Quote Originally Posted by conon394
Kraxis



What onesided affair? The Macedonian battle mound at Chaeronea was rather large. Diodorus is clear the battle was long and could have gone either way. It was Philip’s diplomacy that won the war not his tactics. In the Lamain War Greek hoplite armies won 4 of 5 battles and fought a hard loss at Crannon even though they were massively outnumbered.
I responded to this comment

The Macedonians pretty much rolled over them with their pike-phalanx, didn't they ?
The battle was never really in doubt as the Macedonian force acted perfectly in drawing out the Athenian force. Diodorus is known to be a romantic, the battle could not never become a clearcut victory for the Mecedonians for him. But whatever one thinks of him, the facts that a are laid out says more than any author's personal oppinions. The left flank managed to lure in the Athenians, which got shredded by the cavalry and infantry in unison. The Theban contingent fought hard but were essentially fighting for the sake of fighting at that point as the battle was lost with the break of the Athenians.
Had the Athenians held their positions or something else that had held the line the battle might have been more unsure.
Hannibal's losses at Cannae were heavy, in fact very heavy, but was the battle ever really in doubt when we look at his dispositions? It could have gone wrong but didn't and thus was never in doubt. Losses doesn't mean a battle isn't onesided.
Onesided means that one side has all the initiative and never falters from using this or fails in its operations. Sure the other side might fight long and hard but that doesn't make it less onesided.

Dragging the entire war into this talk is expanding the issue which I will not jump into, though I agree the war was won by virtue of diplomacy, but the battle was won by tactics and not superior phalangites (which was the point of my former post).