Back to the Early Ming Dynasty as a Prince

Read this and decide whether to read it or not. I abandoned the book because it is not about Ying Zheng. I really disagree with the author's analogy in this chapter. I suddenly lost the sense of empathy. Being an emperor is not domineering, so it is better to go home and sell sweet potatoes.

The poisonous points of time-traveling ancient novels: 1. Women can serve as soldiers 2. The etiquette of kneeling on one knee is completely abolished in the army 3. Change the military etiquette to a salute, and then shout the slogan "Serve the People" 4. Change the army's armor to camouflage uniforms or Modern European military uniforms 5. Promote equality 6. Promote equality while killing anyone you don't like 7. Abolish the imperial system 8. Abolish the family and the world and establish a modern electoral system 7. Finally play socialism ? ? ? ? One possession can poison someone to death. (Of course this book does not cover all of it, only part of it.)

The status and value of a maid in ancient times was no higher than a piece of expensive clothing. The officials did not care whether they were beaten to death or crippled. They dared to scorn the protagonist and disrespected their old master. If such a person really lived in ancient times, she would have died long ago or been sold into a brothel. It's not a female-channeled novel, so there's really no need to create this kind of character. Even if you accept it, you should wait for a few months to get rid of your pride, otherwise people will definitely look down on you. This maid is from Lan Yu, and her generals are also from Lan Yu (the money and soldiers are all controlled by others. If Zhu Yuanzhang hadn't killed Lan Yu in the later period, it would be no different from being ignored. Not to mention the tiger's body shaking in all directions, people followed Lan Yu and even the royal family of the Yuan Dynasty. You are a young boy who will easily recognize you, and you may be stabbed at the critical moment for superficial surrender). Loyalty cannot be guaranteed at all. It is best to downplay it and find someone who is obedient (so there are so many scholars in the Ming Dynasty, are you afraid of lack of advisers to keep accounts?). If you are really worried, just change your wife to take care of logistics. It is best to cultivate talents yourself. Even if you only cultivate them for a few years, they are more reliable than others who have cultivated them for decades.

Why do women always have to be added to the army? In ancient times, brother,

Chapter 17: Poisonous, a slave dares to speak to the prince like this?

The status of women in ancient times was very low. There was no equality between men and women, and women had priority. If you want to go further, you can't be an outlier. When it develops to a certain extent, it can win some benefits for women.

Chapter 17, the Chang Mansion sent a slave, but she was a counselor. The feedback from readers in the comments is very disgusting.

After reading the author's words, it feels like putting down the dishes and scolding the cook. History also clearly records that Qin Shihuang was violent. Everyone in China knows that history is written by the victors. The history that modern people talk about is based on textual research. Do you think you saw it with your own eyes as someone who survived the Qin Dynasty? History is for people to see, not for you to evaluate, and you deserve it. Abandon books

After reading this book, you will understand why it is difficult to write about the Ming Dynasty. Because the Ming Dynasty was too developed, its technology and national structure were in the hot weapon stage in the early post-medieval period, cold weapons had not yet faded away, Western culture was introduced, and the imperial structure was unstable. In other words, this is a classical cyberpunk dynasty. All aspects are a collision of ancient and modern times. The good ones can reach the sky, while the bad ones can reach the center of the earth. This is an era in which individual heroism has disappeared. But those who wrote the novel still followed the Three Kingdoms mentality of underdeveloped science and technology and heroes and demigods taking care of everything. What they wrote was extremely distorted and leaked. In the Ming Dynasty, there were no demigods who could turn the tide on their own, but only mature forces that organized friction. This was an era of team battles.

"The progressive role of Qin Shihuang in the process of historical development must be affirmed, but after unification, he lost his enterprising aspect, became complacent, indulged in pleasures, begged gods, built palaces, brutally oppressed, wandered around, wasted his time, and was bored. Very. Chen Wu's opposition to the Qin Dynasty, including his opposition to Qin Shihuang, was completely righteous. " Talking about Qin Shihuang, the teacher said that people learned from the book that Qin Shihuang had the evil behavior of burning books and humiliating Confucian scholars, so they regarded him as a great tyrant and a bad guy. Burning books and humiliating Confucians is of course a bad thing. It set back the vigorous development of the contention of a hundred schools of thought. But we should analyze everything. Qin Shihuang did not burn all books without asking, nor did he destroy all Confucian scholars without asking. What he burned was the book "The past is not the present", and what he burned was the Confucian school of Mencius, of which there were actually only 460 people. Mencius advocated "the law precedes the king", so the writings of Mencius's group are "based on the past rather than the present". On the contrary, Xunzi's group advocated "the Queen of Law and the King" and promoted the doctrine of the Legalist school. Qin Shihuang advocated "the king after the law" and opposed the "king before the law". Therefore, he did not slander Confucian scholars of Xunzi's group, nor did he burn books written by Xunzi's group. Qin Shihuang's idea of ​​"regarding ancient times as a different clan than today" is worthy of praise. Of course, I do not agree with Qin Shihuang's indiscriminate killing. At that time, it was impossible to transform a slave country into a feudal country without implementing a dictatorship. But the method of burning books and humiliating Confucians against Mencius and his followers was too much. Politically, we must implement dictatorship, and culturally, we must advocate a hundred schools of thought contending and a hundred flowers blooming. This is what we are doing now. Qin Shi Huang could not do this. It is too arbitrary to say that Qin Shihuang never did a good thing. Qin Shihuang was the first to unify China, unifying the original weights and measures, making cars share the same track, writing books using the same writing, and changing the feudal system into a system of counties and counties. These are major events related to the prosperity of the Chinese nation. Can you say they are not good things? Qin Shihuang also dug the famous Zhengguo Canal in Guanzhong, Shaanxi Province, which is more than 300 miles long and can irrigate more than 40,000 hectares of farmland, which is directly beneficial to production and the people. As a result, Qin became rich and powerful, and finally annexed the six kingdoms. Can you say that this is not a good thing? Qin Shihuang was a great poisoner. It is not unreasonable for some historians to say so. The teacher believes that this point should also be analyzed. Qin Shihuang had a poisonous side, but he also had a highly centralized and unified leadership side. There are differences and connections between the two. The latter was a positive factor in Qin Shihuang's success when he annexed the six countries and unified China. When the overall situation was clear, Qin Shihuang was good at mobilizing all forces to focus on the main offensive direction. When carrying out the main offensive task, he had great determination, great courage, and very tenacious perseverance. He dared to fight against all opinions and did not listen to words that shook the morale of the army. At the Shanghai meeting in April 1959, teachers pointed out that in view of the decentralization, departmentalism, and the situation that there were orders and prohibitions that existed in the work at that time: we should learn and learn from Qin Shihuang's ability to concentrate on the main direction of attack, and at the same time learn to follow the mass line. That is to unify centralized and unified leadership with the mass line. The teacher said that anything that is not good for the masses is not good for the country. There is nothing that is good for the people but not good for the country. Qin Shihuang is not without faults. To overturn the verdict of Qin Shihuang, you must see that he still has major faults. In history, Qin Shihuang tried to make poisonous vegetables out of bricks, which was fundamentally opposed to the mass line. What we need now is Qin Shihuang who takes the mass line. On the one hand, leaders should not label others randomly and are allowed to reserve opinions. Those who speak are not guilty and those who hear are warned; on the other hand, leaders should lead by example and promote self-criticism. In this way, the two aspects are combined, and after debates with different opinions, they are centralized on this basis. This is the revolutionary Qin Shihuang. Centralization and unity have a mass base. Why did the Qin Dynasty perish in less than three years after the death of Qin Shihuang? Since ancient times, many politicians and historians have conducted research on many aspects. The teachers most appreciated "On the Passage of Qin" written by Jia Yi of the Han Dynasty. He said that Jia Yi was a statesman and historian, and his "On the Passage of Qin" was based on the power of the people and the people's support to observe the rise and fall of the country and the success or failure of the emperor. Therefore, the last sentence of "Guo Qin Lun" summarizes the reason for the rapid demise of the Qin Dynasty: "If benevolence and righteousness are not applied, the offensive and defensive momentum will be different." In today's terms, it means tyranny to the people and loss of popular support. This is a profound lesson worth learning for future generations.