지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
During the period of Sejong"s reign over the Joseon, the policy for conquering foreign powers began discussing more seriously. Since the foundation of the Joseon, it had continued to show interests in the northern regions. In addition, the King Taejo and Taejong strived to secure influence in the surrounding areas of Amnok River and the Duman River, taking into account the relationship with the Ming. One of these representative foreign policies of the Joseon was the ‘onquest’ against the savages.
In the face of strong protest from the retainers, Sejong was determined to carry out the re-conquest of the regions surrounding the Pajeo River. This showed that Sejong had expanded his political power over the country as a result of the first conquest. The ultimate goal of the Joseon occupying the Pajeo River again was to capture Lee Man Ju, chief of the barbarians called Jurchen. This was because the Joseon had an intention to spread its clout around by removing the figure playing a pivotal role within the Jurchen population in the region of Geonju-wi.
More importantly, it was the struggle with the Ming to gain the upper hand over the hegemony of the Jurchen group centering on the whole area of the Amnok River. It seems to me that the Joseon would not shut its eyes to the groups led by Lee Manju, who received the approval from the Ming to move them in the Pajeo River area that the Joseon considered under its influence. Besides, the Lee Manju group put more emphasis on a close rapport with the Ming rather than with the Joseon. The Joseon, therefore, sought to obtain the actual control over the entire area of the Amnok River by getting rid of the forces of Lee Manju.
The foreign policy for conquests outside the Joseon was the most suitable and useful one to attack external influences using military strength and take advantage of the achievements. It"s because such conquest policy could have an impact on foreign powers as well as domestic groups. This is why foreign subjugation became a proper type of policy that can be politically used in various ways. Since despite the fact that there was a high possibility of failure, if it was successful, it would be expected to produce a bigger fruit, King Sejong took the lead to push ahead and carry out the conquest even when facing strong objection from his subjects.
In the face of strong protest from the retainers, Sejong was determined to carry out the re-conquest of the regions surrounding the Pajeo River. This showed that Sejong had expanded his political power over the country as a result of the first conquest. The ultimate goal of the Joseon occupying the Pajeo River again was to capture Lee Man Ju, chief of the barbarians called Jurchen. This was because the Joseon had an intention to spread its clout around by removing the figure playing a pivotal role within the Jurchen population in the region of Geonju-wi.
More importantly, it was the struggle with the Ming to gain the upper hand over the hegemony of the Jurchen group centering on the whole area of the Amnok River. It seems to me that the Joseon would not shut its eyes to the groups led by Lee Manju, who received the approval from the Ming to move them in the Pajeo River area that the Joseon considered under its influence. Besides, the Lee Manju group put more emphasis on a close rapport with the Ming rather than with the Joseon. The Joseon, therefore, sought to obtain the actual control over the entire area of the Amnok River by getting rid of the forces of Lee Manju.
The foreign policy for conquests outside the Joseon was the most suitable and useful one to attack external influences using military strength and take advantage of the achievements. It"s because such conquest policy could have an impact on foreign powers as well as domestic groups. This is why foreign subjugation became a proper type of policy that can be politically used in various ways. Since despite the fact that there was a high possibility of failure, if it was successful, it would be expected to produce a bigger fruit, King Sejong took the lead to push ahead and carry out the conquest even when facing strong objection from his subjects.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 파저강 재정벌의 준비와 단행
3. 북방 개척과 대외정벌
4. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (8)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
패자가 쓴 역사: 7세기 ‘아랍 무슬림’의 정복에 대한 동시대 기독교도와 유대인의 시각
한국중동학회논총
2023 .02
-
대외정책개혁
선진화 정책시리즈
2020 .01
-
새 정부에 기대하는 대외정책 방향
한반도선진화재단 기타 단행본
2022 .05
-
2023년 일본의 대외정책 전망
IFANS FOCUS
2023 .01
-
대외정책: 시진핑 3기 중국 대외 정책 전환이 초래할 리스크와 한국에 미치는 영향
한반도 포커스
2023 .05
-
대외경제정책연구원 30년사
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2020 .12
-
백제가 진(晉)나라를 정벌하다!
나침반 36.5도
2024 .01
-
19세기 미국의 대동북아 철도정책과 한반도
세계지역연구논총
2020 .01
-
북한은 핵실험 이후 더 공격적인가? : 현상타파 대외전략과 현상유지 대외정책의 결합
한국정치학회보
2018 .03
-
중국의 대외개방정책: 40년 평가와 전망
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2018 .12
-
조선노동당 제8차 대회를 통해 본 북한의 대외정책 - 대외관계 사업총화보고를 중심으로 -
북한학연구
2021 .01
-
2022년 북한의 대외동향 평가 및 시사점
[KIEP] 세계경제 포커스
2023 .02
-
대외무역법 개정 방향에 대한 총론적 의견
무역상무연구
2022 .05
-
중국 대외원조정책의 추진체계 변화에 관한 연구
사회적경제와 정책연구
2021 .02
-
최근 대외여건 변화가 우리 경제에 미치는 영향
[BOK] 조사통계월보
2016 .06
-
지속된 코로나19와 북한의 대외무역: 2021년 북한의 대외무역 평가
[KDI] 북한경제리뷰
2022 .01
-
참여계획경제 대외무역의 기본 원리 : 소련과 러시아 대외무역 체제 변화과정 검토를 중심으로
마르크스주의 연구
2015 .02
-
시진핑 시기 중국 대외정책 분석
[KDI] 북한경제리뷰
2015 .11
-
2024년 북한의 대외 관계 분석: 러북 관계를 중심으로
[KDI] 북한경제리뷰
2025 .02
-
대외원조(Foreign Aid)가 아세안 국가의 도시화에 미치는 영향 분석
한국지역지리학회 학술대회발표집
2015 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-390-001834102