The Roman empire was nothing special and was not that great

D.I. My opponent seems to have changed his point here. The Roman Government was able to control that population for almost 500 years. Not to mention, the Roman Empire did not fall because they had too big of a population. In fact, on the contrary, one of the reasons they fell was DEPOPULATION caused by plagues and barbarians. "By the mid-second century, the Roman population totaled at least 65 million people.... By 200, the Roman population stood at 40 million."[1] D.II. I will cover all of his points here. Sword: The Roman Gladius is actually not descended from anyone. "The Hispanic sword was probably not acquired from Hispania and not from the Carthaginians."[2.1]. They just happened to name it that. In fact, you can see the differences here in sources 2.2 and 2.3. Military Formation and Strategy: The Phalanx used 20 foot lances that they would use to drive an enemy off the field, literally. If hand-to-hand combat was required, then they would fight. They rarely threw their lances. They were also packed extremely tight. One could barely move at all. The Roman Maniple would first throw their javelins at the enemy which would lodge into their shields. While they were trying to get them out (which I may add was almost impossible), the Romans attacked. The Roman Maniple was more loose and smaller. "Heavy infantry formed into a dense mass, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, chest to back. Usually between sixteen and thirty-two men deep and several hundred meters long." vs. "Handfuls" of Approximately 120 men per maniple, and thirty-five maniples per Roman legion.... Maniples of each line deployed with gaps between the units"[3] Look at Source 3 for a more detailed list of differences between the two. I do not have room to put everything. My opponent agrees that there are differences between how the Roman Maniple, Greek Phalanx, and Macedonian Phalanx fought and what weapons they used. He drops this point. I will only debate their usefulness in battle since my opponent claims the Phalanx is dangerous and the Maniple useless. I think the prime example of showing the Maniple's usefulness is the Battle of Pydna. "The Romans, unable to cut through the long spears and tight formation of the phalanx, were pushed back. As the battle moved into the uneven terrain of the foothills, the Macedonian formation began to break down allowing the Roman legionaries to exploit the gaps. Surging into the Macedonian lines and fighting at close quarters, the Romans' swords proved devastating against the lightly armed phalangites. As the Macedonian formation began to collapse, the Romans struck hard routing the enemy."[4] Yes. At first, the Romans could not break the lines. But once the Macedonians attacked, they became disorganized and were routed. Let's look at the casualties: "Sources indicate that the Macedonians lost around 25,000, while Roman casualties were over 1,000."[4] The Phalanx's real weakness was their composedness. They could be struck from behind and be utterly defenseless. But even when they weren't, if their formation became just a little broken, they could be exploited by the looser, easier to maneuver maniple. The Phalanx was also utterly defenseless in large close combat. The different units fought in different formations and fought with different tactics. Actually, in one of the major battles fought between Greece & Macedon and Rome, Rome was outnumbered by at least 7000 troops and in the other, the two sides had equal numbers. [Sources 4 and 5] Also, having reserves in itself is strategy, because it was better than having all of your troops lined at once. And why did they overrun the enemy on all occasions? Better strategy. The Navy: Yes, but the Romans were the ones to use it the most often. The Greeks were only able to do that at Salamis because it was extremely close combat in an almost closed off, small harbor. Most battles were not fought like that. "This [the Corvus] improvement on the design of the Carthaginian trireme help the Romans sweep the Carthaginian Navy from the seas and win the First Punic War, fought with Carthage from 264 to 241 B.C.."[6] Sure, the Romans may have copied the Carthaginian ships to begin with, but they invented the all of their own Corvus, which may I add won the First Punic War for Rome. Not to mention, a Trireme is a ship with three banks of oars, hence the prefix tri-, while the Quinquereme is a ship with five banks of oars, hence the prefix quin-. The Cavalry: Weren't all cavalrymen at the time like this? Lightly armored, small shield, sword, bow & arrow, and a breastplate? Besides, the Roman Cavalry was superior to the Macedonian Cavalry every single time the two of them fought. On top of that, they had higher morale than their Macedonian counterparts, which aided them further. Siege Equipment: Yes, this similar weapon was an improvement on the Macedonian design, but different in several aspects and a lot more effective at ending a siege. Religion: Let me summarize this again. You are basically saying something to the effect of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are the same since they believe in the same God, Prophets, Savior, and Scripture. However, there are several flaws in that statement. The one pertinent to this debate is the centralization of religious authority. In other words, the Catholic Church as a hierarchy with Cardinals and a Pope, the Protestant Church does not. All they have are preachers. Rome is like the Catholic Church in that aspect. They have religious leaders that controlled specific provinces throughout the empire (cardinals) and a Pontifx Maximus which was the religious leader of the whole empire (the pope), whereas the Greeks are like the Protestants because all they have are individual preachers that all they do is preach in one particular church. So saying that Roman Religion is the same a Greek Religion is like saying that the Catholic Church is the same as the Protestant Church. Architecture: Sources 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 illustrate the differences between the columns. They are Doric, Corinthian, Tuscan, and Composite respectively. There is a huge difference among them. Sources 8.1 and 8.2 to show the differences in temples. They are the Parthenon and the Pantheon respectively. There is a huge difference between them. You must concede that there are major differences among the different types of columns and between the two types of temples. It is not just realigning a triangle. D.III. True, Sparta was strong after the Peloponnesian War, they quickly lost their power. They actually did fall to the Macedonians at the Battle of Megalopolis: "Agis rallied a coalition and laid siege to Megalopolis. But it wasn't enough; the Macedonians won the battle of Megalopolis and Spartan king Agis was killed in battle."[9] So there was no Sparta when Rome invaded. After this, all of the states in the Peloponnese, including Sparta, created the Achaean League. They were defeated by Rome quickly. "The Battle of Corinth was a battle fought between the Roman Republic and the Greek state of Corinth and its allies in the Achaean League in 146 BC, that resulted in the complete and total destruction of the state of Corinth which was previously so famous for its fabulous wealth."[10] D.IV. Hannibal was unable to take Rome because he did not have the right siege equipment. And he only destroyed armies because Rome was unable to lead properly. Why does my opponent keep forgetting the Battle of Zama and the fact that Rome won the Second Punic War? The Barbarians won for two reasons. Numbers and Mercenaries. The Roman Army was no longer Roman, it was undisciplined, and led incorrectly. On top of that, the numbers of barbarians say it all. There comes a point that one side outnumbers the other side so badly that no matter how good the smaller force it, it will not stand a chance against that larger force. A.I. Then why was no other empire ever in the history of the world ever able to conquer almost all of the civilized world or the whole Mediterranean? My opponent has failed to explain this. They did not steal anything. They used their own tactics, own style of Government, and own culture. And the things they did borrow they improved on. Nobody else was able to do this. That is one point for Rome that can never be taken away. Not to mention, no other empire had an extensive road system, an extensive system of aqueducts, a centralized system that kept all the states in line, or a centralized army that worked. It is number one on a list of the greatest empires. Let's see what they have to say: "…How a group of farmers, who started off fending wolves to protect their livestock, eventually became the greatest empire in all history is the stuff of legends. Coupled with an excellent military and administrative system,... …ancient Rome, is also one of the longest-lasting. Counting from its founding to the fall of the Byzantine empire, ancient Rome lasted for… …2,214 years! Ancient Rome contributed greatly to the development of law, war, art, literature, architecture, technology, religion and language in the Western world. In fact many historians consider the Roman Empire to be a perfect empire – influential, fair, long-lasting, big, well defended and economically advanced. The influence of the Roman Empire is felt to this day, if for no other reason than the influence on the Catholic Church, which took much of its administrative nous and pageantry from it."[11] A.II. It is entirely possible that Christianity would have died out without Rome. The Roman Roads and cleared seas allowed Christians to spread their preachings. If they had not had these safe passages, it would have stayed in Judea and died out. The roads weren't stolen. In fact, on the contrary, the Romans were the first people to build an extensive system of interlinking roads. Their system was the precursor to today's interstate system. A.III. Let's look at the Roman Republic. Two consuls elected every year. This would represent the President. Magistrates elected every year to make and vote on bills. This would represent today's Congress. A centralized military that answers to the state. The state would elect commanders. State-run handouts of grain and subsidized housing (Sound familiar? See Similarities? It led to their downfall. LISTEN DEMOCRATS!) It is almost a mirror image of our system. In fact, the Founding Fathers actually looked at the Roman System and decided they should use it. They decided on it. I would like to thank my opponent for responding with thought out arguments (most of the time). This was a great debate. Voters, I ask for the conduct point, but you can decide all other points. Having to do with sources, if you see sources 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 and so on, count that as one source. I did that so it would be easier for you to see what pages I was talking about. Sources: [1]: http://www.examiner.com... [2.1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2.2]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2.3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(dagas)-Segunda_Edad_del_Hierro.jpg [3]:http://www.google.com... [4]: http://militaryhistory.about.com... [5]: http://www.roman-empire.net... [6]: http://www.jaysromanhistory.com... [7.1]: http://www.google.com... [7.2]: http://www.google.com... [7.3]: http://www.google.com... [7.4]: http://www.google.com... [8.1]: http://www.google.com... [8.2]: http://www.google.com... [9]: http://www.emersonkent.com... [10]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(146_BC) [11]: http://listverse.com...