Why was Philip of Macedonia able to easily conquer Greece?

Answer 1

Philip never conquered Greece. With various methods, he brought the Greeks together and united them under Macedonian hegemony through the formation of the Pan-Hellenic league of Corinth.

After the Peloponnesian Wars, the Greeks who had a history of disunity were even more disjointed. Athens had been defeated by Sparta, and Sparta was in turn defeated by Thebes which was the leading political power in Greece. Philip took advantage and built up his military and reinforced his alliances. Demosthenes of Athens who held a personal grudge with Philip after being snubbed at the Macedonian royal court spoke against the threat from Macedonia to Athenian hegemony.

[10] When, Athenians, will you take the necessary action? What are you waiting for? Until you are compelled, I presume. But what are we to think of what is happening now? For my own part I think that for a free people there can be no greater compulsion than shame for their position. Or tell me, are you content to run round and ask one another, "Is there any news today?" Could there be any news more startling than that a Macedonian is triumphing over Athenians and settling the destiny of Hellas?

Demosthenes. Demosthenes with an English translation by J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1930.

Also, while the Athenian allies may have had an advantage in quality, Philip had a greater advantage in numbers. The Macedonian Army was larger and more modern. The phalanx infantry formation used by the Thebans to defeat Sparta was improved by the Macedonians with longer spears and ranks of sixteen instead of eight. After an enemy had been broken up by the Macedonian phalanx, the Macedonian heavy cavalry charged in for the kill.

On the battlefield of Chaeronea, Macedonia and its Greek allies met with the Athenians and their allies from the Greek city states....

As the eminent historian J. B. Bury writes:

• If the chances of another issue to the battle of Chaeronea have been exaggerated, the significance of that event has been often misrepresented. The battle of Chaeronea belongs to the same historical series as the battles of Aegospotami (405 B.C.) and Leuctra (371B.C.).
• As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon. The statement that Greek liberty perished on the plain of Chaeronea is as true or as false as that it perished on the field of Leuctra or the strand of the Goat's River. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; but we must not forget what Sparta, in the day of her triumph, did to Athens, or the more evil things which Thebes proposed.

Answer 2

Macedonia never conquered Greece in the context that this loaded question implies. Macedonia united Greece (Hellas), under Macedonian Hegemony and together they conquered Persia.

• Quote: It is difficult to imagine that Philip II's policy toward Greece was an end in itself. Once his Balkan borders had been secured his general course seems to have been directed toward the establishment of stability in Greece, NOT CONQUEST.

~ E.N.Borza, "On the Shadows of Olympus" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 230

One of the main falsifications of ancient Macedonian history has to do with the mistaken claim, used mostly by propagandists from the Former Yugoslav Republic (FYROM) that Macedonians confronted a "united" Greek army in Chaeronia and 'conquered Greece'.

Put in context:

The opposing sides in Chaeronea were:

Side A'

Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia, Northern Phocis, Epicnemidian Locrians*

Side B'

Athens, Beotian League (Thebes, etc), Euboean League, Achaean League, Corinth, Megara, Corcyra, Acarnania, Ambracia, Southern Phocis.

Neutral sides

Sparta, Argos, Arcadia, Messene. The three last had alliances both with Athens and Philip but their pro-Macedonian activity of 344/3 BEC showed they were leaning towards Philip. However they didn't sent aid to Chaeronea in Philip's side because of the blocking in Isthmus by Corinth and Megara. Sparta had withdrawn almost entirely from Greek affairs in 344 BCE.

[*] Elis had an alliance with Philip though they didn't take part in Chaeronea but showed their pro-macedonian feelings by joining their forces with Philip in the invasion of Laconia in the autumn of 338 BCE.

If this is translated by the propagandists of the Former Yugoslav Republic to mean that Macedonians confronted a "United" Greek army then in Coronea Spartans also confronted a "United" Greek army.

Battle of Coronea (394 BCE)

Combatants

Sparta Vs Thebes, Argos, and other Greek allies

• As the eminent historian J. B. Bury writes:
• • If the chances of another issue to the battle of Chaeronea have been exaggerated, the significance of that event has been often misrepresented. The battle of Chaeronea belongs to the same historical series as the battles of Aegospotami (405 B.C.) and Leuctra (371B.C.).
  • As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon. The statement that Greek liberty perished on the plain of Chaeronea is as true or as false as that it perished on the field of Leuctra or the strand of the Goat's River. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; but we must not forget what Sparta, in the day of her triumph, did to Athens, or the more evil things which Thebes proposed.
• THE BATTLE OF CHAERONEA - Philip called the Congress of Corinth, during which all the Greek states, except Sparta, entered a Hellenic League against Persia, under Macedonian hegemony. The league council had proportional representation and was presided over by a chairman, replaced by the Macedonian king in wartime. The autonomy of the members was guaranteed, existing constitutions were not to be altered, and no private property was to be confiscated. There was no tribute required and no more than four garrisons-Thebes, Corinth, Chalcis, and Ambracia. The king had supreme military command, and the Amphictyonic Council served as a court of appeals. Philip announced plans for a campaign against the Persian Empire.

~ "Encyclopaedia of World History" 6th Edition 2001

Answer 3

Greece wasn't "conquered" by Macedonia it was united under Macedonian Hegemony. Philip II wanted to unite the Greek city-states under his leadership so that he could spearhead a campaign to conquer Persia. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. As the eminent historian, J.B. Bury writes, "Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon". Thr Corinthian League, under the brilliant leadership of Alexander the great, would go on to conquer the mighty Persian Empire and build an Empire spreading the Greek language, culture and civilization, stretching from Greece through Egypt to India.

Answer 4

Philip never conquered Greece. He united Greece under Macedonian Hegemony in order to attack Persia and free the Greek states in Asia Minor that the Persians were harassing. He did this by developing a professional army, through subversive means and also by force. The historian J. B. Bury explains:

• As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon. The statement that Greek liberty perished on the plain of Chaeronea is as true or as false as that it perished on the field of Leuctra or the strand of the Goat's River. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; but we must not forget what Sparta, in the day of her triumph, did to Athens, or the more evil things which Thebes proposed.

Answer 5

Philip II of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia, never conquered Greece. He brought the Greek states together, some by diplomacy and negotiations, others by force and united Greece under Macedonian Hegemony.

After the Peloponnesian War, a defeated Athens became a second level power. The Greek cities continued their usual pattern of fighting each other under various coalitions, with at first Sparta dominant, then Thebes which defeated it.

This fighting allowed the rise of Macedonia in the background, with no coherent opposition amongst the divided cities which were unable to organise a coordinated response as they had done against the Persian invasion a century earlier. As the eminent historian J. B. Bury writes:
As the hegemony or first place among Greek states had passed successively from Athens to Sparta, and to Thebes, so now it passed to Macedon. The statement that Greek liberty perished on the plain of Chaeronea is as true or as false as that it perished on the field of Leuctra or the strand of the Goat's River. Whenever a Greek state became supreme, that supremacy entailed the depression of some states and the dependency or subjection of others. Athens was reduced to a secondary place by Macedon, and Thebes fared still worse; but we must not forget what Sparta, in the day of her triumph, did to Athens, or the more evil things which Thebes proposed.

Answer 6

The Greek city-states were divided and weakened, having been fighting each other for a hundred years of devastating wars. And Philip was the master of bribery, adding further to the divisions of the Greek cities, many of which allied with him.

Answer 7

Rome took over Greece after she fought six wars in Greece. Rome was the most powerful military force in the Mediterranean.