No way because of...
Going to guess probably not.
Remember you are dealing with a time when the person 3 villages over was an alien to you.
No one knew anything about anything there and then... it was always a dark age, it's only after Rome that people conceptualize the era of "Dark age" when in reality it was all the era before in some ways...
so lots of people fought everyone and no one had any idea what lay beyond this or that.
So it didn't affect anything at all, basically.
Also you refer to Greco-roman's in like a primitive state, the main point is they weren't related by culture or language at all after that point. The point at which they became Roman is quite different... it's akin to someone who drinks their own urine versus going to a bathhouse of some kind.. unless you consider that the same culture.
Finally I don't know how a modern Italian gets thrown in with a Ukranian person they aren't alike at all really.
An overriding assumption in this Greco-Roman bull of cheerios is that somehow it wasn't authentically ancient or historical when I'm quite sure any pre-existing ancient or antiquity groiup whether it's from Egypt or Mesopotamia or anywhere else in all probability would of applauded the Roman situation as being a distinct heir to classicism. It's totally irrelevant the color of the skin, as one might imagine it's hard to come by when thousands of years later that very concept is still wreaking havoc on the modern world.
that's kind of why if you look at a map of Rome, it's basically all those places from the depths of Egypt all the way to Hadrian's wall.
The fact that the period was composed of basically 900 civil wars just makes my point moreso... this is a period where people are struggling mightily with the possibilities of competing societal forms of organizations than ones they had settled upon for hundreds of years.
And whatever the true name or inheritance of the "Romans" or wherever they came from, they are or were as distinct as any two groups can be, you might as well think of them as Asians forming a cadre distinct from Australians or Alaskans or whoever else.
I guess if I had to put this together...
I believe the very first founders of Rome were probably German in origin, but using Trojan inheritance, hence you get a brief blip of Romulus and Remus, that just gets the party started and then their shunted to the side.
I don't think that's controversial or weird as long as you accept the Frank's own description of their movements as being in Greece during the classical era.. and thus at the conclusion of the Trojan war they would of left along with a handful of Trojans perhaps for safer regions.
However, the Alba Long dynasty which was existing around the same time was probably italic or a mix of Italic and other groups, anyway they all kind of meet/fight/figure out a new identity known as "Roman" which features benevolent Roman leadership and Italic or modern Italian corpus of experience and such.
So Romans were Italians, but the Roman institution was a Germanic idea ripped straight from the core of the classical world, it's a weird way to get things started, but reality is always stranger than fiction right?
At any rate, since it was of little consequence to Italians or other groups who was at the center, Rome basically de-facto becomes an Italian centered government that expands over the Mediterranean, and due to a number of different group's basic familiarity with and solidarity with those norms, becomes even bigger and includes a wide variety of groups, such as people in England etc.
jLike Indo-Europeans didn't have Greek Mythology tucked away but it doesn't really matter because they really capture the substance of it all basically, for all intents and purposes, probably better than all the Greeks save the Macedons with whom they had a strained relationship.
Rome was for all intents and purposes, the center of the classical world for recorded history, even though a large number of people who were actors in it all were not directly related to or descended from many of those people.
The german element is just taxation and getting a small slice of things, with minimal involvement until the Punic Wars and the emperor era.. where they started to assume control over the functions of Rome, and this continues on until Odoacer basically renders most of those functions almost negligible.
Once Rome seems like s haky proposition, they start to bow out in masse and it's basically Syrians and the French, or gauls really, carrying the torch for like a hundred years or so.
Well unless you believe the series of Excharcates and such were substantially Roman and continue the legacy, which I think so... but that means digging up the when does Rome fall thing again and I just don't feel like it.
I guess you can think of Rome as the Plan C which actually ends up lasting thousands of years longer than Plans A and B and they never propelry re-organized thing around it's slipshod origins to actually make sense to people thousands of years later.
And that's all largely due to the Italians, who for whatever reason out of all the groups of Europe at the time and even elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East, were more strongly attached to the ideals of Babylon and Sumeria and any other groups than all the other groups for thousands of miles this way and that way.
Nowadays they are just known for Pasta or something and I guess now here theoretically denigrated for their similiarites from some distant ancestor on the steppes which is rendered completely irrelevant by the thousands of years of warfare I would think.
And literally lastly Italians are "dark" really dark I mean where does the skin thing come in anyway?
But yes it's really the goths that destroy rome, not the Franks who just want to be on the winning side, or the Scottish who just run hide forever, but just a neverending torrent of Gothic invasions that must of eventually bored the Romans to tears so much they just tossed the thing in the gutter for long enough to get away from it all.
Carthage was the element which was substantially not Indo-European in Origin, and that's why when Rome's identity is in flux (Is it German? Gallic? What about other violent local tribes? Greeks?) they are opposed to Rome.. but after the second punic war when pretty much all the corrupt elements of Rome get slaughtered, most of Carthage is more or less content with Rome's authority, although the third punic war is still vital to establishing the need to accomodate all groups.
So the Punic Wars end really any gap between the cultures of antiquity and the IE produced culture of modernity which resemebles closely enough at the conclusion of those wars antiquity, mainly by crippling the institutions of Rome, so that they can join the gradually exploding party without fear that it will be monopolized or weaponized.
Again, it's a very weird situation, if you look for sensible patterns or understandings of logic with Rome, that's a mistake, it's honeslty a miracle it all made as much sense as it did, given that there was literally no predecessors of any kind in the region.
That said, modern Belgium was a pretty stout inheritor of the ancient cultures legacy, just with bigger swords and weapons, I guess.
Gauls and Syrians I would consider just big fans, if I can be that blunt...
But yes it's just like the Holy Roman Empire ending the gap between antiquity of a borrowed sort and the modern world, by virtue of the attempt to create it, and the attempt itself being considered sacred, and that's the world which we live in today and which is often proving controversial.
You can think of it like...
Ancient Dynastic groiups/Babylon etc >>> Gradually ok with Phoenicians/Carthage >>>> Gradually ok with Rome >>> Gradually ok with HRE i.e. Germany.
So it boils down to we're all ok with Germany but then Nazis happened and well I guess we've been moving back to square 1, or something, I don't know.. you can pile Frankish atrocities into a 20 year period in the Middle Ages and you really won't find another time for the most part, and those were against some pretty crappy people by most people's accounts.
Everything else was some kind of regional squabble by random jerks.. no more or less.
But if that doesn't work for people, maybe something else can change, it's clearly obviously happened before.
Since I'm rambling off topic basically at this point I'd also add that Iberia was never really a part of the equation, it's not even clear who inhabitated the peninsula at various times, ditto for Portugal.
I wouldn't even really consider that whole region ever conquered by the Romans, just a giant neverending war more or less.