I’m not sure I understand the concept of a ‘right’ to influence. I don’t think it’s really avoidable. If you live in a world where conquest/raiding is the norm even in far flung places, influence is inevitable. Some of it might be from peacefully trading goods, or sharing stories, but more will come from plunder being taken back to one homeland or another. And all of these are unavoidable.

By virtue of being part of culture A, any time one spends in a medium of culture B will necessitate enculturation in both directions.

The language of ‘right to’ implies a different decision could have been made at all.

Considering that much of this came about in spaces formed by conquest tells us that harm was undeniably a factor.

Isn’t this just how culture/thought develops? Apart from an isolationist model, isn’t it a given that being in contact with other cultures and religions will give rise to cross-contamination?

As for whether respect was present or not, I have no idea. I’d think it would be hard to say, but if anyone has sources that shed light onto this I’m interested.