Rome-wank seems to be hard-wired into history, at least according to quite a few on this discussion board. No one could fight like the Romans, no one could take losses like the Romans, no one could conquer and govern like the Romans, etc. While the concept of another country conquering and holding vast swathes of territory is considered ASB, it is often considered ASB for Rome not to triumph in the long run.
My question is this - what did Rome do right, and what could other states have done to create similar results? Let's say Rome somehow remained a minor town in the Latin League, got defeated by the Samnites, etc. Could Massalia, for example, have reformed and created a Hispano-Gallic Empire? Or perhaps a Carthaginian colony in Spain? Could a Hellenistic Kingdom reform its military away from phalanxes and companion cavalry? Why didn't they?