Salve Piscine,
I agree with your comments about Roman factions. It was only a loose classification. However, Sertorius is particularly difficult to classify. I don't think he was particularly attached to Cinna or Carbo, since he left them once he decided there was little chance of their defeating Sulla. Perhaps that is the best way to classify him: as an anti-Sullan.
Your point about the decline in patrician families is fair; in fact, the death of most of the old families in the last century of the Republic was what inspired my suggestion for a genealogical tracing of those families (Which I still intend to return to.)
I also agree with your point that the Gracchan constitution was better than the Sullan constitution. Struggle to deal effectively with real crises though the Gracchan constitution might, the Sullan constitution was fundamentally flawed by altering drastically the balance of power between the components of the Roman state.
However, the issue of foreign policy remains to be dealt with, as does the issue of Sertorius' administrative skill. By the first, I mean that I'm not certain that Sertorius would be able to fulfill his promises to Mithridates honourably and yet retain the trust and integrity of his followers - he had, after all, signed over kingdoms, some of whom looked to Rome for protection, to Pontus. Admittedly, he desperately needed resources, and cannot really be blamed for his action, but would it be good for Rome to concede the power in Asia Minor to Mithridates, as Sertorius had effectively done?
As to Sertorius' administrative skill, I mean simply that there is little proof of it. Plutarch says that he did well during the Italian war in an administrative capacity, but is one thing to raise troops, another to govern over the Roman Republic, as he would undoubtedly have done had he been the victory. He had not had the training, the exposure to the law that most Roman youths got. I don't believe he would have had the gubernatorial skills to reform Rome yet again to face the inevitable challenges that Rome needed to overcome, both external, and internal, in order to keep the Republic going. He may not have had the crass uncouthness that Marius was famous for, but Sertorius was no lawmaker either.
As an interesting sidenote: Have a look at this site, mi Piscine:
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/euro ... rius*.html
It is apparently a translation of Plutarch's Life of Sertorius. However, in the ninth paragraph, Plutarch says this: "After encountering grievous storms in mountainous regions, he was asked by the Barbarians to pay them tribute and purchase his passage. His companions were indignant, and considered it a terrible thing for a Roman pro-consul to render tribute to pestilent Barbarians; but Sertorius made light of what they thought a disgrace, and with the remark that he was purchasing time..."
Now I'm certain that Sertorius was never Consul. Why, therefore, would Plutarch make such an obvious mistake as to call him a "pro-consul"? Is this a genuine mistake by Plutarch, a mistake by the webmaster, or am I missing something obvious?
Anyone else got an opinion on the subject of Sertorius?
Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.