Either take them into slavery, add the territory in which the people inhabit to the empire in return for tribute money, or adopt them into the military.
Most often the Roman Military annexed the land and gave protection and modernized the city with roman architecture , technology, political ideas, etc. and in return for all Rome did the land owed tribute to Rom. Rome also left local governments in tact because the destruction of the local governing body would result in chaos and the people would be worse than when Rome came.
www.cpunation.com
They would rape, torture kill, or enslave any one they conqured.
Another view:
The above is one possibility - likely after a long seige. The commander of the Roman soldiers would have other ideas. His part of the loot was the proceeds of sale of the captured, so he wanted them in as good a condition as possible to maximise their price. Accordingly, in other than the extreme case above, he tried to stop unneccessary harsh treatment of the captured.
In other cases where there was a negotiated surrender, the terms of the surrender dictated what happened to the populace. It might for example be that they had to pay an indemnity based on their ability to pay, that they had to pay ongoing tribute, or cede land which might be used for resettlement of retiring legionaires.
Yet again, the Roman commander, having received their surrender had, under the Roman patron-client system, obligations to the conquered people. He had to negotiate with the Senate the best terms for them - when they surrendered to him, they became his clients, and he their patron. It was often in his own interests to do as well as he possibly could, as they were then obligated as clients to support him in future. Pompey's strength, for example, lay in the obligation of the cities and tributary kings in the east and the tribes in Spain, who were obligated to him personally after he conquered them and arranged a settlement of their affairs.
The other factor was that Rome wanted to establish stabilitiy in its growing empire and especially on its frontiers, and generally gave lenient conditions and reinforced local government. After the fighting was over, the move was to settle the problem, not to unnecessarily alienate the populace and aristocracy, so the rape/torture/slaughter option was for extreme cases of revolt or prolonged resistance, where it was felt that an example had to be made.
The conquered peoples were taxed, of course, ruled under Roman law, and protected by Roman troops. Rome did not try to change the beliefs or the culture of the conquered people and many times found common ground in customs and religious beliefs.
The expansion in the number of conquered people did not affect Rome's expansion because it was the product of her expansion.
rome
Rome treated conquered people in Italy as full Roman citizens with the right to vote. In territories furhter from Rome, conquered people were given the status as "half-citizen". They enjoyed all the rights of a Roman citizen except the privilage to vote.
Roman control brought peace, security and prosperity.
Monarchy.
Rome treated conquered people generously. The knew the people would be more loyal to the government if treated like Romans.
It attempted to give them peace, prosperity and good government.
Bad, but if they are nice, they treat it nicely (but they won't).
The expansion in the number of conquered people did not affect Rome's expansion because it was the product of her expansion.
rome
ha,this question is on my social studies homework
their religion
by licking penis
Rome treated conquered people in Italy as full Roman citizens with the right to vote. In territories furhter from Rome, conquered people were given the status as "half-citizen". They enjoyed all the rights of a Roman citizen except the privilage to vote.
6
they had a tradition called the heistene where all the conquered people would get feces thrown in their face
About 600 B.C, a people called the Etruscans conquered Rome.