[af_vet_rr]

To be fair, the Romans were a lot more willing to take in different races and cultures, if and only if you were to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's, so to speak.

Imperial Rome was pretty amazing in that aspect - you could be Persian, African, Indian, Celtic, Egyptian, etc., and be a full Citizen with a capital 'C' of the Roman Empire, with all of the rights of somebody born a citizen inside Rome herself. Rome knew how to incorporate a conquered people or nation, and turn around and make those people or that nation an ally, somebody who had a vested interest in being a Roman.

That was partially helped by the fact that any race or people could be a slave or a citizen - that's taking race out of the equation and making social status centered around economic status.

[Sherman Logan]

You are correct about the amazing Roman capability for assimilation. Probably the reason they were the only one out of the thousands of city-states around the Mediterranean to build a lasting territorial empire.

A freed slave of a Roman immediately became a Roman citizen, although at considerable social disadvantage over "real" Romans. But his son and especially grandson would be real Romans, at least if the family was wealthy, with the process of assimilation sped up by an industry providing fake genealogies.

However, the Romans never really lost their pride of race. They just more or less ignored the non-Roman origin of most of their citizens.