The Ming Dynasty's Most Ruthless Crown Prince: From the Start, Crossing the River to Seize Nanjing

After reading four chapters, I have a suggestion: less sentimentality. Don't deliberately portray yourself as loving the people and soldiers, or as strictly enforcing military discipline and punishing everyone. It's too awkward. The scene of seizing food and cooking pots from the people would have been better if it were cut; it's too melodramatic.

It's a bit speechless. A crown prince daring to rob someone means the regime loses its legitimacy. Anyone else could be punished, but not someone with the surname Zhu. This is an act that alienates the people. Even if execution is necessary, the world should be shown due process. Even if it's fabricated, there should be a reason.

I hope Li Zicheng won't be given unwarranted credit. And it would be best if the Ming Dynasty wasn't written using the same approach as the Song Dynasty.

This is so deliberately sentimental that it's almost offensive. Troops being relocated to Xuzhou need to sleep on the streets? No well-organized unit would do something so stupid!

In short, it's exhilarating, but not mindlessly so. Dealing with those Ming dynasty officials and gentry requires this kind of ruthless decisiveness. The protagonist acts swiftly and decisively, leaving no one alive. While some plot points are a bit far-fetched (having new recruits charge the Qing army head-on), the protagonist isn't given any overly powerful advantages.

Is this introduction for real? Robbery? When faced with the same problem, outsiders and insiders act differently. No matter how corrupt or incompetent your own side is, you can't rob. If you rob, you lose the legitimacy of your regime. You think you are the emperor? Wrong. The dragon throne is what matters. Only when you sit on it are you the emperor. If you smash the dragon throne, who will recognize you anymore?

Have you ever been an emperor? Just write it randomly, take it for granted! Sp;               &nbs p;                 ;                                 &nb sp;                                 &nb sp;                                 &nb sp;                                 &nb sp;                                &nbs p;               &nb sp;               & nbsp;

Is it stupid to rob your own people? You have a legitimate reason to rob them, but you still choose to trample on your own principles. Without principles, what right does the Zhu family have to rule the world? The crown prince robs nobles and ministers, and ordinary soldiers can't rebel. Don't forget the saying, "The emperor's army is strong and powerful."

After reading the comments section, I've compiled several viewpoints and arguments. 1. You can steal, but you need a legitimate reason and a fig leaf. 2. You must not rob. Robbing undermines justice and the emperor's legitimacy, turning you into a thief. 3. We must seize it. With the regime about to collapse, what's the point of governance? Survival comes first.

Throughout history, every dynasty, including the People's Republic of China, has been able to break through the encirclement of blood and fire by distributing land! The Qin Dynasty's system of military meritocracy and land distribution, the Tang Dynasty's system of conscripted soldiers, the Ming Dynasty's system of military garrisons, and the People's Republic of China's system of confiscating…