Comparing pre-modern German/Korean history

Calling upon anybody who knows enough on European history.

Both Germany and Korea sit upon the crossroads of their respective regions. (Europe vs. East Asia)

Both Germany and Korea suffered massively from wars they had no control over(30 years war vs. Japanese/Qing invasions of Korea).

Yet by the late 18th century/early 19th century Germany leads Europe in the scientific revolution, etc while Korea lags behind the little renaissance-moment both China and Japan bask under.

For me the reasons why Korea struggled is pretty simple - it was ravaged by war, and it took centuries to recover.

But Germany also suffered massive casualties - the population was basically cut in half (afaik). Why didn't it also struggle to recover?
 
Calling upon anybody who knows enough on European history.

Both Germany and Korea sit upon the crossroads of their respective regions. (Europe vs. East Asia)

Both Germany and Korea suffered massively from wars they had no control over(30 years war vs. Japanese/Qing invasions of Korea).

Yet by the late 18th century/early 19th century Germany leads Europe in the scientific revolution, etc while Korea lags behind the little renaissance-moment both China and Japan bask under.

For me the reasons why Korea struggled is pretty simple - it was ravaged by war, and it took centuries to recover.

But Germany also suffered massive casualties - the population was basically cut in half (afaik). Why didn't it also struggle to recover?
Well, I'd say that Germany just had so much more natural resources and relative population than Korea. Germany was coveted for its resources, while Korea was a strategic position more than an economic powerhouse.
 
Well, I'd say that Germany just had so much more natural resources and relative population than Korea. Germany was coveted for its resources, while Korea was a strategic position more than an economic powerhouse.

Korea has a lot of good quality coal and iron (particularly in the north).
 
Well, Germany didn't recover all that quickly, I don't think. The Thirty Year's War ended in 1648, but while Frederick the Great allowed Prussia to punch above its weight for a while, I don't think they really became a Great Power until after Napoleon. As for scientific advances, I'm guessing that that has to do with better education in Germany compared to Korea, which from what I know was held back by Confucist dogma and obstructive bureaucracy. The more fundamental issue is that Korea didn't see a population boom until the 20th Century, for whatever reason, so in that respect they were way behind the Germans. Other than that, Germany probably just had better luck and better institutions - those, combined with the population issue make a big difference.
 
Id argue that the reasons are not cultural as much as it was simple economics. Do note Germany had access to the potato, which is an incredibly productive food crop that helps guarantee food security and supports larger populations. Just like civ, a state's strength is built around their food production.

Here Is a paper discussing the decline of Korea after the Imjin war. It covers variety of reasons for the decline of Korea, including a fall in rice production and subsequent deforestation of the country, causing economic contraction similar to the decline of the late Qing dynasty.

Other notable reasons include the trade deficits of Korea increasing as silver imports from Japan fell (due to Japanese domestic production of silk and ginseng increasing) even while imports of silk and fur from China increased.

Thr decline of state granaries that provided famine relief and security for peasants, along with growing tax rates on the dwindling rice production, also led to the mass peasant rebellions of the 19th century. While not as devastating as the Taiping rebellion, it still prevented the state from stabilizing the economy.
 
Korea has a lot of good quality coal and iron (particularly in the north).
But it wasn't industrialized, Germany was. Plus, Germany was a bunch of disunited states; Prussia could stand up to the other great powers of Europe far better than Korea could beat the Qing or Japan.
 

samcster94

Banned
Germany, especially 2nd Reich, also had more cultural incentive to dominate than Korea given Germany is far bigger and had hostile neighbors. Korea essentially fought a medieval Korean War with the analog to North Korea winning due to Chinese help.
 
One thing to consider is that Germany had some sort of authority with the Holy Roman Empire, while Joseon had to stick to "Sojunghwa" in the face of the much larger Qing. Basically, there was room for competition in Germany, but not in Joseon.
 
Germany was divided following during and before the 30 years war while Korea was united. The various states competed against each other and interacted with its neighbours while Korea had only two neighbours.
 
Germany was actually really backwards and impoverished (by the standards of Western Europe) until the second half of the 19th century. They just had a large population base and were able to adapt French/British innovations and improve upon them once they developed their own large intellectual class.

And obviously the OP is Korean and would know better than me but I'm led to believe that Korea wasn't actually that backwards by East Asian standards. They had a relatively advanced society but lagged institutionally behind Japan who industrialized first and conquered them before they could take off.
 
I wouldn't characterize Germany as a crossroads post Fall of Rome. Scandinavians and Slavs rarely passed through it- indeed, the Germans continued to expand their range beyond the Rhine and the Elbe for centuries. Rather, all conflict was internal, meaning there was an upper limit of possible destruction.
 
Id argue that the reasons are not cultural as much as it was simple economics. Do note Germany had access to the potato, which is an incredibly productive food crop that helps guarantee food security and supports larger populations. Just like civ, a state's strength is built around their food production.

Here Is a paper discussing the decline of Korea after the Imjin war. It covers variety of reasons for the decline of Korea, including a fall in rice production and subsequent deforestation of the country, causing economic contraction similar to the decline of the late Qing dynasty.

Other notable reasons include the trade deficits of Korea increasing as silver imports from Japan fell (due to Japanese domestic production of silk and ginseng increasing) even while imports of silk and fur from China increased.

Thr decline of state granaries that provided famine relief and security for peasants, along with growing tax rates on the dwindling rice production, also led to the mass peasant rebellions of the 19th century. While not as devastating as the Taiping rebellion, it still prevented the state from stabilizing the economy.

I agree wholeheartedly that the potato was vital to European food security and population growth.

I also feel it could be a fairly simple affair to get the potato to Korea.

OTL, the potato was only introduced to Korea in the early nineteenth century, while neighboring China got it in the 1600s. This was at the same time that the potato was reaallyy taking off in Europe, and it was introduced there in the 1500s.

If you can get a European power to have a Dejima-style trading post in Korea, or something mirroring the relationship between Portugal and Japan, you could probably have Korean potatoes by the early-mid 1600s.

That would really help Korean population growth, particularly in the most important nineteenth century.
 
Top