Similarities through history.

[Zaknafien]

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

and maybe you have read to few books...

[pezhetairoi]

Rome was the archetypical multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious hodgepodge of a nation that today has become a normal occurrence in the community of nations. Citizenship must not be misconstrued as ethnicity. You are born a race, it cannot be conferred on you. To say the Roman Empire was not ethnic is like saying the USA, arguably the most racially and culturally diverse nation on earth at the moment, is all white people, or African-Americans, or Asians, or any other ethnic group you can name. It's a lot more complex than that.

[Zaknafien]

Of course there were dozens of races within the occupied lands by the Roman government. Many more if you count the millions of slaves. However, power was concentrated in a strict Roman oligarchy with no misconstruing of their racial superiority to others. The fierce fight to grant even the lightest forms of citizenships to even the oldest Italic allies took years and much bloodshed. Don't kid yourself on the supposed benign nature of the Roman government.

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

Of course there were dozens of races within the occupied lands by the Roman government. Many more if you count the millions of slaves. However, power was concentrated in a strict Roman oligarchy with no misconstruing of their racial superiority to others. The fierce fight to grant even the lightest forms of citizenships to even the oldest Italic allies took years and much bloodshed. Don't kid yourself on the supposed benign nature of the Roman government.

there were also NON etnical roman inperators and senators...

[Zaknafien]

The empire is a different creature altogether. We're talking about the Republic which is what's covered in EB. Although you'd be silly to say the Empire was a multicutural hodgepodge of univeralism, as well ..

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

The empire is a different creature altogether. We're talking about the Republic which is what's covered in EB. Although you'd be silly to say the Empire was a multicutural hodgepodge of univeralism, as well ..

But the repubblic was multicultural, of course not like Carthago (but only because Carthago was older) who were the romans? they were local italians!
Rome had also been dominated by the etruschians, so it is naive to say the "roman race" because there were no roman race.

Roman citicens of course they will always have more right than other non romans, but that is the same what happens in modern time, a american citicen (or Danish, Italian, Rumenian or whatever) will always be able to do more than who doesent have the citicenship, like voting and this means a citicen of a state will always have more rights. Rome needed more people to work and fight for them....and here we have the plebs. Who were poor local people, but also many individual (not migration) who settled in rome or around rome.

About the multicultural of the empire, well rome builded a empire above the nations so the multicultural element was actually the core of the empire, otherwise it would not have survived for so long time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But the repubblic was multicultural, of course not like Carthago (but only because Carthago was older) who were the romans? they were local italians!
Rome had also been dominated by the etruschians, so it is naive to say the "roman race" because there were no roman race.

Carthage is an entirely different league. A different world, pehaps. Carthage relies first and foremost on it's commercial activities - Rome on it's military. Hence, Carthage cannot afford to be anything but multicultural - by depending on trade, you depend on a relatively open, and multicultural society. You need it, because you rely on foreign relations to trade with to provide for the tax you need.

Race isn't entirely correct, we should speak of ethnicity. And in such sense, the Romans did understand the concept. Gens, anyone?

Roman citicens of course they will always have more right than other non romans, but that is the same what happens in modern time, a american citicen (or Danish, Italian, Rumenian or whatever) will always be able to do more than who doesent have the citicenship, like voting and this means a citicen of a state will always have more rights. Rome needed more people to work and fight for them....and here we have the plebs. Who were poor local people, but also many individual (not migration) who settled in rome or around rome.

The plebs is basically consists of everyon who are:
1) Roman (citizen)
2) Not a patrician.

And the Plebs mostly consisted of voting citizens - however that hardly meant anything in Rome. You were expected to vote as your Patronus wished. If anything being Patronus or Cliens mattered a great deal more than being a member of the Plebs or a Patrician. (Though the Patricians were de facto always Patroni.) To a certain extent, you may compare Roman citizenship with being member of a the maffia. Being the Pater familias of your Gens can be compared to being a Godfather.

You cannot compare modern day citizenship with Roman citizenship: those are two entirely different species. Roman citizenship meant protection from the law, especially against non-Romans. Non-Romans couldn't rely on such protection.

About the multicultural of the empire, well rome builded a empire above the nations so the multicultural element was actually the core of the empire, otherwise it would not have survived for so long time.

Now that's a contradictio in terminis. Romans created their empire by Romanizing their subjects. That's got more to do with Star Trek than with Multicultural Society. Anyway: it was a matter of removing the previous culture in favour of the Roman one. The one big exception to this was, of course, Hellenic culture. Here, Roman & Hellenic culture met and adapted to each other.

[paullus]

Sure there were, and there were powerful black people in the Jim Crow South. That they appeared occasionally doesn't disprove racist/ethnicist mindsets of the majority of powerholders. Rather, they had to work usually twice as hard to justify their ascent. Now, I think the Jim Crow South comparison is actually a harsher situation than Rome, where plenty of Hellenes could do relatively well, but hopefully the hyperbole helps to illustrate the basic point.

EDIT: and guys, let's be careful with either implying negative ideas about one another, or saying them outright.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Anyway, the Hellenic emperors didn't pop up till after the second dynasty.

[Treverer]

there were also NON etnical roman inperators and senators...

Isn't Zak. talking / speaking about Roman REPUBLIC oligarchies ... ? And BTW about the Rome EB is covering ... ?

Yours,
Treverer

EDIT: Ooops, a bit late ... my reply

[The Stranger]

after 100 A.D. most (long serving) emperors were not romans, you had plenty yllirians some who grew up in spain, gaul maybe too... balkan alot also.

[Olaf The Great]

after 100 A.D. most (long serving) emperors were not romans, you had plenty yllirians some who grew up in spain, gaul maybe too... balkan alot also.

It was more of a non-Italian ruler than a non-Roman, as there were plenty of non-Romans.
You could also say that they were all Roman, but their ethnicities were different.