I love the bit that the Senate just wished the whole problem would go away . . .

I know, I know, it's a dangerous thing to do, but I keep thinking of the sad situation in the plains of the U.S., when the army comes in, negotiates with various tribes for lands (complete indifferent to the long histories of conflicts between tribes), gets some sub-chief's signature on a piece of paper, and then is SO outraged and angry when the tribe basically changes it's mind, changes it's leader, ignores the piece of paper, whatever. It's like getting an apple and a hippopotamus to communicate - they're operating under such totally different mindsets. With the inevitable charges of 'treachery' or 'betrayal' or whatever on both sides. It MUST have had some elements similar to that, both in Spain and, perhaps, in Gaul.

What's also interesting is that I've been reading about Napoleon's campaigns in Spain, and to say that there are similarities in the situation between 150 BC and 1800 AD, is just one of many fascinating points about it. I suppose you could say the Romans were one of the few outside powers that DID, eventually, win through in Spain, after a world of disaster to others who tried. Largely because they were the most determined not to accept defeat.