In Cicero's prosecution of Verres, the corrupt former governor of Sicily, he imagines that Verres' lawyers will try to argue that he should be spared because of his great service to the Republic in keeping Sicily free from rebel slaves. It's a tactic that worked in the case of Manius Aquilius, but to Cicero the idea of Verres as a heroic general is laughable and he thoroughly demolishes any claim he may have to be so (perhaps a little disingenuously). Part of his argument is that the rebel slaves (led by Spartacus) running around Italy at the time didn't have boats (something which Marcus Crassus had taken care to ensure), and so there was no danger at all of war crossing from Italy to Sicily.
Quid dicis? an bello fugitivorum Siciliam virtute tua liberatam? ... "At cum esset in Italia bellum tam prope a Sicilia, tamen in Sicilia non fuit." Quid mirum? ... Aditus omnis hominibus sine ulla facultate navium non modo disiunctus sed etiam clausus est, ut illis quibus Siciliam propinquam fuisse dicis facilius fuerit ad Oceanum pervenire quam ad Peloridem accedere.
What are you saying? Perhaps that Sicily was kept safe by your courage? "Even though there was war in Italy, so short a distance from Sicily, yet it did not cross in Sicily." What's so amazing about that? Every approach to Sicily is not only cut off, but even completely closed to those without access to boats, so that it would have been easier for those whom you say were close to Sicily, to reach Ocean than to approach Pelorus.
