조선 槍術의 군사적 특성과『武藝圖譜通志』의 槍 武藝

최형국 국방부군사편찬연구소 2023 군사 Vol.- No.128

본 연구는 조선전기 창술의 군사적 위상과 활용 형태를 살펴보고, 임진왜란을 거치며 새롭게 조선군에 보급된 명군의 다양한 槍術에 대해 짚어본 글이다. 특히 조선 정조대 간행된 군사무예서인 『무예도보통지』에 수록된 長槍·竹長槍·旗槍·鎲鈀·騎槍·狼筅 등 6가지 창술의 기법상 특성과 진법 속에서의 움직임을 구체적으로 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 조선시대 槍이 갖는 무기사적 의미와 군사무예로서의 가치를 통시대적으로 파악하였다. 그 중 몇 가지를 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 조선의 守城軍은 기본적으로 槍手와 弓手를 각각 50명을 기본으로 하여 편제가 이뤄졌다. 중앙군의 경우도 국왕의 근접 시위에 방패군과 연동하여 창수를 가장 많이 배치하여 활용하였다. 둘째, 보병용 창검술이 모두 무과시험 과목에서 제외되어 창술의 발전을 기대하기 어려운 상황이지만, 무과시험 과목 중 騎槍이 유지되어 그나마 기본적인 흐름은 유지할 수 있었다. 셋째, 임진왜란이 발발하면서 조선의 전술 및 무기체계는 많은 변화를 겪었다. 일본군의 조총과 단병접전술을 가미한 전술을 극복하기 위하여 척계광이 정리한 『기효신서』에 담겨 있던 창검법을 조선 방식으로 정리하여 『무예제보』를 편찬하게 되었다. 넷째, 正祖14年(1790)에는 『무예도보통지』가 간행되었으며, 이 병서에 정리된 여섯 가지 창술은 長槍·竹長槍·旗槍·鎲鈀·騎槍·狼筅 등으로 각각 장단병기가 서로 상생하며 전술에 활용 가능하였다. This study investigated the military phase and utilization form of Joseon spearmanship. It also summarizes various Chinese spearmanship techniques that were newly popularized by the Joseon army after the Imjin War. In particular, I specifically looked at the usage characteristics of six spearmanship techniques such as Jangchang(長槍)·Jugjangchang(竹長槍)·Gichang(旗槍)·Dangpa(鎲鈀)·Gichang(騎槍)·Nangseon(狼筅) in 『Muyedobotongji』. Through this, we investigated the historical significance of the Joseon Dynasty spear. And I grasped the value as a military martial arts diachronically. It's take a look at some of them. First, the soldiers who guarded the fortresses of Joseon were basically composed of 50 spearmen and 50 archers each. In the case of the central army, the number of spear soldiers was the largest in conjunction with the number of shields for the king's close guard. Secondly, it was difficult to expect the development of Spear technic, because all Sword and spear for infantrymen was excluded from the exam subjects of military service. Only the cavalry spear was maintained among the military service examination subjects, the basic content was still maintained. Thirdly, with the outbreak of the Imjin War, Joseon tactics and weapon systems underwent many changes. They had to overcome the attack method of the Japanese army, which was a mixture of guns and close proximity tactics. Therefore, it was decided to compile 『Muyejebo』 by compiling the spear sword method contained in 『Gihyosinseo』 compiled by Cheoggyegwang(戚繼光) in the Joseon style. Fourthly, in the 14th year of King Jeongjo (1790), 『Muyedobotongji』 was published. The six spear techniques newly organized here could be used for tactics by coexisting with each other with spears of various lengths.

三國(古墳)時代 韓日武裝體系의 비교연구

김두철 영남고고학회 2011 嶺南考古學 Vol.- No.56

고대의 한반도와 일본열도 간에는 많은 교류관계가 이루어졌다. 고대 기록에는 그러한 관계중에 무력에 의한 충돌도 전한다. 광개토대왕 비문에 전하는 4세기말~5세기초의 기사는 현재도논란이 되고 있다. 일본에서는 이를 사실관계로 받아들여 당시의 정세를 해석하는 것이 정설로되어 있다. 무력충돌을 알기 위해서는 상호 간의 무장체계를 이해하는 것이 선행되어야 한다. 본고는 이 문제의 일단에 접근하고자 하였다. 이를 위해서 정량 분석의 방법을 취하였다. 그 결과, 한반도와 일본열도의 삼국(고분)시대에는 무장체계에 큰 차이가 있었다. 한마디로‘槍의 나라’와‘劍의 나라’로 구별하여 부를 수 있다. 長兵과 短兵은 전술운용에도 차이가 있다. 철생산이 늦었던 일본열도는 철이나 철기의 입수에 애로가 있었다. 영남지역에서는 有銎의 鐵鉾가 성행하였던 시기에 이미 시대 유행이 지난 단검을 이용한 劍과 鈹가 오래 동안 사용된다. 이러한현상은 한반도로부터의 무기수출의 통제가 없었다면 설명하기 힘들다. 점진적이었던 일본열도의 무장체계의 변화는 고분시대 중기중엽에 한반도로부터 마구, 찰갑 등등 새로운 체계를 받아들임으로써 변모한다. 그럼에도 短兵을 위주로 한 무장체계는 변하지 않고 후기에 더욱 自己化한다. 따라서 무장체계의 변화가 더디고 武器禁輸의 상황에 처했던 4세기말~5세기초에 정권차원의 군사원정이 있었다고 보는 시각은 지나친 해석이라고 판단된다. There were lots of exchanges between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands in ancient times. There were records of armed clash in those relations as well. An article at the end of 4th century~at the beginning of 5th century inscribed on the epitaph of the Great King GuangGaeTo has caused controversy so far. It is widely accepted that the situation at that time is analysed with taking this article as truth in Japan. A mutual armed system should be understood to discuss armed clash first of all. This paper try to approach to a part of this problem. A quantitative analysis was applied for this. As a result, there was a big difference between them in the armed system in Three Kingdoms -Gohun- Period. At a word, it is separated into "a country of a spear"and "a country of a sword". A long distance weapon and a short distance weapon makes a difference in tactics management as well. There were difficulties to get iron or ironware in the Japanese Islands because of late iron production. Swords and spears using an outdated dagger were used for a long time when spears with socket were popular in Yo u n g-na m a r e a. I t i s h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s s it u a t i o n w it h o u t c o nt r ol o f exportation o f arms f rom th e K orean Peninsula. The armed system in the Japan islands underwent changes by accepting a new system such as a harness, a lamellar armour from the Korean Peninsula in the middle of mid-Gohun Period, that used to be gradual. However the armed system mainly with short distance weapons did not change and naturalized in the latter part. It is impractical that there was a military expedition at the level of government at the end of 4th century~at the beginning of 5th century; at the time that the change of the arm ed sy stem was s low and th ey faced arms embargo.

한(韓),중(中),일(日) 장병무예(長兵武藝) 장창(長槍) 연구(硏究) -≪무예도보통지(武藝圖譜通志)≫,≪수비록(手臂錄)≫,≪민속화보(民俗畵譜)≫를 중심으로-

김산(SanKim),김주화(JooHwaKim),김창우(ChangWooKim),송일훈(IlHunSong) 한국체육학회 2008 한국체육학회지 Vol.47 No.6

이 연구에서는 한·중·일에 분포한 長槍 비교·분석을 통해 이에 관한 연결성 및 전통성 경로를 확인할 수 있었다. 이에 관한 다음과 같은 결론 도출을 얻었다. 첫째, 《紀效新書》의 영향을 받은 한국의 《武藝圖譜通志》와 중국의 《手臂錄》에서는 勢의 명칭이나 그림에서 그 유사성을 찾아 볼 수 있었다. 둘째, 일본의 《民俗畵譜》에 보이는 槍에 관한 내용에는 무슨 勢라는 기록은 없지만, 한국과 중국 서적의 여러 勢라고 추측할 수 있는 그림을 찾을 수 있었다. 셋째, 일본의 《民俗畵譜》에 보이는 그림에서 《武藝圖譜通志》의 "靑龍獻爪勢"를 운용하는 연속적인 신체기법 동작을 찾아 볼 수 있었다. 넷째, 일본의 《民俗畵譜》에 보이는 그림에서 같은 동작들을 사용했지만, 《武藝圖譜通志》의 "白猿拖刀勢"와 다른 운용방법을 사용하는 것을 찾을 수 있어 각 각의 독창성을 찾을 수 있었다. 지금까지 살펴본 연구 결과를 종합해 볼 때, 한·중·일의 長槍 무예에서 그 동질성을 찾아 볼 수 있었으며, 동시에 각 국의 그 문화적 유사성 및 독창성을 엿볼 수 있었다. 이를 통해 삼국의 무예연구에 있어 동양무예라는 동질감 속에서 상호간의 차이를 인정하면서 상대국가의 무예를 함께 살피는 통합적인 연구방법이 강구되어야 할 것이다. This research studies the connectivity and cultural flow of long-swordmaship through historical studies over Korea·China·Japan. Firstly, there are some resemblance of Se(勢)(movements) of Korean 《Muyedobotongji(武藝圖譜通志)》which is influenced by 《Jixiaoxinshu(紀效新書)》 and that of Chinese from 《Shoubilu(手臂錄)》. Secondly, There are less information on movement from Japanese 《Muyedobotongji(武藝圖譜通志)》, but there are some drawings that we can presume related. Thirdly, we can find consequential bodily movement of martial arts using Cheonglongheojose(靑龍獻爪勢) from 《Muyedobotongji(武藝圖譜通志)》in 《Minzokugafu(民俗畵譜)》 drawings. Fourthly, Beakwontadose(白猿拖刀勢) shows similar movement; however, we could still witness independent developments from that of 《Muyedobotongji(武藝圖譜通志)》In summary, we could see comparable similarities however we can also witness the creative independences. The research conclusion shows that martial arts of China·Korea·Japan shows similarities as well as uniqueness. This shows that it does require to study the martial arts of all three countries in recognition that there exist some similarities and historical relationships.

고구려 胡馬의 유입과 鐵騎兵

이홍두 역사실학회 2013 역사와실학 Vol.52 No.-

Goguryeo brought up a dual system of cavalry consisting of light cavalry and iron cavalry. The formoer employed native Gwaha horses, while the latter large-limbed Homahorses. Homa horses had been imported from Northern nomadic countries, the first of which was the divine horse that King Daemusin got while engaged in hunting. In the fifth year of King Daemusin, Goguryeo lost the divine horse during the war against Buyeo, but one day, he returned with 100 Buyeo horses, which are assumed to be descendents in a Western lineage. Goguryeo’s acquisition of such large-limbed horses means that she succeeded in improvement of a new species of larger than middle-limbed horses. Goguryoes’iron cavalry has been confirmed in the 3rd century’s literature, and also with the harness discovered from tomb murals and kingly tombs created in the 4thcentury. The horses and warriors of the iron cavalry were all armed with armor. The warriors wore suits of armor for cavalry, while the horses got entirely dressed in armor except for their legs and equipped with horse face armor on their face. Horses armed in this way were called Gaema, and the cavalry riding them Cheolgibyeong(iron cavalry). Such strong equipment for the protection of horses reflected the fact that cavalry battles were very important. While Goguryeo adopted the strategy of empty fields and castle defense in the early period when her main force was light cavalry, she shifted to the aggressive strategy in the mid 4th century, with which she had the iron cavalry in vanguard to charge. The strategy of charge with iron cavalry was possible with the equipment of harness like saddles and stirrups. After the cavalry armed with long spears and suits of armor charged in vanguard to break the enemy’s line, the infantry behind it assaulted the enemy with swords and axes. At the same time, the light cavalry attacked the collapsing enemy’s infantry from the sides.

고구려 胡馬의 유입과 鐵騎兵

이홍두(Yi, Hong-Du) 역사실학회 2013 역사와실학 Vol.51 No.-

Goguryeo brought up a dual system of cavalry consisting of light cavalry and iron cavalry. The formoer employed native Gwaha horses, while the latter large-limbed Homahorses. Homa horses had been imported from Northern nomadic countries, the first of which was the divine horse that King Daemusin got while engaged in hunting. In the fifth year of King Daemusin, Goguryeo lost the divine horse during the war against Buyeo, but one day, he returned with 100 Buyeo horses, which are assumed to be descendents in a Western lineage. Goguryeo’s acquisition of such large-limbed horses means that she succeeded in improvement of a new species of larger than middle-limbed horses. Goguryoes’iron cavalry has been confirmed in the 3rd century’s literature, and also with the harness discovered from tomb murals and kingly tombs created in the 4thcentury. The horses and warriors of the iron cavalry were all armed with armor. The warriors wore suits of armor for cavalry, while the horses got entirely dressed in armor except for their legs and equipped with horse face armor on their face. Horses armed in this way were called Gaema, and the cavalry riding them Cheolgibyeong(iron cavalry). Such strong equipment for the protection of horses reflected the fact that cavalry battles were very important. While Goguryeo adopted the strategy of empty fields and castle defense in the early period when her main force was light cavalry, she shifted to the aggressive strategy in the mid 4th century, with which she had the iron cavalry in vanguard to charge. The strategy of charge with iron cavalry was possible with the equipment of harness like saddles and stirrups. After the cavalry armed with long spears and suits of armor charged in vanguard to break the enemy’s line, the infantry behind it assaulted the enemy with swords and axes. At the same time, the light cavalry attacked the collapsing enemy’s infantry from the sides.

전근대 동아시아 수상전(水上戰)의 양상과 공민왕 13(1364)년 이작도(伊作島) 해전의 실상

이영 일본사학회 2018 일본역사연구 Vol.48 No.-

In the year of 1364, the king Gongmin 13th year, Goryo army encountered miserable defeat by ‘Waegu, japanese pirates, in the Naval Battle of Izakdo(Izak island) which is located in western sea of Korean peninsular, yellow sea. The reasons of the miserable defeat were as follows : 1. The discord of the channel of command 2. The quality of commander 3. The performance of Naval Battle of soldiers. The Naval Battle was proceeded as follows : Each soldiers started to shoot an arrow a little way off. And as the ships got closer to each other, they started to spear each other. Boats tipped after contact with each other, the members of Waegu armed with swords and jumped onto Goryo army’s ships and the hand – to hand combat begun. One of reasons of Goryo army’s lost was that their performance of using swords like arrows, spears and long swords on board ship was inferior to Waegu. The soldiers who had mobilized in the Izakdo battle were land troops like cavalry or infantry. On the other hand, Waegu members are the nautical. Also since there were big differences between the conditions of the Ground Combat and Naval Battle such as the tidal current, seasickness etc. Goryo soldiers were miserably defeated. After the defeat, the Goryo court knew that it was a no use to rebuild the Navy since they could not even fight against the Waegu in the Naval Battle. So there were so many members of Goryo court who opposed to rebuild their Navy, and therefore Goryo court did not try to rebuild their navy.