On this point, I think it is wrong about the Roman emperors.Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
How do you think Cyrus the Persian came with "universal general human right" declaration ? ? that only could come from within Zoroastrian mindset .. could a Pharaoh, or Roman emperor or a Macedonian dream such ? ? .. you see the difference ?
The main attraction of the Imperium was the emperor's ability to beat back the haughty Romans at the expense of the subjugated nations and extend civic equality beyond the borders of Rome and its upper-classes.
Lord Acton puts it well:
That it existed a good 1400 years and bequeathed a legal system widely copied among divergent groups of people is a pretty good indicator of its general utility and acceptability."The Roman republic labored to crush the subjugated nations into a homogeneous and obedient mass; but the increase which the proconsular authority obtained in the process subverted the republican government, and the reaction of the provinces against Rome assisted in establishing the empire. The Caesarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and raised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race over race and of class over class. The monarchy was hailed as a refuge from the pride and cupidity of the Roman people; and the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character."