Why in #101 is it putavit, but in #120 it is putaret? I understand that putavit is perfect indicative, and putaret is imperfect subjunctive. Does the fact that 120 is reporting what "he thought" make it indirect discourse, requiring the subjunctive? But then wouldn't "he supposed" require the same treatment?
101. He indeed handed over to the steward to be scourged his own slave, whom he supposed to be going to attack him by night.
Hīc quidem villicō servum suum flagellandum mandāvit quem sē noctū oppugnātūrum esse putāvit.
120. Whom did the tyrant lately cause to be put to death, because he thought he would attack him?
Quem nuper tyrannus necandum curavit, quem se oppugnaturum esse putaret?
(Text VI, pp. 12-13, of The Mastery Series. Latin. By Thomas Prendergast. Fourth edition, 1880. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2021.)
Also, would imperfect indicative putabat make equally good sense in #101, and perfect subjunctive putaverit equally good in #120?
(And do these questions belong here, or in "Latin Grammar Questions"?)
101. He indeed handed over to the steward to be scourged his own slave, whom he supposed to be going to attack him by night.
Hīc quidem villicō servum suum flagellandum mandāvit quem sē noctū oppugnātūrum esse putāvit.
120. Whom did the tyrant lately cause to be put to death, because he thought he would attack him?
Quem nuper tyrannus necandum curavit, quem se oppugnaturum esse putaret?
(Text VI, pp. 12-13, of The Mastery Series. Latin. By Thomas Prendergast. Fourth edition, 1880. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2021.)
Also, would imperfect indicative putabat make equally good sense in #101, and perfect subjunctive putaverit equally good in #120?
(And do these questions belong here, or in "Latin Grammar Questions"?)