Octavian is a better emperor
There were several reasons why Octavian considered a good emperor. He was the first emperor of Rome, one of the emperor that had the longest reigning. It is about 42 years reign. He was very intelligent. He knew how to control the Romans very well so he was very respected. He made people of higher power adjust to losing their power so, gradually took power away from the Senate to obtain what he want. He ended the Roman civil wars. He reformed the army, established stable borders, began the 200 year era of peace called the Pax Romana and when there was no serious threat to the empire from external enemies. He transformed the government from the republic to the principate. Reforming the legal system by creating a set of laws for people who were not citizens. Also, he rebuilt many roads and temples. Augustus was dedicated to the beautification of Rome. Thus, Caesar
Augustus brought organization, order, and stability to the Roman world therefore, I think Augustus was a good empire.
Augustus brought organization, order, and stability to the Roman world therefore, I think Augustus was a good empire.
Qin Shi Huang is a better emperor
The contribution of Qin Shi Huang and Qin Dynasty is uncomparable to any other emperor and empire in Chinese history. He unified China, brought the foundation of centralization to future generations. After Qin Dynasty, the political situation of ancient China wasn't greatly change. Regardless the expansion in territory, he unified the six countries which led to the existence of China as a big country nowadays.
There were lots of negative comments about Qin Shi Huang how bad he treated others, according to the things he "did" in historical records. However, the things were written in records are not always true. Because of Qin Dynasty only existed for 15 years before it replaced by Han, there was no people stands up to speak for Qin Shi Huang. All the historical records were written by the posterity, they can say how bad Qin was to make their emperors look much better. And poor Qin Shi Huang might be framed as a tyrant in the history. From the lesson of this, emperors started to record things to prevent the final of Qin Shi Huang. Of course those records for themselves were beautified. Therefore, we can't blindly trust the historical records.
There were lots of negative comments about Qin Shi Huang how bad he treated others, according to the things he "did" in historical records. However, the things were written in records are not always true. Because of Qin Dynasty only existed for 15 years before it replaced by Han, there was no people stands up to speak for Qin Shi Huang. All the historical records were written by the posterity, they can say how bad Qin was to make their emperors look much better. And poor Qin Shi Huang might be framed as a tyrant in the history. From the lesson of this, emperors started to record things to prevent the final of Qin Shi Huang. Of course those records for themselves were beautified. Therefore, we can't blindly trust the historical records.