Very Detailed map of The Roman Empire (The basis of my question): http://i.imgur.com/lHoCQtt.jpg
The basic point of my question is how was life different in different cities. When I look at History from a more modern time period (1600-1900's is my strong suite) we look at England, France, Austria, Prussia, The Netherlands (whatever they are calling themselves at that time) as very strong nations as far as being "modern" for their time period (Prussia and Austria a little less modern but you get my point). But I really have no Idea how cities across The Roman Empire compared to each other. I would love some comparisons of the standard of life in Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, and Madrid. But honestly, a simple answer would help me very much as well.
There used to be a prevailing misconception among historians that the Romans aggressively pursued homogeneity among their subjects. There was never any concerted attempt to make every part of the Empire look uniform; generally, when the Romans built cities, they would provide much of the bare bones of a Roman city (straight roads in a grid pattern, a forum, temples, theatres and gymnasia on request, etc.) and then allow the locals to take it from there.
The result is a lot of interesting cultural mixing. In Bath, for instance, there is a wonderful temple and bathing complex built on a local hot spring, dedicated to the goddess Sul. It boasts baths flanked with statues of the Emperors and Imperial governors, and a typically Roman temple with the god represented as Minerva, but the entrance looks like this. Similarly, Roman North Africa has plenty of examples of mixing of African and Roman architectural styles - such as the market of Lepcis Magna, built by a Tapapius Rufus Annobal, who left two inscriptions in Latin and Punic - the market itself is a colonnaded building (Greco-Roman) with two exotic-looking octagonal arcades inside and flat roofs (African).
The people within them would have been a judicious mix of Roman colonists and natives - from the High Imperial period these Romans would become powerful enough to come back to Rome and become senators - however, many of them would find themselves considered provincial (one address to the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus, who came from Lepcis Magna, complimented his Latin on being "barely provincial").
The natives, on the other hand, underwent a shift in their own cultural identity. In Noricum (mod. Austria), there had been many Gallic tribes, and many different languages spoken - over time some of these languages died, and the different tribes instead considered themselves Noricans. They also prided themselves on their Latin, putting up inscriptions in their cities in pidgin Latin. Their Norican identity combined aspects of their Gallic heritage and Roman culture - as such it is very recognisably Roman, but much different from the "Romanitas" in Rome or in Lepcis or Britain, or even a different part of Gaul!
