Both were established as the preeminent nation during their respective heyday, both used their internal structure of semi-democratic rule to establish their "right" to impress other nations to their way of life, both made exceptional use of false rhetoric to convince others of their preeminence, and both stretched their militaries to the point of breaking - more than once. Additionally, research demonstrates that the decline in American popularity coincides with the decline of democratic rule in the U.S. While under Democratic control, the United States enjoyed a significant period of favor within the world. but, the "war President" Bush has squandered all of that good will both at home and abroad - to the point where there are virtually no true friends left to come to her side in times of crisis, just as was the case with Rome before the Barbarians from the North finally broke the myth of the indestructible empire.

What is most shocking in all of this, perhaps, is the speed with which this shift from admired world-power to most-hated-nation occurred. The truth is that both the United States and Rome could have made their position as a benevolent power much more effective had either been truly benevolent.

Rome conquered its neighbors to increase commerce and power. The United States has attempted to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "secure" the United States - but it can be argued that, particularly in the case of Iraq - that the true motivation is the securing of oil and the generation of commerce for political cronies.

What, then, is the difference between Caesar granting Mark Antony domain over Egypt and George Bush granting Halliburton and Becthel similar domain over an entire nation's economy?

Similarly, when Rome attempted to subdue and then destroy neighbors...

What we have to understand is that the lessons to be learned from Rome are relatively few and that they are not likely to translate well for current leadership. However, a few points where the American people differ from those of Rome should be made. One, we have the ability to remove rulers from office peacefully and by law. Two, no matter how much the President may try, he/she cannot declare a dictatorship and cannot change the constitution on a whim in order to remain in power. Three, we are a generally well-educated fairly-aware culture who can get alternate views on the actions of our government from a variety of sources - therefore our government finds it more difficult to control perceptions by decree. Finally, our ability to invade, subdue and subjugate nations is exceptionally poor in relation to Rome's - meaning that as we cannot pacify Iraq or Afghanistan and have not claimed a colony since Hawaii, we have a very poor track record as a true empire. Given these differences, it makes a comparison between the two nations more difficult. However, as there are enough similarities, further research and exploration could quite easily prove a point - that empires always fall, that power is always fleeting, and that no-one stays on top of the hill forever, no one.