<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > "Yongzheng Dynasty" is it overrated? February River has been mistaken in his official position for many years</h1>
For a long time, February River's "Yongzheng Dynasty" has been talked about, and the TV series adapted has become a textbook of power art. Classics are classics, there's nothing to say.
In addition to the classics, the author can't help but think about a question, has "Yongzheng Dynasty" been overrated? The author has been very confused about this problem until he found a big wear gang: old Mr. February River made a mistake in Nian Tangyao's official position.
Figure | Wu Sidao pointed out the fourth master Yin Chan
This also begins with the famous scene of the "Yongzheng Dynasty", Wu Sidao instructed the fourth master Yin Chan to abandon the idea of letting the thirteenth brother Yinxiang serve as the "Great General King" to conquer the great northwest, advocating that he recommend the fourteen brothers born to a mother.
Next, Wu Sidao's big hand came, making Nian Qianyao the governor of Shaanxi and Gansu, and controlling the grain road to restrain the "Great General King" Yinfu and the Eight Ye Party behind him. This is a high move, it is really wonderful, reasonable and makes the Eight Masters Party lose its temper.
Tu | Fourth Master Yin Chandian made Nian Qianyao the "Governor of Shaanxi and Gansu"
The Viceroy of Shaanxi and Gansu was an important position in the Qing Dynasty to run the Great Northwest, and could remotely control the Great Northwest with the Help of the Hexi Corridor. Why? The Qing Dynasty transferred grain and grass to the Great Northwest, mainly by land through the Hexi Corridor to all parts of the Great Northwest.
The original meaning of February River is to embody Wu Sidao's brain circuit surprise, and then promote the development of the plot. However, February River ignored a big problem, Nian Qianyao was not the governor of Shaanxi and Gansu but the governor of Sichuan and Shaanxi (served in October of the 60th year of the Kangxi Dynasty< November 1721 >).
Figure | "Viceroy of Shaanxi and Gansu" Nian Tangyao
Look lost, right? If I take a look at the evolution of the Governor of Shaanxi and Gansu before Kangxi sixty years ago, I will understand that the specific situation is as follows:
In the second year of Shunzhi (1645), the governor of Shaanxi was established, and the governor of Gansu was also under the jurisdiction of Gansu, and the governor Yamen was stationed in Xi'an;
In the third year of Shunzhi (1646), the governor of Shaanxi and the governor of Sichuan were also under the jurisdiction of Sichuan;
In the eleventh year of Shunzhi (1654), the trilateral viceroy of Shaanxi was changed to the trilateral viceroy of Sichuan and Shaanxi, and still had jurisdiction over Gansu;
In the eighteenth year of Shunzhi (1661), the governor of Sichuan and Shaanxi ceased to have jurisdiction over Sichuan and became the viceroy of Shaanxi, with jurisdiction over Gansu;
In the fifth year of the Kangxi Dynasty (1666), the viceroy of Shaanxi was renamed the viceroy of Shanshan, and had jurisdiction over the three provinces of Jin, Shaanxi, and Gansu;
In the eleventh year of the Kangxi Dynasty (1672), the Viceroy of Shanxi ceased to administer Shanxi, restored the Viceroy of Shaanxi, and still had jurisdiction over Gansu;
In the nineteenth year of the Kangxi Dynasty (1680), the Viceroy of Shaanxi was also concurrently renamed the Viceroy of Sichuan and Shaanxi;
In the fifty-seventh year of the Kangxi Dynasty (1718), Sichuan was reassigned, and the viceroy of Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu was restored to the viceroy of Shaanxi, and also had jurisdiction over Gansu;
In the sixtieth year of the Kangxi Dynasty (1721), Sichuan and Shaanxi merged again, and the viceroy of Shaanxi was renamed the viceroy of Sichuan and Shaanxi, and continued to administer Gansu.
Figure | The Eight Masters Party
There is no problem that the viceroy of Sichuan and Shaanxi can also administer Gansu without falsehood, and it is also a fact that Nian Qianyao served as the governor of Sichuan and Shaanxi to control Yin and the Eight Ye Party. The problem is that February River confuses official positions with them.
Nian Qianyao's predecessor, Ehai, was still the governor of Shaanxi. After Nian Tangyao, Yue Zhongqi and Char lang'a also served as the governor of Sichuan and Shaanxi, where is the shadow of the governor of Shaanxi and Gansu?
The names of the viceroys of Shaanxi and Gansu in the Kangxi and Yongzheng dynasties varied a lot, until the twenty-fifth year of Qianlong (1760), when Sichuan was set up separately and Shaanxi and Gansu were merged, and the name was changed to the viceroy of Shaanxi and Gansu, and it never changed until the fall of the Qing Dynasty.
Pictured| February River
Therefore, the Yongzheng Dynasty's statement that Nian Qianyao became the governor of Shaanxi and Gansu is problematic, and it is beyond doubt that February River has mistaken the name of the official position. It's like Ah Q was shot and died, and it must not be changed to hanged.
The screenwriter of "Yongzheng Dynasty" in addition to February He benzun, there is also a big-name screenwriter Liu Heping. After "Yongzheng Dynasty", Liu Heping successively wrote "A Hundred Years of Vicissitudes", "Daming Dynasty 1566", "No War in Peiping" and other acclaimed and acclaimed works, and there are few flaws in giving people a handle.
Picture | Liu Heping, screenwriter of "Yongzheng Dynasty"
Only the early work "Yongzheng Dynasty" makes people scratch their heads, in addition to making mistakes in nian tangyao's official position, even the real age of Hongli is a long way ahead. People who know a little about the history of the Qing Dynasty can't look at it.
Then again, "Yongzheng Dynasty" is essentially a historical drama, following the screenwriting principle of "big things are not vain, small things are not informal", you can't be killed with a stick because of choking on food, and a person's family is overrated, which makes no sense.
From this point of view, February River is right, and Liu Heping's compilation is not a big problem. However, historical dramas cannot be seen as history, but at best as a historical enlightenment book. Otherwise, to show off historical dramas as historical knowledge without false distinction is to make a joke...