You've got an interesting question, but I'm afraid your conception of Roman Greece is skewed.

For starters, there is distinction to be made between "Greek" and "Hellenic", and the Romans didn't fight the Greeks in 200 BC. In fact, most of the major Greek city-states fought as Roman allies against the Macedonians.

Second, it's bonkers to say that the Romans snuffed out or emasculated Greek civilization, when it's quite clear that Greek cities and Greek culture instead became dominant parts of the Roman empire, to the point that from Leo I onwards, the Roman emperors ruled using Greek rather than Latin.

When you say, "snuffed it out," what do you mean? Do you just mean "conquered," because I'm pretty sure most Greek centers of learning still existed well into the roman era? If I recall correctly, the academy at Athens lasted until the reign of emperor Justinian

I think there is a good question in here, or at least one I am interested in. What was the end game of the city states inviting the Romans into Greece. Did they invision a return to the glory days of the polis, or did were they all secretly hoping to form their own empires?

Are you only interested in the time period you mention? If you are also interested in a later era I might be able to help. There has been quite a bit of scholarship in regards to your question for the Second Sophistic in the 2nd-3rd centuries CE.

I'm sorry people feel the need to belittle you for not asking the question in well defined clear historian form. Not everyone is here to stroke his or her ego.

Am I interpreting your question correctly: you are asking specifically about the direction of political thought as it became apparent that the city-state wouldn't cut it anymore? Something that we wouldn't get to see because as a conquered people they would be heavily influenced by Roman political thought?