Over the years the Roman empire greatly expanded through conquest. Those conquered people, however, were brought into the Roman fold relatively peacefully. Most, particularly those in urban centers, accepted the romanization of their culture and Roman rule. There were five main reasons for this acceptance.
The first reason was the peace that living under the Roman empire brought. Peace under the Roman empire, known as pax Romana was different than general notions of peace, as this peace was distinctly "Roman". This general sense of peace was highly valued, "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord" (RCII 7). In addition, the Roman legions were stationed along the frontier to protect against outside invasion, rather than inhabiting the cities to quell dissent from the various conquered people. Yes very good, but this last sentence is a little misleading. Why were the armies based on the borders? Was it because outside threats were more pressing than inside threats? Or does it suggest that there were no inside threats, or dissent to quell from inside the borders?
A second main reason for the acceptance of Romanization was the high urban standards brought by the Roman empire. Roman administrators invested heavily in urban areas throughout the empire, in a variety of capacities. Instead of spending great sums on military conquest, the Roman rulers invested instead in their people. Various projects to make the cities more livable, such as sewers, aqueducts, water mills, etc.. all provided amenities those in the Roman empire did not have prior to Roman rule. In addition, the Roman administration invested in projects without a direct monetary return, such as theaters, to improve the cultural standards of the communities. Good
Romans also made a deliberate effort to include all those throughout the empire into the Roman system. Whether one came from Spain or Greece, as long as they were in the Roman empire, they were all Roman, "all else is common between us...there is no privilege no exclusion" (Tacitus). In addition, Roman senators, writers, thinkers, emperors, came from all over the empire, not just Rome proper. All citizens of rome were seen as equal in terms of citizenship, no matter their location in the empire. Good, also should talk about tolerance of religious differences.
Local regions were also allowed to maintain a level of autonomy. Although the constitution was all but suspended in Rome itself, elections and constitutionality still occurred in various other urban centers throughout the Roman empire. There is evidence pointing to contested and seemingly fair elections occurring, "He shall likewise see to it that three citizens of the said municipality are placed at the ballot box...to guard and count the ballots" (RC II 64). Provinces were allowed to hold their elections, and the presence of overseers to maintain ballot security both indicate elections had generally more than one candidate, and there was a general interest in keeping the elections fair. Yes
Although we haven't discussed law yet, Roman notions of law still greatly contributed to the people's desire to become Roman. Equitable treatment under the judicial system and benevolent notions of justice and trial all made the roman system of law desirable.
Great response, very thorough and good use of evidence. You did a really good job of explaining each benefit and WHY it would have been appealing to foreigners.
Romanization occured throughout the empire due to the many advantages that went along with being part of the empire. Most importantly were peace and urban amenities.
Romans valued peace and prosperity, much like contempary societies, this can be seen from plutarch. "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperitiy, populousness, and concord.(sec 7)" Within borders of the empire we can assume there was a peaceful state in the augustan age and the following years, this is evident by the stationing of military forces compeletly on the borders (map). By not having legions scattered throughout the empire the Roman must have administered over a relatively peaceful state. Furthermore, by not needing a larger army to pacify there own population, Rome was able to keep a small and relatively cheap military force. Which allowed for public building plans, urban amenities, etc.
The Roman state, in order to cultivate the urban lifestyle, invested greatly in the infastructure needed for cities and a high quality of life. The state built aquaducts, publics baths, sewers, theaters, and public forums(photos). All of these buildings served to raise the standard of living and quality of life. It encouraged once nomadic people to adopt a lifestyle much like the people of Rome. This in turn kept populations orderly and peaceful, this is one of the reasons the Roman army was able to focus just on borders. Exactly, good.
The lesson that can be learned from the Romans is that by investing into your infastructure and providing your people with a high quality of life you can secure a peaceful and prosperous state. By providing this standard of living you are able to pacify the people and integrate them into a functional and stable state.Excellent, the only things missing are the mention of inclusion and tolerance, which arguably plays an incredibly crucial role in the above mentioned lesson about creating a prosperous and peaceful state.
Subjects in the Roman Empire in far reaching corners of the Mediterranean Sea sought Roman Citizenship for several reasons. Firstly, because peace and higher standards of living that were attributed to Roman and urban life. Plutarch, on page 23 comments: “As far as peace is concerned the people have no need of political activity, for all war, both Greek and foreign, has been banished and has disappeared from among us.”
Subjects also appreciated the tolerance of diversity that the Roman’s afforded them. People in Gaul or Iberia were able to serve as politicians, and be considered equals with Roman writers and theorists. While not initially large in numbers, emperors and senators from outside of italy came to Rome to serve in the government, and be integral parts of the Roman Republic. Germanicus, on page 52 says: “…I am aware that persons of this category do not have too strong a basis for Roman citizenship; nevertheless…I permit them by my indulgence to retain the legal status which they believed was theirs.” Good quote, but aimed more at the willingness of Romans to extend citizenship to foreigners. A better piece of evidence for the case you are making about the diversity of backgrounds for the Roman politicians would be a reference to the map showed in class which demonstrated that senators and emperors came from outside of Rome, which shows how tolerant and inclusive the Roman system was, in allowing foreigners to serve in the topmost offices.
Additionally, Roman provided its far reaching regions with limited local autonomy. In some cases, free elections were provided and competition resulted in a peaceful transition of power from one regime to another. There are many examples of free elections and competition within those elections. Among them, on page 235: “He shall likewise see to it that three citizens of the said municipality are placed at the ballot box of each curia who do not themselves belong to that curia, to guard and count the ballots; and that before performing such duty each of them shall take oath that he will handle the counting of the ballots and make report thereon in good faith…if in any curia two or more candidates have them same number of votes, he shall prefer a married man or one with the rights of a married man to an unmarried man without children or without the rights of married men.”
The Roman experience shows us several things. Firstly, that they were willing to provide equal citizenship to all people living within the empire. Secondly, by tolerating diversity, the Romans realized that they could rule more effectively. Lastly, local autonomy prevented internal strife and allowed for increased stability in the interior. This allowed the Romans to spend money on theatres and aqueducts, rather than on the defense of their empire. Good assessment
The population of the Roman Empire increased dramatically between 100 BC and 150 AD mostly due to assimilation of outsiders into the empire. The outside groups had much to gain from joining Rome. Protection in the form of the Roman army "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord...A bounteous productiveness of soil; a mild, temperate climate;...and security for their offspring" RC II: 7, p. 23); theaters for entertainment and culture; and a street grid system for orderly layout; fresh water from aqueducts for drinking and public sanitation. The building projects were costly and extensive, and brought a high quality of life to urban areas. Roman citizenship was extended to these new additions (people) "Most noteworthy by far and most marvelous of all is the grandeur of your concept of citizenship. There is nothing on earth like it." (RC II: 16, p.58), thereby allowing them to attain political status in their own municipalities and also to become a senator. Romans were tolerant of local cults and personal beliefs. These various features together created a powerful incentive to learn Latin, and adopt other Roman cultural traits and be part of the empire. Good, a little bit more evidence for some of the points you made would make this a stronger paragraph, just be sure to mention the monumental evidence about the religious inscriptions on the stone found, or the maps the demonstrate that senators and even emperors come from outside of Italy. Also, you could have mentioned the great peace that Rome brought, which is almost inculded in your mention of protection above.
The Roman building projects were unprecedented in other cultures. This was obviously attractive to outside groups that didn't have them nor the resources or engineering ability to build them. But, why would the Romans want more people to join their empire? The Roman Empire gained much in resources from conquering other lands. Minerals and food sources kept the quality of life high and the people prosperous. Gained a source to add people to their military ranks; gained a source of taxation in order to build their various buildings and engineering projects; gained a new region who would not revolt against them and thereby preserve the peace. To avoid civil war was a preeminant goal. The problem the Romans had to overcome was feeling secure enough in their own identity to absorb the new people. They did this by encouraging new groups to adopt Roman ways.
The lesson we can learn from this Roman experience is that by giving persons the ability to participate fully in the culture of their conquerors gives them reasons to participate and contribute productively. Citizens acquired by force, by contrast, are much less willing to cooperate. The standards of living, as detailed above, were much higher than much of the rest of the world at the time. Good.
Why did people adopt Roman civic values?
Because there were so many advantages to adopting Roman civic values. Many Romans were moving from city of Rome to all over the Roman Empire and they expected urban amenities similar to those in Rome.Yes but these people were already Romanized, the question is directed towards the foreigners who were conquered by the Romans and yet decided to adopt their values, how can we account for this? There were theaters, aquaducts, and roads, all very expensive, built all over the empire. These amenities were ubiquitous throughout the empire.
They decided to adopt Roman Civic values because they were given peace and all other accouterments of Roman Life. There was peace inside the Roman empire and the people were genrerally content. Evidence? The ubiquity of theaters suggests that Romans lived in a time stable enough to be more ensconsed with entertainment than with the threat of war. We know this because armies were always stationed at the borders to prevent invasion rather than to curb civic unrest inside.
How about the Tolerance and Inclusion offered by Rome?
And what lesson can we learn from the Roman experience?
The peace is secured by a benevolent dictator. The Roman government made sure to provide their new citizens with entertainment in the form of theaters. Beneficence is much more motivating than maleviolence. Rome didn't take over comletely. They allowed new provinces to keep their governments and religions. Rome convinced new states to Romanize by giving incentives instead of threats. New people adopted Roman ways very willingly.
A. One of the major factors for people to become Roman was that peace was ubiquitious. Additional evidence of this can be found in your own D below. The fact that the troops were located only at the borders suggests that internally, the empire was peaceful. What does peace mean for a society? Does it mean there is more time for other things, like the development of advanced artisanship? Theatres? etc. If you don't have to spend money on supplying a huge army or fighting foreign wars, what can you spend it on? Why would peace be an incentive for people to Romanize?
"...as far as peace is concerned the people have no need of politcal activity, for all war, both greek and foreign, has been banished and has dissappeared from among us."
B. Higher standards associated with quality of life: for example in the Todos Los Teatros 414 theaters were identified as well as the ubiquitious developement of aquaducts, public baths, and a sewer system. This quality of life was not seen in any other civilizations at the time or for many years to come. Again, it is crucial to organize this evidence effectively with your argument. You argue that the quality of life experienced by those in Roman cities was higher and that they had running water, sewers, theatres, etc. But why would this cause people to Romanize?
C. The Romans didn't disclude people from joining they never really had a sense of cultural superiority and believed everybody could join as mentioned by the inscriptions first dedicated to Capriociegus, then to Mars Capriociegus then just to Mars.
D. Basically each Roman city had its own form of city government and the troops were not positioned internally to suggest there was a significant amount of unrest. They were situated at the borders to deal with border defense.
What can we learn from this Roman model?
The Romans, in their gradual conquering of nations and territories, Romanized each group of peoples they came across, all the while making their way of life seem remarkable. They were welcoming in many cases, and the conquered peoples saw the many advantages of Roman urbanization. Some of these advantages included public amenities which benefited large communities and portrayed a gracious attitude from the Roman government. These included libraries, theaters, forums, temples, sanitation systems, aqueducts and baths, all of which served the greater good of the conquered community. The conquered peoples embraced the uniformity of the urbanization and seemed to happily conform to the Roman models because the Romans invested and supported the urban infrastructure so greatly. The government showed dedication to investing in these amenities equally for larger cities as well as smaller ones.
People of the conquered provinces readily adopted more common lifestyle choices of the Romans, including the wearing of togas and the speaking of Latin. They emulated the Romans as we would emulate celebrities now, and followed trends set in the city.
Leaders allowed the Romanized peoples to continue their local practices, including worship of established gods though they were sometimes praised in Latin, as seen in the incription to Reve. The conquered territories continued local elections, run entirely by the smaller communities. These elections were free, with multiple candidates who did not have to be recommended by someone like Augustus. This allowed more diversity in the governing bodies of the provinces. Subjects of Rome were treated equally under the law, so there were great equalizing benefits to being tried under Roman law. Citizens from borderlands were tried and treated equally as were the citizens within the city of Rome itself. Stated Aelius Aristides, "Neither sea nor any intervening distance on land excludes one from citizenship" (RC-2, 116). The Romans wholly included all peoples within the reach of the Empire, and sought to treat them all as equals.
Peace was successful across the lands, and proof of this is that armies existed only in the borderlands. Higher urban standards, inclusion, equal treatment under the law and local autonomy all contibuted to the internal peace of Rome. This prosperous peace would continue for many years, and continue the tradition of peace, allowing Rome to thrive and expand.
From this we can learn that lasting peace can be achieved through urbanization rather than forceful occupation, and that a benevolent dictator with the ideals of inclusion and tolerance of diversity can maintain order and peace.
Good response, thorough assessment and constructive use of evidence
The many urban amenities that Roman cities possessed were a reason to adopt Roman civic values. Aqueducts, theaters, public toilets, bath houses, and other amenities were all ubiquitous throughout the Roman empire, as seen in the map of the many theaters located outside of Italy, for example. As stated by Aristides, "Every place is full of gymnasia, fountains, gateways, temples, shops, and schools...Cities shine in radiance and beauty, and the entire countryside is decked out like a pleasure ground" (RCII, 60). This implies that extravagant urban amenities was universal to all cities belonging to Rome.
Another reason to adopt Roman civic values was the offering of Roman peace, or the Pax Romana. The Roman army, which was stationed around the borders of the empire to protect Roman citizens from outsiders, rather than to hold down the Roman population. As Tacitus stated, "We, though so often provoked, have used the right of conquest to burden you only with the cost of maintaining peace." This implies that despite the fact that areas had been conquered, they enjoyed peace for the sole cost of maintaining the armies.
Another benefit of adopting Roman civic values was the inclusion enjoyed by all Roman citizens. As evidenced by the monument to the Keltic god Reve written in Latin, counquered nations such as Gaul were able continue their own cultural practices while adopting Roman tendencies, such as learning Latin. Also important to mention was the inclusion and diversity in government. The senators and emperors that came from outside of Rome displayed by the map shown in class demonstrates that tolerance, inclusion and diversity extended into even the highest offices of Rome.
Why can we learn from the Roman experience?
Question: Why did people adopt Roman values and what lesson can we learn from the Roman experience?
People adopted the Roman values for three reasons: Peace, Urban amenities, and inclusion also Tolerance.
Peace, pax ramona, armies were stationed along the Roman borders to ensure security and Augustus was committed to keeping a peaceful regime, important to remember though that we are not just talking about when Augustus was emperor, we are talking about the way the empire, for two centuries after his death was able to provide peace to its provinces, hence the development of the idea of pax romana, not just augustan peace.
"The Augustan peace, which has spread to the regions...from the fear of brigandage" (RCII Patericulus pg 20).
Urban amenities included the cultural influence of the theaters and an improved standard of living made possible by water supply, sewage removal and available food supply, "Thereafter, one of the chief tasks of the government was the cura annonae, keeping the capital city supplied with grain from overseas provinces and maintaining normal market prices" (RCII 17 pg 61)
Inclusion in the Roman society was extended as an invitation and provided equality and tolerance at all levels, including religious belief. "Under the principate, Roman citizenship spread gradually to the provinces...direction of cultural unity" (RCII 15). Good, also mention the inclusion and diversity that was allowed throughout the imperial government, the inclusion of senators and emperors from outside of Italy as evidenced by map shown in class.
The lesson we can learn from the Roman experience is the benefit of acceptance and inclusion to bring together groups to form one large powerful society, rather than many seperate societies functioning against eachother, rather than together. Similar to a democracy, people feel included, that they are a part of the larger picture, even if their ideas and beliefs are individual. Freedom to chose, worship one's own version of god and freedom to be involved if that is what you desire.
There were five reasons why people adopted Roman civic values: peace, higher standards associated with urban culture, inclusion, local autonomy and law.
The peace of Rome was known as pax romana. It was not just peace; it was a very particular type of peace associated with Rome and her leader. The concept of peace was closely tied with the idea of a benevolent dictator, and Augustus succeeded in associating peace with himself, and that he was the one who granted peace: "Of liberty the people enjoy as much asw our rulers allot them...(23)" The altar of Augustan peace was a monument reflecting this concept. Plutarch says that "As far as peace is concerned, the people have no need of political activity, for all war...has been banished and has disappeared from among us" (23). In truth, all conflict had not been eradicated, but legions of the Roman army were placed at the borders to defend the individual cities. They protected them, but did not control or suppress the internal population, allowing them semi-autonomous existence. Good, but what else does the position of the army suggest? Primarily that the conquered people assimilated peacefully and willingly, they didn't need to babysit the locals, instead they could just protect the borders. This also meant that the government could spend more money on urbanization and less on running a police state.
Another factor that drew outsiders to accepting Roman rule and culture were the higher standards of living. There were no commerical advantages to building so many theaters, but they were thought to promote higher standards of cultural and intellecutal experience. Roman theaters, latrines and aqueducts were ubiquitous all throughout the empire, proving how willing everyone was to embracing and partaking in Roman culture. Latrines in Ostia and Africa were of similar designs and theaters in Spain and Rome looked the same.
There was also a great tolerance of diversity. Different political, cultural and religious views were accepted. The inscription to Reve is evidence of the Roman Empire's tolerance of religious views. Although the altar was praising Celtic gods, the inscriptions were in Latin. Good, also mention the inclusion and diversity that was allowed throughout the imperial government, the inclusion of senators and emperors from outside of Italy as evidenced by map shown in class.
What about the local autonomy and law you mention above? Also what can we learn from the Roman experience?
There were many reasons for the conquered to adopt Roman civic values. One example is provided by Tacitus who claimed that one Roman general speaking to the Gauls argued that the Romans, "though so often provoked, have used the right of conquest to burden you only with the cost of maintaining peace."
Also there is another piece of evidence by Tacitus when he says, "He (Agricola) made the exaction of grain and tributes less onerous by removing inequities in these obligations, eradicating schemesfor profit which were more intolerable than the tribute itself."
Romanization provided appealing benefits for conquered peoples through the promise of internal peace and through reduction of corruption due to fair administration by one authority.
What about the urban ammenities, toleration and inclusion, law, local autonomy? There needs to be more to this answer.
Subjects of the Roman empire were encouraged to "Romanize" because the Roman state offered the conquered people a kind of peace and much higher standards of living (or glamorous distractions, depending on the source). The assimilation was made easier by Roman policies of social inclusion. Excellent
On the subject of the pax Romana, Plutarch wrote: "As far as peace is concerned, the people have no need of political activity, for all war, both Greek and foreign, has been banished and has disappeared from among us." This idea, that peace was freedom from war, was allegedly echoed by a Roman general, Cerialis, in his speech to a Gallic province: "Gaul always had its petty kingdoms and intestine wars, till you submitted to Rome's authority...Should the Romans be driven out (may the gods forbid!) what can result but wars between yourselves and other nations?" Cerialis encourages the Gauls of Trier to continue being ruled by the Roman state because it is under Rome that they have enjoyed the greatest peace. Good, but develop this a little more, what is Cerialis suggesting? Primarily that without Roman rule there is no peace, this quote is significant because it describes the way in which roman rule and peace were associated with one another, and how this association could have appealed to the conquered peoples.
Another incentive to Romanize was the number of amenities that it provided. Theaters and bath houses were a feature of nearly every Roman city, in the outer provinces or in. The quality of life was increased by the construction of sewers and running water, which logically bettered the standard of living.
Rome's policy of inclusion facilitated an easier transition from independence. In Cerialis's speech, he said that "We [the Romans]...burden you only with the cost of maintaining peace...all else is common between us. You often command our legions. You govern these and other provinces. There is no privilege, no exclusion." This is further evidenced by the number of authors, senators, and even emperors originating from the provinces, suggesting a reasonable amount of social mobility. Inscriptions on roadside altars were still to native deities, although in Latin. All this evidence suggests that Rome permitted much latitude in provincial matters, allowing the provinces to slowly and almost organically Romanize. Good.
What can we learn from this experience?
People were willing to adopt Roman civic values because incorporating oneself into the Roman empire offered a number of benefits unavailable anywhere else in the ancient world. These factors included the promise of Roman peace, consierably higher standards of living, political and cultural tolerance and inclusion, limited local autonomy, and the advantages of Roman law.
From the map that shows the areas of distribution of the Roman legions, one can conclude that there was little need for armies to be present in the interior of the empire to keep the peace. Rather, the armies were solely located on the frontier to guard against foriegn invasion. This shows that there was a high degree of peacefulness within the empire, and people were accepting Roman rule openly. From the writings of Plutarch, we can also see that the Roman people associated peace with Roman rule, as he states "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord." (RC II, pg. 23). Good, very clear and concise analysis.
Also, the Romans focused on developing urban amenities and public works to raise the standard of living within the entire Roman empire. Theatres, aqueducts, amplitheatres, forums, public sanitation, and other urban benefits were ubiquitous across the entire Roman empire, suggesting that it was Roman policy to promote them. The advantages of Roman city life during this period were unmatched, and the high standard of living would not be met again until the 18th and 19th centuries.
Another factor was the fact that Rome was willing to include and tolerate political and cultural differences of those that incorporated into the empire. We can see from various maps that famous writers, Roman senators, and even emperors were coming from the provinces. This shows that Roman culture and politics were not being dictated from Rome, but even people in the provinces had the opportunity to advance in Roman society.
One can also see that there was still a vitality in municipal politics and a limited amount of local autonomy. People brought into the fold of the Roman empire still expected at least the presence of an appearance of a working constitutional republic that was present before Augustus. We can see from inscriptions of political slogans that municipal politics were still a viable instiitution, and that elections were not fixed. There were multiple people running for office, and people had a choice in wh they voted for.
Good, but what can we learn from all of this about imperialism, governance, etc?
There were five factors that contributed to the desire for Romanization: pax Romana, urban amenities, Roman tolerance, local autonomy, and rule of law.
The pax Romana is indicated by the position of the Army on the frontier, which indicates that their was internal peace that was secured by a benevolent dictator. Evidence?
The urban amenities that Romanization brought contributed to clean living (i.e. running water, sewage systems, bath houses, public restrooms, etc.) and recreation (i.e. Theaters). These Roman amenities were ubiquitious throughout the empire and no doubt contributed to the sustenance of the pax Romana. Yes but what does the ubiquitous nature of these amenities throughout the empire suggest? Possibly that these amenities were associated with Rome, that people knew that one of the benefits of romanizing was the eventual construction of these structures/supply of these amenities.
The conquered people were not prevented from becoming senators or moving up the social hierarchy as indicated by the Tacitus passage, "all else is common between us." They were also included into the Roman legal system and were given the right to worship their own gods as indicated by the Reve stone.
Additionally, conquered people were given limited local autonomy and were allowed to have open elections. Roman subjects were free to run their own local governments as they saw fit, so long as the governence didn't contradict the wishes of Rome. Evidence?
The Roman legal system allowed
ubiquitious legal rights for all who
dwelled within the empire. The Roman system was an amenity in its own
right as it provided procedures that were followed that contributed to
the greatest degree of legal fairness anywhere in the world at the time. Evidence?
The lesson that this experience teaches is that if governments want to secure peace within their borders, they must first secure basic rights and amenities for its people. When the people are happy, the state remains secure.
This is a little light on evidence
Significance of the data? Recall the basic question: why did people adopt Roman civic values? and what lesson can we learn from the Roman experience?
It is clear that the people of the provinces in the Roman empire did not adapt Roman values by coercion. This is evidenced by the maps showing Roman military camps almost exclusively on the borders of the empire, and NOT in urban areas. The cities throughout the empire distinctly lacked military camps, showing that the people did not need to be kept in line with direct force. What else does this suggest about the level of peace within the empire?
The values of Imperial rule are summed by Plutarch: "Greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord...as far as peace is concerned, the people have no need of political activity, for all war, both Greek and foreign, has been banished." (RC 7) Ultimately, the people of the provinces chose to integrate into the Roman empire because of the amenities provided.
Higher living standards are evidenced across the Roman empire, as we saw in class with ancient archaelogical evidence: ubiquitous and almost identical theaters, aqueducts, bathhouses, and other relatively luxurious urban improvements that are not surpassed until the late 19th Century. The similar layout of cities throughout the empire from North Africa to France demonstrates that everyone in the Roman empire wanted to mimic Rome itself.
The municipalities, while benefiting under Roman rule, were also able to maintain a limited degree of local autonomy as well, making Roman rule less undesirable than rule under other powers. This evidenced by the existence of relatively free elections: "The goldsmiths unanimously urge the election of Gaius Cuspius Pansa as aedile" "I ask you to elect Gaius Julius Polypius aedile. He gets good bread" (RC 65) The fact that two people were running for the same office demonstrates that the municipalities had autonomy in selecting their own politicians. Note also here that it was important for Roman emperors to preserve the image of the old Republic to maintain the admiration and support of local municipalities, as they wanted to uphold those values.What about the tolerance and inclusion offered by Rome? what can we learn from this model of empire and governance?