Multiculturalism and Racism in the Ancient World

[yung.carl.jung]

Don't you think that might be because, up until a few hundred years ago, different races didn't really live together? I'm curious to know what you think the difference between racism and ethnic conflict is.

Yes I do. One of the main talking-points of anti-Islamic sentiment is that they will bring Sharia Law to our countries, and the reason that they don't like Sharia Law is because they see it as too socially conservative.

You are entirely wrong about different races not living together. Let me give you a million examples of multi-ethnic empires:

Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia
China, every single iteration of it
The Greek Empire at its peak
The Roman Empire, pretty much during its entire existence
The Ottoman Empire
And obviously most Nation States of today

I can list more, too, if you want. Multi-ethnic empires were not uncommon at all.

The difference between tribalism/ethnic conflict and racism is not an easy one, you are right! I would personally say that tribes and ethnicities as concepts make much more sense because they are mostly self-identifying concepts.

Europeans came to Africa. They established the "black race". Not one African had a saying in that. They also established the racial hierarchy. Blacks in Africa had no use for racism. They were never, ever united. Tribes and ethnicities were used as identification for them. Many things were associated with tribe and ethnicity. Race was an entirely meaningless concept for anyone but Europeans when it was invented.

Just remember: Greeks considered literally everyone not Greek a "barbarian". They had no concept of "white race". Peope were not friends because they shared a skin color. There was no connection. Maybe greeks felt closer to northern Africans than to "Celts" or "Nords" or whatever you want to call those "caucasians". Do you see where I'm going with this?

I'm enjoying our debate so far, you seem surprisingly open to new points of view so debating you is actually not a chore.

Sharia Law is a good point, however it was not part of public consciousness until like ten years ago. Because people don't know **** about Sharia law. They weren't aware such a thing existed until recently, unless maybe you are an Islam scholar. Anti-Islamic sentiment is a lot older than our knowledge of Sharia Law (which is very limited, but that's another discussion).

 

[Akka]

You are entirely wrong about different races not living together. Let me give you a million examples of multi-ethnic empires:

Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia
China, every single iteration of it
The Greek Empire at its peak
The Roman Empire, pretty much during its entire existence
The Ottoman Empire
And obviously most Nation States of today

I can list more, too, if you want. Multi-ethnic empires were not uncommon at all.

We can point that all these Empire crumbled, many of them precisely due to ethnic tensions (you can add Austro-Hungarian and Mongol empires to the list).
Others aren't exactly good example of "multi-ethnic" (China is what, 90-95 % Han people ? The Greek Empire had serious friction between Greek and Persian people, and lasted barely something like 10 or 20 years before fracturing, out of which only the Seleucid could really be argued as truly multi-ethnic, and it wasn't exactly a model of stability).

Most nation-states of today are precisely BASED of independant cultures - the "multi-ethnic" part being a consequence of modern-day migrations -, and those which aren't tend to have some serious trouble not breaking up.

Though yes, it's more about "ethnic/culture" than "race" itself. Though obviously, "ethnic" has a pretty strong correlation with some aspects of "race".

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Your point is moot since every single empire in history "crumbled" at some point. That is why it's history, not the present.

I hope @Traitorfish comes out of his cave to school you on why exactly the Roman Empire crumbled, it had very little to do with Ethnic conflict. He once wrote an endless post on it and I definitely don't feel like repeating it. Maybe someone can point you towards it? However if you do want to argue that the Roman Empire fell due to ethnic tension, it is not a debate you're going to win

As for your comment regarding Han China: It is not "wrong" per say to declare that China is majority Han, however your numbers are very, very much off.

The Chinese government is dead set on having a Han China. They do not tolerate minorities, they actively surpress them. They would do anything to skew the statistics. If you want a very good overview of how China is composed ethnicaly just look at the spoken languages. It gives you the best overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China

However, there are many different ways how China skews its statistics. Entire peoples are being "Hanified". People are resettled, ethnicities are outbred or, even easier, they just mingle, lose their sovereignity and are declared Han. No one is asked and no one really cares aside from the ones that make the statistics. "Han" is barely even a concrete group. Just an example:

Among some southern Han Chinese varieties such as Cantonese, Hakka, and Minnan, a different term exists – Tang Chinese (Chinese: 唐人; pinyin: Táng Rén, literally "the people of Tang"), derived from the later Tang dynasty, regarded as another zenith of Chinese civilization. The term is used in everyday conversation and is also an element in the Cantonese word for Chinatown: "street of the Tang people" (唐人街, Jyutping: tong4 jan4 gaai1, pinyin: Táng Rén Jiē. The phrase Huá Bù 華埠 is also used to describe the same area).

So not all of the supposed "Han" Chinese even self-identify as Han. I will not act like I am an expert on the topic of Chinese ethnic minorities though, so I will shut up now. Sorry for the long rant, but I hate when people simplify very complex issues like you did with China.

At least with a few of the empires (esp. The Ottomans) the multi-ethnic state was one of the reasons why the society "collapsed".

However, none of this actually has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Civver was saying that there were no multi-racial empires until a few hundred years ago. Which is wrong. There were many. I never said that they were successful, or that they were successfull because of them being multi-ethnic states. Just that they existed.

 

[Commodore]

You are entirely wrong about different races not living together. Let me give you a million examples of multi-ethnic empires:

Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia
China, every single iteration of it
The Greek Empire at its peak
The Roman Empire, pretty much during its entire existence
The Ottoman Empire
And obviously most Nation States of today

You promised a million. You are 999,798 short.

 

[Lexicus]

However, none of this actually has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Civver was saying that there were no multi-racial empires until a few hundred years ago. Which is wrong. There were many. I never said that they were successful, or that they were successfull because of them being multi-ethnic states. Just that they existed.

Even to say that there were multiracial empires we need to project the modern concept of race into the past. But yes, other than this your point is correct. I would recommend the book Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference by Burbank and Cooper to disabuse him of this notion.

I will say that one interesting thing I have observed is so-called antiracists making similar arguments re: ubiquitousness of racial conflict. This was an argument I had only ever encountered from apologists for white supremacy before - but actually quite a few people are now arguing that white people can't be trusted, ever, because we have been racist oppressors since before the beginning of recorded history.

 

[Akka]

Your point is moot since every single empire in history "crumbled" at some point. That is why it's history, not the present.

I hope @Traitorfish comes out of his cave to school you on why exactly the Roman Empire crumbled, it had very little to do with Ethnic conflict. He once wrote an endless post on it and I definitely don't feel like repeating it. Maybe someone can point you towards it? However if you do want to argue that the Roman Empire fell due to ethnic tension, it is not a debate you're going to win

Good thing I didn't actually argued this case for the Roman Empire
I said "many", not "all" (Persia also didn't fall due to ethnic conflicts, though it managed to endure through several conquests due to its pre-existing culture/people).

Conversely, you'll have a hard time arguing that Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire DIDN'T crumble due to ethnic conflicts.

Also, it's pretty much a self-fulfilling theory if you use past empires to "prove" that "all crumble" and restrict it to "empire". There is many nation-states alive and kicking today who never crumbled and lasted for more than a thousand years.

However, none of this actually has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Civver was saying that there were no multi-racial empires until a few hundred years ago. Which is wrong. There were many. I never said that they were successful, or that they were successfull because of them being multi-ethnic states. Just that they existed.

That one is pretty obvious to anyone with even a very passing and basic knowledge of history.
I mean, everyone in the West is supposed to know the Roman Empire, so this closes the case from the get-go.

 

[Ajidica]

I hope @Traitorfish comes out of his cave to school you on why exactly the Roman Empire crumbled, it had very little to do with Ethnic conflict. He once wrote an endless post on it and I definitely don't feel like repeating it. Maybe someone can point you towards it? However if you do want to argue that the Roman Empire fell due to ethnic tension, it is not a debate you're going to win

Hey, if you need fall of the Roman Empire stuff I'm here.
FWIW, talking about "ethnic tension" in the modern sense is useless because that idea didn't exist in the Roman Empire to serve as a fracture point. "Ethnic" identity did play a role in the collapse of the Roman Empire as it provided alternative power structures and ideologies once Imperial authority stopped being pre-eminent. In the later years of the Empire the ability to participate in politics and warfare was intrinsically tied to ethnic identity.

Conversely, you'll have a hard time arguing that Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire DIDN'T crumble due to ethnic conflicts.

Austria-Hungary included both a stellar ethnic policy and a disastrous one. The Hungarian ruled part of the Empire had as disastrous a minority policy as it was possible to have. The Austrians did quite a decent job with it because loyalty was structured as loyalty to the Habsburg state and not the Austrian state. The Czech elite had bought into the Habsburg state and were trying to gain increased power inside the Empire (such as a joint Austro-Czech-Hungarian Empire), not tearing down the whole rotten edifice. There was actually concern that Austria would try and form a single state or dual monarchy with Czechoslovakia.

 

[Lexicus]

FWIW, talking about "ethnic tension" in the modern sense is useless because that idea didn't exist in the Roman Empire to serve as a fracture point. "Ethnic" identity did play a role in the collapse of the Roman Empire as it provided alternative power structures and ideologies once Imperial authority stopped being pre-eminent. In the later years of the Empire the ability to participate in politics and warfare was intrinsically tied to ethnic identity.

Yeah, the Empire at the end became exclusive instead of syncretic and willing to meet other cultures halfway. There's a lesson there, certainly, but I don't think it supports the arguments of those who decry "diversity" in today's West.

Conversely, you'll have a hard time arguing that Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire DIDN'T crumble due to ethnic conflicts.

Do you have anything to support this reasoning other than post-hoc-ergo-propter hoc?

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, the Empire at the end became exclusive instead of syncretic and willing to meet other cultures halfway. There's a lesson there, certainly, but I don't think it supports the arguments of those who decry "diversity" in today's West.

Errrr, not really. Once the exclusivity of Imperial authority began to fade in the face of competing aristocratic interests and a "legitimization" of non-Roman identities - notably Frankish, Burgundian, and Gothic- the Empire became decidedly "multi-cultural".
Under Odoacer there a Scirian magister militum ruling over a Roman Senatorial aristocracy and supported by a Germanic-Gothic-Roman military. Similar situation with the Visigoths, with a Gothic-Hispanic-Roman-Gallic aristocratic state.
Moving a bit earlier, to Diocletian splitting the civil and military career paths, there was a movement in the military toward a sort of "Barbarian Chic" identity. While traditional legion names emphasized traditional Roman values and concepts (Piety, Loyalty, etc), after the split legion names had a stronger "barbarian" element (Ferocious, Horned, etc). There is also absolutely no indication Roman soldiers were replaced en-masse with "barbarians" (unless you want to think a 7th century unit in Egypt was populated chiefly by Franks). If anything, Roman state ideology got less exclusive as the successive crisises (what's the plural of crisis?) forced the state to accept "non-traditional" support, such as when Theodosius employed Gothic allies to fight other Romans during one of their perpetual civil wars.

 

[Lexicus]

Errrr, not really. Once the exclusivity of Imperial authority began to fade in the face of competing aristocratic interests and a "legitimization" of non-Roman identities - notably Frankish, Burgundian, and Gothic- the Empire became decidedly "multi-cultural".
Under Odoacer there a Scirian magister militum ruling over a Roman Senatorial aristocracy and supported by a Germanic-Gothic-Roman military. Similar situation with the Visigoths, with a Gothic-Hispanic-Roman-Gallic aristocratic state.

The empire had always been essentially multicultural, though. Would you make the case that the ruling-class culture became less monolithic? I would probably agree with that.

Moving a bit earlier, to Diocletian splitting the civil and military career paths, there was a movement in the military toward a sort of "Barbarian Chic" identity. While traditional legion names emphasized traditional Roman values and concepts (Piety, Loyalty, etc), after the split legion names had a stronger "barbarian" element (Ferocious, Horned, etc). There is also absolutely no indication Roman soldiers were replaced en-masse with "barbarians" (unless you want to think a 7th century unit in Egypt was populated chiefly by Franks).

But don't you think this is better explained as part of the longer-term trend of the professionalization and then physical separation of the Roman army, than of the Roman empire becoming multicultural where it hadn't been before?

 

[Ajidica]

The empire had always been essentially multicultural, though. Would you make the case that the ruling-class culture became less monolithic? I would probably agree with that.

Ehhhh, the interaction between Roman society and non-"native" traditions is weird. On one hand, Roman ideology held that everyone who wasn't Roman* wasn't really a person. At the same time, they were super into adopting other cultures gods and habits. The cult of Isis/Serapis became popular throughout the Empire, to the point that one Germanic chieftain named his son after Serapis. The key cause of the successive civil wars was a failure by the Emperor to balance the competing interests of regional Roman interests - notably an inability to keep the notoriously unruly Gallo-Roman nobility happy. Roman aristocracy was less monolithic than previously, in the sense than non-Italians, non-Senatorial Romans had increased authority. Non-Romans, even those who today we would consider Romans (such as Stilicho) were firmly distrusted by the Roman elite were kept as far away from power as possible. The Senatorial elite even refused to acknowledge Alaric the Goth as dux Pannonia -a useless region rendered even more useless by decades of barbarians and bandits camping out there- even though he was camping with an army outside the walls of Rome for what appears to be the fact Alaric was not Roman.

*Romanitas as defined by holding a certain set of beliefs and acting a certain way. Spain is full of monuments reading "Erected by [Roman Name], son of [Hispano-Gallic Name]".

But don't you think this is better explained as part of the longer-term trend of the professionalization and then physical separation of the Roman army, than of the Roman empire becoming multicultural where it hadn't been before?

Guy Halsall presents the "barbarian chic" as like the US military adopting Native American names for military equipment (Chinook, Kiowa, Apache) or the Arab-styled Zouaves popular in the mid 19th century (Zouave regiments were raised in New York). The Roman military wasn't suddenly full of people born in Francia or seeing a sudden resurgence in Celtic beliefs. Rather, shorn of its "Roman-ness" by Diocletians reforms, the Roman military adopted some of the stereotypes of "barbarians" which were seen as virile and martial.

 

[Yeekim]

Just remember: Greeks considered literally everyone not Greek a "barbarian".

One could argue that this is a perfect example of racism, though.
I am not the greatest expert of ancient Greece here, but I am sure a case can be made for both "Greek" (itself a collection of no less than four major ethnic groups) and "barbarian" to be chiefly social constructs quite comparable to "white" and "black".

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: Split off from the OT thread about far-right violence.

One could argue that this is a perfect example of racism, though.
I am not the greatest expert of ancient Greece here, but I am sure a case can be made for both "Greek" (itself a collection of no less than four major ethnic groups) and "barbarian" to be chiefly social constructs quite comparable to "white" and "black".

It's a very weak case. Being Greek meant speaking Greek - two people from the same place could be a 'Greek' and a 'barbarian', depending on the sort of education they had. Greek (and Roman) ideas about 'ethnicity' were much more based in what people did and how they spoke than ideas about 'genetics'. There was definitely no sense that a certain group of people were naturally slaves, as was a major part of the development of modern racism. People have argued for 'proto-racism' in how the Greeks linked the environment in which people lived to their physical and mental characteristics, but even that is a bit of a push. There's no sense that a baby taken from Scotland or Ethiopia and raised in Athens would be inferior to an Athenian, while no racist would ever say that a baby born in Pakistan but raised in London was equal to a white Englishman. Racism is not the same as xenophobia, though - there's no question that Greeks were nasty to anyone they considered 'different'.

 

[Yeekim]

Moderator Action: Split off from the OT thread about far-right violence.



It's a very weak case. Being Greek meant speaking Greek - two people from the same place could be a 'Greek' and a 'barbarian', depending on the sort of education they had. Greek (and Roman) ideas about 'ethnicity' were much more based in what people did and how they spoke than ideas about 'genetics'. There was definitely no sense that a certain group of people were naturally slaves, as was a major part of the development of modern racism. People have argued for 'proto-racism' in how the Greeks linked the environment in which people lived to their physical and mental characteristics, but even that is a bit of a push. There's no sense that a baby taken from Scotland or Ethiopia and raised in Athens would be inferior to an Athenian, while no racist would ever say that a baby born in Pakistan but raised in London was equal to a white Englishman. Racism is not the same as xenophobia, though - there's no question that Greeks were nasty to anyone they considered 'different'.

Hmm. Good counterpoint. But is that entirely true?

There's no sense that a baby taken from Scotland or Ethiopia and raised in Athens would be inferior to an Athenian

For one, I believe he wouldn't have been considered a citizen, but a metic. Then again, that would've been true of a Greek from a different polis as well.
We also must keep in mind that attitudes regarding relative importance of blood/lineage vs upbringing/culture were different across different polities and also subject to change over centuries.
I guess there was a general trend of latter gradually overtaking former though.

 

[Flying Pig]

You're talking about legal status, which is slightly different. As you rightly say, non-Athenians (metic is a particularly Athenian term and concept - the Spartans, most famously, treated all non-Spartans as legally-equal 'guests') had different legal rights, but there was no suggestion that someone from Corinth was automatically less worthy than someone from Athens, only that they had no share in the Athenian polity and so no business voting in its assembly or serving in its wars. Women and children, as well as men who left Athens for a colonial venture, were not considered citizens (and in the latter case, lost the attendant rights), so again it's difficult to argue that the citizen/non-citizen divide was a prototype for racism. There was no social stigma attached to joining a colony - quite the reverse, often.

For most of history, it was actually a bit vague as to what made you a metic versus a citizen. Originally, it seems to have been fairly ill-defined, on the presumed assumption that everyone knew what 'free-born Athenian' meant. However, Pericles (in 451) created a new law that citizenship required proof that one's mother and father had been Athenians, which included the implication that children of Athenian men and non-Athenian women had previously been considered citizens. So you're right that there's a certain degree of 'blood' at stake, but if anything that makes things only more complicated. The two strands of 'discrimination' don't go together - on one level, your parentage defines your legal status, and damn where you were born or how you act. On the other hand, where you live and what you do is taken to define your moral value, and damn who your parents are. Again, that's importantly different from how racism works.

Your last two sentences make a good and important point. I've pushed the Athenian angle here because of the word 'metic', but citizenship in other cities - and, most importantly, in the Roman world - worked completely differently.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Even to say that there were multiracial empires we need to project the modern concept of race into the past. But yes, other than this your point is correct. I would recommend the book Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference by Burbank and Cooper to disabuse him of this notion.

I will say that one interesting thing I have observed is so-called antiracists making similar arguments re: ubiquitousness of racial conflict. This was an argument I had only ever encountered from apologists for white supremacy before - but actually quite a few people are now arguing that white people can't be trusted, ever, because we have been racist oppressors since before the beginning of recorded history.

The argument you make in your first sentence is one I made in the other thread. Viewing anything pre 1600 through a racial lens is always bound to fail, because those concepts simply did not exist back then. Of course what I meant was "multi-ethnic empires", but civver used the terminology of "multi-racial" so for his sake I stuck with it.

That book looks like a great read.. I'll look if I can uh.. Find it, somewhere.. In Mobi format.. Without paying

You promised a million. You are 999,798 short.

leave me alone, dad

 

[Lexicus]

That book looks like a great read.. I'll look if I can uh.. Find it, somewhere.. In Mobi format.. Without paying

I know that life

 

[Yeekim]

I've pushed the Athenian angle here because of the word 'metic', but citizenship in other cities - and, most importantly, in the Roman world - worked completely differently.

I wasn't even think of Rome here - the original claim was made about what "Greeks" thought.
And depending on whether we interpret that as "Ancient Greece" or "Classical Greece" that claim could cover either two millennia or two centuries...

 

[civver_764]

You are entirely wrong about different races not living together. Let me give you a million examples of multi-ethnic empires:

Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia
China, every single iteration of it
The Greek Empire at its peak
The Roman Empire, pretty much during its entire existence
The Ottoman Empire
And obviously most Nation States of today

I can list more, too, if you want. Multi-ethnic empires were not uncommon at all.

The difference between tribalism/ethnic conflict and racism is not an easy one, you are right! I would personally say that tribes and ethnicities as concepts make much more sense because they are mostly self-identifying concepts.

Europeans came to Africa. They established the "black race". Not one African had a saying in that. They also established the racial hierarchy. Blacks in Africa had no use for racism. They were never, ever united. Tribes and ethnicities were used as identification for them. Many things were associated with tribe and ethnicity. Race was an entirely meaningless concept for anyone but Europeans when it was invented.

Just remember: Greeks considered literally everyone not Greek a "barbarian". They had no concept of "white race". Peope were not friends because they shared a skin color. There was no connection. Maybe greeks felt closer to northern Africans than to "Celts" or "Nords" or whatever you want to call those "caucasians". Do you see where I'm going with this?

I'm enjoying our debate so far, you seem surprisingly open to new points of view so debating you is actually not a chore.

Sharia Law is a good point, however it was not part of public consciousness until like ten years ago. Because people don't know **** about Sharia law. They weren't aware such a thing existed until recently, unless maybe you are an Islam scholar. Anti-Islamic sentiment is a lot older than our knowledge of Sharia Law (which is very limited, but that's another discussion).

Well, by "different races living together" I mean that quite literally. I realize that those empires contained different ethnic groups, but wasn't it the case that they lived in their own areas? For example, I don't think we would see a multi-racial city like London back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think people really "immigrated" all that much back then and mostly kept to their "tribes".

Of course "black race" and "white race" are ultimately just abstractions. The reason we consider them different races rather than just different ethnicities is simply because the degree of separation is so high. And I also think it stands to reason that the more different two ethnic groups are, the more potential for ethnic (ie. racial) tension there is. Greeks and North Africans might be different, but not so different that they would have seen themselves as different races. It wasn't until we started having Africans and Europeans living together, or Asians, or Native Americans, or whatever, that it made sense to categorize people into different "races".

 

[Flying Pig]

Moving a bit earlier, to Diocletian splitting the civil and military career paths, there was a movement in the military toward a sort of "Barbarian Chic" identity. While traditional legion names emphasized traditional Roman values and concepts (Piety, Loyalty, etc), after the split legion names had a stronger "barbarian" element (Ferocious, Horned, etc). There is also absolutely no indication Roman soldiers were replaced en-masse with "barbarians" (unless you want to think a 7th century unit in Egypt was populated chiefly by Franks). If anything, Roman state ideology got less exclusive as the successive crisises (what's the plural of crisis?) forced the state to accept "non-traditional" support, such as when Theodosius employed Gothic allies to fight other Romans during one of their perpetual civil wars.

I generally like this line of argument, but think you've got it a bit too strong. There certainly is evidence that people from outside the empire, or from its less 'Romanised' edges, made up an increasingly large and soon critical fraction of the Army, particularly from the 3rd century onwards. Look at what the historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote about the aftermath of Adrianople in 378 AD:

At that time the salutary and swift efficiency of Julius, commander-in‑chief of the troops beyond the Taurus, was conspicuous. For on learning of the ill-fated events in Thrace, by secret letters to their leaders, who were all Romans (a rare case in these times) he gave orders that the Goths who had been admitted before and were scattered through the various cities and camps, should be enticed to come without suspicion into the suburbs in the hope of receiving the pay that had been promised them, and there, as if on the raising of a banner, should all be slain on one and the same day. This prudent plan was carried out without confusion or delay, and thus the eastern provinces were saved from great dangers.

Two things spring out of that - firstly, the line that it was unusual to find a large military formation led entirely by Romans, and secondly the underlying point that the Goths in the army of the east represented a 'great danger' to Roman rule there, if they were to act against it. I would run the argument the other way - that there had always been a lot of 'barbarians' in the Roman army, just as professional armies attract a lot of people from tough, poor and socially-marginal places, but that before Diocletian they had served under names which, as you say, emphasised the 'Roman' credentials of the army. The fact that we see units with names like '1st Sarmatian Squadron', and soldiers with long, German-style haircuts, is probably more about the Army acknowledging a situation that had always been happening - where before men were coming across the Rhine and going straight to the barber, they now embraced the 'barbarian' identity. As you allude to, alongside this you have to put the increasing irrelevance of the Roman army itself to Roman operations, and the growing importance of barbarian 'allies' - most of Constantine's campaigns happened with the generous support of local tribes, and Roman soldiers were a tiny minority in the 'Roman' army that defeated Attila the Hun in 451.

The plural of 'crisis' is 'crises', by the way.

Well, by "different races living together" I mean that quite literally. I realize that those empires contained different ethnic groups, but wasn't it the case that they lived in their own areas? For example, I don't think we would see a multi-racial city like London back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think people really "immigrated" all that much back then and mostly kept to their "tribes".

Certainly not in the ancient world: around Rome and Pompeii, at least, they have found items associated with all kinds of religions (the state religion, Judaism (and perhaps Christianity, though most of that evidence is controversial, I think), Egyptian religions, various loosely-Persian religions and even Hinduism) jumbled up together. Not to mention that a lot of the non-Italians in any Roman city were slaves, who lived in the same houses as their masters. Immigration was certainly a huge part of life. People came to Rome from just about everywhere in the empire, and there is no sign of the sort of ethnic enclaves that tended to crop up in the nineteenth century. Even then, multi-racial areas of cities were common and even normal - just look at Tiger Bay in Cardiff, or Finsbury Park in London today. It's quite telling that I just looked up the phrase 'ethnic enclave', and the first sociologists to notice it as a phenomenon worked in the 1980s, and specifically on Miami.