You’re describing what I said with more words
"Romans were the first to do conquest."
"No, they weren't."
"You're just saying what I said."
????????
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation.
... do... do you think pre-Roman peoples didn't practice assimilation?
That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
By the time that people on the fringes of the Empire were considered Romans, Romans had lost the cultural hegemony necessary for assimilation, which makes this a very dubious claim.
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
I can honestly think of no period of Roman history in which the scenario you described was the norm.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
...
... do you think wealth extraction doesn't predate the Romans? For that matter, you think the HRE is more rooted in Roman practice than Germanic practice? For that matter, you think the West demonstrates the most horrific form of wealth extraction in the modern day?