The methods of political control in the Roman Empire and Gupta India, were similar because they both emphasized a single ruler or emperor. They did this because each area was spread out and broken up, thus needing unification more than anything. However, they had different methods of religious, political, cultural, and administrative control. Both empires had a single emperor because of the high demand for unity. Both areas were a mess when it came to politics before each empire rose. In the early Mediterranean, there was constant conflict and political tension between city-states. The Roman Empire came along and stopped the fighting because they were all under one ruler. Having the entire Mediterranean Sea under one emperor instilled the “pax …show more content…
In Rome, the emperor was worshipped as a god. And people who didn’t follow the traditional Roman polytheism couldn’t worship him. He used common religions to gain political power and control over the people. Christians were the main focus of religious persecution in Imperial Rome. They were monotheistic, so their inability to worship the emperor as a god threatened his power. They even imprisoned, condemned and executed Jesus, who was part of the basis for Christianity. The Gupta, however, were not so focused on religion in politics. They kept the two separate. True, Ashoka was an avid Buddhist and posted edicts in rock around the empire to facilitate a Buddhist lifestyle, but he did not persecute those who did not live as a Buddhist. His influence to the religious lifestyle was more subtle than the Romans. Instead of the government sponsoring persecution of those who did not follow in his footsteps, Ashoka wanted them to follow his path to help unify under a religion, but he did not attack those who did not. In Imperial Rome, religion played a more key role in politics than in Mauryan and Gupta