초록

AI-Helper

일반적으로 백제의 멸망을 의자왕의 실정으로 설명하고 있다. 하지만 660년에 있었던 백제가 멸망할 당시 백제와 나당연합군의 전쟁은 의자왕의 실정보다는 작전의 실패로 보인다. 당시 백제에서는 나당연합군이 서울쪽에서 모여 부여로 진격할 것이라는 예상을 하고 이에 대비한 작전을 수립하여 백제의 주력부대를 북쪽으로 올려 보냈다.

그러나 신라군과 당군은 이러한 작전이 아니라, 백제군이 모르게 별도로 행군하여 부여성의 남쪽에서 연합하여 백제의 수도인 사비성을 공격하였다. 그 결과 사비성에는 백제의 주력부대가 없어 계백은 북쪽에 올라가 있던 주력부대가 내려올 수 있는 시간을 벌기 위해서 5000명의 결사대를 이끌고 황산벌에 나가 싸울 수밖에 없었다. 즉 백제의 멸망은 의자왕의 잘못된 정책 때문이라기보다는 당시 전투에서 작전의 실패인 것이다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

It generally is accepted that the responsible for the fall of Baekje was in the misrule of the King Uija. But its fall caused by war between its and Silla-Tang allied forces was seen as tactics fail rather than misrule of the King Uija in 660 when Baekje fell into ruin, At that time, it was expected...

It generally is accepted that the responsible for the fall of Baekje was in the misrule of the King Uija. But its fall caused by war between its and Silla-Tang allied forces was seen as tactics fail rather than misrule of the King Uija in 660 when Baekje fell into ruin, At that time, it was expected that the allied forces would assemble in Seoul and advance to Buyeo, drew operational plans and sent the main force to the north. Contrary to its expectations, however, Silla and Tand forces marched separately in secret, gathered in the south of Buyeo-seong castle, and attacked Sabi-seong of its capital. As a result, it forced Kae-Back to lead to suicide squad of 5,000 and fight against an enemy in Hwangsanbul in order to gain time that its main forces could come down to Sabi-seong from which the forces were absent. In other words, it was on the road to collapse rather because of operations fail than because of the wrong policies of the King Uija at the time.

주제어