Tristan Hughes

If he was able to keep winning a few victories and he did manage to take Rome, do you think that would be like the capitulation of Rome?

But that's what he's got to do to be able to win.

Still, it's been absolutely great.

We don't have much time left, but I guess it's – well, we both know, don't we, that in Livy's account, he comes to the conclusion that the Romans would have won, doesn't he?

He does, yes.

We would expect that.

We would expect for a Roman to say that.

He doesn't even admit that Alexander would win a battle.

He just says the Romans would have won the war, which I think is a little harsh on him, as we've discussed.

And I think he's wrong on some things, saying that Alexander could only bring 30,000.

And if he had any Persians in his army or Indians, that they would be more of a hindrance than good, which is just absolute nonsense.

But still, yes, the overarching point kind of aligns with what you're saying, the strength of the Roman military system.

To wrap it all up, Steele,

if we were to transport you back into the Roman camp and to give, you know, almost like as a military advisor to the Romans when they hear that Alexander the Great is coming.

I mean, if you were advising the Romans on how to fight Alexander the Great in, let's say, 320, 321 BC, what would you say to them?

All you have to do is slog it out.

kill the king and also kill the commanders.

And I guess I said, as we've mentioned already, you know, the nature of Hellenistic warfare of the Macedonian war machine, Alexander and his commanders, they will be there in the action.

They will be fighting almost certainly.

So the Romans could easily get the opportunity to take them out.