Salvete,
A few months ago I read a book about contemporary international politics (mainly about the position of the US and the question whether it is an empire or not). A most interesting difference the author of that book made is between universalism and differentialism. He regarded France or the former Soviet Union as universalist states, that is, they extend their own ideals and egalitarian principles to everyone (although France is a liberal state, whereas the USSR was an authoritarian state). He opposed this to Nazi Germany, which was a differentialist state: everyone was inherently different, and nothing could change it. For him, this was one of the prime reasons why Nazi Germany failed to achieve a permanent victory: the conquered peoples could never trickle through the higher echelons.
In this respect, he also looked at Athens and Rome as great powers of the Mediterranean, and said that Athens ultimately failed as an ancient superpower, because its political ranks never opened up to 'foreigners' and minority classes (instead, they became increasingly xenophobic). Conversely, the success of Rome could in part be attributed to its slowly widening scope: although not easy, it was still possible for a Gaul or a German to gain Roman citizenship and enjoy its benefits.
Any thoughts?
Valete!
Draco