How were non Romans treated in the Roman Empire? By non Romans I mean guys like Celtic mercs and their families etc

How were non Romans treated in the Roman Empire? By non Romans I mean guys like Celtic mercs and their families etc.

from what i understand, as long as you submit to roman culture and werent a slave, youre fine

Peregrines were treated the same as citizens, only they had to pay more taxes and had no political rights.
Also in many places they were still subjected to whatever government form ruled them before Rome, which means for example that many less urban areas like Thrace were still effectively ruled by tribal law, only you could appeal against it if you were a roman citizen.

Emperor Trump tried to build a wall to keep Germans in Germany. It bankrupted the Empire.

This.
Though after Caracalla, political rights became uniform throughout the empire. Post Diocletian, governing also became uniform throughout the empire. Structurally at least.

Pay taxes, don't rebel, shut the fuck up, it's not hard.

Not just less urban areas, Most former city states were free to keep their former government as long as they obeyed to the provincial governor.
Athens for example was self-ruling. The whole Judea was still subjected to the Synedrion's legislative authority and the Herodian kings even while provinced for a full century before Titus lost his shit and rekt them for being overly rebellious.

Romans were pros at politics.

Jesus was crucified by Romans at the request of the Jews for the accusation of sedition, even though Pilate says they can do with Christ according to their own law! The Jews wanted the Romans to kill Jesus to get the blame off their backs but let's not derail this.

Even though you would call it the province of Judea, Roman Empire; The Romans still let you do (mostly) what you want as if it was always Israel.

The poet Juvenal hated Greeks because he thought they were all fags brought their faggotry to Rome.

If they didn't kill Jesus how would have have sacrificed for your sins?

By living to old age and dying peacefully in his sleep?

>All this praising for Romans treatment of non-Roman
>Everyone just glossing over how they killed their best General and Thousands of women and children of their own allied soldiers because they weren't Romans
Unless you are just talking about the earlier period of the Empire.

Jews were going to beat Paul, and he said "Guys, I'm a Roman citizen" and they feared for their lives.

Roman citizenship was pretty awesome.

Why are you asking me? Shouldn't you ask a priest?

>muh ancient warcrimes

Romans were pretty racist and there was no laws against discrimination or anything. But that said, conversely, there were not laws promoting discrimination and there was no government sanctioned racism or anything.

Celts were considered barbarians but this obviously faded away the longer the Romans ruled over the Celts. I don't think the Romans thought any others were racially inferior, they knew full well a Celt or anyone raised as a Roman would be like a Roman and not like a Celt.

I would definitely make that one of my life's goal, if such a thing still existed (and was legit)

>I don't think the Romans thought any others were racially inferior, they knew full well a Celt or anyone raised as a Roman would be like a Roman and not like a Celt.

They had an Emperor from every continent and from almost every major region.

>Romans were pretty racist

top kek

>muh ancient warcrimes
Tell me how exactly slaughtering the women and Children of your own auxiliaries is a part of any prolonged war effort?

Go and tell them it's against the Geneva convention.

What the fuck are you even on about?

He wanted to make Germany pay for it but the plan backfired when he remembered Germany was a third-world failed state.

>top kek
why

Its not about race or racism, its about wether or not you hold the ideals of a Roman. Youll see far more frequently references to people being judged by their cultural values rather than race, hence why the sweeping generalizations of barbarian, kelt, latin, etc. are so common.

He's saying stop putting modern morals on 2000 year old pagan empires, really not a hard concept to understand

I think I'm noticing a pattern in history. The Islamic caliphates (especially the early ones) basically did this same thing the romans were doing which was take taxes and leave them mostly alone. Similarly, both civilizations were largely successful.

Have any other civilizations used this strategy?

Bump

Persians I think. But unlike romans and muslim arabs, the persians would not try to replace the native culture of the subjugated region, allowing Persia to annex regions without too much post-conquest trouble and giving them the ability to recruit local/native troops.

I may be wrong on some points, though.

>I may be wrong on some points, though.
Yeah, the only thing I'd add is that the Muslims didn't really replace the native culture. Egypt is a good example.

I don't know about the Romans, but I imagine it was the same.

Another reason why Horace is infinitely better.

I remember in some cases the romans would either massacre or enslave the entire population of single conquered cities or even provinces after a rebellion and recolonize it with roman citizens to ensure loyalty, but other than that there'a also the fact that they would still try to replace some native cultures with their own, slowly demolishing or coverting shrines to replace them with their own and so on I think. Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make claims on this subject.

As for muslims, yeah they had the option to "pay extra taxes or convert to islam" for the conquered, though I've also heard about cases in which it was either conversion or execution.

My history classes have never been detailed enough on these matters and sometimes I felt like some informations from latter editions of my history books contradicted the ones from the earlier editions, hence my ignorance. Which sucks, as I've always had a passion for history since childhood.

>I think I'm noticing a pattern in history.
Yup. That's how you keep uprisings down. You just want people to pay their taxes and be willing to fight for you instead of rebelling if another civilization comes in and tries to rekt your shit.

Mongols weren't big on changing people's ways of life if they decided they'd merely be taxing you.

It makes sense, desu. If the UK came in, and took down the US government I wouldn't really care.

Depends on the individuals who were consul or even more important, the publicani. Let's not forget that the Greeks in Asia minor had to sell themselves into slavery because the Romans levied outrageous taxes.

>Jesus was crucified by Romans at the request of the Jews for the accusation of sedition, even though Pilate says they can do with Christ according to their own law! The Jews wanted the Romans to kill Jesus to get the blame off their backs but let's not derail this.
This is a horrible example. Jews had no authority to crucify or ask the romans to crucify Jesus. He was crucified by pilate because he caused a shit storm in the temple during passover - a time qhen the walls of the temple were literally lined by roman infantry.

Pilate killed for far less. Pilate was eventually recalled (and probably committed suicide) for actually being too brutal. Think about that... Romans actually recalling somebody for being too harsh. He had no qualms killing some jew who started flipping tables.

The taxes were pretty burdensome, and, you know, tens of thousands of slaves were deported from the regions they conquered. The Roman strategy was to take as many slaves as they could manage back to the Italian heartland where they would be far more productive on the developed latifundia, the ones they left alone were the excess, or living in frontier regions, or specialists of some kind. Vast swathes of land were depopulated and turned into ager publicus. The late Germanic invasions often saw Roman peasant support, because Germanic rule and taxation was far lighter.