How "unified" was the Roman Empire? Was it something

I think they didn't care much besides getting their due taxes. Governors of provinces and other officials did exploit their positions to enrich themselves. Varus was doing so in Syria before getting posted in Germania where he shat the whole joint up trying to keep on enriching himself.

They didn't have rights to raise legions as far as I know.

>>1698474
so in what way was the roman Empire different from the feudal system?

>>1698479
Republican checks and balances. That shit didn't really change much even with the imperator.

>>1698450
You're looking for the word "centralized", not "unified". But >>1698474 covers it. Each province was more or less semi-autonomous as long as they provided soldiers, taxes, and trade resources to the other provinces. That's why when it split into two empires, the transition wasn't terrible.

File: roman_empire_map_large.png (307KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 800x587px

>>1698450
stitchwork unification of western empire (say 5,000 years) of crete-greece-italy. the senatorial provinces were states, the imperial were territories.

>back in the day when you could just march-conquer across europe doing whatever the fuck you wanted for a millenia

>>1698474
>implying this isnt an effective method of governing

>>1698450

there were different kinds of territories based on two factors:

1)if they were taken forcefully, surrendered or were allied protectorates/client states

depending on the case, the citizens would be incorporated as peregrinii(second class), latinii(allied citizens), or Romanii(citizen of Rome), they would pay different taxes and have their customs respected and even get to keep their own rulers and nobles with a degree of political relevance.

2)who did it, an emperor or the senate, as seen in this map>>1699908

usually imperial provinces were administrated by a Governor, while senatorial provinces were handled by a Proconsul.