In ancient times, Chinese's evaluation of the emperor was fragmented. In the eyes of ordinary people, as long as their lives go on, then their emperor is holy. Even if the life can be lived well because the climatic conditions are good, the officials are not corrupt, and the imperial court has no foreign enemies, the enlistment is easy, not because the emperor is really holy. But in their eyes, the emperor's good or bad is just an abstract symbol, and Shengming's criterion is only in the life of good or bad.
The emperor is good or bad, on the pen of the literati - the emperor wants "the name of the hereafter", it is best not to offend the literati. In the eyes of the group of scholars and military generals, this criterion is actually not much different: the emperor who increases their benefits, even if it infringes on the interests of the country as a whole or the people, is still "the emperor is not too holy." The emperor who could not protect their interests was nothing more than the "posture of a middle man", and everyone looked at the face of the archway of "loyal and patriotic", and would also give the emperor some face, and give him a nickname such as "Wen" and "Xuan" after his death.
The name of the tyrant has been arranged for the king who is sincerely harming the interests of the scholars in order to maintain the rule of the dynasty. If it is a serious infringement on the interests of the "pillars of the country", the emperor's reputation is probably not good, such as Zhu Yuanzhang, who has made so many achievements, and the generations of the scribes have added oil and vinegar, and the image of a bloodthirsty and violent shoehorn face has evolved. Whether the emperor's will itself is really for the people of the world, in fact, not many people really care. History, after all, was compiled by the literati and the latecomers of victory. Like the Yongzheng Emperor, the chinese monarch who could not even deny the so-called "imperial Han", and the key figure in the prosperous world of Kangqian, because the policy of "officials and gentry as one to pay grain" caused the gentry class to suffer greatly from its profits, so even the imagination of such an evil door as "blood droplets" could be pulled at him.
The problems encountered by the founding monarchs and the lords of the prosperous world were easier to solve. The founding monarch is easily called the Ming Emperor. On the one hand, because the entire ruling team is built around the founding king, it is easier for the king to let go of things, on the other hand, the interests of the entire ruling group will be expanded by the expansion of the group, so it is easier for the ruling group to unite and do things. When new dynasties were established, the policies of rule tended to be more relaxed, and the common people were able to live and work in peace and contentment more easily.
Therefore, as long as the founding prince is not tyrannical to the five Hu sixteen kingdoms and the five dynasties and ten kingdoms, because the external environment is very harsh and the internal contradictions in the country are aggravated, basically can leave a good reputation.
The situation encountered by the king of the fallen country is more complicated, and the means used must be more superior to solve the problem. The situation encountered by the later lords and the kings of the fallen kingdoms was completely different. From the perspective of the monarch's imperial mentality, when the nobles and foreign relatives manipulate the government, the landlords and gentry annex the land, the feudal towns and towns make the division of the land, and the redundant officials and redundant soldiers drag down the finances... These measures, which were insignificant at the time of the founding of the dynasty and the prosperous era, and even conducive to the consolidation of feudal rule, were no longer enough to be lost when it was time to be more changeable.
And the kings of the subjugated countries are often "longer than the hands of women", and have had enough theories since elementary school but lacked the exercise of iron blood, which is inherently insufficient in the cultivation of will and human feelings. They may be arrogant when they take the throne, but once they encounter problems that cannot be solved, they will either be a dimwit and ignore the visible hidden dangers. Or be a tyrant and use your natural monarchy against interest groups. But the two are just the difference between slower death and faster death.
In essence, the people are going to starve to death, the emperor can't solve it, you don't destroy the country, who destroys the country? From the basis of a stable regime, the feudal dynasty was not long after the founding of the country, but the common people became fewer after experiencing war, and as long as the country's situation was stable, the number of ordinary people who had been greatly reduced could more easily eat enough. As long as the exploitation of the ruling clique is not so excessive, an era of stability will easily arrive.
In the middle and late period of the dynasty, the low-level people lost a large number of land, the middle-class nobles and gentry hid a large number of land populations, and the financial foundation of the dynasty was gradually weakening. And the profits seized by the middle-level rulers are not only snatching life-saving food from the mouths of the people, but also weakening the dynasty's ability to resist risks. Insatiable middle-level rulers often bet on several sides when the court is in turmoil, or even directly rebel to "fight the princely generals". As for the "ten thousand bones" who died for the sake of "one achievement", and the former emperors of the former dynasty who had become insignificant, who cared?
If the lord of the divided regime cannot unify the world forcefully, he will be reduced to cannon fodder. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, before the Battle of Chibi, the sentence "Everyone can descend, but only the public cannot descend" can be described as the bitterness of the Lord of Division. Separatist regimes do not have natural legitimacy in China, a civilization that advocates great unity. Only by unifying the country and mountains can the monarch have the legal legitimacy of "divine right of kings" and become the Son of Heaven. But reunification requires war, which requires both grain and grass and soldiers. If the monarch is absent between the two, or if he does nothing, he can easily be suspended. In the Three Kingdoms, in the end, Sun Cao and Liu Sanjia eventually lost the opportunity to unify the country and mountains, and the world belonged to the Sima family.
So is there anything wrong with Liu Chan himself? Liu Chan succeeded to the throne at the age of seventeen, and the Shu state was the weakest. The outside world had just torn up the alliance with Wu Guo, and then lost a big defeat. Veterans of the Hundred Wars in the Interior suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Yiling. Liu Chan himself was not able to handle this matter, so he followed Liu Bei's wishes, entrusted state affairs to Zhuge Liang, and did not doubt the use of people, and did not drag Zhuge Liang's feet, play tricks, and fight for rights. When Zhuge Liang was about to die, Zhuge Liang would also have to recommend talents to take over the position of Chancellor. After Zhuge Liang's death, he did not violate Zhuge Liang's will, but continued to follow Xiao Zhicao. Nor did he, like many weak lords who were constrained by the powerful ministers, immediately retaliate after the death of the powerful ministers. For a monarch, Liu Chan reigned for 41 years, which can be regarded as knowing people and being broad-minded, right? Even in his later years, he favored the eunuchs, but did not let the eunuchs control the government, and it was still loyal wenwu who controlled the situation. There is no large-scale construction to satisfy selfish desires.
If a monarch like Liu Chan was born in a prosperous world, he would inevitably have won the title of Renjun because of his gentle but far-sighted character qualities and ability to know people and make good use of them, and if he also had a loyal martial art such as Zhuge Liang like the Shu Kingdom, plus his "super long standby" ability for forty-two years, then a prosperous name would absolutely not be able to run. It's not the right time.
Liu Chan was said to be the king of the subjugated country, but in fact, he did not have many evil deeds himself, and his ability was also stable. The title of "King of the Fallen Country" can only be said to expound the facts, not to prove that Liu Chan himself is not good.
Is Liu Chan, who reigned for 41 years, really the king of the subjugated country?
Is the historical Liu Chan really the king of the fallen country?
For more exciting content, come and pay attention to the words of the nib