---
title: "Silla-Tang War: Maesoseong, Gibeolpo and the 7-Year Crisis"
locale: en
category: knowledge_base
category_name: "Knowledge Base"
translation_status: reviewed
license: cc_by
author: "Injoys Editorial Team"
source_url: https://injoys.com/en/articles/silla-tang-war-seven-years-maesoseong-gibeolpo
published_at: 2026-10-16T22:15:41+09:00
---

# Silla-Tang War: Maesoseong, Gibeolpo and the 7-Year Crisis

> The Silla-Tang War was fought between Silla and Tang from 670 to 676 over control of the former Baekje and Goguryeo territories. Silla's defeats and counterattack, the roles of Maesoseong and Gibeolpo, Tang's Tibetan front, and the nature of King Munmu's reply are distinct issues.

## Key Points

- The Silla-Tang War intensified over control of territory after the fall of Baekje and Goguryeo.
- After losing the Battle of Seokmun in 672, Silla strengthened its defenses but also suffered a defeat at Chiljungseong in 675.
- The victory at Maesoseong in 675 is regarded as a turning point that changed the course of the war.
- The victory at Gibeolpo in 676 is described as the war's conclusion, but Tang's Tibetan front must also be considered.
- King Munmu's reply records Silla's diplomatic position and should not be treated as a neutral account of the war.

The Silla-Tang War was fought between Silla and Tang over control of territory from **670~676**. Silla faced a crisis after defeats at Seokmun and Chiljungseong. Victories at Maesoseong and Gibeolpo turned the tide. The war is remembered for stopping Tang’s attempt to extend its rule and preserving the foundation for unification.

This article follows the *Samguk sagi* records in the Korean History Database, checked in October 2026.

## Why did the alliance between Silla and Tang turn into war?

The central dispute was who would rule the former territories of Baekje and Goguryeo. Silla and Tang formed a military alliance in 648. The two states defeated Baekje in 660 and Goguryeo in 668.

Once their common enemies were gone, the question of how to divide the territory came to the fore. Tang established the Ungjin Area Command in former Baekje territory and the Andong Protectorate in former Goguryeo territory. Both were governing bodies set up to administer conquered lands.

Tang also gave King Munmu the office of Grand Governor of Gyerim Prefecture. This is interpreted as a move to bring Silla into a Tang-centered order. The appointment itself, however, did not mean that Silla was actually annexed.

King Munmu’s letter of reply from 671 cites an earlier territorial promise as grounds for the dispute. According to the letter, Emperor Taizong of Tang had promised to give Silla land. The promised territory is described as the land south of Pyeongyang and the land of Baekje. This passage shows how Silla argued its case over the postwar division of territory.

## How the Silla-Tang War unfolded: Key dates

The war moved from an initial Silla offensive to defense and counterattack. Its usual date range is 670 to 676, a span of 7 years when both the starting and ending years are counted. The months and days below are recorded in the lunar calendar and have not been converted to the solar calendar.

| Date | Event | Significance | Record or commentary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 648 | Military alliance between Silla and Tang | Cooperation against Baekje and Goguryeo | King Munmu’s letter of reply in the *Samguk sagi*; Our History Net |
| 660 | Fall of Baekje | Raised the question of who would rule former Baekje territory | Our History Net, “Silla-Tang War” |
| 668 | Fall of Goguryeo | Widened the postwar territorial dispute | Our History Net, “Silla-Tang War” |
| March 670 | Seol Oyu and Go Yeonmu’s forces advanced into Liaodong | The fighting at Ogolseong brought the war into full swing | Our History Net, “Silla-Tang War” |
| 671 | Silla established Soburiju | Administratively incorporated former Baekje territory | Our History Net, “Silla-Tang War” |
| 672 | Silla lost the Battle of Seokmun | Prompted stronger defenses | Our History Net, “Silla-Tang War” |
| February 675 | Silla lost the Battle of Chiljungseong | Created a crisis along the Imjin River | Our History Net, “Battle of Maesoseong” |
| September 29, 675 | Silla won at Maesoseong | Dealt a blow to Tang’s land offensive | *Samguk sagi*, entry for the 15th year of King Munmu’s reign |
| November 676 | Silla won at Gibeolpo | Usual endpoint of the war | *Samguk sagi*, entry for the 16th year of King Munmu’s reign |

Early in the war, Silla cooperated with Goguryeo restoration forces. These forces sought to reestablish the fallen state. Silla’s Seol Oyu and Goguryeo’s Go Yeonmu advanced into Liaodong together. Their cooperation was one part of Silla’s war against Tang.

## Defeats at Seokmun and Chiljungseong and the stalemate on the front

Silla made early gains but was forced onto the defensive by Tang’s counterattack. The Battle of Seokmun in 672 shows this shift. Our History Net explains that Silla’s forces were attacked while reorganizing their camp. After this defeat, Silla placed more weight on defense than offense.

Silla built fortresses and strengthened its defensive facilities. It also sent envoys to Tang to convey an apology. These envoys were sent to express regret for wrongdoing. Diplomatic efforts to settle the dispute and military preparations proceeded together.

By around 673, the front had largely reached a stalemate near the Imjin River. Neither side could move the front substantially. Tang deployed an expeditionary force led by Liu Rengui to break the stalemate. Silla lost again at Chiljungseong in February 675.

## Why the Battle of Maesoseong was a turning point

**Silla’s victory at Maesoseong in 675** was a turning point that weakened Tang’s land offensive. The *Samguk sagi* states that Li Jinxing was stationed at Maesoseong. It then records that Tang’s forces withdrew after a Silla attack. The victory mattered because Silla had broken out of a series of setbacks.

That year, Silla’s forces also repelled Tang’s navy at Cheonseong. Researchers differ on the purpose of the attack on Cheonseong. One view emphasizes securing a supply route. Another considers both an amphibious attack and an expansion of the front.

Maesoseong therefore needs to be considered alongside nearby battles. Armies need food and transport as well as fighting troops. Nearby waterways and strongholds were necessary to sustain operations. The specific steps by which supplies were cut off, however, have not all been confirmed.

| Category | Battle of Maesoseong | Battle of Gibeolpo |
|---|---|---|
| Main date | September 29, 675, lunar calendar | November 676, lunar calendar |
| Type of fighting | Battle over a land stronghold | Naval battle |
| Principal figures in the *Samguk sagi* | Tang’s Li Jinxing | Silla’s Sideuk and Tang’s Xue Rengui |
| Significance in the war | Turning point that shifted the tide in Silla’s favor | Described as the victory that brought the war to a close |
| Important distinction | The victory did not itself end the war | The battle was not over after a single engagement |

## The Battle of Gibeolpo and Tang’s other front

The victory at Gibeolpo is commonly used to explain **the end of the war in 676**. Gibeolpo is generally understood to have been near the mouth of the Geum River. The *Samguk sagi* states that Sideuk commanded Silla’s navy and names Xue Rengui as the opposing commander.

According to the record, Silla’s forces lost the first fight. They then won after 22 engagements of varying size. That number comes from the *Samguk sagi*. The relevant entry does not provide enough detail to reconstruct those engagements by date.

The fighting on the Korean Peninsula alone does not explain why Tang stopped the war. Tang was also confronting Tubo to the west. Tubo was a state that grew around the Tibetan Plateau. Our History Net explains that pressure from Tubo influenced Tang’s strategic shift.

Both Silla’s counterattack and Tang’s other front need to be considered. Interpretations differ, however, on how much each factor mattered. A 2024 study by Kim Byeong-hui emphasizes Silla’s military capabilities. It challenges interpretations centered on Tang’s decision to withdraw.

## The burden of transporting provisions and lost farming time in King Munmu’s letter

King Munmu’s letter of reply reveals the supply burden that can be overlooked when focusing on battles. King Munmu described transporting provisions to Ungjin and Pyeongyang. He complained that people and livestock had been exhausted in the process. He also said that Silla had borne the cost of missing the farming season.

This account looks back at the costs of the period when Silla cooperated with Tang. It should therefore not be read as statistics on losses in the later stages of the war. The letter sought recognition for Silla’s contributions. Who bore the costs of war was itself a diplomatic issue.

| Burden described in the letter | What it indicates | Limit of the evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Transporting provisions to Ungjin and Pyeongyang | Silla’s claim that it took part in supplying the forces | The total amount transported cannot be determined from this passage alone |
| Losses of people and livestock | Emphasizes the burden of mobilization beyond combat | The total scale of losses cannot be calculated |
| Missing the farming season | A conflict between military mobilization and production | No figure is given for the reduction in harvests |

## The victory and the time it took to establish territorial control

Silla’s victory preserved its basis for ruling former Baekje territory and other areas. This is a central outcome in accounts of Silla’s unification of the Three Kingdoms. Silla did not, however, take all of Goguryeo’s former territory. The end of the war must also be distinguished from the eventual formation of the northern border.

The account that Silla secured the land south of the Daedong River involves a gap in time. The *Samguk sagi* has a separate entry concerning the land south of the Pae River in 735. Here, the Pae River refers to the Daedong River. The entry states that Tang gave this land to Silla.

A Korean History Database annotation connects this to Tang’s recognition of Silla’s territorial claim. It also presents an interpretation that Tang permitted Silla to station troops at the Pae River. It is therefore difficult to conclude that Silla had completed its rule over every region in 676. Military victory and administrative incorporation were different stages.

## Where do the records and interpretations differ?

What historical sources say must be distinguished from present-day historical judgments. The main text of the *Samguk sagi* records events. The Korean History Database annotations explain later research. Reading these two layers as if they were testimony from the same period can lead to misunderstandings.

### Silla’s claims in King Munmu’s letter

King Munmu’s letter of reply is a diplomatic document explaining Silla’s position to Xue Rengui. It emphasizes the role Silla played in the alliance. It also argues that Silla’s actions were not an unjustified rebellion. Emperor Taizong of Tang’s promise is conveyed within this document.

The letter is therefore evidence of Silla’s understanding of events. It is not a firsthand transcript of Emperor Taizong’s words. Researchers also debate the wording and extent of the territorial promise. The Korean History Database annotations describe these differences in interpretation.

### Points on which accounts broadly agree

Commentary from the National Institute of Korean History describes Maesoseong as a turning point in the war. It identifies Gibeolpo as the victory that brought the war to a close. Accounts also agree that the conflict over control after the fall of Baekje and Goguryeo was the background to the war. This does not mean every detail of the individual battles has been settled.

### Details that remain disputed

Views differ on troop numbers and battle locations. The figure of 200,000 Tang troops at Maesoseong appears in the *Samguk sagi*. A Korean History Database annotation explains why it is difficult to accept the figure at face value. It considers both possible exaggeration and the scale of mobilization over multiple years.

| Issue | What the records and research show | Distinction to make in describing it |
|---|---|---|
| Troop numbers at Maesoseong | The *Samguk sagi* gives a figure of 200,000 Tang troops | Distinguish it from a verified count of troops at the site |
| Location of Maesoseong | Proposed sites include Daejeon-ri Mountain Fortress in Yeoncheon and Daemosanseong in Yangju | Do not treat a particular site as definitively identified |
| Xue Rengui at Gibeolpo | The *Samguk sagi* record of his participation conflicts with Chinese historical records of his exile | Note the debate over his whereabouts and the date of the battle |
| Why Tang withdrew | Research considers Silla’s military pressure and the effects of the Tubo front | Do not reduce it to a single cause |

Korean History Database annotations also address the question of Xue Rengui. They present arguments supporting the *Samguk sagi* battle record while also describing another interpretation based on Chinese historical works. This article’s timeline follows the usual account based on the *Samguk sagi*.

## How it differs from the Battle of Salsu and why the distinction matters today

The Battle of Salsu was fought between Goguryeo and Sui. It is separate from the Silla-Tang War, which took place after the fall of Baekje and Goguryeo. Identifying the states involved and the period first helps avoid confusion. A single battle must also be distinguished from a war that lasted several years.

| Category | Battle of Salsu | Silla-Tang War |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 612 | 670~676 |
| Main opposing states | Goguryeo and Sui | Silla and Tang |
| Representative figures | Eulji Mundeok | King Munmu, Sideuk and others |
| Scope | A battle during the Goguryeo-Sui War | A war that included Maesoseong, Gibeolpo and other battles |
| Main background | Sui’s invasion of Goguryeo | Conflict over control after the fall of Baekje and Goguryeo |

This war shows that the unification of the Three Kingdoms took place in several stages. The fall of Goguryeo in 668 did not settle the territorial question. Silla still had to fight Tang, and control of the northern regions remained an issue after the war ended.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who attacked first?

The usual account takes the Silla-Goguryeo allied force’s attack in Liaodong in 670 as the starting point. The start of military clashes and the causes of the conflict are different questions, however. Tang’s administration of conquered lands and Silla’s effort to secure territory formed the background.

### Why did the war continue after Silla won at Maesoseong?

The victory at Maesoseong did not end all Tang military activity. It changed the course of the land campaign. Naval fighting followed at Gibeolpo the next year.

### Is King Munmu’s letter fact or argument?

It is a historical source that preserves a real diplomatic document, but it also presents Silla’s arguments. It is valuable for understanding the case Silla made at the time. Details of individual events need to be compared with other records.

### Did Silla’s victory in 676 mean the fall of Tang?

No. Silla stopped Tang from extending its rule on the Korean Peninsula. Tang continued to exist and carried on military and diplomatic activities in other regions.

## FAQ

### When did the Silla-Tang War begin and end?
It is usually described as lasting 7 years, from 670 to 676. The attack on Liaodong in 670 is seen as the start of the war in earnest. The victory at Gibeolpo in 676 is considered the end of the war.

### Why did Silla and Tang go from allies to enemies?
They clashed over the right to govern the former territories of Baekje and Goguryeo. Tang established governing institutions in the conquered territories. Silla sought to secure territory in response.

### Did Silla win throughout the war?
Silla lost the Battle of Seokmun in 672 and the Battle of Chiljungseong in 675. After the defeat at Seokmun, it strengthened its defenses. The victory at Maesoseong was a counterattack that followed these setbacks.

### What is the difference between the Battle of Maesoseong and the Battle of Gibeolpo?
Maesoseong is considered a turning point on the land front in 675. Gibeolpo was a naval victory in 676 that marked the end of the war. The two battles differed in timing and the nature of the battlefield.

### Is the record of 200,000 Tang troops at Maesoseong an established fact?
The figure of 200,000 Tang troops is recorded in the Samguk Sagi. Whether it should be accepted as the actual number of troops present at the battle is debated. Notes in the Korean History Database examine the possibilities that the figure was exaggerated or represented the cumulative number of troops mobilized.

### Where is Maesoseong located today?
Its location has not been confirmed. Daejeon-ri Mountain Fortress in Yeoncheon and Daemosan Mountain Fortress in Yangju are among the proposed sites. A 2024 study by Kim Byeong-hui also discusses the debate over these two locations.

### Did Tang withdraw because of Tibet?
Pressure from Tibet is seen as a factor that constrained Tang's strategy. Silla's military counterattack must also be considered. Researchers assess the relative impact of the two factors differently.

### How should we interpret Emperor Taizong of Tang's promise mentioned in King Munmu's reply?
It should be read as a territorial promise presented by Silla in a diplomatic document. Emperor Taizong of Tang's words are passed down through King Munmu's reply. Scholars disagree about the scope of the promise and the meaning of its wording.

### Did Silla control all territory south of the Daedong River in 676?
It is difficult to conclude that the war ended at the same time Silla established control over every area. The Samguk Sagi has a separate entry concerning the area south of the Pae River in 735. Military victory, recognition of territorial possession, and administrative incorporation should be distinguished.

### Is the Battle of Salsu part of the Silla-Tang War?
The Battle of Salsu was not part of the Silla-Tang War. It was fought between Goguryeo and Sui in 612. The main combatants in the Silla-Tang War were Silla and Tang.

## Sources

- [National Institute of Korean History, Our History Net, Chronology of Korean History, “Silla-Tang War”](https://contents.history.go.kr/mobile/kc/view.do?code=kc_age_10&levelId=kc_i101220)
- [Korean History Database, Samguk Sagi, King Munmu’s reply: Silla and Tang destroy Baekje](https://db.history.go.kr/item/compareViewer.do?levelId=sg_007_0020_0101)
- [Korean History Database, Samguk Sagi, King Munmu the Great sends a reply to Xue Rengui: Silla and Tang form an alliance](https://db.history.go.kr/common/compareViewer.do?levelId=sg_007_0020_0100&type=ancient)
- [Korean History Database, Samguk Sagi, Li Jinxing is attacked and driven out after setting up camp at Maeso Fortress, and notes](https://db.history.go.kr/ancient/level.do?levelId=sg_007r_0020_0470)
- [Korean History Database, Samguk Sagi, Sideuk defeats Xue Rengui in battle at Gibeolpo, and notes](https://db.history.go.kr/ancient/level.do?levelId=sg_007r_0020_0590)
- [National Institute of Korean History, Our History Net, Textbook Term Explanations, “Battle of Maeso Fortress”](https://contents.history.go.kr/front/tg/view.do?ganada=%EB%A7%88&levelId=tg_001_0140&pageUnit=50&treeId=0103)
- [Kim Byeong-hui, “Revisiting the Location of Maeso Fortress and the Reality of the Maeso Fortress Campaign,” Studies in Korean Ancient History 47, 2024, abstract](https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/mobile/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART003116347)
- [Korean History Database, Samguk Sagi, Tang grants land south of the Pae River in the 34th year of King Seongdeok’s reign, and notes](https://db.history.go.kr/ancient/level.do?levelId=sg_008r_0040_1640)
- [National Institute of Korean History, Our History Net, Chronology of Korean History, “Battle of Salsu”](https://contents.history.go.kr/front/kc/printViewPopup.do?levelId=kc_i101200)

## Images

![Soldiers approach a hilltop fortress through autumn hills, while another column moves along a distant ridge.](https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5MzUsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--a2baa2f6735dad3c0483a708d64087eb6755d694/ai-ba50438a.webp)
![Wooden boats cross a broad, reed-lined river estuary beneath a cloudy sky.](https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5NDEsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--96f821002be7ceb4e9e3ac8fb97cea4dd53d75d3/ai-e1e7f8d7.webp)