Zhu Yuanzhang in Ming Fenghua has a shoehorn face. Is this in line with history?

This should not conform to the true face of Zhu Yuanzhang in history. Judging from the portrait of the Ming emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang's appearance is not obviously different from that of ordinary people, but why is Zhu Yuanzhang described as a face full of pockmarked shoes in folklore? This is probably due to the description of villagers in Fengyang, Anhui Province, Zhu Yuanzhang's hometown, and from the mouth of the fortune teller he met when he was a child, Zhu Yuanzhang had the face of the dragon king and was ordered by the emperor.

At that time, Fengyang, Anhui Province was a relatively poor and backward area. Zhu Yuanzhang was born in poverty, and even his parents, brothers and sisters starved to death because of lack of food. Fengyang people think that describing Zhu Yuanzhang as a pockmarked man can better show the poverty and difficulties of his hometown Fengyang and better represent the people struggling for survival in Fengyang County. This idea seems ridiculous to our descendants, but it did affect Zhu Yuanzhang's image in later generations and among the people.

When Zhu Yuanzhang was a child, he was seen by a fortune teller when he was running and playing with his friends in the village. The fortune teller looked at Zhu Yuanzhang's face when he was a child and said that Zhu Yuanzhang's face looked like a real dragon, which was like an emperor. So according to this legend, some painters added a big knot to Zhu Yuanzhang's head on the basis of shoehorn face. This is why in the portraits that our descendants have seen so far, there will be a shoehorn face with a pimple on its head.

Rumors vary, the Sri Lankan people have passed away, and only the portraits of painters in the court are more in line with historical facts. But the ugliness in TV series is really unnecessary. It's really a big jump. Of course, both the director and the screenwriter have their own ideas. As an audience, we have no position to blame. It can only be said that everyone has a different view of history.