Looking at the history of China, we will find a very peculiar phenomenon, that is, almost all the kings of the dynasty are all dimwits or tyrants, in short, their morality and ability are usually heinously low. The only slightly better one is probably the Chongzhen Emperor of the Ming Dynasty. So why is this happening? According to everyone's usual understanding, that is because the kings of the dynasties who have perished in the country are all mentally retarded or perverted, in short, after they become emperors, they all take care of themselves for their own pleasures, regardless of the lives of the people, and indulge in blind tossing and turning, and finally destroy the country.
As for Chongzhen, after he became emperor, he has always been diligent and earnest in governing the country, but because of his character defects and limited ability, he made some childish mistakes, and finally failed to save the situation of the country's demise. Therefore, when people talk about Chongzhen in the future, they will have all kinds of regrets, rather than severe scolding. In a sense, there is a certain truth to this statement, but the question is, if you look at all the kings of the fallen country, you will find that they are almost all carved out of the same mold. Moreover, is the demise of a country really the result of the blind tossing and turning of these subjugated kings?
In fact, most of the kings of the fallen countries in the past dynasties were smeared by later generations. The first is the smear of the later rulers, the vast number of people have been living a miserable life under the rule of these fallen kings, and now the new emperor has liberated them. The second is the smear of the traitors, who later all defected to the new emperor, and in this context, they can only prove that they do not want to surrender to the enemy if they vilify and smear these kings of the fallen kingdoms, simply because these fallen kings are a brain-dead and mentally handicapped and do not deserve everyone's allegiance. All in all, everyone originally wanted to fight the enemy to the death, but because the emperor they had originally allegiated to looked like he was eating and waiting for death, only caring for his own pleasure, and mutilating Zhongliang, they surrendered and became the leading party. In a sense, many times, everyone needs a pot, and the king of the fallen country is a good pot from any point of view.
Third, many future generations of history readers habitually scandalized these fallen kings because only by scandalizing them could they strengthen their fragile faith and protect their pure hearts. All in all, if we put ourselves in the position of the kings of these subjugated countries, we will certainly do a better job than them, because from any point of view, we are much better than them. In fact, it is precisely because of the sum of these three reasons that the kings of the fallen countries in the past dynasties are almost all carved out of the same mold. In short, it is either a tyrant or a tyrant, or in a word, a pro-villain and a virtuous subject, absurd, and cruel to The Faithful.
In this regard, many people will certainly have questions, so why did the Chongzhen Emperor scold so much less? In fact, this is mainly because of the Qing rulers. Because the Ming Dynasty was actually destroyed by Li Zicheng, and when Dorgon led the Qing army into the pass, the banner was to avenge the Chongzhen Emperor. In other words, the banner raised by the rulers of the Qing Dynasty was from Li Zicheng's hands to rescue the Ming subjects. In this context, if the rulers of the Qing Dynasty excessively smeared the Chongzhen Emperor, wouldn't it seem that Li Zicheng, Zhang Xianzhong and other peasant rebels were the real liberators, and they themselves acted as the servants and accomplices of the Ming Dynasty, and it is precisely because of this that Chongzhen's infamy in history will be much less. When everyone looks at the Chongzhen Emperor, they only feel that others are not bad, but their personality and ability are flawed.