Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

L. Quintus Sertorius

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by L. Quintus Sertorius

  1. L. Quintus Sertorius

    America Votes 2008

    I'm voting for him as well. It's disappointing that the candidates I liked most (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel) were pretty much dead at the starting gates, though. I really don't like any of the other Republicans, and I think only a few of the other Democrats would be tolerable. I don't like imperialism as a policy, and the only candidates who publically repudiate it are called "kooks" or "unelectable". What an impasse we have brought ourselves to, America.
  2. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Italians and the Mafia

    You must not be familiar with Silvio Berluscone.
  3. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Republican Politics

    I really hate it that my first post in months ends up inflaming an argument, but let's hope some good discussion comes out of this in recompense. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Sertorius wasn't actually even Roman - he was a Sabine, an outsider who rose through the ranks both militarily and politically. The mention of Sertorius really seems counter to your argument - does the fact that he was well educated and relatively wealthy invalidate the fact that he represented the vast majority of Italian politicians? It is to be remembered that the real gulf in Roman political life was not between wealthy aristocrats and the plebes sordidi - rather, it was between the native Romans, patrician or plebeian, and their provincial counterparts. I see no reason to contest your point about Brutus, however I would remind you that wealthy aristocrats can certainly champion plebeian interests - look at the Gracchi, for example. I won't comment on Cato's style of argument, except to say that I've never known him to argue illogically, ad hominem or otherwise. However, I would remind you that simply because the Romans did operate a voracious conquest state does not necessarily mean that their domestic politics were not reasonably, even exceptionally democratic for the times. After all, by the time of Caesar, all Italians had been granted the right to vote in Roman elections - the fact that few had the resources to do so is not a grand conspiracy of the wealthy to stifle the vox populi, but simply an economic reality. The fact that Roman political life was, for their times and ours, quite representative of the people is, I think, indisputable - granted, you can quibble about the difficulties of true representation in the ancient world; however, I would argue that the Romans were no less advanced in governmental theory than we are, they were simply more limited technologically. Actually, the Presidential election is quite undemocratic, as long as we follow the rather ambiguous definition of "democratic" that you have argued for. And what is so wrong with comparing the Roman system to the American? I would argue that democracy as an unattainable ideal is actually a rather modern conception. I'm not quite certain how you can assert that the Greeks fell short in democratizing - they did invent it as a system of government, after all. I would like to hear your argument for why democracy is more an ideal than a concrete system - the Athenians certainly did not quibble over such matters, because democracy was simply their system of government. As conceived, democracy was simply a form of government that allowed the Athenian citizens to vote in a body on policy and governing matters. I think the idea of democracy as some grand "Brotherhood of Man", where all are allowed to speak and be heard would be quite alien to Athens. Cato quotes primary sources and respected scholars to substantiate his argument. I really don't see him attempting to bully you into silence - you're discussing an issue on which you have differing opinions, of course he's going to attempt to prove your ideas incorrect or invalid.
  4. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    With Cicero's immortal denunciation fresh in my memory, I have a question to pose to the general community. We have argued and debated the motivations and justifications of Caesar's launching of the Civil War ad nauseam. He's been called hero, villain, and everything in between. Perhaps some of his reasons for fighting can be conjectured - unwillingness to lay down his imperium, opinion that only he, unhindered, could resolve Rome's governmental woes, etc. But what could have motivated his soldiers to do the unthinkable - declare war upon their own homeland? Was it desperation at their position after discharge? A genuine commitment to Caesar's cause? Please share what you think motivated the ordinary soldiers who bled and fought that Caesar might reign.
  5. L. Quintus Sertorius


    No - indeed, they are not. But it must be remembered that Sulla killed nobiles on a scale unequalled even by the war-time enemies of Rome. At no other point in Roman history (save perhaps the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate; I'm not sure how the two stack up) was the city so thoroughly culled of its best and bravest. As for Sulla the man, I personally am revolted by him. I find nothing worth admiring in overweening pride, a sense of entitlement, and self-absorption. Sulla's reforms were neither well-considered nor well-implemented - reactionary politicians rarely accomplish much of worth. In essence, the Republic was made to bow to one man's conception of what it should be. I don't recall who said it, but someone mentioned respecting Sulla for forming the Caesarian mold, or what Meier terms the "outsider" - someone who can form their own complete reality, seperate from that of normal society. I myself can see nothing respectable about the first in a long line of blood-soaked tyrants.
  6. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    Is this true? Which of Caesar's legates were with him when he crossed the Rubicon? When he left for Gaul, he had perhaps 10: Labienus, Balbus, Mamurra, Vatinius, Q. Pedius, S. Sulpicius Galba, Q. Titurius Sabinus, L. Aurunculus Cotta, P. Crassus, and D. Junius Brutus. Not exactly a group of battle-hardened Italian veterans--probably none had any more experience fighting than Caesar himself, so you couldn't exactly say that they had risen through the ranks. How much had this changed by 49? Also, of the defections from Caesar that we do know, 100% were Italian, so it's not clear how much that variable helps Caesar. Actually, "100%" is misleading--we only know of one certain defection from Caesar--Labienus, from Picenum. Of the half dozen or so military tribunes and 60 centurions with Caesar in 49, we have no idea how many left Caesar, let alone how many were Italian. Agreed, the legates probably were not more Italian than Roman - but the centurions (NCO's, as Adrian Goldsworthy as called them) certainly were. One of Caesar's favored promotions was that of a valorous legionary to the centuriate.
  7. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    If the Sacramentum thesis is right, it doesn't matter if the chief was Caesar, Sulla or any other general; the soldiers simply had to obey at risk of their lives. Apparently, the strength of this oath took precedence over any other allegiance, even to the Senate itself. Until anyone of us gets evidence that overrules such statements, we have to accept them. If that
  8. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    That makes much more sense - it's telling, then, how effective Caesar's officer recruitment policy was. He brought up men who would literally follow him anywhere - even the gates of their own city. That said, it's also probable that since they had been brought up through the ranks, the officers were more Italian than Roman.
  9. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    Granting this characterization or not (and I certainly don't), it doesn't matter. Men were bound by the sacrumentum to follow their commander's orders, and that's exactly what happened. Caesar could have been the descendent of Venus or the son of a whore, and they'd still have followed him lest they be strung up on a cross. It's that simple. Somehow, I don't think that the sacramentum alone was enough to compel Caesar's soldiers to follow him into Italy. After all, a half century before this, Sulla's entire officer corps save Lucius Licinius Lucullus refused to follow him in an unprecedented and thoroughly illegal attack on the urbs Romae. I don't recall them being crucified for not obeying his orders, though I'm sure he fought against them in later stages of the civil war. But perhaps, just perhaps, loyalty to the Republic was not as frail as we assume it to be. However, this only makes the complicity of Caesar's soldiers more reprehensible.
  10. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The Cause That Lacked Naught But A Cause

    An excellent point - who really constituted a clearer danger to the safety of the legionaries? That, given in conjunction with the other learned responses, I think best captures it.
  11. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Slavery & Cato the Elder

    I think that it must be remembered that even the poorest Roman families owned at least one slave - it wouldn't be improbable for a plebeian family to buy the old, worn out slaves of a landowner to serve as household help. As far as Plutarchan hyperbole about Cato's treatment of slaves goes, I don't really see it. The quote about selling old slaves comes straight from the pages (or papyri, rather) of Cato's De Agricultura.
  12. L. Quintus Sertorius

    The City of Rome

    Even though they're not really Roman ruins, the Trevi Fountain and the Spanish steps can't be missed. Also, one that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet - the Pantheon. Nothing quite matches seeing M. AGRIPPA LF COS TERTIVM FECIT emblazoned on the marble of that beautiful structure.
  13. L. Quintus Sertorius


    An interesting find, but the mention of phthiriasis seems odd because that seems to rule out other, more plausible diagnoses. I am actually more partial to necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), though I really have no explanation for the large numbers of worms mentioned. Does the article say why they chose to focus on lice infection?
  14. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Pompeius Magnus - A thief ?

    Quality is more important than quantity. When did Pompey ever best Sertorius? Surely not at the field of Sucro, where he himself was nearly captured? Surely not the siege of Lauron, which Pompey was forced to watch burn? Surely not Saguntum, where Sertorius sacked Pompey's camp and baggage so thoroughly that the Pompeian army nearly starved? In fact, I'm hard pressed to remember any success of Pompey against Sertorius, either strategically or tactically. His successes were great because he didn't really have much work to do. His great Eastern triumph was stolen from the hands of Lucullus, who had done all the real work at Tigranocirta. His "triumph" against Spartacus was hollow, Crassus having defeated and dispersed the slave army prior to Pompey's arrival. And when he finally had the chance to prove himself as the greatest general of his age at Pharsalus, he went for a quick victory and wasted his strategic superiority. Caesar needed a battle then and there - Pompey could have afforded to wait. Would you care to quote those "uniformly hostile" writers? I seem to recall a rather genial portrait of Pompeius.
  15. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Belisarius' campaigns

    After Belisarius and Narses put down the Nika revolt in 523, Justinian rewarded his general with command of a huge expedition against the Vandal kingdom of North Africa, under Gelimer. Justinian landed near Leptis Magna in early 533, and proceeded to follow the old Roman road north to Carthage. Ten miles from Carthage, the armies of Belisarius and Gelimer met in the battle of Ad Decimum. Gelimer was strongly positioned and as such, Belisarius was wary of giving battle at first. This resulted in some small skirmishing among the cavalry units for a short time, until Belisarius let loose his Hun cavalry reserves, routing the Vandal cavalry. Gelimer's brother was killed in the melee, and Belisarius ordered his infantry to advance. The battle was waged for an hour or more, until Gelimer came upon his brother's body on the battlefield. At this blow, the fight went out of him, and he began to flee. His army followed, and was cut down while routing. Belisarius went on to capture Carthage, and later captured Gelimer at the Battle of Ticameron in December of 533. For this brilliant campaign, Belisarius was awarded the last recorded triumph in Roman history, and was appointed Consul. However, he would have little time to rest, for in 535 Justinian ordered an attack on the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy. Belisarius invaded the peninsula via Sicily, and quickly subdued the island. He crossed the straits of Messina and proceeded north to Naples, which was put to the sword after a brutal siege. He tarried at Naples for most of that campaign season, presumably arranging for the Papal invite that would ensure him the acceptance of the Roman people. This received, he proceeded north and entered Rome in late 536. The following year, Belisarius and his army withstood a 13 month siege of Rome, which was only broken when the Goths ran out of forage. He followed on their heels and captured Milan, being received by the Archbishop with open arms. After several years of raiding, Belisarius advanced on the last Ostrogothic stronghold of Ravenna. The Gothic nobles offered to surrender to Belisarius on condition that he proclaim himself Emperor of the West - he accepted, and entered Ravenna, where he proceeded to execute Witiges, the Ostrogothic king, and revoke his vow. Justinian was disturbed by Belisarius' maneuver, and recalled him to the East to fight an inconclusive war with Persia in 541-542. He appointed three generals to take joint control of Italy, but they were quickly overwhelmed by the new Ostrogothic king, Totila, who managed to recapture all of Italy north of and including Rome. Belisarius returned in 544, and managed to reclaim Italy south of the Po, but was hampered by a pronounced lack of supplies and reinforcements - Justinian replaced him with Narses in 548, and it was he who managed to finally bring the war to a successful conclusion. Belisarius' last campaign was in 559, against an invasion of Bulgars from across the Danube, who he managed to rout within sight of the Theodosian walls. Belisarius is primarily remembered for his superior use of inferior forces (his defense of Rome was undertaken with only 500 soldiers, and he was beset by approximately 20,000). He also brought the Byzantine army to the peak of its efficiency, outmaneuvering and outgeneraling his Gothic and Vandal opponents. The development of the bandon (a Byzantine tactical unit) and the standardized equipment of the Byzantine horse archer/lancer cavalrymen are attributed to him.
  16. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Caesar "illegal" march - T.D. Barnes view

    Caesar's blatant refusal to disband his army upon the command of the Senate was all the justification needed to employ the Senatus Consultum Ultimum - it was, for all intents and purposes, an act of treason. Claiming that the Senatus Consultum Ultimum was illegal simply overlooks the fact that, once he disobeyed the Senate's commands, Caesar was an outlaw and no longer entitled to the protection of Roman law. Catiline was sentenced to death by the order of the Senate with the approval of the People's Tribunes. I do not recall a tribunician veto prohibiting the execution of either him, or those of his followers captured within the city proper. No, Clodius instigated the prosecution of Cicero for the executions more for political gain than a sense of legal right - in fact, it was Clodius that instituted the law in the first place. Had the People truly been incensed by the execution of the Catilinarian executions, wouldn't Cicero have been prosecuted in 62 rather than 58 B.C.E.?
  17. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Caesar "illegal" march - T.D. Barnes view

    I'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to get across. If laws have nothing to do with morality, then why bother making laws at all? More pertinently - if no one in your society has qualms about commiting murder, then surely there is no need to outlaw it. But as laws are generally based on the moral consensus of the general populace, anything outlawed ought to be harmful to the commonwealth of the people. For Caesar's assault to be morally justified, he would have had to liberate the people from conditions that were harmful to the commonwealth as a whole. But as it is, all Caesar "liberated" the people from was their liberty. Are you talking about the Roman Republic of 49 BCE ? I am realy amazed to see that you think that the Roman people had "Liberty" . As I have said to you before - less than 1 % of Roman citizens had the majority in the Comitia Centuriata !!! , a Consul/Praetor could kill his soldiers without a trial ! Rome was based on slavery , 99 % of the Fasti were composed from less than c. 30 families ! The provincials had no say in government , Sulla , the pride of the nobility and in the name of Liberty and restoration acted as a terrorist against Roman citizens , Marcellus ignored the Senate decision of 12/50 in the name of whose Liberty ? What Liberty are you talking about ? Rome was not a Democracy , it was ruled by an Oligarchy since its foundation . For Caesar's assault to be morally justified, he would have had to liberate the people from conditions that were harmful to the commonwealth as a whole. - Yes ! And because of that he won the war . Who were his soldiers ? mercenaries ? No . They were ten of thousands of Roman citizens , the people . Caesar did not liberate the people from a harmful, corrupt system - he simply inaugurated another decade of furious blood-letting and the destruction of any form of representative government in Rome. He did not win the war because he was morally or legally justified - he won because he was an admittedly capable general, and was in command of an experienced, battle-hardened army. To say that the path of the Roman political system towards more wide representation was simply nonexistant is not only naive - it's simply a blind ignorance of the facts. Instead of being amazed at my belief in Roman liberty during the Republic, you might try finding another contemporaneous government with half as much governmental protection of civilian liberties and freedoms. You won't find one. A consul and/or praetor could kill his soldiers without trial because they had willingly enlisted and were from there on subject to martial and not civil law. Similar laws were in effect for European armies until the early 20th century, and are still in effect in some nations. The Gracchi started no "revolution". Their attempts to enfranchise the Italian Socii were eventually successful, much as American attempts to enfranchise the African-American population were eventually successful. The sole difference is that the Socii picked up their swords to gain their rights, where African-Americans laid theirs down. Who gave the Socii their enfranchisement? Why, certainly not the Senate that passed the law enfranchising them. Certainly not the Popular Assembly that ratified it - no, it simply must be the work of a popularis, because it is fair and just. Sertorius fought in Spain for a multitude of reasons, including his personal emnity of Sulla and his fear of betrayal and execution at the hands of Sullan officials - his hatred of dictatorship was there, but leavened by his tacit acceptance of the Marius/Cinna/Sertorius "triumvirate" before the return of Sulla to Italy. As you said, it was not all black and white. Marius was an outlaw because he overturned a Senatorial directive in order to assuage his own personal hunger for glory - would there have been a civil war if Marius had not forced his bid for the Asian command through the Assembly and then attempted a wholesale massacre of his political enemies? And finally, Caesar's march on Rome was illegal because it was against the law. You can debate its morality all you want, but you'll find justification for its morality similarly lacking.
  18. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Caesar "illegal" march - T.D. Barnes view

    I'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to get across. If laws have nothing to do with morality, then why bother making laws at all? More pertinently - if no one in your society has qualms about commiting murder, then surely there is no need to outlaw it. But as laws are generally based on the moral consensus of the general populace, anything outlawed ought to be harmful to the commonwealth of the people. For Caesar's assault to be morally justified, he would have had to liberate the people from conditions that were harmful to the commonwealth as a whole. But as it is, all Caesar "liberated" the people from was their liberty.
  19. L. Quintus Sertorius

    G J Caesar's 'Honourable' Enemies

    So you claim that a dictatorship is more liberating than a balanced republic? That will require some explanation, I am afraid. And I defy you to name one law (excepting Sulla, of course) that limited the rights of the people to participate in government. Last I knew, the Republic had been on a steady course toward more equal representation for centuries. After all, wasn't that what the Social War was all about? It seems that your definitions are too schematic . Your perspective in a modern one (naturaly) . Try to define "Democracy" , "Republic" , "Dictatorship" , "People" , "Aristocracy" etc' by the ancient standarts . Did I say that "Populares" = Democrats ? No. So , you are saying that the "people" did not had limitations "in participating in government" ? As you said "That will require some explanation, I am afraid." One example - Just look at the structure of the Comitia Centuriata where 0.1 % of the Romans (the "nobility") had the majority!! The liberty that you are talking about was the liberty of 300 senators and their sons , it is a common knowledge . The Dictatorship of Caesar was not a "Democracy" , the Republic was not a Democracy , they did not have a Democracy ever . The Dictatorship was "Popularis" , that is for the people and against the control of the Oligarchy . How is that ? Caesar 1. Declared a general amnesty for all who had taken arms against him 2. Founded many civilian and military colonies overseas, to which eventually Some 80,000 of the turbulent Roman poor were transported 3. Granted citizenship (and all its benefits) to doctors and teachers, many of whom were Greek 4. Inserted Gauls and other Westerners (my English) to the Senate 5. Favored the Jews living in Rome 6. The owners of large landed estates were required to hire a third of their farm workers from free men, rather than slaves 7. Made laws limited the terms of provincial governors 8. Abolished the existing tax system (the corrupt Publicani) and returned to the earlier policy of permitting the provinces themselves to collect and pay tribute without middlemen And on "In this, unlike the Gracchi, Caesar was a progressive with more than ideas. It is difficult to separate the valid criticisms of Caesar's actions from the suspicion that many of his peers were motivated largely by their own greed and envy of his stature among them." http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Caesar/legacy/index.html Enough said . Demos - Attic Greek, people. Kratos - Attic Greek, power. Demokratos (could be wrong on spelling here, it's all Greek to me) - a form of government in which legislative powers are placed in the hands of the whole citizenry, and executive actions carried out by their elected representatives. Res publica - literally, the "public business"; more technically, the Roman form of representative government in which legislative powers are placed in the hands of popular assemblies, with an aristocratic Senate playing only an advisory (but still very influential and powerful) role in the governance of the state. Dictator - A Roman magistrate given complete control of the resources of the State for a set period of time, generally six months; but when held illegally the restrictions obviously no longer applied. When did I assert that either Caesar's illegal dictatorship, or the Roman Republic were democracies? And the dictatorship was an antiquated office - it had nothing to do with political affiliation. After all, did not Sulla also hold the dictatorship? And populares were not "for the people and against the oligarchy". Mainly, because there was no clear cut "people". Gallic traders had different interests than Umbrian farmers, and Roman plebes urbana had different goals than Corsican fisherman. And yet you claim that the populares represented them all against the overweening "oligarchy" - an oligarchy whose decrees did not even have the power to overrule a plebiscite? 1. Without a bloody and thoroughly illegal civil war, there would have been no need for amnesty - would there? 2. Unexceptional - that could and probably would have been achieved without a civil war. Also, I'd like to know where you procured that figure from. 80,000 was not just a drop in the bucket of the city of Rome's population - that's a significant number. 3. So Caesar was the only one who possibly could have done that? 4. Citizenship and entry into the Senate had already been granted to Rome's Socii. By cramming the Senate (whose ranks had been thoroughly culled by Caesar's little war) with Gallic noblemen (of whom the surviving percentage overwhelmingly favored Caesar), he essentially was attempting to procure its cooperation and support. There were no grand, idealistic motives about the equality of Gauls and Romans - Caesar needed yes-men. 5. Why was that such an outstanding thing? They were his clients, having benefited from legislation passed by him during his earlier political posts. 6, 7, 8. If my memory serves, these were reforms never actually carried out by Caesar - they were left for Octavian. But by all means, correct me if I am wrong. Despite the passing of the lex Sempronia agraria? Despite the fact that Caesar's complicity with the Catilinarian conspiracy, passing of the ridiculously inethical lex Julia Campania, illegal marauding in the land of a people Rome was not at war with, arbitrary attack on a "Friend and Ally of the Roman People" - and illegal and totally unjustified invasion of his own country for personal gain gave his peers plenty of room for criticism; despite all this, they were simply jealous of "Julius Divus". Makes perfect sense.
  20. L. Quintus Sertorius

    G J Caesar's 'Honourable' Enemies

    So you claim that a dictatorship is more liberating than a balanced republic? That will require some explanation, I am afraid. And I defy you to name one law (excepting Sulla, of course) that limited the rights of the people to participate in government. Last I knew, the Republic had been on a steady course toward more equal representation for centuries. After all, wasn't that what the Social War was all about?
  21. L. Quintus Sertorius

    G J Caesar's 'Honourable' Enemies

    Source? I would also like to remind you that even the most virtuous war requires funds to wage. Octavian had the treasury of Rome at his disposal - Brutus and Cassius had what they could scrounge from the Eastern provinces. It must also be remembered that, for both sides, Italy was the key to legitimacy. In Brutus' mind, bleeding the East dry was fine, so long as he obtained Italy. Did Cato's financial maneuvering endanger or otherwise harm the Republic? No. Did it harm his reputation for perfect personal virtue? Perhaps a touch. But does Cato's personal moral lapse mean that his devotion to the Republic was any less true or pure by extension? Of course not. The same Cato turned down an offered marriage alliance between his niece and Pompeius Magnus - "I will not be outflanked by way of a girl's bedroom." A good question - perhaps because they fought and died in its defense? Perhaps that, when fighting for a cause greater than oneself, personal foibles become insignificant in the scheme of things? Or perhaps simply because they fought to preserve liberty, where Caesar fought only to crush it. hon
  22. L. Quintus Sertorius

    A Poll on the Best Roman Generals

    For me? L. Quintus Sertorius, for aforementioned reasons. Maurice, for reforming the Late Roman army along thematic lines, and formalizing the tagma. Stilicho, for single-handedly preserving Italy from the Goths and Vandals.
  23. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Caesar's Planned Dacian Campaign

    Tsk, tsk Spittle. Ad hominem attacks are never conducive to reasoned debate, even if they are in response to an irrational position. The important question concerning Caesar's projected campaign in Dacia is not "Could he conquer Burebista's kingdom?". Certainly, with the resources of the entire Roman state at his beck and call, he had better be able to. Rather, the important question in terms of settling and Romanizing Dacia would be - "Would the people of Dacia have been more content under Roman rule than their own?" Now that is a much more interesting question to address, especially since Dacia had just emerged from a long peaceful period under Burebista's reign. Caesar's track record in Gaul and Spain (yes, he fought a war in Spain too) show him to be about as conducive to the welfare of the populace as a natural disaster.
  24. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Lucius Quintus Sertorius

    It is a true pity that a man of such valor and skill as Lucius Quintus Sertorius goes unknown by all but classical historians and those who chance to stumble upon his biography in Plutarch. So for the hopeful benefit of the community, I present an annotated version of Plutarch's Life of Sertorius. Lucius Quintus Sertorius was born the scion of a noble Sabine family in the city of Nursia. His father died when he was quite young, and the young Sertorius was raised and educated by his mother Rhea. He was a keen student of oratory and managed to acquire some small fortune and influence in Rome by the means of his pleading in the courts (the custom being that a successful prosecutor was paid by the fines exacted from his plaintiff, and also acquired his rank.). However, upon the second invasion of Gallia Narbonensis by the Cimbri and Teutones (105 B.C.E.), Sertorius joined the consular army of Quintus Servilius Caepio and followed him north to confront the Cimbri on the plains of Arausio. The two consuls for 105, Q. Servilius Caepio and Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, were bitter political opponents. Gnaeus Maximus, a homo novus (that is, a politician with no senatorial forebears), was the senior consul and thus held jurisdiction in command over Caepio. However, Caepio, due to his prejudice against Mallius, refused to cooperate with him or even to let their armies camp together. This refusal weakened the Roman forces' morale and strategic position (they were outnumbered by a large number, and the separation of their forces left them open to attack). The Cimbri, discerning the infighting between the consuls during diplomatic negotiations, and prompted by an attack upon their camp by Caepio, utterly annihilated his legion. They then proceeded to sweep down towards the camp of Mallius Maximus, whose legionaries attempted to fight but were forced into rout and cut down. Sertorius, though wounded in many places, swam the Rhone River in full armor and managed to escape. The second invasion of Italy by the Cimbri and Teutones prompted Sertorius to join with the army of Gaius Marius, and follow him north to Aquae Sextiae. In the weeks preceding the battle, Sertorius acquired a Gallic disguise, taught himself basic Gaelic, and managed to spy out the enemy camp undetected. He returned to Marius with valuable information about the leadership and situation of the enemy troops; and when battle was finally joined in 102 B.C.E., Marius utterly crushed the forces of the Cimbri and Teutones, to the extent even of capturing their king, Teutobod. For his conspicuous bravery, Sertorius received military decorations from the hands of Gaius Marius himself, and was awarded a military tribunate in Spain with command of a thousand men (approximately three legions), under the Roman proconsul, Didius. Sertorius wintered his troops in the country of the Celtiberians, occupying the city of Castulo. The soldiers, being accustomed to treat the Iberians as inferiors, came to be despised by the Castulones so much that they sent to their near neighbors, the Grysoenians, and attacked the Romans in their barracks. Sertorius, taken by surprise, rallied those of his troops who escaped the city and by circling the walls, discovered the gate by which the Grysoenians had entered the city. Posting a guard, he ambushed the Gysoenians as they left Castulo, and slew every man who was of an age to bear arms among them. After securing Castulo, he then ordered his men to put aside their Roman arms and accoutrements, and to take up those of the fallen Grysoenians. He managed to capture Grysoenia by leading the citizens to believe that his men were their returning warriors, and slew all of an age to bear arms at the city gates where they had gathered to welcome their warriors home. He then sacked Grysoenia and enslaved a great many people in retribution for his fallen soldiers. He gained great fame and renown in Iberia for this act, and as a result was appointed quaestor of Cisalpine Gaul on his return to Italy. When Sertorius took up his quaestorship in 91 B.C.E., the Italian peninsula was about to enter into the throes of the Marsian War, also called the War of the Italian Allies (Socii). Sertorius was called upon to muster and train troops for Rome, which he accomplished with exceptional alacrity and efficiency. Leading from the front against the Italian forces, he lost an eye in close combat. Stories of his heroism reached Rome, and upon his return to Rome, he was so famous that he was applauded every time he entered a theatre. This popularity was not, however, enough to secure him a tribunate; mainly because he was a declared opponent of L. Cornelius Sulla, and all the formidable resources of this favorite of Venus were arrayed against him. Defeated in the election, Sertorius was greatly embittered and withdrew from politics until Sulla marched on Rome in 87 B.C.E. After Marius and his partisans fled Rome for Africa, Sulla withdrew his forces from Rome and embarked for Pontus and the Mithridatic War. By the end of 87, Marius had returned to Rome and set up a pseudo-dictatorship with L. Cornelius Cinna. Sertorius had attempted to dissuade Cinna from summoning Marius back to Rome, as Plutarch relates: However, Cinna was not swayed, and Marius became, in effect, the ruler of Rome. Cinna and Sertorius insisted that Marius divide his forces between the three of them, so that no one man should have supreme power. Marius assented to this, but raised in replacement an army of freed slaves, which committed such atrocities upon the Romans that they looked upon the evils of wartime as a golden age in comparison. Sertorius, despairing of Marius
  25. L. Quintus Sertorius

    Lucius Quintus Sertorius

    Christopher Konrad, Plutarch's Sertorius: A Historical Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. EDIT - A source that I would have liked to use would have been "Quintus Sertorius and the legacy of Sulla" by Philip O Spann Publisher: Fayetteville : University of Arkansas Press, 1987. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to read it while up at LSUS on JSTOR, and I don't foresee any such time in the near future with soccer season fast approaching. So if anyone could send me a .pdf or link to an online copy, it would be much appreciated.