After the release of 《末末明·渊虚之羽》, this reactionary traitorous game immediately drew a wave of criticism across the internet. There are already many discussions online about what kind of game it is—completely lacking national integrity—and how many traitorous elements it contains. I have no interest in further analyzing this issue. However, most of the online critics of this game are little pinks, imperial Han, and other nationalist or fascist extremists. Their hatred for this game is simply because it does not allow them to “punch the Tartars, kick the peasant armies, and revive the Ming.” If this game praised the reactionary Ming Dynasty landlords, they would surely accept it happily without any complaints.
But the Ming Dynasty, which is deeply adored by little pinks and imperial Han, and even the founding emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, was it really a good thing in the late Ming peasant wars? Here, I share some materials I have read before, which may help form a more intuitive understanding.
In Zhu Yuanzhang’s own edicts, the 《Da Gao San Bian • Za Yan Hao Luan Di Shi Er》 is a piece that best reflects how Zhu Yuanzhang was almost entirely lacking in national integrity, shamelessly praising Mongol invaders, and viciously attacking the Red Turban Army, which was a feudal ruler that dealt a heavy blow to the Yuan Dynasty’s rule, expelled the Hu barbarians, and restored China:
“Alas! The people who dislike peace and prefer chaos have existed since the Han, Sui, Tang, and Song dynasties. Such foolish people have persisted for generations. Alas! What a pity that these foolish people are the source of chaos—many have died, their surnames and families wiped out. The fools never realize their mistakes, and some repeat the same errors after decades or centuries. As for Yuan governance being unruly, the heavens will change its fate, and the foolish people who love chaos will rise. Initially, only a few, but when other fools hear of this trend, they conspire to incite rebellion. I have personally witnessed such households. During Yuan’s peace, the fields and homes, mulberry, jujube, elm, and locust trees, all were well provided with livestock, clothing, and grain. The elders, filial children, and respectful grandchildren honored their ancestors; the strong followed their fathers and sons, maintaining harmony with neighbors and kin. There was no worry. Even the poorest families had all they needed, and poverty was a form of happiness. Even if supplies were insufficient, or rain and pests caused crop failures, and floods and droughts occurred, death was not caused by weapons. If soldiers forced them to flee and they threw themselves off cliffs or set themselves on fire, their death was due to their dire circumstances, not war.”
In this edict, Zhu Yuanzhang—once a peasant—begins with an extremely vicious attack on the broad revolutionary people, accusing them of “disliking peace and loving chaos,” not only calling them “fools,” but also “the source of chaos,” claiming they would ultimately lead to “their deaths and the complete destruction of their family names.” In his words, the oppressive feudal rulers who forced the laboring people to rise up are completely absent, and the revolutionary people are instead portrayed as the culprits destroying the peace and prosperity. Despite Zhu Yuanzhang’s own parents dying in a great famine caused by Yuan feudal oppression, he himself had to beg for a living. Yet, he dismisses Yuan’s tyranny with just “Yuan governance unruly,” and even hypocritically praises the so-called “Yuan peace,” claiming it was a “time of prosperity, with livestock and grain abundant, and filial piety and respect for elders everywhere.” In fact, even Zhu Yuanzhang admits that in the so-called “Yuan peace,” many poor farmers still died of starvation. For the masses, it was a human hell where “happy years end in lifelong suffering, and famine inevitably leads to death,” but this traitor, who completely betrayed the peasant class, still insists it was “not death by weapons.” His so-called “if soldiers forced them to flee and they threw themselves off cliffs or set themselves on fire, their death was due to their dire circumstances, not war,” actually means “look at those who were driven to desperation by the army, jumping off cliffs or burning themselves, and compare them to those who died of starvation—those latter ones might as well be dying comfortably,” nonsense that even death by starvation is better than dying in rebellion or struggle! Such outrageous words are hard to imagine coming from someone who personally participated in the late Yuan peasant uprisings. One of the executioners of the Ming’s large landlords, Yang Sichang, viciously attacked the uprising peasants as “not making peace and starving to death, but instead fighting back with arms like mantises,” unwilling to die of hunger peacefully, but choosing to rebel against exploitation and oppression. His ridiculous and hateful ideology is entirely inherited from Ming Taizu Zhu Yuanzhang.
In fact, Zhu Yuanzhang not only viciously attacked the Red Turban Army, but also claimed that his own participation in the uprising was just “the red turbans suddenly arriving, mistakenly entering among them,” and shamelessly regarded Yuan as legitimate, praising Mongol invaders. In his 《Deng Ji Zhao》, he even lauded Kublai Khan as the “Mandate of Heaven’s true man” after the fall of the Song, claiming he “entered China from the desert and became the ruler of the world.” Zhu Yuanzhang was himself a traitor who betrayed the Red Turban Army, seized the fruits of the peasant struggle to luck into unifying China, and shamelessly attacked the peasant class for his own class interests, praising Mongol invaders. It shows he had no sense of national integrity whatsoever.
As for the Ming army in the late Ming peasant wars, which nationalist enthusiasts lament, they were even worse. Many phrases used today to describe the army’s discipline, such as “bandits pass like combs, soldiers pass like combs,” originate from this army. In the eighth year of Chongzhen, the Minister of Revenue Hou Xun wrote to the Shaanxi General Governor Hong Chengchou: “The bandits come and go, the soldiers come and go. The bandits plunder in front, the soldiers plunder behind. The bandits are like combs, the soldiers like razors. The generals’ orders cannot be obeyed by commanders, and the commanders’ orders cannot be obeyed by soldiers. How can we hope to succeed now?” Many historical records also state, “Now when officials and soldiers arrive, they often claim to be collecting grain, rob merchants, search homes, and commit atrocities against women and children, burning houses. Ordinary people fear the soldiers more than the bandits.”
Regarding the soldiers’ cruelty—killing good people and taking credit—there are even more examples. A poem describing feudal armies killing and claiming credit, titled “Each carrying sharp blades, competing to pursue,” comes from this period. To suppress peasant uprisings and fight the Jurchen, the Ming court set high rewards for killing bandits: beheading one person earned three taels of silver, later increased to five; officers were rewarded based on their kills. As a result, the army often slaughtered unarmed civilians. For example, in the fourth year of the Tianqi reign, Sun Chengzong, the military governor of Ji and Lia, said: “Even deaf-mute orphans are killed for rewards.” In the fourth year of Chongzhen, Vice General Zhao Dayan reported that in Han City, “they beheaded fifty bandits and thirty-five women and children.” In the fifth year, the Shanxi troops pursuing rebels entered Henan, and the local officials reported: “What’s the point of having no heads to report? It’s easy!” Soon after, they executed thousands, including over eighty scholars. In the eleventh year of Chongzhen, Qing soldiers advanced into the capital region, then retreated, and Ming general Wang Pu ordered the slaughter of residents’ heads to claim credit. The poem “Lamenting the Capital” by Qian Tianshi describes: “Each carrying sharp blades, competing to pursue, hurriedly reporting to generals and supervisors. The crowd clamors for rewards, slaughtering entire families and their nine relatives.” In Shangqiu, Henan, there are even reports of soldiers chasing civilians and calling it “borrowing heads to make merit.” In fact, Ming troops, like the Manchu invaders, extended their hands into wherever the people were, causing savage massacres. Such incidents were numerous, and I will not list them all here. These atrocities formed the background of later peasant leader Li Zicheng’s slogan “Suppress the troops and bring peace to the people.”
It is clear that the discipline of Ming armies was just as bad as that of the Manchu invaders, with no clear distinction in their brutality. Whether it was Zhu Yuanzhang, praised by contemporary little pinks and imperial Han, or the Ming army, both were vicious enemies of the broad masses of laboring people, and neither was good. Due to my limited knowledge, I only share some materials here for everyone’s understanding and discussion.
