The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

The Roman empire was nothing special and was not that great

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,522 times Debate No: 22978
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I believe the Roman empire was small and insignificant we just make them out to be hero's. Really the Romans built a small empire around the Mediterranean that included France and England which was split in half and conquered by barbarians. All Rome did was go around take out smaller civilizations take their technologies and move on. Compared to empires like Mongolians British Germans and Americans Rome is nothing even the Macedonians had a more productive empire Rome only took it when it collapsed. I believe all Rome did was steal technologies and over expand best of luck to my opponent.


I assume that since my opponent has not made any arguments that the first round is for acceptance.

In this debate, I will attempt to negate the two resolutions. One, that the Roman Empire was made through luck and not hard work, and two, that the Roman empire was not great.

I look forward to my opponent's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I wish my opponent the best of luck for this debate.

1. The Roman empire was tiny compared to other Empires that are over looked in history for example the British Empire

2. Rome had few things original it just took from all the other civilizations it conquered like its sword from Spain its Legions from the Greek Hoplite's also it took the Greek religion and gave it a tiny twist then called it its own most of its siege and sailing equipment from Carthage and Egypt its architecture was much Egyptian and they're cavalry was based off of the Macedonian Companion unit.

3. The Empire spent most of its time dealing with political problems and crushing barbarians until they over expanded and collapsed

4. There military was a joke there entire military was stolen and they couldn't even use it right their Legion was a Hoplite with a Spanish shield and sword their cavalry we're Macedonian Companions the siege equipment was Carthaginian and Egyptian same thing with the navy and the archers were Nubian style with armor. Then when they had stolen and Frankensteined the greatest military units in the known world they sent them to fight barbarians then lost the Goths and Saxons and Celts ripped the Roman army apart not to mention what Hannibal and his Carthaginians did to them the military was a joke and that's giving them a lot of credit.

I look forward to the next round.


D.I. The Roman empire was only tiny compared to today's standards. In their time, the empire encompassed most of the known world. At the time, the Roman empire basically held every bit of civilized territory except for the far Middle East and China.

Another important aspect is percentage of the world population. Britian had 20.00% of the world's population at its height in 1938. But Rome had between 29.20% and 39.50% of the world's population at its height in the 2nd Century AD. [1]

So the Roman Empire may not be big by today's standards, but the Roman Empire at its height had most of the civilized world and then some in its sphere of influence.

D.II. Most swords were the same at that time. But the Romans used them to greater effect. "The Romans, on the contrary, having excellent points to their swords, used them not to cut but to thrust: and by thus repeatedly hitting the breasts and faces of the enemy, they eventually killed the greater number of them."[2] In the beginning, the Romans copied the Greek phalanx. But by the 3rd Century, they had created a formation all of their own, the maniple. "The main difference between Greek and Roman warfare was the formations that they fought in. The Grecian armies all used the phalanx as a fighting formation while the Romans used the maniple. The phalanx was one mass formation that consisted of infantry eight deep. The maniple formation was actually a group of formations in a checkerboard pattern. Each maniple consisted of about 120 men and when employed in Italy, the Romans used thirty maniples."[3] The Roman ships were only copying the Carthaginian ships during the Second Punic War when they had no other choice. But soon after, they developed their own ships. However, their naval strategy was different than any other seen before. "Before battle it would be raised and then dropped onto an enemy's deck. The spike would embed itself into the oppnent's deck planking and the legionaries could board the enemy vessel across it. This elaborate contraption was called 'the raven' (corvus) This invention gave Rome five victories at sea."[4] And the calvary was diferent in the effect that the Romans were better at using cavalry in battle than anyone else. The Roman armies were very different, especialy later on, than other armies at the time.

The Romans did borrow a lot from the Greek with regards to religion, but their were some imporant differences. "The religion of the Romans differed in some respects from that of the Greeks, inasmuch as it was emphatically a state religion. It was more of a ritual and a ceremony.""The Roman religion was more practical and less poetical than the Greek religion.""There were more superstitious rites practised by the Romans than by the Greeks, such as examining the entrails of beasts and birds for good or bad omens.""The festivals were more numerous in Rome than in Greece, and perhaps were more piously observed.""The Romans established a college of pontiffs (religious leaders)" The Greeks never had any pontiffs. [5] Also, some Roman Emperors, such as Caesar and Augustus were defied. No one in the Greek world was ever defied. Not to mention, in the 4th Century AD, Rome offically became Christian, which no other empire had ever done.

In architecture, all empires were different. One can easily tell Egyptian architecture from Roman. True, the Egyptians did create the column, but one, they only invented one kind of column, and the Romans invented two that they mainly used, Composite and Tuscan.

D.III. Didn't all empires suffer this fate? For example, the Greeks fell because of tensions between the polises and the costly Peloponnesian War. The Egyptians due to dynastic struggles. The Macedonians due to dynastic struggles after the split up of the Empire, and so on. Most empires fall for these reasons. It's a cycle. Small-->Determination to Win-->Victory-->Happiness-->Political Problems and/or overdecadence-->Fall (the Egyptians were a little more complicated because they did this cycle three seperate times).

D.IV. I went over some of these things in D.II., so I will not cover them here. "Generally speaking, the Roman rider was equally, if not more, motivated than any of his opponents"[6] Most cavalry was the same at the time, lightly armored, fast moving, and deadly. Siege equipment was mostly the same because there were only a few devices; Catapult, Battering Ram, enclosure, and archers; that's about it. And the archers were the same way; most were lightly armored and most used the same tactics.

I like how my opponent makes up the word "Frankensteined". I also like how my opponent completely misses Rome's great victories. The Second Punic War (with Hannibal), wet badly for the Romans at first, but when Scipio Africanus invaded North Africa, he won the victory that won the war at Zama. Rome's successes from the first two Punic Wars were astounding considering that Rome was a lot less greater of a power than Carthage. Then, in a period of a little over 50 years, Rome took over almost all of the Meditteranean. They beat Carthage, the Antigonids, the Achean League, the Aetolian League, the Selucid Empire, and Bythynia, most of the time fighting a larger army (at the battle of Magnesia wih the Selucids, the Romans beat an army three times their size). Then in the next one hudred years, they took over Gaul, some of the Parthians, the Ptolmeic dynasty, and repeled Mithradates's attack and then took over his whole kingdom. After that, they took over most of Britian, Dacia, the Numidians, and Maureitania. I use Sources 7 and 8 for this.

Then why did Rome fail after the 3rd Century? Because it wasn't the Roman Army. It was full of mercenaries. The Emperors did not rule effectively and there weren't very good generals. "There are adherents to single factors, but more people think a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary trouble, and military problems caused the Fall of Rome. Imperial incompetence and chance could be added to the list. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in A.D. 1453."[9]"Increasingly, however, the army filled its ranks by attracting volunteers from outside the empire. In the fourth century, huge numbers of Germans enlisted, and many of them attained high rank. The army itself—once the most powerful Romanizing force in the world—was rapidly becoming Germanized by its own recruits. German terminology and even German customs—such as the barritus, the old German battle cry—became widespread."[10]

A.I. The Roman Empire accomplished something no other empire had ever done-conquer the entire known world and the entire Meditteranean. There armies were some of the best ever seen.

A.II. Rome helped spread Christianity (however good this may be). Without Rome, Christianity would not have spread and my have eventually died out. Rome helped pave the way through its conquering of all of the Mediteranean and creating the coveted "cosmopolis", making it easier to exchange ideas. The largest religion in the wold owes a great debt to Rome.

A.III. But probably the most important contribution Rome ever made was its Government. The Roman Republic was the Government the American Government was based upon. "Ancient Rome was the first nation to create a republic.""Many Romans believed that codified, or written, laws would prevent Roman leaders from abusing their power. Ancient Greek and Roman ideas and practices concerning government eventually spread to Europe and to the United States."[11]


So as shown, Rome had many great victories and only fell when the army became non-Roman. Rome copied the other empires at first, but soon, it created its own army and political system. But it doesn't matter if they copied them or not. Their tactics conquered the whole Med. in 100 years.


Debate Round No. 2


D.I. they held the Mediterranean and part of England that's it.

At the same time even though they held a larger percentage they did not hold as many people as the British empire.

They had most of Europe's civilized nations and the top crescent of Africa not the worlds.

D.II. The link above will show you a Greek sword that is nothing like the Roman/Spanish gladius the Romans stole the Spanish sword then used it in a Greek phalanx formation these were not Roman they were just stolen from other civilizations also the maniple is almost the exact same thing just with a twist stolen from the Samnites during the Samnite wars also the groups forming the checkered pattern of the maniple were in a phalanx formation. As far as the way the Romans fought and the boats they used those were almost completely Greek triremes and as far as boarding the ship that's what the triremes were designed for boarding the enemy boat wasn't it anything new in Thermopylae the Athenian triremes guarding the naval pass did just that crashed into and boarded Persian ships as they were designed to do and always had done its actually a newer idea for ships to shoot at each other. Now for Roman cavalry it was just Macedonian Companions and the Greeks were better with it.

As my opponent clearly shows the Romans stole the Greek religion and gave them different names with more military personalities and more order also the Romans tried to wipe out the Christians before they became them.

With architecture my opponent agrees they used Egyptian columns and also a lot of Greek architecture.

D.III. The Greeks did not collapse because of costly Peloponnesian war though that made them weaker it did not destroy them they were conquered by Macedon. The Egyptians collapsed thanks to a un advanced military system. And even after the division of the empire lived until Rome came along.

D.IV. as far as cavalry please revert to D.II. But for siege equipment their was one piece of equipment used by only to civilizations at the time the ballistic invented by Macedon stolen by Rome.

The Second Punic War a victory? Hannibal destroyed Rome time and time and time again best of these was Cannae the Romans starved Hannibal out and then attacked him and his horribly weakened force there was no way Hannibal could win that battle he was out numbered horribly. Also Carthage itself was weak from a minimal navy limiting their trade. Also Magnesia was luck almost completely pure luck. From here my opponent states about the Romans taking Gaul and Britain etc. But really that's not a huge accomplishment they beat a bunch of barbarians who were using outdated weapons were outnumbered and many times surrounded and still many times one of which being the Tornberg Forrest when an entire Roman legion was wiped out.

Here my opponent states that the Romans failed because they only had mercenaries this is false the Romans still had a fairly large army also few people were willing to join because if they did survive then their family was gone their home was in ruins and they were broke so no one wanted to join.

A.I. What allowed Rome to do this was they were using others technologies.

A.II. Once again Rome tried to kill the Christians before they joined them and only joined in its last breaths Christianity would have been fine.

A.III. The Roman Republic collapsed early on and caused power struggles for Rome internally for the rest of the empires lives and the Roman Republic was full of mini dictatorships this was shown well in The Second Punic War when politicians were commanding on the battlefield instead of professionally trained generals and the Roman politicians were terrified of making generals and only did it when they were in their darkest hours in fear of someone becoming the king which ended up happening anyway.

Conclusion As I have shown Rome has had few victories and the only ones they had were thanks to stolen technologies.


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.

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.


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.


Debate Round No. 3


american5 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4


D.I. And my point is the Roman government wouldn't have been able to control that many anyways even if there were that many they split the empire in half.

D.II. But the Romans took the Spanish sword the gladius was the Spanish sword design and name.

Phalanx was heavily armored using a 5 to 9 foot spear they could throw and then they would draw a sword in a square formation the maniple was the same thing only the spears were javelins and they were in the same design but it was just a bunch of smaller phalanxes in a checker pattern.

The Roman maniple was more defensive than anything designed to allow the enemy to fall into the checker pattern and fight their small phalanxes in mini battles than when one phalanx one there mini battle they pull around the flank of another one help that phalanx and then pull back to there position not much moving.

The Roman legionnaire wore a helmet breastplate greaves and carried a shield on their front and later versions carried a second one on their backs along with a javelin and sword fights in a tight but small phalanx throws javelins before engagement and than meets with sword. Very heavy unit. Useless if ambushed for their javelins cannot be doubled to spears without snapping and their swords are not drawn if maniple breaks a good amount of their soldiers are already dead and the army will be destroyed with no hope of retreat proven by Hannibal.

The Greek hoplite wore a helmet greaves breastplate carried a smaller shield a spear and sword depending on the situation the commander could order the spear to be kept or thrown if thrown they had a sword to double with formation is not easily moved but if broken a good amount of soldiers will escape and the army will be ok also the shield is a weapon for the Greeks that is very dangerous to the enemy.

The Macedonian hoplite wore a helmet greaves breastplate carried a shield and sword and 10 foot spear that could be doubled to a javelin if requested if spear is thrown the sword is very affective at taking down enemies they fight in a tight formation also with a dangerous shield that can be used as a affective weapon.

These soldiers fight in similar formations with similar weapons used for similar jobs.

For strategy also remember many times the Romans outnumbered the Greeks by a lot they were able to keep troops in reserve because they had extras not much strategy just over running the enemy.

The navy: The Greek trireme carried units on board to take enemy ships after they rammed them they did this at Thermopylae it kept them alive against the vastly superior Persian navy.

This shows that the Quinqueremes were originally Carthaginian and much like the Trireme.

The cavalry: As I said earlier the Roman cavalry was a man on a horse with a helmet breastplate greaves shield and weapon just like the Macedonian companion quick strong and effective.

Siege Equipment: But the Macedonians were the only others in all of the known world that used the ballistic and then the Romans after conquering Greece come out with a similar weapon called the scorpion.

Religion: Roman gods are children from previous rulers of the world and over throw their parents they control the world they have a leader king of the sky who has two brothers king of the sea and king of the underworld he has a wife and a son of war they have a goddess of beauty and one of battle and a messenger god the gods also come to earth and have kids with mortals that become demigods and go on great adventures and become famous for killing great monsters and doing great things the same as the Greeks.

Architecture if you take a right triangle and make an isosceles triangle you didn't invent anything its still a triangle the Romans took the Egyptian column and made their own tiny twist still nothing new.

Once again the triangles they lifted it a bit higher and took away a door nothing really all that different.

D.III. The Spartans were still strong after the Peloponnesian they did not fall to the Macedonians and it was a long while before Rome took them too and the Romans started as a city state they just conquered everyone around them so quickly there wasn't time for state on state warfare there was no unity just conquest.

When Rome came in they outnumbered the Greeks 3 to 1 even if they were united and they still had a ruff time taking Sparta.

D.IV. Trebia Tasinmene Cannae Hannibal again and again destroyed Roman armies after Cannae Hannibal only had to walk into Rome and take it ending the war the Romans just got lucky he didn't.

I have made a contention here the army was still large but the barbarians still won they couldn't fight them off showing the Roman weakness.

A.I. Rome did nothing different they did everything from every other civilization that worked staying compact throwing spears and drawing swords boarding ships using ballistics being cruel they just stole what worked before and used it my opponent didn't even give an argument here.

A.II. Roman road building and naval transportation were stolen from Greece Carthage and Egypt Christianity would have been fine.

A.III. But the American military isn't a tool used by politicians for power.


I have shown Rome was nothing but a city of thieves that stole technology to build their empire.

Vote for me.


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.

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 6 years ago
ahhh!!! Nooooooooooo! Romans didn't borrow from the Greeks: the Greek religion changed from the Romans. The Romans basically said "You see your Helios? That's actually Apollo" and that was the major impact and why the religions are so similar.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
By the way, Source 2 is just a quote from Polybius's "Rise of the Roman Empire" and Source 6 is Jeremiah B. McCall's "The Cavalry of the Roman Republic".
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
Did you forget your periods.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro forfeited round 4. Spelling and grammar - Pro doesn't understand the difference in usage of there, their, and they're. Arguments - Con demonstrated that the Roman army was superior to all others of that time, and only fell when it became non-Roman. He also demonstrated the great logistical feats of the Romans such as aqueducts, roads, and transportation networks. Sources - Con used about ten times as many sources and better sources than Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: cons arguments easily won the debate since he showed how powerful the Roman Empire was and how long it lasted despite all it went through. Arguments to con, pro FF a round so conduct to con, and sources to con