Is Qin Shihuang really a "tyrannical king" or a benevolent king of "hands-on, hands-on"?

Many people define Qin Shihuang as a tyrant because the laws of the Qin Dynasty were strict, because the Great Wall was built, and because books were burned to bury Confucianism. Qin Shihuang certainly had these tyrants, but he did more benevolent policies. After he proclaimed himself emperor, he proudly handled political affairs every day and even set himself an annual workload. Therefore, compared with tyrants, in fact, we should use Ren Jun to define Qin Shihuang.

Looking back at the laws of the Qin dynasty now, we will find that they actually have many merits, such as not allowing littering everywhere and not allowing men to do domestic violence ... These regulations are normal for us, but they are extremely unreasonable and strict for the ancients. Then there is the question of building the Great Wall. Although many people were sacrificed in the process of building the Great Wall, its existence well resisted foreign invasion and protected the safety of many people in the Qin Dynasty. In the end, it is also an exaggeration to burn books and bury Confucianism. Although Qin Shihuang did this, it is actually one-sided to judge him as a tyrant.

Qin Shihuang's benevolent policy is also manifested in his never killing the founding hero after he ascended the throne, and there are several well-known unification (Chinese characters, currency, weights and measures). The appearance and smooth implementation of these measures must be because Qin Shihuang invested a lot of energy. If he was a king who cared only about pleasure without asking about politics, the Qin Dynasty could not have created so much history.

After all he did for China, Qin Shihuang finally became a tyrant, which was unfair to him. If the punishment is only judged by merits, Qin Shihuang will have more merits and be absolutely worthy of the name.