Quintus Sertorius

[Kulkasha]

What if, in 72 BC, Sertorius had not been assassinated? Could his revolt have succeeded? Would he have invaded Rome, or set up a permanent power base and opponent to Rome in Iberia?

 

[dummnutzer]

He was killed because he was losing the war Against Metellus Pius and Pompey, the assassin simply wanted to join the winning side.

A pseudo-Marian fighting against Rome can delay his extermination (using the resources and the terrain) as long as there is a strong Marian faction left in Rome - but Sulla´s shadow still dominated Rome.

 

[Kulkasha]

Funny, didn't Sertorius prosecute a successful guerilla campaign during the seven-odd years that Metellus was in Spain, and the four-odd years that Pompey was working with Metellus?
In fact, he defeated Metellus & Pompey's forces twice in open battle and even Mithridates sent envoys to him.
It was Perpenna, one of his generals, who assassinated him, not to join the other side but to take command of the rebel troops. Of course, Perpenna then led the rebellion into ruin.
See Plutarch.

 

[Faeelin]

He could have just stayed in Spain, and would have been popular there; he was viewed by the natives as enlightened compared to the previous governors who had served there.

How viable is this against Rome, though?

If we posit something like a worst Social War which leaves the Allies victorious, mayhaps. Other than that? Hrmm.

 

[Kulkasha]

Another factor I forgot to mention is what would have happened had Pompey continued to get his nose bloodied by Sertorius - his conquests in the east might have never happened (this might or might not affect the situation with Lucullus and Mithridates, as well).
No Triumvirate?