online to play, I get some weird greek msgs that I can't read. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

The Hussites used war wagons quite a bit. But I've never heard of the blind guy. That's quite a feat, if it was actually true.

It'd be cool to see the Korean war wagons in the Mongol Invasion. But I don't think the Korean war wagons ever saw action outside Korea's native soil, so I'd doubt that. But yeah, as per Julian, I've never heard of Korean spear throwing AOKish skirmishers before.

Minagawa Daimon
02-09-2001, 09:54
i got another piece of information...in the sea the koreans might have the advantage, but in land where it matters they die like cattle under the swing of the katanas, it sounds offensve but its a fact. period.

ShaiHulud
02-09-2001, 10:01
Inaccurate, to say the least! Cows say, "MOOOOOO", when they die. Koreans would say, "AYGO!". THAT'S a fact.....( a common lament when anything goes wrong or surprises, )

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

FwSeal
02-09-2001, 12:19
The cattle in Chollado Province evidently died hard there - the famed Japanese commander Kobayakawa Takakage (veteran of Miyajima) faced such stout resistance in 1593 that he was forced to retreat after being defeated by Yi Kwang. Shortly afterwards, Takakage was again defeated by an army of 700 Koreans at Kumsan. In 1592 Hosokawa Tadaoki, no push-over himself, was unable to make any impression on the 3800 or so defenders of Chinju and when 2000 more Koreans managed to reinforce the garrison, Hosokawa's 20,000 men retreated. Chinju only fell the next year to a Japanese army that many have been double or more the size of that fielded by Tadaoki.
One could go on, but the fact is this - the sea was where it mattered. The series of crushing defeats the Japanese suffered at the hands of Yi Sun-Shin doomed any hope of Toyotomi success in either campaign. In 1596 seven ships under Admiral Yi defeated 133 Japanese ships (the 'Miracle of Myongyang') - and this was only the most famous of many lop-sided victories. But the results of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's bid to conquer Korea - and China - speak for themselves, and that, too, is a FACT.

agios_katastrof
02-09-2001, 22:34
A lot of katana swinging folks were slaughtered en masse by Korean gunpowder weapons (Korean gunpowder knowledge was gained from China, not Europe). Rocket propelled arrows, among other things. And it has been said that the Japanese swords have been influenced by Korean design.

ShaiHulud
02-10-2001, 00:39
Thanks, Seal...I was gonna put up a better argument but jocularity and irreverence overcame me..hehe

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

FwSeal
02-10-2001, 01:36
Well, ShaiHulud, I'm actually surprised you've never heard of the Korean army's long and proud bovine tradition. In fact, in the 2nd ID, our KATUSAs' MILES gear was rigged to emit a long, agonizing 'mooooo' when a hit was registered. I never knew why.... but now I know!

nokhor
02-10-2001, 03:50
great worm,

agios had the gist of it. the guy you are referring to is jan zizka of the hussite movement in bohemia

Choco
02-11-2001, 08:25
Yep that was the writer's name: Sanson.

That looks was OK in some areas, but it was very shallow IMO when it came to the Korean campaign.

Problem here in this thread is that we are discussing and mixing 2 different things:

-One thing is if the Japan had the upper hand against the Korean/Chinese army in the Korean Campaing. IMO it is quite obvious that the Japanese usually were strogner than their enemies at least in Land.

Not need to argue on that.

-The other point is more related to the question of WHY?

It is related more to the "what if?" or "Historical revision".

WHY the japanese army in general (at least in pen battles) had an advantage in the Korean Invasion?

Was in effect the japanse army/soldier better than the Korean/Chinese?

Or the apparent superiority in the Korean Campaign was basically based in other factors no directly related to efficiency or bravery in the battlefield?

After all we must consider:
-Japan had been prepared carefull the invasion to Korea. The had the advantage of planning, resources, and surprise. The Korean army was NO ready to face a war.
-Japan had numerical superiority at the beggining of the invasion which was very important.
-The Japanese army was acting under a sole command and plan. While the Korean army was subjected to the disorganization and internal strifes of the weak and corrupt Korean goverment and nobility.
-The japanse army/soldier had the advantage of several decades of civil war. So they were seasoned. The Korean army was pretty much raw levies.

Those are just some of the factors I can remember right now that IMO affected the Korean campaign.

But the point is: There are many influences and factors to explain why the Korean campaign was in the way that it was. Reducing all to the easy argument: "The Japanese army dominated the ground war simply because they were better" is too narrow and lacks of deep understanding.

External factors, political, social, economic and cultural circunstances, even bad or good luck explain a lot on why one army wins and other army loses.

ShaiHulud
02-11-2001, 09:22
Thanx. Nokhor...It bothers me when my brain won't funtion...hehe

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Minagawa Daimon
02-13-2001, 07:50
death to the huns and their korean lackeys...they shall be rewarded with death when they set foot on th land of the rising sun!

agios_katastrof
02-13-2001, 08:35
huns? i think you have the wrong barbarian hordes on horseback there. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif huns did make quite a mess though, in the other direction. actually so did the mongols. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Tenchimuyo
02-14-2001, 03:32
Weren't the Huns in Europe at that time?

Minagawa Daimon
02-14-2001, 10:03
they are? well they all stink to me, uncouth barbarians.

FwSeal
02-19-2001, 00:50
If anyone is interested, the book I mentioned above was Yune-Lee's 'Admiral Yi-Sun Shin and his Turtleboat Armada', published back in 1978. I found a copy of it once in a university library, so it is out there - if rare.

oompapa
02-26-2001, 06:10
Lol Minagawa http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

As sharp as Japanese katanas were when slicing into their enemies on land...in the long run it was Korea's domination of the Seas that mattered...sending much needed Japanese supplies and manpower to a watery grave. I hope you don't find that offensive, but its a fact. Period. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

As for Huns and Korean "lackies" being rewarded with death if they were to "set foot on the Land of the Rising Sun!"...Japan is one of those few nations that have the distinction of having surrendered to their opponents without enemy soldiers landing on their shores http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif (save for maybe several pilots who were shot out of the sky)

Minagawa Daimon
02-26-2001, 09:09
i assume your one of the inferior races oompa, Japan surrendered because the Emperor declared it, if he did not, then woe to you and all your ancestros had they tried to invade. and that is a fact,period.

Choco
02-26-2001, 10:51
Is this a joke?

Japan surrendered because Japan got his butt kicked badly. Hirohito just did then only thing left ... to surrender and beg for mercy to save his sorry butt http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

No offense to Japan or Japanese people ..but hey, history is based on facts not on chauvinistic fantasy, right? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

And about the mention of "lesser races" ... I hope that was just a joke. A joke with a very bad taste.

After all, if Koreans are assumed as a "lesser" race because they were defeated by Japan ... then I suppose Japanese are also a lesser race since Japan surrender to USA, right? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Tenchimuyo
02-26-2001, 20:28
Hey, let's not drag this race thing in here alright? Stay cool man! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

agios_katastrof
02-27-2001, 01:11
Daimon's "facts" that he keep on stating, are unfortunately what is taught in the Japanese schools.

Minagawa Daimon
02-27-2001, 10:40
well i guess ur facts are what you learn from YOUR school http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif, and by the way, if it was a mano a mano fight then history might have been different...

Choco
02-27-2001, 11:01
Diamon .... Let's stop with the race issue and just to see the historical facts:

Pearl Harbor: Intial and surprise attack well planned. Ono to one. Congrats for Japan.

For 6 months Japan carried a great offensive ... then, to say this diplomatically the Japansese army and navy screwed themselves.

Yamamoto (who was usually an outstanding military) made a VERY stupid plan to attack Midway. And made even the more stupid mistake of putting a lame whiny baby as Nagumo as fleet commander. As far as I know Midway was a MANO a MANO ... with heavy advantage for Japan http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Japan had 4 carrier vs 3 for USA
Japan had better, more and heavier escort ships.
Japan had better and more airplanes. And certainly their pilots were probably better.

So it was as far as I know a Mano-a-Mano. Japan lost Midway(and with that its 15 minutes of fun were over) mainly because bad planning, and lack of competence in the ejecution.

Blame Yamamoto for being an idiot or Nagumo for being a coward. But the fact is that in a Mano a Mano Japan got his butt trashed big time.

No offense to Japan or Japanese people. But all the delusion in the world is not going to change the fact that Japan lost WWII.

Minagawa Daimon
02-27-2001, 11:06
well pointed out, i bow to that logic, but i know it seems pathetic but i would like to state my 2 koku that luck also played a major role in midway,with that said i bow to the inevitable, well said...

Minagawa Daimon
02-27-2001, 11:08
and a non racist bostonian who said all that.the world has really changed...

Minagawa Daimon
02-27-2001, 11:33
and one last thing, i might have gone far about the racial thing, what i wanted to say was Japan might have lost due to resources or lack of manpower due to the long and wasting war, even to stupid decisions by the high command, but Japan never lost the war because it lost heart, in fact if it was a war of determination to fight till the end we could have won it easily, but war is a battle of many consideration, if sincerity was the issue, the kamikaze will forever symbolize the determination of its people, tragic yes, but heroic nevertheless, i apologize to those i offended but that was never my intention, only to point out the side that is always not told in western history, kantorai-shido kenchikuka!

FwSeal
02-27-2001, 12:01
While Midway was a great victory all Americans (myself included) can take pride in, it should be pointed out that we had broken the Japanese code and knew when and where they were going to strike (though it took a clever ploy by an American cryptanalyst to trick the Japanese into unknowningly giving away their primary objective). While the Japanese did have a numerical advantage, we had the advantage of surprise. Yet that would have been for naught had it not been for the commander (Wade McClusky) of a flight of divebombers who more or less made a navigational guess when he and his fellows got off course. He found the Japanese fleet and, well, history was made. I read the diary of one of Japan's admirals, Matome Ugaki, and the stunned disbelief that the Imperial Navy felt at the results of Midway comes across in the entry that mentions that battle. As he said, the loss of one carrier would have been a stiff blow - the loss of four was like a nightmare.
Easily the best book I have read on the Pacific War was John Toland's 'The Rising Sun'. Toland, whose wife happened to be Japanese, treats the war in an even and insightful way, focusing on Japan's side of things in a very thoughtful and very honest manner.

Minagawa Daimon
02-27-2001, 12:39
domo arigato sensei san for pointing out a fair and unbiased point of view, will definitely check this book.

Contubernalis
02-27-2001, 20:35
Toland's always good--he really does a lot of research and many many interviews. His autobio is _Captured by History_: excellent memoir.

I actually think we're fast approaching the time when History becomes impossible to teach in any way other than superficially. There's just too much of it to give every culture and time period an equal shake.

Tachikaze
02-28-2001, 10:32
What the hell?

I come back to this thread after a couple of weeks and you guys have gone from medieval Koreans to the Battle of Midway!

------------------
Weapons are not auspicious.
He who beautifies them,
Enjoys killing others.

Tenchimuyo
02-28-2001, 10:51
Time fly, doesn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
A great warrior never reveal his true skills....

ShaiHulud
02-28-2001, 11:19
Hmmm... Yamamoto was a dummy? The US certainly didn't think so or they wouldn't have plotted his death.

The Midway plan has been, after the fact, described often as a poor plan, too complex.

Maybe the battleships weren't the ideal place for Yamamoto but he had placed the operational command in the hands of others.

Maybe the plan was complex but did or did not the Americans come out to defend Midway?

The fact is that, even with an intelligence coup and the rushed repairs on a carrier the Japanese thought destroyed, the US would have lost without significant luck falling in her favor. The initial Japanese search pattern, which WOULD have found the US fleet miscarried not once, but twice, and delayed US exposure til the Japanese were already committed.

The fact that, even tho the US knew the Japanese were near, the US required good luck to find the Japanese fleet mitigates against claims of superior US skill. The disastrous staggered attacks of the US carrier planes said not a lot for US ability at carrier warfare.

The US put itself in place to benefit from fortune and fortune decided the battle against Japan. The Japanese plan was a brilliant and intricate series of maneuvers that SHOULD have given them victory.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

FwSeal
02-28-2001, 13:00
Many battle plans SHOULD have brought the defeated victory http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Midway was a Japanese defeat due to dumb luck, some tactical mistakes on the part of the Japanese, American code-breaking, the courage of the American aviators involved, and the remarkable feat of Hawaii's dock crews to get the Yorktown (a ship the Japanese believed had been sunk) back in action after the damage it had suffered in the recent battles on the southern front.

ShaiHulud
03-01-2001, 01:54
Seal..Agreed..on every point! (milestone, mark it down! hehe)

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

FwSeal
03-01-2001, 02:36
Stranger things have happened http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Minagawa Daimon
03-01-2001, 07:21
i agree, sensei-seal speaks wisdom in his words, if only the worlds history books could point out the same unbiased information...

Choco
03-01-2001, 07:44
Some things that I can say about the discussion so far:

*Good to see that we stopped with the racial crap :d

*The fact that Japan lost the war was certainly not because lack of fighting spirit. In effect some historian mentioned that the ultimate reason to explain Japan's defeat (regardless luck, resources, etc) was plainly "The lack of ability for the Japanese Commanders to use in an intelligent way the proven bravery of their troops" ... while meant a waste of scarce resources.

In other words: Banzai charges and Kamikaze stuff sure are gallant facts and certainly look great in the movies .. but you can't win a war only with that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

*I agree that in Midway luck was on American side. But at the end what is "luck" if not the combination of opportunity and preparation?. The americans "had" luck because they were prepared for that battle.

On the other side we must remember that in the pacific war luck was quite evenly distributed. You can't explain Pearl Harbour without a lot of "luck" on the Japanese side. And sure Japan was well prepared for Pearl Harbour http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Choco
03-01-2001, 08:06
Nobody can deny that Yamamoto is one of the History's greates admirals. But in Midway he simply screwed it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

Overconfidence, disdain for theenemy, rushed judgment ...whatever. But he screwed things big time. Just a couple of points:

*Strategic Dispersion of forces: Yamamoto sent TWO carriers to make a simultaneous raid in an objective so small and marginal than that attack doesn't even figure in most of WWII book. Now who on his right mind send TWO carriers in a "distraction" attack when you are going for a decisive battle? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

*Tactical Dispersion of forces: What the heck was Yamamoto thinking when he put the Battleship squad so far behind the Carrier Squad? They were so far away of the battle area thatthey made NOTHING. Totally useless. Those battleships should have been side to side with the Carriers to at least provide anti aircraft fire. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

*Personnel selection: What the fudge? Yamamoto the reformer, the innovator choosing a pathetic little sucker like Nagumo as commander?

Gimme a break. If Yamamoto was unable to see what a lame, pathetic, ignorant sucker Nagumo was, then Yamamoto was not as smart after all.

And worst at all ... after the battle he forbided Nagumo of doing Seppuku. hmmm... He should have let the little sucker to go to see his ancestors covered in shame http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif

Minagawa Daimon
03-01-2001, 10:29
its easy to criticize actions when one is so distant from it all, im not saying your facts are wrong choco, it might be the only truth as far as we can tell, for the real story and the truth lies with the dead, and it shall stay like that for eternity.

Choco
03-02-2001, 09:07
Daimon ...

I agree that criticizing Yamamoto's actions 50 years later when one have all the relevant information can seem unfair.

But my post pointed more than a free bashing of Yamamoto to show how it is possible to have reasonable doubst about Yamamoto's performance and how the opinion that we can have about an historical incident or a historic personage can vary dramatically depending our assumptions, criteria and subjectivity/objectivity.

For many of you Yamamoto failure in Midway was just sheer bad luck. For me it was poor planning and overconfidence. Who can dare to say what is the right opinion?

Probably the answer lies somewhere between both positions.

Probably the only who could answer our questions is Yammoto. And I wonder if even he understood all what happened in Midway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Minagawa Daimon
03-02-2001, 10:39
thanks for your insight Choco, i understand that your point of view comes from a clear understanding of the things that history wrote about in books, as you said what might have seem like a dumb action could have been genius given that history turned out to be different, only those who lie at the bottom of the ocean truly know what happened, and they paid for that failure with their lives. Attu gyokusai kenchikuka!

oompapa
03-04-2001, 01:47
LOL Minagawa...now I am one of the "inferior" races? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gifI'll assume you were just kidding so I will let the comment pass.

With regard to the Koreans, during the Kingdom of Silla the Koreans did have their own version of the samurai. They were called the "Hwarang". The Hwarang were highly skilled warriors and had their fair share of heroic exploits. Unfortunately, with the downfall of the Silla kingdom...the Hwarang were effectively disbanded by the succeeding kingdom (whose name I cannot remember). So by the STW period, Korea no longer had their highly trained Hwarang warriors and she was being ruled by a peace oriented kingdom. Hence, she became ripe for attack and manipulation by both China and Japan.

With regard to Korean soldiers in the present day...I have had the honor to serve alongside KATUSAs and train with Korean paratrooper units near the DMZ at Camp Greaves. From what I have seen...Korea can definitely make excellent soldiers. Let us not forget that ROKs also served with distinction in Vietnam...but I digress http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

FwSeal
03-04-2001, 04:30
You were at Greaves? I was at Casey (1/503/2ID) about six years ago.

ShaiHulud
03-07-2001, 01:16
lol...The Rok's are tough soldiers, friend. While I was there we had an invitation to take the Rok Ranger course. Over 100 people showed up for the 20 slots available. The Rok's had a simple method for choosing who got the slots. They started running, and they ran and they ran and they ran. When there were only 20 left, that 20 got to take the course.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

oompapa
03-07-2001, 06:10
I was in 2ID 1/506th Inf Bravo Co., Camp Greaves. I was there from Feb. '94 to June '95. One thing I remember most about the area are the hills. Hills everywhere! You ground-pounders out there know the pain of hills I'm sure http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Anyway, there is nothing to do around Camp Greaves. South Korean civilians need special passes just to go into the area (Pan Mujon) where the camp is located. I think my whole battalion was into role-playing games (D&D especially) since there was nothing else to do after COB. Several months before I left, our battalion actually started to broadcast/receive (dunno which)a porno channel http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Overall I enjoyed my experience in Korea. One can never safely underestimate the Koreans.

FwSeal
03-07-2001, 08:24
Wow, that kind of takes me back. I had a few buddies who ended up with the 506th - ended up feeling sort of bad for them, too - while we in the 503 could, on rare occasion, get a pass to the capital, it seemed like the 506's idea of a good time was getting a pass to come down to Casey - a scary idea http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
But, anyway, I remember those hills (more like mini-mountains) very well. There was a particuarly imposing one just north of the 'Turtle Farm' in Casey (don't know if you were there - the so-called turtle farm was this little camp where newbies went to wait for assignment within the 2ID), and I would just stand there and stare - it just seemed to rise up from nowhere. The first time I had to clamber up the side of one of those hills with a full ruck and M60 AG gear, I knew it was going to be a long year...
Well, guess this is pretty off-topic - sorry, Zen...

oompapa
03-09-2001, 07:44
Hee Hee http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

The Turtle farm was my next stop after arriving and being bused out of Seoul. It was a long friggin ride. We dropped off several soldiers at bases closer to Seoul, but Camp Casey ended up being the final stop. I got shipped out to Greaves a couple days later.

As far as Cp Casey being the main "tourist" attraction for Greaves troops...you got that right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Cp Casey was the nearest place for us to "unwind". Restaurants and other "delights" (*wink* *wink*). Boy...so many memories http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

ShaiHulud
03-09-2001, 14:09
Seal.. True story here... When I was headed to Korea Iw asn't very happy about it (1977).

I was flying there with a buddy from AIT and
I was moaning about my luck, how I'd certainly get sent to someplace on the DMZ.

So, after a night in a quonset hut he and I were sent to get orders. They handed us 3x5 cards with assignments on them. Sure enough, Mine said 'Camp Casey' (or maybe it was Red Cloud). God, I was depressed. My buddy's card was for Seoul and he was truely laughing his ass off. So, I'm sitting there in my misery, with my buddy laughing to no end, when a guy in the depot comes over to see where we were headed so he could send us on our way. He looks at my card, then at my buddy's card and says, "You've got the cards reversed". LOL HE was going to Casey, I to Seoul! Is there a God, or what? hehe


------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Contubernalis
03-10-2001, 03:48
I feel like I'm hanging out at the local VFW bar or something. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Seriously though, I'm wondering why I have never read anything on Korean history before WWII. I think Julian's right that we Westerners tend to get caught up with China and Japan, to the exclusion of the other Asian countries (well, okay, not Vietnam). But I don't recall seeing a "modern" (post '50s) history of Korea on my local Borders shelves (and I worked there shelving History once upon a time). Why is it that the West has neglected Korea except when China or Japan does something to it? I don't think it is racism, or an intentional act.

FwSeal
03-10-2001, 10:34
heh, yeah - I'd have taken duty in Seoul over the 2ID any day of the week http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Tong Du Chon was.... pretty interesting. I'll never forget finding myself buying this bar girl what I guess they'd have called in my dad's time 'Saigon Tea'. My friend and I, who were pretty naive at the time - been there maybe a week, were just being polite... and then found out we'd just bought these ladies two thimble-sized glasses of something (probably 7-up) at 10 bucks a piece. We paid, then claimed we had to get back to base for night duty and took off http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif There's more to it, but, after all, this is a family site http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

ShaiHulud
03-10-2001, 10:52
Yah, and at least one of these posters is only twelve, too! hehe

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

oompapa
03-11-2001, 02:35
Any of you guys remember those hajimas (hah-G-mahs) at TDC. They were always in the alleyways or the streets asking if you were looking for a good time http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I "heard" that if you said you were, then they would take you to see a girl http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif (*sigh*...good times...good times)

Anyway, I too get annoyed with Western historians that treat Korea as a footnote http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
The Koreans have so much more to offer. The KATUSAs I served with were EXCELLENT soldiers. I helped train my squad's KATUSA to get his EIB and he was successful (all of our KATUSAs were) while my squad leader (E-6 type with 15 yrs in service) failed to get his EIB (I hated the guy anyway, felt unsafe when he was in charge).

Maybe we will get a STW type game with a focus on Korean history http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Heh...better not hold my breath http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Minagawa Daimon
03-11-2001, 09:43
so how were the korean girls? they cant beat geishas can they?

FwSeal
03-12-2001, 05:57
I sense that there is going to have to be some pleading of the 5th Amendment in response to that one, Minagawa http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Brown Wolf
03-12-2001, 08:50
------------------
"Failure is not an option"

[This message has been edited by Brown Wolf (edited 03-12-2001).]

Minagawa Daimon
03-13-2001, 01:29
the wink face just answers my question http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

agios_katastrof
03-13-2001, 02:19
About a Real-Time/Turn-Based strategy game with ancient Korea as a background...

Korea has a huge gaming population, unparalled elsewhere in the world. Star Craft is a national phenomena, to the level of which Pokemon has reached in the US children. Korea has "professional gamers", whose lives are not unlike the professional atheletes of the US. They have sponsors as big as Samsung, and nationally televised tournaments with large cash prizes. Top Korean players such as "Koven" are internationally known throughout the online gaming communities.

However, a solid RTS/TBS game based on Korean history is not likely to happen easily. Unfortunately, no one can be blamed for this, except for the Koreans ourselves (I'm Korean).

Resident Koreans are extremely sensitive about their past history.

When MS/ES (Microsoft/Ensemble Studios) released Age of Empires, it included the Choson Dynasty as a key player (along with Yamato), with specific intentions to draw the huge Korean market. It suffered quite a bit of backlash for "historical inaccuracies that defamed Korea". Sigh. MS/ES had to pull one of the Korean history campaigns from the game. It's a game. Not a historical simulation. Later on, when MS/ES released Age of Kings: The Conquerors, it included Korea for the same marketing reasons, and met the same response. The fact that turtle ships were included in this game made it all the more susceptible. Sigh.

The Age series, were still huge successes with the Korean populace, but it was a very tricky process requiring a solid team of lawyers. MS has legions of them. Most distributors however, cannot boast of such.

Minagawa Daimon
03-13-2001, 10:11
well, i think that they shoud just ignore that market...picky,picky...

FwSeal
03-13-2001, 10:34
I remember that the Koreans released a Warcraft clone that was set in the time of Hideyoshi's invasions - can't remember what it was called exactly, but I think it can be found in english here and there on abandonware sites. I've heard it was pretty good, as clones go, but I have never played it myself. I'll try to find out what it was called.

Minagawa Daimon
03-13-2001, 22:15
yep, ive seen the site for that game a couple o months ago but for the love of buddha i cant remember the site or the name of the game...it was a clone allright

Choco
03-14-2001, 08:14
Right ....

I also remember the game and I even downloaded the demo. So bad I deleted it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

It was basicaly a Warcraft Clone with the clasical "gather resources, built your town and your army and attack" but with units and building with oriental flavor and certainly introduced many cool new features, like day and nigh periods, and direction of the wind affecting arrows.

But the most coolest thing were the Korean carapace ships. So bad I can't remember

Choco
03-14-2001, 08:23
Hahahahahaha!! I found the place!!
God Bless goggle!

This is the link:
http://www.gamefactory.com/wardiary.shtml


Considering that the game is like 4-5 years old it doesn't look so bad.

FwSeal
03-14-2001, 08:58
Thanks Choco http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Here's another link concerning the game, if anyone is interested... http://underdogs.cjb.net/game.php?id=1239