I see the parallel with the Roman Empire at its peak, but not Italy. Rome did all the things for Europe that you describe Alabama doing for the SEC. But there's also a big disconnect.
Alabama has gone through several relatively dark eras: -- much of the first 20 years was rather undistinguished, 2 of Wade's last 3, Red Drew's last several after the Thomas aftereffect wore off, Bryant's 1967-70. We nearly fell off the map from 1955 - 1957. Had a long post-Bryant hangover with only a relatively brief period in the early 1990 as consistently repeated performance. Outside of that, some wildly inconsistent years (good and bad) from 1983 to 2006. But each and every time, Alabama has bounced back to win not just Conference, but National Championships.
True, we've had our down spells. Some the result of treachery by those charged with protecting our back, some self-inflicted, some just the breaks. But no matter the cause, we've never been kept down long.
Rome on the other hand withered and broke, mainly due to lack of willpower and shortsighted government (not to get political, but does this remind you of anything lately?). Once it kind of died on the vine in the early Christian era, legions lost to the Visigoths and Rome itself sacked by the Vandals, it never really came back. Italy as a country post-dates true Roman power by about 1,500 years, has never really done anything other than follow the wrong trends, ally with the wrong friends, and change governments about every other day since Mussolini was tracked down and rightfully lynched.
In sum, there are definitely common characteristice in the early years. The difference -- and it's a big one -- is that Alabama has proven time and again to be resilient. Whereas Rome was once strong, and did great things, but proved to be both soft and brittle in the end.
BTW, if you think soft and brittle are mutually exclusive, you're clearly too young to have ever dealt with a hubcap made out of pot metal.
