MisterBarca
Prince
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 536
As a Korean national and an author who has been published on Korean matters to boot, I have to register my befuddlement regarding the choice of Wang Kon as the sole Korean leader in Civilization IV. In fact, I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that there is literally no conceivable justification for Wang's election. None.
Now I realize that Civilization IV is ultimately a game which must devote the majority of its resources to gameplay issues. Yet given the historical nature of the game, you must exhibit at least a modicum of historical fidelity. In the least, you cannot make a leader choice this arbitrary.
So how does Wang--out of dozens of candidates--become the sole representative of 2200 or so years of Korean history (I discount the mythical beginnings of the Korean people, encapsulated in the Dan Goon myth)?
Was he Korea's greatest king? Absolutely not. There are only two Korean kings who have been bestowed the title "dae-wang" ("great king") posthumously. Sejong and Kwang-gae-to. Sejong for his peacetime achievements and Kwang-gae-to for his military achievements.
There are a few kings whom some historians consider superior to the two--e.g. Sejong's father or his second son--but Wang is not one of them. Neither his peacetime nor military achievements are that noteworthy. In particular, as anyone familiar with Korean history will tell you, even the real consolidation of the dynasty he founded was not achieved until Gwang Jong, Wang's energetic grandson.
Ah, but Wang founded a dynasty--the Koryo dynasty! So what? There have been many dynasties in Korean history. Was Koryo the most powerful Korean dynasty? No. The title belongs to Koguryo. Was it the longest-lived dynasty? No. Silla was. Was it the first dynasty to unify the Korean peninsula? No. Again, Unified Silla was--albeit the "unification" was largely incomplete and reached only up to the Dae-dong River. Was it the most culturally vibrant dynasty? No. Though precise measure is difficult due to the subject matter, again Unified Silla likely was. Finally, did Koryo then at least encompass most of the present-day Korea? No. The Chosun dynasty, which Yi Song-gye founded by demolishing Koryo, was.
And if we expand the roster of candidates and include those who were not actual kings but "leaders," Wang's selection is even more mystifying. For instance, there are at least two soldier-statesmen who are more deserving. Yon Kae-so-mun, the Korean Caesar, crushed legions after legions sent against him by Tang Taizong, almost universally considered China's greatest king (who should also have been included as Chinese king) while China was at one of its peak periods. Park Chung-hee, one of the truly great nation builders in modern history, buoyed Korea from the mud of backbreaking poverty to its current status as top 10 or 11 economies in the world--while staving off a totalitarian regime bent on its subjugation.
And you pick Wang Kon? LOL!
Again, there is very little noteworthy and certainly nothing singular about the man Wang Kon or the dynasty he founded. The fact that Firaxis chose to name him is indicative of the company's ignorance and/or carelessness about historical accuracy.
Now I realize that Civilization IV is ultimately a game which must devote the majority of its resources to gameplay issues. Yet given the historical nature of the game, you must exhibit at least a modicum of historical fidelity. In the least, you cannot make a leader choice this arbitrary.
So how does Wang--out of dozens of candidates--become the sole representative of 2200 or so years of Korean history (I discount the mythical beginnings of the Korean people, encapsulated in the Dan Goon myth)?
Was he Korea's greatest king? Absolutely not. There are only two Korean kings who have been bestowed the title "dae-wang" ("great king") posthumously. Sejong and Kwang-gae-to. Sejong for his peacetime achievements and Kwang-gae-to for his military achievements.
There are a few kings whom some historians consider superior to the two--e.g. Sejong's father or his second son--but Wang is not one of them. Neither his peacetime nor military achievements are that noteworthy. In particular, as anyone familiar with Korean history will tell you, even the real consolidation of the dynasty he founded was not achieved until Gwang Jong, Wang's energetic grandson.
Ah, but Wang founded a dynasty--the Koryo dynasty! So what? There have been many dynasties in Korean history. Was Koryo the most powerful Korean dynasty? No. The title belongs to Koguryo. Was it the longest-lived dynasty? No. Silla was. Was it the first dynasty to unify the Korean peninsula? No. Again, Unified Silla was--albeit the "unification" was largely incomplete and reached only up to the Dae-dong River. Was it the most culturally vibrant dynasty? No. Though precise measure is difficult due to the subject matter, again Unified Silla likely was. Finally, did Koryo then at least encompass most of the present-day Korea? No. The Chosun dynasty, which Yi Song-gye founded by demolishing Koryo, was.
And if we expand the roster of candidates and include those who were not actual kings but "leaders," Wang's selection is even more mystifying. For instance, there are at least two soldier-statesmen who are more deserving. Yon Kae-so-mun, the Korean Caesar, crushed legions after legions sent against him by Tang Taizong, almost universally considered China's greatest king (who should also have been included as Chinese king) while China was at one of its peak periods. Park Chung-hee, one of the truly great nation builders in modern history, buoyed Korea from the mud of backbreaking poverty to its current status as top 10 or 11 economies in the world--while staving off a totalitarian regime bent on its subjugation.
And you pick Wang Kon? LOL!
Again, there is very little noteworthy and certainly nothing singular about the man Wang Kon or the dynasty he founded. The fact that Firaxis chose to name him is indicative of the company's ignorance and/or carelessness about historical accuracy.
.
