The Roman empire was nothing special and was not that great

D.I. My opponent seems to have not gotten my point. The Roman Empire could not have had as many people as the British Empire had at its height because there weren't that many people in the world in the Roman time. It is therefore more important to hold a greater percentage of the population than it is to hold a lot of people. And again, at the time, the Roman Empire held most of the civilized world. D.II Swords: Swords were pretty much the same at that time. They were short and wide. Military Formation and Strategy: [1] vs. [2] where one is the Greek Phalanx and two is the Roman Maniple. The Greek Phalanx was heavily armoured, big, square, and carried 20-foot spears. The Roman Maniple was lightly armoured, moderately sized, rectangular, and threw javilens and fought in close combat. On top of that, there military strategy was different. The Greek Phalanx was literally designed to push the enemy off the field. It was big, compact, heavily armoured, and not very maneuverable. It was the sight of the phalanx that drove most enemies off. On the other hand, the Roman Maniple fought like a today's regiment. They were not too big, they were lightly armoured and were very maneuverable and non-compact. "Hoplite phalanx: tight formation with big round shields, heavy armour, 2-meter long spear and sword. Fights with interlocked shields. Macedonian phalanx: tight formation with enormous spears (sarissa), small shiels and short swords. Pretty much useless if broken Roman maniple: tight formation (less than phalanxes), with big square shields, throws javellins before engaging in close quarters with sword. More flexible."[3] As for stratgey, since the Romans beat the phalanx everytime they encountered it, we must think that the Roman Military Unit was superior to the Greek Military Unit. " The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters."[4] The Navy: At the time, Naval Strategy was to blockade your opponent and ram him. The Romans were the first to widely use the boarding technique. The invention was so great that it gave the fledgling Roman Navy five victories over the vastly superior Carthaginian Navy. But after the Punic Wars, the Boarding Technique was replaced. After the takeover of Carthage, there was no need for a big powerful navy because the supreme naval force of the Mediterranean. As for the ships themselves, "Unlike the rich Hellenistic Successor kingdoms in the East however, the Romans did not rely on heavy warships, with quinqueremes, and to a lesser extent quadriremes and triremes providing the mainstay of the Roman fleets from the Punic Wars to the end of the Civil Wars."[5] The main Roman ship was the Quinqueremes, which were lighter and faster than other ships. They did not copy the Greek Triemes. The Cavalry: As I said earlier, the Roman Cavalry was lighter and more determined than other empire's Cavalry forces. The Roman Cavalry was superior to other Cavalry in almost every battle. Siege Equipment: Again, siege equipment basically revolved around the same general machines and tactics. The Siege Equipment was designed to either kill advancing soldiers, raze walls, to to light the city on fire; tactics was basically surrounding the city and using siege equipment until it surrendered. Religion: My opponent almost concedes here. Roman Religion was a lot different than Greek Religion in the effect that is was more centralized. There were no religious leaders for the Greeks. I have pointed out many differences. With your logic, you could say that Christianity was stolen from the Zoroastrians. My opponent needs to make better arguments. Architecture: Another concession. I did not say that the Romans used Egyptian columns. The Egyptians created the Doric columns, while the Romans used the Corinthian columns. The Greeks used a combination of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. In fact, the Romans created two types of columns, Composite and Tuscan. Another feature of Roman Architecture that is distinct from Greek Architecture is their temples. One, the temples had more steps. In other words, the temple was higher off of the ground than other temples. And two, Roman temples could only be entered from the front, whereas Greek temples could be entered from anywhere. D.III. The Peloponnesian War basically crushed the Greek Army so that it was unable to fight off the Macedonians. Also, the Greeks were not able to fight off the Macedonian threat because the city-states could not get along. The Italian Confederation was one of the great accomplishments of the Romans; it prevented state-on-state warfare in the empire. I use source 6 to back my point. So as shown, the Greeks fell due to a failed sense of unity that brought on civil war and prevented them from uniting against an army. The Romans were able to allieviate this by settling a peace pact between the states, thus preventing the need and even the ability to do Civil War (between states). D.IV. "16 years after his invasion of Italy, the army of Hannibal was destroyed and Carthage was defeated."[7] The Second Punic War was a Roman victory. The Battle of Cannae was actually a shining star in Rome. Rome was able to recover, draw up more forces, and prevent many states from defecting to Hannibal. This was an extraordinary accomplishment. And we must not forget Zama. This gave Rome the victory. With Magnesia, the Romans were outnumbered 3-to-1 but still won. "Antiochus had by far the larger army, at least 70,000 strong, but it was far more chaotic in nature. He massively outnumbered the Romans in cavalry, with at least 12,000. to their 2,800. He also had 20,000 light infantry, 54 elephants and a number of scythed chariots. It was a typical Hellenistic army – large, impressive but unwieldy – but it was also built around a solid core, a phalanx at least 16,000 strong."[8] This is not luck but superior tactics. The Selucidian Army even had chariots with swords sticking out the sides of the wheel to break up Roman Formation, but the Romans were able to defeat them. In Gaul, the Romans were many times outnumbered. In fact, at Alesia, they were attacked by a force 5 times their number. Also, the Romans were surrounded just before the battle. So it wasn't the barbarians that were outnumbered and surrounded, but the Romans, yet they were still able to win. The same thing happens in Britian, but to a lesser extent. And with the Tornberg Forest, defeats happen. Especially when you are ambushed. You can not prevent that. In the Late Roman Empire, the Romans still had a large army, but it was made up mostly of mercenaries, so it was not really the "Roman" army. The army lost to barbarians for this reason. My opponent has not made a contention here. A.I. Rome must have been doing something different because no other empire in the ancinet world conquered the whole Meditteranean in 125 years. And their tactics were certainly different. A.II. Without the Roman system of roads and a clear sea, the Christians would not have been able to spread their religion because it would have been impossible. They may have tried to wipe them out, but this is not a strike against Rome. No Rome, no Christianity. A.III. Your point? I simply stated that the American model of Government was based off of the Roman Republic. There was an Senate and elected Representatives (known as Magistrates) with annually elected consuls. This is almost a mirror image of our form of Government. Conclusion: I have shown that Roman military equipment was different than other empire's, and their tactics were certainly different. Their religious practices and architecture too were distinct in their way and style. I have shown that the Romans have had many great victories. Sources: [1]:http://www.google.com... [2]:http://www.google.com... [3]:http://forums.totalwar.org... [4]:http://www.fordham.edu... [5]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]:http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca... [7]:http://www.unrv.com... [8]:http://www.historyofwar.org... [9]:http://en.wikipedia.org...