I don't agree. The Romans were actually not particully open to change militarily in fact they were notoriously conservative. In fact several Roman Consuls were executed for using unorthodox tactics even though they won. It may seem as though they were more adaptable then their oppoents but this is an illusion caused by the fact that the Romans were arround so much longer then most of the competition. In any similar period of time you can see a much larger degree of change in the Macedonian successor states (i.e. the wide spread introduction of Elephants, the many changes to the phalanxes depth armoring, and spear length etc.)
The Roman main advantage was a sound tactical doctrine that could be instilled into a force rapidly. This combined with a solid core of what we would call NCOs produced very quickly disciplined forces that were very effective.
This ability combined with the large Roman manpower pool allowed for the rapid raising of legions that operated at a much higher level of effectivenss then a normal 'levy' force.
By contrast the Macedonina system relied on highly trained professions divided into several complex arms. It also required a good officer corp to make use of these arms. When those were present a combined arms Macedonian force could best a Roman one but losses were always harder to replace hence the Phyrhic victory).
THe Carthagininas are a different case. Each Carthaginan force was a polygot conglomeration of levys, aliied tribute forces, and merceneries all officered by Carthaginian nobles. These forces tended to start out as very ineffective but given time could be forged into potent forces. Still it required a uncommon level of leadership to make it work.
By contrast, due to the solid tactical doctrine of the Roman forces even political hacks could do a decent job. It took a special benad of idiocy to really screw up. In the hands of a master who was willing to mixz things up a little it became a powerful weapon indeed.
The Roman main advantage was a sound tactical doctrine that could be instilled into a force rapidly. This combined with a solid core of what we would call NCOs produced very quickly disciplined forces that were very effective.
This ability combined with the large Roman manpower pool allowed for the rapid raising of legions that operated at a much higher level of effectivenss then a normal 'levy' force.
By contrast the Macedonina system relied on highly trained professions divided into several complex arms. It also required a good officer corp to make use of these arms. When those were present a combined arms Macedonian force could best a Roman one but losses were always harder to replace hence the Phyrhic victory).
THe Carthagininas are a different case. Each Carthaginan force was a polygot conglomeration of levys, aliied tribute forces, and merceneries all officered by Carthaginian nobles. These forces tended to start out as very ineffective but given time could be forged into potent forces. Still it required a uncommon level of leadership to make it work.
By contrast, due to the solid tactical doctrine of the Roman forces even political hacks could do a decent job. It took a special benad of idiocy to really screw up. In the hands of a master who was willing to mixz things up a little it became a powerful weapon indeed.