caldrail

There was no requirement for centurions to retire. There is one record of a serving centurion aged 80, but that must be something exceptional given the period, and although their experience was valued as leaders and trainers in the legions, most would at some point opt for a quieter old age. However I should point out that the casualty rate for centurions was higher than a typical legionary on average, mostly because they led from the front, but also in a minority of cases because they were obvious targets for retaliation in mutinies, but again, I stress this was a very rare event.

The question of whether religion is tolerant is not driven by the structures and teachings of the religion itself, but the nature of the society that interprets it. Intolerant societies have harsh religions. Tolerant societies are less fussy. To complicate matters of course there are often divisions in society where intolerant members want harsher religious belief. Also, the issue of what we consider as harsh is also relevant. Take druidic practises for instance. In theory, the druids were a class of overseers of religious rites - it was written that no sacrifices were allowed without a druid present - and thus presented a limiting factor on sacrificing human beings to assuage the gods or read the signs. They did however oversee such sacrifices and we know such sacrifices continued after the Romans arrived (Evidence for instance of human remains found in a vertical cave where they'd been dumped before death in the north of england, dated in the 1st century ad). During druidic times a typical sacrifice was to hit the victim over the head to stun him, strangle him (one set of remains show a violent application of a noose that actually broke his neck and killed him), then cut his throat. Everything was in threes - a significant number in druidic religion - and sacrifial rites followed this pattern. It has also been observed that one victim may have been prepared beforehand, possibly even voluntarily, although we cannot be sure. Of course the neo-pagans of the modern day who claim to follow druidic belief do not generally have any concept of the somewhat grim iron-age beliefs and wouldn't like it if they did, because they want something they consider more in tune with simple superstition that probably has more in common with neolithic/bronze age beliefs. So they see druidism in a positive light, ignoring the bloodletting. It comes down to a matter of mindset. The ancient iron age peoples believed their human sacrifices had a positive purpose whereas today it would be abhorrent for most people.

Granted, yet I notice the relatively rare mention of such things, and as far as I can gather, with the demise of Roman morality from late republic onward (mostly associated with the prosperous early principate but co-existent with christian standards in later times from the evidence of surviving sermons), there was even less desire to undertake the deed. You might think a less restrictive moral stand would mean an incresed prediliction to violentce, but the opposite is true. Harsh retribution is more indicative of harsher moral stance, consistent with what I read of the earlier republican periods.

Cheers chaps. I'm making a good recovery and hope to be coherent by the end of the week

The right of a father to kill household and family members is a very old tradition in Roman culture but not one often carried out in practice, mostly because the act, however legal, carries accusations of cruelty and barbaric behaviour in terms of public image. I would hazard a guess that most incidents came from the lower classes rather than patricians, who had more to lose from bad reputation and rumour than those classes of societies who were almost anonymous in the record as much as social standing.

I had a long chat with a re-enactor about armour a few years back. The weight is apparently well distributed once worn so not actually encumbering, and the worst feature he mentioned was heat, followed in second place by pinching (which depended on adjustments and how carefully the armour is worn). When I asked him whether he would have actually worn this stuff in combat he unhesitatingly replied "Yes".

I would have to say the casualties from arrows far exceed those from Roman short swords. Once you include firearms into the equation, the gladius vanishes off the graph, and explosive devices may well have killed more than that.

Mostly the punishment was divorce and public ignomy, though I accept legal punishments were in place. Wouldn't the punishment also depend on the degree of adultery? The status of the individuals, the extent of skulduggery, and what the adulterer stood to gain?

Like any piece of metal, it will eventually give away if you apply enough pressure and/or shock load, but I have to say the armour worn by a re-enactor was a formidable strip of metal nonetheless. The problem with the lorica segmentata, and very likely a major reason for the armours demise, was that it's complexity created difficulties. It required the assistance of another legionary to tie in place and had an unforuunate tendency, if badly worn, to pinch the wearer painfully. Banded armour also kept the wearer hot, uncomfortably so after strenuous activity or warm weather.

It's my understanding that the proportion of Italians recruited dropped to a minority of around 20% by mid-imperial times, although I don't remember where I read that so that's not a good reference. One of the reasons for that was the decreasing patriotic martial spirit in comfortable settled Italy whereas the surrounding tribal people were, perhaps not suprisingly, still up for a fight.

Polybius gives the game away. He underlines the hatred that existed for Carthage and anticipates their final destruction (he wrote ghis hisotries around 150BC, just before the final war). I think what we ought to bear in mind is that warfare in ancient times was far less concerned with protocol and ettiquette than later eras. It was often all or nothing. Rome smelled blood and wanted to be rid of their rival. Polybius refers to Carthage as a state in terminal decline politically and irredeemably decadent. Clearly there was a common sentiment in Rome that Carthage really ought to be pushed over the brink and gotten rid of once and for all.

The issue of colour was sometimes very significant to the Romans. Legionaries did not wear white, but rather natural undyed tunics that were a sort of off-white (although soldiers of senior positions undoubtedly used whiter tunics than the common legionary. Concerning red for centurions, that is the accepted norm, but it might be a distortion of the fact, since red was also used to simulate purple by over-dying the cloth, and purple was very sugnificant as a status marker.

Women's Rights are a modern issue. Whilst Roman women were given a definite place in society, it was possible for them to exceed those boundaries. One lady in Pompeii was known to have run a business after her husband died (although in fairness, she was due to be married in order to satisfy public expectation but then again I suspect she would have carried on running the biusiness regardless. Some of them, as we know, became influential in politics. Nowhere in the sources do I find a suggestion that women were unhappy with their lot in the way we find in recent times. Arguably the Romans found a balance that was acceptable, flexible even, to some degree, but one that allowed the woman a measure of respect if she conformed (an attitude that is pretty typical of the Romans in general, they were a somewhat conformist society). I'm also reminded of a possible fate attributed to Zenobia, the former rebellious queen of Palmyra. Having led her armies in the field (yes, she really did that, dressed in armour and everything). Some versions of the story have meeting a sticky end, but one suggests strongly that she was allowed to marry a senior Roman and live as his wife as long as she accepted her lot.

There was always a tendency in America to record events for posterity. Before photography, artists used to travel into the wilderness and left us some very evocative renditions of the native American and his day to business. As soon as cameras were available, even those clumsy glass plate jobs, people were taking pictures of everything and anything. It was, after all, proof of all those frontier tales if nothing else, and in terms of news a far better record than the laborious wood cut artwork they used in the victorian era, once they found a method of printing photographs mind you. In fact, the desire to photograph has never really left the American. take WW2. Germany made huge use of propaganda, Russia re-enacted evrything for the newsreels, Britain was full of cheeky chappies and giving the Jerry what for, but America? They filmed evrything. Absolutely everything, live action and usually in colour film. I've said this before but one of the most saddening pictures of the civil war was of a pile of discarded limbs piled against the brick wall of a hospital for disposal. Surreal and real at the same time.

This is probably isn't all that new, but I spotted the following report... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesus-had-wife-newly-discovered-gospel-suggests-202727064.html

It does sound that way, I agree, but modern researchers and period testimonials all agree that this was the case. To what extent this was commonly seen I can't say. Unlike many native american tribes or the modern re-interpretation of native american culture in general, the Iroquois were in fact quite belligerent by nature. Although I find the period evaluations of their courage a little arrogant and stilted, a warrior culture tends to breed individuals that have pride in their resistance to adversity, so perhaps there's a grain of truth in it.

Much hath been said, & many Exclamations thrown out, even in Parliament, by some popular Orators in the Opposition, against employing the Indians, to whom they give the Appellation of Savages Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) In 1778 that British Parliament had spent seventy five thousand pounds on gifts for native americans in the south alone. Savages or not, they were potential allies in a conflict and everyone knew it. Their contribution in the Feench & Indian War was not forgotten, and as always the relationship between settler and native was a troublesome one. Nonetheless there was a general desire to limit civil strife in the American colonies on both sides, and indeed, there was considerable sentiment for loyalty toward England in private correspondence at the beginning of the American Revolution, with some perplexity concerning the reasons why war was breaking out in the first place, sentiments that quickly evaporated as war became a reality for many people. Clearly there was a reluctance to make a bad situation worse in colonial, British, and Indian circles. We are unwilling to join on either side of such a contest, for we love you both - old England and new. Should the great King of England apply to us for aid - we shall deny him - and should the Colonists apply - we shall refuse. Oneidas Tribe,(Speech to Governor Jonathon Trumbull of Connecticut) This is a family quarrel between us and Old England. You Indians are not concerned with it. We don't wish you to take up the hatchet against the King's troops. We desire you to remain at home, and not join either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep... Continental Congress ( Address to the Six Nations, July 1775) However warfare is about advantage over your enemy, and the desire to recruit allies to the cause was creating pressure upon the Indian tribes in spite of official resistance at the same time. The British were appealing to the Iroquois to "feast on a Bostonian and drink his blood", providiing a roast ox and wine to set the mood. They were however slow off the starting block I know how to shute and ambush just like Indian and want your warriors to come and see me and help me fight Regulars. You know they Stand all along close Together Rank and file and my men fight as so as Indians Do and I want your your warriors to Join with me and my Warriors like Brothers and Ambush the Regulars. If you will I will Give you Money, Blankets, Tomehawks, Knives, and Paint and the Like as much as you say because they first killed our men when it was Peace time. Ethan Allen of Vermont (Speech to the Iroquois, May 1775) General Gage would order Guy Johnson and John Stuart to bring the Indian to the British cause at the first opportunity in mid 1776. Johnson took his orders to heart. He arrived in London with a Mohawk indian he introduced to high society as Joseph Brant. Such was the acclaim and reception the Indian found that he was utterly convinced of the British cause on his return to the colonies. Colonel John Butler made another attempt to bring the Iroquois to the British side, using the same arguments the French had made in the earlier conflict to the effect that Indian land was under threat of appropriation from dangerous colonial lunatics and that it was in the interest of the Iroquois to get onside. However the Iroquois revealed a somewhat better relationship with the colonists than we might expect.. You say their powder is rotten We have found it good. You say they are all mad, foolish, wicked, and deceitful - I say you are so and they are wise for you want us to destroy ourselves in your War and they advise us to live in Peace. Their advice we intend to follow. Chief Flying Crow (Answer to John Butlers request, Summer 1776 By 1777 the Iroquois finally became embroiled and the Six Nations were split, with Oneidas and Tuscaroras favouring the rebellion, and Mohawks, Cayugas, Senecas, and Onondogas siding with the British. The native americans had a fearsome reputation. It was said that the Iroquois in particular had a culture of courage under torture, in that a prisoner who bore his agony with laughter was rewarded with a quick merciful death. An anecdote concerning General Amherst tells that when captured by Indians he was tied to a tree so the natives could throw hatchets at him. With a fatal blow looming, Amherst laughed out loud, and that act so impressed the Indians that they let him go. The concept of savagery versus civilised behaviour is a common thread in writings of this period. The Iroquois indian is respected for ferocity and skill, yet he is also a warrior who does not fight with the steadfastness assumed by colonial writers. The native fearlessness in war was said to be motivated by bravado rather than civilised notions of what courage entailed. 'True courage', we are told, ' involves honour and mercy', aspects of behaviour discounted in native americans. One diary that the stories of cruelty by indians are completely false, though that is contradicted that a few entries later. Every Nation hath something Peculiar in its Mode of War. An Indian prefers the Mode of fighting behind a tree, or of skulking in Bushes. He prefers the Hatchet, the scalping Knife, & the Tomahawk, to the Bayonet, the Sword & the Cutlass. His Weapons give, at least, as sudden, if not less a painful Death, than the Englishman's Weapons. In truth he doth not discover what is called english courage, of standing undaunted in an open Field to be shot at; he rather chuses to be safe in his own Person, while he destroys the Person of his Enem, but this is all, the Custom of Particular Nations. If you incline to put him to Death in a painful Manner, he will convince You, that he can undergo the most excrutiating Torture, without a Groan. Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) Peter Oliver informs us that scalping was much encouraged by bounties paid by the settlers, and mentions that scalps of Indians were at a premium. In fact, Oliver blames the settlers themselves for introducing scalp hunting to the Indian in the first place. Rather more chillingly, he also adds that it was unknown for an englishman to take a scalp until the Battle of Lexington when such barbaric behaviour is first mentioned. Let Patriots roar as loud as they please, about the Barbarity of an Indian scalping knife; but let them know, that an Indian savage strikes the deadly Blow before he takes of the scalp. It was reserved for the New England savage, only, to take it off whilst his Brother was alive Peter Oliver (The Origin & Progress Of The American Revolution) So much for the superior morality and civilisation of the European. But of course this was war, and conflict brings out the best and worst of all sides. General Rutherford who commands the Militia Brigade from Mecklenberg & Salisbury is a perfect savage & bears the most rancorous hatred to Tories. Robert Gray (Observations Of The War In Carolina 1782) Whatever the truth, Indian raids were not taken lightly by either side. Ethan Allen, who had earlier attempted to rouse the Iroquois to war, was also quick to mention in his recollections of the Revolution that the 'cruel and blood thirsty savage' (and he had nothing but scorn for the Indian) would find it impossible to carry on a war, unless supported by the trade and commerce of a civilised nation The very same Ethan Allen entertains us with an account of an Indian attack... ...and in half a minute after a savage, part of whose head was shaved, being almost naked and painted, with feathers intermixed with the hair on the other side of his head, came running to me with incredible swiftness; he seemed to advance with more than mortal speed. As he approached near me, his hellish visage was beyond all description; snakes eyes appear innocent in comparison of his; his features extorted; malice, death, murder, and the wrath of devils damned spirits are the emblems of his countenance... Ethan Allen (A Narrative Of Col. Ethan Allen's Captivity) Allen was actually saved from this attack by the intervention of witnesses nearby. However the depositions made by veterans in the 1830's when applying for a military pension rarely mention Indians, let alone describe interaction with them, despite the extraordinary variety of personal stories they recounted. On the other hand John Struthers recalled going to war with every intention of inflicting defeat on the Indian. On his patrols he tells us the men watched Indian warpaths carefully when patrolling, as the Indians might appear out of nowhere and melt away just as quickly. David Welch recalls his hand to hand fight with natives... Presently I saw through the brush two Indians sitting by a smoke that appeared to have been kindled to keep off the mosquitos. I instantly laid myself flat down, keeping my eye upon the spot to see if there were more than two. In a few moments I became impressed with the belief there were but the two. I was not more than eight rods distant from them. After much hesitation as to what might be most proper, I finally came to the conclusion that my companions were proceeding on and might perhaps soon be suprised., as there might be more Indians within a short distance. I drew my gun, and whilst lying thus flat on the ground, I took deliberate aim at one of the Indians and shot him dead. The other Indian instantly sprung upon his feet, seizing his gun, and started to run. Without reflecting upon the consequence, I immediately run after him, having my gun unlloaded. The Indian made but a few leaps after I started before he turned and fired upon me, but his fire missed as I supposed by several feet. He then dropped his gun and came at me with his tomahawk. I encountered him with my empty gun. The first blow which he aimed with his tomahawk I warded off with my gun, and in doing so I was fortunate enough to hook the deadly weapon from him. It fell upon the ground behind me. I was then encouraged and sprung to get the tomahawk, in which effort I succeeded. Whilst I was yet bent in picking up the tomahawk, the Indian, who had drawn his knife, gave me a cut, giving me a deep but short wound upon my right lega little above my knee. He then aimed a second stroke at me with the same weapon. This blow I warded off with my left hand, in doing which I received a wound between the thumb and forefinger..About the same instant, with the tomahawk, I hit him a blow upon the head which brought him to the ground, and with another blow after he had fallen I made sure he was beyond doing me any further harm. David S Welch (Deposition, 1832) Stirring stuff. It's also noticeable that Indians came and went from British camps with barely a glance. We might conclude that native americans were not involved in large numbers..However, records indicate that sizeable numbers were employed in specific instances, such as the seven hundred Indians that accompanied Major Butlers expedition of four hundred troops. Wheeling Fort was attacked by two or three hundred Indians according to John Struthers. Early in the Spring of 1780 intelligence was received, I do not remember how, that a large body of Indians were on their march to devastate the whole country from Wheeling to Fort Pitt. This news was either not believed or at least not heeded until until a party of them, crossing below Wheeling, had penetrated nearly halfway from the Ohio to Catfish Camp... ... They had taken a number of prisoners but, becoming alarmed, speedily retraced their steps to the Ohio and murdered all their male prisoners along the way John Struthers (Deposition, 1841) Similarly he describes other raids that frightened the local population greatly, though in each event civilian casualties were not great at all and the Indians did not seem to extract any advantage other than catching their quarry off guard. Most raids were of nuisance value, perhaps a scalp or two from luckless pickets, a few stolen horses, or barns set ablaze. Inevitably then a punitive expedition was mounted that attacked the Indian setlements apparently causing hundreds of deaths among them, men, women, and children, an event that John Struthers explicitly declared he took no part in nor found agreeable despite his willingness to engage the Indian at war. George Washington considered the Indian raids by those allied to England to be serious enough to warrant official retribution and sent John Sullivan on such a mission to the inaccessible western reaches of the Iroquois. Following the Susquehanna River he penetrated the tribal lands of the Senecas, the most powerful of the Six Nations, who abandoned their vilages and cornfields to be burned by Sullivans troops, an episode that left the Senecas with a deep foreboding of the White Man. In letters and diaries it was common to read of peoples admiration of the American wilderness despite the difficult enviroment. It was also an anonymous enviroment that inspired many covert actions. An officer called Samuel Brady had even conducted a raid with his men dressed as Indians, and asserted that 'the only good Indian was a dead Indian'. George Roush brought up an interesting point that some raids were actually nothing more than hunting trips of no threat to the armies or civilians, so clearly the difference was difficult to discern when a body of Iroquois were spotted moving stealthily through the forest. Curiously there are hints contained in the various writings of witnesses that those native americans not actually engaged in raids were astonishingly unwary, as if their innocent purpose would protect them from harm, and all too often they discovered a musket ball does not respect such sentiments. Time and again they are picked off when travelling harmlessly. For all the dangers of Indian interaction, we also learn that among the people 'made beggars of' by the war, a large number sought sanctuary among the native american settlements and received it without complaint. What can we make of the Iroquois at war? The American Revolution was fought on the frontier as much as the battlefield, armies forced to travel by river for lack of roads. Away from the battlefield and the reluctance to act without orders, warfare in the wilderness was a hazy interaction of hostile forces with a clear willingness to shoot first and ask questions afterward. The relationship with the native american was complex, with respect, hatred, expedience, and some exploitation identifiable on all sides. There's no doubt that even allowing for some natural exaggeration of old soldiers making deositions for pension payments, there was no shortage of courage and daring among those who faced the Iroquois, who for their part don't seem to impress the modern reader overly with their performance infighting. They were, after all, relying primarily on speed and suprise. Of course we have little record of what the Iroquois themselves thought. They were understandably baffled and frustrated by the behaviour of the immigrants, ill at ease with the military regime so different from the informal warfare that came naturally to them. And when it was all over, when the war was settled, the Iroquois expected rewards and appreciation from the British for their efforts. They got nothing. The Revolution Remembered (ed. John C Dann) The American Revolution - (ed. John Rhodehamel) The History Of The Indian Wars (Robert M Utley & Wilcomb E Washburn)

This would be the line that the Romans retreated to after the Varian Disaster. before that event Rome had begun colonisation of the Germanic frontier and substantial remains have been found of Roman towns built beyond this border, abandoned in the wake of Germanic victory.

That view was typically early empire. Rules regarding women were probably stricter in republican times. As an example of early imperial justice, there was a case of a young Roman from a wealthy family who was arrested for raping a prostitute. Because of her profession, the magistrate ruled that forcing himself upon her was actually not criminal (she was asking for it, is basically what he meant) but because the young man had broken down her front door to get to her, he was judged as guilty and jailed. Of course by that era prostitution was far more prevalent and sex more gratuitous. The impression I get of later periods is more decadent but less provocative. One bishop wrote a sermon in which he tells us that the Goths were very moral, very restrictive in sexual matters, thus hated the Romans for their love of licentious behaviour. He probably exaggerated for the purposes of berating his congregation but his point is still an observation of late empire society.

I think it's fantastic the site is stil used for competitive and entrtainment purposes. At least we've not pitching people together in lethal combat, but there is a sense of continuity about this despite the novelty. Now to be really romanesque, can you get elephants to play ice hockey?

In Goldworthy's book about Julius Caesar, he descirbes a scene where Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair. DId he take out out on the street and have her stoned to death? No, he simply divorced her. That may have just been Caesar who was remarkably conciliatory in many situations where others would let their passions get the better of them. An interesting point, because irrespective of whether she was guilty of indiscretions, women in high places were desirable not so much for charm or comliness, but as means of social and career advancement. That was the norm for wealthy imperial Romans and none thought it unusual for a couple to split when things weren't working to their advantage. Dropping one partner for a better one is readily noticeable too. In any case, it would be wrong for us to assume that Romans married for love. Typically a young male Roman would regard being in love as something akin to emotional slavery, a very undesrable state of affairs, and the expectations of young men were even more macho and lustful than our present day. Most marriages were, as often occurs in historical periods, for practiical reasons as much as social ones. Women as young as twelve were routinely married off to someone in poorer families (I've seen evidence of a girl of seven being married, though that was likely a rare circumstance and even the Romans themselves frowned upon big differences in age even when it occurred on a regular basis). So it isn't the male prerogative that dominates marriage either, since sex with slaves and prostitutes was readily available, leaving childbirth as a primary consequence of union - and notice how the Romans treat newly born infants - the male responsible chose to acknowledge the child as his - there was no obligation although obviously in a happy union the issue wasn't likely to arise. Nonetheless, for all the hardships of the female gender, they were given a primary role in the household, and a respected one at that, The old saying that there is always a woman behind a successful man is one of those human realities that the ROmans encapsulated in their society.

A deep question. Or several. I suspect the problem people have today when considering the history of christianity is that they tend to apply modern sensibilities and ideas to the Roman era. Hopefully I'm not making the same mistake here of course, but I think we first need to see how the Romans thought of the relationship between divine and mundane. To them there was no clear dividing line - a powerful man, be it politically or charismatic, had in some way attracted or been given elements of divinity, which was why the Senate honoured individuals with posthumous divinity and why some individuals claimed divine status while very much alive. There was no clear division between Man and God - merely power and influence upon the lives of the ordinary Roman, real or imagined, although clearly there was also an element of expediency in creating Gods. As for setting conditions for Christ to return, this is a dubious standpoint because being the Son of God was a transposition of a Roman concept more than the qualification for divinity it has now become. The important idea back then was the reincartion of humanity, that the dead would return to life, which played on the natural fear of death. The idea that Christ would return to accomplish this feat has since become one of the defining properties of Jesus as a divimne character. I would have thought that sainthood was perhaps not an easy qualification for Roman Caesars on the grounds that they were pagan, corrupted by power, and given to displays of wealth. Why would a man already declared a god by the Senate become a saint? That amounts to a demotion in Roman terms, and in some ways, sullies the idea of purity that Caesars clearly had no intention of adopting. My own view is that we have to realise Christianity was a divided cult system until organised under the aegis of Constantine as a state sponsored religion. We also need to realise that the Romans were inextricably given to profit, and a Roman in the late empire wrote "Make me a bisphop of Rome today and I'll become a christian tomorrow", meaning that cult leadership was a lucrative occupation. In other words, the Romans took a long time to establish the social behaviour that we associate with pious christianity.

It wasn't the 'illegal' ommogration that made the difference, but rather the intent of those who migrated to our shores. Saxons were already resident in Britain before the seccession from the Roman Empire in substantial numbers (there are saxon graves dated during the occupation in my region), yet the Romans regarded them as 'good citizens'. We could therefore point to the collapse of administration after the Romans had gone and question the illegality of germinic arrivals, part;y since some of them would have been invited by resident germanics on the basis that there was lots of good farming land to be had (just a few britons you might want to evict first though), although it has to be admitted that certain landings were made on the basis that this same land was for the taking and who was going to stop them? It should also be pointed out that the failure of the resident Brirtons to contain these migrant populations contributed to their subjugation. There are earthworks across southern Britain built to impede their advances. So it isn't just that the germanic tribers arrived, legally or not, but also the inability of the native Romano-Britons to enforce law and order upon them.

It is interesting to read these views but I guess we have to expect senior or educated Romans to be disparaging of other peoples culture, given Roman arrogance and the lack of any real 'romanisation' as is popularly imagined in childrens books, and basically what these people are sniffing at are those who are not completely latin in manner and speech, those who bring their own customs into play, which under normal circumstances wouldn't affect the upper classes in any real sense since despite any immigrant views and behaviours, they still lived among the Romans, adopted many of their customs, and obeyed their laws.

Immigration does not smother the native culture unless the native culture is already weakening to the point where immigrant populations are powerful enough to establish their own cultural bias. What happens (as it did in Roman times) is that the immigrants either conform to the native culture to some degree or form ghetto's which are not in themselves a 'threat' (because becoming a perceived threat invites popular dissent against them). Therefore we could conclude that immigration was a sympton of the Roman condition, not the cause of it.