If colonialism is understood as a practice of domination (the subjugation of one people, the "othering" of them, the movement of people and maintenance of political sovereignty, and the creation of political and economic dependance of a territory to one power center), then does it mean Roman Empire is a form of ancient colonialism?
Edit: I'm asking if Roman Empire can be seen through the lens of post-colonial theory.
I think /u/T3hJ3hu hits the nail on the head here.
The biggest issue, besides the improper anachronistic application of a theory attempting to explain events almost two millenia after the period we are talking about, is that Roman explotation and expansion doesn't precisely fit within traditonal imperialist or colonial dynamics. For example: a hallmark of colonial powers and their treatment of conquered peoples was the replacement of local elites and power with dominance by the colonizers. At best local elites staked out a small role as administrators or collaborators, a role that rarely lasted long. Roman power projection, on the other hand, relied a great deal on local administration, and indeed, buying in to the Roman governmental system. There is no doubt that areas that did not acquiesce to Roman rule experienced fates closer to what we might associate with later colonized areas by Europeans, but the vast majority of the peoples and territory of Rome continued to be populated and administered by the same peoples and elites that existed before the Romans arrived.