[Hengest]

Originally Posted by 8LimbsScientist

While I agree the first poster needs to study martial arts history a bit more, I don't understand why everyone suddenly believes this whole Hwarang gay thing?

One page on a website which is anti-Korean, and its taken as gospel? I'm not saying that the Hwarang were absolutely an elite Korean warrior class, but I'm just saying this page isn't proof that they weren't. There are differing opinions on the subject, and I don't see anything so special about this one.

Also, why is gay considered anti-warrior? This is a modern convention. I'm no expert in Asian history, but I know Spartan warriors were known to engage in a little man on man love every now and then.

As bamboo said, it's not. You're missing the point of the argument mate. It's not the evidence pointing towards their sexual persuasion that I use to try and disprove the hwarang myth. It's the evidence that they were not warriors, plain and simple.

And neither is my opinion based on that one website. I just used that to spark the previous discussion on this subject. Stanley Henning, Dakin Burdick, Robert Dohrenwend, Manuel Adrogué, Eric Madis, and Joseph Svinth, to name but a few, have written excellent, well-researched pieces on the history of Korean martial arts that all point to the fact that there is little evidence for Korean styles having a basis in native ancient combat systems, and even less linking them to the hwarang.

On the little evidence of hwarang existing at all, there is nothing to suggest they were warriors. Some did go on to become warriors, but that was after they served as hwarang. At best, the hwarang can be seen as a system of grooming boys to become leaders, political and military. But for Koreans to talk of them as great fighters equal of the samurai, the Templars, or the Spartans, is as ridiculous as the British of the year 3000 swapping tales of that great warrior league, the Etonians!

[shurite44]

I would like to point out that not all TKD schools teach this history. Ok, I said it now on with the show.

[mjeon]

Originally Posted by Hengest

No, that's not what it's like. That's basically what it is. Hwa Rang Do isn't an ancient style. It's origins are a bit cloudy, but it seems to have the same roots as hapkido. The techniques are very, very similar, which means that it is actually just another Korean style with Japanese origins; ironic isn't it?

The hwarang were not warriors, that's all myth, and they didn't teach the samurai anything (except maybe that you should always use a good foundation when applying make-up). It seems they were actually young lads selected to serve as courtiers in the royal household and they were actually required to dress in the fashion of young girls, make-up and all, and look pretty. Again, ironic isn't it? We discussed the subject in more detail a year or so ago. If you want to take a look it's at http://www.fightauthority.com/module...er=asc&start=0

So, I'm afraid mate, this is just another example of the little fantasy world that Korean martial arts teachers have made up as a security blank for themselves to make up for the fact that the Koreans never really had much of a martial culture while the Chinese and (gasp!) Japanese did.

Sry, but Hwarang's DEFINATELY exsisted... you know.- It's not made up.
It is very clear in the Korean history - as I remember/ And- there is a famous hwa rang warrior in shilla(forgot his name..) who fought bravely for his castle an for shilla. It is in the history book anyway..
Like Kim-you-shin for example/.. who was the true Hwarang and who existed! It's just the plain truth- so obvious
Ive seen some Korean forums talking about how some people got angry about some people thought that hwarangs didn't exist.

also that even the researchers were good.. whos the ones that know about their own history? They were warriors, did extreme trainings, and thats the truth. ridiculous?? that doesnt make any sense at all.
If Korea was well-known, the history of the hwarangs would have been obviously believed by other people. Just like the Japanese-samurai warriors. Or just look at the root of Koreans(partly - a tiny bit of mongolians actually) and warriors, armours and stuff.
But Britain's diifferent.. you can't compare Britain saying something ridiculous and Korea saying that hwarangs were equal to spartans or samurai's. Because - there were totally different. Britain invaded lots of countries, and stole lots of stuff. And also they were a big country.
On the other hand, Korea wasn't really much of an attacking country, sometimes went to fight for their land back from the mongolians.
And they went over to Japan and taught them about Buddhism, and shared culture.(Shilla was the first ones to share culture with Japan)
If the Japanese did not invade Korea for - 36years, and other countries had cared more, the Koreans wouldn't have been known as having no origins of culture.(The Japanese had massive destruction when they invaded the peninsula- and that's when lots of the evidence got destroyed- and some stolen reamains in Japan privately collected and passed on through generations unknown that is is not from Japan- is mistakenly recognised as Japanese remains.)

I don't think itsa myth really..really. Need to stick to the point-

It's true - what KoreanTiger said.

[Tease T Tickle]

Give it up kid, and stop believing everything you read.

[Stazzy]

Originally Posted by Tease T Tickle

Give it up kid, and stop believing everything you read.

Yeah, seriously. You need to learn to only trust credible sources like television infromercials.

[Hengest]

Originally Posted by mjeon

[Britain invaded lots of countries, and stole lots of stuff. And also they were a big country.

Ever looked at an atlas, at all?

[Tease T Tickle]

I looked at an atlas once. Then I took a marker to shade all of Britain's colonies.

They were kind of a big country.

[Hengest]

I think you're confusing "country" and "empire" Tease. But, in all fairness, that seems to be a common misunderstanding amongst your countrymen.

[Tease T Tickle]

all nations aspire to empire. except maybe costa rica.

[Gazelle]

I just looked up 'nation' on wiki...

The members of a nation are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.
That doesn't work for being 'British' anymore, nor with anyother nationality that has a fair amount of immigrants from some generation or other, which, would be pretty much everyone of them.

Anyway, i was looking it up before i made the off-hand comment of, 'depends who's running it and the individuals within it', but given what the definition of it could be - a collective group of people holding some sort of common trait, that is not neccesarily so.

Apologies, this rather a rambling post, probably worth being deleted.