Livy's "ab Urbe Condita" (26.1.9) is a complete sentence which includes three (numbered) relative "qui"-clauses:
"C. Sulpicio (i) cui Sicilia evenerat duae legiones (ii) quas P. Cornelius habuisset decretae et supplementum de exercitu Cn. Fului, (iii) qui priore anno in Apulia foede caesus fugatusque erat." =
"To Caius Sulpicius, to whose lot Sicily had fallen, the two legions which Publius Cornelius had commanded were assigned, and reinforcements to be recruited from the army of Cneius Fulvius, which, the year before, had been shamefully and decisively defeated, in Apulia, and put to flight."
Of the three relative clauses: (ii) has it's verb in the (pluperfect) subjunctive; (i) & (iii), their verbs are in the indicative--why the difference?
It looks like indirect speech--Livy is discussing the actions of other parties: Sulpicius, Cornelius & Fulvius's army--without the accusative-infinitive consstructions. Is this informal indirect speech (Allen & Grenough section 592, p.385)? A & G:--
"A subordinate clause takes the subjunctive when it expresses the thought of some other person than the writer...";
"When a reason or explanatory fact is introduced by a relative...".
The authority in clause (ii) remains with Livy, the writer--he said what Cornelius was doing; therefore, why the subjunctive and not the indicative?
Taking para 3: all three relative clauses are explaining something: (i) to whom Sicily had been assigned; (ii) these were the two legions which Cornelius had commanded; (iii) Fulvius's army had suffered a defeat, the year before.
Therefore, why aren't the verbs, in all three relative clauses, in the subjunctive?
What's going on, here?