I have recently been reading about how the Romans ended up conquering Greece. From my relatively limited research it seems like the Romans managed to handily kick the Greek's, or more specifically the Macedonian's, asses on several occasions. Could someone elaborate on specifically what made the Romans so superior on the battlefield? Any incite as to Roman advantages on the logistical or strategic side would also be greatly appreciated.
Without meaning to discourage further discussion (and I don't think it answers all of your questions), I've written about the clash between legionaries and the pike phalanx here and in the follow-ups to that post. The short of it is that there was little in their technology or tactics that made the Romans inherently superior to the Greeks; their victories tended to be due to a more flexible approach to infantry battle, in which commanders of sub-units were able to take the initiative and disrupt the relatively rigid pike phalanx. This was far more the result of contingency than of doctrine, and helped in no small measure by the failure of Macedonian support units to act effectively to protect the main line.