In most cases, it is not clear to what extent the majority of new Roman citizens considered themselves Romans or to what extent they were considered such by others. [11] For some provincials under Roman rule, the only experience with the « Romans » before obtaining citizenship, through the sometimes imposed tax collection system of Rome or its army, were aspects that were not assimilating to form a collective identity across empires. [56] Caracalla`s gift marked a radical change in imperial policy towards the provincials. [57] It is possible that decades and, in many cases, centuries of Romanization by Rome`s cultural influence already initiated the development of a « national » Roman identity before 212, and that the donation only made the ongoing process legal,[58] but the donation could also have served as an important precondition for a subsequent collective Roman identity, almost global. According to British lawyer Tony Honoré, the grant gave « several million, perhaps a majority of the inhabitants of the empire […] ein neues Bewusstsein des Römerseins ». [57] It is likely that local identities survived after the concession of Caracalla and remained important throughout the empire, but this self-identification as a Roman offered a greater sense of common identity and became important for dealing with and distancing oneself from non-Romans such as barbarian settlers and invaders. [12] The Romans (Latin: Rōmānī; Ancient Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, Romanized: Rhōmaîoi)[a] was a cultural group variously called ethnicity[2][3][b] or nationality,[4][5] that dominated large parts of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa in classical antiquity, from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD, through conquests during the Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire. Originally referring only to the Italian Latin citizens of Rome itself, the meaning of « Roman » underwent significant changes throughout the long history of Roman civilization as the borders of the Roman state expanded and contracted. Sometimes different groups within Roman society also had different ideas about what it meant to be Roman. Aspects such as geography, language, and ethnicity might be considered important by some, while others considered Roman citizenship and culture or behavior more important. [6] [7] [8] [9] At the height of the Roman Empire, Roman identity was a collective geopolitical identity that extended to almost all subjects of Roman emperors and encompassed great regional and ethnic diversity. [10] An explanation of the « reception » of Roman law, according to Professor Alan Watson, refers to the concept of « legal borrowing » – « legal transplantation. » 7 If lawyers and courts are looking for a solution and no solution is available in their own system, the thoughtful lawyer may find a precedent elsewhere.

There were also the first law professors from prestigious universities in northern Italy, who studied the legal writings of Roman times and instilled respect for Roman law in generations of jurists and high-ranking administrators. This facilitated the gradual alignment of Roman law with local customary law. There was at least one part of the Roman Empire that did not want to pass these laws – the island of Great Britain, but otherwise most of Western Europe adopted the Roman legal system. These laws, created by the Romans, are known as Roman law and civil law. The success of the Roman legal system and the Latin legal terminology that accompanied it was so great that it went on to form the basis of law in most English-speaking countries. It would also be incorporated in many jurisdictions in the United States. Applied to the Greeks, self-identity as Romans lasted longer, and for a long time there was widespread hope that the Romans would be liberated and their empire restored. [146] [aa] At the time of the Greek War of Independence, the dominant identity of the Greeks was still Rhōmaîoi or Romioi. [147] In the mid-16th century, rediscovered Roman law dominated the legal practice of many European countries. A legal system had emerged in which Roman law blended with elements of canon law and Germanic custom, especially feudal law.

This legal system, which was common throughout continental Europe (and Scotland), was called the Ius Commune. This ius commune and the legal systems derived from it are commonly referred to as civil law in English-speaking countries. Despite the reintegration of North Africa into the empire, the distinction between « Libyans » and « Romans » (i.e. the inhabitants of the Eastern Empire) was maintained by both groups. According to the writings of the 6th century Eastern historian Procopius, Libyans were descended from the Romans, ruled by the Romans, and served in the Roman army, but their Romanism had become too different from the population of the empire as a result of the century of vandalism. Imperial policy reflected the idea that North Africans were no longer Romans. While the governors of the eastern provinces were often based in their respective provinces, military and administrative personnel in North Africa consisted almost exclusively of Easter. [121] That the imperial government distrusted the inhabitants was hardly surprising, since the imperial troops had been harassed during the Vandal War by local (formerly Roman) peasants who supported the Vandal regime, and there had been several rebels thereafter, such as Guntarith and Stotzas, who attempted to restore an independent kingdom.

[122] The distinction between the Romans and the Romans of North Africa is also reflected in foreign sources, and the two populations do not seem to have reconciled when the African provinces fell during the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb and the end of Roman rule. [121] [s] By the middle of the 3rd century, the conditions for the flourishing of a refined legal culture had become less favourable.