Korean history seen as a war.

 The history of war that historians have dealt with so far has been extremely awkward and distorted because it is fitted into politics or part of history. In particular, the history of war left in Eastern librarians tended to focus only on the commander's pride, misjudgment, and morality, and the cause of war was often focused on that aspect. The Eastern army, which understood Greek and Macedonian dense dust and hammer and anvil tactics, did not understand more diverse launch weapons and tactics, and cavalry led by Norman Princess Walliam defeated Hauspokal and slaughtered French knights in Crecy. I believe that victory in war must be the cause. Even if it's trivial luck, there are conditions necessary for it to lead to victory, and I think only the group that meets the conditions can enjoy the lucky results. In this book, it is somewhat successful in bringing about the wars that have been dormant in history, dressing and putting makeup on them. It also closely and carefully examines the causes of each war, the factors of victory and defeat, and the consequences. It also tells us in detail how the war affected us, and it is true that I am personally admiring the author's intelligence in looking at the war between Wiman Joseon and Korea to the Battle of Cheongsan-ri. In particular, I know for the first time in Sohae's memory that the battle formation and progress were restored using computer graphics. Of course, there was a serious estimate, but I think the person who accepts it can filter it out. However, what bothered me was a few typos from the beginning and an excessively high book price - you'll get back one hundred won for 20,000 won - and it was a few mistakes. First of all, while explaining the battle between Gaya and Goguryeo, the author classified cavalry wearing mid- to long-term gloves as mid- to long-term soldiers, but the classification of mid- to long-term soldiers and mid- to long-term soldiers is not distinguished by the type of armor they wear. And you said that you couldn't put a plate armour on a horse, but all mid- to long-term Western soldiers in the 15th century wore plate armors, and horses also wore plate armors. (Page 121) and explaining General Shin Rip's Tangeum Battle explained Joseon's military system at the time, the Bubyeongje, which seemed to have some problems in this part. First of all, he wrote, "In an agricultural country such as Joseon, choosing an agricultural disease matching system (which is judged to be a typo in the disease-rural matching system) is like giving up military training." (Page 210-211) and "As agriculture is a labor-intensive industry..."If the manpower engaged in agricultural production is transferred to the military, it will lead to a decrease in production..." (Page 211) Next, "Even in the same agricultural country, if the national budget system is properly operated, military power did not weaken." (Page 211) First of all, the Byeongnong Unity Bu Byeongje was the basic military system of the Tang Dynasty, which carried out the strongest conquest war except for the Yuan Dynasty among the Chinese dynasties. In the case of the party, after the collapse of the father-in-law system, it showed serious military weakness after the mid-8th century, and it was a huge economic burden to cover the spread of soldiers with mercenaries, and the resale system of salt to cover this cost led to bull's rebellion. In addition, whether it was a side-by-side or a side-by-side system, production activities were carried out during the busy farming season, and military training was conducted only in the winter of the agricultural and cold season, so on the surface, it did not interfere with agricultural activities. Although it is a personal assumption, it is judged that the agricultural state implemented a disease-rural matching system and distributed land in return for military service to reduce costs and maintain an efficient conscription system. Therefore, it is not believed that the side-by-side system caused the weakening of the production activity or the weakening of the military system, and even in the situation of the recruitment system, agricultural countries often experienced a considerable cost burden and weakening. Therefore, the adoption of the side-by-side system in agricultural countries itself was a universal choice without any problems, and it is not a matter of the side-by-side system itself, but a social phenomenon in which the commander, top leader, and side-by-side system were shaken. The reason why we fantasized about the seed disease is probably due to the influence of the West.Under the feudal system, only certain groups monopolized the battle, and for the West, where centralization was weak, the father-in-law system was unimaginable. Of course, the prepared professional soldiers have always shown outstanding performance in many battles, but I don't think all of the reasons they won were just professional groups.The citizens of Republican Rome fought as well as the occupational soldiers of the ruling Rome. In addition to General Shin Rip's misjudgment and the group, the idea of finding the cause of Tangeumdae defeat in Joseon's military system at the time was good, but the stubborn view of the military system seems to have ended well. Even after Joseon switched from the military system to a kind of recruitment system, the weakening of the Joseon army should be found in the social system that led to the weakening of the military system and the lack of professional and systematic officers.In addition, it seems to have been decisive that the best leader in command of the war was an amateur about the war.