The Marathas would beg to differ on the Mughals. As for Rome, classic imperialists. The infrastructure they built was for entirely self serving purposes, their architecture was often statements of power and domination, especially in conquered lands. They considered any culture alien to theirs as barbarian and savage. Yet arguably their most iconic piece of architecture is The Colosseum, find me a more stark monument to ancient savagery and barbarism than that. Their chroniclers would have you believe they brought civilisation and rule of law to places where it had not previously existed. Many archaeologists beg to differ. The Romans may have had a better organised and a more technologically advanced civilisation, but they were not more civilised than the people they conquered. The reason for their conquests and expansion was power, riches, and then prestige and politics. I could pretty much write that about every other empire, including and especially the British Empire. Nobody ever invades another country and impose their will upon its people for their own good. Even those who think they are, are guilty of breathtaking arrogance.

You are being nice about that but anyways the countries they created and the boundaries they draw were terrible and would lead to choas

We had that once but the rest of them are super cold and terrible and the shear size of America and its diversity is enough to call it an empire