His army was superior in their use of the phalanx and long spear.
He used bribes to neutralise some cities and divisions amongst the Greek city-states to gain allies and stop unified resistance to him.
He defeated the two main antagonists Athens and Thebes to clinch the deal.
He united the cities to support the proposed campaign against Persia.
This is some strange combination of names and confusion of events which has no relationship to reality. Can you turn this into a meaningful question if you want an answer.
After the Persian navy had been defeated in 480 at Salamis, the Greek cities were able to concentrate and defeat the Persian army, ending the invasion of peninsular Greece.
The Greek navy was able to defeat the Persian navy through superior tactics, better naval strategy, and the advantages of local knowledge. During the Battle of Salamis, the Greeks, led by Themistocles, used the narrow straits to their advantage, allowing their smaller, more maneuverable triremes to outmaneuver the larger Persian ships. Additionally, the Greeks demonstrated exceptional coordination and unity, which contrasted with the often disorganized Persian forces. This combination of strategic advantage and effective execution led to a decisive Greek victory.
King Xerxes tried to carry on his father Darius I's attempt to establish an ethnic frontier by subjugating mainland Greece, as the mainland Greek states were fomenting rebellion in the Greek states in Asia which were under Persian control. He lost, and Athens established an anti-Persian league which dominated the eastern Mediterranean. Although the internal fighting in the Greek world subsequently eroded the strength of the Greek states, and Persian gold was able to buy influence in them, the rise of Macedonia, and Philip II's and then Alexander's control of Greece tipped the balance of power against Persia. Alexander took the empire's Mediterranean coastline and so removed the Persian fleet, and as on land Persia's military forces were unable to match the power of Macedonian-Greek forces, he was able to defeat them in three major battles, and so take over the Persian Empire.
The Greeks were able to defeat the Trojans through the clever stratagem of the Trojan Horse. After a long and fruitless siege of Troy, the Greeks constructed a large wooden horse, hiding soldiers inside, and left it at the gates of the city as a supposed offering to the gods. The Trojans, believing they had won, brought the horse into the city, celebrating their victory. That night, the Greek soldiers emerged from the horse, opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, and ultimately led to the fall of Troy.
By superior force, strategy and tactics.
Philip II never conquered any countries. What he did do was unite the Greek city states so that upon his death his successor Alexander the Great was able to take on and defeat the Persian army and ultimately the entire empire.
Phillip II defeated the Greeks at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE.
I would rate Philip's plan a 4 out of 5 for success. By exploiting the divisions and conflicts among the Greek city-states, Philip was able to weaken their unity and conquer them individually. His strategy ultimately led to the creation of the powerful Macedonian Empire under his son, Alexander the Great.
The Peloponnesian War and the subsequent ongoing wars between the city states led by Sparta and Thebes had exhausted the Greek city-states. Sparta's remaining military force was restricted to trying to maintain control of its territory. Athens had shrunk from losses to the plague and the wars. As a result Philip was able to defeat their combined forces at the battle of Chaeronaea. Also Philip bribed the lesser cities of the Amphyctionic League to push his side of arguments. The cities were reduced to accepting Philip as Hegemon (leader) of Greece. After his murder, there was an uprising, but Alexander took control and put it down and destroyed Thebes and sold its population into slavery as a warning to the other cities.
The Greek coalition offered battle on the rough ground of the foothills where the Persian cavalry could not operate effectively, and the Greek armoured infantry was able to defeat the inferior Persian unarmoured infantry.
Philip was assassinated by his personal bodyguard Pausanias of Orestis. Alexander took his place as king of the Greek kingdom of Macedonia and hegemon of a united Greece on the campaign against Persia.
This is some strange combination of names and confusion of events which has no relationship to reality. Can you turn this into a meaningful question if you want an answer.
Because aside from Achiiles, Hector was the greatest warrior in the world. Without Achilles, the Greeks would not have been able to defeat Troy, and they knew it.
He never had a Navy that could stand up to and defeat the Royal Navy.
The Leviathan Dragon is able to defeat a Coolfire dragon in the Dragon City.
he was able to defeat the Greeks because they were not united, but separated into a lot of different city states, while Philip had united his country into an efficient fighting force.-----The main reason King Philip of Macedonia was able to defeat the Greeks, because they were just finished with the fight that they had for years between the Sparta and Athens, which Sparta won. The all were very tired and weak physically and economically. King Philip of Macedonia saw the advantage and invaded Greece and conquered it as planed successfully.