Dynasties: China vs. India

                   Political systems in classical Chinese and Indian Dynasties had the common goal of control over an empire, but the imperial Chinese Dynasties (Qin and Han) were much more effective and successful than the Indian Dynasties (Mauryan and Gupta). This was probably because of the strictness of the Chinese empire versus the loosely watched Indian empire.
                   The Chinese imperial dynasties were based on intricate bureaucracies that kept the empire strong and unified. One example of their strength and unification is the standardization of weight & measurements, coins, and writing in the Qin dynasty within a short period of time through force. Another example is during the Han dynasty, when people were educated based on Confucianism. These strict centralized dynasties flourished and increased in size and power. On the other hand in India, the dynasties that barely lasted were relatively loose with their policies. The Mauryan dynasty was based on a simple bureaucracy derived from Kautalya's political handbook, the Arthashastra. This method worked reasonably well when a diligent ruler, like Ashoka, was in charge, but once he died, the empire collapsed because his policies did not carry on. Later on, the Gupta dynasty, slightly smaller than the Mauryan dynasty, tried to maintain control. Their method was more laid back than that of the Mauryan dynasty; failure to unify the empire to defend itself, left them vulnerable to attacks from foreigners like the White Huns. The Gupta's loosely managed empire falls as well. Ultimately the organization and effectiveness of the political structure determined the stability of the dynasties. China had that strictness, India did not.