Drawing parallels: The Late Roman Republic?

Recently, I had quite a debate over drawing parallels of current events to historic events. Generally, I think that drawing parallels can help to grasp a current situation. On the other hand, situations rarely resemble each other completely. Therefore one could come to false conclusions about the present by looking at the past for an answer.

Just an hour ago I read Steph's weblog. (The article entitled "Jakarta Visits Russia".) Miguel commented on it. Reading that comment I was suddenly struck by a parallel. Being aware of all the shortcomings that are involved with such parallels I would like to share it with you, nonetheless. I hope you can help me to make it more accurate or find good reasons for not drawing the parallel at all. I am sorry for the rather long intro and beware: here comes another one, this time referring to the parallel directly:

The United states are the only Superpower in the world. The UN is a supernational organisation, clearly not the world government. In some ways it resembles a government (like in setting rules or "international law") in other ways - very vital ways - it is short of a world government, like enforcing those rules with police or an army. The USA are just one member of this institution. They are more powerful in it than many others because of the veto power, but that veto power can also be executed by four other nations who are less powerful than the USA.

It seems like other nations are expecting from the US to ignore the fact that they are the only superpower and go back to the UN to be only one out of five again. This is were the parallel comes into play. (I 'll give a very brief intro to the period in italics. If you want to hit the parallel directly just skip the italics)

In roman history one period is called the late roman republic. Usually we are talking about a time between 133 BC (When the Gracchi brothers first appeared) and the end of the republic in 27BC (when Gaius Octavianus, the later Augustus, came to power).
This time was charaterized by instability. For many reasons. I cannot give all of them here, that would fill books and I couldn't write them cos I am not an expert. One reason was the inability of the Senate to reform the system. In the old days, the romans had been very traditional when it comes to government. After they had kicked out their king and formed a republic they could still select a quasi king in times of trouble. The selected official would be called dictator, would rule like a king but had to step down after six months. He couldn't be held acountable for his actions during the reign, though.

ok, strangely enough that worked. None of the dictators abused his power to set up a kingdom again. They all stepped down and became normal citizens. In the late roman republic though, things had changed. Roman generals marched on Rome and set up their own governments. First it was Marius, then Sulla who kicked out Marius. Their reigns were unconstitutional. Sulla stayed in power for three years, then he stepped down ( in the tradtition of the office) but during his reign he had killed nearly all of his rivals so that it was safe for him to step down. Anyway, half a year later he died and the roman republic was there again. But every ambitious roman had seen the examples set out by Marius and Sulla.

Still, the most powerful men sat in the Senate but everyone mistrusted each other. For a long time there was fear that Pompeius or Crassus Dives would become kings of Rome, Later Caesar was feared. everyone plotted against everyone. The problem of the time was that Rome needed large powerful armies but was afraid of its generals. These generals were wielding the greatest power in the world and were aware of it. How could the other Romans expect them to lay their power down and transform into one out of 500 again? (I think there were 500 senators.) I will not judge who was most responsible for the civil war in which eventually Caesar came to power beating the senate army under Pompeius.
Historians today still argue whether Caesar wanted to built a monarchy or was driven to his quasi kingship by the mistrust of the senate.

The parallel I am trying to get at is that like in the late roman republic there is fear today that a superpower could form a quasi world government. Back then, many rivals of Caesar and Pompeius very nothing more then envious and wanted the same power. This may be the case today, too. I am a little worried that the world gets divided into pro-USA and pro-France-Russia factions or whatever other factions one can think of. I am sure, that no Roman back then wanted the civil war that started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon river. Also, today noone is interested in a war between european powers and America.

Let me point out, I don't think that the USA want to rule the world. They don't want to be bullied by it, though. The same is true for other countries. They don't want to be bullied by the US.
Many people want the UN to play the vital role in Iraq and in the world. They ask the US to go back to the UN. Count me in here, too. I have had the same opinion. The thing, that makes me question my own position here is that it may have been the same kind of pressure that drove Caesar to cross the Rubicon.

I don't know, I guess I AM an idealist still believing in the concept of the UN. The senate had such idealists, too. Not all the senators were envious rivals. Maybe we can say that the rivalry was important for the failure of the senate. I hope the rivalry among states will not be the end of the UN leading to WW3.

Ok, here was my parallel. I know it has many shortcomings. For example, the senate really ruled the imperium romanum but the UN Security Council never really ruled the world. However, in the Senate where the most powerful people of their time debating and deciding on politics. That is true for the UN Sec. Council as well. There may be other distortions in my parallel as well, I am sure you can help me to point them out.

You know,it took me about a second to come up with this parallel when I read Miguel's comment in Steph's log. All the things I mentioned were in my head at the same time. So many bells ringing. I am saying that to point out that this is nothing more than brainstorming. Every comment is welcome.