고구려 광개토왕(廣開土王)의 백제 정벌(征伐)이 가진 의미에 대하여 -392년~394년을 중심으로-

신정훈 대한정치학회 2011 大韓政治學會報 Vol.19 No.2

King Gwanggaeto of Goguryo had a battle with Baekje between 392 A.D. and 394 A.D. This paper analyzed several combats between Goguryo and Baekje correlated with North China and Mongol area. In that time, Later-Yan and Northern Wei became emerging countries in North China and Mongol area. In 385 A.D., Goguryo had a war with Later-Yan for taking Yodong. In this battle, Goguryo was defeated by Later-Yan. There was plenty of natural resources such as iron in Yodong. At that time, the iron was fundamental element in the military forces and economic power in the nation. So it was vital to take possession of the Yodong to Goguryo. After the war between Goguryo and Later-Yan, both countries became potential enemies for each other. From 392 A.D∼to 394 A.D., Later-Yan against with Northern Wei and took a control of Geakso and Western Yan. And Later-Yan raise an large scale army to capture Sandong. It seems that only small defense troops of Later-Yan stationed in Yodong. As the unstable condition of North China, King Gwanggaeto should have invaded in Yodong area. In that time, King Gwanggaeto blitzed Baekje. Through the invasion, Goguryo took 10 castles and a castle of Goanmi in strategic point in this era. If King Gwanggaeto had invaded in Yodong, Later-Yan would have attacked Goguryo. Under these circumstances, Goguryo had to raise the tomahawk with Later-Yan and Baekje. On this reason, Goguryo did not attack Yodong. Therefore, King Gwanggaeto's attack on Baekje came from serious consideration on Later-Yan from 392 A.D. to 394 A.D. Goguryo was surrounded by hostile countries such as Later-Yan and Baekje. Later-Yan and Baekje would have attacked on Goguryo by pincer movement. In fact, King Gwanggaeto had to meet the situation by pincer movement. Therefore King Gwanggaeto attacked Baekje in 392 A.D. Through the invasion, Goguryo made military forces of Baekje weaker. Under these circumstances, Goguryo could prepare for emergencies efficiently. In conclusion, King Gwanggaeto's policy toward Baekje was a consideration of the situation among North China and Mongol area from 392 A.D.∼to 394 A.D. 고구려의 광개토왕은 392년~394년에 백제와 공방을 벌였다. 이 연구는 고구려와백제의 공방을 북중국⋅몽골 지역의 정세와 연관시켜 분석하였다. 이 시기에 북중국과 몽골 지역에서는 후연과 북위 등이 각축하고 있었다. 그런데 앞 시기인 385년에, 고구려는 요동지역을 차지하려고 후연과 전투를 하였으나 패하였다. 이 지역에는 풍부한 철이 매장되어 있었다. 철은 군사력과 경제력의 기초가 된다는 점에서 고구려에게 요동지역의 확보는 긴요한 것이었다. 385년부터 두 나라는 잠재적인 적대국으로 국경을 접하며, 394년까지 정치적⋅외교적 접촉을 하지 않았다. 후연은 392년 무렵부터 394년까지, 북위와 대립하며 적소집단과 서연을 멸망시켰다. 그리고 산동을 점령하려고 대규모의 군대를 동원하였다. 이때 후연이 점령한 요동지역에는 방어병력만 주둔하고 있었다고 판단된다. 그러나 광개토왕은 요동지역을 공격하지 않았다. 그는 이 때, 백제 지역에 대해 전격적이고도 단기간에 걸친 공격을 단행해 10개의 성을 빼앗았다. 그리고 백제의 요새인 관미성을 함락시켰다. 광개토왕이 이 시기에 요동을 공략했다면, 후연은 그 군사적인 예봉을 고구려로 돌렸을 것이다. 그렇게 된다면 고구려는 후연⋅백제와의 양면전쟁을 해야만 된다. 이것이 고구려가 요동을 공략하지 않은 주된 이유였다. 그러므로 광개토왕이 392년~394 년에 행한 백제에 대한 공략은 후연을 의식한 것이었다. 적대국인 후연과 백제에 둘러싸여 있던 고구려는 양면에서 협공을 받은 위험이 있었다. 광개토왕은 협공을 받을 경우에 효율적으로 대처해야만 했다. 광개토왕이 392년에 대군을 동원해 백제를 공략한 것은 후연 보다 약한 군사력을 가진 백제를 더욱 약화시키려는 데 있었다. 이렇게 될 때, 고구려는 협공을 받게 되는 최악의 경우에도 효율적으로 대처할 수 있다. 광개토왕이 392년~394년에 행한 백제에 대한 정책은 한반도와 북중국 지역, 몽골의 정세를 감안한 것이었다.

高句麗 遺民 高提昔 墓誌銘에 대한 연구

Kim, Young-Kwan(金榮官) 백산학회 2013 白山學報 Vol.- No.97

이 논문은 고구려 유민 高提昔 墓誌銘의 내용을 검토한 것이다. 그 결과 문헌에서는 찾을 수 없는 새로운 고구려인의 삶에 대해 알 수 있었고, 고구려 말기의 시대적 상황에 대해서도 살펴볼 수 있었다. 고제석은 649년에 태어나 674년에 26세를 일기로 짧은 생을 마감한 고구려 유민이었다. 그의 선조는 증조부 高伏仁이 水境城 道使와 遼東城 大首領을 지내는 등 고구려의 유력한 귀족 출신이었다. 그러나 645년에 조부 高支于가 당군에 투항하였고, 이후 당에 들어가 관리가 되었다. 부친인 高文恊은 당의 수도 장안성 부근의 高陵府에서 무장으로 활약하였다. 고제석은 국내성 출신임을 내세웠지만, 실제로 당에서 태어나고 자랐다. 그리고 고구려 멸망 후 당으로 이주하여 무장으로 활동하던 고구려 출신의 泉氏 가문으로 시집을 가 장안에서 살았다. 한편, 고구려가 이미 멸망한 뒤인 674년에 작성된 묘지명에 고구려 國內城 출신임을 내세웠다든지, 고구려 출신 泉氏 가문과 혼인 관계를 맺는 것을 보면, 선조가 당에 투항한 것은 자의적인 것이 아니라는 점을 드러내고자 한 것으로 보인다. 이는 고구려 말기 당과의 치열한 공방전 과정에서 운명이 엇갈린 고구려 지배층의 동향을 이해하는 단서가 된다. 묘지명에 기록된 수경성, 요동성 등의 지명과 道使, 大相, 大首領과 같은 관직명 등은 고구려사 이해를 북돋우는 실증적인 자료이고, 국내성을 출신지로 내세우는 고씨 가문의 존재는 고구려 말기 귀족집단의 세력기반을 이해하는데 유용한 사례이다. This paper introduces the epitaph tablet of Gojeseok(高提昔), one of the former Goguryo people(37 B.C.E.∼668 C.E.). This epitaph reveals the life of the Goguryo people, who have not been known from historical documents, and gives a brief understanding on the historical circumstance in the late Goguryo period. Gojeseok, a daughter of one of the former Goguryo people, lived a short life having been born in 649 and died in 674 C.E. She was actually born in Tang China and had grown up there, even though it is written on the epitaph that she was from the walled city Guknae(Guknaeseong, 國內城), today's Ji'an(集安) in the Jilin province (吉林省), China, capital of the early Goguryo. She married a man of the Cheon clan(泉氏), which was also originally from Goguryo, but worked as a military official after moving to Tang(唐) upon the fall of Goguryo, and lived in Chang'an(長安). Her ancestor was a member of the influential high class of Goguryo. For example, her great grandfather, Gobogin(高伏仁), was Dosa(道使) of the walled city Sugyeong(Sugyeongseong, 水境城), and Great Suryeong(大首領) of the walled city Yodong(Yodongseong, 遼東城). When Tang emperor Taizong(太宗, 599-649 C.E.) invaded Goguryo in person, Gojiwoo(高支于), grandfather of Gojeseok, surrendered to the Tang military, moved to Tang China and served as a Tang official there. Her father Gomunhyeop(高文恊) served as a military of official in Gaoling(高陵) prefecture near Chang'an, today's Xi'an(西安). These accounts about her ancestors present the fact that the Go clan fled from Goguryo into Tang China. Even though this epitaph was made in 674 C.E. after Goguryo fell, it records that Jeseok was from Guknaeseong. Furthermore, she married into the Cheon clan, which was originally from Goguryo. These facts seem to be written in order to emphasize that her ancestor's surrender to Tang was not their own intention. This circumstance can be a clue, which allows us to understand Goguryo upper class while they fought with the Tang in the late Goguryo period. Place names such as Sugyeongseong and Yodongseong, and official titles such as Dosa, Daesang, and Daesuryeong documented on the epitaph could be factual data that help understand the history of Goguryo ; the presence of Go clan, which declared they were from Guknaeseong. This should provide useful data through which we can understand the background of high classes in the late Goguryo Kingdom.

高句麗의 對外戰爭과 騎兵戰術 : 특히 漢族과의 전쟁을 중심으로

李弘斗(Yi, Hong-Du) 백산학회 2004 白山學報 Vol.- No.68

Wars in Goguryo and its cavalry soldier strategy can be divided into two phases. Namely, Goguryo-Huhan wars from 28 to 209 and in Goguryo-Jowi wars from 239 to 259. In Goguryo-Huhan wars, Goguryo mainly won the games but in Goguryo-Jowi wars two nations showed a similar rate of winning and losing. It was because the main force of Huhan was a lightweight vehicle and they did not have the saddle, but the main force Jowi were cavalry soldiers. Goguryo responded to Huhan’s ‘Fast Attack, Quick Win’ with ‘Castle Keeping’. If we classify the ‘Castle Keeping’ strategy into ‘First Attack’ and ‘Last Battle’, the cavalry soldier strategy of Goguryo would fall into ‘Last Battle’. It is the strategy to focus on defense until the enemy’s retreat and chase them with cavalry soldiers when the enemy retreats. It was used by Eulpaso when Yodong Taesu made an enveloping attack on Winaum Castle in 28. Myeongrimdapbu used this strategy in 172 to retreat the enemy, too. At that time, Hunan forces enveloped the castle and used ‘Fast Attack, Quick Win’ and Myeongrimdapbu made all the people in Jugun stay in the castle and attacked Huhan forces with cavalry soldiers when the enemies were tired. He achieved a big success in Jwawon. The wars between Goguryo and Jowi began with the attack of Wi. It attacked north and south of Goguryo in February, 246. The wars can be divided into the first one, where Goguryo defeated Gwangugeom, and the second one, where King Dongcheon was defeated by Gwangugeom. In the first war, Goguryo killed 3,000 Wi soldiers with 20,000 cavalry soldiers, and killed or captured 3,000 soldiers in Yangmaekjigok. Although King Dongcheon chased them with 5,000 cavalry soldiers Gwangugeom defeated Goguryo cavalry soldiers by implementing battle arrays and attacked for ambush with archeries. At that time Wi forces had enhanced battle capabilities enough to make cooperative tactics with cavalry soldiers, while Goguryo made a hasty attack without support from infantrymen. Therefore, Goguryo was defeated by Wi. In this war 18,000 Goguryo soldiers were killed and the surviving 1,000 soldiers retreated with King Dongcheon. In the second war, Gwangugeom chased King Dongcheon after winning Hwando Castle in October. King Dongcheon met the biggest crisis in Jukryeong. Miru delayed the chasing with a death defying corps with cavalry soldiers and Yuyu killed the enemy officer. Thanks to those two patriots Goguryo could defeat Wi soldiers. They could win finally because Goguryo had ‘Gwahama’ that was familiar with mountainous terrain, and they had good cavalry soldiers and archeries who could shoot even on horse back. Additionally, they had plenty of food. We could confirm that the ‘Dongbukgongjeong’ project was highly distorted to include Goguryo in Chinese History through the differentiation of cavalry soldiers between Goguryo and China.

고구려 광개토왕(廣開土王)의 백제 정벌(征伐)이 가진 의미에 대하여 -392년~394년을 중심으로-

신정훈 ( Jung Hoon Shin ) 대한정치학회 2011 大韓政治學會報 Vol.19 No.2

고구려의 광개토왕은 392년~394년에 백제와 공방을 벌였다. 이 연구는 고구려와 백제의 공방을 북중국·몽골 지역의 정세와 연관시켜 분석하였다. 이 시기에 북중국과 몽골 지역에서는 후연과 북위 등이 각축하고 있었다. 그런데 앞 시기인 385년에, 고구려는 요동지역을 차지하려고 후연과 전투를 하였으나 패하였다. 이 지역에는 풍부한 철이 매장되어 있었다. 철은 군사력과 경제력의 기초가 된다는 점에서 고구려에게 요 동지역의 확보는 긴요한 것이었다. 385년부터 두 나라는 잠재적인 적대국으로 국경을 접하며, 394년까지 정치적·외교적 접촉을 하지 않았다. 후연은 392년 무렵부터 394년까지, 북위와 대립하며 적소집단과 서연을 멸망시켰다. 그리고 산동을 점령하려고 대규모의 군대를 동원하였다. 이때 후연이 점령한 요동지역에는 방어병력만 주둔하고 있었다고 판단된다. 그러나 광개토왕은 요동지역을 공격하지 않았다. 그는 이 때, 백제 지역에 대해 전격적이고도 단기간에 걸친 공격을 단행해 10개의 성을 빼앗았다. 그리고 백제의 요새인 관미성을 함락시켰다. 광개토왕이 이 시기에 요동을 공략했다면, 후연은 그 군사적인 예봉을 고구려로 돌렸을 것이다. 그렇게 된다면 고구려는 후연·백제와의 양면전쟁을 해야만 된다. 이것이 고구려가 요동을 공략하지 않은 주된 이유였다. 그러므로 광개토왕이 392년~394년에 행한 백제에 대한 공략은 후연을 의식한 것이었다. 적대국인 후연과 백제에 둘러싸여 있던 고구려는 양면에서 협공을 받은 위험이 있었다. 광개토왕은 협공을 받을 경우에 효율적으로 대처해야만 했다. 광개토왕이 392년에 대군을 동원해 백제를 공략한것은 후연 보다 약한 군사력을 가진 백제를 더욱 약화시키려는 데 있었다. 이렇게 될때, 고구려는 협공을 받게 되는 최악의 경우에도 효율적으로 대처할 수 있다. 광개토왕이 392년~394년에 행한 백제에 대한 정책은 한반도와 북중국 지역, 몽골의 정세를 감안한 것이었다. King Gwanggaeto of Goguryo had a battle with Baekje between 392 A.D. and 394 A.D. This paper analyzed several combats between Goguryo and Baekje correlated with North China and Mongol area. In that time, Later-Yan and Northern Wei became emerging countries in North China and Mongol area. In 385 A.D., Goguryo had a war with Later-Yan for taking Yodong. In this battle, Goguryo was defeated by Later-Yan. There was plenty of natural resources such as iron in Yodong. At that time, the iron was fundamental element in the military forces and economic power in the nation. So it was vital to take possession of the Yodong to Goguryo. After the war between Goguryo and Later-Yan, both countries became potential enemies for each other. From 392 A.D∼to 394 A.D., Later-Yan against with Northern Wei and took a control of Geakso and Western Yan. And Later-Yan raise an large scale army to capture Sandong. It seems that only small defense troops of Later-Yan stationed in Yodong. As the unstable condition of North China, King Gwanggaeto should have invaded in Yodong area. In that time, King Gwanggaeto blitzed Baekje. Through the invasion, Goguryo took 10 castles and a castle of Goanmi in strategic point in this era. If King Gwanggaeto had invaded in Yodong, Later-Yan would have attacked Goguryo. Under these circumstances, Goguryo had to raise the tomahawk with Later-Yan and Baekje. On this reason, Goguryo did not attack Yodong. Therefore, King Gwanggaeto`s attack on Baekje came from serious consideration on Later-Yan from 392 A.D. to 394 A.D. Goguryo was surrounded by hostile countries such as Later-Yan and Baekje. Later-Yan and Baekje would have attacked on Goguryo by pincer movement. In fact, King Gwanggaeto had to meet the situation by pincer movement. Therefore King Gwanggaeto attacked Baekje in 392 A.D. Through the invasion, Goguryo made military forces of Baekje weaker. Under these circumstances, Goguryo could prepare for emergencies efficiently. In conclusion, King Gwanggaeto`s policy toward Baekje was a consideration of the situation among North China and Mongol area from 392 A.D.∼to 394 A.D.

百濟 枕流王ㆍ辰斯王代의 정국과 高句麗의 동향

신정훈(Shin, Jung-Hoon) 백산학회 2011 白山學報 Vol.- No.90

In the time of the Goguryo, the second year of King Gogukyang, took the possession of Yodong and Hyunto with forty thousand troops. At that time, one of the enemies of Goguryo, Baekje, was in political difficulty. There was acceptance and disagreement about Buddhism in King Chimryu between 384 A.D. and 385 A.D. Goguryo tried to advance to Yodong and Hyunto by using of instability of the political situation of Baekje. Goguryo and Baekje felt in rival relationship after the death of King Gogukwon during the battle in 371 A.D. Between 384 A.D. and 385 A.D. Goguryo had enough power to invade Baekje. Goguryo, however, took Yodong and Hyunto. The reason of the dispute in the area of North China, Goguryo concluded that it was easier to take Yodong and Hyunto rather than invading Baekje. The second reason of the occupation of Yodong, there was a plenty of natural resources such as iron. Goguryo also thought that they had superior power on military and economy against Baekje. Goguryo, however, was taken away Yodong and Hyunto by Later-Yan in nobember of 385 A.D. This means that Goguryo had not established the superiority in the against Later-Yan in the military power. Meanwhile, Goguryo hold Silsung as a hostage in spring of 392 A.D. Silsung was royal family in Silla. Soon Goguryo made massive attacks on Baekje. Goguryo took 10 castles from Baekje. Through friendly relationship with Silla, Goguryo concentrated on attacking Baekje. The crown prince of King Chimryu in Baekje was Ashin. King Jinsa, however, occupied the place of the throne in 385 A.D. King Jinsa was uncle of Ashin. King Jinsa built forts to prevent the Goguryo from entering into Baekje in 386 A.D. King Jinsa also took a castle of Dogon in Goguryo. Soon those political military success, however, fell into downturn. King Jinsa rebuilt the royal chambers in 391 A.D. He dug a pond and made a mountain. The subjects in Baekje had to offer organized labor. Therefore King Jinsa lost the support of the public. Moreover Ashin became a grown-up man in 391 A.D. Ashin gathered support against King Jinsa in those days. Baekje was deprived of 10 castles by Goguryo troops in 392 A.D. Moreover Baekje lost a castle of Goanmi in strategic point. Goguryo prevailed over Baekje in the military power. The victory of Goguryo was due to the political instability in Baekje.

최근 중국 학계의 고구려 전쟁사 연구

정동민(Jung, Dong-Min) 국방부 군사편찬연구소 2017 군사 Vol.- No.102

This article tries to identify trend of research of Chinese academics related to the war history of Goguryo by introducing achievements of Chinese academics in the war history of Goguryo after 2007 when Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was completed, reviewing its perception on Goguryo, and reviewing and analyzing new or noticeable opinions in Chinese academics. The perception of Chinese academics on Goguryo, which is was a local government of China, that an ethnic minority established was shown intact in Goguryo war history related researches after 2007 when the project of Dongbuk-Gongjung was finished. Chinese academics addressed that Goguryo was controlled by Hyundo-gun because of military inferiority since it was first founded and thus relation of ‘Shinsok (臣屬)’ was maintained. While explaining Goguryo’s occupation of Liaodong area in the early 5century as replacement of local government officials from Chinese dynasty by Goguryo as a local government administrator who rendered liege service and homage to Bei-Wei and received an appointment title, it addresses that Goguryo was a local government of China from Han to the Period of North and South Dynasties according to 臣屬體制論 and 朝貢冊封論. Such perception continues in researches on war history between Goguryo and Sui and Tang Dynasties. They tried to find the cause of war from implementation of the Chinese world order such as Fan-shu(蕃屬) system theory and installation system theory and strongly addressed that Goguryo was a local government of central Chinese Dynasty. The same trend is shown in military related researches. They did not show military competencies of Goguryo but highlighted its military inferiority to Chinese Dynasty. Through this, they emphasized that Goguryo was a local government controlled by Central Chinese Dynasty. When reviewing military related researches in Goguryo war history, it is found that they tried to expand research directions with various themes. However, they could not escape from flat summary simply enumerating historical facts when they explained war performance process. To break this, it is needed to actively use archaeological excavation achievements in addition to new historical records. If we can combine existing literal records and archaeological materials organically, it will help us to understand unit organization, weapon system and defense system as well as battle performance processes more concretely. On the other hand there are some perception difference between Korean academics and Chinese academics such as Imnailbonbu theory. To overcome such perception gap, active academic exchanges between Korean academics and Chinese academics are required.

고구려 주몽왕의 계보와 건국 장소 및 시점 -『삼국사기』와 『호태왕비문』, 『고려본기』, 『환단고기』-

박병섭 ( Byoung Shup Park ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2009 선도문화 Vol.7 No.-

주몽의 건국 시점과 장소는 (1) 처음에 서기전 85년 엄리대수에서 건국했고(호태왕비문≒고려본기≒환단고기, 삼성기전 상), (2) 이어 서기전 40년 모둔곡에서 건국[성장]을 했고(고자비문), (3) 서기전 37년에 비류수변에서 졸본부여제국을 계승해서 건국(『삼국사기』 『고구려본기』≒『호태왕비문』≒『고려본기』≒『환단고기』 『고구려국본기』)했고, (4) 서기전 32년 아마 소서노와 결혼해서 건국했다(『日本書紀』≒『百濟書紀』). 주몽 2년에 송양의 비류국를 복속시키고 다물이라 한 이유는 북부여 천제의 수도인 구토를 천제의 자손으로서 회복했기 때문이다. 호태왕은 북부여 천제의 17세손인 것은 주몽에서 호태왕까지 13대손하고 해모수에서 주몽까기 4대손을 추가하면 17세손이다. (1) 금와왕이 (2) 주몽왕의 어머니 유화부인을 태후의 예로 장사하고 신묘를 모신 이유는 동부여 금와왕의 계보는 북부여기 상을 보면, (1-1) 북부여 단군 해모수(재위 45년; 37년)-(1-2) 2세 단군 모수리(재위 25년)-(1-3) 3세 단군 고해사(재위 34년)-(1-4) 4대 단군 고우루(재위 34년)와 아우 해부루-(1-5) 금와왕으로 북부여 단군 해모수의 5대손이고, 『환단고기, 고구려국본기 제6』에서 보면, (2) 주몽(=추모)왕의 계보는 (2-1) 북부여 천제, 해모수-(2-2) 고리국, 고진-(2-3) 고진의 자-(2-4) 고진의 손자, 옥저후 불리지-(2-5) 주몽의 계보이라, 이런 북부여 왕가계보에 근거하면 금와왕이 아버지 해부루(4대)와 동급형제항열의 고진의 손자 옥저후 불리지 고모수(4대)의 처로서 유화부인을 태후의 예로 장사하고 신묘에 모실 수 있다. Goguryo founder of Chiumong King are three stories: (1) Goguryo of Umlisu established in 85 B.C.(B.C. 85~B.C. 20) (Hotaewangbimun[The epitaph about Hotae king]≒National History of Goguryo, Samgukyusa≒Samseonggi (first of two volumes) of Handangogi.); (2) Goguryo of Modungok established in 40 B.C. (B.C. 40~B.C. 20) (Gozabimun[The epitaph about Goza]); (3) Goguryo of Bilusu established in 37 B.C.(B.C. 37~B.C. 20)(Goguryeo of Samguksagi≒Hotaewangbimun≒Nation History of Goguryo, Samgukyusa≒Goguryeo of Handangogi.); (4) Goguryo of marriage Chiumong and Soseono established in 32 B.C.(B.C. 32~B.C. 20)(『日本書紀』Nihon shoki≒『百濟書紀』Baekieseogi) Chiumong King obtains territory of Bilu state at the very beginning of Goguryo established in 37 B.C., and called it Damul(that means re-obtained territory in 36 B.C.) as Haemosu`s a descendant because of old territory of North Buyeo`s Haemosu. Goguryo`s Hotae king is not the 17-th descendant of Goguryo`s Chiumong King but the 17-th descendant of North Buyeo`s Haemosu King by Hotaewangbimun (≒North Buyeo, Handangogi). (1) Kimwa[Golden Frog] King treats (2) Chiumong King`s mother[Uywha] as his mother(Goguryeo of Samguksagi) because Genealogy Of Kimwa is (1-1) Heaven King of North Buyeo, Haemosu, (1-2) 2rd Dangun Mosuri, (1-3) 3rd Dangun Gohaesa, (1-4) 4rd Dangun Gowuru and his father Haeburu, (1-5) 5rd Kimwa King(North Buyeo, Handangogi) and Genealogy Of Chiumong King is (2-1) Heaven King of North Buyeo, Haemosu, (2-2) Goli King, Gojin, (2-3) Gojin`s son, (2-4) Gojin`s grand son, Okje King Buligi≒Heaven King`s descendant, Haemosu, (2-5) Chiumong King(Goguryo, Handangogi).

고구려와 중국의 초기 使臣往來 기사 분석-漢・魏・吳를 중심으로-

박승범 신라사학회 2018 新羅史學報 Vol.0 No.44

The historical records of Goguryo and Han・Cao Wei, Sun Wu suggest that the following; 1. Goguryo and Han had 23 contacts, mainly in Xuantu Commandery. Goguryo and Han wanted to carry out its interests through war rather than diplomatic efforts, irrespective of the tributary appointment relationship. 2. There were 14 contacts between Goguryo and Cao Wei・Sun Wu. Goguryo was more active than Cao Wei, but Sun-Wu was more active than Goguryo. 3. The intention of Goguryo to advance into Xuantu Commandery was made possible by Goguryo taking the initiative. 4. The contact between Sun Wu and Goguryo was not realized by containment of Cao Wei. During this process, the envoys of both countries were either interned or killed. It can be seen that the international situation in East Asia during this period was very urgent. 5. Goguryo's official rank of dispatched envoys were at least Jowue(皁衣). Considering that the rank of Sun Wu's an official rank of envoys was at least 5~6, it is very low. It was an inevitable step taken by Goguryo that navigation skills and maritime information were low. On the other hand, the receipt of diplomatic documents was handled by Jubu(主簿) of the king's aides. It shows that Goguryo recognized the importance of foreign policy toward China. 6. Goguryeo has been in long-standing diplomatic contact with China since its founding, and diplomatic documentary administration took place at the earliest of the second century. 고구려와 후한 시기부터 曹魏와 孫吳 등 중국 세력의 사신왕래 기록을 통해 다음과 같은 사항들을 확인할 수 있었다. 첫째, 고구려와 한나라는 군현을 중심으로 총 23차례의 접촉이 있었다. 후한과의 사신왕래는 조공-책봉체제와 무관하게 양측이 자국의 이익을 외교적 노력보다는 전쟁을 통해 관철하고자 하였다. 둘째, 魏吳와 고구려 사이에는 모두 14회의 접촉이 있었다. 조위보다는 고구려가 보다 적극적이었으나, 손오의 경우 고구려보다 더 적극적이었다. 셋째, 현도군 방향으로 진출하려는 고구려의 의도는 고구려가 주도권을 갖게 됨으로써 가능하였다. 넷째, 손오와 고구려의 접촉은 조위의 견제로 실현되지 못했다. 이 과정에서 양국의 사신은 억류되거나 살해되었다. 이 시기 동아시아 국제 정세가 매우 긴박했음을 알 수 있다. 다섯째, 고구려의 사신파견 관원의 관등은 최소 皁衣였다. 손오 사신의 관등이 최소 5~6등급이었다는 점을 고려하면 매우 낮은 관등이다. 항해기술이나 해양 정보가 어두웠을 고구려가 취한 불가피한 조치였다. 반면 외교문서의 수발은 近侍 관등인 主簿가 담당하였다. 고구려가 대중국 교섭의 중요성을 인지했음을 보여준다. 여섯째, 고구려는 건국 이래 중국과 오랜 외교적 접촉을 해왔으며, 외교문서행정은 늦어도 2세기 초부터 행해졌다.

장수왕대 고구려의 對中外交와 그 動因

최일례(Choi, Il-rye) 한국고대사학회 2013 韓國古代史硏究 Vol.0 No.71

본 논문은 장수왕대 외교의 방향을 살핌으로써 그에 부응했던 세력들을 설명하고자 하였다. 장수왕대 對中外交의 추이는 크게 3시기로 구분할 수 있었다. 장수왕 전기는(즉위~27년) 남북조와 고르게 외교하였다. 장수왕 중기는(28~49년) 북위와 외교를 단절한 채 송과만 외교하였다. 장수왕 후기는(50~79년) 북위와 더 중점적으로 외교하였다. 장수왕은 평양세력의 협력 아래 평양으로 천도하였고(427), 남북조와 고르게 외교하였다. 이후 북연이 멸망하자 북연민을 영입하였다(436). 이는 고구려의 전세를 강화하여 특히 백제를 강하게 압박할 수 있는 군사력이 되었다. 그러나 고구려가 북연민을 영입했던 사건은 한편으로는 북위와의 갈등을 초래하였다. 이후 고구려는 북위와 단절한 채 송과만 외교하였고 이 시기 신라가 고구려를 압박할 정도로 성장해갔다. 광개토왕의 남정 이후 고구려에 줄곧 종속적인 관계를 유지했던 신라가 급기야는 실직의 들판에서 사냥하던 고구려의 변장을 살해하는 사건마저 발생하였다(450). 얼마 후 고구려는 신라의 북변을 침입하였고(454) 신라 또한 축성 등을 하면서 적극적인 공격태세를 갖추어 나갔다. 신라의 성장은 고구려 내부에서 대송외교에 반대하여 대북위외교를 지지하는 세력의 입장을 강화시켜 주었던 듯하다. 이후 장수왕은 북위와의 외교를 재개하였고(462), 얼마 후 북위가 고구려에 국혼을 제의하였다(466). 비록 고구려와 북위가 국혼에 합의하지는 못했지만 이를 통해 친북위세력의 존재를 확인하였다. 장수왕 60년을 기점으로 고구려는 북위에 보내는 공물의 양을 이전의 배로 하였고, 북위 또한 이에 대한 보답을 조금 늘렸다(472). 그런데 바로 이 시기, 개로왕이 북위에 보낸 국서에는 고구려 내부가 극도로 혼란했고 심지어는 권세있는 귀족과 호족들마저 숙청되었다고 한다. 공교롭게도 장수왕 50년 북위외교가 재개되었고, 점차 북위에 치중해가는 시기에 행해진 숙청이었던 점에서 외교정책과 연관이 있을 것으로 짐작하였다. 그러한 맥락에서 시기별로 차이를 보이는 장수왕대 對中外交의 변화는 대외적인 조건과 그에 대한 대응을 둘러싼 고구려내 귀족세력의 동향과 관계가 깊었던 것으로 파악하였다. This study looked into the direction of diplomacy under the reign of King Jangsoo in Goguryo and explained the relevant powers. The transitions of diplomacy with China at that time was roughly categorized into three periods: In the early period of King Jangsoo’s reign(from his enthronement to his 27th year), Goguryo had a balanced diplomacy with the Northern and Southern Dynasties. In the middle period of King Jangsoo’s reign(from his 28th year to his 49th year), diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty stopped while that with the Song Dynasty was maintained. In the late period of King Jangsoo’s reign(from his 50th year to his 79th year), it focused on diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty. King Jangsoo moved the capital to Pyeongyang through cooperation with the powers there(427) and had equal diplomacy with both the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Then when North Yeon collapsed, he included its people in his country(436). This added military power to Goguryo and King Jangsoo could intensify pressure on the Baekje Kingdom. However, the strategy where Goguryo accepted people from the Northern Dynasty caused conflicts with the Northern Dynasty. Then Goguryo stopped diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty while maintaining diplomacy with the Song Dynasty while the Shilla Kingdom grew and exerted pressure on Goguryo. After King Gwanggaeto invaded the South, Shilla, which had been subordinate to Goguryo, even killed a commander of Goguryo who was hunting in a field(450). After a while, Goguryo invaded across the northern boundary of Shila(454) and Shila defended itself against this attack while constructing fortresses. It seemed that Shilla’s growth reinforced the positions of powers who advocated diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty while opposing diplomacy with the Song Dynasty. King Jangsoo resumed diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty(462) and after a while, the Northern Dynasty suggested a royal marriage to Goguryo(466). Even though they did not agree to the marriage, this confirmed the existence of powers friendly to the Northern Dynasty. With the 60th year of King Jangsoo’s reign as a base, Goguryo doubled payments to the Northern Dynasty, and the Northern Dynasty also increased its returns(472). However, at this time, in a national letter King Gaero sent to the Northern Dynasty, it was written that the political atmosphere of Goguryo was in disorder and the nobility and powerful families were reformed. Unexpectedly, diplomacy with the Northern Dynasty was resumed in the 50th year of the reign of King Jangsoo and in that the reform was performed in a period when diplomatic focus was inclined toward the Northern Dynasty, it is assumed that the reform was related with diplomatic policy. In such a context, changes in diplomacy with China under King Jangsoo’s reign were closely related with external conditions and Goguryo’s aristocratic trends.

신라(新羅) 서봉총(瑞鳳총)의 은합(銀盒) 연대(年代)와 그 축조시기(築造時期)에 대한 신검토 -역사적 맥락과 관련하여-

신정훈 ( Jung Hoon Shin ) 택민국학연구원 2014 국학연구론총 Vol.0 No.13

본 논문은 서봉총의 축조시기와 관련하여, 銀盒에 새겨진 延壽라는 연호와 辛卯라는 年干支에 주목하고자 한다. 연수라는 연호는 중국, 일본에서 사용된 예가 없다. 신묘년에 관해서는, 1) 391년(新羅奈勿尼師今36年, 高句麗故國壤王8年). 2) 451년 (新羅訥祗痲立干35年, 高句麗長壽王39年). 3) 511년(新羅智證王12年, 高句麗文咨王20年)으로 보는 견해가 있다. 그런데 1)의 391년은 고구려 고국양왕 8년이었다. 이 때, 고구려는 국가적인 법회를 열었고, 國社(社稷)를 세우고, 宗廟를 수리했다. 이로 보아, 서봉총에 매납된 은합은 고구려의 법회 또는 제사와 관련된 용도로 쓰였을 것이다. 따라서 연수라는 연호는 신묘라는 간지와 연관해 보면, 고구려 고국양왕의 것으로 생각된다. 이 때 고구려는 신라에 대해, 상위국으로 있었다. 이 점은 내 물왕대에 신라가 고구려에게 인질을 보낸 것에서 알 수 있다. 또한 내물왕의 뒤를 이은 실성왕의 즉위에는 고구려세력이 개입되어 있었다. 이러한 시대적 배경으로, 신라 내물왕과 실성왕 무렵에 고구려의 연호인 연수가 새겨진 은합이 서봉총에 매납되었다고 보인다. 그리고 은합에 새겨진 신묘 년이 2) 451년 (신라 눌지마립간35년, 고구려 장수왕 39년)과 3) 511년(신라 지증왕 12년, 고구려 문자왕 20년)이라는 설은 고구려와 신라의 관계로 보아 합리적이지 않다. 왜냐하면 이 때, 고구려와 신라는 적대적인 관계로 변화되어 있었기 때문이다. 이 시기에, 신라는 왕릉급 무덤인 서봉총에 고구려의 연호가 새겨진 은합을 귀중한 유물로 여겨 매납하지는 않았을 것이다. Main focus of this study is focusing on the carved two words, Younsu(延壽) and Sinmyo(辛卯), which could indicate the name of an era and chinese zodiac respectively and the study also focus on possible period of Seobong-chong(瑞鳳총)`s construction time with the words. Younsu and Sinmyo was carved in the bowl with lid silver(銀盒). Younsu was not used the name of an era of China and Japan. and there are several opinions about Sinmyo. There are three different opinions on Sinmyo. King Namul(奈勿王) 36 years in Silla(新羅) and king Gogukyang (故國壤王) 8 years in Goguryo(高句麗) is a first possible assumption of this time frame and this could be in A. D. 391. King Nulji(訥祗王) 35 years in Silla, and King Jangsu (長壽王) 39 years in Goguryo is second opinion of actual time of Sinmyo. and this could be in A. D. 451. King Jijung (智證王) 12 years in Silla, King Moonja(文咨王) 20 years in Goguryo is the other opinion of Sinmyo. and this could be in A D. 511. The first assumption, A. D. 391 was the same time of the king Gogukyang 8 years. At that time, Goguryo held the national Buddhist mass, established Guksa(國社) and repaired Jongmyo(宗廟) Through those facts, the bowl with lid silver, which was buried in Seobong-chong, could be used in the Buddhist mass or national sacrifice in this bout of Goguryo.. Therefore, Younsu as the name of an era could be used in King Gogugyang of Goguryo(高句麗). In those time of years, Silla was dependent on Goguryo. The assumption is based on the facts that King Namul of Silla had to send Sllsung(實聖) to Goguryo as a hostage and Goguryo intervened the accession of King silsung. Through the background of the times, Younsu was carved in the bowl with lid silver. which was buried in the period of King Namul or King silsung`s reign. The others two arguments of Sinmyo could belong to the year in A. D.451(King Nulji 35 years in Silla, King Jangsu 39 years in Goguryo) or in A. D. 551(King Jijung 12 years in Silla, King Moonja 20 years in Goguryo) could not be logical choices because of the hostility relationship between Silla and Goguryo. It assumes that Silla could not bury the bowl with lid silver of Goguryo as their valuable in their royal ancient tomb.