The Days I Spent with the Tyrant

The author should change the emperor. Emperor Hongwu really doesn't need the help of future generations. From the weakest start to the strongest end, one more person is not much more than you. Pure icing on the cake. What tricks can you play when the country is unified and stable? Regarding the killing of corrupt officials, Emperor Hongwu killed more than 150,000 corrupt officials alone.

This article made me understand an ordinary and confident time-traveler who has been jumping in Zhu Yuanzhang's hands and constantly extracting profits. You said that if the protagonist is smarter and taps into his own time-traveling ability, how can he evolve his ability? I also think that he is jumping around to delay time, and the result is to rebel. Who gave him the confidence? It's so outrageous that the emperor can arrange everyone around you, but you still want to rebel? They even took in orphans and trained them, which was so outrageous that as long as they survived in the Ming Dynasty, they could not avoid the rulers. Spreading any ideas was no match for confiscating their homes and beheading them. The protagonist is ordinary and confident.

This author is the only author in the entire online literary world and historical area who has written about the direct nuclear annihilation of West Point College and the bombardment of New York with nuclear bombs. As for the author Mu Yang, well, he has everything in his dreams.

This book has the first Q point, for example, it talks about belittling Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming Dynasty, including the Ming Dynasty! 🥺 Also travel through the Ming Dynasty and treat yourself as a foreigner! ! ! Build an embassy 😁!

Lao Yang is here! The blue sky is there! Lao Yang is here! The world will be peaceful

Our ancestors overthrew imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism and vassalized their ideas to create a new China and new ideas. I admire Zhu Yuanzhang for overthrowing the Yuan Dynasty that oppressed the people at the bottom, but for me, it doesn't matter whether it was the Qing Dynasty or the Ming Dynasty. It is important not to have them.

Everyone is crazy. If Zhu Yuanzhang was born in the 21st century, you would only be able to look up to him and always feel that he is smarter than the ancients. I really laughed.

I didn't pass by by accident, I just looked at the circle, and I haven't read the book, so I will just comment. I see that the main point of debate in the comment area is the meaning of the action of "the protagonist established an embassy in the Ming Dynasty". First of all, we need to make it clear that the function of the embassy, ​​an administrative agency, is the hub of exchanges between countries. This point should not require further discussion. Secondly, I need to make one point clear: The reason why one party attacks this point is that the act of "establishing the embassy" is that "the protagonist denies Ming as a part of Chinese history and regards the people at that time as foreigners." The reason why the other party defends this point is that the act of "establishing the embassy" represents "the protagonist's resistance to feudalism and the construction and development of socialism." I think the brief description of the second point should be like this. The third point, I think: The attackers and defenders have different understandings of their behavior from different perspectives, but in the final analysis, they are both a love for the country. I think this should be the case. In addition, from the two viewpoints, I am inclined to the former. Because the meaning of the function of the administrative agency "embassy" is unambiguously consistent with the point of view expressed by the former. The latter seems a bit inappropriate. Because speaking from my personal perspective, I only see the "division between countries" but not the "resistance to feudalism". Only seeing "a certain tendency of historical nihilism" but not "an appropriate statement of the grand theme". The fourth point, I need to express my views from my perspective: The author obviously wants to depict a "protagonist who resists the feudal monarchy, especially the highly authoritarian feudal monarchy" Perhaps because the author has written many similar stories of resistance, he wants to do something different. But it is obvious that this behavior set up by the author for the entire story is meaningless and has caused controversy and misunderstanding throughout the article. I have always believed that when a creator wants to instill a certain idea into his audience, he must be cautious and think twice. However, the author may be out of some inertia of creative experience. Not only did he not make this idea convincing and rewarding, but it also made people feel uncomfortable. This is obviously not worth the gain. Therefore, I think that the theme of this book is right, but some of the behaviors surrounding the theme are wrong. The above, nothing more, is just to express one of my opinions: The author made some incorrect and inappropriate statements on the grand theme of "resistance to feudalism". Finally, what I want to say is, why is there so much anger in the comment area? One party scolded Mingfen and Zhu family slaves. One party scolded foreigners and sat crookedly. Why so? We are all compatriots who have been baptized by great ideas and grew up in a great country. We should look at things rationally and dialectically, and never hurt others and ourselves out of anger. Patriotic sentiment is good, but extreme national sentiment is really undesirable. Our teachers also teach us what the country is and what the people are, and how we should love our country and our people. It is good to be full of emotion, but it is not good to point it out to others in a meaningless manner. I said some meaningless things randomly, just for everyone's enjoyment. (Do not spray)

You are still stepping on the ancients, and you are not ashamed to stand on the shoulders of giants who have been around for thousands of years.

A person less than one millimeter standing on a "giant" that has been put together for thousands of years looks down on a system that has been passed down for thousands of years. I can only say that maybe I am not very enlightened. The people the author looks down on are myths in my eyes. But how the author wants to write it is the author's business. Just like if I don't read it and give the reason, it is also my business. There is nothing wrong with it, right?