The increased presence of Roman coloniae and other types of city foundations in the Greek East after the battle of Actium highlights the arrival, imposition, and adoption of a wide scale of ‘Roman standards’: from new legal denominations and civic offices, to new infrastructure to support these, to colonial coinage, to the reorientation of popular trade and exchange routes, and even to changes in the landscape itself with the attested presence of centuriation. The foundation of Actian Nikopolis is a case in point of this. Its legal status remains debated and controversial. It was founded as a synoecism of neighbouring cities and populations that were forcibly dislodged by Augustus to inhabit a new city that was built with the very infrastructure of these older settlements. It minted its own (albeit non-Latin) coinage. It reoriented regional major exchanges to now pass through its premises, and it reveals traces of centuriation across its territory. Thus, by using Actian Nikopolis and the (many) coloniae that surrounded it as a starting point, I propose to re-examine the legal denominations and expectations of Augustan city foundations, which will in turn demonstrate their malleability and adaptability based on individual local and regional contexts and needs—a far cry from Aulus Gellius’ description of a Roman colony as a simulacrum of Rome itself (Aul. Gell. 16.13). Nikopolis is described in our sources variably as urbs Achaiae, Colonia Augusti, Nicopolis Romana colonia, or a συνοικισμός (i.e. Plin. NH. 4.1.5, Tac. Ann. 5.10, Tac. Ann. 2.53, Strab. 7.7.6, Cass. Dio. 51.1.1–3; cf. CIL III 7334). This disparity has led ( Purcell, N. 1987. The Nicopolitan Synoecism and Roman Urban Policy. In Nikopolis 1: πρακτικα του πρωτου Διεθνους Συμποσιου για τη Νικοπολη, ed. E. Chrysos, 71–90. Preveza: Dēmos Prevezas.), and later (Ruscu, Actia Nicopolis. Zfpe 157:247–255, 2006), to argue that the city in fact housed a double community, namely the Greek city and a Roman colonia. While this may be seen as controversial, a brief comparison with neighbouring Buthrotum, Patras, and Dyme, or even farther settlements within the Roman Greek world, such as Dyrrhachium or Knossos will all reveal further confusion in our sources regarding the nomenclature of Augustan foundations that were superimposed upon pre-existing cities with centuries of history and habitation. In light of this, the paper will explore three major discussions. (1) In a first instance, it will set out the evidence and controversies surrounding the legal denominations of Augustan city foundations in Greek and Latin sources: from colonia, to conventus, to urbs, to victory city, to synoecism and everything in between. (2) Following from this, the recent history of connectivity of the cities upon whose territories new foundations were established will necessitate further elaboration. This will allow us to demonstrate both the extensive knowledge the Romans possessed of local and regional needs and undertakings, and the locals’ familiarity with Roman institutions and standards well before the imposition of coloniae (i.e. Atticus’ ties to Buthrotum, to name but one major example). (3) Lastly, it will re-examine some of the evidence from the early Augustan days in light of the previous two points in order to showcase both how the locals had incorporated the aforementioned sets of standards imposed upon them, and how their distinct localism shaped this outcome. As such, this paper will serve a twofold purpose in highlighting the necessity for a revision of the nomenclature surrounding Augustan city foundations, while also revealing how the very confusion surrounding these terms is indicative of their malleability and of the importance that the past played in the mutual understanding of local customs and needs, and of ‘Roman’ institutions and standards that had developed long before Augustus’ victory at Actium.