Gupta India (320 B.C.E-550 C.E.) and Imperial Rome (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.) both had very distinctive methods of political control based on everything from cultural reasons to geographic limitations. Many factors were present affecting the similarities and differences between the two.
To begin, unity was difficult in India due to its geography which created a separation of sorts. However, it did make it more open to outside influences such as the Aryans and Alexander the Great of Macedon. Rome, on the other hand, was more or less easily unified geographically, as it was covered with gently rolling hills rather than mountain ranges and rainforests as in India. This separation in India resulted in such things as many languages (with the exception of Sanskrit), no continuous bureaucracy (Rome didn’t have this either), and ultimately no strong sense of political service. Whereas in Rome, though divided into city-states, there was a somewhat common language (Latin), and the government was well organized and had a good political system (though it lacked unity of course). So both empires had limitations in the sense of unification but Rome was better suited for organization and well run systems in a geographical sense.
Unlike the Romans, India was forced to react and adapt to the influence of people like Alexander the Great, Chandragupta, Ashoka, and eventually conquered by the Kushans. Rome was more in-charge of its own destiny and it progressed from a Republic to an Empire under the influence of people like Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Diocletian, Constantine and Theodosius, Cicero, and Confucius. However it eventually fell to a series of barbarian invasions by the Huns, Vandals, and Visigoths.
India was ruled mainly by regional princes; however some kings with large armies and high taxes did emerge. Also, the lack of political service in India was a factor...