The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
But I saw it on the news! They can't get away with lying, and now I have 2 solid sources: the news and my schoolbook. It would be great if someone could bring up 3 sources that the Koreans were the first in ironclads. But the news is rather solid and reliable, and it is commonly accepted that the Monitor was first.

American News Channels are highly inaccurate! CNN is very biased, although their website is MUCH better.

You must have lived a very sheltered life to not realize how much the Media manipulates stories, and for fluff pieces like Dan Rather/ Monitor thing they just go off memory and what they can clean from guy mowing his lawn next to their news van. It's so not important they probably couldn't have cared less.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
However, while a very small minority of people think the Koreans made the first ironclads, it is true that the Monitor had the first rotating turret and was most likely the first ironclad. I say "most likely" because the Korean ships might have had a small amount of iron on the sides, but probably not enough to call it a true ironclad.

What does a rotating turret have to do with being "iron clad"?

Just because the monitor had more metal doesn't mean anything. If someone wears a T-shirt and then later someone else wears a long-sleeved t-shirt, does that mean the earlier person can no longer be considered to have worn a t-shirt?

PS: I'm going to have to let people know we have a new Higher Game.

[Ribannah]

Didn't Higher Game stop posting shortly before KoR appeared?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Didn't Higher Game stop posting shortly before KoR appeared?

Hmmmmm

[King of Rasslin]

We have the same signature. Yes, I am Higher Game. I ripped the name off of a guy from a steroid website, and his last message was about liver disease so I figured I would "borrow" his very cool sounding name. Hey, I doubt he is going to come get me now!

King of Wrestling is from the Ready to Rumble movie, after Jimmy King. Although he isn't a real wrestler, he was very good in the movie. I considered making my title from the Beyond the Mat movie, but it was too sad so I decided I wouldn't touch that.

Asian wrestling involves a lot of "hardcore" action, and injuries are common. But there are plenty of replacements out there. Asian military tactics involved overwhelming the enemy with numbers, without caring about losses. The group is more valued than the individual in Asian culture.

I would actually consider the turtle ship a very amazing accomplishment for Asians, since armor (like on European knights) was very rare, and the leaders didn't consider their soldiers to be worth much. They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved. Kinda like the Zerg, or the bug aliens from Starship Troopers.

I started watching CNN after 9/11. I was somewhat upset that they spent most of their time talking about the miners instead of that Ukraine air crash, but they don't talk about Asian countries a lot. I still learn very little about them.

The only real news manipulation I know about is how they favor Israel because of the large amount of Jews in the news. They almost never talk about things from the Palestinian point of view, but from what I have seen they are against terrorism even if the people are oppressed. I actually feel sorry for the Palestinians, because the news is rather hard on them. I would think the news would bend facts, but I don't think that they would bluntly lie about something. Maybe none of the people that watch the news have bothered to correct them?

By the way, HOW did you guys figure out it was me? Congrats.

[Ribannah]

Same style, it was easy enough.

Btw the Palestinians most likely watch Arabic news channels, which are just as biased but then for the other side of the coin, so there's no need to feel sorry for them because of CNN.

If you want relatively (I say: relatively) unbiased news, you need to watch European channels. Can you receive BBC?

[King of Rasslin]

"Btw the Palestinians most likely watch Arabic news channels, which are just as biased but then for the other side of the coin, so there's no need to feel sorry for them because of CNN."

Fair enough. I don't get BBC on TV, but I got it from my radio once. I forgot the frequency, but it was decent news. It talked a lot about other countries, like Lithuania and others that no one knows about. I didn't like it a lot because American newscasters put so much drama in their news, they seem to enjoy their jobs. There was a British woman on the BBC and she spoke very quickly, like she didn't really care what she was saying.

As for politics, I think Rush Linbaugh (sp?) has a good radio program. I wish he was still on TV, he even did a commercial for Pizza Hut!

[Q Classic]

I would actually consider the turtle ship a very amazing accomplishment for Asians, since armor (like on European knights) was very rare, and the leaders didn't consider their soldiers to be worth much. They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved. Kinda like the Zerg, or the bug aliens from Starship Troopers.

eh... not quite. although armor, european style, was not common, asians did have armor; they did not tend to be made of metal, however.

also, there was a good deal of strategy and tactics involved: games like go and changgi arose from the wars, both of which rely heavily on strategy. let's also not forget the classic text, "the art of war" by sun tzu.

korean history also happens to be littered with strategy: several times, outnumbered korean warships decimated japanese warships not by sheer force, but by clever tactics and strategies-- one of my favorites was to lure a bunch of japanese ships into a narrow passage before raising sharp chains to batter the undersides of the ships-- thereby sinking them.

[eric789]

King of Rasslin

since armor (like on European knights) was very rare

Armoured cavalry became obsolete in East Asia after the appearance of deadly crossbow and the last remnants of armoured cavarly disappeared even before 10th century AD.

The Knights are inferior to the Oriental horse archers, who took over the role of the armoured cavalry in East Asia long before the knights began appearing in Europe. The Mongols never lost a single battle against the Europeans and that explains a lot.

They win wars with raw power, and little strategy is involved

Can you think of anything other than the Chinese human waves during the Korean War and the Japanese Banzai assault during WWII?

Have you heard of Sun Tzu?
Didn't you see the footage I posted? (the Korean naval tatcic called hagik)
Never heard of Nobunaga's 3 line musketeers?

You'd better watch this footage to see how the Koreans and the Japanese trying to outsmart one other. The Japanese lure the Koreans and lead them to the ambush site and the Koreans willingly follow the Japanese and later retreat to lure the whole Japanese fleet out of the ambush site to encircle them in the open water.
http://chunghondang.com/movie/hagik.mpg

[History Guy]

Dan Rather is a stupid little moron.

Now...the Monitor wasn't even the first American ironclad, they were making those things in various forms since the Mexican War period. The Monitor was only the first type of ironclad known as a 'monitor'.

Now, the turtleboat was the first of the 'clads, though there were other vessels that popped up at about the same time in Britain and Holland.

[King of Rasslin]

Armor does an excellent job of stopping arrows. Also, it is easier to use, and it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to swing a sword. Training for longbows or even crossbows would be more difficult than sword training. And the Asians wanted easy training because, as I said earlier, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was rare.

Can you even fathom the number of people living in China? They don't bother with strategy and they don't have to, since they have so many people. I talked with my grandfather about the Japanese in WWII, and he said they would overwhelm you in numbers. And they could get away with it because there was always more people to recruit.

Tactics did exist in Asian history when it was a very close match. However, China was usually the big dog and it just crushed the little guys with size and strength. Naval tactics would be more important because thousands of them would be packed onto the ships, and losing them would mean losing a lot of people.

I have heard of Sun Tzu, he has his own wonder in Civ 3. I have never heard of Nobunaga, and musketeers were only in France.

The Mongols beat the Europeans because of numbers, not strategy. They are called the horde for a reason.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
The Mongols beat the Europeans because of numbers, not strategy. They are called the horde for a reason.

That's a very ignorant statement.

Mongol invasion forces to Europe were very small. The battle of Kalka in 1223 against Russians saw only 20,000 Mongols in action, and they utterly crushed a Russian force several times larger.

The Battle of Liegnitz in 1241 was more balanced, but Mongols had no trouble routing the Teutonic Knights. Then everyone in Europe was astounished when Mongols suddenly retreated. Only much later did they learn that Mongols were more interested in electing their choice of Khan than conquering Europe.

Mongols were truly military genius, they always beat enemies several times their size during glorious days.

[King of Rasslin]

20,000 soldiers is not a small force. Of course the Mongols looked small against a huge country like Russia or China. But generally, the Asians try to win with numbers. I think it's just logical, but somewhat inhuman. Ironically, Asian civs in Civ 3 (India, China, Japan) have powerful UUs that win with power, while the Aztecs or Zulu have weak UUs that win with mass.

I think the Zulu spearman should replace riflemen because they were able to beat the British. The Chinese should get the 1/1/2 warrior because they have always tried to win by swarming the enemy. The Mongols did use tactics when they fought a stronger enemy, but the Chinese rarely fought a country as strong as it is.

[eric789]

King of Rasslin

Nobunaga is the Japanese feudal lord who developed the concept of 3 line musketeers to overcome the problem of long loading time of the muskets. The Portugese and the Dutch merchants supplied muskets to Japan during 16th century.

the Asians wanted easy training

Training a decent longbow man may require 3 good years but 2 weeks would be good enough for a crossbow man to be useful. Do you think 5 or 6 years would be enough for traning a decent horse archer?

Every civilised part of the globe, when engaged in warfare, used strategies and tactics. It is so irresponsible and ignorant to say there were little strategies and tactics used in some part of the globe.
When this kind of statement comes from someone who have great deal of knowledge about the things they talk about, I would concede. However you and I both know your knowledge about the Oriental history is extremly limited. You'd better read at least one good history book about the East Asian civs to back up your hypothesis.

[King of Rasslin]

I don't hear a lot about Asian tactics. I guess their sheer mass is a lot more tangible, since tactics are too complicated for most people, including me. It's a lot easier to understand that they have a billion people than comprehending their strategies. And they wouldn't want to train a horse archer if they could send thousands of conscripts at the enemy.

The Mongols are notorious for razing very small villages, and they are seen as barbarians that sent wave after wave of soldiers. In fact, the Mongols would attack cities with walls and not care about losses. Their mindset in WWII was the same way, with soldiers being encouraged to ram their planes into our ships. After all, there are always more to recruit, so whats a few million losses to Japan or China?

[Q Classic]

Armor does an excellent job of stopping arrows. Also, it is easier to use, and it doesn't require a lot of training to teach someone how to swing a sword. Training for longbows or even crossbows would be more difficult than sword training. And the Asians wanted easy training because, as I said earlier, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was rare.

what have you read that makes you such an expert? how can you say such a thing about asian history, or even military history in general? it doesn't take as much training to make a good rifleman as it does a good swordsman. that's one of the major reasons why armies are far larger these days. knights have to pay for everything out of pocket-- as well as upkeep. keeping sword and armor functional as well as learning how to use them not only costs more, but is more time intensive, than keeping a boomstick clean and teaching them to point in the right direction and fire at the same time.
thus, using crossbows and arrows does not require as much training as a sword.
also, advanced tactics with veteran soldiers was not rare. if you look at history, you'll see plenty of clever land and sea tactics in china alone, specifically in regards to the wars of the three kingdoms.
obviously, you are again speaking with no knowledge of fact.

Can you even fathom the number of people living in China? They don't bother with strategy and they don't have to, since they have so many people. I talked with my grandfather about the Japanese in WWII, and he said they would overwhelm you in numbers. And they could get away with it because there was always more people to recruit.

china != japan != korea.
in other words, china, korea, and japan, all different.
funny, a non asian trying to explain the mass of population that is asia to an asian...
you do realize that when your grandfather fought the japanese on land, it was towards the end of the war, when the japanese were desparate, right? meaning that they did anything and everything, including trying to overwhelm with sheer numbers when supplies ran low.
but then again, that's precisely what americans did in okinawa, iwo jima...

Tactics did exist in Asian history when it was a very close match. However, China was usually the big dog and it just crushed the little guys with size and strength. Naval tactics would be more important because thousands of them would be packed onto the ships, and losing them would mean losing a lot of people.

china actually frequently lost some wars with smaller nations. the korean nation of koguryo repeatedly defeated the chinese, even when the chinese outnumbered them by a hefty margin. again, you speak out of ignorance.

musketeers were only in France.

oh ye of little knowledge.
musketeers as how you think of them were only in france. only they could come up with such goofy looking costumes.
but other nations did know the military uses of gunpowder, and fashioned muskets long before the french. asians did have guns. they were, technically, muskets. people who wielded them, then, would be...
yep, you got it, musketeers.

I don't hear a lot about Asian tactics. I guess their sheer mass is a lot more tangible, since tactics are too complicated for most people, including me. It's a lot easier to understand that they have a billion people than comprehending their strategies. And they wouldn't want to train a horse archer if they could send thousands of conscripts at the enemy.

of course, judging by your previous comments about korea and the rest of asia, you don't hear a lot about asia either. is it any wonder then you don't hear a lot about asian tactics?

The Mongols are notorious for razing very small villages, and they are seen as barbarians that sent wave after wave of soldiers. In fact, the Mongols would attack cities with walls and not care about losses. Their mindset in WWII was the same way, with soldiers being encouraged to ram their planes into our ships. After all, there are always more to recruit, so whats a few million losses to Japan or China?

you're comparing apples and oranges again. mongols may be asian, and may even look identical to a chinese person, but there are cultural differences, which can make a whole lot of difference in how they wage war.
the japanese did not use kamikazes until after midway, when they knew the tide was turned. they used kamikaze fighters out of desparation, because by that time, the americans not only had better fighters, but were relentlessly progressing closer and closer to japan.
same with the soldiers. most of them realized that okinawa and iwo jima would be lost, since they had received no materiel shipments or anything else of the sort. yet, refusing to surrender, they fought to the last man, not because they did not value their lives, but because they did not wish to give up.
again, desparation, not disregard for life.

[King of Rasslin]

Do you have any fear of the number of people living in China? Korea is like a minor province of China, just like Canada is like a minor province of the US. They could conquer all of Asia if they felt like it, with numbers alone. There are 1.2 billion people in China.

And muskets were traded to the Asians through the Spanish and the Portuguese. They did make primitive muskets, but they killed their user as often as the enemy.

And it takes years of training to make an expert at a musket. Elite soldiers like the French musketeers or the British redcoats took years to train, but it only takes a few days to learn how to use a sword. How much skill could it take to knock someone over the head with a piece of metal?

And I do know that armor will stop an arrow. Knights easily defeated longbowmen until castles were more widespread and they took advantage of the walls. The knights had more mobility and very good armor. Knights were defeated by longbowmen by shooting through the small cracks in the armor, like where the elbow is.

Armor is very rare in Asian armies. You will almost never find a knight style armor, even for wealthy samurai. They just don't have protective armor like we did. And, if bows and muskets are so good, why did they continue training with swords for such a long time? A force of musketmen could beat a force of swordsmen 5x as large.

And it was'nt just WWII that the Chinese used the number attack swarm. They tried it in the Korean War, and the Vietnamese tried it in the Vietnam war. We abandoned Vietnam because there is no perfect defence against someone with nothing to lose. Imagine hundreds of the Vietcong attacking a dozen marines, and you have a good idea of what 'Nam was like.

[GhengisFarb™]

I am confused and dizzy

First off, I think King of Rasslin is an elite member of Osama Bin Laden's network and is purposely making posts to undermine the credibility of Americans and make EVERYONE in the world hate us. Not that it would take much, mind you.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin And muskets were traded to the Asians through the Spanish and the Portuguese. They did make primitive muskets, but they killed their user as often as the enemy.

Hmm. I wonder where Europeans got the idea of gunpowder?

Originally posted by King of Rasslin And it takes years of training to make an expert at a musket. Elite soldiers like the French musketeers or the British redcoats took years to train, but it only takes a few days to learn how to use a sword. muskets were traded to the Asians through the Spanish and the Portuguese. They did make primitive muskets, but they killed their user as often as the enemy.

I don't think anyone was an expert with a musket. They weren't very reliable which is why armies lined up in regiments in order to send volleys of bullets at the enemy. The Redcoats weren't known as expert shots, their training was disipline and organization not marksmanship.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin And I do know that armor will stop an arrow. Knights easily defeated longbowmen until castles were more widespread and they took advantage of the walls.

Since history does not appear to be your strongpoint, watch the movie Henry V by Kenneth Branaugh(his version will be easier to follow than more Shakespearean ones). A 5,700 man English Army defeated a 30,000+ French Army, English longbows killed 8,000- 10,000 French, whilst the French Knights in their all impressive arrow-proof armor slaughtered 100-200 of the English before being killed by the Englishman's secret uranium tipped armor piercing arrows.

No castles, No walls, just outnumbered longbows.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin Armor is very rare in Asian armies. You will almost never find a knight style armor, even for wealthy samurai.

Samurai wore armor. Look at the terra cotta statues buried with the first Chinese emperor, they wore armor.

[King of Rasslin]

"First off, I think King of Rasslin is an elite member of Osama Bin Laden's network and is purposely making posts to undermine the credibility of Americans and make EVERYONE in the world hate us. Not that it would take much, mind you."

How did you figure that out? You guys must be CIA or something...

Fine, they made gunpowder and rockets, and we made guns. Gunpowder has peacetime uses but guns don't, so they win in that arguement. In combat, however, both contributions are equal. Although guns are still used today, their gunpowder based weapons are obsolete now. It's a close call, but I think the gun is really a simple concept, and gunpowder is a greater accomplishment. Strange that they never thought of making guns before the Europeans did...

You say the redcoats weren't elite? Then how did the British make such a huge empire? With Man-o-wars? The redcoats were definitely masters of their trade, and muskets made all other weapons obsolete. They did take a lot of training, since discipline is everything when you are 10 feet from the enemy and you have to see who can load their gun faster.

Secret uranium tipped armor piercing arrows? Some people take Turok: Dinosaur Hunter WAAY too seriously! You are too much. Longbowmen won most of their battles when the knights were going through rough terrain and couldn't charge. They just advanced slowly and got butchered as they crawled forward. In a flat plain, the knights would have the advantage. Longbowmen did win a lot of battles, but knights did too.

Samurai did wear armor, but not the heavy type the Europeans wore. Knights were a lot more common than the samurai were. In fact, the knights had to travel on horse because the armor was so heavy (protective.) The samurai armor wasn't thick enough to stop arrows, so that is why armor is actually very rare in Asian civs. Look at the knight in Civ 3 and compare it to the rider.

They didn't rely on armor because they had so many soldiers, what's just a few more losses?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Fine, they made gunpowder and rockets, and we made guns. Gunpowder has peacetime uses but guns don't, so they win in that arguement. In combat, however, both contributions are equal. Although guns are still used today, their gunpowder based weapons are obsolete now. It's a close call, but I think the gun is really a simple concept, and gunpowder is a greater accomplishment. Strange that they never thought of making guns before the Europeans did...

Actually the Mongols used 'guns', what do you think they made gunpowder for, spices?

Originally posted by King of Rasslin You say the redcoats weren't elite? Then how did the British make such a huge empire? With Man-o-wars? The redcoats were definitely masters of their trade, and muskets made all other weapons obsolete. They did take a lot of training, since discipline is everything when you are 10 feet from the enemy and you have to see who can load their gun faster.

Nobody said the Redcoats weren't elite. They were the best military of their time. Had nothing to do with marksmanship though. The ragtag farmers of the American Revolution matched them in marksmanship with only a few months of training. Months.

[SIZE=1] Longbowmen won most of their battles when the knights were going through rough terrain and couldn't charge. They just advanced slowly and got butchered as they crawled forward. In a flat plain, the knights would have the advantage. Longbowmen did win a lot of battles, but knights did too.

This is where you need to brush up on history. The Longbow made Knights obsolete. Read a history of warfare book, turn on the History channel, or The Learning Channel.

[King of Rasslin]

The Mongols didn't use guns! They were uncivilized (well, a quasi-civilization) and barbaric. When you think of the Mongols, you think of Conan on a horse.

The only guns they might have used were ones they won from battles, but these savages didn't know how to make gunpowder or guns. The Chinese could, but definitely not the Mongols.

[History Guy]

The Samurai most definitely wore armor, but the armor wasn't quite like the armor that the terracotta statues found in Qin Shihuangdi's tomb at all. Indeed, it was very little like it. The Samurai did have very effective armor, all the same.

The Mongols only used gunpowder after they figured out how to use it when conquering the Sung. It was the Mongols who were being blasted by Chinese gunpowder for the most part...and man did it smart.

[Ribannah]

The first to make handheld firearms (as opposed to cannons) were the Arabs. These earliest guns were made of wood and fired (by gunpowder) arrows rather than bullets. IIRC this was in the 12th century.

KoR, shortly after the end of the US-Vietnam war, China sent an army of 1,000,0000 soldiers into North Vietnam to punish them
for border incidents. They searched for several months, but never found the 'enemy'. Finally, after suffering massive casualties due to disease, lack of supplies and (only a few) guerilla attacks, they had no choice but to withdraw. Had they persisted, not a single survivor would have been able to tell the story ....

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
The Mongols didn't use guns! They were uncivilized (well, a quasi-civilization) and barbaric. When you think of the Mongols, you think of Conan on a horse.

The only guns they might have used were ones they won from battles, but these savages didn't know how to make gunpowder or guns. The Chinese could, but definitely not the Mongols.

More ignorance on your part. Mongols may not have been very civilized, but they were quick learners. Even if they decided to massacre a city, they would spare craftsmen and engineers. These people would be integrated into the horde and become part of the Mongol military.

Mongols, without much prejudice, were actually much better at employing these people than the traditional Chinese Confucian bureaucracy.

In the end, it was Mongols who used siege engines and cannons on a wide basis. The famous(in China) Chinese fortress city Xiang Yang capitulated to only a demonstration of the newly designed and constructed Mongol siege artillery. The city had held out for 5 years previously.

[Q Classic]

KoR is obviously a history buff. unfortunately, he doesn't read, learn, or even bother to do any research about it. meaning, he's a history buff who doesn't know the first thing about history.

Do you have any fear of the number of people living in China? Korea is like a minor province of China, just like Canada is like a minor province of the US. They could conquer all of Asia if they felt like it, with numbers alone. There are 1.2 billion people in China.

except, see, unlike the difference between canada and the us, korea and china don't share the same culture, language, or ancestry. korea also has a fully independent economy, unlike canada.
again, your ignorance is to be expected...

And it takes years of training to make an expert at a musket. Elite soldiers like the French musketeers or the British redcoats took years to train, but it only takes a few days to learn how to use a sword. How much skill could it take to knock someone over the head with a piece of metal?

do you have any idea how long it took to train a knight? a page becomes a squire after several years. a squire, if he's lucky enough and wealthy enough, can become a knight after several years. generally one could only be a page if one were of nobility--thus limiting the numbers. no, training people with guns, even muskets, takes far less time to train.

And I do know that armor will stop an arrow. Knights easily defeated longbowmen until castles were more widespread and they took advantage of the walls. The knights had more mobility and very good armor. Knights were defeated by longbowmen by shooting through the small cracks in the armor, like where the elbow is.

wrong again, my dim friend. see, the point of arrows is to pierce. arrows, when fired into armor, pierces the armor. thus, they're armor-piercing. thus, longbows were able to defeat knights not by shotting through cracks in the armor, but by piercing the armor itself and wounding them.

Armor is very rare in Asian armies. You will almost never find a knight style armor, even for wealthy samurai.

wealthy samurai had armor. just not metal armor. what's so hard to understand about that? their armor was often of hardened bamboo and leather, among other things, and was more than able to deflect certain blows.

And, if bows and muskets are so good, why did they continue training with swords for such a long time? A force of musketmen could beat a force of swordsmen 5x as large.

bows and muskets have reduced accuracy and visibility in conditions such as fog, rain, snow, and evening time. in fact, all ranged weapons do. melee weapons, like swords, staffs, spears, and pikes, have extremely high accuracy in all conditions.

And it was'nt just WWII that the Chinese used the number attack swarm.

the chinese did not attack anyone in ww2, they were often too busy trying to defend themselves.

They tried it in the Korean War, and the Vietnamese tried it in the Vietnam war.

the vietnamese did not try it in the vietnam war. the type of tactics the vietnamese used in that war was called guerrilla warfare. the point of that is not to attack with overwhelming force, but to pick off the enemy by striking hard and fast with a small force before running away. indeed, the viet cong army was dwarfed in size by the american army; not only that, the vietcong army operated in small cells, in an extremely decentralized network of platoons probably no larger than twenty or so. some human wave tactic there, right?

We abandoned Vietnam because there is no perfect defence against someone with nothing to lose. Imagine hundreds of the Vietcong attacking a dozen marines, and you have a good idea of what 'Nam was like.

except, see, you weren't there, and you don't know what 'nam was like. often, as was the case in vietnam, when you're attacked at night or when you have near-zero visibility, even a few troops can seem like many.

Samurai did wear armor, but not the heavy type the Europeans wore. Knights were a lot more common than the samurai were. In fact, the knights had to travel on horse because the armor was so heavy (protective.) The samurai armor wasn't thick enough to stop arrows, so that is why armor is actually very rare in Asian civs. Look at the knight in Civ 3 and compare it to the rider.

because we all know how accurate civ3 is...

They didn't rely on armor because they had so many soldiers, what's just a few more losses?

i'll say this again, and very slowly, so you can understand it:
you don't know what you're talking about. be quiet.

[GhengisFarb™]

My bad, I missed a previously available sarcastic comment. But as it has not been claimed......

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Knights were defeated by longbowmen by shooting through the small cracks in the armor, like where the elbow is.

By Jove, Sir Ector. You've been shot in the elbow! Do you have any last words in the final 30 seconds of your life before the always fatal elbow wound ceases thine lifeforce?

[teturkhan]

I couldn't stop laughing, and kept thinking this guy has to meet Higher Game, what a team they would make... heck you could market it and make millions the entertainment value would be that good!!! little did I know King of Rasslan IS HIGHER GAME!!!

hi there buddy, I was thinking about you the other day... thinking how boring the forums are getting without you infinite wisdom thrown in the mix

anyways, why don't be get you started on your own thread?

Higher Game - politically incorrect or something??

[Q Classic]

teturkhan, he is higher game, apparently.

but i don't remember ever running across him before this thread, so...

[King of Rasslin]

"KoR is obviously a history buff. unfortunately, he doesn't read, learn, or even bother to do any research about it. meaning, he's a history buff who doesn't know the first thing about history."

Somewhat true, but you can learn some stuff with common sense.

Steel armor will stop an arrow. Go to a steel mill, ask for their finest, and try to pierce it. Because knights rode on horses, they could put an incredible amount of armor on than normal. It could stop arrows very effectively. Hardened bamboo and leather can not stop an arrow! Let me just ask you the question: Would you rather wear steel/iron or bamboo/leather if you were getting shot with arrows? I would definitely use the steel, and the samurai were wiped out because of their poor choice in armor.

If you think it's hard to swing a sword, but easy to use a firearm, you need to seriously consider what you are saying. Primitive barbarians used swords, not guns. Mongols have never been portrayed as gun users. They are usually shown overwhelming the enemy with numbers, and butchering everyone in the city, and running off with all the women and loot. Watch the movie "Attila" if you want to know about the Huns/Mongols.

The Chinese did use number tactics when the Japanese fought them in WWII. However, the Japanese were "mobilized" and were more prepared for war at the time. Today, China is among the best equipped armies in the world and Japan is spending money trying to develop gundams or robots or other garbage.

If you think the Vietcong tried to use small groups of forces, you need to research the Tet offensive. Accounts of US soldiers talked about hundreds of them surrounding them and killing them 1 by 1, almost mocking them. The Vietnamese soldiers had cheap homemade rifles and we had M-16 rifles. It was an even match because their strength was their numbers. In the later years of Vietnam, they started to use more swarm tactics and less guerilla warfare.

I wasn't in Vietnam, but I do know a lot about it from TV. I heard about Agent Orange being used to kill off the jungles, but it caused birth defects so we stopped using it.

And if they did care about their soldiers, they would have been using M-16s or AK-47s. They used some cheap rifles, and were releatively poorly equipped. There were just so many of them they could beat us with inferior equipment.

[King of Rasslin]

I bet Coracle is really Zouave at Civfanatics.

[Ribannah]

Naturally, there were plenty of steel mills around in the age of the Longbowmen ....

Plate steel was not available until the 15th century.
Small amounts of smelted steel could be produced earlier (invented in India around 1000 AD) to make swords, but not plate armor.

That said, warriors of all times and regions used armor. Leather was always available and good enough to prevent major harm from glancing strikes and blows and from less-than-straight arrows; others like the Iroquois had very effective armor made of wood.