Oh and for Augustus Caeser... his career may look good from the distance of history, but when you look at the specifics, he was nothing more then a brutal dictator who slaughtered anyone who disagreed with his dictatorship, including a 17 year old and essentially forced his viewpoint by suppressing all other opposing viewpoints... which up until then, the nobles at least were aloud to express.
If you judge a man only by his results and not his actions, sure he and Lincoln are great men. So are some people who most would consider among history's monsters.
Ghengis Khan for example stopped all the fighting among the various mongol tribes, just like Augustus and Rome, except the mongols were even more fractured. He also led to the golden age of the Mongol Empire. Unlike the romans he took a people that basically had nothing and thrust them into prominence. His put into place a set of laws that were equal to everybody and never went against them. (for example he always spared villiages who surrendered and would demote anyone who went against his orders, even his son in law.) Heck, he was for freedom of religion, was open to letting other people from different races join the mongols. Like the Romans he had infrastructure built despite the mongols being nomad's himself, the mongols even had welfare for the poor during times of Crisis!
Race didn't matter either, anyone who was talented and trusted could place high in mongol society. And they had the largest continuous empire ever.
Yet Genghis Khan still sacked the crap out of cities they opposed him. Really Ghengis Khan and Augustus Caeser were a LOT more alike in outcome and action then you'd think.
