From ancient times Rome expanded its territory to the huge Empire and arguably became world's superpower in the ancient world. During this period of time Romans culture and their "way of life" has been practiced by the local people and it influenced their life.(Campbell, 2011). It is called Romanization which was the process Rome assimilated new regions and effected them culturally. Although there were many debates about Romanization, it was acculturation process which happened through political, commercial and moral ways.
To understand the Romanization process we can look at the origins of the word and how it appeared. Romanization has been the reason for debate among scholars over the one hundred years. The word Romanization was firstly mentioned by Francis Haverfield in 1905 who was British scholar. In the book called " The Romanization of Roman Britain" (Haverfield, 1912) he described it as "complete acculturation", which means transferring cultural practices and morality laws. He has been argued that Roman empire maintained its territory through two strategies. First strategy was frontier defense and secondly, main goal of the Romans was 'fostering the growth of 'internal civilization' within the provinces' (Haverfield, 1912). "Internal civilization" means making non-Roman citizens Romans with the help of a new language, urbanization, art and religion. Haverfield argued that Romans concentrated to spread values of the Romans among elite members of the provinces. Since the elites was the hegemonic power it has been assumed that Roman values would be adopted by plebs. (Haverfield, 1912).
Haverfield's model of Romanization first challenged by the scholar R.G. Collingwood in the 1930's. He argued that it was not only consist of Roman civilization , also Celtic elements could be found within the Romanization. According to Collingwood, after the process Romano-British culture appeared. It can be also called as a hybrid culture. Collingwood also admitted that Romanization process was more effective among elite than the peasantry, meaning the low level of society. We can say that Haverfield and Collingwood agreed from this point of view. However, both of them criticized not taking into consideration people who lived in rural areas. We cannot measure that to what extent Romanization was effective and whether it mixed or not mix with other cultures.
Moreover, Jane Webster proposed one of the strongest argument about Romanization. The essence of this argument was that people who lived in provinces should not be described as Romanized, they should be called "creolized". As seen from the world mentioned above, Webster tries to mention necessity of "Creole language". She says that 'like Creole languages, Creole material culture represents not the gradual replacement of one way of life by another, but the blending of both, in a clearly non-egalitarian social context.' Although other scholars neglected the operation of Romanization at lower society, Webster mainly concentrated on this issue. By illustrating "Romano-Celtic hybrid gods" she explains the Creolization model (Webster, 2001).
But how was Romanization happened? Before the invading process Roman was trying to form "client-king relationships". Romans strengthened their frontiers by using chieftains. Nevertheless, by this method Rome gained de facto which allowed Rome to control conquests without expenses. Due to the territories were under control of Roman empire the process of Romanization began . It was lead to regions to unify and obey Roman rules. In the memoir, called Gallic Wars, Tacitus mentioned "client-king", saying 'It is an ancient and now long-established practice of the Roman People to use even kings as instruments of enslavement". Romans did not only use "Client-kings relationships' to maintain political power in their hands. Colin Haselgrove mentioned that "Rome exploited indigenous political divisions and tendencies to fill in the immediate process of conquest and incorporation, but looked to adopt intact whatever of the existing structure she could, and to alter or abolish only those features 10 which ran counter to her long-term interests.' Administrators of Roman Empire allowed local people from higher level of society to rule provinces. By using this method Rome escaped from rebellions and native kings strengthened their positions.
Another way to spread roman culture was through independent commerce. The goods of Roman Empire had a very good quality and was desirable from all around the world. Symbols of Roman Empire mainly were commodities as clothing and roman coins. Since Roman goods was luxury items, it was traded between elites and also became desirable for lower society. Trade helped to spread Romanization in neighbor societies even before Roman soldiers conquered these territories.
Furthermore, Romans also used incentives in order to implement their policies in the provinces. For example: elites had to know Latin language if they wanted to work in the government and then, members of the lower society also adopted the language. In the new schools, which Romans built taught Latin to youth. In addition, Roman empire could protect the citizens and ensure the peace in the territories which conquered. Mostly important, people who became did not lose their cultural identity. Cassius Dio mentions that
"The barbarians were adapting themselves to Roman ways, were becoming accustomed to hold markets, and were meeting in peaceful assemblages. They had not, however, forgotten their ancestral habits, their native manners, their old life of independence, or the power derived from arms. Hence, so long as they were unlearning these customs gradually and by the way, as one may say, under careful watching, they were not disturbed by the change in their manner of life, and were becoming different without knowing it"
.Romans also helped people economically and socially in order to attract them to the Roman way of life. Bentley talked about it in his thesis which was 'religious and cultural traditions rarely won foreign converts except when favored by a powerful set of political, social, or economic incentives.' However, elite members more benefited from the Roman culture than poor citizens(Campbell,2011)
In conclusion, controversy about Romanization seems will not come to the end. However, it is inevitable that Roman had a huge impact on non-Roman's lives whether good or bad. In some societies their role was disruptive where political strategy applied and they manipulated citizens. On the other hand, Rome culture helped native citizens to discover their potential and brought "civilization". In the Virgil Augustus said "to govern the peoples of the world in your empire. These will be your arts ' and to impose a settled pattern upon peace, to pardon the defeated and war down the proud.' This saying showed respect towards other cultures and Roman culture integrated with them. They changed infrastructure, created new buildings, gave a social assistance to the society and brought a new language.. This strategy prevented some rebellions against Rome.