Clearly there is a weakness when one tries to continually 'teach' by analogy.

The risk of oversimplification is too great - and then all that can be produced is a sweeping, thesis-driven conclusion. Which too easily satisfies too many people.

Indeed the very prospect of 21st century Americans being able to fully comprehend the intricacies of Roman culture and psyche would be difficult, at best. The facts/details.....well the Roman historical record is incomplete, therefore would not be able to make a point-by-point comparative analysis.

Then again - we produce scores of battle analyses, we encourage our people to read about the "Great Captains" - so there has got to be some value in analogy.

Napoleon's sixteen months of intensive study seemed to bridge the gap of experience he never accumulated, thus leading to 64 victories.
Patton felt as if 'he was there' and seemed to fully embrace the stories he heard read to him.